2nd hand car purchased in July 07 has failed MOT

photome

Wig wrote: »

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?

Because it has been driven for the last three months and it hasnt had brake failure in that time, so I have to ask why it wasnt fit for purpose 3 months ago

jonathon

you still seem to be missing the point its not over night or 3 months its 12 months.the big question is why did you buy a car with only 3 months mot ? i would expect a new mot.

photome

Poppycat wrote: »

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

I agree it comes under the SOGA, but IMO the car was fit for purpose 3 months ago as you have not had any problems with it until it failed the MOT. If you hadnt needed an MOT for another 6 months there is every likelyhood that the pipes would have still lasted
The corrosion hasnt happened in 3 months as I said before but in 12 months since the last MOT.

Poppycat

Surely its irrelevant the date of the MOT again the SOGA and consumer credit act (credit card company and the supplier and jointly liable) may apply here

The point is this fault shouldn't have occurred in such a short space of time, whether its got a MOT or not

3.5K for a car I would expect it to last much longer than 3 months for such a large fault to appear.

If it was a car that was only worth 1k or less than yes I would expect it not to last as long

Wig

photome wrote: »

Because it has been driven for the last three months and it hasnt had brake failure in that time, so I have to ask why it wasnt fit for purpose 3 months ago

There is a difference between light use of a car and brake pedal, and the ability to cope with emergency braking.

The car has failed it's MOT, the pipes are not safe. If the OP can show this would also have been the case 3 months ago, then it was not sold in a "fit for purpose" condition.

Poppycat

I still didnt have any problems up until today its only because the MOT picked up on it. I agree the corrosions hasn't happen in last 3 months I keep saying this, its happened much longer than that.

photome wrote: »

I agree it comes under the SOGA, but IMO the car was fit for purpose 3 months ago as you have not had any problems with it until it failed the MOT. If you hadnt needed an MOT for another 6 months there is every likelyhood that the pipes would have still lasted
The corrosion hasnt happened in 3 months as I said before but in 12 months since the last MOT.

mrbadexample

Poppycat wrote: »

Excessive corrosion doesn't happen over night or 3 months particularly in the best months of the year.

I don't understand what you're getting at. The brake pipes start slowly corroding from the time the vehicle leaves the factory. How can you say that they can't corrode a certain amount because of the time of year? How do you quantify that?

Hypothetical scenario:

When the vehicle was tested in October, the brake pipes were not sufficiently corroded to fail the MOT, and thus serviceable.

When the vehicle was sold in July, the brake pipes were not sufficiently corroded to fail an MOT, and thus serviceable.

When the vehicle was tested recently, the brake pipes failed the MOT due to excessive corrosion.

All this means is that in the period between you purchasing the car and having the MOT done, the brake pipes have gone from one level of corrosion to another. This is perfectly possible in three months.

There's no scientific test on the level of corrosion. No one measures it with a calibrated instrument and says "these pipes are 61.24% corroded, they are now an MOT failure". So it's a judgment call by the MOT examiner, and whoever inspected the car before you bought it. There's no guarantee this judgement is the same.

I'm not saying the brake pipes didn't need replacing when you bought the car. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. Either way, it's not going to be an easy thing to prove.

I would ask the garage what they can do to help. If they say "nothing", I'd take it on the chin and move on.

hartcjhart

Poppycat wrote: »

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

again its over at least 12 months from the last mot and possibly before then
so theoretically they could degrade over a period of 24 months not the 3 that you keep on about,

Poppycat

What I am getting at is that it is possible they may have been very corrided yet possibly legal when I bought the car, however they may have just been no one will really no for sure, what we do know is that they were badly corroded and that 3 months I had the vehicle it can not possible of created much corrison

Some of you dont seem to grasp what I am on about. I cant be bothered explaining anymore

I am fed up of this thread now, I rather take the garage than waste my resources on here

Thansk for all for the suggestions and help

hartcjhart

I honestly do not think you have a leg to stand on,and I am a dealer,UNLESS they gave you assurances that the car was in perfect condition,which I doubt they would).

yes they probably new that the brake pipes were corroded hence why no new MOT or longer warranty,BUT why buy a car for that money and not ask for a new MOT is it a case of Ive had a bargain and now you know why it was??

I wouldnt mind betting that if you checked EVERY secondhand car(over 12 months old) in the country that there would be some corrosion on the brake pipes.

Again corroded does not mean dangerous(leaking does)

Consumer people will say you have a case as they only have your side,

seriously your best bet is to put in writing that they pay half the cost as an act of good faith or you may/will take it further,
and hope they act or forget it