Second hand car - MOT Fail

izools

Ok thank you I will take that on board, and on the chin.

Now regarding this six month warranty -

There were no terms provided with the warranty - they provided a warranty booklet from "Warranty 2000" missing the insert which detailed what was covered.

I asked them at point of sale what is covered and he said "Everything" - I asked him about the insert that should be in the Warranty 2000 brochure, and he said "it would follow in the post".

It didn't, so I called Warranty 2000 to find that the level of cover TC Cars paid them for was the most basic they offer, and Warranty 2000 stated that the insert should have been provided by the vendor at point of sale - so I was lied to about the warranty by the vendor.

On the Warranty 2000 "Proposal form" the vendor failed to fill in the "Type of cover field" - he told me it would be the highest level but obviously after I left he completed that section entering the lowest level.

I have a witness to all of this also.

Surely if a vendor makes an agreement with a buyer to warrant the car for six months, with nothing in writing or verbally about limitations to said warranty - that's their risk to take? I was sold a six month warranty with no exclusions expressed or implied, surely they have an obligation to fulfil that?

paddedjohn

Just because the testing station is also a accident repair centre it doesn't necarserilly follow that the car was involved in any accidents. Personally I believe that you will be doing well if the dealer rectifies any of these 'faults'

colino

e39s are very heavy on suspension and tyres and you have to use oem parts to stop things like anti roll bar bushes, for example, being annual changes. I'm more worried about the damaged/missing wheel arch liners. I can't think of a job that you have to remove them to do and points to it being in a front ender and cheaply/badly repaired.
Slightly concerned about the diagnosis too though. Aim of the fog light? They don't check it anyway and it is a screwed in piece. Similarly advising, but not failing on rusty brake parts and "perished" hoses. It's either a fail or not. I'd also get someone who actually knows about beemers to have a look, not unknown for dodgy garages to condemn a e39 diff and then replace the rear wheel bearings instead (which is much more likely).

motorguy

izools wrote: »

I understand they are standard wear and tear items but the fact that all of these failure have come to light within two-three months of buying the vehicle, given that the vehicle has been driven according to all the british driving regulations and speed limits in force and not "ragged" would suggest these parts were already faulty / impending failure at point of sale, no?

You took a 11+ year old car to a main dealer and they found some work that they could do??? Are you surprised? :eek:

Its an old car, it needs maintained, and most of the items your highlighting would be considered reasonable to replace on a car that old.

izools

Thanks for this, I will follow your advice.

As regards to the Diff, it's definitely leaking, I've had it up on a ramp and inspected it myself; seems to just be a washer on a bolt however so a drain, refill, and new bolt / washer should sort that out in a jiffy.

motorguy wrote: »

You took a 11+ year old car to a main dealer and they found some work that they could do??? Are you surprised? :eek:

No, I took it to two Indys one of which is a BMW specialist.

Of course I'm not surprised some work needs doing, which is why I don't expect him to fix everything, all I've asked of him is that he restore the vehicle to what VOSA would consider to be a roadworthy state.

Is this not reasonable?

motorguy

izools wrote: »

Surely if a vendor makes an agreement with a buyer to warrant the car for six months, with nothing in writing or verbally about limitations to said warranty - that's their risk to take? I was sold a six month warranty with no exclusions expressed or implied, surely they have an obligation to fulfil that?

A warranty will cover premature failure of a part, due to manufacturing defect.

I would imagine you might struggle to prove manufacturing defect with such an old car.

motorguy

the_r_sole wrote: »

well, imo the parts could have been towards the end of their useful life when you bought the car, and been perfectly roadworthy, unless the dealer replaced all the items you are talking about then you can't really blame them, it should have been inspected at the time of purchase if you felt it wasn't roadworthy - and with the warranty you possibly should have read the terms before signing on the dotted line
maybe the dealer would do some of the bits as a goodwill gesture but I think you'd be very lucky to get anything for the actual failure points (all things that could definitely have happened in the course of 2000 miles)

also mots aren't really the best indicator of a cars history or work needing done, a proper inspection is much better before handing money over

+1

BMW or not, its an old car and most of this is attributable to the age of the car.

motorguy

izools wrote: »

Of course I'm not surprised some work needs doing, which is why I don't expect him to fix everything, all I've asked of him is that he restore the vehicle to what VOSA would consider to be a roadworthy state.

Is this not reasonable?

Why?

The wear of any of these things that the car could fail MOT on could be attributed to the use it had since its last MOT.

MOT FAIL:

Leaking OSF Shock Absorber
Both anti roll bar gaiters split
NSR Upper Wishbone has play and gaiter split

izools

Is anyone familiar with the laws regarding faults that become apparent within six months of sale?

motorguy

izools wrote: »

Am I right in thinking that as these faults were not apparent and not mentioned at point of sale, but have been diagnosed almost immediately after point of sale, that the law considers these faults to be present at point of sale?

Most of them could fall under wear and tear for a 120K mile car of 11 years old.

izools wrote: »

Would I also be right in thinking that the burden of proof is on the vendor - in so much as if he wants to claim I caused the faults - it's his responsibility to prove said accusation - due to only three months having passed since purchase?

He would probably be suggesting its wear and tear on a car of that age.

izools wrote: »

And would I be correct to say that a car with the faults listed above, sold as "fine" with no mention of them, could be considered at law to be "not of merchantable quality"?

No you wouldnt be correct.

izools wrote: »

I can see the guy doing sweet FA to repair the car and I can see myself having to fork out to get it done myself and sue him for the cost - which I'm happy to do - but I want to be absolutely sure of my legal standing.

FYI I paid £4,000 for the vehicle with 120,000 miles on the clock, it is 11 years old. I would personally think that price is representative of a car that old with that many miles only if it is in good condition, and certainly not a price representative of an MOT Fail. What do you guys think?

You have bought a car that is in the twilight years of its life. BMW themselves want warrant the car beyond 3 years, so it shows what faith they have in their products.

Its only an MOT fail if when its due MOT it fails. It has a current MOT therefore is not an MOT failure.

If you chose to take ANY 120K miles car to an MOT centre 6 months in, you would expect there to be some items wrong - 3 in your case.