Used car from main dealer with new MOT brakes fail around 2700 miles later

welshjenni

My 19 year old son bought a car in March from a large dealership chain, spending more money than he would have liked to make sure that he was getting a reliable vehicle (10 plate 43,000 miles). They serviced and MOT'd it. Advisories on brakes but was told they would probably last until next MOT. Has done around 2,700 miles since.

Today, on the way to France, they noticed a strange noise - went to a garage and found that the one rear brake pad was non-existent and had scored brake disc, other rear pad was also low also discovered that inner treads of front tyres were below legal limit too (apparently difficult to see on normal inspection, as he has been checking them, treads noticed in garage).

Fortunately this happened near Dover and not in France so they managed to get it fixed and caught a later ferry.

The question is this - are they at fault for providing an MOT when the brakes were obviously much worse than stated - and probably not even fit to pass the test at the time if less than 3,000 miles caused them to become non-existent. The mechanic laughed when told what the MOT advisory had said.

We will be contacting the dealers when they return from France - I am just wondering where we stand legally re MOT and brakes.

Is there any comeback on the tyres? Wouldn't the service have checked that out?

It is still under the warranty period - just - but I doubt that that would cover this.

Many thanks

custardy

An MOT is a snapshot of the cars condition. The brake pads could have 1 days life left,as long as they meet the braking standards then they pass MOT.
The 'service' depends what the service covered.
Tyres,well after nearly 3K miles and wearing on the inner edges. were they inflated correctly,tracking okay?
For future reference,get him to turn the wheels out full lock to see the tyre condition.

Silver-Surfer_2

welshjenni wrote: »

My 19 year old son bought a car in March from a large dealership chain, spending more money than he would have liked to make sure that he was getting a reliable vehicle (10 plate 43,000 miles). They serviced and MOT'd it. Advisories on brakes but was told they would probably last until next MOT. Has done around 2,700 miles since.

Today, on the way to France, they noticed a strange noise - went to a garage and found that the one rear brake pad was non-existent and had scored brake disc, other rear pad was also low also discovered that inner treads of front tyres were below legal limit too (apparently difficult to see on normal inspection, as he has been checking them, treads noticed in garage).

Fortunately this happened near Dover and not in France so they managed to get it fixed and caught a later ferry.

The question is this - are they at fault for providing an MOT when the brakes were obviously much worse than stated - and probably not even fit to pass the test at the time if less than 3,000 miles caused them to become non-existent. The mechanic laughed when told what the MOT advisory had said.

We will be contacting the dealers when they return from France - I am just wondering where we stand legally re MOT and brakes.

Is there any comeback on the tyres? Wouldn't the service have checked that out?

It is still under the warranty period - just - but I doubt that that would cover this.

Many thanks

Obviously not properly. Front wheels turn so no excuse.

s_b

2700 miles since march for a young man is a lot and i expect as a new driver? the sellers estimated the mileage would be low hence the brakes were more than adequate at pos,it also follows that 2700 miles on part worn tyres is a lot as cheap budget tyres easily are out of tread in 5000 miles,you say your son is now off to europe too,you say brakes had an advisory so its possible the reason they wore out was because of sticking calipers,hes now had work done at another dealer so you would need to be looking for generosity from supplying dealer or go the small claims route ,i would suggest on his return you go to dealer with a view to getting a some kind of good deal in a future service as money back i dont think would be a on the table option,maybe in hindsight the brakes should have been a condition of sale that the advisory was fixed

flashg67

MOT (I believe) allows 1mm of pad material & as long as the brakes pass the rolling road test on the day it passes.

Small service likely won't include wheel removal so unlikely to be spotted at service.

Were the tyres an advisory too?Again, they only have to have legal tread on the day of the MOT.

Depending on the car, 2700m could equal, say, 20% + of the total tyre life.


I don't think you have much recourse in law, but maybe a goodwill gesture is worth trying for?

welshjenni

Silver-Surfer wrote: »

Obviously not properly. Front wheels turn so no excuse.

Well thank you for that! I realise that it ought to have been picked up since purchase, he is good at doing regular checks on oil, tyres etc -but for some reason he hadn't spotted that, and my brother who is with him (and very thorough with that sort of thing), told me it was difficult to tell. I have no idea why.

Still the main crux of my question was concerning the MOT/advisories/brakes.

daveyjp

With any used car, wherever you are buying it from go in scruffy clothes and take a torch. Get down on the floor, check all the tyres, turn the steering wheel so you can see the inside edges of the fronts, get a torch to try and see the discs and pads.

We once saw a higher mileage, but keenly priced Aygo at a main dealer. Ex HQ car which had done about 30,000 miles. Three of four tyres were just legal, the other was a different brand.

I could see the front brakes were heavily scored and the pads were low. The dealer wouldn't play ball and change anything so we walked.

I suspect someone somewhere would have walked in, been taken in by the glass palace, patter and the car's shiny paintwork, paid full whack and driven off to be disappointed a few months later.

welshjenni

Thank you for your replies.

When we collected the paperwork and read the advisories I spoke to the mechanic who had done the MOT as I was going to ask for the brake pads to be fixed. I told him that the annual mileage is around 12,000 (mostly commuting) and on that basis he said that they should last for nearly 12 months. So something was wrong with the advice/brakes.

We shall take in the receipts, photos and pads and discs that were removed and see what compensation (if any) I can get.

I feel very strongly about it as they (Sales manager) had reneged at the last minute on the trade-in deal that they offered my son and if he hadn't already insured the 'new' car he would not have bought it on principle. Even the salesman forfeited his commission to offset some of the loss to my son. So this problem with the brakes just leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.

Hey ho - the joys of buying a car.

motorguy

welshjenni wrote: »

Well thank you for that! I realise that it ought to have been picked up since purchase, he is good at doing regular checks on oil, tyres etc -but for some reason he hadn't spotted that, and my brother who is with him (and very thorough with that sort of thing), told me it was difficult to tell. I have no idea why.

Still the main crux of my question was concerning the MOT/advisories/brakes.

Excessive tyre wear on car being driven by a 19 year old lad? Is this surprising anyone?

Also, as pads wear they get to the point where they get that hot that the glue gives and the pad just shears off. I've had it happen to me before on a car. Its not terribly uncommon.

It would be prudent to get your son into the habit of checking the car weekly - light bulbs, old level, water level, tyres, etc. (a) because its prudent to do and (b) because young lads tend to be fairly hard on cars.

arcon5

Mot advised brake pads was wearing thin, then your purchased when a couple thousand miles later they are in need of replacing?

He was winging it, simple as that!

As for tyres... Should have spotted it s long time ago.

In a way it's a good job the brakes did need replacing, otherwise he would have been through to cord I suspect before he even noticed it.


You say he's good at doing regular checks... Well obviously he isn't! Actions speak louder than words

AdrianC

welshjenni wrote: »

Well thank you for that! I realise that it ought to have been picked up since purchase, he is good at doing regular checks on oil, tyres etc -but for some reason he hadn't spotted that, and my brother who is with him (and very thorough with that sort of thing), told me it was difficult to tell. I have no idea why.

That's an easy one to answer. It's because he didn't bother turning the front wheels to full lock before checking the tyres, so wasn't looking at the full width of the tread. He assumed...

Still the main crux of my question was concerning the MOT/advisories/brakes.

The MOT is simple. The tester is not allowed to remove the wheels. He can only check the efficiency of the brakes and, if he can see them without removing the wheels, the thickness of the pads. They clearly passed on that day. 2,700 miles later, the brake pads on his six-year-old, 43,000 mile car have worn out. Yep. They do that.

<edit: I've just seen that there was an advisory on the pads... Seriously? And now you're asking this?>

Now, whether the dealer who supplied it should have checked more thoroughly, including removing the wheels to check the pads properly - that's another question entirely.

But... When was it last serviced? Who serviced it? You say the dealer did - do you have that documented, or is it an assumption off the back of it being MOTd by them? Was the car part of any approved-used scheme through the dealer? What does their marketing say about pre-sale checks and/or maintenance?

At the end of the day, though, it is the driver's responsibility to ensure his car is in a suitable state for any given journey. Nobody else's.

And, no, no warranty on a 6yo, 43,000 mile car will cover wear and tear to tyres or brakes?