fuel system

The Filler Neck isn't Fuel Pipe though Gaz, two contrasting designs.

1. Stronger externally to prevent external damage, under no pressure, large diameter and connect the fuel tank to the outer neck end...

i)

2. Stronger internally (thicker walls), to withstand pressure from the inside, under high pressure {as high as 225 PSI), small outer diameter and connect the fuel tank to the fuel metering device...

i)

ii)

MoI 2 in Sec 7.2 checks fuel pipes and hoses

MoI 4 in Sec 7.2 checks the fuel tank cap /filler neck

If it's brimming with fuel and leaking it's a Fail anyway....

If not leaking it's a P&A for me..

Yes they do hold pressure David otherwise why would we check the sealing arrangement on the cap

Pressure refers to a good tight fit (with resistance) I think Gaz, the only pressure in the fuel system is after the fuel pump. The filler neck has a breather inlet for air to enter so impossible for the filler neck to be under pressure internally....

Would you consider a pipe excessively damaged if it had a hole in it?

Yes certainly

And finally is it leaking at time of test?

Nope, so P&A

Edited to add:

The wording for the cap RfR was changed after a company proved via a video demo that a temp fuel cap actually did prevent fuel leaking if the vehicle overturned Gaz

Everyone seems to be under the assumption that fuel needs to be a liquid. Petrol as a liquid doesn't burn, but the vapour does which is exactly what will be coming out of the hole in the filler neck. Fail for fuel leak.

A trainer on my last refresher said there is an RFR for a car cigarette lighter technically, although he wouldn't tell us how.
Anyone can come up with smart arse comments, David, particularly you, but it doesn't help the public or the forum in general.
If a fuel filler pipe has a hole in it, it is leaking, I would also mark it as dangerous as fuel could ignite if it came in contact with hot exhausts, brakes etc, and is a danger to other motorists, especially motorcyclists.
The DVSA sent an email out 3 days ago regarding this issue:

The Driver & Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) has said it will be taking a more robust approach to vehicles with defective fuel systems, following a Highways Agency report on the effect of fuel spills on the road network.

“It’s not acceptable to contaminate the road surface or to drive a vehicle in such poor condition that a fuel spill is likely,” said the agency

I was also told many years ago back in the 1990's by a VE who said that a hole in the fuel filler neck is a pass and advise. I think DVSA have yet to define the word "damaged" for its use involving the mot because it is not clear in some circumstances how to use it. If DVSA wrote a reason for rejection that said "damage caused by corrosion to a fuel system component", then it would be straight forward to apply.

Does this apply to the mot trade;

movingon.blog.gov.uk/crackdown-on-defective-fuel-systems/

I was told on a refresher many years ago that only the correct fail criteria must be used from the right section of the manual for each refusal.

Can we apply the reasons for rejections from the categorization of vehicle defects or those ideas into the mot scheme?

Maybe DVSA in a while will update the mot manual to bring it in line with their categorization of defects to balance the standards who knows

Just had a quick look at the manual, sure enough fuel filler neck can be failed if it is leaking VAPOUR as there is no mention of what is leaking. No mention of liquid fuel & petrol vapor is highly flammable & more dangerous in my opinion.

Not being a smart arse mjk, simply pointed out that petrols & diesels have the same RfR's with no mention of vapour. It's fuel leaking making roads slippy and dangerous not vapour. Every fuel tank has a breather to allow air in and out depending on the amount of fuel in the tank..

David rfr 3 is what I mean, it just says "leaking" no mention of gas or liquid.