Seat belt buckle

If can see them and access them easily I dig them out if not I fail them.

I've come close  to  that and I won't do it anymore I felt sick to the bone when I seen It were close to clouting the customer the dirty smack rat   

Getting back to the original question about checking buckles. You don't mention the seating capacity or vehicle in question so I assume this is a general question about seat belt buckles. 

Going with that idea...

If you are presented with a passenger carrying vehicle with five seats inclusive of the driver, and one seat belt in the rear is not accessible like you advise. Why then would it be wrong to advise it knowing that the statutory requirements have been met with the remaining seat belts fitted?

we are supposed to dig em out where possible,before anyone gets on their high horse about it in terms of garbage and crap stacked on em if thats the case you give em the opportunity to remove it or refuse to test(yeah i know,i live in the real world as well)as per the warnings we got 3 yrs back which has been an utter **** on every zafira/galaxy etc ive ever tested since.be also advised that a favourite incognito used to be cutting a rear belt in a section hidden below the seat bolster so if you didnt lift it and look you got done.dont make it illegal to drive with no rear passengers now does it....

Has anyone other than me found a needle ? Under the rear seats

Your not really ignoring them, you are simply advising that the minimum test standards have been complied with but the additional belt/buckle is missing. Pulling the rear seat squad up on a lot of passenger vehicles is quite easy and should be carried out, but as we all know some vehicles have seats that don't lend themselves to being lifted so easily, and if the buckle is seriously trapped underside, it then becomes a serious time issue to try and lift the seats to gain access. Last time I checked there was no reason to refuse or abandon the test for this problem, hence the only thing I can use to pass the can of worms is the good old pass and advise it.  

Maybe a good job DVSA are saying we must learn the Testing Guide this year!

No NT/AE or member of the MOT scheme can abort the test because of access to a testable component.

Abort

The term used when a test cannot be completed because of a problem

with the VTS’s/DCs testing equipment or the Tester.

No fee may be
charged for the test. 

The tester won't have a problem until the hands have been placed into places that could cause serious medical issues. However if the vehicle is presented in such a condition that the opinion of the tester thinks they vehicle is too dirty to test, then a refusal is justified. A tester with hindsight understands that there is a possibility of needles etc in vehicles in the day and age we live, and I'm sure DVSA would not have much of a leg to stand on if they questioned an NT's rights under Health and Safety.  

Do excuse me please, obviously I should have said 'abandon' rather than 'abort', and any tester who feels that continuing a test for whatever reason will put him or her in danger is able to stop the test. There is no cause to think DVSA would question that.

Sorry jock but maybe I'm not coming through clearly on this. I'm not convinced it is justified to abandon a test because a seat belt buckle cannot be assessed on a vehicle that has the correct number of statutory fitment belts, thus a buckle not able to be tested becomes an additional belt over and above the statutory requirements. I agree all belts should be tested as presented but if a defect on an additional belt was then observed it would be a pass and advise anyway. If a vehicle only requires two belts out of three and two are functioning correctly and the third belt buckle is missing or inaccessible, then it has been tested as far as humanly possible and the vehicle meets the minimum requirements, so I don't see the issue?