Test date | Expiry date | Result | Odometer reading |
2018-01-11 | 2019-01-13 | ✓ Pass | 102,155 |
2018-01-11 | - | ✗ Fail | 102,155 |
- Nearside Headlamp aim beam image obviously incorrect (1.8.A.1b)
- Nearside Front suspension has excessive play in a lower suspension ball joint (2.5.B.1a)
|
2017-01-04 | 2018-01-13 | ✓ Pass | 91,002 |
2017-01-04 | - | ✗ Fail | 91,002 |
2016-01-05 | 2017-01-13 | ✓ Pass | 78,873 |
2016-01-05 | - | ✗ Fail | 78,851 |
- nearside rear coil spring corroded (2.4.C.1b)
|
2015-01-12 | 2016-01-13 | ✓ Pass | 66,854 |
- Nearside Rear Tyre worn close to the legal limit (4.1.E.1)
- Offside Rear Tyre worn close to the legal limit (4.1.E.1)
|
2015-01-05 | - | ✗ Fail | 66,634 |
- Nearside Rear Tyre worn close to the legal limit (4.1.E.1)
- Offside Rear Tyre worn close to the legal limit (4.1.E.1)
|
2014-01-06 | 2015-01-13 | ✓ Pass | 53,792 |
- Play in steering rack inner joint(s)
|
2013-01-14 | 2014-01-13 | ✓ Pass | 44,045 |
- n/s/f wheel rim slightly bent from out side2>slight play in offside front track rod end ball joint
|
2013-01-14 | - | ✗ Fail | 44,043 |
- Parking brake: parking brake efficiency only just met. It would appear that the braking system requires adjustment or repair. (3.7.B.7)
- n/s/f wheel rim slightly bent from out side2>slight play in offside front track rod end ball joint
|
2011-11-26 | 2012-11-30 | ✓ Pass | 37,386 |
- Offside Rear Tyre worn close to the legal limit (4.1.E.1)
|
2011-11-24 | - | ✗ Fail | 37,386 |
- Offside Rear Tyre worn close to the legal limit (4.1.E.1)
- Spare tyre defective
- Clutch pedal anti slip missing
|
2010-11-25 | 2011-11-30 | ✓ Pass | 30,190 |
- Nearside Track rod end ball joint has slight play (2.2.B.1f)
- Offside Track rod end ball joint has slight play (2.2.B.1f)
|
Attaching movies and photos (?)
It's enough to include link to photo or youtube or facebook movie into comment's content in order to attach them to the comment
I got not problem with complaining to someone about allegedly using a phone whilst driving. The problem however is the way you went about it. You've effectively absolved the driver either to a limited or full extend purely by virtue of the manner in which you approached them. You've giving them a defence in court without even realising it. Please note, I am not trying to attack you; rather, trying to emphasise the point that with certain types of people a certain type of approach will always illicit a certain type of response on their part. Don't take that risk. Always be firm but fair, unless you have no choice. I think you had that choice here. The police will take one look at this and - being the pedantic useless buggers many of them seem to be - will simply say you're lucky you aren't being fined for a Section 59 offence. The fact he's driving a car and using a phone won't come into it. Sorry folks but that's just the way things are these days. Do not give people like this an avenue.. do not give them ammunition by losing your cool. Simply say something like "Sir, that's stupid, dangerous and illegal - do you realise that?" It's an open, cordial question. Swearing and name-calling is just waving a flag to a bull, hence, you'll only get one type of response. You might have a strong case for other offences but the shouting, swearing and name-calling doesn't help and most importantly it puts you at great risk. If you've exhausted all reasonable redress then fine, kick his ass to kingdom come until such a time as you can make haste your escape..chances are nothing will happen (not to you at least). Do not show yourself in any way to be the aggressor because I can assure you, people like this can and will try and use it against you. Excuse my language too, but fuck them; life's too short. Just do the cordial approach and fuck them. They are not worth the hassle.