Sold a car by RIGHT CAR with no MOT - where do I stand?

Flyboy152

wilykit wrote: »

Yep, this was agreed earlier on that they will MOT it for free and if any work is needed they will do it.

And give me a courtesy car whilst mine is at the garage.

Is this a wind up? Even if they have agreed it is their fault, why should they pay for new tyres, brakes, exhaust and any other consumable that was fully working and safe when you bought it?

hartcjhart

bigjl wrote: »

You only think they are being judgemental as you are the person you feel is being unfairly "judged".

Right Car have admitted not putting on a longer MOT than a few days, you are entirely responsible for driving without an MOT for the best part of six months, nobody else is responsible for you not checking the car was MOT'd, which you only did when you tried to tax it.

This is by simple definition driving a car with a reckless or indeed "cavalier" way.

Nice to see simple statements of fact still warrent abuse from those caught out by their own stupidity and ignorance of very basic concepts.

So if, as you say, your boyfriend checks your tyres at the weekend then you could quite easily have driven on a damaged tyre since leaving your boyfriends house one weekend and driven on it all week.

You don't seem to realise that everything you have said just underpins some posters viewpoint.

It was a very good thing when they introduced vehicle safety checks into the driving tests if you ask me.

Your boyfriend needs to show you how to do basic roadworthiness checks.

And you say you were told it had an MOT! Well it did you were too stupid to check when it ran out, I take it you don't eat out of date food? The same use of dates is used on an MOT, it is valid till it is not valid.

From what you have said on here I firmly believe you feel you have done no wrong, even though you were unable to perform a very basic check.

carefull, some dont like it when you use that word:D

Joe_Horner

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Is this a wind up? Even if they have agreed it is their fault, why should they pay for new tyres, brakes, exhaust and any other consumable that was fully working and safe when you bought it?

At the risk of shocking some of the more cynical on here, possibly they were giving good customer service?

Presumably if, when the OP took it back, there was obvious stuff beyond 6 months of wear & tear, they might have decided they couldn't cover that.

But 6 months use of a car that's good (rather than a bare MOT pass) in the first place really shouldn't create much of a problem so, if they trust the cars they sell, the offer should be fairly safe.