Model Reports 8 min read Updated 12 Jul 2026

Peugeot Partner 2017: reliability & common MOT faults

Elevated MOT failure patterns for the 2017 Peugeot Partner include Seat belts — Condition (~17.7× peers) and Electrical equipment — Horn (~10.7× peers). Based on UK DVSA open data for test year 2025 (5,174 failed first-attempt tests), compared with similar age and mileage peers. Available test years: 2024, 2025.

5,174 failed first-attempt tests · 13,059 first tests (test year 2025)

Standout pattern: Seat belts — Condition — about 17.7× more often than on similar peer cars.

Key takeaways before you buy

  • Seat belts — Condition: about 17.7× more often than similar cars
  • Electrical equipment — Horn: about 10.7× more often than similar cars
  • Seat belts — Condition (front): about 9.2× more often than similar cars

Common faults

These are MOT failure patterns that show up more often on this registration year than on similar cars of the same class, age band, and mileage in the same test year (leave-one-out peer comparison; whole model family excluded).

Statistical patterns from MOT defect codes — not manufacturer TSBs, recalls, or a diagnosis of any individual car. Fail and advisory patterns are kept separate.

Based on 5,174 failed first-attempt tests in test year 2025.

Seat belts — Condition

This failure pattern appears about 17.7× more often than on similar peer cars — recorded on 112 failed first-attempt tests; 2.2% of failed tests for this model year.

Any · 112 failures · ×17.7 vs similar cars · 2.2% of failed first tests · Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars

Electrical equipment — Horn

This failure pattern appears about 10.7× more often than on similar peer cars — recorded on 347 failed first-attempt tests; 6.7% of failed tests for this model year.

Any · 347 failures · ×10.7 vs similar cars · 6.7% of failed first tests · Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars

Seat belts — Condition (front)

This failure pattern appears about 9.2× more often than on similar peer cars — recorded on 197 failed first-attempt tests; 3.8% of failed tests for this model year.

Front · 197 failures · ×9.2 vs similar cars · 3.8% of failed first tests · Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars

# Fault pattern Location Failures vs similar cars Share of fails Confidence
1 Seat belts — Condition
Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems > Seat belts > Condition
 Any 112 ×17.7 2.2% Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars
2 Electrical equipment — Horn
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Electrical equipment > Horn
 Any 347 ×10.7 6.7% Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars
3 Seat belts — Condition (front)
Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems > Seat belts > Condition
 Front 197 ×9.2 3.8% Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars
4 Pedal
Brakes > Service brake pedal or hand lever > Pedal
 Any 125 ×7.7 2.4% Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars
5 Position lamp (front)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Position lamps > Position lamp
 Front 1,281 ×7.1 24.8% Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars
6 Exhaust system (front)
Body, chassis, structure > Exhaust system
 Front 124 ×5.5 2.4% Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars
7 Individual direction indicators (rear)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Direction indicators > Flashing type > Individual direction indicators
 Rear 135 ×4.7 2.6% Likely common fault pattern
8 Stop lamp
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Stop lamp
 Any 683 ×4.4 13.2% Likely common fault pattern
9 Stop lamp (rear)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Stop lamp
 Rear 548 ×3.7 10.6% Likely common fault pattern
10 Registration plate lamp(s)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Registration plate lamp(s)
 Any 543 ×3.3 10.5% Likely common fault pattern

Only patterns that clear minimum sample and elevation thresholds are shown (at least 20 failures and 2.0× peer lift).

Advisories

Advisory items recorded on failed first-attempt tests that appear elevated versus peers. Advisories are not a fail rate — they flag issues noted at the test, often before they become failures.

# Advisory pattern Location Notes vs similar cars Share Confidence
1 Stop lamp
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Stop lamp
 Any 152 ×8.9 2.9% Likely common fault pattern
2 Individual direction indicators (rear)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Direction indicators > Flashing type > Individual direction indicators
 Rear 172 ×7.7 3.3% Likely common fault pattern
3 Stop lamp (rear)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Stop lamp
 Rear 66 ×7.1 1.3% Likely common fault pattern
4 Exhaust system (front)
Body, chassis, structure > Exhaust system
 Front 179 ×4.4 3.5% Strong pattern — appears far more often than similar cars
5 Exhaust system
Body, chassis, structure > Exhaust system
 Any 140 ×3.0 2.7% Likely common fault pattern
6 Service brake performance (rear)
Brakes > Brake performance > Service brake performance > Plate brake tester > Service brake performance
 Rear 37 ×2.8 0.7% Elevated vs peers
7 Engine oil leaks
Noise, emissions and leaks > Fluid leaks > Engine oil leaks
 Any 638 ×2.5 12.3% Possible elevated fault
8 Service brake performance (rear)
Brakes > Brake performance > Service brake performance > Rbt > Service brake performance
 Rear 157 ×2.4 3.0% Elevated vs peers

FAQs

We do not show a single reliability score for the 2017 Peugeot Partner on this page. Among 5,174 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Seat belts — Condition appears more often than on similar peer cars (about 17.7× more often than peers; 112 observed failures; 2.2% of failed tests). Treat this as a pre-purchase checklist from DVSA open data — not a guarantee for any individual car.
Among failed first-attempt tests we surface patterns that appear more often than on similar peer cars. Top example: Seat belts — Condition (about 17.7× more often than peers; 112 observed failures; 2.2% of failed tests). These are statistical signals, not a diagnosis of any individual car.
Seat belts — Condition shows up more often than on similar peer cars (about 17.7× more often than peers; 112 observed failures; 2.2% of failed tests). That does not prove a causal design fault — age, mileage, and usage still matter. Treat it as a pre-purchase check point, not a manufacturer TSB.
Common MOT problem areas for the 2017 Peugeot Partner include Seat belts — Condition, Electrical equipment — Horn, Seat belts — Condition (front). These are elevated versus similar peer cars where lift clears our floors — not a full list of every possible fault on an individual car.
Advisories flag issues noted at the test and are not a fail rate. We show advisory patterns that look elevated versus peers among failed first-attempt tests, separate from common failure rows. Use them as early-warning checks, not as a pass/fail score.
This page highlights elevated MOT failure patterns for the 2017 Peugeot Partner (registration year) using UK DVSA open data for the selected test year. Patterns are ranked against similar age and mileage peers. It is a buyer checklist from MOT defect statistics — not a full service history or manufacturer TSB list.
No. MOT tests do not cover engine internals, gearboxes, or many electronic modules. Patterns here come from MOT defect statistics only and should not be read as engine or gearbox reliability scores.
PRS means the vehicle failed items that were fixed at the test station and then passed the same day. We count PRS as a first-attempt fail in headline rates so same-day repairs do not hide problems.

About this data

Universe. UK class 4 cars only; normal MOT tests (not retests); results pass, PRS, or fail; one first test per vehicle per calendar year.

PRS policy. PRS means the vehicle failed items that were fixed at the test station and then passed the same day. We count PRS as a first-attempt fail in headline rates so same-day repairs do not hide problems.

Peer baseline. We compare this model year with other class 4 cars of similar age and mileage in the same test year, excluding the whole model family so the car is not compared with itself (leave-one-out peer baseline).

Data years. Test years covered: 2024, 2025.

Limitations.

  • MOT tests do not cover engine internals, gearboxes, or many electronic modules — so this is not a full reliability score.
  • Common faults are inferred from MOT defect statistics, not manufacturer TSBs or recalls.
  • Matching on age and mileage reduces but does not remove every usage or maintenance difference between cars.
  • Pass rates and star scores appear only when those data marts are available; this page never invents them.

Display rules config: 1

Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.

Most reliable Peugeot models

See brand-wide MOT rankings and year guidance for Peugeot (separate from this model-year report).