Help! Car failed MOT, purchased recently.

[tsuperstar]

Hey,

I purchased a cheap little P reg Ford Ka from Polesworth Garage about mid-August. Took the car out for a test drive, drove fine, and has for the past month. Paid £650 for it, was only offered a 2 month MOT on it, said they didn't do MOTs. We took the plunge, car looked ok, engine, what we could see underneath etc.

Took it to get MOTted yesterday, came back with 10 faults, excessive corrosion on the chassis, brake discs pitted, tyre tread depth out, needs a new steering column, about £700 worth of repairs. The guy came back and said to scrap it.

Called up today, and they've just said "it's not our problem."

Read - Honest Johns (http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/faq/faq.htm?id=43), and it says "And if you buy a cheap car (under £2,000) on retail terms from a trader, you cannot reasonably expect it to be perfect."

Is there anything I can do to get my money back? Or part of it? I knew the car wasn't perfect, and was prepared to spend a little bit getting it up to scratch, but this is ridiculous.

Anyway, if anyone could help me I'd really appreciate it, first post, hey!

[Andy_Edinburgh]

First, the bad news... From my own experience in this situation, I suspect you're on a hiding to nothing getting your money back.

Now, the good news... £700 is very steep for the faults they've listed, even at garage labour rates. Do you have a friend or colleague who's mechanically able who might help you? If you have, you could be back on the road for £300 including the test fee.

Steering Rack: Ford Kas are well known for power steering rack failure (I suspect this is what he meant by "steering column" - it's actually the seals that fail rather than the rack itself, so you should look for a reconditioned rack);

Tyres: keep an eye out for special offers from the big chains, maybe get a complete set of four for £60 (but be on your guard about them telling you about lots of other things you "need" to pay for...).

Brake disks: not expensive either, <£40 for a pair of disks and full set of pads (this was the first price that fell out of eBay, so look further and you'll probably find cheaper).

I would expect a P-reg Ka to be rusty underneath but nothing a skilled welder couldn't fix in a couple of hours for £100.


Have a search on

http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/threads.htm?f=4

...and...

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.rec.cars.maintenance/topics?hl=en

...and they'll soon point you in the direction of cheaper parts.

[Andy_Edinburgh]

More steering rack shenanigans here...

http://www.carsurvey.org/viewcomments_review_35248.html

Absolutely appalling that Ford can sell cars with such obvious design defects in safety-critical components, but I guess they can afford a better lawyer than me...

Incidentally my neighbour had to replace the rack in her 4-year-old Ka, the "Exxon Valdez" effect on her drive is testament to this...

[goldspanners]

andy sounds about right there,try to find a mechanic who works from his house or someone similar,you may find they will even take it for the mot aswell to make sure it passes.
my dads escort was similar,i didnt have the time to help him do the repairs so a mechanic he uses ocassionally took £300 for some welding underneath full set of brake pads discs and shoes and a new fuel tank on a diesel escort.
and took it for the mot.

[tsuperstar]

That's the thing, the guy who said it'll cost £700 worth of repairs is a mechanic and a good mate of my dads, his advice was to scrap it.

It's not a power-steering model though. "Lower steering column universal joint has excessive play"

Front lower suspension brushes have gone, but my dads mate said before it went for the MOT that it was common in Ka.

"Offside rear (chassis) suspension component mounting prescribed area is excessively corroded"

Surely I have a right as a consumer, since I bought it off a "reputable" dealer (www.polesworthgarageltd.com (http://www.polesworthgarageltd.com)) and I asked when I bought it if there was anything major wrong with it and was told it was fine.

But cheers for the responses!

[custardy]

in real terms you should have insisted on it getting either put through an mot or at least going for an mot to get a fail slip.
2 months down the line on what is old banger money

[Gorgeous George]

You have no comeback on the garage that sold you the car. Besides, you cannot prove that the car was faulty when you bought it. You should be careful not to open yourself up to a libel claim.

I'd take the friendly mechanic's advice and learn the lesson for next time. I'd steer clear of that particular garage (pardon the pun). Maybe the mechanic could help you select a bargain privately.

GG

[Iamthesmartestmanalive]

To be fair to the dealer that price is quite cheap for a ka of that age therefore I think the price has to be regarded as having recognised it needed work done

As said the repairs needed are not expensive if you look about and I wouldnt be scrapping it

If need be sell the car really cheap to someone who can do the work then sell it on at a profit, call me a cynic but Ill bet the garage or your dads friend make this offer very soon:rolleyes:

[manda1205]

you got the car cheap so you got what you paid for really

if it needs a new steering uj that are £16 new
welding can be dont cheap if you find the right person and tyres are £15 for a cheapie, disk are pads are cheap enough so find some1 to fix it cheap or flog it on, ill give you a 1'er if your local to norfolk

[Conor]

That's the thing, the guy who said it'll cost £700 worth of repairs is a mechanic and a good mate of my dads, his advice was to scrap it.

It's not a power-steering model though. "Lower steering column universal joint has excessive play"

Front lower suspension brushes have gone, but my dads mate said before it went for the MOT that it was common in Ka.

"Offside rear (chassis) suspension component mounting prescribed area is excessively corroded"

Surely I have a right as a consumer, since I bought it off a "reputable" dealer (www.polesworthgarageltd.com (http://www.polesworthgarageltd.com)) and I asked when I bought it if there was anything major wrong with it and was told it was fine.

But cheers for the responses!

SEVEN HUNDRED QUID?

The front suspension arms are under £20 a side and come with all the bushes that will have failed. Takes 1/2hr a side to fit.

A decent set of new brake discs and pads is around £50 tops.

You can buy cheap tyres for under £20 each for a Ka.

Steering column UJ is under £20.

So all in all, you've under £200 in parts if you replace all 4 tyres and about 3hrs labour INCLUDING the welding - should be no more than £300 and most of those parts will never need replacing in the time you have it.

At the end of the day, the garage selling you it did nothing wrong. It's an 11 year old banger sold at an 11 year old banger price. They go wrong. They rot. It's up to you to decide if it's worth buying. It's feasible for a car costing 3 times that price to fail the MOT on exactly the same.

Just as an aside, don't you ever check your tyres? The cost of being caught using bald tyres is £2000 and 3 penalty points PER TYRE if the Police catch you.

[Brooke Daver]

Hey,

I purchased a cheap little P reg Ford Ka from Polesworth Garage about mid-August. Took the car out for a test drive, drove fine, and has for the past month. Paid £650 for it, was only offered a 2 month MOT on it, said they didn't do MOTs. We took the plunge, car looked ok, engine, what we could see underneath etc.

Took it to get MOTted yesterday, came back with 10 faults, excessive corrosion on the chassis, brake discs pitted, tyre tread depth out, needs a new steering column, about £700 worth of repairs. The guy came back and said to scrap it.

Called up today, and they've just said "it's not our problem."

Read - Honest Johns (http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/faq/faq.htm?id=43), and it says "And if you buy a cheap car (under £2,000) on retail terms from a trader, you cannot reasonably expect it to be perfect."

Is there anything I can do to get my money back? Or part of it? I knew the car wasn't perfect, and was prepared to spend a little bit getting it up to scratch, but this is ridiculous.

Anyway, if anyone could help me I'd really appreciate it, first post, hey!

It's an 11 year old car which you brought with only 2 months MOT.

The garage have done nothing wrong.

If you like the car have it repaired, I find it hard to believe that some tyres, a steering UJ and some brake discs for a KA will cost £700.

Could it be that the people trying to have you over aren't the ones who sold it to you?

[FannyHill]

If you pay £650 for a car from a garage I don't think they have any liability if it needs repairs for a new MOT a few months later. If it only had two months I'd bear that in mind when deciding to buy or not.

[anewman]

If you get the work done I would consider getting the underside protected, particularly with winter coming, to help prevent further corrosion. You can get a 2.5 litre tin of underbody seal from Halfords for £9.99 (a 2.5 litre can would be over kill on a ford ka). I think professionals use some sort of spray thing to do it. There are certain areas to avoid putting underbody seal and you need to be able to get comfortably underneath the car, probably ramps are the best bet as I wouldn't want to be underneath a car on axle stands unless I really had to remove the wheels.

[zappahey]

Frankly if a dealer is selling a car with only 2 months MOT, I'd run away. It sends a clear signal (no matter what excuse they give for not renewing) that the car is not likely to pass without work.

Sorry that doesn't help you now but it's something to bear in mind for future purchases.

[RHYSDAD]

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, IN FUTURE, GET THE AA MAN TO GIVE A PROSPECTIVE CAR A ONCE, OR EVEN, TWICE OVER!! £80ish Well Spent i say.
And like Zappahey says, 2 months MOT is an invite to walk away. Now, an honest retailer needs to offer 12months MOT to have any reasonable chance of a sale. Except in this case it would seem. Sorry to hear your bad luck but please learn from it and don't do it again!

[RHYSDAD]

It's an 11 year old car which you brought with only 2 months MOT.

The garage have done nothing wrong.

If you like the car have it repaired, I find it hard to believe that some tyres, a steering UJ and some brake discs for a KA will cost £700.

Could it be that the people trying to have you over aren't the ones who sold it to you?


It isn't the bits which cost the money, it's the £35-£40 an hour labour which cranks it up!

[roddydogs]

Im amazed a "dodgy dealer" didnt have a "Dodgy" 12 month MOT-they must be tightening up!

[Altarf]

You have no comeback on the garage that sold you the car. Besides, you cannot prove that the car was faulty when you bought it.

Trading Standards would seem to disagree -

http://www.newport.gov.uk/_dc/index....tid=cont104454 (http://www.newport.gov.uk/_dc/index.cfm?fuseaction=tradingstandards.consumeradvi ce&contentid=cont104454)

Consumer Advice - Used Cars
The Law
When you buy goods from a trader, you enter into a legally binding contract governed by the Sale of Goods Act 1979, as amended by the Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994 and the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002. The law gives both buyer & seller rights and responsibilities and applies to the sale of used cars in the same way as to other goods. When you buy from a trader, you have the right to expect the car to be:

• Of satisfactory quality;
• Fit for its purpose, including any particular purpose made known, and
• As described.

The law defines goods as being of ‘satisfactory quality’ if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory – taking the description of the goods into account, the price (if relevant) and all other relevant circumstances. So, when you have bought a used car, you must consider its age, the price you paid, the description which was applied to it and anything else which is relevant when deciding whether it is of satisfactory quality. Your expectations should be different when you are buying a low mileage, two-year-old car than when you are buying a high mileage, ten-year-old one, for example. However, it must still be:

• Fit to be used on the road;

...

The onus is normally on you rather than the trader to prove a claim, i.e. that the car is defective in some way. However, the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002 now states that if you are claiming replacement, repair, full or partial refund within the first six months of ownership, the onus is on the trader to prove that the goods were acceptable when they were sold. This is called the ‘reversed burden of proof’.

As the car failed its MOT at the current point in time it is not 'fit to use on the road' and is thus not 'of satisfactory quality'. Under the ‘reversed burden of proof’ the dealer would need to demonstrate that it was of 'of satisfactory quality' and that the car would not have failed an MOT when they sold it two months earlier. So any car dealer that sells a car without a 12 month MOT is really leaving themselves wide open.

In this case, I would write to the garage asking for either a refund or them to foot the bill for the repairs, and if they decline, sue them through the small claims court - http://www.moneyclaim.gov.uk

[hartcjhart]

within the first six months of ownership, the onus is on the trader to prove that the goods were acceptable when they were sold. This is called the ‘reversed burden of proof’

If there were no questions or queries at the time of sale then it would be deemed as the goods being acceptable

when you have bought a used car, you must consider its age, the price you paid, the description which was applied to it and anything else which is relevant when deciding whether it is of satisfactory quality. Your expectations should be different when you are buying a low mileage, two-year-old car than when you are buying a high mileage, ten-year-old one, for example. However, it must still be fit for purpose,

the car was fit for purpose as it had a current MOT,the fact that it has since failed is of no consequence,

at the time of sale,it was acceptable(you bought without any questions)and was fit for purpose as it was MOTd and driveable

[anewman]

The car could have degraded in the 2 months up to MOT such that it was a pass then later a fail. Remember it passed 10 months ago. The car may well have been suitable for use on the road at the time but not later.

This is the second similar case on the forums recently, I would be interested in seeing if people get anything out of complaining/court action, as I do have my doubts as to wether it would be sucessful.

[Alias_Omega]

I would take the car back to the garage, and ask them how much to do the work.

If you get on with the person, you will probably get a good price on all the work.

I would love to buy a Ford KA for £650, i have been after one for ages as a 2nd car, but could not find one for less than £1000.

[Altarf]

the car was fit for purpose as it had a current MOT,the fact that it has since failed is of no consequence,

Wrong, it demonstrates without question that the car is not currently of ‘satisfactory quality’ as it is not fit to be used on the road.

at the time of sale,it was acceptable(you bought without any questions)and was fit for purpose as it was MOTd and driveable

An MOT 10 months earlier than the point of sale does not demonstrate that the car was of ‘satisfactory quality’ (fit for purpose is not relevant) at the point of sale. Under the ‘reversed burden of proof’ the garage (and not the buyer) would need to demonstrate that it would have passed an MOT 2 months when it was sold. Frankly if they could do this, why didn't they MOT it.

The car could have degraded in the 2 months up to MOT such that it was a pass then later a fail.

But that is for the garage to prove that. The buyer needs to do nothing, apart from demonstrate within the first 6 months that the car is not of ‘satisfactory quality’, and the multiple fail MOT test has done that.

Remember it passed 10 months ago. The car may well have been suitable for use on the road at the time but not later.

But it needed to be of ‘satisfactory quality’ at the point of sale, not 10 months earlier.

As I said before, the dealer doesn't have a leg to stand on, so if they don't pay up sue them.

[FannyHill]

"As I said before, the dealer doesn't have a leg to stand on, so if they don't pay up sue them".


I think the buyer should have bought a car with a decent amount of MOT on it so blaming the dealer is a bit one sided.
If the judge weighed up the pros and cons I think he'd side with the dealer myself.
Paying £650 for a car from a dealer is paying peanuts and what do you get for peanuts.......a car with a two month MOT.

[Altarf]

I think the buyer should have bought a car with a decent amount of MOT on it so blaming the dealer is a bit one sided.
If the judge weighed up the pros and cons I think he'd side with the dealer myself.
Paying £650 for a car from a dealer is paying peanuts and what do you get for peanuts.......a car with a two month MOT.

Let me quote again from the Trading Standards web site I posted earlier as you appear not to have read it -

When you buy from a trader, you have the right to expect the car to be:

• Of satisfactory quality;

The law defines goods as being of ‘satisfactory quality’ if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory – taking the description of the goods into account, the price (if relevant) and all other relevant circumstances. So, when you have bought a used car, you must consider its age, the price you paid, the description which was applied to it and anything else which is relevant when deciding whether it is of satisfactory quality. Your expectations should be different when you are buying a low mileage, two-year-old car than when you are buying a high mileage, ten-year-old one, for example. However, it must still be:

• Fit to be used on the road;

The car the OP bought is not fit to be used on the road, as it has failed an MOT on multiple points. The fact that the buyer has been a bit naive is irrelevant. That is why the law is there, to protect them.

It is now down to the garage to prove that the car was fit to be used on the road two months ago. How do you think the garage is going to be able to do that? By saying it would have passed an MOT two months ago. If so, the first question that the judge should ask is "if it would have passed an MOT, why not get it tested" after all a car with a 12 month MOT would sell for more than a car with a 2 month MOT. So why would they not get it tested...

What the new laws mean is that garages are no longer able to pass off cars that they know are only fit for the scrap heap to unsuspecting buyers, as they have to be able to prove that the car is 'fit to be used on the road' for six months after purchase. This is why many dealers will no longer sell £600 cars as it is far too risky, even if it does have a 12 month MOT.

I will say again, the garage does not have a leg to stand on, and if they don't pay up sue them.

[FannyHill]

Guess we should all buy £650 cars then or even less if we go by your assessment as there is no risk whatsoever for the buyer everything is on his side and the dealer has to stump up. :T

The dealer has to sell you a perfect car regardless of how much you pay. :rotfl:

[Wig]

I agree with Altarf, and the small claims process is so cheap and simple to do with usually no worries about losing and having to pay the othersides costs.

If I were you OP I'd sue 'em. It'll only cost you about £35. (you win that back too if you win your case)

It's got to be worth 35 quid to give it a go, and hopefully it'll teach the trader a lesson or two about which cars he should sell and which cars he should scrap.

[Wig]

I would take the car back to the garage, and ask them how much to do the work.

If you get on with the person, you will probably get a good price on all the work.

I would love to buy a Ford KA for £650, i have been after one for ages as a 2nd car, but could not find one for less than £1000.

A quick look at autotrader has turned up 90 cars under £1000
The cheapest being 400 (two of)
two @ 500
one @ 550
two @ 600
six @ 700
three @ 750
five @ 800
eight @ 850
loads @ 900

[Altarf]

Guess we should all buy £650 cars then or even less if we go by your assessment as there is no risk whatsoever for the buyer everything is on his side and the dealer has to stump up.

The dealer has to sell you a perfect car regardless of how much you pay.

Very witty, however

The car does not have to be 'perfect', but it does have to be of 'satisfactory quality'. So on a £600 car if the radio stops working, the electric windows fail, or all the paint falls off, then you do not have a case. However no matter how cheap the car, if sold by a trader it must be fit for use on the road and the garage must be able to prove it was when sold. So if the brakes disks are rusty, the steering is failing and the chassis needs welding, the car is not of 'satisfactory quality' and the garage is stuffed, and the garage is stuffed if the buyer finds out in the first 6 months of ownership.

The change in the law is why any sensible dealer no longer sells £600 cars, even if they do have a 12 month MOT, let alone a 2 month MOT, as the risk of anything going wrong in the first 6 months is not worth taking.

[FannyHill]

What a great money saving tip.


Well in future I'm going to buy £600 cars or less from dealers as they now have an automatic six months guarantee against anything going wrong even with a 2 month MOT.

Yippee.

Thanks for the info. :beer:

[Altarf]

You can take a horse to water...

[anewman]

What a great money saving tip.

Well in future I'm going to buy £600 cars or less from dealers as they now have an automatic six months guarantee against anything going wrong even with a 2 month MOT.

Even better, why not simply get an MOT just before 6 months have passed no matter what, so you can screw over the garage of the car you bought, no matter what the car cost or what MOT was left on it. We can't have unroadworthy cars being sold and the dealers getting away with it. Sue the bas***ds. So drive them around for nearly 6 months without caring if they're roadworthy then go find out if they are or not.

[piggeh]

Any dealer that sells a car that fails an MOT a few months down the line deserves some comeback. If they want to protect themselves, then all they have to do is get the car MOT'd just prior to it leaivng the forecourt. It then leaves it beyond any reasonable doubt that the car was in a roadworthy condition (ie of satisfactory quality).

I agree entirely that the car should be of satisfactory quality. The OP has a case in my opinion.

The subsequent negative replies show why it happens and probably why certain dealers are willing to chance their arm - because most consumers are not willing to exercise their consumer rights and feel that they dont have any comeback. By the looks of it, they'd only have 10% of such vehicles' buyers going back to them asking to be put right.

[anewman]

There's nothing to stop you getting another MOT 5 months later other than being a scrooge to keep the test fee money for when it is required later. If what is being said here is correct, then getting an MOT 5 months later would be fruitful should the car fail as the dealer has to stump up.

IMO 12 months MOT means nothing whatsoever, I had an MOT done a few months ago and have already found 2 MOT fail points on my car. You alone are responsible for the roadworthiness of your car and you can't hold up an MOT certificate in a court of law as proof your car was roadworthy when it wasn't. I am going to put the problems with my car right, without waiting till MOT time, as I want to improve the safety of my car.

I would like to see at least one example of someone sucessfully suing or getting something out of a car dealer because 2 months later their car failed an MOT. My bet is that there are no such cases out there!

And I am not being negative, I would be all for someone suing the dealer for the cost of MOT repairs if there was reasonable prospect of getting the money back, and I doubt there is.

[hartcjhart]

Altarf,with all due respect YOU are talking out of your !!!!,

very nice of you to sit here on the web and say SUE SUE SUE

FACT when they bought the car they ACCEPTED IT AS IS,the fact tha now it has degraded is neither here nor there

I AM A DEALER I KNOW THE LAW,

PEOPLE LIKE YOU THAT ARE BARRACK ROOM LAWYERS DONT KNOW DIDLY SQUAT.
You read a bit of legislation the way YOU WANT not an IMPARTIAL COUNTY COURT JUDGE WOULD

PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS AND GIVE THE OP THEIR MONEY BACK AND YOU TAKE THE DEALER TO COURT,

Cmon time to stand up and be counted,

[taxiphil]

I AM A DEALER I KNOW THE LAW,

I think we can safely take that to mean that people have sued you. Am I right?

[roddydogs]

Thought the sale of goods act was only up to 6 years? so if you buy secondhand, it starts from when you buy it?

[piggeh]

I AM A DEALER I KNOW THE LAW,

PEOPLE LIKE YOU THAT ARE BARRACK ROOM LAWYERS DONT KNOW DIDLY SQUAT.

I don't believe you're a lawyer either, with all due respect.

I'd imagine there are previous cases you could refer to that could back up your post if you know the law so well?

[anewman]

I don't believe you're a lawyer either, with all due respect.

I'd imagine there are previous cases you could refer to that could back up your post if you know the law so well?

Not seeing any previous cases stating the reverse which I'm sure people would be shouting about (people wouldn't mention not winning)! Just SOGA this, SOGA that. Not exactly Mr Joe Blogs in 2003 took Ford dealer to court after buying a 1996 Ford Fiesta for £x, and sued for MOT repair and court costs 2 months later and *won* the case.

[mumoftwins]

Whenever I have dealt with Polesworth Garage I have always found them to be fair, try talking to them explaining what others on here have suggested THEN if they don't play ball - get some legal advice!

[Andy_Edinburgh]

> I would like to see at least one example of someone sucessfully suing or getting something out of a car dealer because 2 months later their car failed an MOT. My bet is that there are no such cases out there!


I certainly failed to do it! :-) Well, I "successfully" sued him but enforcing the judgement was futile. Experience is a great teacher (well, it is for me anyway...). Live and learn.

[FannyHill]

Or don't buy a car with 2 months MOT.

Get one with a long MOT and if you're lucky you might get some decent motoring before you have to pay for any repairs.

A car might look nice on the outside but that means nothing.

A few times I've bought from garages and I've got a brand new MOT with the vehicle.

I bought a car privately a couple of months ago with 11 months MOT but I still had to spend some money on a few repairs within a few weeks.

Such is the way of car buying.

This idea that a garage will say on any old banger "oh any problems within the next six months don't worry we'll cover it" just doesn't add up.
All second hand dealers would go bankrupt.

[LandyAndy]

No one seems to have mentioned that a possible cause of the deterioration in the car's condition, since the OP purchased it, is that the OP has abused it since they bought it. Steering and brake components and tyres can wear very quickly if the car is badly driven. Surely it is this uncertaintity over the way it has been treated since purchase that makes any legal action a non-starter (pardon the pun).
I am not suggesting that the OP has actually abused the vehicle just pointing out the uncertainty.

[hartcjhart]

No never been sued or even threatened with it,

been caught out buying a few cars though,hidden rust etc BUT they were all bargains,and thats the point what may look a bargain sometimes isnt,

and these were from PRIVATE sellers:eek: :eek:

Oh no mate the cars fine no mate doesnt overheat etc

If I have a car for sale that has only a couple of months MOT I will give the buyer the option of a 12mth MOT BUT I will not haggle on the price as well

[Wig]

> I would like to see at least one example of someone sucessfully suing or getting something out of a car dealer because 2 months later their car failed an MOT. My bet is that there are no such cases out there!


I certainly failed to do it! :-) Well, I "successfully" sued him but enforcing the judgement was futile. Experience is a great teacher (well, it is for me anyway...). Live and learn.

Ok you don't give any details of who you sued and why bailiffs could not be instructed by the court etc etc.

But if OP did successfully sue, bailiffs could seize goods from the garage forecourt (cars) and sell them to recover the money owed. I don't see what the problem is.

I hope OP does sue (costing only 35 quid) and does REPORT back to us on what happened - which ofcourse almost never happens here or anywhere else. people are always happy to ask for help but never return the favour by coming back in 6 months time to give an update.

[Altarf]

I AM A DEALER I KNOW THE LAW

I am sure you think you do. And do you shout at your customers when they disagree with you as well?

[Gorgeous George]

You will not win the case unless you stumble across a nutty magistrate (quite possible then).

The dealer would argue that they (as qualified mechanics) checked the car and found it to be roadworthy at the point of sale. A lot of damage can be done in 2 months.

GG

[olly300]

Ok you don't give any details of who you sued and why bailiffs could not be instructed by the court etc etc.


There are actually a few ways small businesses can get around bailiffs this includes changing the company name even slightly, stating that the ownership has changed, changing the owners of the company (to another family member) or going out of business.

Why else do you think Watchdog highlights small businesses nearly every other week that are still trading but have a lot of court claims against them?

Anyone who runs a small business and is successful will know how to defend themselves from customer claims, defend themselves in court and from bailiffs.

[roddydogs]

It may surprise people that they dont have to change their name ie "Arthurs car sales" can claim they are a different "Arthurs car sales" to the one that sold u the car.

[Wig]

There are actually a few ways small businesses can get around bailiffs this includes changing the company name even slightly, stating that the ownership has changed, changing the owners of the company (to another family member) or going out of business.

Why else do you think Watchdog highlights small businesses nearly every other week that are still trading but have a lot of court claims against them?

Anyone who runs a small business and is successful will know how to defend themselves from customer claims, defend themselves in court and from bailiffs.

I don't think they'd do that for 700 quid though. Probably cost them more in admin than 700 quid just to do that - and all their paperwork would need to be changed.

And to Roddydogs, that would surprise me, and for the time being (until you back that statement up) - I don't think so.

And IMO it would still be worth the £35 just to give them the pain in the neck of the court action and business name change.

[Altarf]

You will not win the case unless you stumble across a nutty magistrate (quite possible then).

Except it is a judge that hears cases at the small claims track at the county court, not a magistrate.

The dealer would argue that they (as qualified mechanics) checked the car and found it to be roadworthy at the point of sale. A lot of damage can be done in 2 months.

Well they would say that wouldn't they.

And what would their explanation be when the judge asks them why they didn't put the (in their 'expert' opinion) roadworthy car in for an MOT and sell it with a full 12 months, rather than just the 2 months remaining? The only reason not to do so, is that you don't believe it will pass. The minor cost of the MOT would be easily recovered by the increased selling price of a car with 12 months MOT.

Given the options of chucking away the £650 cost, or gambling £35 on the judge believing that a car that needs £700 worth of repairs was not roadworthy two months earlier, I know which I would choose.

[harveybobbles]

It's like having your hair cut 10 months ago - you wouldn't go back to the hair dressers complaining that it'd grown 10 months later...

A car that passed an MOT could fail the next day. It's all about what one person deems to be ok from the next.

[FannyHill]

I like that analogy. :rotfl: