Dodgy MOT - small claims court advice

AdrianC

Lemmon said:

The action that I've taken so far has been under the advice of citizens advice, who seem to feel that it was serious enough to report to trading standards. For the one that said I'm clearly just taking advantage to try and return the car, I also had no idea that I apparently have this right. I contacted them in the hope of getting the cost back for the repair, and they told me that as the MOT would have been invalid when I purchased it I'm entitled to ask for either option.

I suspect there's a bit of interpretation going on there, or inadequate information provided.

When you decided to go ahead and purchase the car anyway, in full knowledge of the issues, you waived any future right to complain about them.

Your consumer rights give you redress for problems that were present at the time of sale, but which are outside what can reasonably be expected of used goods of that age, price, and apparent condition. It's a grand and a half's worth of car and, a decade and a half or more old. (I'm assuming it's not a Nanjing TF)
Those reasonable expectations are not the same as for a near-new one.

But, again, you were fully aware of the issues before you concluded the purchase. Consumer rights are not there for buyer's remorse. They are there for hidden faults that could not be ascertained prior to concluding the purchase.

Did he mis-advertise it? Yes, given that the audio equipment was not as advertised. Did you know that at the time of concluding the purchase? Yes.
Was the MOT "dodgy"? We cannot say. It may have been. But you were aware of the door handle issue before you concluded the purchase, and went ahead anyway. You are now outside the time to appeal the MOT (thanks to Jumble for correcting me - it was 28 days not 14 as I said. But there is little practical difference, since the test was around two months ago.)

Ultimately, it's a £350 fix. How much blood pressure and swearing do you want to put into that? You can launch a small claim, but you are not guaranteed to win.

Car_54

 I contacted them in the hope of getting the cost back for the repair, and they told me that as the MOT would have been invalid when I purchased it I'm entitled to ask for either option.

What exactly does that mean?

Grumpy_chap

Lemmon said:

I drove a long way to get the car because it's an MG, and decent ones (or at least, what I thought was a decent one) are not particularly easy to come by these days. It looked good in the advert, so I made the trip. I wanted an MG, so please don't bore me by criticising me or my car of choice, I've no doubt heard it all before. 

Assuming it is a 'classic' MG, but based on the value you indicated more likely an MGF than MGB, but definitely not an MGMotors MG3, then it makes sense why you travelled to purchase.  Then, I doubt that the car would have come with DAB radio etc., and the value of such a car is in being 'original'.  I don't think you will have any claim on the vendor as the faults were identified before you completed the purchase.  These types of cars are usually owned as a 'labour of love' - you are just getting the extra share of early labour to earn the love.

Lemmon

AdrianC said:

Lemmon said:

The action that I've taken so far has been under the advice of citizens advice, who seem to feel that it was serious enough to report to trading standards. For the one that said I'm clearly just taking advantage to try and return the car, I also had no idea that I apparently have this right. I contacted them in the hope of getting the cost back for the repair, and they told me that as the MOT would have been invalid when I purchased it I'm entitled to ask for either option.

I suspect there's a bit of interpretation going on there, or inadequate information provided.

When you decided to go ahead and purchase the car anyway, in full knowledge of the issues, you waived any future right to complain about them.

Your consumer rights give you redress for problems that were present at the time of sale, but which are outside what can reasonably be expected of used goods of that age, price, and apparent condition. It's a grand and a half's worth of car and, a decade and a half or more old. (I'm assuming it's not a Nanjing TF)
Those reasonable expectations are not the same as for a near-new one.

But, again, you were fully aware of the issues before you concluded the purchase. Consumer rights are not there for buyer's remorse. They are there for hidden faults that could not be ascertained prior to concluding the purchase.

Did he mis-advertise it? Yes, given that the audio equipment was not as advertised. Did you know that at the time of concluding the purchase? Yes.
Was the MOT "dodgy"? We cannot say. It may have been. But you were aware of the door handle issue before you concluded the purchase, and went ahead anyway. You are now outside the time to appeal the MOT (thanks to Jumble for correcting me - it was 28 days not 14 as I said. But there is little practical difference, since the test was around two months ago.)

Ultimately, it's a £350 fix. How much blood pressure and swearing do you want to put into that? You can launch a small claim, but you are not guaranteed to win.

Not at all. I gave the citizens advice the same information I put here. They said that, ordinarily, what you've just said is correct. As I was aware of the problem before purchasing, I wouldn't be entitled to anything, but in this case, it apparently falls under the 'consumer protection from unfair trading regulation' - specifically, that 'traders shouldn't engage in misleading action in order to gain a sale'. In this case, the misleading action is that the car had an MOT that it shouldn't have, but the MOT would have contributed to my decision to buy the car, which it honestly did. Their words, not mine, so don't shoot the messenger please.

The 28 days on the MOT part is correct as I have already spoken to the DVSA, but my complaint is not with the MOT garage, it's with the dealership. I did not get the car MOT'd, the dealership did. 

As for the £350, I mean, you don't know my personal or financial situation.  I understand that for many £350 seems like a cheap fix, but for me, it's not at all. The money I used to buy the car was all I had. 

Lemmon

Grumpy_chap said:

Lemmon said:

I drove a long way to get the car because it's an MG, and decent ones (or at least, what I thought was a decent one) are not particularly easy to come by these days. It looked good in the advert, so I made the trip. I wanted an MG, so please don't bore me by criticising me or my car of choice, I've no doubt heard it all before. 

Assuming it is a 'classic' MG, but based on the value you indicated more likely an MGF than MGB, but definitely not an MGMotors MG3, then it makes sense why you travelled to purchase.  Then, I doubt that the car would have come with DAB radio etc., and the value of such a car is in being 'original'.  I don't think you will have any claim on the vendor as the faults were identified before you completed the purchase.  These types of cars are usually owned as a 'labour of love' - you are just getting the extra share of early labour to earn the love.

Yes, it's a 2004 ZT diesel. I needed a larger diesel for a reasonably economic daily. The radio was aftermarket but declared on the advert as fully wired in and working. A lot are abused and high mileage, so when I saw this one which seemed to be neither, it seemed worth the traveling distance. Definitely a labour of love! 

George_Michael

Lemmon said:

the misleading action is that the car had an MOT that it shouldn't have, but the MOT would have contributed to my decision to buy the car, which it honestly did. Their words, not mine, so don't shoot the messenger please.

It's incorrect to state that the car shouldn't have had an MOT.
True, it shouldn't have passed if the door handle was faulty at the time of the test but at present, there is no way to prove that this was the case.
A car shouldn't pass an MOT test if a tyre has a bulge on the sidewall but I could take my car for its test, get a pass then hit a kerb on the way home and it's entirely possible that the handle failed after the test was carried out.

Dr_Crypto

That doesn’t really make sense to me. 

Your complaint is that the car has a hookey MOT. However, you’ve said yourself you haven’t got any evidence of that. The dealer will simply (and potentially accurately) say that it had a legitimate MOT and he sold it with the same in good faith. 

In any event the MOT is only a spot check of the car. If the door failed after the MOT (which it May have) that doesn’t cancel the MOT. 

I personally think you’re into a loser here. 

lcc86

Unfortunately I think the crux of the matter would be the fact that nobody could prove when the door fault occurred if it went to court, and that would probably mean a judge couldn't find in your favour. I would say you have two options:

1. Go to Small claims court but risk losing and then having to pay for the repair anyway plus court costs. 
2. Pay for the repair and sell on, albeit at a loss as you've mentioned. 

It may not be a fair outcome but it may be better to cut your losses on this one.

Scrapit

Lemmon said:

Thank you to the people that have given an actual reply. It's a shame there's the usual aggressiveness/rudeness and assumptions from the rest on here. From experience you can't ask a question without getting your head bitten off.

I drove a long way to get the car because it's an MG, and decent ones (or at least, what I thought was a decent one) are not particularly easy to come by these days. It looked good in the advert, so I made the trip. I wanted an MG, so please don't bore me by criticising me or my car of choice, I've no doubt heard it all before. 

It could well be that the door failed after the MOT. I don't know either way. All I know is, the car had its MOT done by the dealer, and I then collected it and the door didn't work. It hadn't done many miles - 23, to be exact - since the MOT. The dealer obviously knew it was damaged because he wasn't remotely surprised when the door didn't open. There were also a number of other things that were not right that I haven't mentioned, such as the stereo didn't come with DAB and Bluetooth as he'd advertised, and there was no cd changer in the boot, also as advertised, so based on this I'm pretty sure he knew and omitted it from the advert. And yes, I still bought the car. I don't know enough about this particular problem, I was planning on replacing the stereo anyway, and I made the mistake of taking the dealer at his word, which I've absolutely learnt my lesson on. For context, the cost of parts and labour is £350, and the car is worth about £1500 if I'm lucky.

The action that I've taken so far has been under the advice of citizens advice, who seem to feel that it was serious enough to report to trading standards. For the one that said I'm clearly just taking advantage to try and return the car, I also had no idea that I apparently have this right. I contacted them in the hope of getting the cost back for the repair, and they told me that as the MOT would have been invalid when I purchased it I'm entitled to ask for either option.

Hope I get a buyer like you next time I sell a motor

AdrianC

Lemmon said:

The 28 days on the MOT part is correct as I have already spoken to the DVSA, but my complaint is not with the MOT garage, it's with the dealership. I did not get the car MOT'd, the dealership did. 

Your appeal would be against the test, as carried out.

As for the £350, I mean, you don't know my personal or financial situation.  I understand that for many £350 seems like a cheap fix, but for me, it's not at all. The money I used to buy the car was all I had. 

It's a £1500 15+yo car. It's eminently liable to throw a bill like that at you at any time. At least the door not opening doesn't prevent you using the car in the interim.