Bought a lemon from private seller!
Options
Comments
-
The seller sounds like he is a trader, under soga he is obliged to help you outfoxy-stoat wrote: »
But if you can prove he is a trader then you can return the car for a full refund on SOGA. That's your best way forward.
SOGA was replaced by the Consumer Rights Act in 2015If you are querying your Council Tax band would you please state whether you are in England, Scotland or Wales0 -
gonthemicrobe wrote: »Bit of an update. Second opinion from another mechanic came back completely different. Same brake light fault but couldn't see an issue with power steering fluid. Did however find oil leaking from the gearbox. Said its a big fix so may be more economical just to keep topping it up. Have quoted £40 for work rather than the best part of a grand that the guy yesterday did.
No idea who to believe and think I'll get a 3rd opinion before deciding.
With split opinions like that, on a £1,500 car, you are definitely on thin ice for rejection if it gets legal. That's about par for the course at this end of the market.Regardless, the seller still clearly lied and posed as someone selling a car "for his auntie"
<stifles laughter> And you believed that?0 -
gonthemicrobe wrote: »Bit of an update. Second opinion from another mechanic came back completely different. Same brake light fault but couldn't see an issue with power steering fluid. Did however find oil leaking from the gearbox. Said its a big fix so may be more economical just to keep topping it up. Have quoted £40 for work rather than the best part of a grand that the guy yesterday did.
No idea who to believe and think I'll get a 3rd opinion before deciding. Regardless, the seller still clearly lied and posed as someone selling a car "for his auntie" rather than the trader he is. Car is definitely not faultless as described and I've now got piles of evidence that he is illegally trading.
My gut still tells me I want my money back, no idea if approaching him with evidence of his illegal trading is the best way to get it.
His auntie? It was his cousin a few posts ago.0 -
Said the auntie was too old and his cousin couldn't be bothered wit selling it. Looking back don't know what I was thinking...0
-
Joe_Horner wrote: »A failed DVSA (previously VOSA) inspection / retest won't cancel an existing MOT even if VOSA rule that the car shouldn't have passed at the time of the original test. It's one of the odd little quirks of the system.
They also can't prevent you from driving away after they've failed it unless they consider the faults serious enough to issue a prohibition. The prohibition is separate from the MOT scheme but may require a full or partial test to be carried out as evidence that appropriate repairs have been made. It may (or may not, at the inspector's discretion) allow the car to be used for a certain period of time before being tested. But even in this case the original MOT will still be valid until the expiry date printed on it.
This is the same system that applies if you're stopped at the roadside in a faulty car.
eta: Out of interest, they're kind enough to publish the prohibition guidance here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/498457/Categorisation-of-defects.pdf
On a private car, if the power steering is still working, then it would only warrant prohibition if it was in "imminent" risk of failure.
They don't define "imminent" but you can get some idea from the fact that a leak which produces a patch smaller than 3 inches diameter in 5 minutes is not considered serious enough for a prohibition. Over 3 inches in 5 minutes warrants a delayed (up to 10 days) prohibition unless it's so bad that operation of the steering is affected (effectively pouring out as a continuous flow).
Damage and corrosion to pipes aren't prohibitable unless they affect operation of the steering (crimped pipes etc).
There's also a warning / reminder at the top of the document that a fault that doesn't warrant prohibition may still make the vehicle unroadworthy and be liable for prosecution but that's a concern for the operator, not the inspector.
However is they place a prohibition on the vehicle you may not be able to use it until it's been repaired and had a full mot test.0 -
gonthemicrobe wrote: »!!!! Hit the nail on the head! He's a trader. Has been selling cars on Gumtree from same number. Cannot believe I was such an idiot not to check this.
What's my best course of action now?
If I was you I would be polite but firm - say I want my money back you get the vehicle back.
If he says no advise him you will be informing Trading standards, HMRC and Autotrader.
If he is stupid enough not to cooperate sue him in small claims court - Money claim online.0 -
AndyMc..... wrote: »However is they place a prohibition on the vehicle you may not be able to use it until it's been repaired and had a full mot test.
Yes, you may not. Or you may, depending on what they specify on the prohibition.
For a prohibition resulting from an appeal test (rather than a roadside check) it would be normal for the prohibition to be lifted once the specific defect was repaired and inspected, which wouldn't require a full test.
As per the guidance notes linked, a full test would only normally be required to clear it if there were likely to be further defects that couldn't be detected at the time. Which is unlikely when the prohibition results from a full appeal inspection - it would suggest the inspector was less than confident in his own inspection!
In any event, even if a full test was specified to lift the prohibition, the old test is still valid - you couldn't be charged with driving without an MOT even before the prohibition was lifted.0 -
I'd be tempted to phone about a different car "Hi I'm interested in the car", then bring that one back to look at it, and start with "Look, I know you're a trader, the cars duff, what are you going to do about it?".
Then it's up to you if you want to call his bluff and leave it with him, or just get it fixed and move on.0 -
I'd be tempted to phone about a different car "Hi I'm interested in the car", then bring that one back to look at it, and start with "Look, I know you're a trader, the cars duff, what are you going to do about it?".
Then it's up to you if you want to call his bluff and leave it with him, or just get it fixed and move on.
Great idea in my opinion0 -
Joe_Horner wrote: »Yes, you may not. Or you may, depending on what they specify on the prohibition.
For a prohibition resulting from an appeal test (rather than a roadside check) it would be normal for the prohibition to be lifted once the specific defect was repaired and inspected, which wouldn't require a full test.
As per the guidance notes linked, a full test would only normally be required to clear it if there were likely to be further defects that couldn't be detected at the time. Which is unlikely when the prohibition results from a full appeal inspection - it would suggest the inspector was less than confident in his own inspection!
In any event, even if a full test was specified to lift the prohibition, the old test is still valid - you couldn't be charged with driving without an MOT even before the prohibition was lifted.
That would be the least of your worries if caught.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards