suspension movement

If it was a hydraulic suspension could you not of failed it on no suspension movement.

pay attention,its now moving,it fsiled on not moving,now it does(however poorly)cos its got no oil in it,no failure for empty reservoir.

Is no movement only a fail on hydraulic suspension ?

As far as I am aware we can't fail 206s when the rear arms are siezed solid and there is no movement on them .

Its a fail on hydraulic/air/fluid suspension.

I should of put fluid/gas/air.as in the manual

given that it aint a fail how do I refuse to test it?its not gonna stop it moving,it aint gonna stop me completing it,it aint gonna blow up,my point is that this particular sh1theap is owned by a retired trader who knows as many(or more)loopholes than we do,safety wise its no better,but now I gotta pass it.pretty sad indictment of the system aint it?just to rub salt into the wound its a travelling eyesore/patch collection with pull me over written all over it.no point to its continued existence on any grounds whatsoever except possibly as spare parts.

yup,bounce it and you now get a little bit of give followed by whats best described as a kangaroo having an epileptic fit,it just keeps bouncing like the dampers are made from spring steel,you know,the effect you get when you twang a ruler.the internal gas cushions have clearly given up/disintegrated and its now using the oil as a springing medium.some idjits shud take the bus....

Well obviously, but when you consider this whole thing is about road safety, it is a ludicrous idea to be passing a vehicle while saying it is dangerous to drive on the road.

If a reservoir is showing no fluid and depending on what fluid is actually remaining in the system ,lack of fluid could damage the pump, that could happen during the mot,who knows but it's not a risk worth taking,you know the score.

There is a difference in a suspension stiff by design and a suspension being stiff due to defects and the manual states ensure that defect is present before failing or something along those lines.

The reason for rejection is " no movement" and ya as someone said it does not state "how much movement"?
Is it not one of those cases where the tester should be expected to use his knowledge and experience to determine if the movement although small is enough to pass/advise,in other words it's up to the tester.
With this design of fluid/ gas the rear suspension should have more then just a little movement and seems obvious that it's defective and unsafe .
You reluctantly passed/advised where I would of proberly refused to test it or fail it !!! But that's the world of testing.