Bought an unroadworthy car with a brand new MOT. Is the dealer liable?

uknumber3

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><SOLVED><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
After initiating a debit card chargeback dispute with Barclays and explaining the situation, the full cost of the purchase was refunded to my bank account. Thank you to all contributors of this thread.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><SOLVED><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

* Bought a used car with a brand new 12 month mot at point of sale.
* Noticed severe corrosion (perforation in fact) on structural parts within 7 days of purchase.
* Dealer refused full refund.
* Took car for another MOT....it failed.
* Contacted DVSA....failure upheld...car deemed unroadworthy by DVSA.
* Expecting to take dealer to small claims court to obtain refund and costs incurred.
* Have involved Trading standards.
* The car was extremely dangerous and the lives of my family were put at risk.

My question is...

Is the car dealer still guilty of an offence for selling an un-roadworthy vehicle? I assume his defence would be that the car had just passed an MOT- but is the onus on him to ensure the road-worthiness of the car before selling it, regardless?

I have read a number of similar cases online where trading standards have prosecuted a car dealer following similar incidents. However it's not clear if the un-roadworthy cars they had sold were MOT'd at the point of sale.

<<< Ignore the following question, it has been solved in the first reply >>>

Is there any way to pursue a prosecution privately for endangering my family?

Thank you in advance for any replies. Any thoughts or experiences relating to this situation will be gratefully received.

lincroft1710

uknumber3 wrote: »

Is there any way to pursue a prosecution privately for endangering my family?

As they did not suffer any injury, you would be wasting your money!

uknumber3

Ok. That seems reasonable. Was just clutching at straws with the private prosecution suggestion to be honest This chap has wasted so much of my time, I'm of the "take him to the cleaners" mentality at the moment. Future posters please feel free to ignore that tidbit in the original post. I'd still appreciate an answer to the "liability in spite of MOT" question if anyone can help.

SHAFT

uknumber3 wrote: »

* Bought a used car with a brand new 12 month mot at point of sale.
* Noticed severe corrosion (perforation in fact) on structural parts within 7 days of purchase.
* Dealer refused full refund.
* Took car for another MOT....it failed.
* Contacted DVSA....failure upheld...car deemed unroadworthy by DVSA.
* Expecting to take dealer to small claims court to obtain refund and costs incurred.
* Have involved Trading standards.
* The car was extremely dangerous and the lives of my family were put at risk.

My question is...

Is the car dealer still guilty of an offence for selling an un-roadworthy vehicle? I assume his defence would be that the car had just passed an MOT- but is the onus on him to ensure the road-worthiness of the car before selling it, regardless?

I have read a number of similar cases online where trading standards have prosecuted a car dealer following similar incidents. However it's not clear if the un-roadworthy cars they had sold were MOT'd at the point of sale.

Is there any way to pursue a prosecution privately for endangering my family?

Thank you in advance for any replies. Any thoughts or experiences relating to this situation will be gratefully received.

And that prosecution would be against who?

You were the one committing a criminal offence that endangered your family. But you mean against the dealer don't you? You can't afford it.

He'll probably only get a slap on the wrists by trading standards unless there are other offences.

SHAFT

uknumber3 wrote: »

Ok. That seems reasonable. Was just clutching at straws with the private prosecution suggestion to be honest This chap has wasted so much of my time, I'm of the "take him to the cleaners" mentality at the moment. Future posters please feel free to ignore that tidbit in the original post. I'd still appreciate an answer to the "liability in spite of MOT" question if anyone can help.

So you get a ccj, which he doesn't pay and starts up a new company. Then what?

uknumber3

As is clear in the post you've quoted in your reply, the private prosecution suggestion has now been very much abandoned.

If you have any insight regarding the actual main question in my original post, that would be very much appreciated.

SHAFT

uknumber3 wrote: »

As is clear in the post you've quoted in your reply, the private prosecution suggestion has now been very much abandoned.

If you have any insight regarding the actual main question in my original post, that would be very much appreciated.

It's an offence to sell an unroadworthy vehicle in answer to your original question. The fact it had a bent mot won't give the dealer a defence.

Whether trading standards decide to prosecute on a one off is anyone's guess. Given funding it's unlikely.

uknumber3

SHAFT wrote: »

It's an offence to sell an unroadworthy vehicle in answer to your original question. The fact it had a bent mot won't give the dealer a defence.

Whether trading standards decide to prosecute on a one off is anyone's guess. Given funding it's unlikely.

Thank you very much for your time in responding to this thread SHAFT. That's exactly what I wanted to know. Now that I know where I stand theoretically, I can feel confident talking to trading standards when I try and persuade them to take up the case. I understand the unlikeliness of anything coming of it but your answer has given me enough reason to try.

Incidentally, this outfit is not a fly-by-night operation. This is clearly their business model- selling (basically) scrap cars with fraudulent MOTs. The MOT tester is situated on the same trading estate, they're clearly in cahoots. As I said, there are plenty of cases all over the country where trading standards have prosecuted so you never know. Hopefully I can cause them a headache either way.

Many thanks again. :beer:

SHAFT

uknumber3 wrote: »

Thank you very much for your time in responding to this thread SHAFT. That's exactly what I wanted to know. Now that I know where I stand theoretically, I can feel confident talking to trading standards when I try and persuade them to take up the case. I understand the unlikeliness of anything coming of it but your answer has given me enough reason to try.

Incidentally, this outfit is not a fly-by-night operation. This is clearly their business model- selling (basically) scrap cars with fraudulent MOTs. The MOT tester is situated on the same trading estate, they're clearly in cahoots. As I said, there are plenty of cases all over the country where trading standards have prosecuted so you never know. Hopefully I can cause them a headache either way.

Many thanks again. :beer:

So you haven't spoken to Trading Standards yet?

The next thing then is you can't. You'll have to go to citizens advice.


Once the court papers come in then they'll dissolve the limited company and start again. It doesn't matter how big their premises are your money will be gone.

It's going to be a long road with no quick fix.

uknumber3

SHAFT wrote: »

So you haven't spoken to Trading Standards yet?

The next thing then is you can't. You'll have to go to citizens advice.


Once the court papers come in then they'll dissolve the limited company and start again. It doesn't matter how big their premises are your money will be gone.

It's going to be a long road with no quick fix.

I have had 3 conversations with trading standards on the phone regarding this situation. I phoned them for advice when I realised what had happened. They advised me that I could return the vehicle (as it was within 30 days) and request a full refund (which I did and was refused). They told me to then send a letter recording the fact that I'd attended the premises requesting a refund. Then they advised me with regards to taking things forward with the DVSA. They've been fantastic throughout to be quite honest. CAB told me that it was nothing to do with them and advised me that it was a trading standards issue.

I took the vehicle for the DVSA test today. Both MOT testers (the passer and the failer) had to attend and there were 2 DVSA testers. They concurred with the "failer" that the car was un-roadworthy. There were 4 major issues (that it would fail on) with the car besides the corrosion. I'm assuming the bent MOT tester will lose his license.

So tomorrow I will take the DVSA test to the dealer and again request a refund but I'm pretty much resigned to having to take them to the small claims court.

DoaM

The chances of you having actually spoken with Trading Standards is remote, as they rarely have any direct consumer interface. It was more likely the Consumer Advice Service you contacted, and they advised they could/would pass the details on to Trading Standards.