Are the general public mad

burlington6

So, bought a new van last week and thought I'd sell the old one on ebay. Ten years old, 8 months MOT, 140,000 miles, £1500.

Oldish chap turned up, took it for a drive, paid me and off he went.

Anyway last night I get an email through my business email address saying due to it having advisories at it's last MOT I have sold him a lemon.

I think I'll stick the next one in the local auction, cheap vans make decent money now so there's no need to deal with dreamers

OnanTheBarbarian

buyer beware!

he could have checked this info out before buying. There are so many deluded idiots out there that dealing with the sale of any used vehicle is a nightmare. You either get chumps like this expecting a brand new vehicle for £1500 or bruv types sending you text messages of "what's your last price mate?" - i'll give you £600 etc etc.

bod1467

OnanTheBarbarian wrote: »

buyer beware!

Only if the OP made those advisories known prior to the sale. (Such as presenting the MOT certificate and printout for review)

Why? This is a van ... as such it may actually have been a business sale/purchase rather than consumer one. (Vans tend to be business vehicles and so a seller may need to be absolutely clear that this is a private sale and not a business one).

I hope I have explained this clearly enough - I am prone to ramble at times.

Master_Blaster

The MOT is the testers opinion on the day of the test. An advisory is not a fail so why would tyres near to the legal limit need to be disclosed in the advert? They may well have been change before the vehicle was advertised for sale.

bod1467

Are you saying that tyres near to the legal limit are the only MOT advisories? Seriously?

If not, how have you inferred tyres from the OP's statement?

Master_Blaster

bod1467 wrote: »

Are you saying that tyres near to the legal limit are the only advisories? Seriously?

If not, how have you inferred tyres from the OP's statement?

I do not know what the advisories were. I was just giving an example, there may have been play in a track rod. The fact is the vehicle was sold with a current test certificate, the certificate was genuine, showing the vehicle was road worthy at the time of the test. The seller has not done anything wrong in respect of the MOT. Thank You.

burlington6

Off the DirectGov website

Front inner faces brake disc worn, pitted or scored, but not seriously weakened (3.5.1i)

Front coil spring corroded (2.4.C.1b)

Rear coil spring corroded (2.4.C.1b)

Front both sides Suspension arm ball joint dust cover damaged, but preventing the ingress of dirt (2.4.G.2)

Offside Rear Lower Shock absorber has a slightly worn bush (2.7.4)

Under-trays fitted obscuring some underside components

Engine covers fitted obscuring some components in the engine bay

Fuel pipe/s corroded

colino

OP, what you need is a new place to get your MOTs. Even the DVSA is getting sick of incompetent and backside-covering NTs reporting dross like that and reminding them of their responsibilities in the regular refresher courses.

Joe_Horner

colino wrote: »

OP, what you need is a new place to get your MOTs. Even the DVSA is getting sick of incompetent and backside-covering NTs reporting dross like that and reminding them of their responsibilities in the regular refresher courses.

Those are all pretty reasonable advisories though. The advisory system isn't about making cars look good for sale, it's about letting the presenter know about incipent problems.

Brake disk corrosion and wear can be far more than many people think before it becomes a fail. This DVSA "Matters of Testing" video shows just how bad a disk can be and still pass - wouldn't you want to be advised if your disks were like the first two?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVpgCKz8oWs&t=2m33s

For coil springs, the fail criteria for corrosion is that they must be reduced in cross section enough to seriously weaken them. But many modern springs will fracture because of local stress with corrosion that's not bad enough to fail on those grounds. Again, it's nice to tell the presenter.

A split balljoint cover is only ever going to get worse, if it's noted before it starts letting dust in then you've got the option of changing the cover rather than (possibly) the whole suspension arm. generic covers cost a couple of quid each, and take a lot less work to fit than a full arm. Once it's gone too far the joint itself will be damaged and it's a bigger job. Again it's in the owner's interests to be told.

Bush wear depends a bit on what bush, what car, and how much wear is present as to whether or not being advised is helpful. But it's a minor thing to note it down anyway.

Undertrays and engine covers are standard advisories on modern cars, which DVSA say should be done, because they do severely restrict the tester's ability to see things which can mean a significant part of the suspension, structure, brake pipes and so on being untested.

Fuel line corrosion is only a fail if it's bad enough to be leaking. Again, if it looks close to that point I'd like to know about it before I start dribbling £1.25 a litre fuel behind me!


As to the OP's situation, if it was a business (for him) vehicle that he was selling to a private user then he should have shown them the advisories. But, if the buyer was also going to use it for business, then it's a BTB sale and the buyer is expected to carry out due diligence himself

kingstreet

Weren't the advisories on the MOT Certificate the buyer took away with the van, keys etc?

They certainly are on the one I have in front of me.

burlington6

I gave him all the paperwork on the day and the v5 reference number a few days before. He had a flick through the paperwork and that was it.