Bought used car with catalytic converter removed - any comeback?

shaun_from_Africa

I agree that is a very grey area, but I wouldn't think that a different exhaust would have to be declared unless it was vastly different to the original part.

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?

Simply because of the way the law is worded.
If an "average consumer" would consider that the missing cat would make them reconsider the purchase, then they have to be advised of this, and I think that many people might think that not having a cat fitted could cause problems with either a future MOT or when reselling the vehicle.

Not having a working alarm fitted wouldn't stop a car from passing the MOT, but if the seller is aware of this problem then they must tell the buyer so why should a cat be any different?

meanmum

Thanks for all the comments. Sounds to me that having no CAT is probably doing no harm at the moment. But what happens when the MOT is due next year - will it then fail automatically for absence of the CAT, even if it passes the emissions test?

cyclonebri1

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

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.

Sorry chap but nothing of the sort. |My point was that the emmisions test is the easiest part of the test to "fiddle", forget who owns the car, you just test another car. The motive?, doesn't really matter the end result is that a faulty motor gets a tick in the box

meanmum

meanmum wrote: »

Thanks for all the comments. Sounds to me that having no CAT is probably doing no harm at the moment. But what happens when the MOT is due next year - will it then fail automatically for absence of the CAT, even if it passes the emissions test?

After a bit of research, it seems this automatic fail for no CAT is only going to apply for newer cars (I've read mid 2008 & 2006 - not clear which is correct). So I'm thinking that as long as it continues to pass the emissions test, we don't really need to do anything about replacing the CAT. Does this seem a logical conclusion?

shaun_from_Africa

Sorry chap but nothing of the sort. |My point was that the emmisions test is the easiest part of the test to "fiddle", forget who owns the car, you just test another car.

I agree that the emissions test is extremely easy to fiddle, but my point was that I could see it happening far more often if there is financial gain to be made by the garage (if for example, it is for a car that they are selling).

This is the only bit of your post that I disagreed with:

The motive?, doesn't really matter

as I think that the motive probably would matter.

Anyway, as the saying goes lets agree to disagree.


meanmum, if you have any concerns, you could always take the car into a garage and ask them to do an emissions test just to make sure that removing the cat hasn't made them too high.
I don't have any idea of the cost of this test, but I can't imagine it will be too high, especially if you go back to the garage that recently serviced the car.

Another thing that may be worth looking into are the fault codes from the ECU.
I don't know if these are stored, but if they are you may be able to get a printout of them to see if any faults were showing whilst the car was owned by the garage who sold you the motor. (this is providing they are also shown with the date that they occurred).
If this is the case then you may have a chance of getting them to replace the cat if you can show that they were aware of a problem.

Wig

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

meanmum, if you have any concerns, you could always take the car into a garage and ask them to do an emissions test just to make sure that removing the cat hasn't made them too high.
I don't have any idea of the cost of this test, but I can't imagine it will be too high, especially if you go back to the garage that recently serviced the car.

£10 cheap as chips

£15 Expect to pay

£20+ Taking the proverbial

Hammyman

Strider590 wrote: »

Dare I ask if the dealer put a fresh MOT on it for you just before you bought it? If so, then report them for falsifying an MOT.

Based on what grounds?

Hammyman

meanmum wrote: »

So is it possible that the engine management light really is actually due to a hole in the exhaust (as the garage originally said - although not telling the whole story).......& is this doing any harm?
Is there any good reason to refit the CAT if the car otherwise passes an emissions test? Or will just the absence of the CAT be an MOT failure issue in itself soon?
How is a missing CAT likely to affect fuel consumption? It's a petrol engine.

No. I've seen plenty of de-cats and the engine light hasn't come on.

If it passes without, the only reason to fit one would be if it needs one when the rules change.

It will not affect fuel consumption.

cyclonebri1

Hammyman wrote: »

No. I've seen plenty of de-cats and the engine light hasn't come on.

If it passes without, the only reason to fit one would be if it needs one when the rules change.

It will not affect fuel consumption.

It's highly likely to decrease fuel consumption and increase performance which is mainly why they get de-catted