Ebay Sale

AdrianC

John1282 wrote: »

I'm not going to go into the mot specifics on here, it's not necessary.

Well, you may well need to in court, should the defendant pick up on that one...

However, the car failed on some points that required work but was still legally road worthy and safe, as confirmed by my garage in writing who put together an estimate of work required.

The garage stated - in so many words - that the car was still roadworthy?

To drive or park a car on the road, the law requires that the car is taxed insured and holds a valid mot certificate.

It is also required to be roadworthy.

For the tax and insurance to be valid the car needs to hold a valid mot certificate

Nope. Common misconception.

John1282

AdrianC wrote: »

So you are adamant that it was roadworthy?

What were those fails?



If you won, you'd get the fees back.

But, if you lose, this will just increase your losses of time and money.

What do you think your chances of winning are?

Don't forget your legal duty to mitigate the losses of others. What sort of sale value are we talking about here, for a substantially MOT-failed car? Would simply scrapping it have reduced the losses you're attempting to recover?

The sale value of the car with a new mot would have been in the £2500 range. To scrap it the value would have been around £150. The required work, carried out by a garage, would have been around £1000, but a home mechanic or enthusiast could have sourced the required parts for around £300. So for a competent home mechanic it would make a good purchase, buy the car for £1000, spend £300 on parts to be fitted in their spare time, sell on for £2500. That is how the car was advertised, much the same as a trade seller advertising a car but stating that it is sold as seen. I'm a great believer in being honest and the advert fully explained the work required, and had a screenshot of the quote from the garage.

Aylesbury_Duck

£1000 pounds of work required to get through an MOT yet it was still considered roadworthy?

John1282

AdrianC wrote: »

Well, you may well need to in court, should the defendant pick up on that one...



The garage stated - in so many words - that the car was still roadworthy?



It is also required to be roadworthy.



Nope. Common misconception.

Obviously I will explain it all in court, it was all listed in the advert anyway.

The garage provided a full quote of work required, and on request noted that the work needed for the retest didn't put the car in an un-roadworthy state.

Define roadworthy... the car had an existing mot in place and had been checked over by the garage. Under vosa laws a garage have to list on the mot failure if in their opinion the car is un-roadworthy and should not be driven, the garage did not do this.

On your final point, yes a car does have to be mot's taxed and insured. If a cars mot has expired it can be driver to a pre-booked mot or pre-booked garage within a reasonable distance for repair so long as the relevant insurance and road tax are in place.

John1282

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

£1000 pounds of work required to get through an MOT yet it was still considered roadworthy?

The quote from the garage included their hourly labour charge + vat, hense the size of the quote. Again without going into specifics but using one example, a rear suspension bush needed replacing. Cost of the bush itself, £8, cost of fitting due to the type of suspension and work involved, two hours labour at £40 per hour. As I have no knowledge of cars, like most people, I'd have to pay the garage to do the work which pushes the bill up.

AdrianC

John1282 wrote: »

Under vosa laws a garage have to list on the mot failure if in their opinion the car is un-roadworthy and should not be driven, the garage did not do this.

Apart from the minor detail that VOSA haven't existed for three years, they never had "laws" anyway. And, no, an MOT does not have to state that a car is unroadworthy. The tester can flag that the car is dangerous, but that's different. Absence of that flag does not make any comment upon the car's roadworthiness.

On your final point, yes a car does have to be mot's taxed and insured. If a cars mot has expired it can be driver to a pre-booked mot or pre-booked garage within a reasonable distance for repair so long as the relevant insurance and road tax are in place.

That wasn't my point. My point was that tax and insurance are not invalidated by lack of MOT. And it's lack of tax that's exempted by being taken for an MOT. So long as the car is insured and roadworthy, of course.

forgotmyname

The garage will write a letter stating it was roadworthy yet it failed its MOT showing that it was not roadworthy? If they other side do turn up expect that to get torn to shreds.

Buyer didnt respond to the resolution team. He was upset at travelling to see the car which was not as described and in a much worse condition. Proof of this is the evidence your going to give them of it failing the MOT.

Killed your own case. And they would rather get a strike on ebay than buy an unroadworthy deathtrap that would have been illegal to drive home in.


The onus is on them to how someone else accessed their account. Its a family / flat share communal computer with a single ebay account.
Nothing in ebays terms saying you cannot allow someone else access to your account otherwise most larger business sellers are going to fail on that one.

Re: the phone contract scenerio. Liable for the bill of another person making calls with permission yes. But that person is not liable if the user makes hoax calls and general abuse.

AdrianC

forgotmyname wrote: »

The garage will write a letter stating it was roadworthy yet it failed its MOT showing that it was not roadworthy? If they other side do turn up expect that to get torn to shreds.

The MOT is quite explicit in that it is not proof of roadworthiness in and of itself. Many MOT fail items do not mean that the vehicle is always unroadworthy - the roadworthiness may depend on ambient light or loading.

But I struggle to see how a suspension bush so worn as to fail - just to take the one example that the OP has given - can leave a vehicle roadworthy.

https://www.mot-testing.service.gov.uk/documents/manuals/m4s02000701.htm

2.7.4 Reason for rejection: An excessively worn shock absorber linkage, pivot or bush.

John1282

AdrianC wrote: »

Apart from the minor detail that VOSA haven't existed for three years, they never had "laws" anyway. And, no, an MOT does not have to state that a car is unroadworthy. The tester can flag that the car is dangerous, but that's different. Absence of that flag does not make any comment upon the car's roadworthiness.



That wasn't my point. My point was that tax and insurance are not invalidated by lack of MOT. And it's lack of tax that's exempted by being taken for an MOT. So long as the car is insured and roadworthy, of course.

Vosa!! My mistake, my apologies, typed the wrong department. When I spoke to the garage after the test they said there was nothing with the car that made it unroadworthey and that the existing mot still stood till it's expiry date. I was a bit shocked by the failure sheet but the garage went through it step by step and explained that it was a number of small things as opposed to anything major. There was some bushes that needed replacing, and an emissions fault that would require a new part for the engine.

Insurance companies differ, some state in the small print that an invalid mot will void the insurance, others will reflect the lack of a valid certificate in any settlement. The point I was making was that the mot ran expired two days after the listing ended (fully explained in the advert) so even if someone put a last minute offer in and it was accepted, they would still have two days to insure and tax the vehicle and then could legally drive it home without needing a transporter. I kept it in insured and taxed so it could be test driven by any potential buyer, but when the mot expired I was unable to leave it parked outside my house as it voided my insurance, i am with hastings and in the small print it explains that the car must have a valid mot certificate. Had the buyer collected the car within the time frame I advised on the advert there would not have been an issue. Even if they had contacted me straight after the sale and requested I cancel it, I would still have had time to contact the other bidder and let him have it at the lower offer.

John1282

forgotmyname wrote: »

The garage will write a letter stating it was roadworthy yet it failed its MOT showing that it was not roadworthy? If they other side do turn up expect that to get torn to shreds.

Buyer didnt respond to the resolution team. He was upset at travelling to see the car which was not as described and in a much worse condition. Proof of this is the evidence your going to give them of it failing the MOT.

Killed your own case. And they would rather get a strike on ebay than buy an unroadworthy deathtrap that would have been illegal to drive home in.


The onus is on them to how someone else accessed their account. Its a family / flat share communal computer with a single ebay account.
Nothing in ebays terms saying you cannot allow someone else access to your account otherwise most larger business sellers are going to fail on that one.

Re: the phone contract scenerio. Liable for the bill of another person making calls with permission yes. But that person is not liable if the user makes hoax calls and general abuse.

The car was fully described in detail, a copy of the mot failure sheet was included along with a link to the gov uk check mot history webpage, various photos were included in the advert and I even included a screen shot of the garages repair quote, so saying it wasn't as described is not a defense.

In terms of someone else using their account, they would have been aware that the offer had been placed and accepted, but chose not to reply to me or ebays resolution team, why would they do that?

If the buyer had insured and taxed the vehicle it could legally be driven. the advert was very clear about the issue with the car so the buyer has no come back saying it wasn't as described.