Used car compensation for " repairs"

MarvinDay

Manxman_in_exile said:

But it's also not clear to me what's wrong with the car that makes it not road-legal.  Is it actually not roadworthy or has it simply failed its MOT?  (Does failing an MOT automatically make it unroadworthy, or does there have to be something more significant wrong with the car?).  Is a remedy simply replacing the cat or is a lot more (possibly expensive) work required?

I would have thought that S75 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 would cover it:

(3)For the purposes of subsection (1) above a motor vehicle or trailer is in an unroadworthy condition if—

(a)it is in such a condition that the use of it on a road in that condition would be unlawful by virtue of any provision made by regulations under section 41 of this Act as respects—

(i)brakes, steering gear or tyres, or

(ii)the construction, weight or equipment of vehicles,. . .

and one part of S41 specifically applies to:

(b)the emission or consumption of smoke, fumes or vapour and the emission of sparks, ashes and grit,

DB1904

MarvinDay said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

But it's also not clear to me what's wrong with the car that makes it not road-legal.  Is it actually not roadworthy or has it simply failed its MOT?  (Does failing an MOT automatically make it unroadworthy, or does there have to be something more significant wrong with the car?).  Is a remedy simply replacing the cat or is a lot more (possibly expensive) work required?

I would have thought that S75 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 would cover it:

(3)For the purposes of subsection (1) above a motor vehicle or trailer is in an unroadworthy condition if—

(a)it is in such a condition that the use of it on a road in that condition would be unlawful by virtue of any provision made by regulations under section 41 of this Act as respects—

(i)brakes, steering gear or tyres, or

(ii)the construction, weight or equipment of vehicles,. . .

and one part of S41 specifically applies to:

(b)the emission or consumption of smoke, fumes or vapour and the emission of sparks, ashes and grit,

It's got nothing to do with weight Section 61 covers emissions.

whatsthenews

MarvinDay said:

One thing that hasn't been mentioned (or if it has, I've missed it) is that it's illegal to sell an unroadworthy vehicle or a vehicle that has been modified as to make it illegal under the "construction, weight or equipment of vehicles by regulations" unless the seller reasonable believed that it wouldn't be used on the road.

If they have sold the vehicle concerned without confirming what it would be used for, they have committed the offence.

Thank you! Can I ask where you got that info from please?
This is from Trading Standards 
"if you make a trader aware that you want the vehicle to be 'fit for a particular purpose' (even if it is something that it is not usually supplied for) then you have the right to expect it is fit for that purpose. If the item is not fit for purpose you are entitled to a remedy"
They knew he wanted a road legal vehicle. For heaven's sake they watched him drive it away and knew he was driving  300 miles ( on the road 😒)  
He never mentioned wanting  a track car. He sold the road legal  car he had to buy the car. They dealer even gave him a part - ex valuation . 

DB1904

whatsthenews said:

MarvinDay said:

One thing that hasn't been mentioned (or if it has, I've missed it) is that it's illegal to sell an unroadworthy vehicle or a vehicle that has been modified as to make it illegal under the "construction, weight or equipment of vehicles by regulations" unless the seller reasonable believed that it wouldn't be used on the road.

If they have sold the vehicle concerned without confirming what it would be used for, they have committed the offence.

Thank you! Can I ask where you got that info from please?
This is from Trading Standards 
"if you make a trader aware that you want the vehicle to be 'fit for a particular purpose' (even if it is something that it is not usually supplied for) then you have the right to expect it is fit for that purpose. If the item is not fit for purpose you are entitled to a remedy"
They knew he wanted a road legal vehicle. For heaven's sake they watched him drive it away and knew he was driving  300 miles ( on the road 😒)  
He never mentioned wanting  a track car. He sold the road legal  car he had to buy the car. They dealer even gave him a part - ex valuation . 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/75?timeline=false

whatsthenews

Manxman_in_exile said:

MarvinDay said:

One thing that hasn't been mentioned (or if it has, I've missed it) is that it's illegal to sell an unroadworthy vehicle or a vehicle that has been modified as to make it illegal under the "construction, weight or equipment of vehicles by regulations" unless the seller reasonable believed that it wouldn't be used on the road.

If they have sold the vehicle concerned without confirming what it would be used for, they have committed the offence.

That's what I think.  I can't believe a dealer can sell to a member of the public a car that the dealer knows is not road legal without explicitly pointing that out to the buyer before completing the sale.  Just putting "track car" on the invoice would not be enough in my view*.

But it's also not clear to me what's wrong with the car that makes it not road-legal.  Is it actually not roadworthy or has it simply failed its MOT?  (Does failing an MOT automatically make it unroadworthy, or does there have to be something more significant wrong with the car?).  Is a remedy simply replacing the cat or is a lot more (possibly expensive) work required?

*And I suppose being a "track car" does not automatically mean it would fail an MOT or be unroadworthy?  Maybe the OP (or rather their relative) does need proper legal advice - but I think they'll need to be a lot clearer about how the purchase came about and what is actually wrong with the car.

Hi and thanks.
I thought a vehicle that could never pass an MOT due to the absence of a component that was fitted as standard would make it non road legal? Screenshot from MOT.gov website as son is away from home on training course with the car. 
It's infuriating that the car now has a FAIL in its MOT history. 
It's passed 3 days later after having a cat fitted. Son is savvy enough to know that if a car ( especially this car)  doesn't have a cat it won't pass it's M
Yes it said Track car in small letters at the top of the invoice, and son has said he didn't notice that. 
As I've said, that phrase wasn't used to describe the car at any other time. 

whatsthenews

Manxman_in_exile said:

I find it very hard to believe that a car dealer can sell a non-road legal car to a member of the public without specifically drawing to the buyer's attention that the car cannot legally be driven on the road in it's current state.  I don't think it's enough for the dealer simply to say that the the car is "stage 3 tuned" or "stage 3 modified" and leave it to the buyer to work out what that means.  I'd expect the dealer to have to be making that clear - whether in the advert or during the sale.  (I'm assuming that if the previous MOT was done either by the dealer or when the car was in their possession, then they must have known that the Cat had been removed by the time they sold it to the OP's young relative - or that there was something wrong with the previous MOT).

Having said that, it's not clear to me why it's not street legal.  Is it simply because it's failed its MOT for emissions and for not having a cat, or is there something else involving the "tuning" or "modifications" that is causing the problems?  If it's just the missing cat then - from the other thread - sounds like it ought to be simple enough for the dealer to put it right, which I think they ought to be doing.

But I can't understand why - if the buyer did not know they were buying a track car - they didn't immediately query the invoice description with the seller at the time of sale.  That, together with the dealer specialising in "performance" cars (according to the other thread), does make me wonder if the buyer knew pretty much exactly what they were buying...

Also (again from the other thread) has the buyer notified the modifications to their insurance company?  I don't see how that could have been done without asking the seller how the car had been modified in the first place if it wasn't obvious from the advert.  And surely you'd ask that question before buying it?  So either the seller gave the buyer duff info, or the buyer must have known?  Only the buyer (not their older relative) knows this.

That, together with the dealer specialising in "performance" cars (according to the other thread), does make me wonder if the buyer knew pretty much exactly what they were buying...

If he knew pretty much what he was buying , for eg   that it wouldn't pass an MOT because it didn't have a  cat, or it was a " track car"  why did he take it to an unknown ( to him) testing station  for its  MOT , or indeed bother taking it for an MOT at all when track cars don't need one?
Yes, last 2 MOTs carried out in the dealers ownership, so it's a DVSA issue as well. 

whatsthenews

The insurance company didn't ask for specifics re the modifications. He told them it was tuned to Stage 3 and had had modifications to the air intake, turbocharger  and exhaust system and they didn't ask anything else.

MarvinDay

DB1904 said:

MarvinDay said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

But it's also not clear to me what's wrong with the car that makes it not road-legal.  Is it actually not roadworthy or has it simply failed its MOT?  (Does failing an MOT automatically make it unroadworthy, or does there have to be something more significant wrong with the car?).  Is a remedy simply replacing the cat or is a lot more (possibly expensive) work required?

I would have thought that S75 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 would cover it:

(3)For the purposes of subsection (1) above a motor vehicle or trailer is in an unroadworthy condition if—

(a)it is in such a condition that the use of it on a road in that condition would be unlawful by virtue of any provision made by regulations under section 41 of this Act as respects—

(i)brakes, steering gear or tyres, or

(ii)the construction, weight or equipment of vehicles,. . .

and one part of S41 specifically applies to:

(b)the emission or consumption of smoke, fumes or vapour and the emission of sparks, ashes and grit,

It's got nothing to do with weight Section 61 covers emissions.

Really?
The only legislation that I referred to in my earlier post was the Road traffic act 1988 and S41 of that act most certainly does cover emissions (as already shown).

Section 61 of the Road vehicles (construction and use) regulations 1986 does also cover emissions but as I didn't mention anything about this particular piece of legislation, I fail to see your point.

k3lvc

whatsthenews said:

The insurance company didn't ask for specifics re the modifications. He told them it was tuned to Stage 3 and had had modifications to the air intake, turbocharger  and exhaust system and they didn't ask anything else.

Seems strange given most insurance companies micro-management of modifications. Are you sure you're getting the full story from son and not the edited version after his dream/flash car failed it's MOT ? (speaking from experience as someone who's been in a similar position with motorbikes in the past )

born_again

whatsthenews said:

The insurance company didn't ask for specifics re the modifications. He told them it was tuned to Stage 3 and had had modifications to the air intake, turbocharger  and exhaust system and they didn't ask anything else.

So you knew there were modifications to the exhaust then...
Did no one think to ask exactly these were? 

Just because something is described as a track car, does not mean it can not be road legal.