Sold a car based on lies

Hoof_Hearted

If you are otherwise happy with the car, you could pay to have the work done and then sue for the cost using the small claims court.

wesleyad

Shagger wrote: »

What I really want to know is how it got through its most recent MOT, because that was done by the dealer I bought it from not by the previous owner. I know they took my car in as a part-ex so I suspect they only realised it had been decatted when the deal had been done, they knew it'd be expensive to fix and so they falsified the emissions test results to get it through the MOT. Why else would they try to lie about who did the MOT, or lie and say that when the MOT was done there were definitely cats fitted?

That's the strange one. Have you got the emissions test from the MOT? You can check location online if needed. I'd try to get it retested now and check difference. Faking an MOT is probably the last thing I'd think of as the risk to them is massive compared to just replacing the cat. As you say the are a proper dealership and they'd have to get the MOT garage in on it, its just too far fetched.

Shagger

Ectophile wrote: »

I can't imagine the average member of public, buying a car, having a set of ramps, or even to knowing what to look for if they did.


The seller is a trader who is assumed to know all about cars. The buyer is an ordinary consumer.

Good point. There are plenty of people driving performance cars who wouldn't even be able to point to the cats, let alone know if they'd been removed or replaced with an aftermarket part.

And it seems that the law agrees, because where traders are concerned, the onus is on them to be honest and, within the first 6 months after sale, the burden of proof is also on them to show that the vehicle was as described and free from defects when they sold it:

"During the first six months following the purchase, the dealer will bear the burden of proof on showing that the goods weren't, in fact, defective at the point of delivery and that they were of satisfactory quality, fit for purpose, or as described when sold. However, after this six-month period, the burden of proof is reversed and a consumer will have to show that the goods were defective at the time of delivery."

Taken from:
https://www.raccars.co.uk/about/safety/rights

So hopefully I have a case, because the cost to put this right using genuine BMW parts comes out at almost £4k :-(

Shagger

k3lvc wrote: »

But this isn't your average runabout - it's a high performance saloon that's likely to attract an enthusiast/specialist and needing significat research before purchase.


Dropping £15k on something that could have spent it's life on a track would generally warrant more than a cursory glance at it's bodywork

You seem to keep making assumptions. First it was that I bought it from a "back-street" dealer. Now it's that I bought it after a quick look to make sure the paint looked ok, and with no research. Where did I say this?



Seriously, nobody gets a car up on ramps when buying from a dealer. I've bought dozens of cars and have never done this. I know plenty of people who've spent much more on a car and they've never done this. If you pay for an RAC inspection, they don't do this. By the same logic, what if it were a turbo'd car where someone could have fitted a bigger turbo? Or should I have stripped the engine down to check that it didn't have a stroker kit or a high-lift cam fitted? Should I have had the ECU checked to make sure it wasn't remapped?


Or maybe the trader just shouldn't have lied?

Shagger

wesleyad wrote: »

That's the strange one. Have you got the emissions test from the MOT? You can check location online if needed. I'd try to get it retested now and check difference. Faking an MOT is probably the last thing I'd think of as the risk to them is massive compared to just replacing the cat. As you say the are a proper dealership and they'd have to get the MOT garage in on it, its just too far fetched.

Yeah I've got the emissions test results and the name of the MOT place. I've got it booked in for another emissions test to compare the results.

You're probably right. They could have seen it was decatted, realised the cost of sorting it, temporarily fitted some cats for the MOT and then removed them again afterwards. Although I did get the impression that the MOT place was one they used all of the time and were on very good terms with. For all I know, it could be a friend or family member of the owner of the dealer. I've yet to check all of this out via Companies House.

Ectophile

Depending on the age of the car, there is always the possibility that it could have passed the MOT even with the cats removed. There was a period during which catalysts started being fitted by the manufacturers, but the emission limits hadn't caught up. On cars made during that period, you could get away with removing the cats, provided that car was well tuned and running at its best.

Shagger

Ectophile wrote: »

Depending on the age of the car, there is always the possibility that it could have passed the MOT even with the cats removed. There was a period during which catalysts started being fitted by the manufacturers, but the emission limits hadn't caught up. On cars made during that period, you could get away with removing the cats, provided that car was well tuned and running at its best.

Yeah that's true, although it's a 2008 car so not sure. I was just going off what the local mechanic told me and he insisted it'd be an immediate fail. I suppose the emissions test tomorrow will answer the question once and for all. Well...unless it's a very borderline result :-D
And the engine warning light being on is a problem even if it does somehow pass. But I don't think it will, and the trader actually rang me yesterday to discuss the option of me getting cats refitted here and then them paying for the costs, so that's a big positive step as well as an indication that they know they've done something wrong.

custardy

Shagger wrote: »

Yeah that's true, although it's a 2008 car so not sure. I was just going off what the local mechanic told me and he insisted it'd be an immediate fail. I suppose the emissions test tomorrow will answer the question once and for all. Well...unless it's a very borderline result :-D
And the engine warning light being on is a problem even if it does somehow pass. But I don't think it will, and the trader actually rang me yesterday to discuss the option of me getting cats refitted here and then them paying for the costs, so that's a big positive step as well as an indication that they know they've done something wrong.

nah,it was early 90's. I recall my much beloved Mk3 Cav SRI having no cat whereas the CD models did

wesleyad

Shagger wrote: »

And it seems that the law agrees, because where traders are concerned, the onus is on them to be honest and, within the first 6 months after sale, the burden of proof is also on them to show that the vehicle was as described and free from defects when they sold it:

That's all included in tacpot's link on first page (post 14). You just need to follow his advice and proceed with a letter before action. As this will eventually be a small claims (if it goes that far) any solicitors fees you pay will be non refundable, and frankly, a waste of money.