Dodgy MOT - small claims court advice

pramsay13

Lemmon said:

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. 

If you think the one advisor at Citizens Advice are correct then go ahead and launch a small claim and get their advice if you need any.
You have a lot of people on here, many with years of experience, telling you that your chances aren't good and explaining to you why they think that.
It's up to you.

lincroft1710

Lemmon said:

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.

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. 

Spending all your money buying a 16 year old car is not very sensible. At that age, a lot of parts are coming to the end of their life. You cannot complain about the door, you were aware of that when you bought the car. You have no provable evidence that the MOT is "dodgy". Just enjoy the car!

macman

'The money I used to buy the car was all I had'
So what are you going to use to fix it when the next fault manifests itself a few months down the line? The car is 16 years old, end of life. It's not going to be maintenance-free!

Scrapit

macman said:

'The money I used to buy the car was all I had'
So what are you going to use to fix it when the next fault manifests itself a few months down the line? The car is 16 years old, end of life. It's not going to be maintenance-free!

Its a rover. It was thrown together. It probbably wasn't maintaince free when new.

Manxman_in_exile

I agree with the last three posters that I don't see the point of spending all your money on a 15 or 16 year old car and then worrying about repair costs.  (And who'd buy a car with a non-working passenger door and then try to sell it without fixing it?).

I could also perhaps understand somebody travelling halfway across the country to buy a proper MG, but not the one the OP has.

(Better duck down into the trench before the OP defends their actions again... )

lincroft1710

Manxman_in_exile said:

I agree with the last three posters that I don't see the point of spending all your money on a 15 or 16 year old car and then worrying about repair costs.  (And who'd buy a car with a non-working passenger door and then try to sell it without fixing it?).

I could also perhaps understand somebody travelling halfway across the country to buy a proper MG, but not the one the OP has.

(Better duck down into the trench before the OP defends their actions again... )

If you think about it no MG saloon since the 1930s has been a "true" MG, they've been slightly faster versions of either Morris, Wolseley, Austin or Rover family saloons, the ZT being based on the Rover 75

facade

lincroft1710 said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

I agree with the last three posters that I don't see the point of spending all your money on a 15 or 16 year old car and then worrying about repair costs.  (And who'd buy a car with a non-working passenger door and then try to sell it without fixing it?).

I could also perhaps understand somebody travelling halfway across the country to buy a proper MG, but not the one the OP has.

(Better duck down into the trench before the OP defends their actions again... )

If you think about it no MG saloon since the 1930s has been a "true" MG, they've been slightly faster versions of either Morris, Wolseley, Austin or Rover family saloons, the ZT being based on the Rover 75

I loved my MG Montego. If only it hadn't dissolved in the rain, I'd still love it now

Car_54

lincroft1710 said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

I agree with the last three posters that I don't see the point of spending all your money on a 15 or 16 year old car and then worrying about repair costs.  (And who'd buy a car with a non-working passenger door and then try to sell it without fixing it?).

I could also perhaps understand somebody travelling halfway across the country to buy a proper MG, but not the one the OP has.

(Better duck down into the trench before the OP defends their actions again... )

If you think about it no MG saloon since the 1930s has been a "true" MG, they've been slightly faster versions of either Morris, Wolseley, Austin or Rover family saloons, the ZT being based on the Rover 75

Weren't even "true" MGs put together largely from various Morris bits?

AdrianC

Car_54 said:

lincroft1710 said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

I agree with the last three posters that I don't see the point of spending all your money on a 15 or 16 year old car and then worrying about repair costs.  (And who'd buy a car with a non-working passenger door and then try to sell it without fixing it?).

I could also perhaps understand somebody travelling halfway across the country to buy a proper MG, but not the one the OP has.

(Better duck down into the trench before the OP defends their actions again... )

If you think about it no MG saloon since the 1930s has been a "true" MG, they've been slightly faster versions of either Morris, Wolseley, Austin or Rover family saloons, the ZT being based on the Rover 75

Weren't even "true" MGs put together largely from various Morris bits?

There's a good clue in the name...

MinuteNoodles

16 year old car with 16 year old plastic clips holding the various rods together between the door handles and the door latch, any of which can break at any time purely due to ageing. At the very worst it's the door latch, in either case you're looking at sub £50 for the parts and an hour of your time to sort it out even if it's the first time you've ever done it.