Amber McNaught writes...
I hate to come across all "helpless female" here, but when it comes to cars, I don't know jack. And I don't really want to, either. That's why we have mechanics. You can't get better than a Kwick-Fit fitter, you know. They're the boys (and girls) to trust, and all that jazz.
The problem with not knowing the first thing about cars, though, is that I have always suspected garages in general of ripping me off. (Or maybe that's just the problem with being a suspicious sod, who knows) How am I to know whether those "CV shoes" they're charging me £300 for are essential? Or if they even exist, come to think of it? How do I check that my flux capacitor really is rusted to all hell, and my combobulator genuinely had become discombobulated? Well, I don't. I leave it to the experts, and trust that they're not ripping me off. But this weekend, I discovered that they totally are.
This weekend, you see, my husband and I were on our way to a barbecue when we were pulled over by the police, who said that the rear lights on my husband's car were "dangerous" and "illegal". Now, we'd probably have accepted this had it not been for the fact that the car in question had passed its MOT just four days before. No mention had been made of the "dangerous and illegal" rear lights. Not once, as he drove away, his wallet as light as his heart, did it occur to Terry to think that the car he was driving might actually be dangerous. Well, you don't, do you? Not when it's fresh out of the test centre.
As the police hauled him off to be patronised in their squad car, then, I huddled in the passenger seat, and mentally started writing my letter of complaint to the garage, who clearly hadn't tested the car properly. But they had. Oh yes. Because, according to the police, the MOT test is not a test of whether your car is road-legal. No, it's a test to see how much money the test centre can suck out of you, without actually making your vehicle safe to drive.
OK, so the police didn't actually say that last bit. They did say that passing an MOT does not necessarily mean that your car is legal to drive, though, and they are right. I found it in the small print of the certificate. The MOT, says my certificate, "does not mean that the vehicle fully meets all legal requirements”. Well, colour me amazed. And also: angry. For what else have I been paying money for every year? And, not to put too fine a point on it, if you can still drive away from the test in a "dangerous" vehicle, what's the point of the test?
While I'm on the subject, I'm now wondering what I do need to do to find out whether my car is road legal. Take a night-course in car-mechanics? Drive to the police station every week and ask them to check my car? Who knows.
As it happens, they didn't bother to fine my husband for his so-called dangerous car. No, having carefully explained that he should not trust the MOT test centre to tell him whether his car is legal or not, he now has to take it to the MOT test centre within the next 21 days, and get them to tell him whether it's legal or not. So, just to clarify: he must take his car to the garage and get them to sign a piece of paper saying that they reckon the car is safe to drive. This would be the same garage he took the car to last week, and who gave him a piece of paper saying that they reckoned it was safe to drive. Words fail me. Well, not really, obviously.
And that, people, is why this week I am a very grumpy young woman indeed.
Amber McNaught is a freelance writer and regular Shiny contributor. She paid £200 to get her car through its last MOT, and she kind of wishes she hadn't bothered now.
