GENERAL
MOT interpretation
Q Apropos of your advice to Mr Stevenson about the MOT failure of his Jaguar X-TYPE because of an issue with retro fitted lamps (CM, October 2021), I was left with a nagging doubt about the part played by MOT Testers’ discretion and potential for completely different outcomes on the same facts as experienced by Mr Stevenson.
I can see that discretion has a role when assessing degree of wear in something like corroded metal, brake pipes or worn suspension bushes, but in the case of lamps, surely they either work or they do not.
I suspect that the underlying problem with Mr Stevenson’s cars is that the Testers were not conversant with the relevant rules. The MOT test is a stand-alone scheme that requires inspection of a limited number of vehicle components and whilst it includes rules about how to carry an inspection and sets the threshold for recording a defect, it does not include a statement of the relevant law relating to the design, construction and use of the component.
Using Mr Stevenson’s Jag as an example, the vehicle lighting regs define the mandatory hazard warning equipment as a switch that causes all the direction indicators to flash simultaneously. The regs also define mandatory indicators including the requirement that they are coloured amber.
It follows that the Tester was required to fail Mr Stevenson’s Jag simply because his retro-fitted DRLs were flashing with the hazards. No discretion is available or possible in this instance.
Turning to the DRL issue, I understand that where mandatory equipment is fitted to cars first used before the legal requirement as with the Jag in question, the Tester can either not inspect it or, if it is inspected and a fault found, it can only be recorded as Advisory.
It seems to me that it was correct that Mr Stevenson’s Jag failed the test and his other vehicles similarly equipped with DRLs that operated with the hazards should also have failed. The only problem with the failure of the Jag is that the reason given is ambiguous; perhaps the narrative should have been ‘hazard warning lamps adversely affected by operation of another lamp, DRLs flashing with hazards’.
The conclusion is that discretion must be used with care and Testers must be conversant with the rules of construction and use for the component being inspected.
I would value your comments and wonder if you have had any other feedback.
Ian Old
A I would first say that the MOT tester has no discretion on whether he tests a component or light, if it is fitted it is testable and needs to comply.
The reason for the failure of the MOT on Mr Stevenson’s Jaguar was because the MOT tester had checked the indicator lamp operation by using the hazard lights. This had allowed the LED lights to flash, as this was the way they were set up.
If the MOT tester had tested the indicators individually as they are used, then the LED lights would not have operated, and the vehicle would have passed the MOT. This was the interpretation of the tester that the lights did not comply with the constructions and use regulations, when in fact they do comply.
The construction and use regulations specify a 'Hazard warning signal device' is a device which is capable of causing all the direction indicators with which a vehicle, or a combination of vehicles, is fitted to operate simultaneously.
Under the section on the regulations governing the fitting of lamps, reflectors, rear markings and devices, the colour of light shown by lamps and reflectors, the regulations state that lamps are to show a steady light with the exception of those shown below.
(a) a direction indicator
(b) a headlamp fitted to an emergency vehicle
(c) a warning beacon or special warning lamp
(d) a lamp or illuminated sign fitted to a vehicle used for police purposes
(e) a green warning lamp used as an antilock brake indicator, or
(f) lamps forming part of a traffic sign.
As the lights at the front are permitted to show a white light, then the LED lights flashing at a controlled output by the Osram LED control system, does allow the lights to operate within the constructions and use regulations whilst the vehicle is stationary, being part of the section (C) a warning beacon or special warning lamp.
I would of course agree that MOT testers do need to be compliant with the constructions and use regulations, and this is part of the test they undergo. As well as having to carry out at least 3 hours of training each year, they also have an annual assessment and can be spot checked at any time by the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency.
Having studied the construction and use regulations in full when I completed my Institute of Road Transport Engineers Part II exam. I can confirm that I shared the classroom with traffic police officers, and owner operators wishing to gain their certificate of professional competence, who also needed to study the very complex regulations, as this is not a simple set of laws and is also like many laws open to interpretation.
The original 1986 regulations are a 65,000-word document, and this to date has been amended 32 times, so you can see that keeping up-to-date on the legislation is quite a task and it is for this reason that the Department for Transport issue the MOT testers handbook to save a tester needing to study the full complexities of the constructions and use regulations.
FORD FOCUS
Chain or belt
Q Ihave a Ford Focus 1.8 (Duratec petrol) Mk2 with 28,306 miles and a full service history. There are two questions I would like to ask please.
The first – is if the engine camshaft is belt-driven or chain-driven?
The second – there is a slight noise from the engine or gearbox (I think) on tick-over, but if you press down the clutch the noise disappears. Is this anything to worry about?
Otherwise the Focus runs fine.
David Scarborough
A The answer to your first question is that the Duratec 1800 petrol, with engine code QQDB or QQDA, manufactured between 2002-2010, is fitted with a
