Bought used car with catalytic converter removed - any comeback?

shaun_from_Africa

Wig wrote: »

You can ignore this, there would be no legal requirement for a dealer to notify the buyer of a missing cat.

Are you 100% sure about that?
A seller is breaking the law if they fail to tell a consumer about something that may influence their decision about purchasing an item and IMO, buying a car that has had an item such as a cat removed may well influence whether or not someone buys the car at the advertised price.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/1277/regulation/6/made

Misleading omissions

6.—(1) A commercial practice is a misleading omission if, in its factual context, taking account of the matters in paragraph (2)—

(a)the commercial practice omits material information,

(b)the commercial practice hides material information,

(c)the commercial practice provides material information in a manner which is unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely, or

(d)the commercial practice fails to identify its commercial intent, unless this is already apparent from the context,

and as a result it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise.

cyclonebri1

poppasmurf_bewdley wrote: »

Result - friendly MOT tester then loses his licence for being such a ruddy fool.

I doubt any tester would put his licence - and his livelihood - at risk by acting as you suggest.

My brother lost his MOT licence when he passed a car which belonged to a policeman, who then reported him for passing a car which should have failed!!!

Then wake up and smell the coffee.
What should happen and what actually does are often at the opposite end of the spectrum. I'm not saying it's right, but I am saying it's REAL,

If, and I mean if, your brother lost his "licence" then he deserved to by not being able to suss out a set up. No mot station will lose it's livlyhood by letting 1 car slip through the net due to a simple error or mistake. Remember the car has only to be tested as seen at the moment of the test.


There are so many loopholes that it makes a mockery of the "system", eg

No rear seats fitted?, no check

Baby seats fitted?, not possible to check rear seat fitment

Boot full? No testing of boot internals

Raccy over sills fitted? Not possible to check outer sill condition

I think the term is that the car can only be tested "as presented", crazy? quite possible but that's the situation

shaun_from_Africa

cyclo,

There is a big difference between your scenario and the one which poppasmurf doesn't think would happen.

Poppasmurf was replying to a post in which it was stated that an MOT inspector would do a test on a different car rather than refit the cat if someone took their car for a test.
Your earlier post appeared to be referring to an MOT test on a car owned by or being sold by the garage doing the test.

In the 1st case the garage has nothing to gain and everything to lose by attempting to give a false emissions test, but in the 2nd case any risk they take is because they will see the benefit of the false test.

Hermione_Granger

A dealer not declaring that an item has been removed prior to selling a car would probably be viewed the same as one who doesn't declare that a car was previously a Cat C or Cat D write off.

Up until the unfair trading reg's were amended in 2008, a dealer didn't have to volunteer this information (but if asked then they had to give an honest reply). Now they must give this info without being specifically asked first.
I'm sure that the same would now be true with removing a fairly expensive item from a car they were selling.

scheming_gypsy

poppasmurf_bewdley wrote: »

Result - friendly MOT tester then loses his licence for being such a ruddy fool.

I doubt any tester would put his licence - and his livelihood - at risk by acting as you suggest.

My brother lost his MOT licence when he passed a car which belonged to a policeman, who then reported him for passing a car which should have failed!!!

he doesn't lose his license or even put it to the test as it's a friendly MOT station.. A friendly MOT station is usually one where you know somebody who works there and not just somebody who gives you a cup of tea.

The scenario is quite simple and commo; because you don't like it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
The theory is that if the car fails on the emissions the cat is there to be replaced and then a retest, but because they know you're going to put the decat back on when you get home they just test on another car.

your brother scenario is irrelevant as he passed it wrongly for a stranger, rather than just ignoring the hassle of putting the cat back on when it's going to be taken off again.

Homersimpson

I know my MOT tester very well and he's absolutly brilliant but he's very very strict. As an example he always fails my 1967 mini because the spacing on the original dealer fitter number plates is incorrect on the rear. I have a new number plate that I fit just for the MOT but the original one is just so nice and period that I can't bear to change it (car is39k from new and completely original).

I always take all my cars to him because I drive them hard and want to know that as far as possible they are right.

As mentioned above though,some MOT stations arn't fussy at all, one passed a car for me even though I had left the flasher unit on the bench at home and the indicators didn't work!

Wig

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Are you 100% sure about that?
A seller is breaking the law if they fail to tell a consumer about something that may influence their decision about purchasing an item and IMO, buying a car that has had an item such as a cat removed may well influence whether or not someone buys the car at the advertised price.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/1277/regulation/6/made

The Act you refer to gives no right of refund to a consumer, and to rely on it it would appear there would need to be a prosecution by the authorites against the seller. Happy to be corrected but this is how I see it.

And from the same Act

Due diligence defence

17.—(1) In any proceedings against a person for an offence under regulation 9, 10, 11 or 12 it is a defence for that person to prove—

(a)that the commission of the offence was due to—

(i)a mistake;

(ii)reliance on information supplied to him by another person;

(iii)the act or default of another person;

(iv)an accident; or

(v)another cause beyond his control; and

(b)that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of such an offence by himself or any person under his control.


He bought a car in Part Ex, got it MOT'd - it passed the MOT - Would it be reasonable that he did not know it had no cat? I think so. Unless it was an advisory on the MOT.
OP can check the MOT cert to see if an advisory was issued. If one was issued but the OP did not get it, he can check what the advisory said by looking here
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicle/Mot/DG_10020539

If one was issued and the OP was given it and it mentions a missiing cat, it could be tried (not saying it would be succesful) but it could be tried to be used a defence that the information was passed on to the consumer.

shaun_from_Africa

I realise that there there are a lot of ifs and maybes if fault was to be proved against the seller, but my reasoning for posting the link to the legislation was in response to your comment that

there would be no legal requirement for a dealer to notify the buyer of a missing cat.

which you yourself have now admitted is not totally correct. If they weren't aware of it then they couldn't they notify the buyer, but if they did know then by law they are legally bound to disclose this.

Wig

Absolutely, I am inclined to agree with you, but IMHO it would be very difficult to enforce.

colino

If the car is capable of passing the MOT without the cat as some good cars can (different from next year though) why would a seller have to tell the buyer the cat wasn't there? When you get a fast fit exhaust it rarely, if ever, matches the exact dimensions, performance or quality of the oe, does that need declared too?