Purchased car 2nd hand with full mot but.........

stef240377

Thank you to all for the positive input. I have rang VOSA today and explained to them about the repairs i have had done based on the advisories on previous MOT's and the fact that the newest mot done at the dodgy centre avoided all the advisories. They are taking the matter seriously and it has been forwarded to the investigations department who have passed my contact details on so they can get more information from both myself and the repairing garage.
From what has been said it is not a big issue that the repairs have been carried out as we have the parts that have been removed, the indepth reciept from the garage and the MOT tester has given approval to write a report if necessary.

Hoping now that no lives have been put at risk because of someone choosing greed over safety.

Joe_Horner

Thanks for following it up, and for posting back to show that a quick phonecall is worth it in cases like this.

People often seem all too ready to dismiss this sort of thing as tough luck, or buyer naivety, or whatever and say not to bother following t up, but they'd be the first ones complaining if one of theirs got hit by a poorly MOT'd car!

topdaddy_2

A mot is valid for 48 hrs and adviseries are a waste of time???
Anyway some of the stuff in this thread "could" be libelous...

Johnmcl7

In case anyone is wondering, the dealer who sold the car (or at least someone claiming to be) bumped the thread and said the car was a good runner, the buyer had never been back in touch, mot's were only valid for 48 hours and advisories were completely irrelevant. That post has now been deleted but the reply to that post from topdaddy is still there but now it looks a bit random without the original post.

John

AdrianC

Johnmcl7 wrote: »

In case anyone is wondering, the dealer who sold the car (or at least someone claiming to be) bumped the thread and said the car was a good runner

Which is, of course, a matter of opinion - it could easily be claimed that the faults were not related to how the car "ran"...

the buyer had never been back in touch

I don't think the OP ever claimed they had been, did they?

mot's were only valid for 48 hours

The MOT itself is quite clear that it makes no promises about roadworthiness, and is merely a statement of the vehicle's condition against a set series of benchmarks on the day in question.

and advisories were completely irrelevant.

Advisories are things that the car has not failed the test on, but the tester feels he should bring to the attention of the person whose car it is. No more, no less... Different testers, different opinions as to whether to mention items.

It's a long-dead thread, sure, but the list of things the OP's complaining about do include some very minor issues that'd be blindingly obvious on a quick once-around the car. Indicators, number plate etc. The brakes and suspension are difficult to comment on, since the OP's description doesn't quite make technical sense - but I struggle to think of issues which would fit but wouldn't have been obvious even on a pre-purchase test drive.

At the end of the day, all it does is reinforce my opinion on the bottom-feeders at that end of the motor trade, and the shonky rubbish they flog. The OP must accept some element of responsibility, though, for buying a cheap car apparently blind and on the basis of "low mileage".

That post has now been deleted but the reply to that post from topdaddy is still there but now it looks a bit random without the original post.

A good reason to quote in replies...?

Johnmcl7

I wasn't making any comments on the deleted post or the thread in general, I was just posting to highlight a post had been deleted as the previous post looks very odd now the post has been deleted - quoting it would have helped although I assume it would have meant both posts would have deleted.

John

arcon5

Assuming it was a trade sale, they're not allowed to do that. Doesn't matter if you think they should be able to, THEY CAN'T (sorry for shouting btw, but people do seem to have trouble hearing that nit!)

Sold as spares and sold as seen are very different.

Nothing wrong with selling a car as spares at all. Happens all the time, trade and private.

If you buy a car advertised as spares any reasonable person would deem it to be likely to be faulty or unroadworthy.
Had it not been sold as spares it would be different

AdrianC

Johnmcl7 wrote: »

I wasn't making any comments on the deleted post or the thread in general, I was just posting to highlight a post had been deleted as the previous post looks very odd now the post has been deleted - quoting it would have helped although I assume it would have meant both posts would have deleted.

Depends on if the poster themselves deleted the post or if the admins deleted it, and why.

Johnmcl7

AdrianC wrote: »

Depends on if the poster themselves deleted the post or if the admins deleted it, and why.

I suspect it was someone from the forum team, the profile was the same as the garage name and they made it clear they were posting as a response from the company which isn't allowed here.

John

Joe_Horner

arcon5 wrote: »

Sold as spares and sold as seen are very different.

No they're not in law. Both are meaningless phrases which can't be used to offset other claims in an advert - two key ones in this case being "12 months MOT" and "good runner" (or whatever exact words were used).

"Good runner, excellent condition for age, full MOT, luvly little motor Guv, spares or repair" is inherently contradictory and the only reason for adding that "spares or repair" is to try and avoid the buyer's statutory rights, which is an offence. Can you suggest any other plausible reason for that sort of description?

There's also the matter of selling unroadworthy vehicles (assuming it was, of course - the OP never did come back with the verdict from VOSA on that). That is an offence in ALL cases with respect to steering (including suspension where that affects steering), braking and tyre faults unless you have no reason to think that the buyer's going to drive it on the road.

So, if a buyer turns up without a trailer to remove it, you're immediately committing an offence if you accept their money. Whether or not anything would come of it is doubtful, but you ARE committing an offence.