Ebay Sale

Herzlos

John1282 wrote: »

What measure is applied to deem a car unroad worthy?

...

The bulk cost of the repairs were for replacing and welding the outer sills, which do not form part of the sturcture of the car, however as they cover the inner sills they are technically classed as an mot failure.

I'd say you'd be really stretching to claim sills so badly corroded they fail an MOT would not make it unroadworthy. It might drive OK (my last car failed on this and I drove it to a repair place), but it's definitely critical to the structure and Mr Plod or any inspection would not be happy with it being on a road.

AdrianC

paddyandstumpy wrote: »

This is turning into the driving under the red x's thread. OP is wrong but can't admit it or see the wood for the trees.

"It's a point of principle", the man said...

John1282

AdrianC wrote: »

<raises eyebrows>
Can you just let us know what car you're talking about, as having non-structural outer sills would be very, VERY unusual...? And, if they really WERE non-structural, then they should not have been a fail.

raised eyebrows? thank you for showing you know about as much about cars as I did till a few months ago. Let me educate you, all cars have sills, many cars have inner sills that are structural, then outer sills that shield the inner sill and provide mounting points for plastic covers. The outer sills on mine were corroded, but the inner sills were in good condition. Because of the way the test legislation works, any excessive corrosion to the sills, be in inner or outer, has to be addressed. So even though the sill corrosion did not affect the structure integrity of the car, it still had to reported as a failure. If I was dodgy, i would have got someone wled a bit of metal over the worst areas and put a load of underseal over the top!

AdrianC

John1282 wrote: »

raised eyebrows? thank you for showing you know about as much about cars as I did till a few months ago. Let me educate you, all cars have sills, many cars have inner sills that are structural, then outer sills that shield the inner sill and provide mounting points for plastic covers. The outer sills on mine were corroded, but the inner sills were in good condition. Because of the way the test legislation works, any excessive corrosion to the sills, be in inner or outer, has to be addressed. So even though the sill corrosion did not affect the structure integrity of the car, it still had to reported as a failure. If I was dodgy, i would have got someone wled a bit of metal over the worst areas and put a load of underseal over the top!

Umm, no. The outer sill on the vast majority of monocoque shell designs most certainly IS structural.

A properly welded repair is not a bodge or dodgy. A badly welded repair is just as much an MOT fail as an unwelded, rotten sill.

The reasons for rejection are quite clear that they only apply to "load-bearing structural members".
https://www.mot-testing.service.gov.uk/documents/manuals/m4s06000101.htm

6.1.1 - Any deliberate modification, excessive corrosion, damage, fracture or inadequate repair not within a prescribed area which adversely affects braking or steering by severely reducing the strength or continuity of a main load bearing structural member

If it's in a "prescribed area" (30cm radius sphere of seat mounts, suspension mounts, seatbelt mounts - which most of a sill will be), then that same test still applies.

5.2.6 - Deliberate modification which significantly reduces the original strength, excessive corrosion, severe distortion, a fracture or an inadequate repair of a load bearing member or its supporting structure or supporting panelling within 30cm of a seat belt anchorage, (ie, within a ‘prescribed area’, see Appendix C.)

So these mythical non-structural, cosmetic-only outer sills should not fail. Where they genuinely are cosmetic and not structural - so the plastic over-cover, or the cosmetic sections on a Land Rover series/Defender, they can be as damaged as you like or even missing completely, with no problem at all.

Aylesbury_Duck

John1282 wrote: »

I have no doubts or reservations about how the car was sold despite trolls on here claiming to know about road traffic laws.

In that case, we need a new definition for trolling:

trolling: posting a view or opinion which challenges that of the original poster, when he wanted agreement and reassurance.

almillar

the car was advertised with a buy it now price and the option of best offer

You advertised it on eBay. Did you read their Ts and Cs before advertising? Did you read about their resolution systems, and in particular, timescales, since it was so important to you in relation to your MOT running out?
They're not going to compensate you, and neither is the non-buyer. Best you can do, if even, is give him a negative rating, might be possible with car sales.

Ebay have advised that they've placed a non payment marker on the buyers account as the buyer didn't respond to the resolution team..

There you go, that's about as good as you'll get. For all you know they died after bidding!

Nobody is going to compensate you for your MOT running out. Ah, I see, it ran out, and you knew it wouldn't pass again! MOT isn't worth much if they car isn't roadworthy.

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.

Picture this - your car passed its MOT 11 months ago, and one tyre had 1mm more tread than it needed to pass. Over the 11 months, that tyre has now worn below the limit. Is your car still roadworthy? Will you wave your MOT in a policeman's face when he stops you? Of course not. MOT does not equal roadworthiness.

John1282

AdrianC wrote: »

Umm, no. The outer sill on the vast majority of monocoque shell designs most certainly IS structural.

A properly welded repair is not a bodge or dodgy. A badly welded repair is just as much an MOT fail as an unwelded, rotten sill.

The reasons for rejection are quite clear that they only apply to "load-bearing structural members".
https://www.mot-testing.service.gov.uk/documents/manuals/m4s06000101.htm


If it's in a "prescribed area" (30cm radius sphere of seat mounts, suspension mounts, seatbelt mounts - which most of a sill will be), then that same test still applies.

So these mythical non-structural, cosmetic-only outer sills should not fail. Where they genuinely are cosmetic and not structural - so the plastic over-cover, or the cosmetic sections on a Land Rover series/Defender, they can be as damaged as you like or even missing completely, with no problem at all.

You're boring me now, copy and pasting from a website does not make you an expert. An mot tester cannot remove anything from a car during an mot test, so when they tap their hammer underneath eh car and find corrosion they can't remove the side trims or pull off the affected area to get a better look, they simply have to report what they can see at the time of the test. I had the sill cut back to see what was behind, and yes it is a non load bearing out sill, common on a lot of cars, specifically Ford / Jaguar / Land Rover.

As I've said before though, this isn't the topic, I'm not here to explain to you how I sold a car. I was simply here to source some feedback from anyone who had challenged a similar situation.

lovinituk

almillar wrote: »

You advertised it on eBay. Did you read their Ts and Cs before advertising? Did you read about their resolution systems, and in particular, timescales, since it was so important to you in relation to your MOT running out?
They're not going to compensate you, and neither is the non-buyer. Best you can do, if even, is give him a negative rating, might be possible with car sales.

Sellers haven't been able to leave negative feedback for years.

AdrianC

John1282 wrote: »

You're boring me now, copy and pasting from a website does not make you an expert.

I guess you didn't bother to notice what website it was? The official online version of the tester's manual.

An mot tester cannot remove anything from a car during an mot test, so when they tap their hammer underneath eh car and find corrosion they can't remove the side trims or pull off the affected area to get a better look, they simply have to report what they can see at the time of the test.

Correct. Pass and advise is the default where you cannot tell for sure what the condition is.

I had the sill cut back to see what was behind, and yes it is a non load bearing out sill, common on a lot of cars, specifically Ford / Jaguar / Land Rover.

You had the sill cut back before the test? If so, then there's a fail on sharp edges, too, as well as the "modification" to a structural member.

If it was cut back after the test, then we're even further from the car being roadworthy.

As I've said before though, this isn't the topic, I'm not here to explain to you how I sold a car. I was simply here to source some feedback from anyone who had challenged a similar situation.

You've had that, in spades.

You. Do. Not. Have. A. Leg. To. Stand. On.

Even without anything else, you are trying to claim compensation for not being able to continue doing something that you could not legally do anyway.

Herzlos

John1282 wrote: »

As I've said before though, this isn't the topic, I'm not here to explain to you how I sold a car. I was simply here to source some feedback from anyone who had challenged a similar situation.

Morally, you're in the right here; buyer agreed to buy and then didn't follow through, costing you the 2nd place offer.

Realistically, you'd likely struggle to (a) win in court, unless they ignore that too and you win by default and then (b) actually get any money back. It might mean paying for bailiffs who still can't take anything, because there's nothing to take.

I'm not sure you'd be able to charge them for storage fees etc, as it's not their fault you sold it with a few days MOT. You can maybe chase them for the difference between what they offered and what you sold it for, plus your relisting fee (which I thought was free the first time) and a few pence in interest.

How did you get their address for the LBA?