Help! Car failed MOT, purchased recently.

Altarf

hartcjhart wrote: »

the car was fit for purpose as it had a current MOT,the fact that it has since failed is of no consequence,

Wrong, it demonstrates without question that the car is not currently of ‘satisfactory quality’ as it is not fit to be used on the road.

hartcjhart wrote: »

at the time of sale,it was acceptable(you bought without any questions)and was fit for purpose as it was MOTd and driveable

An MOT 10 months earlier than the point of sale does not demonstrate that the car was of ‘satisfactory quality’ (fit for purpose is not relevant) at the point of sale. Under the ‘reversed burden of proof’ the garage (and not the buyer) would need to demonstrate that it would have passed an MOT 2 months when it was sold. Frankly if they could do this, why didn't they MOT it.

anewman wrote: »

The car could have degraded in the 2 months up to MOT such that it was a pass then later a fail.

But that is for the garage to prove that. The buyer needs to do nothing, apart from demonstrate within the first 6 months that the car is not of ‘satisfactory quality’, and the multiple fail MOT test has done that.

anewman wrote: »

Remember it passed 10 months ago. The car may well have been suitable for use on the road at the time but not later.

But it needed to be of ‘satisfactory quality’ at the point of sale, not 10 months earlier.

As I said before, the dealer doesn't have a leg to stand on, so if they don't pay up sue them.

FannyHill

"As I said before, the dealer doesn't have a leg to stand on, so if they don't pay up sue them".


I think the buyer should have bought a car with a decent amount of MOT on it so blaming the dealer is a bit one sided.
If the judge weighed up the pros and cons I think he'd side with the dealer myself.
Paying £650 for a car from a dealer is paying peanuts and what do you get for peanuts.......a car with a two month MOT.

Altarf

FannyHill wrote: »

I think the buyer should have bought a car with a decent amount of MOT on it so blaming the dealer is a bit one sided.
If the judge weighed up the pros and cons I think he'd side with the dealer myself.
Paying £650 for a car from a dealer is paying peanuts and what do you get for peanuts.......a car with a two month MOT.

Let me quote again from the Trading Standards web site I posted earlier as you appear not to have read it -

When you buy from a trader, you have the right to expect the car to be:

• Of satisfactory quality;

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 car the OP bought is not fit to be used on the road, as it has failed an MOT on multiple points. The fact that the buyer has been a bit naive is irrelevant. That is why the law is there, to protect them.

It is now down to the garage to prove that the car was fit to be used on the road two months ago. How do you think the garage is going to be able to do that? By saying it would have passed an MOT two months ago. If so, the first question that the judge should ask is "if it would have passed an MOT, why not get it tested" after all a car with a 12 month MOT would sell for more than a car with a 2 month MOT. So why would they not get it tested...

What the new laws mean is that garages are no longer able to pass off cars that they know are only fit for the scrap heap to unsuspecting buyers, as they have to be able to prove that the car is 'fit to be used on the road' for six months after purchase. This is why many dealers will no longer sell £600 cars as it is far too risky, even if it does have a 12 month MOT.

I will say again, the garage does not have a leg to stand on, and if they don't pay up sue them.

FannyHill

Guess we should all buy £650 cars then or even less if we go by your assessment as there is no risk whatsoever for the buyer everything is on his side and the dealer has to stump up. :T

The dealer has to sell you a perfect car regardless of how much you pay. :rotfl:

Wig

I agree with Altarf, and the small claims process is so cheap and simple to do with usually no worries about losing and having to pay the othersides costs.

If I were you OP I'd sue 'em. It'll only cost you about £35. (you win that back too if you win your case)

It's got to be worth 35 quid to give it a go, and hopefully it'll teach the trader a lesson or two about which cars he should sell and which cars he should scrap.

Wig

Alias_Omega wrote: »

I would take the car back to the garage, and ask them how much to do the work.

If you get on with the person, you will probably get a good price on all the work.

I would love to buy a Ford KA for £650, i have been after one for ages as a 2nd car, but could not find one for less than £1000.

A quick look at autotrader has turned up 90 cars under £1000
The cheapest being 400 (two of)
two @ 500
one @ 550
two @ 600
six @ 700
three @ 750
five @ 800
eight @ 850
loads @ 900

Altarf

FannyHill wrote: »

Guess we should all buy £650 cars then or even less if we go by your assessment as there is no risk whatsoever for the buyer everything is on his side and the dealer has to stump up.

The dealer has to sell you a perfect car regardless of how much you pay.

Very witty, however

The car does not have to be 'perfect', but it does have to be of 'satisfactory quality'. So on a £600 car if the radio stops working, the electric windows fail, or all the paint falls off, then you do not have a case. However no matter how cheap the car, if sold by a trader it must be fit for use on the road and the garage must be able to prove it was when sold. So if the brakes disks are rusty, the steering is failing and the chassis needs welding, the car is not of 'satisfactory quality' and the garage is stuffed, and the garage is stuffed if the buyer finds out in the first 6 months of ownership.

The change in the law is why any sensible dealer no longer sells £600 cars, even if they do have a 12 month MOT, let alone a 2 month MOT, as the risk of anything going wrong in the first 6 months is not worth taking.

FannyHill

What a great money saving tip.


Well in future I'm going to buy £600 cars or less from dealers as they now have an automatic six months guarantee against anything going wrong even with a 2 month MOT.

Yippee.

Thanks for the info. :beer:

Altarf

You can take a horse to water...

anewman

FannyHill wrote: »

What a great money saving tip.

Well in future I'm going to buy £600 cars or less from dealers as they now have an automatic six months guarantee against anything going wrong even with a 2 month MOT.

Even better, why not simply get an MOT just before 6 months have passed no matter what, so you can screw over the garage of the car you bought, no matter what the car cost or what MOT was left on it. We can't have unroadworthy cars being sold and the dealers getting away with it. Sue the bas***ds. So drive them around for nearly 6 months without caring if they're roadworthy then go find out if they are or not.