purchased vehicle with a dodgy MOT :(

ester83

Ok well put it this way I spend X amount on a van and 3.5k converting it

burlington6

2K doesn't buy much when it comes to vans anymore.

They are the complete opposite to cars

Joe_Horner

In their rush to do the "it's a private sale, no comeback" bit a lot of people seem to be losing sight of the fact that it doesn't actually matter whether or not it was roadworthy at the last MOT in March. What mattwrs is whether or not it was roadworthy a week ago when it was sold.

If DVSA inspect it (they'll do a full MOT even if they can only act on corrosion) and find it unroadworthy NOW then you can safely extrapolate most if those failures back to it being unroadwirthy a week ago when it was sold.

Ball joints and steering racks don't "fair wear and tear" themselves into being faulty in a week.

bigjl

One small observation

Are we talking about surface corrosion or actually holes in the structural parts?

The two are very different and it won't be the first time a Garage has given a vehicle the sucking teeth treatment when a customer they know to be a bit on the gullible side turns up and asks them to have a look.

Perhaps the OP could upload some pictures of the corrosion?

bigjl

ester83 wrote: »

So I recently bought a vehicle privately (small horse lorry, they don't come up from dealers) it was MOTd 27th March this year with the only advisories being tyres, also passed last year with flying colours. It has done 215 miles since that MOT, mostly with me driving it back from kent.

It went straight to my garage after purchase as it needed a new cambelt and some other odds and sodd/good service etc.

Unfortunately he has deemed it unroadworthy and come up with a whole list of MOT failures let alone advisories.
I provided the seller with this information and they have said they will not take it back.

I have filled in the dvsa MOT complaints form which means that they will get me to take it to a local test station in 5 days and will provide me with an independent report (as corrosion should still pass 3 months post MOT and they are all corrosion issues... the list is long!

Now I think legally this is going to get a bit tricky because they didn't knowingly sell an unroadworthy vehicle, and some of those items are only viewable if you get it on a ramp and with wheels off the floor (I did take a more knowledgeable mate to purchase with me). And I think legally I only have come back if I can find something specific that wasn't as described and it had an MOT at the time so as far as they were concerned it was road worthy? Equally I have no contract with the MOTers so will not be able to go after them for costs either?

I spent 3K and budgeted 1k to put right the things were knew were wrong. - and would say it is a 4kish box in good nick and up together.
The work to get it to pass an MOT now has been quoted as over £1000, it is not a 5k+ box.

Any MSE advice at this point would be welcome, I am going to seek legal advice too, I am waiting for them to ring me back.

If you spent £3000 with £1000 budget you are happy as its around £4K

But you say it has quoted as more than £1000 making it a £5k+ box?

So does that mean the quote was actually £2000+??

As that is what it would need to be for the total budget to be £5k+.

straighttalker

Joe_Horner wrote: »

If it is deemed to be unroadworthy (and rust issues wouldn't have "appeared" since the sale) then it doesn't matter whether or not they knew it was - it was a criminal offence to sell it, even as a private seller. Note: they do not need to know - or even suspect - that it's unroadworthy to commit the offence. There is no defence for not knowing

I've never heard of this before. Can you point me in the right direction as to where this law is contained?

According to you, if a granny with no knowledge of cars or mechanics whatsoever sells a car privately with lets say a broken suspension spring, she would be guilty of a criminal offence notwithstanding the fact that she didn't know of the defect nor could she reasonably expected to know.

I'd suggest that you're spouting rubbish.

This is cut and pasted from the which.co.uk website:

"Second-hand car bought privately

You have fewer rights when you buy from a private seller and key parts of the Consumer Rights Act don't apply.

For example, there is no legal requirement for a car to be of satisfactory quality or fit for purpose.

But legally the seller must:

accurately describe the second-hand car (for example, an advert must not say 'one owner' when the car has had several)
not misrepresent the second-hand car (tell you something about the car which isn't true such as if it’s been in an accident, the owner must answer truthfully)."

The following is cut and pasted from the AA's own suggested contract for a private car sale:

"The undersigned purchaser acknowledges receipt of the above vehicle in exchange for the cash sum of £.........., this being the price agreed by the purchaser with the vendor for the above named vehicle, receipt of which the vendor hereby acknowledges. It is understood the vehicle is sold as seen, tried and approved by the purchaser without guarantee"

The long and short of it is if you buy privately you're on your own with little protection. The only time you have any comeback is if the seller specifically misrepresents something i.e. they say it's had 2 owners when in fact its had 17.

In this case, unless the seller has written an ad saying the horse box is in brand new condition with no wear and tear and is 100% as new, the buyer has no recourse against them. Whether the MOT was done properly or not is an issue to be taken between the DVSA and MOT testing station.

If people want consumer protection, suck it up and pay the premium for buying from a dealership. If you're buying privately, you're on your own.

AdrianC

bigjl wrote: »

If you spent £3000 with £1000 budget you are happy as its around £4K

But you say it has quoted as more than £1000 making it a £5k+ box?

So does that mean the quote was actually £2000+??

As that is what it would need to be for the total budget to be £5k+.

He spent £3k, knowing there was another £1k to be spent, taking it to £4k all in. It now needs another £1k, taking it to £5k all in.

Silver-Surfer_2

straighttalker wrote: »

I've never heard of this before. Can you point me in the right direction as to where this law is contained?

According to you, if a granny with no knowledge of cars or mechanics whatsoever sells a car privately with lets say a broken suspension spring, she would be guilty of a criminal offence notwithstanding the fact that she didn't know of the defect nor could she reasonably expected to know.

I'd suggest that you're spouting rubbish.

This is cut and pasted from the which.co.uk website:

"Second-hand car bought privately

You have fewer rights when you buy from a private seller and key parts of the Consumer Rights Act don't apply.

For example, there is no legal requirement for a car to be of satisfactory quality or fit for purpose.

But legally the seller must:

accurately describe the second-hand car (for example, an advert must not say 'one owner' when the car has had several)
not misrepresent the second-hand car (tell you something about the car which isn't true such as if it’s been in an accident, the owner must answer truthfully)."

The following is cut and pasted from the AA's own suggested contract for a private car sale:

"The undersigned purchaser acknowledges receipt of the above vehicle in exchange for the cash sum of £.........., this being the price agreed by the purchaser with the vendor for the above named vehicle, receipt of which the vendor hereby acknowledges. It is understood the vehicle is sold as seen, tried and approved by the purchaser without guarantee"

The long and short of it is if you buy privately you're on your own with little protection. The only time you have any comeback is if the seller specifically misrepresents something i.e. they say it's had 2 owners when in fact its had 17.

In this case, unless the seller has written an ad saying the horse box is in brand new condition with no wear and tear and is 100% as new, the buyer has no recourse against them. Whether the MOT was done properly or not is an issue to be taken between the DVSA and MOT testing station.

If people want consumer protection, suck it up and pay the premium for buying from a dealership. If you're buying privately, you're on your own.

And here's a cut and paste of Section 75 of the Road Traffic Act. is The Law.


not to be sold in unroadworthy condition or altered so as to be unroadworthy.

(1)Subject to the provisions of this section no person shall supply a motor vehicle or trailer in an unroadworthy condition.

(2)In this section references to supply include—

(a)sell,

(b)offer to sell or supply, and

(c)expose for sale.

(3)For the purposes of subsection (1) above a motor vehicle or trailer is in an unroadworthy condition if—

(a)it is in such a condition that the use of it on a road in that condition would be unlawful by virtue of any provision made by regulations under section 41 of this Act as respects—

(i)brakes, steering gear or tyres, or

(ii)the construction, weight or equipment of vehicles,. . .

F1(iii). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[F2(b)it is in such a condition that its use on a road would involve a danger of injury to any person]

(4)Subject to the provisions of this section no person shall alter a motor vehicle or trailer so as to render its condition such that the use of it on a road in that condition

[F3(a)]would be unlawful by virtue of any provision made as respects the construction, weight or equipment of vehicles by regulations under section 41 [F4or

(b)would involve a danger of injury to any person.]

(5)A person who supplies or alters a motor vehicle or trailer in contravention of this section, or causes or permits it to be so supplied or altered, is guilty of an offence.

(6)A person shall not be convicted of an offence under this section in respect of the supply or alteration of a motor vehicle or trailer if he proves—

(a)that it was supplied or altered, as the case may be, for export from Great Britain, or

(b)that he had reasonable cause to believe that the vehicle or trailer would not be used on a road in Great Britain, or would not be so used until it had been put into a condition in which it might lawfully be so used, F5. . .

F6(c). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[F7(6A)Paragraph (b) of subsection (6) above shall not apply in relation to a person who, in the course of a trade or business—

(a)exposes a vehicle or trailer for sale, unless he also proves that he took all reasonable steps to ensure that any prospective purchaser would be aware that its use in its current condition on a road in Great Britain would be unlawful, or

(b)offers to sell a vehicle or trailer, unless he also proves that he took all reasonable steps to ensure that the person to whom the offer was made was aware of that fact.]

(7)Nothing in the preceding provisions of this section shall affect the validity of a contract or any rights arising under a contract.



So now you know.

Silver-Surfer_2

AdrianC wrote: »

He spent £3k, knowing there was another £1k to be spent, taking it to £4k all in. It now needs another £1k, taking it to £5k all in.

He? And here's me thinking ester was a Doris. :mad:

straighttalker

Cheers Silver Surfer. I stand corrected!

I'd still contend that the seller of this horse box wouldn't be prosecuted under the RTA. In fact, I've not seen any evidence of successful prosecutions of private sellers under the same provisions.