purchased vehicle with a dodgy MOT :(

ester83

s_b wrote: »

the quite simple answer is you get the dvsa report
you then take vender to court for selling an item not fit for purpose
do everything right and personally i think its watertight

I've been told I have no fit for purpose claim from a private seller, only a not as described one though.

s_b

ester83 wrote: »

I've been told I have no fit for purpose claim from a private seller, only a not as described one though.

who tells you this?
you bought an article to clearly move horses
it clearly cant at this stage

ester83

I guess the question is then how do I best prove the vehicle was unroadworthy when I bought it on friday 13th (! I know!) given that all the problems are corrosion. If it helps this is the list, in garage speak Tyres: NSR, NSF, OSF. (2 were the only advisories on the MOT) one is apparently cracked all over and in dreadful condition.
NSF and OSF LOWTR arm
ball joint
OSF steering rack joint+Play
OSF steering rack boot (we knew about this one)
OSF brake binding
NSF top suspension arm joint
NSF wheel bearing
Steering rack
excessive corrosion NSR and OSR suspension
excessive corrosion OS seat belt mounting
OSR wheel bearing
Handbrake effort insufficient to pass test.

ester83

s_b wrote: »

who tells you this?
you bought an article to clearly move horses
it clearly cant at this stage

citizens advice

s_b

citizens advice dont always give correct advice by the way so dont take what they say too literally
parralel thinking, put the venders telephone numbers into google see if they horse trade other vehicles privately

AdrianC

ester83 wrote: »

If it helps this is the list, in garage speak Tyres: NSR, NSF, OSF. (2 were the only advisories on the MOT) one is apparently cracked all over and in dreadful condition.

The advisories for tyres were on the MOT. You could have easily inspected those before purchase - and you bought it in the knowledge they really needed replacement.

excessive corrosion NSR and OSR suspension
excessive corrosion OS seat belt mounting

These are the ONLY ones that the MOT can even be appealed on now - because they're the only corrosion-related fails. The rest are 14-day appeal only.

Frankly, that list is actually nowhere near as bad as you made out.

NSF and OSF LOWTR arm
ball joint
OSF steering rack joint+Play
OSF steering rack boot (we knew about this one)
OSF brake binding
NSF top suspension arm joint
NSF wheel bearing
Steering rack
OSR wheel bearing
Handbrake effort insufficient to pass test.

They're just various bits of suspension and brake wear and tear. A good once-through, and it'll be just fine.

What is it? 7.5t truck? Van-based?

ester83

AdrianC wrote: »

The advisories for tyres were on the MOT. You could have easily inspected those before purchase - and you bought it in the knowledge they really needed replacement.

Yup not questioning the tyres, knew needed at least 2 they were just on my copy and paste list

AdrianC wrote: »

These are the ONLY ones that the MOT can even be appealed on now - because they're the only corrosion-related fails. The rest are 14-day appeal only.

Yes I am aware of that.

AdrianC wrote: »

Frankly, that list is actually nowhere near as bad as you made out.

They're just various bits of suspension and brake wear and tear. A good once-through, and it'll be just fine.

What is it? 7.5t truck? Van-based?

I'm glad you think it is not too bad , it is a scary list for a newbie and I think my mechanic was just a bit open mouthed with such a recent MOT with no advisories in his hand and the truck in front of him. It is a 3.5T LWB renault master converted about 8 years ago by a reputable converter. It is just with the list of what we knew needed doing - cam belt, major rust work to either edge etc I had 1k in the budget for TLC, not nearer 2.5k which is nearly the price of the truck again and rather takes it beyond it's actual worth/what else I could have bought for that sort of money.

DVSA have confirmed when they look at it (which will give us something independent) they will say whether it is roadworthy/was roadworthy at time of sale.

AdrianC

OK, so van-based, rather than "proper" truck. I presume that it started off life as a chassis-cab, rather than a van body, or a cab/rear-platform?

The only one that'd even slightly worry me is the rear suspension rot - is it the suspension itself, or the metalwork where it attaches? None of it's insurmountable, though. If it's a chassis-cab, it'll be easier welding, I'd expect, because the welder'll be working on a proper chassis member, rather than a pressed steel floor intended for a monocoque.

The rest is just bolt-on consumables.

Sure, it's money. But you know they're all fresh. Sure, you'll have spent £5k rather than £4k, but if you throw this away and buy another £3k horsebox to spend a grand on, you'll have spent £7k.

ester83

yup van based

It's unbudgeted money that wasn't accounted for in the price paid though as declared 'mechancially no problems at all'
And in the knowledge that I can get a horse area conversion done on a £2k van with a new cambelt and years warranty for £5.5k. In hindsight I should maybe have gone with that option, and in hindsight I should have gotten in re MOTd before purchase.

I don't quite get your maths, I wouldn't be throwing this away as nothing, I would be persuing the seller for selling an unroadworthy/not as described vehicle. I don't plan on paying out and just chalking it up to experience just yet.

AdrianC

A £2k 3.5t van is not going to be trouble-free. Quite the opposite - it's going to be close to dead itself...