Help undrivable car need help

Wig

No, sorry I don't, but I do know it exists because I read about it in the "Which?" consumer magazine back in the day when they used to put two legal cases on the back cover.

A chap who bought a Jaguar with a new MOT took it home and the rear axle promptly collapsed soon after whilst he was going round a roundabout. They had the car examined it was determined that the rust which caused the collapse was so advanced that the car could not possibly have correctly passed an MOT some days/weeks earlier (I forget). They sued the MOT station under this liability and the costs of repair were something like £3,500. They definately sued the MOT station not the used car seller.

I searched high and low a few years after I read it, for the back issue of Which? in my local library, because I wanted to read it again to get the chapter and verse but I was unsuccessful.

google search I came up with
Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982

http://www.motester.co.uk/TradeMagazines/MOTTestingMagazine/LegalLiability/tabid/2760/Default.aspx

mikey72

Don't post the engineers report. Keep the details out until you've been to court if it comes to it. All you'll do is get a different reason out of some posters why it can't be real, if they can't help without you proving yourself, it's unlikely they'll have a flash of inspiration after you have proved you're not making it up.

Wig

mikey72 wrote: »

Don't post the engineers report. Keep the details out until you've been to court if it comes to it. All you'll do is get a different reason out of some posters why it can't be real, if they can't help without you proving yourself, it's unlikely they'll have a flash of inspiration after you have proved you're not making it up.

The reason for wanting to see the report is because it may not say what the OP thinks it says. I would also like to know out of curiosity how an engineer (being an amateur engineer myself) can determine when accident damage has occured. I only seek to help.

Ok if OP goes to a solictor with his report, the solicitor will tell him if it is good evidence or not.

vaio

Wig wrote: »

No, sorry I don't, but I do know it exists because I read about it in the "Which?" consumer magazine back in the day when they used to put two legal cases on the back cover........A chap who bought a Jaguar with a new MOT took it home and the rear axle promptly collapsed soon after whilst he was going round a roundabout. They had the car examined it was determined that the rust which caused the collapse was so advanced that the car could not possibly have correctly passed an MOT some days/weeks earlier (I forget). They sued the MOT station under this liability and the costs of repair were something like £3,500. They definately sued the MOT station not the used car seller.......
google search I came up with Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982

http://www.motester.co.uk/TradeMagazines/MOTTestingMagazine/LegalLiability/tabid/2760/Default.aspx

That link documents the Jag case you mentioned but says that the case was unsuccessful

VOSA will only pursue corrosion issues up to a maximum of three months after the test and mechanical, like in the OPs case, up to 28 days, which is why I said the OP is going to struggle given the fault didn’t appear until 4 months after the test.

The bit about tort/duty of care/negligence claims was interesting but again I think the OP is going to struggle given the time lag, the testers contract was with the dealer not the OP and the certificate has a clear warning that the certificate is not evidence if satisfactory condition.

Wig

vaio wrote: »

That link documents the Jag case you mentioned but says that the case was unsuccessful

[to be read in a polite voice]

Does it? Where? I can't see it.

Tamazapan

Whooooo great news I got the full cost of my car back and now have a new one!!! The car was crushed by VOSA and the gge shut down for investigation.

mikey72

Good result.

Dave101t

well done then