No, but once word got back to the seller and his solicitor they might, or should give up, throw in the towel and offer him the full refund he wants.
Need Urgent Advice and Help
- Thread starter jay140285
- Start date
This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
- Status
No, but once word got back to the seller and his solicitor they might, or should give up, throw in the towel and offer him the full refund he wants.
TAKdriver
Active Member
- Posts
- 621
- Location
- Beside a field in Midlothian
Hi Mr Hood
I've been reading this to try to find the ID of the MOT station : this reads like War & Peace & I can't find if the place has been ID'd. I'm not a hundred miles away and have some contacts in the locality mentioned.
Can you ID for me ?
If necessary PM.
The place hasn't been mentioned yet.
Point of the matter is whether an insurance recorded or unrecorded damage- I'd suggest telling the solicitor.
Your prepared to have the vehicle looked at like this.
Without prejudice
I am willing to have the vehicle inspected at a vat registered garage.
The vehicle is not in a safe road worthy condition and your client will have to arrange transport at his expense.
Being a reasonable person I agree to the inspection on the basis it is purely to confirm the extensive list of defects as previously discussed and on the basis of a full refund when the numerous serious defects are confirmed.
I will of course require copies of the qualifications of person inspecting it and would expect them to have professional indemnity insurance when writing a report.
As I will be accompanying the vehicle-I am available on these dates.
Jay it is important that your come across as reasonable, but stick to you are giving trader chance to verify vehicle's poor condition and on the basis that once verified a full refund. After that if they refuse inspection or stall=tell them after exhausting all attempts to resolve situation-it will unfortunately have to go to court
Solicitor is trying to rail road you to repair- stick with they can look at it purely to verify it and your pursuing a full refund.
Your prepared to have the vehicle looked at like this.
Without prejudice
I am willing to have the vehicle inspected at a vat registered garage.
The vehicle is not in a safe road worthy condition and your client will have to arrange transport at his expense.
Being a reasonable person I agree to the inspection on the basis it is purely to confirm the extensive list of defects as previously discussed and on the basis of a full refund when the numerous serious defects are confirmed.
I will of course require copies of the qualifications of person inspecting it and would expect them to have professional indemnity insurance when writing a report.
As I will be accompanying the vehicle-I am available on these dates.
Jay it is important that your come across as reasonable, but stick to you are giving trader chance to verify vehicle's poor condition and on the basis that once verified a full refund. After that if they refuse inspection or stall=tell them after exhausting all attempts to resolve situation-it will unfortunately have to go to court
Solicitor is trying to rail road you to repair- stick with they can look at it purely to verify it and your pursuing a full refund.
Last edited:
Why not?
He has been asked many times to mention which Carluke MoT station was involved. There are several.
I live about FOUR MILES from Carluke.
Please, RIGHT NOW, say WHICH MoT station was involved, or else say you don't intend to say which one, and tell us WHY you won't say.
If you won't tell us, I will clear off.
CharlesY
juiceyv8
New Member
- Posts
- 4,738
- Location
- bordon hants
Yep. name and shame or shut the **** up....
sandyt
Well-Known Member
- Posts
- 1,615
- Location
- Wraysbury Nr Heathrow
Jay if you are going to have to accompany the vehicle you should be entitled to loss of earnings for the time involved - stick in there
I didn't say four MoT stations ....
I said I was four miles from carluke.
" ... are any of them known to be dodgy?"
I don't know about that. All I know is the people I use are pretty fair about things, and if it's no good, they'll say so.
CharlesY
- Posts
- 58,170
- Location
- Preston Lancs.
Being fair is one thing. Being down right stupid is another. The vehicle was failed with many faults then passed later the same day without any advisories but with the same faults. Whoever passed that vehicle should have his ticket taken away. It is a bloody disgrace. It is documented on the VOSA site. Somebody must have taken a bung to pass that, it's not the sort of thing you would do as a favour for a mate. The bloody thing is leathal.
Yes, all that may be perfectly true, BUT HE WILL NOT SAY WHICH MoT STATION WAS INVOLVED, DESPITE BEING ASKED MANY TIMES.
I begin to worry about this case. WHY will he not say what is the Test Station number on the MoT certificate?
It is quite wrong to start saying "Somebody must have taken a bung to pass that", when we are not being told enough to make such a judgement.
What is documented on the VOSA website?
Stay on the point guys - and the point we need to clear up is
WHICH MoT STATION did the test?
CharlesY
CharlesY
- Posts
- 83,236
- Location
- Embasinga stocæ
May I suggest that he mite be reluctant to name the MOT station when it could still go legal?
I would suggest it is in his interests to keep a couple of cards up his sleeve at the mo.
I would suggest it is in his interests to keep a couple of cards up his sleeve at the mo.
Not at all.
It is a simple matter of FACT, not a matter of opinion.
There is NO legal reason why he should not say which MoT station carried out the test.
CharlesY
Sorry, my mistake.
- Posts
- 83,236
- Location
- Embasinga stocæ
stchris356
New Member
- Posts
- 684
- Location
- Warwick,UK
Jay I know you don't need telling this but if theres one persons advice you should be taking it this chap!
- Posts
- 58,170
- Location
- Preston Lancs.
Sorry but i must disagree with the "Somebody must have taken a bung to pass that" not being factual. You have seen the photographs i take it, i have no need to be told anything. The two major fails shown (there maybe others not depicted) are the condition of the brake pipes and the condition of the CV boot. Both of which were present in the first fail and recorded on the VOSA site. The vehicle was later that day passed as fit for the road, obviously with the faults still present, that is indisputable. I have tested hundreds of vehicles, cars, coaches, HGV the lot so am reasonably expert in the field. Never in a million years would i put my name to that abortion. As i said it's not something you would do as a favour. Letting something go with a bulb out or insignificant play in a TRE is one thing but that thing comes into the area of a totally different ball game. The bloody thing could kill.
stchris356
New Member
- Posts
- 684
- Location
- Warwick,UK
100% bang on mate!
- Status
