MOT advisory: track rod end ball joint has slight play
Track rod ends link the steering rack to the wheels. Each has a small ball joint that wears over time. The tester felt a little play in the joint, more than a new one would have but not enough to fail.
What the tester wrote
| Result | Wording on the certificate | Category |
|---|---|---|
| Advisory | Track rod end: ball joint has slight play | Advisory (pass) |
| Fail | Track rod end: ball joint has excessive play | Major |
What the MOT checks
With someone turning the steering, or with the wheel rocked, the tester watches each joint for movement. Too much play fails. Some joints have built-in clearance or spring loading, so the tester has to tell normal movement from wear. That's why slight play is noted rather than failed.
A worn joint can also let the wheel alignment change.
"Relative movement due to excessive wear must be distinguished from relative movement due to built-in clearance or spring loading of a joint."
MOT inspection manual, section 2.1.3 Steering linkage condition. Read it on GOV.UK
How common it is
In 2025 this advisory was recorded on 1.1 in every 100 class 4 MOT tests (365,648 of 33,210,774 initial tests). The matching fail was recorded on 1.1 in every 100 (349,852 tests).
The typical car with the advisory was 13 years old with 100,935 miles recorded (medians).
| Age at test (years) | Advisory per 100 tests | Fail per 100 tests |
|---|---|---|
| 0-2 | not shown | not shown |
| 3 | not shown | not shown |
| 4-5 | 0.3 | 0.2 |
| 6-7 | 0.4 | 0.3 |
| 8-10 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| 11-14 | 1.8 | 1.9 |
| 15-19 | 2.0 | 1.8 |
| 20+ | 2.1 | 1.5 |
'Not shown' means fewer than 1,000 tests in that cell, or a cell hidden so a small one can't be worked out. Age is years since first registration. First MOTs often happen just before a car's third birthday, so many show as age 2.
Does it turn into a fail at the next MOT?
We followed the same cars to their next MOT, 240 to 500 days later (275,455 pairs where this advisory was recorded). 16.4% failed on the same item at that next test, and another 17.1% had the same advisory again.
Among cars where this item wasn't noted at all, 0.92% failed on it next time. So a car with this advisory was about 18 times as likely to fail on this item as one without it.
These are averages. We can't see what owners did between tests. Some will have fixed the problem, and a fix would stop a fail.
What it usually means for a buyer
Of the ten advisories in this pilot, this is the one most likely to come back as a fail on the same item at the next MOT. Steering joints wear steadily and don't get better, so if the seller has done nothing since the test, expect it to need replacing.
On the test drive, listen for a knock when you turn the wheel at low speed. Check the inner and outer edges of the front tyres for uneven wear too.
Typical fix
The track rod end is replaced and the front wheel alignment is reset afterwards, because changing the part alters the toe setting. Prices vary a lot by car and garage, so get a quote for the specific car.
Questions to ask the seller
You can read any car's MOT history, including advisories, free on GOV.UK. Our MOT advisory decoder explains the other notes in plain English.
Related MOT advisories
- Suspension arm pin or bush worn
- Tyre tread worn close to the legal limit
- All MOT defects
- Buying a used car: a step-by-step guide
Sources and limitations
- Data: DVSA MOT anonymised test results and test items, class 4 initial tests, 2024 and 2025 (open data on GOV.UK). Same DVSA data as our MOT dataset.
- 'Fail' includes items fixed at the test centre within an hour (pass after rectification).
- An advisory is a tester's judgement on the day. Testers differ, and some problems are not visible at an MOT.
- The MOT is not a service and does not check the engine, clutch or gearbox in depth.
- Counts under 1,000 are not shown. No make or model figures are published here.
Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Source: Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA), MOT Anonymised Data. Analysis by CarCheckHQ. Not endorsed by DVSA.
Written by the CarCheckHQ team.