Buying a car with no tax - Private seller - Advice please

paddedjohn

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

I realise that, but as you yourself state, at least it should advise a potential buyer if the car is roadworthy on the day they are buying it, something which a lot of people would not be able to ascertain themselves.
In your opinion, which is better?
Getting an MOT carried out which may pick up some faults or safety issues and being able to test drive the car at the same time, which might give some indication of the state of the clutch, gearbox, engine etc, or relying on the sellers description and not driving the car at all?


Which can easily be checked by looking at the paperwork for the vehicle.


There is a 1.5mm limit for pads, so provided they are above this, there is still a reasonable amount of life in them, and if it's very close to the failure limit then this should be noted on the advisory.

Thats if the tester can see the pads in the first place, they are not allowed to remove the wheels or hubcaps if fitted to see the state of the brakes.

shaun_from_Africa

If they can't see the pads, what do they do with regards to the requirement for inspecting them?
Do they have to make a note on the report to advise the owner that the pads weren't checked?

pitkin2020

Hermione_Granger wrote: »

So someone suggests taking a car for an MOT test before purchasing it which will check if it is roadworthy and also making sure that they give it a road test, and all you can offer is criticism and no practical advice.
Oh Dear indeed.

How else would you suggest that a potential buyer can legally test drive the car on the road to see if they like how if feels and if it might be suitable for them?

Go to a dealer instead of wasting a private sellers time if you are not sure if the car is suitable.

Hermione_Granger

What if the particular model of car isn't available in a local dealership? and if it was, it would probably be far more expensive than buying privately.

If I was spending a few thousand £s on a second hand car, I'd hardly call it wasting the sellers time to expect to be able to take it for a test drive.

pitkin2020

Hermione_Granger wrote: »

What if the particular model of car isn't available in a local dealership? and if it was, it would probably be far more expensive than buying privately.

If I was spending a few thousand £s on a second hand car, I'd hardly call it wasting the sellers time to expect to be able to take it for a test drive.

No if your after a particular model and you know what you want then you aren't wasting a private sellers time. The people that have 3k to spend and want to go and try an astra, a mondeo, a fiesta etc to see which one they prefer to drive and which one has the nicest seats then they are wasting private sellers time. There will be of course those who know they want a mondeo, go and test one then decide they can't stand it so go look for something different.

scheming_gypsy

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

That was one of the main reasons I suggested getting an MOT.

Provided the potential buyer has an insurance policy that would cover them for another vehicle that has no insurance of its own in place, and provided the car is being driven to a prebooked MOT, then the lack of tax wouldn't be a problem.

This will enable the car to be test driven on the road and will have the added bonus of having the roadworthiness of it checked before parting with any money.

unfortunately that'd only work for the first viewer. If they don't want it then the car has 12+ month MOT, still no tax and can't be taken for a test drive.
Whoever buys it is going to have to tax it anyway so the only option is really for the seller to bang the cost of tax on the price of the car and stick 6 months on it

Rolandtheroadie

d.ross wrote: »

If your policy t&c's say that the vehicle must be road legal (as most do), then you wouldn't be covered if you drove it illegally.

This is quite simple, and I can't understand why people find it so difficult to understand. Possibly it's because people have been driving illegally, and don't want to accept that they were.

Theres threads on here when people have had no MOT but still been paid out even when their T&C's say the car MUST have an MOT.

How is this possible?

I've never seen a no VED clause.