MOT Status
ValidMileage
243,538 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
Front Windscreen wiper blade defective both side (3.4 (b) (i))
Offside Front Coil spring corroded (5.3.1 (b) (i))
Offside Front Upper Shock absorbers has a slightly worn bush (5.3.2 (c))
Offside Rear Inner Tyre slightly damaged/cracking or perishing (5.2.3 (d) (ii))
Rear Coil spring corroded both side (5.3.1 (b) (i))
Nearside Rear Service brake excessively binding (1.2.1 (f))
Offside Front Coil spring corroded (5.3.1 (b) (i))
Rear Coil spring corroded both side (5.3.1 (b) (i))
Front Inner Brake disc significantly and obviously worn both side (1.1.14 (a) (i))
Nearside Rear Service brake excessively binding (1.2.1 (f))
Offside Front Coil spring corroded (5.3.1 (b) (i))
Rear Coil spring corroded both side (5.3.1 (b) (i))
Front Inner Brake disc worn, pitted or scored, but not seriously weakened both side (1.1.14 (a) (ii))
Nearside Rear Service brake binding but not excessively (1.2.1 (f))
Offside Front Coil spring corroded (5.3.1 (b) (i))
Offside Rear Tyre slightly damaged/cracking or perishing (5.2.3 (d) (ii))
Rear Coil spring corroded both side (5.3.1 (b) (i))
Front Headlamp aim projected beam image is obviously incorrect both side (4.1.2 (c))
Front Inner Brake disc worn, pitted or scored, but not seriously weakened both side (1.1.14 (a) (ii))
Nearside Rear Service brake binding but not excessively (1.2.1 (f))
Offside Front Coil spring corroded (5.3.1 (b) (i))
Offside Rear Tyre slightly damaged/cracking or perishing (5.2.3 (d) (ii))
Rear Coil spring corroded both side (5.3.1 (b) (i))
Nearside Front Suspension arm ball joint has slight play (5.3.4 (a) (i))
Nearside Rear Service brake binding but not excessively (1.2.1 (f))
Offside Front Coil spring corroded (5.3.1 (b) (i))
Offside Front Drive shaft joint constant velocity boot severely deteriorated (6.1.7 (g) (i))
Offside Front Suspension arm pin or bush worn but not resulting in excessive movement front bush (5.3.4 (a) (i))
Offside Rear Tyre slightly damaged/cracking or perishing (5.2.3 (d) (ii))
Oil leak, but not excessive (8.4.1 (a) (i))
Rear Coil spring corroded both side (5.3.1 (b) (i))
Rear Vehicle structure is corroded but structural rigidity is not significantly reduced (6.1.1 (c) (i))
Nearside Rear Service brake binding but not excessively (1.2.1 (f))
Offside Front Inner Track rod end ball joint has excessive play (2.1.3 (b) (i))
Central Rear Exhaust mounting defective (6.1.2 (a))
Nearside Rear Service brake binding but not excessively (1.2.1 (f))
Rear Brake pipe corroded, covered in grease or other material both side (1.1.11 (c))
Nearside Front Prop shaft joint constant velocity boot no longer prevents the ingress of dirt (6.1.7 (g) (ii))
Nearside Front Tyre tread depth below requirements of 1.6mm (5.2.3 (e)) DANGEROUS
Offside Front Tyre has a tear, caused by separation or partial failure of its structure (5.2.3 (d) (ii)) DANGEROUS
Rear Brake pipe corroded, covered in grease or other material both side (1.1.11 (c))
Nearside Front Outer Drive shaft joint constant velocity boot severely deteriorated (6.1.7 (g) (i))
Front Brake disc worn, pitted or scored, but not seriously weakened (1.1.14 (a) (ii))
Front Brake pad(s) wearing thin (1.1.13 (a) (ii))
Front Oil leak, but not excessive (8.4.1 (a) (i))
Front Play in steering rack inner joint(s) ()
Offside Front Coil spring corroded (5.3.1 (b) (i))
Rear Brake pipe corroded, covered in grease or other material (1.1.11 (c))
Front Oil leak, but not excessive (8.4.1 (a) (i))
Nearside Front Inner Drag link end ball joint has slight play (2.1.3 (b) (i))
Offside Rear Direction indicator slightly discoloured (4.4.3 (a))
Parking brake lever has little reserve travel (3.1.6b)
Nearside Front constant velocity joint gaiter deteriorated, but preventing the ingress of dirt (2.5.C.1a)
Offside Front Track rod end ball joint has slight play (2.2.B.1f)
Offside Track rod end ball joint has slight play (2.2.B.1f)
Nearside Rear Shock absorber has an excessively worn bush top bush (2.7.4)
Offside Rear Rear fog lamp not working (1.3.2b)
Offside Rear Shock absorber has an excessively worn bush top bush (2.7.4)
Offside Rear position lamp(s) not working (1.1.A.3b)
Offside Track rod end ball joint has slight play (2.2.B.1f)
Offside Track rod end ball joint has slight play (2.2.B.1f)
Nearside Outer Front constant velocity joint gaiter damaged, but preventing the ingress of dirt (2.5.C.1a)
Nearside Outer Front constant velocity joint gaiter damaged, but preventing the ingress of dirt (2.5.C.1a)
Rear Registration plate lamp not working (1.1.C.1d)
Nearside Front position lamp(s) not working (1.1.A.3b)
Offside Front position lamp(s) not working (1.1.A.3b)
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.
LG59 YNU is a 2009 Citroen Nemo in Grey with a 1,399cc diesel engine. This vehicle has been through 23 MOT tests with a personal pass rate of 65.2%.
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 a lower pass rate than the average for its year, which may indicate maintenance issues worth investigating.
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 LG59 YNU, 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 LG59 YNU?
You can check the full history of LG59 YNU by running a full vehicle check. This shows you finance, stolen, write-off, MOT history, mileage records and more.
What year was LG59 YNU registered?
LG59 YNU is a 2009 Citroen Nemo, first registered on 31 October 2009.
Is LG59 YNU safe to buy?
The MOT history for LG59 YNU shows 23 tests with a 65.2% pass rate. To check for outstanding finance, stolen markers, write-off history and mileage discrepancies, run a full vehicle check.
Does LG59 YNU 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 LG59 YNU. 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.