2nd hand car purchased in July 07 has failed MOT

Kelvyn_2

I would wait until you have seen the old pipes, to see the amount of corrosion and location of the corrosion on them, then approach the garage you bought the car from, with said pipes, a copy of the bill and request that as a gesture of goodwill they contribute towards the cost, as you know that is is a wear and tear part...

Wig

Make sure you keep the old pipes, if you do claim against them it is a simple small claims court (online) claim for the cost of repairs.

If you lose you lose about 35 quid, if you win, you win something plus your 35 quid fee.


As to your case, I would say you have to expect things to go wrong on old cars, however as has been pointed out depending on how bad they look, the pipes didn't corrode over night, so you can argue they were like that at time of sale, if the judge agrees that was likely to be true - then it was sold to you in an unsafe not fit for purpose condition and you should get compensation. If you need someone to hold your hand through this try the CAB.

"photome" (above) might want to think about and realise that an MOT is not an indication legally or otherwise that a car is safe and fit for purpose.

Poppycat

I did leave the door open for the garage who sold me there car, I didnt even suggest they pay the full amount, I just used the words like I was hoping we could come to some sort of amicable arrangement. I will assuming I get the proof ask them again in writing, obviously the work has to be done first, I need the car by Thursday

I will give them another chance, assuming I get the proof. All I got some far is verbal indication from the mechanic friend who took car to garage, I did ask if he could ask them for proof and he suggested to me that he will ask for the pipes

For the record I never expect a car of its age to be perfect and free from minor faults, I dont think this is minor.

Thanks for the suggestions/advice

photome

Wig wrote: »

Make sure you keep the old pipes, if you do claim against them it is a simple small claims court (online) claim for the cost of repairs.

If you lose you lose about 35 quid, if you win, you win something plus your 35 quid fee.


As to your case, I would say you have to expect things to go wrong on old cars, however as has been pointed out depending on how bad they look, the pipes didn't corrode over night, so you can argue they were like that at time of sale, if the judge agrees that was likely to be true - then it was sold to you in an unsafe not fit for purpose condition and you should get compensation. If you need someone to hold your hand through this try the CAB.

"photome" (above) might want to think about and realise that an MOT is not an indication legally or otherwise that a car is safe and fit for purpose.

I dont for one minute think that an MOT is an indiaction that a car is safe for and fit for purpose, my point was that the MOT was issued 9 months before the sale and that the brake pipes were probably fine at that time.

On the other side of the argument just because one MOT tester says that brake pies are corroded does not make the car unsafe and unfit for purpose purpose 3 months before the MOT was carried out.

photome

Poppycat wrote: »

I did leave the door open for the garage who sold me there car, I didnt even suggest they pay the full amount, I just used the words like I was hoping you we would could to some sort of amicable arrangement. I will assuming I get the proof ask them again in writing, obviously the work has to be done first, I need the car by Thursday

I will give them another chance, assuming I get the proof. All I got some far is verbal indication from the mechanic friend who took car to garage, I did ask if he could ask them for proof and he suggested to me that he will ask for the pipes

For the record I never expect a car of its age to be perfect and free from minor faults, I dont think this is minor.

Thanks for the suggestions/advice

I am sorry to disagree with you but I think corroded brake pipes are a minor fault and to be expected on a 7 year old car.

I do hope that you get something from the garage as a gesture of goodwill, I just dont think you should take it further as IMO I dont think you have a case

Wig

photome wrote: »

The car WAS fit for purpose when you bought it,

That is what you said. You cannot possibly know that.

Ok so you agree that just because it had a 9month old MOT at time of sale has nothing to do with it being fit for purpose. So I have to ask, how then, did you reach your conclusion?

hartcjhart

the brake pipes would have had the chance to degrade over 12 months not 3 as you state(from last MOT)not from when you bought car,

Excessive corrosion is a term used BUT it is in the eye of the examiner as to what they think is excessive,they dont have a colour chart etc,

dependant on MOT station rusty brake pipes CAN be passed through the mot but with an advise tagged on it.

second hand cars are just that,they are not new,

The MOT ONLY STATES THAT 'AT THE TIME OF TESTING'

I am sorry to say that under law you do not have a chance.

You might be able to ask the garage to contribute half the repair cost(brakes only)so as to save them bad publicity

Wig

However be warned, if you do small claims the garage, you are effectively saying they sold a car in an unsafe condition, if their solicitor can show that would be a criminal act, they could apply to have the case moved to the county court, and if you lose there you will have to pay all their costs.

Poppycat

But surely if you buy a item 2nd hand from a retailer the SOGA still applies particularly due to the length I had the car, mileage and price being a factor. The consumer advice line told me that it does come under the SOGA and also under the consumer credit act, the credit card company are jointly liable for the goods I purchased.

Excessive corrosion doesn't happen over night or 3 months particularly in the best months of the year. I agree its down to what the mechanic says, the MOT is no way connected to me, so they have nothing to gain (unless they are lying about the work) other than they will get paid regardless of who will pay long term. I will obviously have to pay first and possible claim it back from the garage who sold me the car

Poppycat

I doubt they would want to go down that road, legal fees, potential bad publicity etc .

For £210 would they risk a solicitor, they charge a fortune and bleed you dry

If they sold me a defective car surely that's different to knowingly sell me a defective car, okay they may be serious nature to both, death due to defective brakes etc at worse case scenario. I don't think they sold me it knowingly that the brakes were defective mealy that they sold me a car with defective brakes in good faith which the MOT happen to pick up on it.

Wig wrote: »

However be warned, if you do small claims the garage, you are effectively saying they sold a car in an unsafe condition, if their solicitor can show that would be a criminal act, they could apply to have the case moved to the county court, and if you lose there you will have to pay all their costs.