We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum. This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are - or become - political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Advice about corrosion and a dodgy MOT?
Hi all,
Really hoping someone can set my mind at rest a little, having the horrors here.
So - after the birth of our kiddywink my partner and I decided that our old faithful Mundaneo was due for retirement. We purchased a car in Feb of last year from a (supposedly) reputable dealer. 9 years old, 84k on the clock, beautiful external bodywork, clean engine bay, brand new totally clean MOT with no advisories. Approved for finance, drove away, job done.
Fast forward 11 months of hassle-free zooting about, I put it into our garage for a pre-MOT check as I always do. Yesterday afternoon I received a call from a very shocked sounding mechanic, telling me that not only is the car a certified failure on the MOT but I cannot even collect it as he is officially advising that no one drive it anywhere - not even the 3.5 miles home from the MOT centre.
The car is basically a death trap - the entire skeleton of the thing is rotten, including the door sills, crashbars and (horrifyingly) the seatbelt anchorage points.
The mechanic has provided us with the following report:
"To whom it may concern.
Further to carrying out a “pre” mot check you have asked for an independent report. As the [town] branch of [garage]'s main mot tester it is my professional opinion that this vehicle was sold with known defects not declared on its MOT.
Corrosion to Offside sill, even though this has corroded from the inside out it would if tested properly been very apparent due to blistering of the sill, the level of corrosion if tested with a tapping hammer would have also resulted in a muted sound from the sill, again pointing to imminent failure, the level of corrosion once the outer sill was cleared was liable to have put any occupants of the vehicle in a side on impact to have severely reduced protection, this due to the inner strengthening structure being non existent.
Corrosion to Nearside sill, this has at some point had an attempt to hide it, badly fitted cover plate, for mot standard not welded correctly, to the front of the plate there are cuts to the steel to try to make it fit properly, neither of which were subsequently welded, To the rear the sill had been badly filled, which when tapped ( gently may I add) fell into the sill, on retrieval of this lump of filler a check of the nearside sill gave the appearance that this too was in as poor a condition as the offside. Again raising cause for concern if this vehicle had been involved in a side on collision.
Corrosion to front subframe. This was not mentioned, yet given the thickness of the steel used in its manufacture had this been properly inspected would have been a certified fail at its last mot, the level of degradation of the material is consistent with at least 2-3 years worth of corrosion, again, as with other corrosion this causes the vehicle to become more the equivalent of a cardboard box, in the unlikely event of a collision this would have buckled and provided no crumple resistance.
Rear suspension. This area highlights how poor the previous mot test was, prior mot's had highlighted worn bushes on the trailing arms ( the bushes are on the verge of failure) miraculously they repaired themselves for the test, Also which would have been apparent were the upper arm bushes causing a clonking from the rear of the vehicle, both outer bushes from my experience would have had play ( whether slight or excessive, as it is now) at the previous test, yet more pointing to the fact of the vehicle not having been tested correctly at all, if it was actually tested. Yet more corrosion...
Rear crashbar, this is of no use in the event of a rear impact due to it missing the offside end due to rot, which has spread up to and onto the mounting support. This should have carried at the very least a dangerous advisory ( it does after all serve a very specific purpose, which sadly this one didn't).
Prescribed areas, both seatbelt and suspension, both front and rear, as mentioned above, excessive corrosion, not a single mention that structural parts of the vehicle have rotted/corroded so badly that there would be further impacted damage do to suspension componentry deflecting force into the vehicle in an accident rather than deflecting this force as the designers intended to protect the occupants.
In summary, and in my own personal professional opinion ( mot tester for 12 years, in the motor trade for 31 years) this vehicle has not had a proper mot carried out on it and has been sold in a very dangerous condition, as stated above, if Mrs [Larplady] had had the misfortune to be involved in any accident the condition of this vehicle would not have offered the protection is was initially designed with.
Report supplied on behalf of [garage]."
Under the mechanic's advice I have reported the previous MOT centre to the DVSA and the dealership to trading standards.
After a bit of an argument with a rep on a serious power trip, the finance company have agreed to send out their own independent inspector to look at the car, which they will base their response on in terms of refund/replacement/etc. They are trying to say that our own mechanic may be biased as he "is working for us". (My argument would be - isn't your inspector working for you? - but anyway..)
My question is - how subjective is this kind of thing? Are there any circumstances where this kind of damage could occur in 12 months? (I Brownie Promise that we have not taken the car off-road, washed it in hydrochloric acid or parked it in the sea.) Is the inspector likely to go against our own mechanic's report - is there much room for opinions in this kind of damage...?
Thanks so much for reading, and any comments or suggestions you may have.
Really hoping someone can set my mind at rest a little, having the horrors here.
So - after the birth of our kiddywink my partner and I decided that our old faithful Mundaneo was due for retirement. We purchased a car in Feb of last year from a (supposedly) reputable dealer. 9 years old, 84k on the clock, beautiful external bodywork, clean engine bay, brand new totally clean MOT with no advisories. Approved for finance, drove away, job done.
Fast forward 11 months of hassle-free zooting about, I put it into our garage for a pre-MOT check as I always do. Yesterday afternoon I received a call from a very shocked sounding mechanic, telling me that not only is the car a certified failure on the MOT but I cannot even collect it as he is officially advising that no one drive it anywhere - not even the 3.5 miles home from the MOT centre.
The car is basically a death trap - the entire skeleton of the thing is rotten, including the door sills, crashbars and (horrifyingly) the seatbelt anchorage points.
The mechanic has provided us with the following report:
"To whom it may concern.
Further to carrying out a “pre” mot check you have asked for an independent report. As the [town] branch of [garage]'s main mot tester it is my professional opinion that this vehicle was sold with known defects not declared on its MOT.
Corrosion to Offside sill, even though this has corroded from the inside out it would if tested properly been very apparent due to blistering of the sill, the level of corrosion if tested with a tapping hammer would have also resulted in a muted sound from the sill, again pointing to imminent failure, the level of corrosion once the outer sill was cleared was liable to have put any occupants of the vehicle in a side on impact to have severely reduced protection, this due to the inner strengthening structure being non existent.
Corrosion to Nearside sill, this has at some point had an attempt to hide it, badly fitted cover plate, for mot standard not welded correctly, to the front of the plate there are cuts to the steel to try to make it fit properly, neither of which were subsequently welded, To the rear the sill had been badly filled, which when tapped ( gently may I add) fell into the sill, on retrieval of this lump of filler a check of the nearside sill gave the appearance that this too was in as poor a condition as the offside. Again raising cause for concern if this vehicle had been involved in a side on collision.
Corrosion to front subframe. This was not mentioned, yet given the thickness of the steel used in its manufacture had this been properly inspected would have been a certified fail at its last mot, the level of degradation of the material is consistent with at least 2-3 years worth of corrosion, again, as with other corrosion this causes the vehicle to become more the equivalent of a cardboard box, in the unlikely event of a collision this would have buckled and provided no crumple resistance.
Rear suspension. This area highlights how poor the previous mot test was, prior mot's had highlighted worn bushes on the trailing arms ( the bushes are on the verge of failure) miraculously they repaired themselves for the test, Also which would have been apparent were the upper arm bushes causing a clonking from the rear of the vehicle, both outer bushes from my experience would have had play ( whether slight or excessive, as it is now) at the previous test, yet more pointing to the fact of the vehicle not having been tested correctly at all, if it was actually tested. Yet more corrosion...
Rear crashbar, this is of no use in the event of a rear impact due to it missing the offside end due to rot, which has spread up to and onto the mounting support. This should have carried at the very least a dangerous advisory ( it does after all serve a very specific purpose, which sadly this one didn't).
Prescribed areas, both seatbelt and suspension, both front and rear, as mentioned above, excessive corrosion, not a single mention that structural parts of the vehicle have rotted/corroded so badly that there would be further impacted damage do to suspension componentry deflecting force into the vehicle in an accident rather than deflecting this force as the designers intended to protect the occupants.
In summary, and in my own personal professional opinion ( mot tester for 12 years, in the motor trade for 31 years) this vehicle has not had a proper mot carried out on it and has been sold in a very dangerous condition, as stated above, if Mrs [Larplady] had had the misfortune to be involved in any accident the condition of this vehicle would not have offered the protection is was initially designed with.
Report supplied on behalf of [garage]."
Under the mechanic's advice I have reported the previous MOT centre to the DVSA and the dealership to trading standards.
After a bit of an argument with a rep on a serious power trip, the finance company have agreed to send out their own independent inspector to look at the car, which they will base their response on in terms of refund/replacement/etc. They are trying to say that our own mechanic may be biased as he "is working for us". (My argument would be - isn't your inspector working for you? - but anyway..)
My question is - how subjective is this kind of thing? Are there any circumstances where this kind of damage could occur in 12 months? (I Brownie Promise that we have not taken the car off-road, washed it in hydrochloric acid or parked it in the sea.) Is the inspector likely to go against our own mechanic's report - is there much room for opinions in this kind of damage...?
Thanks so much for reading, and any comments or suggestions you may have.
0
Comments
-
Have a look st the mot history, clean bill of health last year but what about the 2017 test or a pre sale 2018 test? I'm sure you looked at them online before buying an 8 year old car.0
-
Hi Andy, thanks for replying
I did an online check before buying and there were various advisories for tyres, a failure for a fog lamp, etc - but I assumed as the MOT performed just before we purchased the car was perfectly clean that all of these issues had long since been repaired.
There was certainly no mention of any corrosion in any of them.
Cheers,
LL0 -
You can appeal an MOT for three months, on corrosion-related issues.We purchased a car in Feb of last year from a (supposedly) reputable dealer. 9 years old
...brand new totally clean MOT with no advisories.
Fast forward 11 months of hassle-free zooting about, I put it into our garage for a pre-MOT check as I always do. Yesterday afternoon I received a call from a very shocked sounding mechanic, telling me that not only is the car a certified failure on the MOT but I cannot even collect it as he is officially advising that no one drive it anywhere - not even the 3.5 miles home from the MOT centre.
The car is basically a death trap - the entire skeleton of the thing is rotten, including the door sills, crashbars and (horrifyingly) the seatbelt anchorage points.
Under the mechanic's advice I have reported the previous MOT centre to the DVSA
https://www.gov.uk/getting-an-mot/problems-with-your-test-result
Outside that time, DVSA will just nod, say thank you, and might make a note to do an unannounced inspection of that test centre, maybe put a car in anonymously to see what happens.
Could it happen in a year? Yes. Remember, the car's only 10yrs from brand spankin' new. Frankly, your tester's "report" is verging on the melodramatic.
What car is it, to be so rotten in 10yrs?0 -
Hi Andy, thanks for replying
I did an online check before buying and there were various advisories for tyres, a failure for a fog lamp, etc - but I assumed as the MOT performed just before we purchased the car was perfectly clean that all of these issues had long since been repaired.
There was certainly no mention of any corrosion in any of them.
Cheers,
LL
Well if the last two tests were different garages it kind of casts doubts on your mechanics claims.0 -
Hi Adrian,
Thanks for replying.
So it's possible for the car to have gone from a good, roadworthy condition (again, the MOT was completely clear with no advisories at all) to this state in 11 months? And where is the report melodramatic, sorry?
Oh - and it's a Dodge.
Thanks again,
LL0 -
Sorry, I don't understand. As you've probably already noted I'm not much of a car person.
The MOT the car had when we purchased it was done at a different garage to our own garage, I don't know about MOTs prior to 2018 as I can't access that info on the DVLA website.0 -
What's the reg? Its MOT history can be checked.0
-
But it doesn't tell you who did the tests...Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »What's the reg? Its MOT history can be checked.
...unless you have the V5C to hand.0 -
Hi Duck,
I did check the previous MOTs when I bought it - there was no mention of corrosion and as I say - it was MOTd a week to two weeks before we bought it and passed clear.0 -
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 348.6K Banking & Borrowing
- 252.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 452.5K Spending & Discounts
- 241.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 617.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 175.8K Life & Family
- 254.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards