The Car Perry's Sold Us

anewman

I'll bet OP got funny with police officer which is why it went to court. I'll bet the police officer would have probably been happy with a statement the car was purchased like that, a profuse apology, followed by peeling the tints off there and then.

Chippy_Minton_2

All in all the police were fair with the OP as less than 30% can result in a prohibition. That would have meant the OP would have needed to have the vehicle trailered away, a full mot test and the documents produced at a Police Station BEFORE the vehicle went back on the road.

If given the option the OP should have removed the tints then and there and/or accepted the £30-00 ticket.

molerat

anewman wrote: »

I'll bet OP got funny with police officer which is why it went to court. I'll bet the police officer would have probably been happy with a statement the car was purchased like that, a profuse apology, followed by peeling the tints off there and then.

That is what has happened in every case I have heard of in my locality so I suspect you are correct your assumption :rolleyes:

Sirbendy

Inactive wrote: »

Take it up with Network Q, Perrys clearly breached their conditions for resale checks.

A NewtworkQ vehicle must undergo an agreed list of safety checks, this one clearly didn't.

Exactly.

And GoldSpanners - in an ideal world you're right, but in the real world, how many people would know how to do it, much less where to find the relevant info? When you're looking to buy from a dealership, those types of things usually aren't at the forefront of your mind.

Again, as I said - the garage has a duty of care. OPs garage failed in that. I always check my own vehicles out thoroughly on the forecourt, usually to the sellers annoyance. Mine had passed the Network Q as well, but had 2 warning lights (EML and airbag failure) lit. Needless to say I asked that they be sorted before I gave final payment.

terryya

I hope nobody suffers from vertigo around here as those horses must be especially high this morning!

The OP has gone to a major dealer looking to buy a car, so the least they can expect is that it is road legal. They also mention that they haven't even had an apology before asking about compo - and they also ask how much is reasonable - hardly ambulance chasing is it? Personally I don't think the cost of the fine and the cost of a legal tint would be in anyway unreasonable.

And for those people saying as you were thinking about getting a tint done you should have known the rules, I think most people would worry about the small matter of buying a car before looking into other bits and pieces. As they bought one with it already on why would they bother looking into it anymore.

ashandton

god sake - a little advice is all i was after not world war 3

as for "I'll bet OP got funny with police officer which is why it went to court" why do people always have negative assumptions of others?? OP did not get funny with the police at all - we said we would take the tints off there and then, but no the copper escorted us all the way back to our house so that he could fill out the paperwork to take it to court as he was not willing to do an 'on the spot' fine.

thanks again to all those with positive feedback

just because we were considering having tints put on our car doesnt mean that we knew the rules and regs on it - i dont work in the motor trade

we just assumed that as the car was from a main dealer it would have been legally ok

RobertoMoir

Sirbendy wrote: »

hang on...hang on..

Yes, I agree on "inform the insurers" as the tint is a post factory modification..but I DISAGREE with people saying the OP is at fault because of buying the car with the tints preapplied.

If the tints were not legal, then the garage should not have touted the vehicle as legal either..regardless of the OPs intent to tint, if *i'd* bought a car and found that it was in some way illegal and it was like that from the day I bought it despite being inspected, I'd be mightily annoyed.

I agree but this means that responsibility is shared between the poster and the garage. They clearly shouldn't have sold the car as it was, and should accept responsibility for that (perhaps paying to make the car legal would be appropriate) but as drivers, we're all responsible for knowing the law and ensuring that a car is roadworthy each time we get in and start to drive it. Therefore, the fine is arguably down to the driver, for what little my opinion is worth.

Armengar

If perrys advertised your car with MOT then they missold the car as it clearly couldnt have a current MOT. You bought the car with good faith that the MOT was genuine. I believe you would have a case under sale of goods act.

RobertoMoir

Armengar - surely the MOT certificate was either part of the documents exchanged at the sale, in which case you're wrong, or it wasn't (in which case you have a point, but the OP is crazy for buying a car w/o MOT).

A MOT certificate means the car met standard on certain checks on the day it was tested. It doesn't mean that the car is roadworthy.

Inactive

Perrys sold the car under their NetworkQ scheme which is run by Vauxhall, I am certain that NetworkQ/ Vauxhall would be the best people to take this matter up with.