MOT Status
ExpiredMileage
138,898 miSignificantly above average — investigate
Not all car check providers offer a guarantee. Don't risk buying from services that can't back their data. CarVerify reports include a £30,000 finance data guarantee.
Vehicle Details
All premium checks include
50+ data pointsMOT History
Nearside Front Body panel corroded and likely to cause injury wing (6.2.1 (a) (i))
Nearside Front Body panel insecure wing (6.2.1 (a) (i))
Nearside Front Brake disc significantly and obviously worn (1.1.14 (a) (i))
Nearside Front Coil spring fractured or broken (5.3.1 (b) (i))
Nearside Front Seat belt anchorage prescribed area strength or continuity significantly reduced sill (7.1.1 (a) (i))
Nearside Front Seat belt webbing significantly weakened cut from edge greater than 2mm (7.1.2 (b))
Nearside Front Service brake excessively fluctuating (1.2.1 (e))
Nearside Rear Suspension component mounting prescribed area excessively corroded significantly reducing structural strength sill (5.3.6 (a) (i))
Offside Front Brake disc significantly and obviously worn (1.1.14 (a) (i))
Offside Front Seat belt anchorage prescribed area strength or continuity significantly reduced sill (7.1.1 (a) (i))
Offside Front Service brake excessively fluctuating (1.2.1 (e))
Nearside Track rod end ball joint worn to the extent there is a serious risk of detachment (2.1.3 (b) (ii)) DANGEROUS
Nearside Front Suspension spring mounting prescribed area is corroded but not considered excessive (5.3.6 (a) (i))
Nearside Headlamp has a product on the lens but not seriously reducing light output (4.1.4 (b))
Nearside Rear Service brake fluctuating, but not excessively (1.2.1 (e))
Nearside Rear Suspension spring mounting prescribed area is corroded but not considered excessive (5.3.6 (a) (i))
Nearside Rear Tyre slightly damaged/cracking or perishing (5.2.3 (d) (ii))
Nearside Rear Vehicle structure is corroded but structural rigidity is not significantly reduced (6.1.1 (c) (i))
Offside Front Anti-lock braking system wiring damaged but not excessively (1.6 (d))
Offside Front Suspension spring mounting prescribed area is corroded but not considered excessive (5.3.6 (a) (i))
Offside Headlamp has a product on the lens but not seriously reducing light output (4.1.4 (b))
Offside Rear Service brake fluctuating, but not excessively (1.2.1 (e))
Offside Rear Suspension component mounting prescribed area is corroded but not considered excessive sill (5.3.6 (a) (i))
Offside Rear Suspension spring mounting prescribed area is corroded but not considered excessive (5.3.6 (a) (i))
Offside Rear Tyre obviously under inflated (5.2.3 (l))
Offside Rear Tyre slightly damaged/cracking or perishing (5.2.3 (d) (ii))
Offside Rear Vehicle structure is corroded but structural rigidity is not significantly reduced (6.1.1 (c) (i))
Offside front wing corroded slightly
Oil leak, but not excessive Engine (8.4.1 (a) (i))
Parking brake lever defective but can be satisfactorily operated (1.1.6 (d))
Power steering pipe/hose slightly corroded (2.1.5 (g) (i))
Nearside Front Tyre worn close to legal limit/worn on edge on wear markers (5.2.3 (e))
Offside Front Tyre worn close to legal limit/worn on edge on wear markers (5.2.3 (e))
Nearside Front Suspension arm pin or bush worn but not resulting in excessive movement nearside front lower arm rear bush (5.3.4 (a) (i))
Nearside Rear Tyre has a cut but not deep enough to reach the ply or cords tyre also starting to crack (5.2.3 (d) (i))
Offside Rear Tyre slightly damaged/cracking or perishing (5.2.3 (d) (ii))
Power steering close to minimum mark (2.1.5 (b) (i))
Power steering pipe/hose slightly corroded (2.1.5 (g) (i))
Rear Suspension spring mounting prescribed area is corroded but not considered excessive (5.3.6 (a) (i))
Vehicle structure is corroded but structural rigidity is not significantly reduced (6.1.1 (c) (i))
Nearside Front Suspension arm pin or bush worn but not resulting in excessive movement (5.3.4 (a) (i))
Nearside Front Anti-roll bar linkage ball joint excessively worn (5.3.4 (a) (i))
Nearside Front Suspension arm pin or bush worn but not resulting in excessive movement (5.3.4 (a) (i))
Nearside Front Macpherson strut mounting damaged but not seriously weakened (5.3.3 (b) (i))
Nearside Steering rack gaiter damaged or deteriorated, but preventing the ingress of dirt (2.1.3 (g) (i))
Offside Front Macpherson strut mounting likely to fail (5.3.3 (b) (ii)) DANGEROUS
Nearside Front Macpherson strut mounting damaged but not seriously weakened (5.3.3 (b) (i))
Nearside Steering rack gaiter damaged or deteriorated, but preventing the ingress of dirt (2.1.3 (g) (i))
Offside Front Shock absorbers light misting of oil or has limited damping effect (5.3.2 (b))
Offside Front Shock absorbers light misting of oil or has limited damping effect (5.3.2 (b))
Nearside Front Inner tyre worn
Offside Front Inner tyre worn
Offside Front Lower coil spring broken (2.4.C.1a)
Offside Inner Front Lower Power steering pipe(s) or hose(s) slightly corroded (2.3.2)
Strut top bearings ceased
Vehicle's internal headlight adjuster altered to recheck lights
How Reliable is the Citroen Nemo?
Based on 279,608 MOT tests across 21,949 vehicles.
Top MOT Failure Points
Don't risk it. Know before you buy.
Not all vehicle check providers are the same. Some don't offer a data guarantee, which means if their information is wrong, you're on your own. Every CarVerify report is backed by a £30,000 finance data guarantee.
KN59 NTF is a 2009 Citroen Nemo in White with a 1,399cc diesel engine. This vehicle has been through 18 MOT tests with a personal pass rate of 77.8%.
Across all 2009 Citroen Nemo models, the average MOT pass rate is 71.1% with a typical mileage of 76,934 miles. This particular vehicle has performed better than the average for its year.
The most common reason a Citroen Nemo fails its MOT is tyre tread depth below requirements of 1.6mm, accounting for 4,767 recorded failures. If you're considering buying KN59 NTF, it's worth having these areas checked by a mechanic before committing.
The Citroen Nemo typically stays on UK roads for around 18 years. At 17 years old, this Citroen Nemo is approaching the upper end of the typical lifespan for this model.
Frequently Asked Questions
How do I check the history of KN59 NTF?
You can check the full history of KN59 NTF by running a full vehicle check. This shows you finance, stolen, write-off, MOT history, mileage records and more.
What year was KN59 NTF registered?
KN59 NTF is a 2009 Citroen Nemo, first registered on 12 November 2009.
Is KN59 NTF safe to buy?
The MOT history for KN59 NTF shows 18 tests with a 77.8% pass rate. To check for outstanding finance, stolen markers, write-off history and mileage discrepancies, run a full vehicle check.
Does KN59 NTF have outstanding finance?
Finance checks require a premium vehicle report. This checks against all major UK finance providers to see if there is any outstanding finance on KN59 NTF. If you buy a car with outstanding finance, the finance company can repossess it.
No warranty or guarantee of accuracy is provided for any free data on this page. The data guarantee applies only to information obtained through the purchase of a full check.