Model Reports 8 min read Updated 11 Sep 2026 DVSA open data · 4,001 tests analysed

Citroen Berlingo 2006: reliability & common MOT faults

1,900 first-attempt MOT failures were recorded on the 2006 Citroen Berlingo in 2025. Figures are among first-attempt failed MOT tests, not among all tests.

Position lamp (front) was the most common reason a 2006 Berlingo failed its MOT — 10.4% of its failed first attempts.

First-attempt pass

52.5%

of 4,001 first tests (2025)

First tests

4,001

test year 2025

Failed first attempts

1,900

failed first-attempt tests

MOT pass rates

First-attempt and official-style rates among class 4 first tests of the year.

First-attempt pass

52.5%

of 4,001 first tests (2025)

Official-style pass

61.1%

incl. same-day PRS fixes

First tests

4,001

class 4 · first MOT of the year

Typical age 19.0 yrs · median mileage 115,119 mi

vs 2024: +1.3 pp first-attempt

Note:

  • Class 4 cars · first MOT of the year per vehicle · P/PRS/F outcomes (2025 data).
  • PRS (fixed at the station the same day) counts as a fail in the first-attempt rate.
  • Raw outcomes for this cohort — not adjusted for age, mileage, or peer mix.
  • MOT doesn't test engine or gearbox internals.

Common faults

Failure patterns that show up more often on this registration year than on similar cars.

These MOT failure patterns show up more often on this registration year than on similar cars of the same class, age, and mileage.

Shares below are measured across the 1,897 of 1,900 failed first attempts (99.8%) that recorded an odometer reading in 2025 — the subset the age-and-mileage comparison can be computed on.

Standout: Electrical equipment — Horn — 6.9% of this year's failed first attempts

Recorded on 131 of those tests. It tops the table on elevation — about 5.1× more often than on similar cars of the same age and mileage. That is what makes it unusual for its class, which is a different question from what is most likely to fail; the buying checklist ranks by that. The full ranked list is in the table below.

Fault pattern Location Failures vs similar cars Share of fails Confidence
Load sensing valves
Brakes > Load sensing valves
 Any 50 ×49 2.6% Likely
Door condition (rear)
Body, chassis, structure > Doors > Other passenger's door > Door condition
 Rear 48 ×5.5 2.5% Likely
Electrical equipment — Horn
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Electrical equipment > Horn
 Any 131 ×5.1 6.9% Strong
Steering rack (front)
Steering > Steering gear > Steering rack
 Front 51 ×4.9 2.7% Likely
Service brake performance
Brakes > Brake performance > Service Brake Efficiency (sp) > Rbt (sp) > Service brake performance
 Any 56 ×3.9 3.0% Likely
Rigid brake pipes
Brakes > Rigid brake pipes
 Any 38 ×2.3 2.0% Possible
Wheel bearings (front)
Suspension > Wheel bearings
 Front 69 ×2.3 3.6% Possible
SRS malfunction indicator lamp
Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems > SRS malfunction indicator lamp
 Any 122 ×2.2 6.4% Possible
Exhaust system (rear)
Body, chassis, structure > Exhaust system
 Rear 86 ×2.1 4.5% Possible
Position lamp (rear)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Position lamps > Position lamp
 Rear 120 ×2.0 6.3% Possible

Only patterns that clear minimum sample and elevation thresholds are shown (at least 20 failures and about 2.0× more often than similar cars).

Note: Rates and comparisons are among first-attempt failed tests, not all MOTs. Patterns come from MOT defect codes — not manufacturer service bulletins, recalls, or a diagnosis of any individual car. Failures and advisories are listed separately.

Advisories

Notes recorded at the test that appear more often than on similar cars.

Advisory notes recorded on failed first-attempt tests that appear more often than on similar cars.

Advisory pattern Location Notes vs similar cars Share Confidence
Other components
Steering > Power steering > Other components
 Any 38 ×3.8 2.0% Elevated
Individual direction indicators (front)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Direction indicators > Flashing type > Individual direction indicators
 Front 53 ×2.7 2.8% Elevated
Pipes and hoses
Steering > Power steering > Pipes and hoses
 Any 27 ×2.5 1.4% Elevated
Linkage ball joints (front)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Linkage ball joints
 Front 100 ×2.4 5.3% Elevated
Seat belts — Condition (front)
Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems > Seat belts > Condition
 Front 43 ×2.1 2.3% Elevated
Note: Advisories are not a fail rate — they flag issues noted at the test, often before they become failures.

If you are buying one

What this year's MOT record means for the decision in front of you.

Nothing separates this year from the Berlingos either side of it, so buy on the individual car. The checks below are the items that actually failed 2006 Berlingos, commonest first.

What to check on a 2006 Berlingo

The items that failed 2006 Berlingos most often, as a share of the year's failed first attempts. This is what goes wrong, not what is unusual — the table further up the page covers that.

  • Position lamp (front) — recorded on 10.4% of failed first attempts
  • Stop lamp — recorded on 9.8% of failed first attempts
  • Drive shafts — Joints (front) — recorded on 8.8% of failed first attempts
  • Ball joint (front) — recorded on 8.5% of failed first attempts
  • Tyres — Condition (rear) — recorded on 7.6% of failed first attempts

Every figure here is a first-attempt MOT rate from DVSA open data for this model line. MOTs do not test engine or gearbox internals, so this is a pre-purchase checklist, not a full reliability score.

FAQs

Short answers about how to read this model-year guide.

Position lamp (front) was the most common reason a 2006 Berlingo failed its MOT — 10.4% of its failed first attempts. In 2025, 52.5% of 4,001 first MOTs on the 2006 Citroen Berlingo passed first time (PRS — items fixed at the station the same day — counted as a fail). The official-style rate including PRS is 61.1%. Among 1,900 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Electrical equipment — Horn appears more…
Ranked by how often they were actually recorded, the items that failed 2006 Citroen Berlingos most often at the first attempt were Position lamp (front) (10.4%), Stop lamp (9.8%) and Drive shafts — Joints (front) (8.8%) — each as a share of the year's failed first attempts. That is what goes wrong on the car. It is a different question from which patterns are unusual for the class, which the common-faults table answ…
Among failed first-attempt tests we highlight patterns that appear more often than on similar cars. Top example: Electrical equipment — Horn (6.9% of those tests; 131 observed failures; about 5.1× more often than similar cars). These are statistical signals, not a diagnosis of any individual car.
Electrical equipment — Horn shows up more often than on similar cars (6.9% of those tests; 131 observed failures; about 5.1× more often than similar cars). That does not prove a design fault — age, mileage, and how the car was used still matter. Treat it as a pre-purchase check point, not a manufacturer service bulletin.
Common MOT problem areas for the 2006 Citroen Berlingo include Electrical equipment — Horn, Load sensing valves, Door condition (rear). These patterns show up more often than on similar cars after we filter out sparse noise — 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 appear more often than on similar cars 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 MOT failure patterns for the 2006 Citroen Berlingo (registration year) using UK DVSA open data for the selected test year. Patterns are compared with cars of a similar age and mileage. It is a buyer checklist from MOT defect statistics — not a full service history or manufacturer service-bulletin 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.

About this data

How this page is built and what it can (and can't) say.

These figures come from UK MOT open data for this model year. We surface common failure patterns against similar cars — not a full reliability score, and not a pass/fail verdict on any individual vehicle.

2024 2025

What we include

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

Same-day repairs

PRS means the car 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.

How we compare

We compare this model year with other Class 4 cars of similar age and mileage in the same test year. This model family is left out of the peer group so the car is not measured against itself.

What this does not cover

  • MOTs do not cover engine internals, gearboxes, or many electronics — this is not a full reliability score.
  • Common faults come from MOT defect stats, not manufacturer TSBs or recalls.
  • Age and mileage matching reduces — but does not remove — differences in how cars were used and maintained.
  • We never invent pass rates, star scores, or ranks when those data marts are missing.

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

Check any vehicle’s MOT history

Full MOT history, mileage records, and reliability insights for any UK vehicle.

Run a free check