help! caught with no mot, dealer at fault

Alt

I am interested to see if the MOT shows any serious and/or expensive to rectify issues with the car......


Alt

enfield_freddy

the retail should provide the OP with the remaining 6 mths MOT they paid for (yup we know it can,t be done)

AdrianC

darkmatter666 wrote: »

Why do you think it's half the cost. The car wasn't sold with a mot so the purchaser hasn't had six months use of a car with an mot.

Because the car was sold with an MOT that expired this autumn, so the purchaser would have had to renew it this autumn anyway.

If the purchaser had exercised sensible due diligence, they would have found out the lack of MOT immediately, so everything since then is down to failure to mitigate their losses.

Crabman

AdrianC wrote: »

If the purchaser had exercised sensible due diligence, they would have found out the lack of MOT immediately, so everything since then is down to failure to mitigate their losses.

The customer had every right to rely on the promise made by the retailer. You can't doubt and double check absolutely everything or the marketplace would grind to a halt. The retailer said it had an MOT. This turned out to be a false statement. These things happen and this is what consumer rights are for.

The remedy is for the retailer to restore the customer to the position they would have been in had no misleading information been given.

AdrianC

Crabman wrote: »

The customer had every right to rely on the promise made by the retailer. You can't doubt and double check absolutely everything or the marketplace would grind to a halt. The retailer said it had an MOT. This turned out to be a false statement. These things happen and this is what consumer rights are for.

The remedy is for the retailer to restore the customer to the position they would have been in had no misleading information been given.

Indeed. No argument there.

And the customer has a duty to take reasonable steps to mitigate their losses. Again, no argument?

The only remaining question is whether it is reasonable to expect a car buyer to notice that the MOT certificate is for a different registration and marque of car...

enfield_freddy

ie: provide an MOT and pay the OPs fine , however they are not answering the phone or communicating ,


the OP has now posted in consumer rights now asking the ways of obtaining her right by other means (using the law)

Crabman

AdrianC wrote: »

Indeed. No argument there.

And the customer has a duty to take reasonable steps to mitigate their losses. Again, no argument?

The only remaining question is whether it is reasonable to expect a car buyer to notice that the MOT certificate is for a different registration and marque of car...

I don't disagree - I would definitely have noticed such a glaring discrepancy, yet a consumer is entitled to rely on a promise made by a retailer that they have no reason to distrust. The retailer is the specialist here and really should not have made this error.

AdrianC

Crabman wrote: »

The retailer ... really should not have made this error.

Very true.

But, as was pointed out early on in the thread, it is entirely possible to see how a simple human error could have occurred, with the wrong car going for test.

Never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence.

pinkteapot

macman wrote: »

Dealer appears to be a numpty. Get it MOT'd, pay the FPN, then send an LBA (letter before action) to the dealer asking for all your costs (fine, MOT, any reasonable other personal expenses; itemise them out) to be refunded in full within 14 days, or you will seek to recover them via the small claims process of the county court.
That will hopefully do the trick. If not, you'll have to go via the small claims route, which is not arduous.

Just highlighting this post as it's excellent advice lost in all the shouting, and OP hasn't thanked it, so not sure if they've seen it.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

So to summarise:

1) The action could be no further action, a fixed penalty, or a court appearance. No point discussing further until the OP hears, but it is unlikely to be disastrous. Insurers should be informed when the result of that is known - may or may not make a difference.

2) The dealer is blameworthy, and should make reparations.

3) As the dealer is being uncooperative, the OP should get the car MOT'd. However, there is the possibility of further issues. It is important that the OP puts in writing that she has contacted the garage, not had proper communication and therefore has been forced to resolve it themselves. That covers them in case there is an argument over liability over the lines of "we would have done that if you'd come to us." The dealer has failed to mitigate his loss by acting unreasonably. The point of getting things documented is so if it did require a claim in court, the court can see you have acted reasonably.

3) If work is required to get the car through the MOT, you will need advice on whether this was likely to have been a pre-existing condition or could reasonably have come about over the time you owned the car.