![[ Auto Express ]](/front_website/images/ae_website_logo.gif){kind=logo}
Andrew English's column
The new MoT test isn't without its faults, but it will cut down on fraud
Fellow columnist Mike Rutherford's list of facts the Government should tell us made for gripping reading. But I'd add another: MoT test statistics. These were state secrets 20 years ago, and since then the Government has claimed the information is simply too difficult to dig out. Now, however, there's a chance that ordinary motorists might just be able to benefit from some of the basic information-gathering they have paid for many times over.
Anyone with a car more than three years old will know already that this year, the test underwent its biggest change since it was introduced 41 years ago. For a start, it costs more; up to £50.35 per vehicle from this month, with the 19,500 testing stations furious that the hike took so long to come through. The MoT Trade Forum reckons MoT garages will lose £40million as a result of the delay.
And why is it delayed? Computerisation. Three years late and £10million over budget, the MoT test has finally joined the 21st century - although the Siemens set-up is steam-powered compared with a modern broadband PC. The dial-up service can be slow and the back-up telephone system has been overwhelmed. Try to get an MoT at less than a week's notice and you face a big phone-round. The Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA), which administers the scheme, says it's only broken down once since its launch last spring, and puts any glitches down to telecommunications.
My straw poll of seven local MoT stations has shown a more complex and depressing picture, with hundreds of minor delays making up one big problem. One of the biggest hold-ups has been the gross inaccuracy of information held at the DVLA, which the testers have been trying to correct this year.
So it's late, clunky, unreliable and over budget. Is there anything good about the new MoT? Yes, and it's not just that the police can use computerised automatic number plate recognition cameras to see whether your motor has a test certificate.
The examination is also said to have removed a lot of fraud. Mike Rutherford and I were once offered a book of dodgy MoT tickets in a bar in Spain, and there have been many attempts to get a Guinness label to look like a current certificate. Garages have also been accused of faking test failures to make more money on non-existent repairs.
The new test means those days are gone. It's not without its faults, but the system's inflexible approach to testing is more comprehensible. So, no more sweet-talking the tester.
Also, the MoT should give us info about which cars fail and why. All we know now is that between mid-April last year and the end of March 2006, most failures have been for lighting and signalling (16.36 per cent), followed by brakes (11.83 per cent), suspension (10.16 per cent), tyres (8.02 per cent), body (7.93 per cent) and fuel and emissions (6.76 per cent).
None of the individual model data is available yet, but it will be great for drivers and disastrous for car makers when we can look up a particular vehicle and see what its percentage brake failures are. It might even encourage us to do a bit of preventative maintenance. But don't bet on that!
Andrew English is motoring correspondent for the Daily Telegraph
 | |
| The examination is also said to have removed a lot of fraud. Mike Rutherford and I were once offered a book of dodgy MoT tickets in a bar in Spain, and there have been many attempts to get a Guinness label to look like a current certificate. | |
 |
Anyone with a car more than three years old will know already that this year, the test underwent its biggest change since it was introduced 41 years ago. For a start, it costs more; up to £50.35 per vehicle from this month, with the 19,500 testing stations furious that the hike took so long to come through. The MoT Trade Forum reckons MoT garages will lose £40million as a result of the delay.
And why is it delayed? Computerisation. Three years late and £10million over budget, the MoT test has finally joined the 21st century - although the Siemens set-up is steam-powered compared with a modern broadband PC. The dial-up service can be slow and the back-up telephone system has been overwhelmed. Try to get an MoT at less than a week's notice and you face a big phone-round. The Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA), which administers the scheme, says it's only broken down once since its launch last spring, and puts any glitches down to telecommunications.
My straw poll of seven local MoT stations has shown a more complex and depressing picture, with hundreds of minor delays making up one big problem. One of the biggest hold-ups has been the gross inaccuracy of information held at the DVLA, which the testers have been trying to correct this year.
So it's late, clunky, unreliable and over budget. Is there anything good about the new MoT? Yes, and it's not just that the police can use computerised automatic number plate recognition cameras to see whether your motor has a test certificate.
The examination is also said to have removed a lot of fraud. Mike Rutherford and I were once offered a book of dodgy MoT tickets in a bar in Spain, and there have been many attempts to get a Guinness label to look like a current certificate. Garages have also been accused of faking test failures to make more money on non-existent repairs.
The new test means those days are gone. It's not without its faults, but the system's inflexible approach to testing is more comprehensible. So, no more sweet-talking the tester.
Also, the MoT should give us info about which cars fail and why. All we know now is that between mid-April last year and the end of March 2006, most failures have been for lighting and signalling (16.36 per cent), followed by brakes (11.83 per cent), suspension (10.16 per cent), tyres (8.02 per cent), body (7.93 per cent) and fuel and emissions (6.76 per cent).
None of the individual model data is available yet, but it will be great for drivers and disastrous for car makers when we can look up a particular vehicle and see what its percentage brake failures are. It might even encourage us to do a bit of preventative maintenance. But don't bet on that!
Andrew English is motoring correspondent for the Daily Telegraph
More ANDREW ENGLISH'S COLUMN articles
- News
- Auto Express News: Andrew English's column
- Auto Express News: Andrew English's column
- Auto Express News: Andrew English's column
- Auto Express News: Andrew English's column
- Auto Express News: Andrew English's column
- Auto Express News: Andrew English's column
- Auto Express News: Andrew English's column
- Auto Express News: Andrew English's Column
- Auto Express News: Andrew English's column
- Auto Express News: Andrew English's column
- Auto Express News: Andrew English's column
- Auto Express News: Andrew English's column
- Auto Express News: Andrew English's column
- Auto Express News: Andrew English's column
- Auto Express News: Andrew English's column
- Auto Express News: Andrew English's column
- Auto Express News: Andrew English's column
- Auto Express News: Andrew English's column
- Auto Express News: Andrew English's column
- Auto Express News: Opinion column
- Advertisement -
RELATED OFFERS:
Cheap Car Insurance
Quality car insurance from the UKs top insurers. Start saving money today!
www.bewiser.co.uk