MOT Inspection Appeals

[Anonymous]

Hello, people.

This posting is intended for uk.legal because of the legal questions
at the end, but I'm crossposting it into a couple of UK car newsgroups
too because of the obvious relevant experience there. The car groups
seem sparsely populated, so I have taken the liberty of including five
of them. I apologise if anyone thinks this excessive, but in my
defence their bandwidth appears low, and I don't anticipate a
detrimental effect.

I would appreciate comments and advice on the following situation I
find myself in....

I own a Vauxhall Senator 24valve, C30SE engine (for those in the
know), with a logbook stating first use of Mar 1993.

Usually, it flies through it's MOT every year - this year, it hasn't.
The reason being, that since it does not have catalytic convertors
fitted, it has failed the emissions test.

Now, I understand that this years Inspection Manual has been revised
from last years (although I haven't been able to secure a copy of last
years to verify - anybody got both, and able to say?), and that
whereas on previous years it, and the computer program that runs on
these automatic testers, has been able to include the discretion of
the tester, this year that has been removed for some reason.

I do understand that this vehicle is of "Continental Specification"
(not my words), according to Vauxhall. This has a slightly different
equipment spec. Apparently, in 1992 when production of Senators was
coming to an end, a certain police force upset at learning it's
favourite pursuit vehicle would soon be unavailable, bought almost
every remaining Senator in the country. This meant a shortfall on
civilian orders which had to be satisfied, so a small number of
Senators were imported to make up the numbers.

My vehicle is right-hand drive, as you would expect, but does exhibit
one or two equipment differences, such as no aerial mounted on the
rear wing (which I have seen on every other Senator), and no catalytic
convertors ( I don't know why, it's never been a problem until now).

I am unable to account for the time difference between the V5 saying
first use of Mar93 and it's life before this - before I owned the
vehicle as it's second owner from Dec 1994.

I spoke to the Inspectorate, they said that they had received a number
of queries surrounding 24V GSI Carltons and Senators, and that I had
to obtain a certificate from Vauxhall stating Non-Conformity.

I phoned Vauxhall at Osbourne House, and explained my woes to a very
helpful young lady, who explained that the procedure was for her to
forward all details to her tech support, and *if* they agreed with all
of the above, such a letter would turn up in around a weeks time.

And that's if they agree, there could be no end date of resolution, if
any resolution at all.

My existing MOT certificate expires in a weeks time!

That's the car techie bit over, so comments from anyone who has had
experience of this procedure and have some advice, would be gratefully
received.

Legally, my questions are these -

1) May I continue to drive the car legally if I am appealing against
the MOT failure under these circumstances?

I can guess what the answer will be, but how much "tolerance" is there
in the legal system on this? The failure certificate attests to the
cars excellent integrity, and so therefore I regard it as an
administrational cockup at the ministry, out of my control.

2) If I continue to do so, and I am stopped, what will the police do?
What will the Judge do? What are the penalties involved? What kind of
defense do I have?

3) Since the vehicle is otherwise sound, and I have not had this
bother before - what kind of legal redress do I have against the
Ministry? Can I sue them for every day I am off-road? Can they legally
suddenly decide, by omission, that my car is no longer legal to drive?

All comments gratefully received. Please crosspost replies to both
newsgroups when replying, to avoid isolated threads not being noticed
by people subscribed to only one group.

Thanks for your time.

[Anonymous]

In article <329krvslnqgfoohagjkvv4jvt765b4nu8h@4ax.com>, 127.0.0.1@
127.0.0.1 says...


Legally, my questions are these -

1) May I continue to drive the car legally if I am appealing against
the MOT failure under these circumstances?

I can guess what the answer will be, but how much "tolerance" is there
in the legal system on this? The failure certificate attests to the
cars excellent integrity, and so therefore I regard it as an
administrational cockup at the ministry, out of my control.

2) If I continue to do so, and I am stopped, what will the police do?
What will the Judge do? What are the penalties involved? What kind of
defense do I have?

3) Since the vehicle is otherwise sound, and I have not had this
bother before - what kind of legal redress do I have against the
Ministry? Can I sue them for every day I am off-road? Can they legally
suddenly decide, by omission, that my car is no longer legal to drive?

All comments gratefully received. Please crosspost replies to both
newsgroups when replying, to avoid isolated threads not being noticed
by people subscribed to only one group.

1) No. No MOT = illegal car. There is NO tolerance on this at all.

2) Fine and 3 points. You have no defence.

3) Non. The rules clearly state any car registered on or after 1993
must have a CAT fitted. All cars registered int he UK must comply with
the UK Construction and Use regulations.

TBH, it should've failed quite a few previous MOTs and it has simply
passed only because of the MOT examiners discretion.

--
Conor

Hi. This is my friend, Jack ****, and you don't know him.

[Anonymous]

1) No. No MOT = illegal car. There is NO tolerance on this at all.

2) Fine and 3 points. You have no defence.

3) Non. The rules clearly state any car registered on or after 1993
must have a CAT fitted. All cars registered int he UK must comply with
the UK Construction and Use regulations.

TBH, it should've failed quite a few previous MOTs and it has simply
passed only because of the MOT examiners discretion.


Also, it may have a slight problem now? Maybe running a smidge rich or
something? Aren't there things you can do to pass emissions tests...? I
remember someone once saying on Turbo Diesels, if it fails, and you take the
airfilter out it will probly then pass (assuming it wasn't a MAJOR failure)?

--
Dan

[Anonymous]

In article <bpdbr0$1mteqg$1@ID-165560.news.uni-berlin.de>,
me@privacy.net says...

Aren't there things you can do to pass emissions tests...?


But isn't a dedicated CAT test now used for cars that require a CAT from
the manufacturer? If the Cat can't be tested by the machine, because it
isn't there, won't the machine assume it is faulty and issue a fail for
that part of the test?
--
The poster formerly known as Skodapilot.
http://www.bouncing-czechs.com

[Anonymous]

Driver (127.0.0.1@127.0.0.1) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying :


I own a Vauxhall Senator 24valve, C30SE engine (for those in the
know), with a logbook stating first use of Mar 1993.

Usually, it flies through it's MOT every year - this year, it hasn't.
The reason being, that since it does not have catalytic convertors
fitted, it has failed the emissions test.

One question - Did it pass the emissions levels and only fail on the lack of
cat, or did it fail on emissions as well?

All petrol cars first registered after 1/8/92 (K-reg) have to have a cat.
It's registered date, not construction date, so there's no get out if it'd
been sat in a field for a year before being registered.


I do understand that this vehicle is of "Continental Specification"
(not my words), according to Vauxhall.

Irrelevant. It's UK registered, so has to pass the UK MOT and meet UK
Construction & Use regs - which require a cat. If I import a late 60s car
from France, it may not have seatbelts. My tough. If I import an early 80s
car from France, it may not have a rear fog light. My tough. C'est la vie.


My vehicle is right-hand drive, as you would expect

Which kind of mitigates against the "But it's continental spec" argument,
doesn't it?


no catalytic convertors ( I don't know why, it's never been a problem
until now).

You've always been lucky.


I spoke to the Inspectorate, they said that they had received a number
of queries surrounding 24V GSI Carltons and Senators, and that I had
to obtain a certificate from Vauxhall stating Non-Conformity.

Indeed. There are exceptions, but it's down to you to *prove* you don't need
one. The emissions would still need to be up to scratch.


1) May I continue to drive the car legally if I am appealing against
the MOT failure under these circumstances?

Why would you be able to? It's failed it's MOT.


2) If I continue to do so, and I am stopped, what will the police do?
What will the Judge do? What are the penalties involved?

Prosecution for no MOT. If the emissions are above the level they should be,
then you're also at risk of a roadside test. You may well also find your
insurance don't want to know if you have an accident.


What kind of defense do I have?

None. Not even "Didn't realise it had expired, yerhonner - terribly sorry,
and it passed the next day with no problem whatsoever". You *know* it's
failed the MOT.


3) Since the vehicle is otherwise sound, and I have not had this
bother before - what kind of legal redress do I have against the
Ministry? Can I sue them for every day I am off-road?

Don't be daft.


Can they legally suddenly decide, by omission, that my car is no longer
legal to drive?

Just because you've managed to blag it before does not set any precedent. It
should have failed every year since it first needed an MOT - or more likely
- every year since the exhaust got changed for one without a cat in it,
because it was cheaper.

[Anonymous]

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 14:54:34 -0000, "Dan405" <me@privacy.net> wrote:


Also, it may have a slight problem now? Maybe running a smidge rich or
something? Aren't there things you can do to pass emissions tests...? I
remember someone once saying on Turbo Diesels, if it fails, and you take the
airfilter out it will probly then pass (assuming it wasn't a MAJOR failure)?

There is no "fault" at all with the car - the emissions test results
are well within the acceptable limits for a non cat-equipped car,
which it is what it is. This is an administrative issue, as I see it.

[Anonymous]

Conor made the world a better place for us by saying..

In article <329krvslnqgfoohagjkvv4jvt765b4nu8h@4ax.com>, 127.0.0.1@
127.0.0.1 says...

Legally, my questions are these -

1) May I continue to drive the car legally if I am appealing against
the MOT failure under these circumstances?

I can guess what the answer will be, but how much "tolerance" is
there in the legal system on this? The failure certificate attests
to the cars excellent integrity, and so therefore I regard it as an
administrational cockup at the ministry, out of my control.

2) If I continue to do so, and I am stopped, what will the police do?
What will the Judge do? What are the penalties involved? What kind of
defense do I have?

3) Since the vehicle is otherwise sound, and I have not had this
bother before - what kind of legal redress do I have against the
Ministry? Can I sue them for every day I am off-road? Can they
legally suddenly decide, by omission, that my car is no longer legal
to drive?

All comments gratefully received. Please crosspost replies to both
newsgroups when replying, to avoid isolated threads not being noticed
by people subscribed to only one group.

1) No. No MOT = illegal car. There is NO tolerance on this at all.

2) Fine and 3 points. You have no defence.

There's also no points for no MOT. Basically, I'd take it to a different MOT
station. AFAIK, the MOT rules depend on when the car was built, I know a few
205 GTi 1.9's floating around registered in 93 that have never had
catalysts.



3) Non. The rules clearly state any car registered on or after 1993
must have a CAT fitted. All cars registered int he UK must comply with
the UK Construction and Use regulations.

TBH, it should've failed quite a few previous MOTs and it has simply
passed only because of the MOT examiners discretion.

--
Pete M.

Golf Gti (For Sale)
Alfa Romeo 164 TS.
Wahey, I'm a proper petrolhead again!"
Liverpool, Great Britain.

"you can lead a horse to water, but a pencil must be lead"

[Anonymous]

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 14:50:09 -0000, Conor <conor_turton@hotmail.com>
wrote:


1) No. No MOT = illegal car. There is NO tolerance on this at all.

Yes, I expected that - on paper. Are there any precedents for
incorrect testing procedures?


2) Fine and 3 points. You have no defence.

Not even one of a car that was never built with cat's, and that an
administrative cockup (as *I* see it) is responsible for a
non-existant MOT certificate?

If it did go to court, could I not even expect a favourable or
understanding mitigation, in light of the vehicles past record and
current excellent integrity?


3) Non. The rules clearly state any car registered on or after 1993
must have a CAT fitted. All cars registered int he UK must comply with
the UK Construction and Use regulations.

That's not set in stone - a certificate of non-compliance is
acceptable by the testing station, and that is what I am currently
attempting to secure.

i don't know what the exceptions are - I'm the one asking for more
information from those more "in the know" about these matters.


TBH, it should've failed quite a few previous MOTs and it has simply
passed only because of the MOT examiners discretion.

Well, that doesn't help me much now....! Having had this discretion
applied over the years, there must have been a reason for it (and
there was). Why was this reason removed?

[Anonymous]

Driver (127.0.0.1@127.0.0.1) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :


There is no "fault" at all with the car - the emissions test results
are well within the acceptable limits for a non cat-equipped car,
which it is what it is. This is an administrative issue, as I see it.

But are they within the acceptible limits for a car registered in March
1993?

[Anonymous]

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 14:50:09 -0000, Conor <conor_turton@hotmail.com>
wrote:


3) Non. The rules clearly state any car registered on or after 1993
must have a CAT fitted. All cars registered int he UK must comply with
the UK Construction and Use regulations.

TBH, it should've failed quite a few previous MOTs and it has simply
passed only because of the MOT examiners discretion.

Being picky here I believe not having a catalytic convert is not a
reason for failure on the MOT - the test is for the emissions against
a certain value. The cat is covered under the C&U regulations and
therefore you would only fall foul of it at a roadside inspection by a
vehicle examiner.

Gareth

[Anonymous]

In article <m6fkrvg6hqb1c23v54rj1l39g3oo9r165n@4ax.com>,
gareth@nospamplease-attrill.co.uk says...

Being picky here I believe not having a catalytic convert is not a
reason for failure on the MOT - the test is for the emissions against
a certain value.


Isn't the cat subject to dedicated test now?
--
The poster formerly known as Skodapilot.
http://www.bouncing-czechs.com

[Anonymous]

Take the air filter out, thrash the motor so its red hot, take for retest
stright away, will pass then no problem :)


"Driver" <127.0.0.1@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:329krvslnqgfoohagjkvv4jvt765b4nu8h@4ax.com...

Hello, people.

This posting is intended for uk.legal because of the legal questions
at the end, but I'm crossposting it into a couple of UK car newsgroups
too because of the obvious relevant experience there. The car groups
seem sparsely populated, so I have taken the liberty of including five
of them. I apologise if anyone thinks this excessive, but in my
defence their bandwidth appears low, and I don't anticipate a
detrimental effect.

I would appreciate comments and advice on the following situation I
find myself in....

I own a Vauxhall Senator 24valve, C30SE engine (for those in the
know), with a logbook stating first use of Mar 1993.

Usually, it flies through it's MOT every year - this year, it hasn't.
The reason being, that since it does not have catalytic convertors
fitted, it has failed the emissions test.

Now, I understand that this years Inspection Manual has been revised
from last years (although I haven't been able to secure a copy of last
years to verify - anybody got both, and able to say?), and that
whereas on previous years it, and the computer program that runs on
these automatic testers, has been able to include the discretion of
the tester, this year that has been removed for some reason.

I do understand that this vehicle is of "Continental Specification"
(not my words), according to Vauxhall. This has a slightly different
equipment spec. Apparently, in 1992 when production of Senators was
coming to an end, a certain police force upset at learning it's
favourite pursuit vehicle would soon be unavailable, bought almost
every remaining Senator in the country. This meant a shortfall on
civilian orders which had to be satisfied, so a small number of
Senators were imported to make up the numbers.

My vehicle is right-hand drive, as you would expect, but does exhibit
one or two equipment differences, such as no aerial mounted on the
rear wing (which I have seen on every other Senator), and no catalytic
convertors ( I don't know why, it's never been a problem until now).

I am unable to account for the time difference between the V5 saying
first use of Mar93 and it's life before this - before I owned the
vehicle as it's second owner from Dec 1994.

I spoke to the Inspectorate, they said that they had received a number
of queries surrounding 24V GSI Carltons and Senators, and that I had
to obtain a certificate from Vauxhall stating Non-Conformity.

I phoned Vauxhall at Osbourne House, and explained my woes to a very
helpful young lady, who explained that the procedure was for her to
forward all details to her tech support, and *if* they agreed with all
of the above, such a letter would turn up in around a weeks time.

And that's if they agree, there could be no end date of resolution, if
any resolution at all.

My existing MOT certificate expires in a weeks time!

That's the car techie bit over, so comments from anyone who has had
experience of this procedure and have some advice, would be gratefully
received.

Legally, my questions are these -

1) May I continue to drive the car legally if I am appealing against
the MOT failure under these circumstances?

I can guess what the answer will be, but how much "tolerance" is there
in the legal system on this? The failure certificate attests to the
cars excellent integrity, and so therefore I regard it as an
administrational cockup at the ministry, out of my control.

2) If I continue to do so, and I am stopped, what will the police do?
What will the Judge do? What are the penalties involved? What kind of
defense do I have?

3) Since the vehicle is otherwise sound, and I have not had this
bother before - what kind of legal redress do I have against the
Ministry? Can I sue them for every day I am off-road? Can they legally
suddenly decide, by omission, that my car is no longer legal to drive?

All comments gratefully received. Please crosspost replies to both
newsgroups when replying, to avoid isolated threads not being noticed
by people subscribed to only one group.

Thanks for your time.

[Anonymous]

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 14:42:13 +0000, Driver wrote:


Hello, people.

This posting is intended for uk.legal because of the legal questions
at the end, but I'm crossposting it into a couple of UK car newsgroups
too because of the obvious relevant experience there. The car groups
seem sparsely populated, so I have taken the liberty of including five
of them. I apologise if anyone thinks this excessive, but in my
defence their bandwidth appears low, and I don't anticipate a
detrimental effect.

Take a look at :

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Vauxhall_Senator/

Discussion forum for Senators

http://www.autobahnstormers.co.uk/

Club for Senators.

The cat issue has been discussed in depth in both of these clubs, the
basic advise is:

If your cats (if fitted) have failed, someone will lend you a good set to
get thru the test.
Most owners take cats off if fitted, and fit straight thru pipes.
Many MOT stations need to be battered over the head to accept that changeover cars
do not need cats, find another MOT station if yours is a problem.

It (cats) should not be a problem.

I've got two Senators btw, one ex pig 24v manual LPG converted, and a
standard auto one. Excellent cars, the gas one does the equivalent of 40
mpg (even at 130!)

[Anonymous]

3) The rules clearly state any car registered on or after 1993
must have a CAT fitted.

What the rules 'clearly state' is that a car must pass the emissions
test of the MoT.

The only 'rules' regarding the fitment of a Catalytic Convertor are that
manufacturers /must/ fit one to gain type approval. There are no rules
that state that the Cat must be there for the duration of the car's
life.


--
Lordy

[Anonymous]

But isn't a dedicated CAT test now used for cars that require a
CAT from the manufacturer?

There is no 'CAT' test, just an emmissions test.


--
Lordy

[Anonymous]

1) May I continue to drive the car legally if I am appealing against
the MOT failure under these circumstances?

No. A car without an MOT is being driven illegally and there are no
exceptions for the circumstances you describe. The onus is wholly on
*you* to make sure your car is MOT'd in time.

This answers your question, but from your post you already had the
answer;

"The only exemption to this is if the vehicle owner can
present to the tester at time of test a letter from the
vehicle manufacturer stating that that particular engine
as originally installed could not meet the equivalent
British emission standards. If this is the case, then
test to the next lower emission standard".


--
Lordy

[Anonymous]

In article <vhekrv4bs1ievtd2fl3bikbci8t1ftotdd@4ax.com>, 127.0.0.1@
127.0.0.1 says...

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 14:54:34 -0000, "Dan405" <me@privacy.net> wrote:

Also, it may have a slight problem now? Maybe running a smidge rich or
something? Aren't there things you can do to pass emissions tests...? I
remember someone once saying on Turbo Diesels, if it fails, and you take the
airfilter out it will probly then pass (assuming it wasn't a MAJOR failure)?

There is no "fault" at all with the car - the emissions test results
are well within the acceptable limits for a non cat-equipped car,
which it is what it is. This is an administrative issue, as I see it.

It's not administrative at all, it's called not complying with the law
and by that I mean the Police, not you.


--
Conor

Hi. This is my friend, Jack ****, and you don't know him.

[Anonymous]

In article <ckekrvsqc76tr009e6vt980rgtnrhclk47@4ax.com>, 127.0.0.1@
127.0.0.1 says...

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 14:50:09 -0000, Conor <conor_turton@hotmail.com
wrote:

1) No. No MOT = illegal car. There is NO tolerance on this at all.

Yes, I expected that - on paper. Are there any precedents for
incorrect testing procedures?

Plenty but they are due to MOT examiners failures to keep up standards
mainly. The main ones are for example failing old mk3 Escorts on a
rotten battery tray which wasn't even a testable item.


2) Fine and 3 points. You have no defence.

Not even one of a car that was never built with cat's, and that an
administrative cockup (as *I* see it) is responsible for a
non-existant MOT certificate?

If it did go to court, could I not even expect a favourable or
understanding mitigation, in light of the vehicles past record and
current excellent integrity?

Unless you can provide documentary evidence then its not likely.


3) Non. The rules clearly state any car registered on or after 1993
must have a CAT fitted. All cars registered int he UK must comply with
the UK Construction and Use regulations.

That's not set in stone - a certificate of non-compliance is
acceptable by the testing station, and that is what I am currently
attempting to secure.

i don't know what the exceptions are - I'm the one asking for more
information from those more "in the know" about these matters.

If you have the certificate you'll be OK. Problem is you haven't. Until
you can PROVE the car is exempt, you'll not get an MOT. No MOT = not
allowed to have the car on the road except to be taken to/from a
prebooked MOT test.


TBH, it should've failed quite a few previous MOTs and it has simply
passed only because of the MOT examiners discretion.

Well, that doesn't help me much now....! Having had this discretion
applied over the years, there must have been a reason for it (and
there was). Why was this reason removed?

Depends on the examiners. The previous owner probably found one that
applied common sense. PLUS MOT testing has recently been tightened up.



--
Conor

Hi. This is my friend, Jack ****, and you don't know him.

[Anonymous]

"Lordy" <spam@recycle.bin> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a24b110ea9b73a898975d@text.news.ntlworld .com...

1) May I continue to drive the car legally if I am appealing against
the MOT failure under these circumstances?

No. A car without an MOT is being driven illegally and there are no
exceptions for the circumstances you describe. The onus is wholly on
*you* to make sure your car is MOT'd in time.

This answers your question, but from your post you already had the
answer;

"The only exemption to this is if the vehicle owner can
present to the tester at time of test a letter from the
vehicle manufacturer stating that that particular engine
as originally installed could not meet the equivalent
British emission standards. If this is the case, then
test to the next lower emission standard".



Or driving too and from a booked MOT test :)

[Anonymous]

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 05:39:40 -0000, Conor <conor_turton@hotmail.com>
wrote:


If it did go to court, could I not even expect a favourable or
understanding mitigation, in light of the vehicles past record and
current excellent integrity?

Unless you can provide documentary evidence then its not likely.

Does an MOT failure document which lists all *other* factors as A1
count?


If you have the certificate you'll be OK. Problem is you haven't. Until
you can PROVE the car is exempt, you'll not get an MOT. No MOT = not
allowed to have the car on the road except to be taken to/from a
prebooked MOT test.

I accept that. But I can't stop using the vehicle - it's my
livelihood. So I'm exploring the possible repercussions of an
extremely temporary (hopefully!) stretching of the rules.


TBH, it should've failed quite a few previous MOTs and it has simply
passed only because of the MOT examiners discretion.

Well, that doesn't help me much now....! Having had this discretion
applied over the years, there must have been a reason for it (and
there was). Why was this reason removed?

Depends on the examiners. The previous owner probably found one that
applied common sense. PLUS MOT testing has recently been tightened up.

I was the previous owner for all it's previous MOT's - I purchased the
car the year before it's first MOT was due. I have always used the
same examiner these last eight years, who has just this first time
decided to object. Hence this recent tightening up you mention may
have something to do with it.

[Anonymous]

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 22:39:47 -0000, Lordy <spam@recycle.bin> wrote:


What the rules 'clearly state' is that a car must pass the emissions
test of the MoT.

The only 'rules' regarding the fitment of a Catalytic Convertor are that
manufacturers /must/ fit one to gain type approval. There are no rules
that state that the Cat must be there for the duration of the car's
life.

Maybe not, but if one is needed to pass the MOT test, what's the good
of taking it off?

[Anonymous]

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 20:10:57 +0000, Take a Walk <spam@hotmail.com>
wrote:


The cat issue has been discussed in depth in both of these clubs, the
basic advise is:

Cheers, that's the kind of technical info I was hoping for.


If your cats (if fitted) have failed, someone will lend you a good set to
get thru the test.
Most owners take cats off if fitted, and fit straight thru pipes.

Why?


Many MOT stations need to be battered over the head to accept that changeover cars
do not need cats, find another MOT station if yours is a problem.

Care to email me such a station privately? :o)


It (cats) should not be a problem.

It is for me at the moment - if you were me, what would you do?


I've got two Senators btw, one ex pig 24v manual LPG converted, and a
standard auto one. Excellent cars, the gas one does the equivalent of 40
mpg (even at 130!)

You can LPG-convert a 24valver? Excellent! I looked at this but
assumed it couldn't be retrofitted - who did the conversion? If I get
through this cat problem, I will certainly get it converted.

[Anonymous]

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 08:12:40 -0000, "Ronny" <Ron@ron.com> wrote:


Or driving to and from a booked MOT test :)

How about driving to a prebooked test in London, then a prebooked
test in Birmingham, then a prebooked test in Manchester, then a
prebooked test in Bristol, then a prebooked test in Portsmouth? Maybe
a day or so early, to be there in good time? :o)

With the right planning, I could keep going indefinitely!

Can you imagine what I'd say if I was stopped? "Woe is me, I can't
find a single MOT station in this whole country that will pass my car
- but I'm determined to find one that will! The next one's in
Aberdeen!"

[Anonymous]

In article <MPG.1a24b07e6a46dbba98975c@text.news.ntlworld.com >,
spam@recycle.bin says...

There is no 'CAT' test, just an emmissions test.

You are quite correct.
there is a CAT test, but it doesn't test the CAT. Good old beurocracy.
http://www.bobmckay.co.uk/cattest.html
--
The poster formerly known as Skodapilot.
http://www.bouncing-czechs.com

[Anonymous]

In article <MPG.1a2452dc3fb3c43e989c80@news.cis.dfn.de>,
carl.robson@bouncing-czechs.com says...

Isn't the cat subject to dedicated test now?


Oops, my mistake. the CAT test doesn't actually test the CAT
http://www.bobmckay.co.uk/cattest.html
--
The poster formerly known as Skodapilot.
http://www.bouncing-czechs.com

[Anonymous]

Driver (127.0.0.1@127.0.0.1) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :


Most owners take cats off if fitted, and fit straight thru pipes.

Why?

More power, as the cats are restrictive.


I've got two Senators btw, one ex pig 24v manual LPG converted

You can LPG-convert a 24valver? Excellent! I looked at this but
assumed it couldn't be retrofitted - who did the conversion? If I get
through this cat problem, I will certainly get it converted.

It'd probably also sort you for the emissions, and get round your current
problem.

[Anonymous]

If your cats (if fitted) have failed, someone will lend you a good set
to get thru the test.
Most owners take cats off if fitted, and fit straight thru pipes.

Why?
Two main reasons. Firstly, the cat is the most significant flow-impediment
in the intake/exhaust system, so removing it has an impact on engine
breathing, hence better performance and potentially better economy.
Secondly, if the cat is removed and kept nice and dry and only fitted at
MOT time, then it doesn't corrode and avoids the othewise inevitable
expense of one day having to buy a new one.



It (cats) should not be a problem.

It is for me at the moment - if you were me, what would you do?
Either try a different testing station, get a cheap cat-back exhaust system
from a scrappy and fit it for the test, or if you can find proof that you
are in the right then use that to argue your way around the problem. I
wouldn't rely on the sympathy of the legal system if I were you.

[Anonymous]

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 11:41:25 +0000, Driver wrote:




Care to email me such a station privately? :o)

It (cats) should not be a problem.

It is for me at the moment - if you were me, what would you do?

I've got two Senators btw, one ex pig 24v manual LPG converted, and a
standard auto one. Excellent cars, the gas one does the equivalent of 40
mpg (even at 130!)

You can LPG-convert a 24valver? Excellent! I looked at this but
assumed it couldn't be retrofitted - who did the conversion? If I get
through this cat problem, I will certainly get it converted.

Can't see an email address from you in your headers, but mail me at wayne
at machx.co.uk.

Just spoken to one of the oracles in the club about this issue.

1) If the car is K Plate or later (regardless of manufacture date) is must
have cats.
You can get round this by:
a) buying a private reg plate , and telling the MOT station it was originally a J reg
b) Borrorow/buy a full exhaust with cats and fitting it just for test.
c) As another poster said, give it a real burn before taking it to be
tested , it should pass 'with CAT' emissions test
d) Taking it to a 'friendly' MOT station, if you post your location in the
yahoo group someone will tell you your nearest Senator friendly station.


As to LPG, mine was fitted when I bought it, but it cost around £1200 two
years ago at an official fitters. I have since got a price for a complete
kit to suit a Senator and it is around £500 for everything.

The car is around 10% down on power with LPG (but with 200 bhp plus its
not noticable in normal running) and a flick of a switch puts you back to
petrol if you need the extra.
With my kit, the maximum speed is 130 as the gas cannot flow fast enough
to feed the engine to go any faster.
The engine runs really clean - you can (if you wanted to ) leave the oil
and plugs in for 20,000 miles and they come out almost as clean as the day
you put it in.
A major plus for me is that you can not run out of fuel, like a camping
gas stove as the tank nears empty the gas flow just diminishes slowly - so
you find that the car will suddenly not reach 80mph, 10 miles later it
will not reach 70mph and so on. Gives you at least 30 miles of cautious
driving before you completely empty the tank.
My 70L tank is enough for 280 miles before this stage reached.
And although you can pay up to 39p/L on Motorway forecourts, if you shop
around you can buy it at the following prices:

29.9 - Morrisons Port Talbot (and another 1.5 p per litre off as shopping
voucher)
(other Morrisons around country -eg Bham 31.9
28p/l Junction 12 M6
26p/l Wednesbury (Wolves/walsall) (But need to put up £100 deposit to
draw against)

An average full tank for me is £17 (at the cheapest site) which gives me
280 miles, or 6p per mile or 60mpg petrol equivalent!

I worked out when I first got it that it would take around 20,000 miles
savings to pay for the conversion by a garage, or 12,000 miles if you
bought and fitted the kit.
I've actually done 70'000 miles since I bought the car, so I have actually
saved £4,200, which is more than the car cost (£2,500) - so I am now
driving around in a free car at half price!
Can't be bad!

[Anonymous]

In article <vdkmrvs0g0e46v4i4n19ajmseqi0lpa9v2@4ax.com>, 127.0.0.1@
127.0.0.1 says...


Does an MOT failure document which lists all *other* factors as A1
count?

No.


If you have the certificate you'll be OK. Problem is you haven't. Until
you can PROVE the car is exempt, you'll not get an MOT. No MOT = not
allowed to have the car on the road except to be taken to/from a
prebooked MOT test.

I accept that. But I can't stop using the vehicle - it's my
livelihood. So I'm exploring the possible repercussions of an
extremely temporary (hopefully!) stretching of the rules.

Fine if you actually manage to find a traffic copper to get stopped.
Possibly not covered on insurance as you're not complying with the RTA
but that depends on the company.



I was the previous owner for all it's previous MOT's - I purchased the
car the year before it's first MOT was due. I have always used the
same examiner these last eight years, who has just this first time
decided to object. Hence this recent tightening up you mention may
have something to do with it.

Lifes a ****ter but you can sit there in a lovely warm glow knowing you
are justifying some penpushers job. You may not be able to afford to go
shopping this week but hey, at least the penpusher will. Its a bloody
farce.

--
Conor

Hi. This is my friend, Jack ****, and you don't know him.

[Anonymous]

In article <8nkmrvsucs7idj6ad8nkhpeq5810gohvli@4ax.com>, 127.0.0.1@
127.0.0.1 says...

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 22:39:47 -0000, Lordy <spam@recycle.bin> wrote:

What the rules 'clearly state' is that a car must pass the emissions
test of the MoT.

The only 'rules' regarding the fitment of a Catalytic Convertor are that
manufacturers /must/ fit one to gain type approval. There are no rules
that state that the Cat must be there for the duration of the car's
life.

Maybe not, but if one is needed to pass the MOT test, what's the good
of taking it off?

Some alleged performance increase.

--
Conor

Hi. This is my friend, Jack ****, and you don't know him.

[Anonymous]

In article <hhlmrvc1caa52tntjkje2mp26roml0o85r@4ax.com>, 127.0.0.1@
127.0.0.1 says...


You can LPG-convert a 24valver? Excellent! I looked at this but
assumed it couldn't be retrofitted - who did the conversion? If I get
through this cat problem, I will certainly get it converted.

Go to www.lpga.co.uk and download the list of approved installers.
Pretty much anything can be converted although some vehicles need
harder valve seats fitting.


--
Conor

Hi. This is my friend, Jack ****, and you don't know him.

[Anonymous]

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 15:59:36 +0000, Conor wrote:


In article <8nkmrvsucs7idj6ad8nkhpeq5810gohvli@4ax.com>, 127.0.0.1@
127.0.0.1 says...
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 22:39:47 -0000, Lordy <spam@recycle.bin> wrote:

What the rules 'clearly state' is that a car must pass the emissions
test of the MoT.

The only 'rules' regarding the fitment of a Catalytic Convertor are that
manufacturers /must/ fit one to gain type approval. There are no rules
that state that the Cat must be there for the duration of the car's
life.

Maybe not, but if one is needed to pass the MOT test, what's the good
of taking it off?

Some alleged performance increase.

Mine sounded faster with straight thru pipes instead of cats!
But I couldn't tell the difference in performance and the noise did my
head in so I haven't bothered with my latest Senny.
If the cats rot away, I might consider using then agains tho.

[Anonymous]

No. A car without an MOT is being driven illegally and there are no
exceptions for the circumstances you describe. The onus is wholly on
*you* to make sure your car is MOT'd in time.

This answers your question, but from your post you already had the
answer;

"The only exemption to this is if the vehicle owner can
present to the tester at time of test a letter from the
vehicle manufacturer stating that that particular engine
as originally installed could not meet the equivalent
British emission standards. If this is the case, then
test to the next lower emission standard".

Or driving too and from a booked MOT test :)

Which bit of "there are no exceptions for the circumstances you
describe" wasn't clear ?


--
Lordy

[Anonymous]

Plenty but they are due to MOT examiners failures to keep up standards
mainly. The main ones are for example failing old mk3 Escorts on a
rotten battery tray which wasn't even a testable item.

The one that amuses me the most is the spare tyre. A lot of people seem
to have a fascination with removing it come MOT time, explaining how "if
it's not on the car it can't be tested". Strange how few people actually
know the spare tyre isn't a testable item whether it's on the car or
not...


--
Lordy

[Anonymous]

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 21:24:22 +0000, Lordy wrote:


Plenty but they are due to MOT examiners failures to keep up standards
mainly. The main ones are for example failing old mk3 Escorts on a
rotten battery tray which wasn't even a testable item.

The one that amuses me the most is the spare tyre. A lot of people seem
to have a fascination with removing it come MOT time, explaining how "if
it's not on the car it can't be tested". Strange how few people actually
know the spare tyre isn't a testable item whether it's on the car or
not...

It is/was on a council mini-cab test if in the car.

I took my brother's mini-cab for the test a few years back, after
carefully removing the slightly dodgy spare from the boot.

The car then failed on the spare tyre because I left the boot key at home
and the tester was unable to look in the boot to see it wasn't there!