DoE testing - The Last Word

Pjwal wrote: »

gotchya now. The only tag axle I v come across had a park brake on both axles so with the combination it had loads of brake for the emergency. So I gather there are some with park brake only fitted to one axle and theese are the problem.

Well, I collected my tandem axle Alko MH from the garage yesterday and the mechanic claimed that after 2 days working on it he couldn't get the handbrake working correctly. After handing over in excess of €600 for an "unroadworthy" vehicle I was appalled to find I had to open the drivers door to release the handbrake, as the cable had been adjusted so tightly that I could only lift the handbrake by 1 click with all my force. I think this is starting to look like a problem with the garage, as opposed to the handrake system.

Pjwal, I'm assuming the MH you tested easily satisfied the 16% parking brake and 22.5% emergency brake criteria then?

Aidan_M_M wrote:

ah no . any I've seen have had park brakes on both axles.

Cool enough, the one I checked just got lucky then.

niloc1951 wrote: »

Buddha Breath wrote:

Well, I collected my tandem axle Alko MH from the garage yesterday and the mechanic claimed that after 2 days working on it he couldn't get the handbrake working correctly. After handing over in excess of €600 for an "unroadworthy" vehicle I was appalled to find I had to open the drivers door to release the handbrake, as the cable had been adjusted so tightly that I could only lift the handbrake by 1 click with all my force. I think this is starting to look like a problem with the garage, as opposed to the handrake system.

Pjwal, I'm assuming the MH you tested easily satisfied the 16% parking brake and 22.5% emergency brake criteria then?

It me it looks like you might have been 'taken to the cleaners' by somebody who did not understand the problem in the first instance.

I personally have a big problem with people 'investigating' how to fix a problem they are unsure about and charging me for their education, and particularly if they ultimately FAIL.

I would go about getting my money back, after all they did not deliver a solution.

I would agree with that.

Had my 01 EuraMobil 515 DOE'ed today. No problems whatsoever

Aidan_M_M wrote:

all the ones i've got ready for test have passed so far, from 1990 to 2008...

Most are passing. Only a handfull of fails and none with major problems. Altered weight plates are going to be the biggest prob as now we have been instructed not to pass them anymore and it is up to the owner to go back to the manufacterer to get it sorted.

Aidan_M_M wrote:

realistically though , how do you do this? I bet your bottom dollar not many FIAT etc garages will do it .

Correct. A simular prob came up latly with imported commercials with no weight plates fitted. They pass the onous onto the owner so that they don't have to deal with it. It puts us in an awkward position with the owners, a lot of whom have no clue what we are talking, and it's not thier job to know.

niloc1951 wrote: »

Pjwal wrote:

Most are passing. Only a handfull of fails and none with major problems. Altered weight plates are going to be the biggest prob as now we have been instructed not to pass them anymore and it is up to the owner to go back to the manufacterer to get it sorted.

You DO mean 'altered' as opposed to 'additional' plates with a higher weight than the original and which are in agreement with the GVW on the RF101, don't you !!

Yes I mean 'altered' as opposed to 'additional'.

niloc1951 wrote: »

Pjwal wrote:

Yes I mean 'altered' as opposed to 'additional'.

Thanks, the RSA Circular VI 05/12 didn't make it clear, from my reading of it, it appears very ambiguous as to whether my motor caravan, which is from a major European manufacturer and which has three plates and had no physical change between the last two, should pass (it did last month).
I have written to the RSA for clarification but not got a reply yet.

if your mh has an alko chassis and rear axle and one of the plates has a higher rear axle gross weight and a higher gvw-that is no prob. Hymer has in cases placed an extra plate that has a higher front axle gross weight then what the base vehicle manufacterer has allowed and that one is a problem. But the usual ones of concern are where the original weights have been scribed over or punch marked with a heavier weight.
Let me know if I havnt got that across clearly. The dyslexia gets the better of me at times.

niloc1951 wrote: »

Pjwal wrote:

if your mh has an alko chassis and rear axle and one of the plates has a higher rear axle gross weight and a higher gvw-that is no prob. Hymer has in cases placed an extra plate that has a higher front axle gross weight then what the base vehicle manufacterer has allowed and that one is a problem. But the usual ones of concern are where the original weights have been scribed over or punch marked with a heavier weight.
Let me know if I havnt got that across clearly. The dyslexia gets the better of me at times.

My motorhmone has an Al-Ko chassis and an Al-Ko plate over the Fiat one, which incidentally has no weights recorded on it as its Fiat component is only a front chassis/cowl, perhaps.
Over the Al-Ko plate is affixed a manufacturers plate showing a higher GVW,(3,850kg) but the same axle weights, but an owner with only a B licence could have an identical vehicle with a 3,500kg GVW late. This results in me having an increased GVW without any physical change from the 3,500Kg plated one which seems to not be acceptable to the RSA (Circular VI 05/12)

Also, I can't believe that leading brands will have their vehicles failed because their plates will not be accepted in this country. It is most unlikely that Hymer, or any of the reputable builders of motor caravans would expose themselves to legal hazard by boosting axle weights without the approval of the axle manufacturer.

Your plate is fine as alko is taking resonabily for it as it is thier chassis and rear axle reguardless of the fact that a twin sister of your vehicle would have a gvw of 3500kg, the hymer plate I mentioned is one of the ones where an axle weight is changed without a physical change been made to vehicle as it is still a full original manufacterers chassis,cab and axles. So there is no proof of autherisation from the manufacterer for this change. Now I do fully agree with you,I also can't see any top end motorhome builder putting themselves at risk and performing such an act without proper autherisation. It's just the rsa aren't bothered looking into it so they are leaveing it up to the owner to sort it. Most of the other plates that were changed with a simple scriber or number punches were done without autherisation. Because of the vrt system that was once in place. If the motorhome weighed more then 3000kg then only e50 vrt had to be payed, but as most of older model fiat,Peugeot,Talbot,(pre 1995)only had a gvw of 2800kg it was common place to match them to the model that had a gvw of 3100kg. (my own mh been included)

clionaricho wrote: »

So I had my camper for test on Friday (coincedently the same day that they received instruction from the RSA) regarding the weight. Anyway my plate had been altered as in stamped over. So here are my questions :

It was obvioulsy changed so that the VRT amount paid was lower??

So basically in order for me to drive it on a B licence I would prefer if it was under 3500 tonne. But I am wondering about the implications of this, would I now be liable for the additional VRT? If so would it be much ? Am I better emptying the van and so getting it below the 3500 tonne weight ?

Also I am in the South Dublin area and I really am not clear as to what is expected of me to get this problem rectified. Mine is a Peugeot Hobby, so basically am I expected to find a Peugeot garage and ask them to agree with the weight from a weigh bridge ?

Thanks for all advice as I need to get this sorted as quick as possible.

this is the bit that rsa dont understand, and that is that people not in the mechanical or transport business dont understan what all this weight gargen means,and that is not me have a go at you as its proberly not something youve ever had to worry about,it should be the rsa sorting it.
rant over.
no i am afraid the weight plate is to do with the total weight the vehicle can weigh when it is loaded and you weighing on a weigh bridge will only tell what weight it sitting at right now and wont change what mr peugeot stated it could carry originaly. if you can ask your peugeot dealer or contact mcgowens(peugeot ireland) if they can send you the vehicle spec sheet that would have the original gross vehicle weight and axle gross weights on it, and take this to you test centre and they should be able to sort it from there, but when you ring the dealer or mcgowens have the full chassis no. to hand as they may need to work off because if the van was not originaly built for local market, they may need it.
i hope this is a help.

cipro 55 wrote: »

It was obvioulsy changed so that the VRT amount paid was lower??

So basically in order for me to drive it on a B licence I would prefer if it was under 3500 tonne. But I am wondering about the implications of this, would I now be liable for the additional VRT? If so would it be much ? Am I better emptying the van and so getting it below the 3500 tonne weight ?




The weight for no vrt was over 3000kg so you will have no problem there.

Customs are not linked to the test centres so they won't know about. If the original weights can still be seen on vin plate, then you get it tested on them weights, but only if the van weighs in at under them weights on the brake tester in the test center. I asked john forde in the rsa today if that was acceptable, and he said it was.

vinniem wrote: »

Got mine tested 2/3/12 and is plated as 3850kg, needed two testers as one guy could only test up to 3500kg and the other guy over 3500kg :-) DGVW on cert is 3850kg with no problems. Now here's the thing, exchanged for certificate of Roadworthiness at MTO last week (Friend done it for me) they charged €13 and only gave 1 year as date of expiry on cert!! This is not correct?

ah yes, if you mh is less then 10 years old, the cert is valid for 2 years, even tho it states that expires in 1 year, this is because the mto have not changed its soft wear to suit a two year cert, but the gaurds will accept it as a two year cert, but i dont know how you will fair out internationaly

THanks Pjwal and Cipro for the advice. I rang the RSA myself too and they didnt have a clue what I was meant to do....how Oirish!!!
So I think I go to the Peugeot garage and see if I can get an original cert from them and then get a new manufacturer plate too. Anyway the RSA actually sent me a list where I can get this done if anyone wants me to send it to them
THe other thing that I forgot to mention was that I bought beam benders and going on advice here on Boards and also I rang a test centre and asked would they fit them for me. But when I got the test done, he told me that he wasnt allowed to fit them for me.

Hi Guys

Am I supposed to carry the cert issued by the MTO on the van for inspection at roadside?

Im sure the answer is contained on this thread somewhere......its it now 24 pages long :eek: