2nd hand car purchased in July 07 has failed MOT

mrbadexample

Poppycat wrote: »

and that 3 months I had the vehicle it can not possible of created much corrison

This is the bit I can't get my head round, and was trying to point out. How do you know how much corrosion can occur in three months? Are you a qualified metallurgist or something? Was the car kept in a temperature- and humidity-controlled environment?

The are many varying factors which can affect the speed at which metal will corrode. I don't see how you can quantify it. It's not as though we're talking "brand new and shiny" to "rotten and crumbling" in a week....

Please don't get me wrong Poppy, I'm not having a go here - but it seems to me that you've decided that it can't possibly have happened, so that's that. Have you considered the possibility that it might be perfectly feasible? I'm not qualified to judge either, and I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just playing Devil's advocate.

harveybobbles

If you read the small print on an MOT certificate it states that an MOT does not mean the car is of sound condition. It's just mearly met the required standards.

As someone has pointed out, its a 7 year old car.

the car could have been sat parked up for 7 months since it was MOT'd, hence the pipes rotting to such a point.

niceguyed

mrbadexample wrote: »

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.

Just completed some reading around this. But have to agree with this poster in that the burdon of proof lies with you. I guess you now realise your mistake in buying a car with only a 3 month ticket.

However, I do understand what the OP is getting at. The date of the MOT is irrelevant, i.e. the trader could not use the excuse the car had a valid MOT as a measure the car was fit for purpose.

tomstickland

It can be subjective as to how much surface corrosion on brake pipes is an MOT failure. £210 to have them all replaced isn't bad considering it would have taken them a few hours to do.

I'd just pay it and move on.

You haven't been ripped off. The garage had a car that they sold with an MOT that it had passed 9 months previously. They sold the car. At the next MOT it failed on brake pipes.
I do most of my own work on my car, and if this had happened to me I'd just accept it.

Poppycat

The SAGA may still apply here it all depends on what you define as

• of satisfactory quality?
• fit for purpose?

http://www.moneymatterstome.co.uk/8-Consumer-rights-responsibilities/Sub1/ButingGoods-SaleOfGoodsAct.htm




The Law: Your basic rights as a consumer When you purchase goods you enter into a legally binding contract governed by the Sale of Goods Act 1979. This gives both the buyer and the seller rights and responsibilities, and applies to the sale of second-hand vehicles just as much as to all other goods.
When you buy a vehicle from a motor trader you can expect it to be:

• as described so the make, model, age and engine size of a car must be correct.
• fit for its purpose, including any special purpose you make known to the seller, and
• of satisfactory quality - there is no exact definition of 'satisfactory quality' although the law lists some factors to be taken into account. When you are purchasing a second-hand vehicle you must consider its age, price, mileage, the description applied and all other relevant circumstances when trying to decide whether it is of satisfactory quality. Your expectations will have to be different if you are purchasing a low mileage two year old car than if you are buying a high mileage ten year old vehicle. Never the less, however old the vehicle it must be:
  - fit to be used on the road
  - in a condition which reflects its age and price
  - reasonably reliable.

http://www.cornwall.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=6006


It would depend on a court to determine if it was in this case fit for its purpose, and or of satisfactory quality

I feel 3 months isn't a long time regardless of MOT or any guarantee this is irrelevant

Paying 3.5k for a 2nd hand car which I may add is a lot of money for me, I paid that because I wanted a good car not a car that needed £210 3 months later, I accept that as a 2nd hand car I shouldn't accept a good as new car


The car appeared to be in good condition, and low mileage for its age, 40K surely that is reflected in its price

Poppycat

TBH I dont now he certainly gave me that impression. In fact it was he who suggested getting back at the garage who sold me the car about paying for the works. It was only after I tried and failed to contact garage who sold me car that I spoke to Consumer direct, I then got back to the garage who sold me the car. I was polite even when I didnt want to be and to his credit he was the same

anewman

I had an MOT not long ago and just noticed one of my top suspension spring mounting cups is rusted and cracked (an MOT fail), so I've got to get the bits to sort it out. The MOT tester was very thorough, so it must have gone from being acceptable to being unacceptable in a matter of months.

Wth brake pipes you can put some sort of wax/protecting stuff onto them when new to help prevent them corroding. AFAIK they are just copper and will corrode quite easily given time.

I have also heard that sometimes they can get a little encrusted in muck which the MOT tester will pick up as corrosion, give them a bit of a clean up and they'll pass.

If you seriously believe the car should not have been passed on the previous MOT I would contact VOSA (details on your new MOT cert) to complain about that tester. Otherwise I would say brake pipes are a consumable bit of the car and as such you would expect to have to replace them every-so-often. You have to expect to pay money for repairs on bits like this on cars unfortunately.

molerat

mrbadexample wrote: »

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.

Corroded brake pipes have always been an easy moneymaker for a lot of MOT garages. "Excessive" corrosion has always been a matter of opinion.

Years ago I had a Peugeot 405 from new. It failed its first MOT needing all but one pipe replacing. The garage said most Peugeots needed the pipes replacing at that time. I looked at another couple of cars in a main dealership and sure enough they had new pipes. Were my pipes actually corroded or was it because they new they could get away with it ?

The only way that you are going to prove anything is to have the pipes examined by a qualified metalurgist. You can then choose who you are going to take on, the seller or the MOT garage :eek: I hope you have got the old brake pipes. Without them you have no case against anyone.

molerat

anewman wrote: »

Wth brake pipes you can put some sort of wax/protecting stuff onto them when new to help prevent them corroding. AFAIK they are just copper and will corrode quite easily given time. They are made of steel which is why they corrode. Replacement pipes can be made from cunifer which is a copper based alloy which does not corrode so readily.

I have also heard that sometimes they can get a little encrusted in muck which the MOT tester will pick up as corrosion, give them a bit of a clean up and they'll pass. This was always one of my pre-mot checks. Light clean with a wire brush and smear with grease.

If you seriously believe the car should not have been passed on the previous MOT I would contact VOSA (details on your new MOT cert) to complain about that tester. Otherwise I would say brake pipes are a consumable bit of the car and as such you would expect to have to replace them every-so-often. You have to expect to pay money for repairs on bits like this on cars unfortunately.VOSA would not be interested after one year has elapsed.

As a seasoned motorist and car fixer I would, as others have suggested, take it on the chin and move on. The problem you have got is very subjective and open to interpretation.

mrbadexample

anewman wrote: »

If you seriously believe the car should not have been passed on the previous MOT I would contact VOSA (details on your new MOT cert) to complain about that tester.

Sadly, way outside the time limit for an appeal. VOSA wouldn't even look at it.