Mercedes-Benz Vito 2009: reliability & common MOT faults

In 2025, 60 in every 100 first MOTs on a 2009 Mercedes-Benz Vito were passes. Most common reason for a fail: Handbrake efficiency below minimum (roller test).

Summary

The 2009 Mercedes-Benz Vito follows the pattern of the model years either side.

At a glance

How 3,499 first tests went in 2025.

Passed first time
60 in every 100
Did not pass first time
40 in every 1001,414 failed first-attempt tests
The typical car
16 yearsabout 161,778 miles
First tests counted
3,499

What failed most often

  1. Handbrake efficiency below minimum (roller test)21 in every 100 failed tests
  2. Individual sidelight or tail light (front)12 in every 100 failed tests
  3. Windscreen washers9 in every 100 failed tests

How we count this. Data: UK MOT open data, 2025. Only Class 4 cars on their first MOT of the year are counted. A car that fails and is fixed at the test station still counts as a fail in the first-attempt rate. These are raw results, not adjusted for age, mileage, or peer mix. The MOT does not test engine or gearbox internals.

Note:

These are patterns across 2009 Mercedes-Benz Vito vehicles in 2025, not a prediction that any one car will have them. Faults are grouped by part of the car. They come from MOT defect codes, not manufacturer bulletins, recalls or a diagnosis of any one car.

Brakes

Four faults. The strongest is the rigid brake pipes (front): 5.0 times as often as on similar cars.

Figures below are measured across the 1,407 of 1,414 failed first attempts (99.5%) that recorded an odometer reading in 2025. Mileage is needed to compare like with like.

We only list faults with at least 20 failures and a rate of about 2.0 times that of similar cars, which keeps one-off results out of the list.

Rigid brake pipes (front)

Failed on 65 first tests5.0 times as often as similar carsLikely evidence

What it means

Chafing, corrosion or damage to a rigid brake pipe justifies rejection once its wall thickness is reduced by a set amount, although DVSA accepts this is not easy to determine. If a tester is not sure, the benefit of the doubt applies. A leaking pipe or connection is graded Dangerous on a hydraulic system and Major on an air system.

Also noted as an advisory

Testers also noted it as an advisory, worn but not yet failing, on 156 first tests, 4.0 times as often as on similar cars.

Handbrake lever

Failed on 51 first tests4.0 times as often as similar carsLikely evidence

What it means

A parking brake lever pivot or ratchet mechanism that is obviously worn is graded Minor. It is Major when worn to the extent that the brake may inadvertently release, and also when the ratchet is not holding correctly. A lever must have obvious excessive travel before being rejected.

Brake performance (roller test, front)

Failed on 86 first tests3.7 times as often as similar carsLikely evidence

What it means

A wheel with no recorded braking effort on the roller test is graded Dangerous. Inadequate effort, a brake grabbing severely, abnormal lag and excessive fluctuation in effort are each Major. So is significant brake effort recorded with no brake applied, which indicates a binding brake.

Also noted as an advisory

Testers also noted it as an advisory, worn but not yet failing, on 73 first tests, 2.6 times as often as on similar cars.

Handbrake efficiency below minimum (roller test)

Failed on 298 first tests2.5 times as often as similar carsPossible evidence

What it means

A parking brake with efficiency below the minimum requirement is Major, and graded Dangerous where efficiency is less than half of the required value. On a roller brake tester, the requirement counts as met if more than half of the wheels of a brake system lock. The check applies only to vehicles whose parking brake was not already tested as the secondary brake.

Data: UK MOT open data, 2025. Compared with cars of the same age and mileage. Advisories count notes recorded on failed first tests only.

Body and structure

Two faults. The strongest is the chassis condition (front): 5.0 times as often as on similar cars.

Chassis condition (front)

Failed on 36 first tests5.0 times as often as similar carsLikely evidence

What it means

A main load-bearing structural member that is fractured, deformed, modified or inadequately repaired is Major when structural rigidity is significantly reduced, and Dangerous where steering or braking is likely to be adversely affected. Corrosion of the body, cab or chassis at a mounting point is Dangerous where overall security or stability is impaired.

Also noted as an advisory

Testers also noted it as an advisory, worn but not yet failing, on 20 first tests, 3.5 times as often as on similar cars.

Vehicle structure condition (front)

Failed on 31 first tests4.0 times as often as similar carsLikely evidence

What it means

Structure that is fractured, deformed, corroded, modified or inadequately repaired is failed on rigidity only if the overall structural rigidity of the vehicle is significantly reduced. Structure that is likely to affect steering or braking adversely is graded Dangerous. Prescribed areas are not covered here, as they are checked under other sections, including brakes and steering.

Also noted as an advisory

Testers also noted it as an advisory, worn but not yet failing, on 33 first tests, 5.2 times as often as on similar cars.

Data: UK MOT open data, 2025. Compared with cars of the same age and mileage. Advisories count notes recorded on failed first tests only.

Lamps and electrical

Two faults. The strongest is the rear fog light: 2.9 times as often as on similar cars.

Rear fog light

Failed on 71 first tests2.9 times as often as similar carsPossible evidence

What it means

A missing obligatory rear fog lamp, one that is not working, or one that does not emit a steady red light is graded Major. A rear fog lamp adversely affected by the operation of any other lamp is Major too. The manual allows it to go out when main beam is switched on or when dipped beam headlamps are switched off.

Individual direction indicators (rear)

Failed on 57 first tests2.1 times as often as similar carsPossible evidence

What it means

Direction indicators must be amber, though vehicles first used before a set date may have white at the front and red at the rear when the indicators are combined with stop or position lamps, and sequential or dynamic ones are not a reason to fail. A lamp that is missing, inoperative or has more than half of a multiple light source not functioning is graded Major. A flashing rate outside the permitted range is graded Minor.

Also noted as an advisory

Testers also noted it as an advisory, worn but not yet failing, on 51 first tests, 2.6 times as often as on similar cars.

Data: UK MOT open data, 2025. Compared with cars of the same age and mileage. Advisories count notes recorded on failed first tests only.

Noise, emissions and leaks

One fault: diesel emissions not tested, 2.3 times as often as on similar cars.

Diesel emissions not tested

Failed on 29 first tests2.3 times as often as similar carsPossible evidence

What it means

An emissions test on a diesel that is unable to be completed is graded Major. The failure wording 'not tested' carries the same Major grade.

Data: UK MOT open data, 2025. Compared with cars of the same age and mileage.

Suspension

One fault: suspension arm ball joint dust cover (front), 2.1 times as often as on similar cars.

Suspension arm ball joint dust cover (front)

Failed on 81 first tests2.1 times as often as similar carsPossible evidence

What it means

Whether a suspension arm ball joint dust cover still keeps dirt out decides its grade. Severely deteriorated is Minor, while missing, or no longer preventing the ingress of dirt, is Major.

Data: UK MOT open data, 2025. Compared with cars of the same age and mileage.

Advisories

Other things testers noted as worn or close to failing, more often than on similar cars.

An advisory is a note from the tester about something that has not failed yet. It is an early warning, not a fail. Advisories for the faults above are shown with those faults.

Transmission oil leaks (rear)

Noted on 61 first tests24 times as often as similar carsElevated evidence

Anti-roll bar pins and bushes (front)

Noted on 41 first tests4.6 times as often as similar carsPossible evidence

Suspension mounting area (front)

Noted on 33 first tests4.6 times as often as similar carsPossible evidence

Rigid brake pipes (rear)

Noted on 181 first tests2.7 times as often as similar carsElevated evidence

Data: UK MOT open data, 2025. Counts cover advisories recorded on failed first tests only, compared with cars of the same age and mileage.

MOT pass rates

How first tests ended, and how the pass rates are counted.

Passed first time
60in every 100
Passed on the first test.
Fixed at the station
7in every 100
Failed, then fixed at the test station the same day.
Failed
33in every 100
Did not pass, and were not fixed at the test station.

First-attempt pass 59.6% of 3,499 first tests (2025): only cars that passed first time count. Official-style pass 67.5%: cars fixed at the test station also count as a pass. The 7 fixed and the 33 not fixed make the 40 in every 100 that did not pass first time.

Same model, other years

Passed first time in every 100, all tested in 2025.

4060801002005200920152020Older carsNewer cars
40608010020092020Newer cars

Newer cars are younger, so look for a jump rather than the climb. A year earlier (2024), when these cars were a year younger, 59 in every 100 passed first time.

YearPassed first timeFirst tests
200345 in every 100317
200451 in every 100605
200552 in every 1001,462
200656 in every 1002,846
200755 in every 1003,600
200857 in every 1003,729
2009 This car60 in every 1003,499
201060 in every 1003,634
201161 in every 1003,118
201263 in every 1003,765
201363 in every 1004,054
201465 in every 1004,283
201567 in every 1004,515
201668 in every 1005,697
201769 in every 1007,490
201871 in every 1005,693
201973 in every 1007,710
202074 in every 1004,043
202176 in every 1004,432
202283 in every 1001,767

If you are buying one

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

Mileage makes a modest difference on a 2009 Vito.

Of 2009 Vito vehicles with under 117,000 miles, 65 in every 100 passed their 2025 MOT first time. With 218,000 miles or more, 61 in every 100 did.

Under 117,000690 tests
65
117,000–147,000701 tests
59
147,000–177,000 Typical car705 tests
56
177,000–218,000690 tests
58
218,000 and over701 tests
61

What to check at your mileage

How often each fault turned up on a failed first test, by the car's mileage. Read it as: what is likely to need looking at on a car like the one in front of you.

Under 117,000147,000–177,000218,000 and over
Handbrake efficiency below minimum (roller test)4.39.810.6
Individual sidelight or tail light (front)2.55.85.3
Windscreen washers3.34.12.9
Anti-roll bar linkage ball joint dust cover (front)3.23.83.3
Suspension arm ball joint (front)2.34.54.4

Faults per 100 first tests, by the car's mileage at the test.


When a car fails

19in every 100

of failed cars had one item to fix.

61in every 100

of failed cars had three or more items to fix.

10in every 100

of all first tests had a defect the tester marked dangerous (unsafe to drive away).


Every figure here is a first-attempt MOT rate from DVSA open data for this model line, for cars of this model year tested in 2025. Each mileage band holds a fifth of the tests. 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.

The 2009 Mercedes-Benz Vito follows the pattern of the model years either side. Its main cause of failure was Handbrake efficiency below minimum (roller test), about 21 in every 100 failed tests. In 2025, 59.6% of 3,499 first MOTs on the 2009 Mercedes-Benz Vito passed first time (PRS: items fixed at the station the same day, counted as a fail). The official-style rate including PRS is 67.5%. Among 1,414 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Rigid brake pipes (front) appears more often than on similar cars (4.6% of those tests; 65 observed failures; about 5.0× more often than similar cars). There is no single reliability score here; this is a pre-purchase checklist built from DVSA open data, not a guarantee for any individual car.
Ranked by how often they were actually recorded, the items that most often failed a 2009 Mercedes-Benz Vito at the first attempt were Handbrake efficiency below minimum (roller test) (21.2%), Individual sidelight or tail light (front) (11.8%) and Windscreen washers (8.9%), each as a share of the year's failed first attempts. That is what goes wrong most often on the car. The common faults table shows a different measure: faults that are unusual compared with similar cars.
Among failed first-attempt tests we highlight patterns that appear more often than on similar cars. Top example: Rigid brake pipes (front) (4.6% of those tests; 65 observed failures; about 5.0× more often than similar cars). These are statistical signals, not a diagnosis of any individual car.
Rigid brake pipes (front) shows up more often than on similar cars (4.6% of those tests; 65 observed failures; about 5.0× 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 checkpoint, not a manufacturer service bulletin.
Common MOT problem areas for the 2009 Mercedes-Benz Vito include Rigid brake pipes (front), Chassis condition (front), Handbrake lever. These are the faults that stand out compared with similar cars, not a complete list of what can go wrong on any 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 2009 Mercedes-Benz Vito (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.
  • If the data for a car is too thin to say anything useful, we say so rather than guess.

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