MOT fail! "Dipped headlights turn off when main beams on"

[robbied]

Recent MOT flagged up one issue that when the main beams are switched on, the dipped lights turn off. Therefore failing apparently as the headlights are adversely affected by operation of another light. I've gone through as many headlamp/MOT failure threads I can find but can't see this specific problem. Any one had this problem before, or know a reason or fix??

Thought the guy was having me on, but from what I can find some cars operate like this and others don't but is this the case for micras?..would appreciate any help thanks!

Rob

 

[plmval]

MOT Failure Appeals to VOSA Procedure
Welcome to the MSC!
May I suggest you double check front lamps what is and not working and then refer the question to Nissan and also the Daily Telegraph motoring correspondence website honest John.co.uk/ask for expert opinions on lamp operation for your specific vehicle? The lack of references anywhere, that you refer to, suggests it might be a red herring and therefore worth chasing down to its conclusion and disputing with the MOT tester!

http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/contact/

An additional option is to contact the local council run MOT test centre and pick their brains on the subject as they have no commercial interest in finding non-existent faults as they do not do repairs!

DVSA or VOSA authorised MOT “test garages” have a commercial interest to creatively maximise faults with unnecessary repairs to maximise income charges and fitters commission bonuses by repairing non-existent faults?

Reference; http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/travel/cheap-mot#localcouncil

· Having main beam and dipped beam energised simultaneously may overheat the lamps and its base plug connections shortening the life of the equipment.

· I quickly checked the VOSA MOT regulations I can find no specific reference to simultaneous dip/main beam operation. Perhaps you can search the MOT regulations more thoroughly with the links I have provided?

· Possibly the MOT tester is referring to dim/dip system incorrect operation?

Link to the MOT guidelines on the matter here:

Section 1;2 Headlamps http://www.motinfo.gov.uk/htdocs/m1s01000201.htm

Also at http://www.motinfo.gov.uk/htdocs/index.htm

Before disputing with the MOT tester the result, send an email question to DVSA (VOSA) so you can have written confirmation and make print outs of the relevant section 1:1 and section 1:2 headlamps operation to show to the MOT tester.

Just for my interest is your MOT tester part of one of the large national free fit exhausts/tyres/brakes type groups that often offer half-price MOT tests?

Best of luck with interpretation of the MOT regulations regarding dip and main beam simultaneous operation and let us know how this issue concludes .

 

[Antony]

I'll ask my dad..... Cheif examiner for Vosa...

Gimme a mo.

 

[Antony]

The lights must switch between dip and main beam promptly, not leaving both on at any time.

 

[Antony]

So they're supposed to switch off the dipped beam.

Tell the tester to read section 1.2 of the test guide again.

 

[plmval]

False MOT Failure Appeals to VOSA Procedure

Quote Robbied above; “MOT flagged up one issue that when the main beams are switched on, the dipped lights turn off”. “Failing apparently, as the headlights are adversely affected by operation of another light”.

Based on the information from VOSA Chief Examiner above, this MOT tester garage made a false and misleading statement reason for rejection and MOT failure. Quote Antony above, (“I'll ask my dad..... Chief examiner for VOSA);~ answer, (“The lights must switch between dip and main beam promptly, not leaving both on at any time”).

This MOT test centre garage and its MOT tester technician gave a false incorect misleading statement on the vehicles computerised MOT records reason for rejection MOT failure printout. Specifically, when the main beams are switched on, the dipped lights turn off. Therefore failing apparently as the headlights are adversely affected by operation of another light, as stated by Robbied above.

This clear and misleading MOT reason for rejection failure needs to be reported, by the MOT customer Robbied, to VOSA/DVSA for investigation, as they are clearly not carrying out the correct MOT procedures according to the MOT regulations section 1:2!

How many other customers have they ripped off with false reasons for rejection MOT failures?

VOSA/DVSA need to be informed by this entire clear audit trail to investigate as MOT customers need to be treated fairly and not ripped off by unscrupulous MOT testers creating unnecessary phantom failures and repair charges!

 

[Low Rider]

Haha, I'd not see this. Ant to the rescue again. It's such a blessing to have on-hand VOSA information from a credible source

This reminds me when my dad's old E-Type failed it's MOT a few years back on the windscreen washers being defective. The tester was a young lad who didn't know that golden oldies were never fitted with non-return valves in the feed lines, so you have to press the button a bit longer than you do on modern cars before you get anything.

The car went back immediately and the chief tester laughed and told him to 'press the button for a bit longer next time mate'.

It's passed every year since then LOL.

 

[plmval]

^ ^
Aye lad, it’s called an uncommon outbreak of common sense and fair play which this MOT tester does not understand! A clear false misrepresentation of MOT regulation section 1:2.

That is using the MOT regulations to browbeat, patronise and condescendingly rip-off customers taking them for a ride with phantom MOT reasons for rejection failure and repairs charges.

This MOT tester needs to be reported to VOSA/DVSA and investigated forthwith!

Perhaps this is a subject that the MSC could take up and campaign for MOT testers regular training updates, examinations and performance monitoring to entrench fair play on behalf of motorists?

 

[Antony]

Pleasure.

 

[plmval]

Many thanks to Anthony and father, a VOSA examiner for a very quick response providing credible verification of correct interpretation of MOT regulations 1:1 and 1:2 applicable in this MOT reason for rejection failure case as referred to in above discussions.

 

[Antony]

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&s...o_YdVWDRwB_U0ugqw&sig2=WJMpp2gLrr5YEbB12xwi4A

 

[Antony]

New eu regulations on headlight operations on new cars,

This states that as long as the dipped beam comes on when main is switched off, there is no problem at all.

 

[plmval]

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&s...o_YdVWDRwB_U0ugqw&sig2=WJMpp2gLrr5YEbB12xwi4A

Surfeit of information overload regarding DRLs and ECFE regulation 48? Nice reading?

If MOT testers can misinterpret and misrepresent simple MOT regulations 1:1 and regulations1:2,what chance have they got with ECFE Reg 48? No dearth of opportunities for the chaos and confusion MOT testers will find within DRL’s running lights regulations of ECFE regulation 48, if it were incorporated without over simplification into MOT regulations?

Perhaps an indication of nightmares on MOT street yet to come for ordinary motorists? Guess I’ll stick to my 19-year-old K11 to which Reg 48 mostly does not apply while looking forward to my next MOT?

Many thanks for your clarifying interpretation of regulation 48.