I've bought a clocked car, help HELP!!?

Stoke

I'm thinking it might be an error, I will check the documents. I checked the MOT certs at the time, but to be honest, I figured clocking was so hard nowadays nobody actually did it?

The numbers do look as if it's a human mistake. If so, is it possible to get this rectified?

EdGasket

Stoke wrote: »

but to be honest, I figured clocking was so hard nowadays nobody actually did it?

Actually it's even easier now; just hook up a computer and set whatever mileage you fancy. VAGCOM can do it and I guess other programs for other makes too.

arcon5

Getting away with clocking a car is more difficult than clocking it!

markelock

Stoke wrote: »

I'm thinking it might be an error, I will check the documents. I checked the MOT certs at the time, but to be honest, I figured clocking was so hard nowadays nobody actually did it?

The numbers do look as if it's a human mistake. If so, is it possible to get this rectified?

Check this if you haven't already


https://www.check-mot.service.gov.uk/

muhandis

Similar error with my car, went from 80k to 30k and then back to 80k in successive years. I'm guessing it's a common issue for old cars when you stop caring enough to go through the MOT paperwork properly.

Rain_Shadow wrote: »

My younger son's car is 9 years old and every scrap of paperwork (and we have a lot, including all service invoices, support its mileage of 68k except one MoT from about four years ago that is clearly a data entry error with the mileage being about 30k over what you might expect and falling back in line with everything else the following year.

Stoke

Ok, looked for the MOT paperwork. The two in question are missing. My cynical side says someone noticed the mistake and removed them henceforth. I'm going to have to trust the previous owners honesty.

The mileage history reads 63k, 70k, 77k, 69k, 92k, 101k, 109k

So if I assume the owner did 7k miles a year, the number in bold would read 84k.

84k + 7k = 91k

Which give or take isn't far off 92k. Hopefully just an over reaction by me.

AdrianC

That really does look like an error, then, in reading the mileage.

But look at the subsequent MOT "receipts" - they have a box telling you the mileage at the last few tests, as well as being on the online record.

rtho782

Clocking aside, you may not have a warranty but you do have statutory rights.

http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/advice/the-second-hand--car-i-bought-has-a-problem-what-are-my-rights

It's actually really easy to reject a faulty car now, your biggest risk is that the garage decide to go bust as soon as you sue them.

So, I'd ALWAYS put a small amount of a used car purchase on a credit card. I won't buy from a place I can't pay by card.

AdrianC

rtho782 wrote: »

Clocking aside, you may not have a warranty but you do have statutory rights.

Yes, and they're tempered by realistic expectations. We've got 7 MOT mileages listed, so a car that's at least a decade old.

It's actually really easy to reject a faulty car now...

Within 30 days of purchase. This is outside that window.

rtho782

AdrianC wrote: »

Yes, and they're tempered by realistic expectations. We've got 7 MOT mileages listed, so a car that's at least a decade old.



Within 30 days of purchase. This is outside that window.

Yes, I did say clocking aside, I would not expect him to be able to reject due to the clocking when it's fairly obviously a mistake.

But he refers to faults the garage is refusing to fix. Even after 30 days, the garage only has 1 chance at a statutory repair before you can reject on a 2nd fault.

The garage have already attempted (and failed!!) to repair one fault, and then not even got involved in another fault.

If he experiences a 3rd fault, he needs to be aware he DOES have rights to have them repair it, and if not, he could argue that he's had one statutory repair (although they failed to do it) and reject.