2nd hand car purchased in July 07 has failed MOT

Poppycat

Sorry but the SOGA does apply to a 2nd hand car read the links I left in my posts, or search on google "sale of goods act 2nd hand car"

Now whether a court would find that reasonable that a 7 years old car in very good condition and low mileage and at a good price I paid I may add should have this fault when I have had it for almost 3 months is another matter, only they will know.

I paid 3.5k for the car and I believe that is a premium price so I dont get problems in such a short spell of time, compared with say 1k car, 3 months isn't along time

I am exploring whether to proceed or not that's all, its still my belief that I may have a case.

It would be fullish not to explore all avenue's I have left the door open to the garage to contribute but that was shut in my face, I may try again in writing.

For those who dont like what I say, fine, I didn't realise I held a gun to your head and forced you to read "
POPPYCAT GET BLOODY REAL<you are now driving me up the wall."

Thanks all for the comments good and bad, think thread has come to a end tbh

choccybikkie_2

I thought all secondhand cars HAD to be sold with at least 10 months MOT?
Maybe I'm confused

LandyAndy

dandsknowles wrote: »

I thought all secondhand cars HAD to be sold with at least 10 months MOT?
Maybe I'm confused

I'm afraid you are;) .

robnye

robnye wrote: »

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!

in fact on the way to work this morning it went pop and went from a nice raspberry sound to a violent growling sound...... had to get the middle bit replaced........ grrrrr blooming cars

Altarf

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

Trading Standards would seem to disagree -

http://www.newport.gov.uk/_dc/index.cfm?fuseaction=tradingstandards.consumeradvice&contentid=cont104454

Consumer Advice - Used Cars
The Law
When you buy goods from a trader, you enter into a legally binding contract governed by the Sale of Goods Act 1979, as amended by the Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994 and the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002. The law gives both buyer & seller rights and responsibilities and applies to the sale of used cars in the same way as to other goods. When you buy from a trader, you have the right to expect the car to be:

• Of satisfactory quality;
• Fit for its purpose, including any particular purpose made known, and
• As described.

The law defines goods as being of ‘satisfactory quality’ if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory – taking the description of the goods into account, the price (if relevant) and all other relevant circumstances. So, when you have bought a used car, you must consider its age, the price you paid, the description which was applied to it and anything else which is relevant when deciding whether it is of satisfactory quality. Your expectations should be different when you are buying a low mileage, two-year-old car than when you are buying a high mileage, ten-year-old one, for example. However, it must still be:

• Fit to be used on the road;

...

The onus is normally on you rather than the trader to prove a claim, i.e. that the car is defective in some way. However, the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002 now states that if you are claiming replacement, repair, full or partial refund within the first six months of ownership, the onus is on the trader to prove that the goods were acceptable when they were sold. This is called the ‘reversed burden of proof’.

As the car failed its MOT at the current point in time it is not 'fit to use on the road', and is thus not 'of satisfactory quality'. Under the ‘reversed burden of proof’ the dealer would need to demonstrate that it was of 'of satisfactory quality' and that the brake pipes would not have failed an MOT when they sold it three months earlier.

Coupon-mad

Hmmmmm.....funny how all the used car salesmen have left this thread alone recently, even the ranting post from Mr Hart has suddenly disappeared (except where I have quoted him, lol!).

Hope the info provided by the rest of us 'SOGA idiots' has educated them for the future....somehow I doubt it though! :rolleyes:

Do let us know how you get on in the end Poppycat.

Iamthesmartestmanalive

No the rest of us gave up as you and your delusionary buddies refused to see common sense and logic

She will not win in a court citing the SOGA

Lets wait and see if she proves us wrong

Ill say she wont

OverlandLandy

Poppycat wrote: »

Sorry but the SOGA does apply to a 2nd hand car read the links I left in my posts, or search on google "sale of goods act 2nd hand car"

Now whether a court would find that reasonable that a 7 years old car in very good condition and low mileage and at a good price I paid I may add should have this fault when I have had it for almost 3 months is another matter, only they will know.

I paid 3.5k for the car and I believe that is a premium price so I dont get problems in such a short spell of time, compared with say 1k car, 3 months isn't along time

I am exploring whether to proceed or not that's all, its still my belief that I may have a case.

It would be fullish not to explore all avenue's I have left the door open to the garage to contribute but that was shut in my face, I may try again in writing.

For those who dont like what I say, fine, I didn't realise I held a gun to your head and forced you to read "
POPPYCAT GET BLOODY REAL<you are now driving me up the wall."

Thanks all for the comments good and bad, think thread has come to a end tbh

Poppycat.

I doubt if you would win in court - but If you feel that you have a case you should go for it. Don't let anyone put you off doing what you feel that you need to do.

I would suggest that you fit copper brake pipes so that they will not corrode in the future and that you will have confidence in the car. Its all down to outlook I guess. I personally view brake pipes as 'consumables' and will happily make up a set for any vehicle that I own - it can be done for about £20, but you need to know what you are doing. The price that you are being quoted will mostly be for Time I guess?

The price you pay for a car does not always relate to quality. You could have bought an old Volvo or Merc for <£1k and the brake pipes could have been in better condition than the one you bought. The reason is that the quality of the metal and the anti-corrosion is usually (but not always) better on more expensive cars.

But you need to be pragmatic about things - the brakes did not fail - the MOT tester pointed out the corrosion and you may have avoided a nasty accident - The price of replacement pipes is a small price to pay to ensure your safety and that of your child. Sure you wish you had not had to fork out the extra money - but I would also assume that the next car you buy you will insist on it being put through an MOT regardless of how long the existing one is valid for (mute point as its only really valid for the day it was tested....if that makes sense).

Good luck anyway - let everyone know how you get on in court, be it win or loose ,the process and outcome may help some other MSE community member - and that is what being a member is all about.

anewman

OverlandLandy wrote: »

Good luck anyway - let everyone know how you get on in court, be it win or loose ,the process and outcome may help some other MSE community member - and that is what being a member is all about.

I think overlandlandy has summed up everything nicely. Problem is if Poppycat goes ahead and fails, will she come back and report the outcome? I would hope if that became the case there's noone to rub faces in as there's no need for that.

I'm sure we would all benefit from knowing in similar circumstances whether such a case would win or fail, and why it won, and hence whether we'd get cash out of it.

photome

I have said all along that I think Poppy should drop it if the garage wont agree to compensate.

But Good luck if you decide to continue.