2nd hand car purchased in July 07 has failed MOT

Iamthesmartestmanalive

What I dont get is why someone would ask for advice then spend 4 pages arguing with the advice they get

The general feeling with very few exceptions is the SOGA would not apply for this fault and even if it did you have no way of proving they were dangerous at the time you bought the car

You could also find yourself on the other end as im sure any reputable dealer will be quick to counterclaim for libel and damages if you insist on launching a frivolous suit which accuses them of selling dangerous cars

I wont be posting again on this topic as ive been clear, you dont have a claim and you should accept the mot failure like hundreds of other people do on a daily basis and learn the lesson for your next vehicle purchase

Coupon-mad

Iamthesmartestmanalive wrote: »

The general feeling with very few exceptions is the SOGA would not apply for this fault and even if it did you have no way of proving they were dangerous at the time you bought the car

I have read this thread and am another one who is basically on Poppycat's side.

The point I would make is that the burden of proof does NOT lie with Poppycat, in spite of what some posters have said. AFAIK under the SOGA the burden of proof falls on to the retailer to prove - if they can, which must often be impossible - that a fault which has arisen in the first 6 months was not present at the time of sale.

If they can't prove that then it has to be assumed under the SOGA that the fault WAS there. Thing is, how do you then quantify any compensation as it was a 2nd hand car and wouldn't be expected to be in perfect condition anyway. Half the repair costs does seem reasonable if the garage will now agree, but can you get someone to go with you to the garage next time Poppy, as support and to help prove you are serious about pursuing it?

I am not saying it will be easy for you Poppycat but just wanted to post that I understand you may well have a case worth pursuing, and I felt the posts so far saying the burden of proof lies with the buyer needed picking up as incorrect under the SOGA.

Poppy9

Poppycat

Sorry you've had so much hassle but I have to say I doubt you will get anywhere if you go to court to make a claim against the garage unless you have something from them saying that there were no known faults. They sold you a car with only 3 months MOT left to run which should have rung alarm bells with you as most garages will offer a new MOT and a service with all car sales cost a few thousand.

You are not the first person to be caught but you won't get caught again. Nearly 20 years ago I bought a second-hand Cavaliar with a brand new MOT. The brakes failed on me a few days later and the garage told me it was a complete MOT failure and would not have passed a few days before. I struggled to get redress from the garage (eventually they took the car back) and I reported them to VOSA. They did a spot check on the garage that did the MOT and the MOTer lost his licence. This didn't prevent the garage from MOTing cars though as the individual tester held the licence not the garage.

We take more care in where we buy our cars from now and always ask if we can take them to our local garage for an inspection. This has saved us from some tarted up numbers.

Poppycat

Q1. What is an inherent fault?
A fault present at the time of purchase. Examples are:
• an error in design so that a product is manufactured incorrectly
• an error in manufacturing where a faulty component was inserted.
The "fault" may not become apparent immediately but it was there at the time of sale and so the product was not of satisfactory standard.

Q13. What does the "reversed burden of proof" mean for the consumer?
It means that for the first six months the consumer need not produce any evidence that a product was inherently faulty at the time of sale. If a consumer is seeking any other remedy the burden of proof remains with him/her.
In such a case, the retailer will either accept there was an inherent fault, and will offer a remedy, or he will dispute that it was inherently flawed. If the latter, when he inspects the product to analyse the cause, he may, for example, point out impact damage or stains that would be consistent with it having been mistreated in such a way as to bring about the fault.
This reversal of the usual burden of proof only applies when the consumer is seeking a repair or replacement. After the first six months the onus of proof is again on the consumer.



http://www.dti.gov.uk/consumers/fact-sheets/page38311.html

anewman

Poppycat wrote: »

Q1. What is an inherent fault?
A fault present at the time of purchase. Examples are:
• an error in design so that a product is manufactured incorrectly
• an error in manufacturing where a faulty component was inserted.
The "fault" may not become apparent immediately but it was there at the time of sale and so the product was not of satisfactory standard.

I cannot see how this applies in your instance with a second-hand car, as it was manufactured however many years ago. All cars at the time of manufacture will have the same type of brake pipes, and will eventually need new brake pipes, it's almost guaranteed. Same with tyres, they never last forever. Think about it, would you buy a second hand printer then complain the cartridges ran out?!

If only we could all think right my alternator's gone, my ignition coil's packed in, my tyres are worn to the legal limit - someone else is going to pay for this - motoring would be sooooo much cheaper.

I would appreciate your position better if something more substantial was at fault that wasn't a consumable item, say perhaps the cylinder head was cracked, or there was extensive rust in the body of the car - as these are problems you would not expect. You came off quite lightly I would say, there could be much more substantial problems with the car, and if you never lost braking efficiency then there was no serious problem with the car.

Remember also an MOT doesn't check everything, it only checks a pre-defined list of things. It is simply a check and not a substitute for good maintenance and/or servicing.

Poppycat

Thanks I am trying to be reasonable here, I dont expect nor have I ever implied that the car wouldn't be perfect, but I paid a good price and I went in the belief that the car wouldn't have such a fault so early I haven't even had it 3 months quiet yet.

I was going to get the car serviced soon but I cant afford both I paid good money because I value the car because my daughter who is disabled relies on getting about.

I no MOT only do selected things and are only a indication that they are road legal on when they are done assuming its passed.

Also the car was sold with a illegal spare tyre (assuming I used it) too but I was letting that one drop

I have had quiet a few cars and I keep them for 3-4 years and never once had this fault, I have had corroded break discs before but not pipes, and how come all 4

What about the Q13 onus on the dealer?

Anyhow its too late to discuss this, I see what happens tomorrow, like I said I have seek advice on this

niceguyed

Poppycat, I think you've reached the point where you've read contrasting views on this and peoples interpretation and you need to decide your action. It is not us you need to persuade. The exact condition at the time of purchase of the brake pipes is unknown but you suspect given their condition at the time of the recent MOT that they must have not have been satisfactory given that 3 months has elapsed. If this interpretation is correct you have the backing of the SOGA. However, you purchased a seven year old car and the fault is an area of a car that is fairly perishable. The yardstick you are using as satisfactory quality is whether the brake pipes would pass an MOT test. The question is, is it reasonable to expect the brake pipes to retain sufficient integrity to pass an MOT test 3 months down the line on a 7 year old car?

You've read what people think. Weigh it up and do what you think is best, small claims is relatively painless and you shouldn't have to pay the other sides costs if you lose.

photome

Poppycat wrote: »

Q1. What is an inherent fault?
A fault present at the time of purchase. Examples are:
• an error in design so that a product is manufactured incorrectly
• an error in manufacturing where a faulty component was inserted.
The "fault" may not become apparent immediately but it was there at the time of sale and so the product was not of satisfactory standard.

Q13. What does the "reversed burden of proof" mean for the consumer?
It means that for the first six months the consumer need not produce any evidence that a product was inherently faulty at the time of sale. If a consumer is seeking any other remedy the burden of proof remains with him/her.
In such a case, the retailer will either accept there was an inherent fault, and will offer a remedy, or he will dispute that it was inherently flawed. If the latter, when he inspects the product to analyse the cause, he may, for example, point out impact damage or stains that would be consistent with it having been mistreated in such a way as to bring about the fault.
This reversal of the usual burden of proof only applies when the consumer is seeking a repair or replacement. After the first six months the onus of proof is again on the consumer.



http://www.dti.gov.uk/consumers/fact-sheets/page38311.html

I think you will find that these answers do not apply to a 7 year old second hand car.

As I have said before IMO ask the garage to help you with the bill, if they wont then move on.

You havent said anywhere why you didnt ask them to MOT it at the point of sale, as others have said it is a lot to pay for a car with such a short MOT

robnye

so following the same logic, i bought a 6yo second hand car for £2.5k in june, it came with a brand new mot and 3 months warranty (which ran out 4 weeks ago)

the exhaust has now blown....... making it sound like a boy racer.......:D

if i took it for an mot it would fail on the exhaust emissions. so the argument is should he exhaust have gone in the 3/4 months i have had the car.... answer dont know, as all mechanical machines have wear and tear over time.
am i looking for seller to compensate for cost of new exhaust..... no

should it have been picked up by the mot - no, because as mentioned, the exhaust was fine when the mot was done.......

so OP if you have any luck in getting some sort of comeback (hopefully cash)
from the dealer, then well done, but as others have stated you might not!

Coupon-mad

hartcjhart wrote: »

coupon mad and the rest of you SOGA idiots, please we are talking second hand NOT NEW so there is a difference

POPPYCAT GET BLOODY REAL<you are now driving me up the wall.

IF I THOUIGHT YOU HAD A CASE I WOULD BE ON YOUR SIDE BUT YOU DONT,and as far as all these other tits coming on here and saying you do .i support you,tell em to put their money where their mouth is because they know didly bloody squat about the second hand market

now before you start on about 'fit for purpose' the car was fit for purpose when purchased,

YOU THOUGHT YOU WERE GETTING A BARGAIN,YOU SAID IT WAS CHEAP, NOW YOU KNOW WHY ,GROW UP,FACE THE FACT,YOU AINT SO SMART AS YOU THOUGHT

Calm down hartcjhart, there is no need to shout at Poppycat and it still doesn't make you right you know! And I take offence at the part in bold above, click on the link below to the BBC Consumer website and you may then realise just who is the 'idiot' now (read the second answer with regard to buying a car second hand from a dealer, such as yourself):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/consumer/your_rights/car.shtml


HTH you Poppycat, best of luck. No one has said this will be easy but I think you can safely ignore the ranters on here (many of them second hand car dealers themselves ...would you buy a car from a car dealer like hartcjhart knowing how he feels about idiot buyers?!).