Help! Car failed MOT, purchased recently.

LandyAndy

No one seems to have mentioned that a possible cause of the deterioration in the car's condition, since the OP purchased it, is that the OP has abused it since they bought it. Steering and brake components and tyres can wear very quickly if the car is badly driven. Surely it is this uncertaintity over the way it has been treated since purchase that makes any legal action a non-starter (pardon the pun).
I am not suggesting that the OP has actually abused the vehicle just pointing out the uncertainty.

hartcjhart

No never been sued or even threatened with it,

been caught out buying a few cars though,hidden rust etc BUT they were all bargains,and thats the point what may look a bargain sometimes isnt,

and these were from PRIVATE sellers:eek: :eek:

Oh no mate the cars fine no mate doesnt overheat etc

If I have a car for sale that has only a couple of months MOT I will give the buyer the option of a 12mth MOT BUT I will not haggle on the price as well

Wig

Andy_Edinburgh wrote: »

> I would like to see at least one example of someone sucessfully suing or getting something out of a car dealer because 2 months later their car failed an MOT. My bet is that there are no such cases out there!


I certainly failed to do it! :-) Well, I "successfully" sued him but enforcing the judgement was futile. Experience is a great teacher (well, it is for me anyway...). Live and learn.

Ok you don't give any details of who you sued and why bailiffs could not be instructed by the court etc etc.

But if OP did successfully sue, bailiffs could seize goods from the garage forecourt (cars) and sell them to recover the money owed. I don't see what the problem is.

I hope OP does sue (costing only 35 quid) and does REPORT back to us on what happened - which ofcourse almost never happens here or anywhere else. people are always happy to ask for help but never return the favour by coming back in 6 months time to give an update.

Altarf

hartcjhart wrote: »

I AM A DEALER I KNOW THE LAW

I am sure you think you do. And do you shout at your customers when they disagree with you as well?

Gorgeous_George

You will not win the case unless you stumble across a nutty magistrate (quite possible then).

The dealer would argue that they (as qualified mechanics) checked the car and found it to be roadworthy at the point of sale. A lot of damage can be done in 2 months.

GG

olly300

Wig wrote: »

Ok you don't give any details of who you sued and why bailiffs could not be instructed by the court etc etc.

There are actually a few ways small businesses can get around bailiffs this includes changing the company name even slightly, stating that the ownership has changed, changing the owners of the company (to another family member) or going out of business.

Why else do you think Watchdog highlights small businesses nearly every other week that are still trading but have a lot of court claims against them?

Anyone who runs a small business and is successful will know how to defend themselves from customer claims, defend themselves in court and from bailiffs.

roddydogs

It may surprise people that they dont have to change their name ie "Arthurs car sales" can claim they are a different "Arthurs car sales" to the one that sold u the car.

Wig

olly300 wrote: »

There are actually a few ways small businesses can get around bailiffs this includes changing the company name even slightly, stating that the ownership has changed, changing the owners of the company (to another family member) or going out of business.

Why else do you think Watchdog highlights small businesses nearly every other week that are still trading but have a lot of court claims against them?

Anyone who runs a small business and is successful will know how to defend themselves from customer claims, defend themselves in court and from bailiffs.

I don't think they'd do that for 700 quid though. Probably cost them more in admin than 700 quid just to do that - and all their paperwork would need to be changed.

And to Roddydogs, that would surprise me, and for the time being (until you back that statement up) - I don't think so.

And IMO it would still be worth the £35 just to give them the pain in the neck of the court action and business name change.

Altarf

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

You will not win the case unless you stumble across a nutty magistrate (quite possible then).

Except it is a judge that hears cases at the small claims track at the county court, not a magistrate.

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

The dealer would argue that they (as qualified mechanics) checked the car and found it to be roadworthy at the point of sale. A lot of damage can be done in 2 months.

Well they would say that wouldn't they.

And what would their explanation be when the judge asks them why they didn't put the (in their 'expert' opinion) roadworthy car in for an MOT and sell it with a full 12 months, rather than just the 2 months remaining? The only reason not to do so, is that you don't believe it will pass. The minor cost of the MOT would be easily recovered by the increased selling price of a car with 12 months MOT.

Given the options of chucking away the £650 cost, or gambling £35 on the judge believing that a car that needs £700 worth of repairs was not roadworthy two months earlier, I know which I would choose.

harveybobbles

It's like having your hair cut 10 months ago - you wouldn't go back to the hair dressers complaining that it'd grown 10 months later...

A car that passed an MOT could fail the next day. It's all about what one person deems to be ok from the next.