NCT failed car for being undersealed with tetroseal/wax oil

086mason2206

Anyone ever heard in a situation like this?

The car is a Honda s2000. The rear arches where underseled a few months back as the old original under seal was starting to come off in places. The tester testing the car told me that he didn't know if there was rust under the underseal or not and that i would have to remove it or get an engineers report done.

I can't get my head around this! the car was undersealed from the factory.
It failed on few other bits like headlight washer for the hid's which it never failed on before.
I got the impression the old fella testing my car didn't like it cause of the type of car it is.
He could barely get in and out of it.

kona

Usual nct bollox

hi5

Did he lose his little plastic hammer?

http://www.lasertools.co.uk/product/3238

listermint

Try s2000 club Ireland. Underseal is common on the SK they are rust magnet in sure someones come across this before

savagethegoat

I would appeal, I don't think this is reasonable. They obviously think the new underseal is hiding something

Atoms for Peace

Current car has it and has never been an issue for me.

Ericdravancrow

Mad....next they'll be x-raying vehicles

nd

What does it say on the fail sheet?

*Kol*

I under sealed my camper before the last test and the guy at the test center was delighted and recommended me to do more.

D0NNELLY

Appeal that! As you said it's sealed from the factory..

Seweryn

Ignore it. Just repair the other bits and bring the car back for a re-test.

JohnBoy26

There is usually two layers of underseal in the wheel arches on old hondas. The first is a rough(orange peel effect) stone chip gaurd overpainted in the car's colour.

This is followed by a thin black layer which peels or chips over time. In truth this offers little protection and there is no need to replace it due to the very strong stone chip guard underneath. Still I can't see why it would need an engineers report or even fail the nct for just replacing what was there already.

086mason2206

Thanks for all the advice! I am going to appeal it.

This is what is down on the sheet.

Chassis/undearbody Repair/modifications Obstructed/not visible

Atlantic Dawn

I thought it was only a fail if there was a previous test it failed in and you brought it back after doing repairs but had it undersealed so repairs couldn't be verified at retest.

savagethegoat

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

I thought it was only a fail if there was a previous test it failed in and you brought it back after doing repairs but had it undersealed so repairs couldn't be verified at retest.

you would need an Engineers report in that circumstances...any welding to the chassis I think.

porsche boy

086mason2206 wrote:

Chassis/undearbody Repair/modifications Obstructed/not visible

In your appeal clearly state that you have had no underbody repair or modifications and request information on what they expect to be able to see.

greasepalm

i had my space wagon in on saturday and recently i also had to do a bit of pre maintenance like small sections of surface rust treated with loctite rust cure and all wheel arches painted in more schultz for more protection,other space wagon had severe chassis corrosion as was left untreated.no issue and passed with a clean sheet 01 reg.
usually he will test fresh areas of schultz to see if a repair is unsound,i ran out of metal number plates and small screws lol

gavman1

Untrained plonker of a tester.appeal it.sure most cars have plastic covers over this area now.what are they going to do dismantle the area?i had a car failed before for a letter in the vin no "not lookin right" to the tester.everyone else seen a 3,he saw a B.i only put an avensis through yesterday with a bald front tyre and it got a fail advisory on a perfect rear tyre being out of date.they have lost the plot completely.

Xcellor

I think they are trying to get old cars off the road.

My girlfriend brough her Micra 2000 in, dangerous fail because bonnet wouldn't clip in fully (though the secondary catch was fine so no chance of it flying up during driving) .. This was fair enough but it also failed on rust underneath the actual door... Not structural/chassis. The rust holes were the size of a thumb and could only be seen by opening door and getting underneath.

I repaired it with fibre glass and sprayed the area so it was neat enough. I brought it back and he gave out stink coz he told her to "weld piece of metal on". He was going to fail it again because "in an accident that piece of fibre glass wouldn't do anything.", apparently a thin piece of welded metal would do more! He spoke to supervisor and passed it but it really left a bad taste in my mouth.

I don't think my toyata avensis 2002 will make it through next time

Seweryn

Xcellor wrote: »

I think they are trying to get old cars off the road.

They can try whatever they want. There are clear guidelines on what the car should fail and on what should not, so once your old car is in good shape it will pass. My 16-year old Diesel have passed and I believe it will pass next year.

Cosmo K

Xcellor wrote: »

I think they are trying to get old cars off the road.

.... Not structural/chassis. The rust holes were the size of a thumb and could only be seen by opening door and getting underneath.

You obviously don't know much about cars. That piece of metal underneath the door? That's called the door sill, and it's actually quite an important part of the cars primary structure. You do know that Micras, like 99 % of all cars, don't have an actual chassis?

LawlessBoy

Cosmo K wrote: »

You obviously don't know much about cars. That piece of metal underneath the door? That's called the door sill, and it's actually quite an important part of the cars primary structure. You do know that Micras, like 99 % of all cars, don't have an actual chassis?

Seeing as he said opening the door to see it, im going to assume he means the actual door itself had rust issues not the sill.

Xcellor

LawlessBoy wrote: »

Seeing as he said opening the door to see it, im going to assume he means the actual door itself had rust issues not the sill.

Exactly. Attached to show where the rust was.

Xcellor

Cosmo K wrote: »

You obviously don't know much about cars. That piece of metal underneath the door? That's called the door sill, and it's actually quite an important part of the cars primary structure. You do know that Micras, like 99 % of all cars, don't have an actual chassis?

chassis: the base frame of a car, carriage, or other wheeled vehicle.

I think the essence of what I mean is in the definition above.

However let me be precise. The rust on the door was not part of the cars primary structure.

:rolleyes: