Purchased Car with Dodgy MOT- What are my Options?

Altior

Alderbank said:

singhini said:

I'm not sure of your Consumer Rights. Hopefully others more knowledgeable can advise 

You bought this car from its previous owner on or about 18 September, so less than 30 days ago.

I'm happy to be proved wrong but my understanding is that your statutory consumer rights are exclusively with that trader (an insurance company) with whom you have a contract of sale.

This car is more than 10 years old and has covered 85,000 miles. It will have had a few previous owners since 2014 but I don't think you have any consumer rights against any of them, only with the trader you currently bought it from.

They've purchased a salvage project, not retail. I'd be very surprised if there any consumer rights at all, based on the condition of a written off vehicle. Aside from I suppose factual errors. This is a risky thing to do if you're not familiar with the history of the vehicle, in my view. 

Would be interesting to know what the OP paid for the salvage.

Here are the findings from the 18/09 MOT at 85,084 miles FAIL

Do not drive until repaired (dangerous defects):

• Offside Front Brake pipe leaking on a hydraulic braking system Brake hose to abs pump (1.1.11 (b) (ii))

Repair immediately (major defects):

• Parking brake efficiency below requirements (1.4.2 (a) (i))
• Offside Front Position lamp not working (4.2.1 (a) (ii))
• Brake slack adjuster incorrectly adjusted (1.1.18 (a))
• Nearside Front Suspension locking device missing Track rod (5.3.6 (b))

Repair as soon as possible (minor defects):

• Nearside Rear Registration plate lamp insecure (4.7.1 (c) (i))
• Nearside Front Inner Drive shaft joint constant velocity boot severely deteriorated (6.1.7 (g) (i))

Monitor and repair if necessary (advisories):

• Nearside Front Brake hose has slight corrosion to ferrule (1.1.12 (f) (i))
• Nearside Front Brake pipe corroded, covered in grease or other material Brake hose to abs pump (1.1.11 (c))
• Offside Rear Brake pipe corroded, covered in grease or other material (1.1.11 (c))
• Nearside Rear Brake pipe corroded, covered in grease or other material (1.1.11 (c))
• Offside Front Tyre worn close to legal limit/worn on edge (5.2.3 (e))
• Nearside Front Suspension arm ball joint has slight play (5.3.4 (a) (i))

- 

And the 7 December 2024 MOT at 80,977 miles PASS

Monitor and repair if necessary (advisories):

• Front Registration plate deteriorated but not likely to be misread (0.1 (b))
• Nearside Front Suspension arm ball joint has slight play (5.3.4 (a) (i))
• Rear Service brake requirements only just met. It would appear that the braking system requires adjustment or repair (1.2.1 (c))
• Rear Sub-frame corroded but not seriously weakened (5.3.3 (b) (i))

-

Pre original OP purchase MOT 15 July 2025 at 85,019 miles

Clean Pass

-

Even between the MOTs before and after the vehicle was sold to the OP shows an astonishing decline in condition over 9 months and around 4k miles. 

I think I'd be inclined to put it in a salvage auction, there isn't a good way to prove that the faults didn't exist at the time of the accident. This is not a car to keep, let the salvage experts take their chances.

fatbelly

I'd get a quote for repairs. I don't think it will be more than a few hundred pounds.

Coparts will give you around £600 as it stands

An 11-year old cat N Picanto will be worth £2000-3000 if it has an MOT

There's a guy on autotrader asking £3200 for one very similar

https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202508145444206

Altior

It still has the crash damage to be sorted, all of the MOT work noted, plus any other as yet unidentified possible work needed. I think it's the equivalent to a yellow type of fruit from the info available, and possibly been picked over somewhere along the journey after the accident. The phrase time to cut your losses springs to mind, of course what the OP paid for the salvage and anything they might be able to squeeze out of the original retailer form part of the overall judgement call. 

Baldytyke88

Altior said:

It still has the crash damage to be sorted, all of the MOT work noted, plus any other as yet unidentified possible work needed. I think it's the equivalent to a yellow type of fruit from the info available, and possibly been picked over somewhere along the journey after the accident. The phrase time to cut your losses springs to mind, of course what the OP paid for the salvage and anything they might be able to squeeze out of the original retailer form part of the overall judgement call. 

They are just typical faults that a car of that age could fail on. If the OP likes the car, get it fixed. The worn drive shaft looks the most expensive, lamps/bulbs and brake pipes.

Brake pipes are always a matter of judgment; they could be ok for a good few years, but just get new ones.

littleboo

Surely the issue here is that although you originally purchased the car from the dealer, the ownership then transferred to the insurer when they declared it a loss. You then separately purchased an insurance write off, and took on the risk of doing that. Unless the insurers inspection identified the issues in the MoT and reduced the payout accordingly, you haven't had a loss.

Sidewalk123

Altior said:

It still has the crash damage to be sorted, all of the MOT work noted, plus any other as yet unidentified possible work needed. I think it's the equivalent to a yellow type of fruit from the info available, and possibly been picked over somewhere along the journey after the accident. The phrase time to cut your losses springs to mind, of course what the OP paid for the salvage and anything they might be able to squeeze out of the original retailer form part of the overall judgement call. 

The crash damage has been repaired, I kept the car thinking it was mechanically fine based off the MOT that the dealer did

tedted

Brake slack adjuster incorrectly adjusted (1.1.18 (a)) hasn't been in force for quite a few years not used anymore 

born_again

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/complain-about-an-mot

Appeal deadlines

You need to email the form within:

• 14 working days of the test if you’re appealing against a fail
• 3 months of the test if you’re appealing against a pass and it’s a corrosion-related problem
• 28 calendar days of the test if you’re appealing against a pass and it’s any other type of problem

Altior

Sidewalk123 said:

Altior said:

It still has the crash damage to be sorted, all of the MOT work noted, plus any other as yet unidentified possible work needed. I think it's the equivalent to a yellow type of fruit from the info available, and possibly been picked over somewhere along the journey after the accident. The phrase time to cut your losses springs to mind, of course what the OP paid for the salvage and anything they might be able to squeeze out of the original retailer form part of the overall judgement call. 

The crash damage has been repaired, I kept the car thinking it was mechanically fine based off the MOT that the dealer did

Okay, so you've had all the bodywork repaired after buying it back off your insurer.

If you're open to sharing the detail, how does it stack up, ie what did you pay in the original purchase, what did you receive in the pay out, how much was the excess and has it been recovered, how much to purchase the salvage back, and how much spent on the crash repair so far? 

Also, have you had a quote to fix all of the faults noted on the latest MOT, and if so, how much?

molerat

Baldytyke88 said:

They are just typical faults that a car of that age could fail on. If the OP likes the car, get it fixed. The worn drive shaft looks the most expensive, lamps/bulbs and brake pipes.

Brake pipes are always a matter of judgment; they could be ok for a good few years, but just get new ones.

I had some magically fix themselves after 3 consecutive advisories.