deltamal Posted January 20, 2010 Report Posted January 20, 2010 One of the works drivers got stopped for a spot check on the Transit pick up on Monday, the plastic cover on the seat belt stem was missing, still worked as normal, but he was issued a prohibition notice and enough time to get back, ordered a new stem from the local garage took the Transit down for fitting, and found out that it had to have a full MOT before I could take it away! then off to the police station to get a form to release the prohibition notice and then post it to Exeter! seems a lot for a missing cover....
FredTransit Posted January 20, 2010 Report Posted January 20, 2010 Good luck when you take the new ticket in, the civilian staff won't know what to do with it.
Admin Vista Posted January 20, 2010 Admin Report Posted January 20, 2010 My heart fluttered there Malcolm I thought you were after getting booze banned!
emu Posted January 20, 2010 Report Posted January 20, 2010 Who issued the prohibition notice? Provided that the operation of the seatbelt wasnt affected then damage to the catch isnt an MOT failure, just an advisory item. http://www.motuk.co.uk/manual_510.htm (condition, reason for rejection 3)
Fiesta Steve Posted January 20, 2010 Report Posted January 20, 2010 Who issued the prohibition notice? Provided that the operation of the seatbelt wasnt affected then damage to the catch isnt an MOT failure, just an advisory item. http://www.motuk.co.uk/manual_510.htm (condition, reason for rejection 3) May not be an MOT failure but if a vehicle is issued with a PG9 for whatever reason it needs to be re-tested before it can be put back on the road.
emu Posted January 20, 2010 Report Posted January 20, 2010 Oh yeah I know Im just being nosey who it was who decided it shouldnt be on the road in the first place Its seems a bit silly that the notice requires a new MOT to get it lifted, yet the item it was prohibited because of in the first place would have passed an MOT
Fiesta Steve Posted January 20, 2010 Report Posted January 20, 2010 Oh yeah I know Im just being nosey who it was who decided it shouldnt be on the road in the first place Its seems a bit silly that the notice requires a new MOT to get it lifted, yet the item it was prohibited because of in the first place would have passed an MOT I know what your saying, that particular cop must have been having a bad day - and passing it on !!
deltamal Posted January 20, 2010 Author Report Posted January 20, 2010 The notice was issued by a P.C. doing roadside checks on white van man! was not going to contest it, as I would be getting regular regular roadside checks on all my vans!
deltamal Posted January 20, 2010 Author Report Posted January 20, 2010 My heart fluttered there Malcolm I thought you were after getting booze banned! No, I dont drink any more, (dont drink any less mind!)
hellblue Posted January 20, 2010 Report Posted January 20, 2010 WTF is going on in this world ??, the copper wants his balls put in a vice... wots next.... sorry sir we are going to have to crush your car the colours not on our list !!
Fishtailparka Posted January 21, 2010 Report Posted January 21, 2010 They had a spell of it around here, but it was more the VOSA guys than the police. They seemed determined to get any old vans and pickups off the road. Lad I know had 3 MOTs in as many months. He got pissed off with it all and got a new van. That's not to say his old van wasn't roadworthy but he couldn't afford an MOT every month. It wasn't an isolated incedent either. My cousin took a load out in our lorry, he got pulled on the way out, and pulled again by the same people in the same place two hours later on the way back. What's the point of that?
Mr2Caps Posted January 21, 2010 Report Posted January 21, 2010 If, as a government, any government, you bring in petty laws, and encourage zealous enforcement of petty laws, sooner or later the spirit of people will be broken, once you have broken the spirit of the people you can govern them easier and lead them into situations and impose restrictions they would otherwise fight against....its only a theory mind.........
FredTransit Posted January 21, 2010 Report Posted January 21, 2010 I think the problem here is the difference between the MOT and Construction and Use Regs. Things that are OKfor the OMT might not comply with the C&U regs. I had a PG9 for an oil leak (on a pinto FFS, it's a standard thing!). Waited a decent interval, gave the engine a good wipe, took it in to the test (only been there three months before) and it passed.
FredTransit Posted January 21, 2010 Report Posted January 21, 2010 Constuction and Use Regulations do exactly what they say, they set the legal standards for the construction and use of commercial vehicles (probably cars too, but I am used to commercials). Violating them doesn't mean needing a IVA, in fact any commercial that's standard that remains that way for over 15 years would not have an IVA applied to it. Bear in mind plate tested commercials (over 3.5 tons) all go to be tested at a VOSA station anyway.
hellblue Posted January 21, 2010 Report Posted January 21, 2010 Hmmm something's not right here.... What he said !!
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now