2nd hand car purchased in July 07 has failed MOT

Poppycat

Guys, wondered if anyone has any advice

I purchased a Ford Focus 2000 reg (41k mileage) VG condition from a company on 6 July 07. It cost 3.5K and it had 2 months warranty and MOT on 7 Oct.

I had car MOT today and it failed on 4 very corroded brake pipes which two are a devil to get to apparently so I have been told by a mechanic friend who took car into MOT.

He said to me that even though it had two months warranty the car shouldn't have such corroded pipes, and would have been an inherent fault given also time of year, no salt and not much rain.

The garage I got the car from basically told me that they wont pay even though having had advice from consumer direct in there opinion it still falls within the sale of goods act I explained this to them and they basically said its my choice if I wish to pursue this, I replied saying, I would rather not is there a amicable way out of this? which they didn't answer.

Having purchased the car from CC I gather they are jointly liable too.

I gave the garage an opportunity to help but they dont want to know.

I also gave instruction to the garage who did the MOT to do the work at a cost of £214 inc VAT and labour as I need the car by Thursday. I requested a report from the garage to demonstrate the work is vital and ask for there opinion on whether its a job that didn't happen over night in writing, which my mechanic friend said that it isn't a thing that could happen overnight, that being the faulty brake pipes, my friend doesn't work for garage by the way, only he takes it in for MOT and does any relevant work like servicing only, not large jobs

If I get a report I may again contact garage in writing along with report to see if they will again help, but if they don't I may have to pursue this in Small Claims Court, obviously I would wish to avoid this whenever possible.

Any suggestions

Iamthesmartestmanalive

Poppycat wrote: »

Guys, wondered if anyone has any advice

I purchased a Ford Focus 2000 reg (41k mileage) VG condition from a company on 6 July 07. It cost 3.5K and it had 2 months warranty and MOT on 7 Oct.

I had car MOT today and it failed on 4 very corroded brake pipes which two are a devil to get to apparently so I have been told by a mechanic friend who took car into MOT.

He said to me that even though it had two months warranty the car shouldn't have such corroded pipes, and would have been an inherent fault given also time of year, no salt and not much rain.

The garage I got the car from basically told me that they wont pay even though having had advice from consumer direct in there opinion it still falls within the sale of goods act I explained this to them and they basically said its my choice if I wish to pursue this, I replied saying, I would rather not is there a amicable way out of this? which they didn't answer.

Having purchased the car from CC I gather they are jointly liable too.

I gave the garage an opportunity to help but they dont want to know.

I also gave instruction to the garage who did the MOT to do the work at a cost of £214 inc VAT and labour as I need the car by Thursday. I requested a report from the garage to demonstrate the work is vital and ask for there opinion on whether its a job that didn't happen over night in writing, which my mechanic friend said that it isn't a thing that could happen overnight, that being the faulty brake pipes, my friend doesn't work for garage by the way, only he takes it in for MOT and does any relevant work like servicing only, not large jobs

If I get a report I may again contact garage in writing along with report to see if they will again help, but if they don't I may have to pursue this in Small Claims Court, obviously I would wish to avoid this whenever possible.

Any suggestions

Im with the garage here, you bought a 7 year old car, cars deterioate and wear and tear

If it was a brand new or nearly new car you'd have a point but brake decline on a 7 year old focus I wouldnt say is covered

The car is fit for the purpose ( you had no problems in the 3 months since you bought it using it) and you cant expect a 7 year old car to be perfect or not needing repairs in the future

Cars break down and need work and tbh I think your clutching at straws and I dont think any court will find in your favour either given the age of the vehicle and type of fault

Im sure the so helpful crew will run in with the SOGA but I think suggesting that a 7 year old car shouldnt need brake work is unreasonable

Poppycat

But the car was sold to me and not fit for the purpose, because if the car was MOT in August, July, June and on it would most probably have still failed the MOT. I am not disagreeing about wear and tear, obviously that is a factor but wear and tear on brake pipes in Summer and early Autumn would hardly make the pipes to the point where they had excessive corrosion.

I never have said the car shouldn't be free from faults but should be free from a serious fault like this, the only reason the fault was never shown itself was it had the MOT

Fair enough the problem would be different if its been 9 months or so, but 3 months for a fault, that is potentially life threatening. As I said the fault must have been inherited when I got it, so the car was not fit for purpose its only now I found out

Anyhow I got advice from the consumer advice, I bought the car from a trader because I thought I would had least have some protection, Consumer direct informed me that I may have a case under the sale of goods act and the consumer credit act

I am may pursue this, I didn't want to and I did think I didnt have a case but my friend and Consumer advice think I do

Poppycat

The car did 4807 miles since Last Oct plus what I did which is about 400

Yes a lot can still happen but as I said the car must have had this fault when sold, so that car was defective, corroded pipes dont happen in 3 months in Summer.

SPANIEL36

i'm quite surprised that the garage sold it with only 3 months left on it. Normally they re-MOT it for you so you've got a full 'ticket' on it. Maybe they knew some work would be needed for the MOT. Hope you manage to sort this out without denting a hole in you pocket

SPANIEL36

i agree about the amount of corrosion on the brake pipes. Even though we had a wet summer (what summer!!) there's no way they would have that much corrosion on

Poppycat

I dont dispute the MOT I remember them informing me of it, I actually thought it had 3 months warranty though, but even that would have only just run out

My dispute is that they sold a car to me that was defective in July, because even allowing for wear and tear, how can that in summer months make 4 pipes to the point of being dangerous?

Kelvyn_2

Lower mileage doesn't always mean better, having a car sit around or doing short journeys all the time can do more damage than good. Particularly as far as corrosion is concerned.

I'm afraid that I would class the brake pipes as a standard wear and tear item. (The price you paid for the repair seems rather high, even for a full set of brake pipes, front to rear).

Certainly wouldn't have happened overnight, but perishable items, yes... unless you fit stainless steel brake lines... would you have complained/would warranty have covered you if you needed to replace the disks/pads?

I'd ask them to make a gesture of goodwill, being that you thought they would have done a pre-delivery inspection prior to sale (at a main dealers anyway) and 'should' have noticed that they may be due to be replaced in the near future.

If its from a smaller garage, I'd honestly expect very little from them, and just not give them my business in the future.

EDIT: Did you see the old brake pipes? In what way were they dangerous? - Leaking/badly corroded/nipped?

Iamthesmartestmanalive

Poppycat wrote: »

But the car was sold to me and not fit for the purpose, because if the car was MOT in August, July, June and on it would most probably have still failed the MOT. I am not disagreeing about wear and tear, obviously that is a factor but wear and tear on brake pipes in Summer and early Autumn would hardly make the pipes to the point where they had excessive corrosion.

I never have said the car shouldn't be free from faults but should be free from a serious fault like this, the only reason the fault was never shown itself was it had the MOT

Fair enough the problem would be different if its been 9 months or so, but 3 months for a fault, that is potentially life threatening. As I said the fault must have been inherited when I got it, so the car was not fit for purpose its only now I found out

Anyhow I got advice from the consumer advice, I bought the car from a trader because I thought I would had least have some protection, Consumer direct informed me that I may have a case under the sale of goods act and the consumer credit act

I am may pursue this, I didn't want to and I did think I didnt have a case but my friend and Consumer advice think I do

You will need to show me the bit in the SOGA which states that a garage must ensure a car would pass an MOT!!

The fact is it was fit for the purpose as you've driven it for 3 months without bothering about the brakes

If they had been dangerous etc you might have a point but from your post it doesnt seem that was remotely an issue until it failed the MOT

As for your bit about the low mileage etc it is irrelevent parts wear with age too,

Id have to say unless you prove that the dealer misrepresented the condition of the brakes or knowingly sold you a dangerous car you dont have much chance of winning and I dont think from your post either is the case.

It might be frustrating but I personally think your expectations from a 7 year old car were far too high

Poppycat

I havent paid yet Kevin not until tomorrow, I have asked for a report though.

I dont expect a car to have excessive wear though in 3 months, remember all 4 pipes went not 2.

I think the bill may be excessive due to the amount of labour as two are hard to get to apparently he explained they have to do a lot of stripping to get to it (no clothes lol), my friend is a mechanic and wouldn't let me get ripped off.

Iamthesmartestmanalive

Poppycat wrote: »

I havent paid yet Kevin not until tomorrow, I have asked for a report though.

I dont expect a car to have excessive wear though in 3 months, remember all 4 pipes went not 2.

I think the bill may be excessive due to the amount of labour as two are hard to get to apparently he explained they have to do a lot of stripping to get to it (no clothes lol), my friend is a mechanic and wouldn't let me get ripped off.

So do you think the garage should have went over the car and replaced every part?

Get real

Between this MOT and the last they have deterioated , that isnt unusual in the least

As for any wear since you bought the car, unless you can prove you were sold a dangerous car you dont have a claim

Certainly the SOGA wont expect a 7 year old car to have as new brakes, as long as they were safe and legal and not misrepresented you dont have a hope

Your friend might have been trying to be helpful but do what everyone else does when their car fails the MOT, fix it and move on

All you will do in court imo is waste your time, cash as well as the dealers