Where do I stand?

ChumLee

umarnazar wrote: »

everyone is not street smart, I would believe what a well reputed company would show me on the papers.

Ok, well you need to get the car mot'd anyway. So go back to them and ask if they'll do it for free. That's the best you can hope for.

The actually misled you into believing the car needed a mot when it didn't. Effectively devaluing the car they sold you.

bazster

umarnazar wrote: »

Thank you for the support, that is what I am trying to imply that you have to bear in mind I have been driving this car illegally on the road unknowingly as it was not my fault to start with.

I'm sure they will happily refund you what that has cost you.

interstellaflyer

bazster wrote: »

They didn't sell it supposedly with 12 months' MOT, they sold it on the basis that it didn't need it's first MOT for another 12 months. If the OP knew when the car was registered it should've been pretty bleedin' obvious that this was a mistake!

Which ever way you put it, they told the OP it was MOT'd until December and why would the OP not believe them, after all we're talking a Mercedes approved used car, not something from Arthur Daily s forecourt.

bazster

interstellaflyer wrote: »

Which ever way you put it, they told the OP it was MOT'd until December and why would the OP not believe them, after all we're talking a Mercedes approved used car, not something from Arthur Daily s forecourt.

Yes, they screwed up, we know that, I don't know what you're arguing about. And the remedy should be?

interstellaflyer

bazster wrote: »

Yes, they screwed up, we know that, I don't know what you're arguing about. And the remedy should be?

I don't know, however, you seem to be trivialising the mistake, it's not a trivial thing it's very serious mistake which could've seen the OP in court for having no MOT. Your post seem to verge on saying it's the OP's fault for believing the salesman, why wouldn't he, they supplied some sort of paperwork saying the car didn't need a MOT until December 2015, it's quite reasonable to assume that meant they MOT'd it which would be standard practice unless it's been done recently, I've never bought a second hand car from a dealer that hasn't been given a 12 month MOT before leaving the forecourt.

Johno100

interstellaflyer wrote: »

I don't know, however, you seem to be trivialising the mistake, it's not a trivial thing it's very serious mistake which could've seen the OP in court for having no MOT.

And if that had happened then the OP may have had a claim against the dealer for the cost of his fine, but as he hasn't been caught or prosecuted then it is a bit of a mute point.

jbainbridge

In any case the OP would be wise to get an MOT asap.

bazster

interstellaflyer wrote: »

I don't know, however, you seem to be trivialising the mistake, it's not a trivial thing it's very serious mistake which could've seen the OP in court for having no MOT. Your post seem to verge on saying it's the OP's fault for believing the salesman, why wouldn't he, they supplied some sort of paperwork saying the car didn't need a MOT until December 2015, it's quite reasonable to assume that meant they MOT'd it which would be standard practice unless it's been done recently, I've never bought a second hand car from a dealer that hasn't been given a 12 month MOT before leaving the forecourt.

I think it's the OP's fault for not figuring out that the vehicle was three years old and hence needed an MOT. They didn't tell him it had an MOT, they told him it wasn't due one yet. In any case anyone buying a used car anywhere is a bit of an idiot if they don't check the MOT status for themselves, after all it's the driver's legal responsibility to have an MOT.

All of which is beside the point really, we are where we are, the OP has not been arrested and thrown into the deepest dungeon in the land hence the dealer's mistake has cost him nothing but a few months' worth of MOT. So whatever grisly punishment you may think is appropriate for the dealer, the OP has almost no claim against him.

colino

You really don't think a retail 61 plate with no history and less than a full MOT came out of a genuine Mercedes approved scheme do you? My secondary school was great, it was approved too.

Johno100

bazster wrote: »

All of which is beside the point really, we are where we are, the OP has not been arrested and thrown into the deepest dungeon in the land hence the dealer's mistake has cost him nothing but a few months' worth of MOT. So whatever grisly punishment you may think is appropriate for the dealer, the OP has almost no claim against him.

In truth it has actually saved him a few months' worth of MOT.