2nd hand car purchased in July 07 has failed MOT

Poppycat

Its a Ford Focus I I paid a premium price for a 7 years old car for its condition. I deliberately went out of my way travelled 80 miles to get a good car as I dont normally spend 3.5k for a car normally its £500 so my expectation is that I should get a good car from that compared with a car valued at £500

As I said I have got advice it was Consumer Advice line that quoted me the SOGA and that it still comes under this

Poppycat

No of course I dont expect every part replaced, I am real your the only now being stupid with comments like "do you think the garage should have went over the car and replaced every part?"

Are you looking for a confrontation with me judging by one or two remarks? Perhaps you ought to move on.

Do you think I am lying when I said that the car may come under the SOGA? I wouldn't have started this thread if I felt I didnt have a cats in hell chance.

I am going to get proof, I stated I am asking for a report from the garage who is doing the work and assuming my friend is right what he says about the corrosion I may pursue this further.

You say I should move on, dont you think at least having had advice from a consumer place that it isnt worth pursuing when they state I may have a case under SOGA and consumer credit act

Iamthesmartestmanalive wrote: »

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

Iamthesmartestmanalive

Poppycat wrote: »

Its a Ford Focus I bought I paid a premium price for a 7 years old car for its condition. I deliberately went out of my way travelled 80 miles to get a good car as I dont normally spend 3.5k for a car normally its £500 so my expectation is that I should get a good car from that.

As I said I have got advice it was Consumer Advice line that quoted me the SOGA and that it still comes under this

But how do you know you havent got a good car?

Every car suffers from brake wear and tear

If you didnt want to repair your car at all for this MOT you should have bought a brand new car

Consumer advice etc will quote the SOGA to everyone but your asking a court to say that this mechanic should have went over your car and repaired every remotely worn part to new

For a fifth of the cost of a brand new focus

um ok

It maybe isnt what you want to hear but any car driver with older cars has costs like this,its part of owning a 2nd hard car

Iamthesmartestmanalive

Poppycat wrote: »

No of course I dont expect every part replaced, I am real your the only now being stupid wit comments like "do you think the garage should have went over the car and replaced every part?"

Are you looking for a confrontation with me judging by one or two remarks? Perhaps you ought to move on.

Do you think I am lying when I said that the car may come under the SOGA? I wouldn't have started this thread if I felt I didnt have a cats in hell chance.

I am going to get proof, I stated I am asking for a report from the garage who is doing the work and assuming my friend is right what he says about the corrosion I may pursue this further.

You say I should move on, dont you think

at least having had advice from a consumer place that it isnt worth pursuing when they state I may have a case under SOGA and consumer credit act

What are the garage going to say?

They are worn and quite worn

Completely irrelevent as long as it was safe when sold to you

Can you prove it wasnt? Will an INDEPENDENT garage testify to there being no doubt they couldnt possibly have been.

Why is it on this site any time anyone gets told something they dont like they moan?

You asked for advice, I have given you that and I personally think you wasting peoples time and money pursuing what I see as a frivolous claim is ridicolous

You car failed an MOT, accept it and move on, unless you can prove you were sold a dangerous car.

Poppycat

As I said I didnt expect a new car at a 2nd price, nor do I expect it to be perfect it has some minor faults, like scratches very minor rust on the door

I do expect a car to be road worthy when I buy it, it cant have been road worthy if 4 brake pipes had excessive rust, in Summer when the weather is mild, btw I got it after all that rain we had too in Summer, as we had it in June.

Iamthesmartestmanalive wrote: »

But how do you know you havent got a good car?

Every car suffers from brake wear and tear

If you didnt want to repair your car at all for this MOT you should have bought a brand new car

Consumer advice etc will quote the SOGA to everyone but your asking a court to say that this mechanic should have went over your car and repaired every remotely worn part to new

For a fifth of the cost of a brand new focus

um ok

It maybe isnt what you want to hear but any car driver with older cars has costs like this,its part of owning a 2nd hard car

Iamthesmartestmanalive

Poppycat wrote: »

As I said I didnt expect a new car at a 2nd price, nor do I expect it to be perfect it has some minor faults, like scratches very minor rust on the door

I do expect a car to be road worthy when I buy it, it cant have been road worthy if 4 brake pipes had excessive rust, in Summer when the weather is mild, btw I got it after all that rain we had too in Summer, as we had it in June.

Yes but things still wear year round, yes maybe more in wet and winter but they do still wear

You cant prove it was excessive when the car was sold to you, or that the major bit that took it to MOT failure/danger stage occured before you bought the car from my reading, at least not to the level needed to win a court case

Poppycat

I intend to prove I have already stated this. Theres no way brake pipes can suffer excessive corrosion in 3 months in the mildest months of the year.

Iamthesmartestmanalive wrote: »

What are the garage going to say?

They are worn and quite worn

Completely irrelevent as long as it was safe when sold to you

Can you prove it wasnt? Will an INDEPENDENT garage testify to there being no doubt they couldnt possibly have been.

Why is it on this site any time anyone gets told something they dont like they moan?

You asked for advice, I have given you that and I personally think you wasting peoples time and money pursuing what I see as a frivolous claim is ridicolous

You car failed an MOT, accept it and move on, unless you can prove you were sold a dangerous car.

Poppycat

I never said they dont wear, of course things wear, what I dont expect is the brakes to wear that much to the point of being dangerous.

Of course you can prove, what is the garage who sold me the car going to say, oh yes he took the brakes pipes off and replaced them with defective ones all for £210 to scam off me.

The car was sold with defective pipes no way could they have been corroded to that extent in 3 months

Iamthesmartestmanalive wrote: »

Yes but things still wear year round, yes maybe more in wet and winter but they do still wear

You cant prove it was excessive when the car was sold to you, or that the major bit that took it to MOT failure/danger stage occured before you bought the car from my reading, at least not to the level needed to win a court case

Iamthesmartestmanalive

Poppycat wrote: »

I intend to prove I have already stated this. Theres no way brake pipes can suffer excessive corrosion in 3 months in the mildest months of the year.

No but they can go from being legal to being excessivly in 3 months

They can do that overnight

As long as they werent dangerous/MOT failures at that time he didnt have any duty to fix them

3 months even in the mildest conditions are long enough for brake components to reach MOT failure stage

Crabman

Hey Poppycat, I too would be very annoyed if a car failed on me 3 months following purchase. I can't see any sense in spending £3,500 for 3 months motoring. I would have thought the sale of goods act would cover, after all, if this (hypothetically) ended up in the small claims court, I would expect them to say a car costing £3,500 should remain roadworthy for much more than three months. As a guide, my mother purchased a 3-year old vehicle for £4,500, it's still going strong 7 years later, needing only replacement brake pads since purchase (and tyres, obviously, must be all those donuts she does in tescos).

Have a look at Honest John's FAQ: Rejecting a duff car / getting compensation (link from Motoring A-Z) - there he clearly states that within 6 months of sale it is up to the retailer to prove that the faults were not present at time of sale, otherwise he has to repair, replace or give you a partial refund.

Something I found useful when an garage repairer cracked my offside indicator was Consumer Direct - find your local call centre number on SayNoTo0870 - they told me exactly what my rights were and what to say in the letter - go back to them if they didn't help properly the first time. I didn't actually pursue my case as it was only a little crack, but I hope you find them useful, please keep us updated and good luck