MOT TEST (MR. WILLIAM TINGEY) (Hansard, 18 June 1975)

§ Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson (Newbury)

Although the hour is late I am grateful for the chance to have this Adjournment debate to discuss the problems which confronted one of my constituents, Mr. William Tingey, of Speen, since he took his motor cycle, a Japanese Suzuki 120, for an MOT test in Newbury in February 1973. It was not the first test that the machine had had. In 1972 it had been tested at Redhill and passed.

Alas for Mr. Tingey, when he took the machine to Newbury in February 1973 he was not so successful. Instead of that machine passing the test, it failed and on two scores—that the frame was bent and that the headraces were too tight.

Mr. Tingey found this hard to believe. He had bought the machine all but new in 1967 in Vancouver and had owned it for the following six years until the time of the test, in which time he had ridden it 85,000 miles. It is therefore fair to say that he knew the machine extremely well, having ridden it not only in Canada but in the United States, and he had brought it back to this country where it was an essential part of his personal transport. He also knew of the damage it had sustained. It had a damaged headlight surround when he bought it and in Oklahoma City it had fallen against a lamp post and suffered a dent to the petrol tank. But apart from those two minor pieces of damage, there was no other damage of any kind.

Thus, when the machine failed its test, he was extremely surprised—so much so that he could not believe that it had failed on the grounds stated, namely a bent frame and too tight headraces. He took the course open to him and to every other citizen. He appealed and was granted a second test, which took place on 20th March, 1973 in Newbury and was carried out by two Department of Environment inspectors, Mr. John West and Senior Vehicle Examiner R. J. Davidson.

In this new test, the examiners dismissed the first complaint made at the test in February, that the headraces were 1614 too tight. They said they were not and assumed that Mr. Tingey had adjusted them in the meantime. He informed me that he had done nothing at all.

He was still refused a test certificate on the grounds that the frame was misaligned and that the front wheel was approximately one and a half inches out of alignment with the rear wheel. On that basis they refused the machine a certificate and, in consequence, Mr. Tingey had to take it off the road.

At that point, faced with two failures in MOT tests, any of us might have felt that we should take the machine to a local garage and have it put right. But that would depend on the knowledge we had of the machine and whether we felt that the tests had been carried out in the best possible way.

Mr. Tingey knew his machine extremely well, because he had had it six years and ridden it 85,000 miles, and he was also suspicious that those who had examined it were not quite as well equipped to do that job as he would have liked to feel. The first set of examiners had said the headraces were too tight and the second set had said they were not. The first set had said that the frame was bent and the second merely that it was misaligned. Mr. Tingey felt that he knew more about the machine than the examiners, but because it had been failed by Department of Environment inspectors, he felt that it was his task to find out exactly on what grounds they had failed it.

They had chosen misalignment of the frame as the main cause for failing the machine on its machine test. Therefore, Mr. Tingey asked whether they would point out to him how he could discover this misalignment in the frame. They made it clear that he must strip the machine down to its basic frame with the two wheels. I have here a photograph of the machine stripped down to its basic frame with the two wheels. They also pointed out that by using a string attached to the rear wheel brought forward to the front wheel he would see how much the wheels were out of alignment.

This gave Mr. Tingey the first clue that the examiners were not quite as good as they might have thought they were. When he carried out the latter 1615 test—leaving aside the fact that he found no bend in the frame—he discovered that because the front tyre was narrower than the rear tyre there was apparently a misalignment, not caused by a mechanical defect, but created because the tyre widths were different. He showed me that test and he wondered whether that might have been the area which the examiners did not take into consideration when they failed his machine on appeal.

Having satisfied himself that there was nothing wrong with the machine, Mr. Tingey sought a third party view. At this moment, after the March 1973 test, Mr. Tingey suffered two very sad bereavements in the death of his fianceé and her father, which for five or six months cast everything out of his mind. When he recovered his equilibrium and returned to the fact that his machine was off the road, knowing that his machine had been wrongly examined, he came to the conclusion that the only way to satisfy himself that his judgment was correct was to take the machine to the Suzuki agents in Croydon and ask them to test the frame for him, and that is what he did.

I have in front of me a copy of the letter which the Suzuki agents sent to him on 21st November 1973 and, at the risk of boring you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the Minister, I will read one or two paragraphs from that letter which are fairly crucial to the reason for this Adjournment debate. The Minister will perhaps have seen the letter, but I shall refresh his memory if I may. The letter was written to Mr. William Tingey: The writer wishes to refer to your letter of 19th and 21st November and your visit to our works here at Croydon". I remind the Minister that Mr. Tingey put his machine on a little trolley behind his bicycle and rode it to Croydon to prove his point. In this connection we wish to advise you of the following. An extensive check has been carried out to the frame swing arm and front fork assembly of frame No. 5003 submitted to us for examination. Full examination of the frame submitted was completed in our workshop, and we would advise no misalignment is evident between the three assemblies. The only discrepancy visible is that of slight distortion of the engine mounting plates which would have no bearing whatsoever on the frame alignment. Careful inspection was made to the pressed steel sections around the steering 1616 head and no visible damage in this area has been sustained. The whole frame assembly for the road mileage covered by this machine is in extremely good condition. In view of the foregoing comments we cannot understand how in the first instance it could have been alleged by your dealer that this frame was possibly bent and out of alignment through accident damage. Their calculations must, we assume, have been brought about through insufficient attention being paid to the correct procedure in carrying out a wheel alignment test. So, Suzuki, the makers of this machine, categorically say that there is no bend, no misalignment, and that the machine is in remarkably good condition bearing in mind its age and the distance it has travelled.

One may ask whether Suzuki could have said that because it was one of its machines. But Suzuki is a company with a considerable reputation and I cannot imagine that it would wish to lend its name to a false statement about one of its machines if that machine was unsafe. I therefore conclude that the test was rigorously carried out and that the results achieved were correct.

One is forced, therefore, to ask some simple questions. If Suzuki was right, the examiners were not right. How shall we know who was right? It is not for me to cast aspersions, but the examiners have to prove that they know as much about motor bikes and mopeds as the Department has hitherto said they do. Are Mr. Davidson and Mr. West fully informed about the testing procedures involved? Do they have the knowledge and experience of Suzuki machines which would allow them to say that Suzuki is wrong although it has carried out these exhaustive tests?

I ask the Minister whether, in his opinion, if there is this area of doubt, the last word should rest with the Department. If the Department says, regardless of the Suzuki report, that its examiners were not wrong, the doubt of an injustice must spring to mind, and I remind the hon. Gentleman of some words used by a Parliamentarian on another case: It will be a bad day for the House of Commons, and for those who work within its walls, if they grow weary of the complaints even of the lowest of Her Majesty's subjects. In those complaints may lie an un-redressed wrong or a grave injustice which, once discovered, can be remedied. And that is one of Parliament's most important tasks. Indeed it is.

1617 I believe that Mr. Tingey is the victim of just such an injustice, imposed not by knavery but by ignorance of the finer points of his machine. He believes in his case and he has already bombarded the Department with letters because he senses this injustice. Tonight, the hon. Gentleman has a chance to redress that injustice.

Will the hon. Gentleman allow Mr. Tingey a further appeal test to be carried out on the frame of his machine? I assure the hon. Gentleman that if, when these inspectors examine the frame, they can prove—and I shall be there—that the frame is bent or misaligned, both Mr. Tingey and I will be satisfied. But if they cannot prove it, it is clear that Mr. Tingey deserves redress I hope that the Minister will agree both to the extra test and to the fact that redress will be the only honourable way for the Department to meet the problem if the misalignment cannot be proved.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Ernest Armstrong)

The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) has raised a matter which has been before my Department for over two years. I am grateful to him for the very reasoned and thoughtful way in which he has put his case, and of course I will take into consideration every word he said.

This has been a very difficult case. A great deal of activity has taken place in the Department over the two years and very detailed consideration has been given by my predecessors to it. It has already gone through all the stages in the courts. Yet it remains a source of dissatisfaction to Mr. Tingey, and I acknowledge, having read the papers very carefully, that Mr. Tingey does feel a genuine sense of grievance. This evening I trust that I shall be able to clear up this matter to the satisfaction of all concerned.

The MOT road worthiness test is the annual test of the basic safety aspects of a motor vehicle—in the case of a motor cycle, steering, lights, brakes and tyres. Requirements for the test are prescribed in the Motor Vehicles (Tests) Regulations 1968. It is designed to ensure that a motor vehicle is fit for use on the road, and in so doing it makes an important 1618 contribution to the reduction of the terrible toll of road accidents, an aim which every Member must surely support.

Tests are carried out by the 18,000 authorised examiners appointed by my right hon. Friend. They conduct some 12 million tests each year. The testing system, in common with most other test systems, depends to a degree on the subjective judgment of these examiners, and there is an appeals procedure whereby my Department's vehicle examiners adjudicate in cases where the test result is disputed. This process works well.

In 1974 there were 11.7 million vehicles tested, and of these 4 million failed. These failures gave rise to 105 appeals and of these 63 were successful. Motor cycle tests numbered 539,000 with 148,000 failures. There were four appeals, two of them successful.

Although the number of appeals is insignificant compared with the number of tests they are none the less treated very seriously indeed by my Department. We go to considerable lengths to ensure that the authorised examiners maintain proper and consistent standards.

The hon. Gentleman has raised the specific case of the test carried out on the motor cycle owned by his constituent, Mr. Tingey, and three main issues have emerged. First, were the original test and the examination following the appeal properly carried out? Secondly, were the departmental engineers who carried out the appeal examination properly qualified? Finally, were they unbiased in their conduct of the appeal?

Mr. Tingey submitted his motor cycle for test on 23rd February 1973. The authorised examiner refused to issue a test certificate on the grounds that the headstock races were tight and the wheels were out of alignment. Mr. Tingey then appealed quite properly on 5th March 1973, and an appeal test was carried out on the premises of the authorised examiner by two of my Department's vehicle examiners. We have no detailed knowledge of the Suzuki letter, but the alignment itself is a simple test. The examiners are competent and experienced. There is no point in a new test as the conditions at the time of the test could not be reproduced if another test were to take place.

1619 The two examiners allowed part of the appeal, taking the view that the headstock races were then satisfactory, but they confirmed that the wheels were misaligned, a fault that was evident to the naked eye, and refused to issue a test certificate. It is an important feature of this case that the contemporary report of the senior vehicle examiner concerned with the appeal stated that Mr. Tingey was satisfied with the way in which the appeal test was conducted and that he agreed that the misalignment was evident. This report was made in March 1973.

On 10th August 1973, some five months later, Mr. Tingey wrote to the South Eastern Traffic Area challenging the methods used to check the wheel alignment and the competence of the examiners. Even at this late stage the Department would have been prepared to carry out a further examination to satisfy an aggrieved citizen, but Mr. Tingey had stripped down his motor cycle and it was no longer possible to ascertain the vehicle's condition at the time of the first test. In the circumstances there was nothing that could be done other than to advise Mr. Tingey to reassemble his machine in a roadworthy condition and submit it for a new MOT test.

Mr. Tingey has always disputed that the frame of his motor cycle was bent as the original examiner found. He adduces in support the opinion of the manufacturer's agents. This is a conflict of testimony which it is now in fact impossible to resolve, but I would point out that the fault from the point of view of the test requirement was not the condition of the frame as such but the fact that the wheels were misaligned, and hence the steering was out of true.

This misalignment could have been caused in several ways. The original tester had suggested that the frame was bent. Indeed, this may well have been the case, as Mr. Tingey admitted at the time that the machine had been damaged by a lamp standard falling on it. But that was in no way material to the reason for refusing a test certificate, which was simply the self-evident misalignment of the wheels.

The Department's engineers who carried out the appeal test were both 1620 experienced vehicle examiners. Both had had extensive experience of motor cycle maintenance before joining the Department, although there is very limited opportunity to conduct motor cycle appeal tests—only four were carried out in 1974—one examiner had previous experience of this. The method they used to measure the misalignment of the wheels is a normal and accepted method of checking this feature and they had the background and ability to do this work properly.

This case has been exhaustively examined on a number of occasions during the past two years. We make no complaint about that. We are anxious to satisfy the person concerned individually on these matters, and I know the importance which any citizen can attach to a test of that kind. There is no evidence to support a view other than that the examiners performed their duties in an exemplary manner. Accusations of bias and corruption seem completely misplaced. Where they were called upon to exercise their subjective judgment they did so in a way which was supported by their superiors and which Mr. Tingey, at least at one time, seems to have accepted. Finally, it is surely implausible to construct such a theory of conspiracy on what in the main seems to be such a trivial episode.

I am only the latest in a series of Ministers who have looked into this case. The hon. Gentleman will know that I have done it with a fresh eye, but I have given careful consideration to all the papers, and I hope he will accept that my judgment too is impartial. But I can see no cause at all to suppose that the examiners were in any way incompetent, or acted with anything but impartiality. I cannot but feel that it is a matter for regret that this case has gone to these lengths. As my hon. Friend recently pointed out to the hon. Gentleman, the cost of repair would have been a few pounds at most. But from this incident there has grown a mass of correspondence and allegations of incompetence and corruption which neither the repeated explanations we have given nor the proceedings in the courts seem to be able to check. I hope that the explanation I have been able to give tonight will finally put Mr. Tingey's mind at rest.

1621 At least Mr. Tingey can feel that his Member of Parliament has done all he can to press the case with my Department. The hon. Gentleman has been persistent, consistent and conscientious. I assure him that we have examined the case carefully and impartially. I hope that my remarks in this debate will assure all concerned, particularly Mr. Tingey. I understand his anxieties, but 1622 I hope he will be assured that we have carried out our side of the matter, that we have done our duty, and that we are satisfied that those responsible undertook their job in an impartial and unbiased way.