Model Reports 8 min read Updated 11 Sep 2026 DVSA open data · 1,899 tests analysed

Citroen Nemo 2010: reliability & common MOT faults

887 first-attempt MOT failures were recorded on the 2010 Citroen Nemo in 2025. Figures are among first-attempt failed MOT tests, not among all tests.

Coil spring (front) was the most common reason a 2010 Nemo failed its MOT — 14.2% of its failed first attempts.

First-attempt pass

53.3%

of 1,899 first tests (2025)

First tests

1,899

test year 2025

Failed first attempts

887

failed first-attempt tests

MOT pass rates

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

First-attempt pass

53.3%

of 1,899 first tests (2025)

Official-style pass

61.8%

incl. same-day PRS fixes

First tests

1,899

class 4 · first MOT of the year

Typical age 15.0 yrs · median mileage 109,937 mi

vs 2024: -2.1 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 816 of 887 failed first attempts (92.0%) that recorded an odometer reading in 2025 — the subset the age-and-mileage comparison can be computed on. 8.0% of failures are excluded for want of a mileage reading, so treat these shares as indicative for this model year.

Standout: Prescribed areas — 3.6% of this year's failed first attempts

Recorded on 29 of those tests. It tops the table on elevation — about 11× 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.

No patterns met the strongest callout thresholds on this page; showing the highest-lift rows that still cleared the display floors.

Fault pattern Location Failures vs similar cars Share of fails Confidence
Prescribed areas
Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems > Seat belts > Prescribed areas
 Any 29 ×11 3.6% Possible
Macpherson strut (front)
Suspension > Macpherson strut > Macpherson strut
 Front 26 ×5.5 3.2% Possible
Individual direction indicators (rear)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Direction indicators > Flashing type > Individual direction indicators
 Rear 67 ×3.7 8.2% Likely
Shock absorbers (rear)
Suspension > Shock absorbers
 Rear 68 ×2.9 8.3% Possible
Component mounting prescribed areas (rear)
Suspension > Component mounting prescribed areas
 Rear 43 ×2.8 5.3% Possible
Position lamp (rear)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Position lamps > Position lamp
 Rear 57 ×2.7 7.0% Possible
Malfunction indicator lamp
Noise, emissions and leaks > Exhaust emissions > Compression ignition > Malfunction indicator lamp
 Any 45 ×2.3 5.5% Possible
Shock absorbers (front)
Suspension > Shock absorbers
 Front 46 ×2.3 5.6% Possible
Coil spring (front)
Suspension > Springs > Coil springs > Coil spring
 Front 116 ×2.1 14.2% 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
Pipes and hoses
Steering > Power steering > Pipes and hoses
 Any 29 ×15 3.6% Elevated
Headlamp
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Headlamps > Headlamp
 Any 25 ×3.9 3.1% Elevated
Flexible brake hoses (rear)
Brakes > Flexible brake hoses
 Rear 41 ×3.2 5.0% Elevated
Suspension arm (front)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Suspension arm
 Front 29 ×2.0 3.6% 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 Nemos either side of it, so buy on the individual car. The checks below are the items that actually failed 2010 Nemos, commonest first.

What to check on a 2010 Nemo

The items that failed 2010 Nemos 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.

  • Coil spring (front) — recorded on 14.2% of failed first attempts
  • Position lamp (front) — recorded on 9.4% of failed first attempts
  • Tread depth (front) — recorded on 9.1% of failed first attempts
  • Shock absorbers (rear) — recorded on 8.3% of failed first attempts
  • Individual direction indicators (rear) — recorded on 8.2% 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.

Coil spring (front) was the most common reason a 2010 Nemo failed its MOT — 14.2% of its failed first attempts. In 2025, 53.3% of 1,899 first MOTs on the 2010 Citroen Nemo passed first time (PRS — items fixed at the station the same day — counted as a fail). The official-style rate including PRS is 61.8%. Among 887 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Prescribed areas appears more often than on similar c…
Ranked by how often they were actually recorded, the items that failed 2010 Citroen Nemos most often at the first attempt were Coil spring (front) (14.2%), Position lamp (front) (9.4%) and Tread depth (front) (9.1%) — 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 answers.
Among failed first-attempt tests we highlight patterns that appear more often than on similar cars. Top example: Prescribed areas (3.6% of those tests; 29 observed failures; about 11× more often than similar cars). These are statistical signals, not a diagnosis of any individual car.
Prescribed areas shows up more often than on similar cars (3.6% of those tests; 29 observed failures; about 11× 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 2010 Citroen Nemo include Prescribed areas, Macpherson strut (front), Individual direction indicators (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 2010 Citroen Nemo (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