Model Reports 8 min read Updated 11 Sep 2026 DVSA open data · 12,508 tests analysed

Peugeot Partner 2016: reliability & common MOT faults

5,096 first-attempt MOT failures were recorded on the 2016 Peugeot Partner in 2025. The items recorded most often on them were Position lamp (front) and Coil spring (front). Figures are among first-attempt failed MOT tests, not among all tests.

2016 Partners break the Partner's own run — at 59.3% they land 1.6 pp below the midpoint of the 2015 and 2017 cars either side.

First-attempt pass

59.3%

of 12,508 first tests (2025)

First tests

12,508

test year 2025

Failed first attempts

5,096

failed first-attempt tests

Most common fail

22.2%

Position lamp (front)

MOT pass rates

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

First-attempt pass

59.3%

of 12,508 first tests (2025)

Official-style pass

70.0%

incl. same-day PRS fixes

First tests

12,508

class 4 · first MOT of the year

Typical age 9.0 yrs · median mileage 94,145 mi

vs 2024: -1.2 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 5,092 of 5,096 failed first attempts (99.9%) that recorded an odometer reading in 2025 — the subset the age-and-mileage comparison can be computed on.

Standout: Electrical equipment — Horn — 5.3% of this year's failed first attempts

Recorded on 271 of those tests. It tops the table on elevation — about 8.1× 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
Electrical equipment — Horn
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Electrical equipment > Horn
 Any 271 ×8.1 5.3% Strong
Seat belts — Condition (front)
Seat belts and supplementary restraint systems > Seat belts > Condition
 Front 158 ×7.6 3.1% Strong
Pedal
Brakes > Service brake pedal or hand lever > Pedal
 Any 111 ×5.8 2.2% Strong
Position lamp (front)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Position lamps > Position lamp
 Front 1,130 ×4.9 22.2% Likely
Stop lamp (rear)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Stop lamp
 Rear 639 ×4.1 12.5% Likely
Individual direction indicators (rear)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Direction indicators > Flashing type > Individual direction indicators
 Rear 123 ×3.8 2.4% Likely
Coil spring (front)
Suspension > Springs > Coil springs > Coil spring
 Front 833 ×3.6 16.4% Likely
Drive shafts — Joints (front)
Body, chassis, structure > Transmission > Drive shafts > Joints
 Front 778 ×3.5 15.3% Likely
Registration plate lamp(s) (rear)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Registration plate lamp(s)
 Rear 526 ×3.4 10.3% Likely
Position lamp (rear)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Position lamps > Position lamp
 Rear 223 ×3.2 4.4% Likely

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
Stop lamp (rear)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Stop lamp
 Rear 148 ×6.3 2.9% Likely
Individual direction indicators (rear)
Lamps, reflectors and electrical equipment > Direction indicators > Flashing type > Individual direction indicators
 Rear 144 ×5.0 2.8% Likely
Service brake performance (rear)
Brakes > Brake performance > Service brake performance > Plate brake tester > Service brake performance
 Rear 46 ×2.7 0.9% Elevated
Exhaust system (front)
Body, chassis, structure > Exhaust system
 Front 87 ×2.0 1.7% Possible
Service brake performance (rear)
Brakes > Brake performance > Service brake performance > Rbt > Service brake performance
 Rear 164 ×2.0 3.2% 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.

This year underperforms the Partner's own age curve. If the years listed below are in budget, they are the stronger buy on this evidence.

Other Partner years worth knowing about

Newer cars always pass more often, so a plain "best year" list would just rank by age. These are the years that beat or miss the trend their own neighbouring years set — the only age-adjusted signal this data supports.

Year vs the years either side First-attempt pass (rises with newer cars) First tests
2012 Partner +6.7 pp better 59.0% 10,027
2020 Partner +5.4 pp better 78.0% 9,489
2019 Partner +3.6 pp better 73.2% 11,981
2015 Partner +2.8 pp better 61.3% 12,262
2013 Partner -5.8 pp worse 52.6% 8,587
2018 Partner -5.4 pp worse 61.3% 13,167

What to check on a 2016 Partner

The items that failed 2016 Partners 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 22.2% of failed first attempts
  • Coil spring (front) — recorded on 16.4% of failed first attempts
  • Drive shafts — Joints (front) — recorded on 15.3% of failed first attempts
  • Stop lamp — recorded on 12.5% of failed first attempts
  • Registration plate lamp(s) — recorded on 10.3% 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.

2016 Partners break the Partner's own run — at 59.3% they land 1.6 pp below the midpoint of the 2015 and 2017 cars either side. In 2025, 59.3% of 12,508 first MOTs on the 2016 Peugeot Partner passed first time (PRS — items fixed at the station the same day — counted as a fail). The official-style rate including PRS is 70.0%. Among 5,096 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Electrical equipment — Horn app…
Ranked by how often they were actually recorded, the items that failed 2016 Peugeot Partners most often at the first attempt were Position lamp (front) (22.2%), Coil spring (front) (16.4%) and Drive shafts — Joints (front) (15.3%) — 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…
Among failed first-attempt tests we highlight patterns that appear more often than on similar cars. Top example: Electrical equipment — Horn (5.3% of those tests; 271 observed failures; about 8.1× 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 (5.3% of those tests; 271 observed failures; about 8.1× 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 2016 Peugeot Partner include Electrical equipment — Horn, Seat belts — Condition (front), Pedal. 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 2016 Peugeot Partner (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