Duetto mk7 mot fail rear seat

I put my mk7 duetto in for mot today

It has been failed on the rear passenger belted seat as back rest is not secured.

I have rung garage and the clip that holds it back is not good enough to met new mot regs. 

Has always passed with this garage in the past.

Looks like i will have to have the seat belt removed any one else had this.

mark

Hi

Had my Topaz MOT last Friday and passed. The back of back seat was not secured but I had connected the seat belt over the seat back. Maybe a problem for next year then.

I'm surprised they can fail a vehicle on its seat belts that had in previous years passed the MOT. Older classic vehicles manufactured before seat belt legislation was introduced are still allowed to be driven on the road. Same goes for vehicle emissions, our Duetto was judged against the MOT standards current to the time of its manufacture. Looks a bit like goal posts being moved.

I'll be waiting to see if this a one off, or will other owners be affected, if many are, this could become very significant and require at least a redesign of current vehicles' seating.


punctuation edit added

Hi spoke to a vdifferent tester now pass but have got hold of c.c tech iCal will advise when replie. My back seat belt was connected over seat. Seems to be an issue with back rest not secure. I will let you know what the other is a possible issue. Have stated that if this a problem then all duetos with this set up will fail.Had mine since New and.is as left the factory.Seems there. Not happy with the poper arrangement on the seat strap to. The back.

The new regulations

6.2.6. Passenger seats

You should lift folded seats to inspect seat belts unless this requires the use of tools or specialist equipment. If you cannot lift seats because there are heavy or fragile items on the seat, you can refuse to test the vehicle. For details, see item [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].


You should only consider a passenger seat structure defective if it’s likely to cause injury.
Bold and underline is my modification.

I cannot see how if the fixture of the seat is as the original manufacturers specification and complied with the construction regulations in force at that time can now be deemed dangerous.

Well the seat back arrangement will be the same on Symphonys and Symbols so this if correct will affect hundreds of vans.

From what you’ve described, and if I understand correctly that the issue is an unsecured backrest, then all Kemerton and Symbol vans will also fail. Others too. The backrest is part of the third seat that folds flat to form part of the bed. Surely your seat belt is secured to strong points on the vehicle, not the backrest?

This doesn’t sound at all right.  If I was in your position I’d be asking what has changed to bring about this failure.

Tim

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


The fact that they are removable  does not mean they are liable to cause injury therefore should not be a reason for failure

Having read the MOT manual and the changes made to it in Sep and Oct 2019 I can find nothing that would cause the front-facing rear seat in a Kemerton, Kemerton XL, Symbol or Symphony (which are the vans I’m familiar with) to now be a failure due to an unsecured backrest.  If the seat belt on that seat is compliant then it will pass.  Our van was MOT’d in Feb 2020 and passed.

So the question about what has changed since the OP’s last MOT remains.

Tim

If it hadn't passed now at a different tester ( I think that was said above), I would be putting in an appeal to VoSA.

Because of the implications of what has happened, I hope that the OP Daveydog will appeal against the MOT failure on the ground he described.  It must be done within a fortnight. A complaint form must be downloaded from here
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
and submitted. No repairs should be made before the appeal.

The Government website advises a preliminary step, of discussing the failure with the tester. That might elicit some new requirement, but I doubt it. As Kemerton-Bath pointed out, if the seatbelt is compliant, the vehicle should pass (assuming no other issues).

Cymro

PS: PaulMold beat me to it!  Do please appeal.

Now has mot another tester did it after discussion on the phone interrogation of regs

Now have first mot report.

Stated

Nearside rear passengers seat backrest cannot be secured in the upright position(6.2.6(a)(i))


Think all to do with the popper as not strong fixing in accident could pull
 Off screw fixing perminant more appropriate at least got mot on verbal appeal.

Thanks for the update, DaveyDog. I'm pleased for you that you now have the MOT pass.

But nevertheless, now that you've helpfully given us the relevant regulation, it raises an interesting question for those of us who have forward-facing, seat-belted passenger seats.

Regulation 6.2.6 (a) (i) reads:

"(a) A passenger seat:

(i) with a defective structure or the backrest cannot be retained in the upright position"   - will be a major fail.

Now on my Nuevo the relevant seats have a back cushion, which is not retained but is held in the upright position either by the unoccupied seatbelts, or by the seatbelted passenger. (It cannot be retained as it's used for the bed). In turn, that cushion rests against the [wooden / mdf / whatever] wall of the wardrobe. Which is the backrest ? 

I hope it is the wardrobe wall, as that is retained in the upright position. The cushion is merely for comfort.

Cymro

Caravan club technical came back first instance of this.

Appeal  this if still not mot as effects lots of makes and models.

Suggested contact autosleepers to see if that have had this but will they be interested?

I have mot now spoke to garage owner said ideally they would like clarity in possible writing.

Looks like me and garage will be parting company after 30 years of servicing all of my vehicles .

New regs don't usually apply retrospectively.
Can anyone show evidence to confirm or refute that assertion ?
Keith

Further to my post above where a defective passenger seat has to be liable to cause injury to be failed this is the definition of "insecure" in the manual

insecure

A component has relative movement (looseness) at its fixings where there should be none, a component has relative movement (looseness) to an associated component where there should be none, or a component critical to safety is not safely or completely attached at its fixing or to an associated component

Therefore if the component mounting is as the manufacturer intended and not worn or broken in any way then they cannot fail on the basis of "their should be none"

I can't find anything on how this is applied retrospectively to older vehicles.

Hi that sounds like what they quoting,they don't like poper on strap that is attached to side wall from back nearside to the door piller.Perhaps some else with a mk7 duetto  could confirm there is the same as mine.Unless mine left factory with something missing as had from new.

My Topaz a 1998  has the third front facing seat, the back rest is held in place by 4 press studs on the side of the cooker unit, this van passed MOT with no advisories in May this year, nothing said about the seat back not secured enough. these style of vans are all the same if they have the 3rd seat. i thought new laws didn`t apply to the older vans, or was someone being a jobworth?

Seat belt fixed to frame of van not the seat.

Surrly there are plenty of examples of new rules being applied across the piece to all vehicles, not just new ones? If new rules weren't meant to be universally applied, the empowering legislation would have to specifically state the exceptions.

daisy mae wrote:My Topaz a 1998  has the third front facing seat, the back rest is held in place by 4 press studs on the side of the cooker unit, this van passed MOT with no advisories in May this year, nothing said about the seat back not secured enough. these style of vans are all the same if they have the 3rd seat. i thought new laws didn`t apply to the older vans, or was someone being a jobworth?

Seat belt fixed to frame of van not the seat.

That is the same on our friends ‘98 van and he is a retired mechanic and son still does MOTs etc and also agrees .

As the MoT history of a vehicle is now available online for everyone to view including future prospective buyers, it doesn't look good to see Failure, even when this if followed up by Pass soon after.
If examiners are unsure of something they should at least get a second opinion before committing it to computer.
As an example of this, when I went to pick up a motorbike after having had it's MoT, I noticed an advisory on the certificate stating lateral play in the rear suspension unit. I pointed out that the unit is mounted on rubber silent blocks, and there is bound to be a small amount of play even on a brand new bike.
The following year it was passed by the same mechanic with no advisories despite the suspension unit being exactly the same as the previous year.

However, when I came to sell the bike, the first thing the buyer asked was if I'd replaced the defective suspension unit!!
Al.

He my seat belt is fixed to frame of van.I know there was a argument with mot tester and ws manger who said fail until senor mot tester director passed.see ref to popper in previous post.As I say won't be using them again and why did they pass all the times before that said the mot tester who used to do it has now retired. I did allow c.c to see fail report .
Just glad to have it mot now.Did get silly as they said seat belt had to be removed which would have meant stripping out interia  think a youngster jobs worth thought being cleaver.

I wonder what the mfs. Would think of do they care.

steamdrivenandy wrote:Surrly there are plenty of examples of new rules being applied across the piece to all vehicles, not just new ones? If new rules weren't meant to be universally applied, the empowering legislation would have to specifically state the exceptions.

I should do your homework as you obviously do not know. information is on line.

The long side seats in my Clubman that I use to have, insurance said I could carry two passengers on them, although there wasn`t any seat belts. They were quite happy with that, I only carried one extra passenger the once, to help with a disabled friend , I was taking out on a day trip.

Vintage, Classic vehicles do not have to follow the new guide lines, like seat belts are not needed if they were not fitted when vehicle was manufactured. new rules do not apply to older vehicles. I forget what age they apply to usually the ones that are manufactured the same or next year that the rules were changed. certainly not to the OP or mine as well as hundreds of others, who have this design of van.

Like property laws change over the years, eg. at one time there had to be two doors between the kitchen / living room and a toilet, not now.

I arrest my case.

There are specific sections of the new regulations that covers classic cars (40yrs+ old), the trouble is even this is ambiguous

"Some vehicles of historical interest may be exempt from statutory MOT testing. Such vehicles must be over 40 years old and not substantially changed."

 I.e. what is "some" and "may". Under what circumstances is a 40 yr old car NOT exempt

So far I can find nothing that says these are not applicable to older vehicles but in this case that is a bit of red herring. The regulations infer that if the vehicle is as the original manufacturer intended then there is no reason to fail the vehicle. MoT testers are NOT necessarily qualified motor engineers. They do not have the engineering qualifications to override the original design specifications and declare a vehicle presented as being in original manufacturer standard is no longer acceptable.

I know my son had problems with his 55 plate Jag 2 years ago because the 2018 update set emission limits that even his car with exhaust gases as declared on the original specifications would fail. Luckily most cars are actually better and he was able to get his down low enough.