2012 Renault Clio 1.1L Petrol · PJ12 HZU

The 2012 Renault Clio holds a valid MOT certificate issued on 6 May 2026 at 130,611 miles, but the maintenance trend is clearly worsening. The most recent test passed only with three active advisories, including an oil leak and both rear service brakes binding. Just six days prior, on 30 April 2026 at 130,578 miles, the car failed on multiple brake-related defects, including inadequate rear service brake effort, overall service brake efficiency below requirements, and parking brake efficiency below requirements. The tester also flagged a corroded sump, a central oil leak, and several electrical faults. The fact that the car failed on 30 April and passed on 6 May suggests the owner addressed the immediate failure points in a hurry, but the residual advisories on the pass certificate indicate the underlying brake and oil leak issues were not fully resolved. This pattern points to reactive rather than preventative maintenance. The mileage accumulation is broadly typical for a 14-year-old car, averaging roughly 9,300 miles per year. The record shows a gap of over two years between the December 2023 test at 115,294 miles and the May 2025 test at 124,651 miles, representing approximately 9,357 miles in that period, which is consistent with normal use. The most recent activity is notable: 33 miles were covered between the 30 April failure and the 6 May pass, strongly suggesting the car was driven directly from the failure station to a retest after repairs. There are no alarming gaps or sudden spikes in the mileage record, and the annual accumulation rate has remained steady throughout the vehicle's life. A buyer should focus their physical inspection on the braking system and the engine oil circuit. The repeated appearance of binding rear brake calipers across both the April failure and the May pass certificate is a red flag. Binding calipers cause uneven brake disc wear, overheating, and premature pad degradation. The corroded sump flagged in April and the persistent oil leak noted in May suggest the engine has been losing oil or the sump has suffered corrosion-related damage, possibly from road salt exposure or a failed gasket. The tester's description of the sump as corroded rather than merely leaking implies structural deterioration that may worsen. The electrical faults from the April failure, including inoperative washers and a failed offside rear indicator and registration plate lamp, appear to have been rectified for the May pass, but a buyer should verify all lighting and washer functions operate correctly on the day of inspection. Beyond the MOT record, the car's age and mileage warrant a close check of suspension bushes, coil springs, and exhaust condition. With over 130,000 miles on original or replacement components, suspension wear is expected. The absence of any suspension-related advisories in the record is encouraging but does not guarantee components are sound. A thorough test drive over uneven surfaces and a visual inspection underneath for corrosion, particularly around the sump, brake lines, and exhaust mounting points, would provide a clearer picture of the car's structural integrity and whether the owner has invested in genuine repairs or merely patched the car through its MOT.