Undertaking on Motorway... 176

FWIW, I've just been under my Dispatch and the rears don't have inspection holes. However, I'm not about to argue whether or not other vehicles do or do not have them because it's almost irrelevant. You seem to have great faith in the MOT that I consider misplaced. The point is that MOT tests are not a subsbreastute for proper servicing and that an item properly serviced in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions is unlikely to fail an MOT. Proper servicing is thus more likely to ensure safety than is the MOT.

The MOT is an examination only to ensure that an item meets with the ministry's minimum acceptable performance on the day. That minimum might well be significantly below the manufacturer's design minimum, so the item might have a potentially dangerous fault yet it will pbutt. In contrast the same item would be examined in depth during a service to the manufacturer's higher standard.

The MOT takes no action to keep the vehicle roadworthy. For example, if the manufacturer's service schedule says to strip, examine, replace if required, lubricate, and rebuttemble, the MOT instructions would say to examine only and then only if possible without dismantling.

Cars usually have standard warranty of between one and three years and an anti-perforation warranty for a few years past that, whereas caravans usually have a general warranty of three years with an anti-water-ingress warranty for five or six years. AFAICT, anti-perforation warranties tend to rely on restrictive clauses (inside to out only) or at most require bodywork-only inspection whereas anti-water-ingress warranties require a full annual service. So, there is a real incentive for caravans to be properly looked after for much longer than that incentive exists for cars.

-- Geoff