Status
Not open for further replies.
jay140285 said:
Awesome, I feel another letter coming on to Mr Solicitor to forward to Mr **** Trader.

As it is the responsibility of the person using the car, then yes he would have been responsible at the time of sale.

Hense I have taken it off the road.

Guys you are legends.
Click to expand...

Jay if i remember rightly the MOT was carried out a hundred miles or so ago. Unless the vehicle has been off the road for a considerable time and sat in a bath of salt water upto it's wheel arches, brake pipes do not get in that condition in a few weeks or even months. The date of the MOT is critical, it has been said that the MOT applies only at the time of test that is correct. BUT. It is obvious to me the CV joint boot has been disconnected for a lot longer than a few days it has not just failed, nor have the brake pipes rusted to that extent over a few weeks. It is not possible. If the MOT was done in the last few months. They must have been in that state at the time of the MOT that much is obvious. What was the date of the MOT, have VOSA asked to see the vehicle?
 
Last edited:
just wondering if there was any advisories on the mot ?

i know all the faults listed are failures in there own right, but when i bought one of my rrs from a dealer the mot certicate said it had advisories but the dealer was reluctant to let me have the advisory sheet, turned out to be low brake pads on rear, but lots of dealers try not to give it to you. presume so that you cant ask for it to be fixed before sale?

full refund via small claims is the way to go now, get the forms and take to your nearest CAB office, they will help you to fill it in. if you need a solicitor you get a free half hour then ask for no win no fee, lots do it if you ask, He will be paying the costs anyway. I was always led to believe that in small claims court the 5k limit doesnt include costs???
Cab/solicitor will tell you.

good luck mate and stick with it you will win
 
Jay need a few answers. I know you were on the site when i posted last but you did not respond.
When was the MOT done. DATE?
Did you buy the vehicle 'AS SEEN AND APPROVED'. Without warranty?
Did you sign an agreement to that effect?
If VOSA have not asked to see the vehicle it would indicate to me that the MOT was done some time ago. If the MOT was done nine or ten months ago and the reason it has only done a further 100 miles or so is that it has been layed up. Then it is quite possible that it was layed up with the salt from last years winter on the chassis. That is more in keeping with the horrendous rust on the brake pipes. If this is the case a slightly different approach maybe needed. You will have to prove that the dealer knew the vehicle was in a dangerous condition when sold.
 
MOT was end of July, so just 3months in when we brought it.

He informed me that there were no advisories on the test and that if flew through the MOT.

I spoke to VOSA and they will only inspec the car in question if within 1month of the MOT date. They will however spot check the MOT garage over the next 12months.

The MOT place that carried out the inspection said that the brake faults, CV joints would most definatly been present at the MOT. There was no way in 6months they would have got in the condition they are in let alone a couple.
 
jay140285 said:
MOT was end of July, so just 3months in when we brought it.

He informed me that there were no advisories on the test and that if flew through the MOT.

I spoke to VOSA and they will only inspec the car in question if within 1month of the MOT date. They will however spot check the MOT garage over the next 12months.

The MOT place that carried out the inspection said that the brake faults, CV joints would most definatly been present at the MOT. There was no way in 6months they would have got in the condition they are in let alone a couple.
Click to expand...

Right Jay thanks for that. I agree the faults must have been there at time of MOT. If you go on VOSA site with vehicle details you can check MOT out i am not sure if it details advisories but worth a try. Keep plugging away don't think you can lose in the long run. Trouble is the trader knows you will have to spend to take him to task. He is being obstructive and hoping you will go away. Do i take it this was not a 'As seen and approved' sale?
 
Last edited:
Not sold as seen or anything like that, althought I have been advised that even if a trader sells a car as sold as seen / Trade sale the purchaser still has come back to them.

I will get the V5 number and look to see if the web site shows any advisories, could be interesting!!!
 
jay140285 said:
Not sold as seen or anything like that, althought I have been advised that even if a trader sells a car as sold as seen / Trade sale the purchaser still has come back to them.

I will get the V5 number and look to see if the web site shows any advisories, could be interesting!!!
Click to expand...

Well given the extent of all the other issues that should have failed the MOT, I suspect there will be no advisories but it would be interesting to check.
 
jay140285 said:
Not sold as seen or anything like that, althought I have been advised that even if a trader sells a car as sold as seen / Trade sale the purchaser still has come back to them.

I will get the V5 number and look to see if the web site shows any advisories, could be interesting!!!
Click to expand...

the terms sold as seen has no legal standing and can safely be ignored

Buying goods - your rights
 
:welcome2: hi jay, here's a novel way of (A) getting his full attention
(b) getting a full refund plus compo


a couple of weeks ago the fitted kitchen i had fitted developed a few probs over say six months , i contacted the co wich is quite well known round these parts ,they made 7 appointments and never turned up . so after phoning an leaveing messages i sat and thought .these ****ers are ****in me off a simple job to resolve n maybe 1/2 hour of thier time ? anyway heres the point .. i rang the guvoner an said remember me n my complaints well when you fitted it and also my daughters we both paid in CASH with a recipt mind you .approx K14,000 so IF your not here by three pm tomorrow and its not all fixed and im happy ,well then i will ring the local TAX INSPECTOR give him all your details an just maybe you will be the subject of a inland revenue investigation so if that fckss you up well hard luck .... so if this arsehole is a dodgy fellow as all suggest then THATS THE LAST THING he wants an i bet you get a very quick call sayin bring the car back n heres your full refund AND COMPENSATION

YOUV'E NOTHING TO LOSE EXCEPT A TEN PENCE CALL STATING THE AVOVE ITS WORKED FOR ME OVER THE YEARS ESPECIAALY WHEN YOUR IN THE RIGHT AND THEIR NOT AND TRYIN IT ON ...

GO ON MAKE THAT CALL NOW !!!!! N **** HIM OVER LIKE HE'S TRYIN TO DO TO YOU REGARDS MOZZ:D:D:D:D:D:nospamhere:
 
jay140285 said:
Not sold as seen or anything like that, althought I have been advised that even if a trader sells a car as sold as seen / Trade sale the purchaser still has come back to them.

I will get the V5 number and look to see if the web site shows any advisories, could be interesting!!!
Click to expand...

Don't need the V5, just the MOT certificate number and registration number. If this bloke has had repairs done as he claims he MUST have known the vehicles condition. It is beyond belief that he did not.
 
Jay write to or contact Watchdog or Rogue traders they may just be doing a MOT or vehicle scam story. Show them the photos tell them the MOT was done three months ago they maybe interested.
 
The reason the mot was 3 months previous and yet the vehicle had only done a couple of hundred miles may be that the MOT tester told him about there being in effect a 90 day 'warranty' on rust. The trader then lets it sit for the 3 months to ensure there would be no comeback on the rust. It could also be down to the fact that he was getting the accident damage that he knows nothing about repaired.

I also rekon that looking at the list of previous repairs by the trader it is quite possible that the parts changed were due to the accident. (radiator, aircon re-gas, track rod end, abs etc).
 
Lets face it fellas this is (as Ratty quite rightly pointed out) a "Non Recorded Ins bump" its more than likley bin sat fer Months & Months After the bump to let the person responsible cough up his wonga & whoever bought it (Accident Damaged) has done so as a "Strip fer parts jobby" ..

Having bought the "Scrapper" he then realised it was "Too Good to Scrap" & threw Christ knows how many "Second Hand" parts at it .....Had it MOT'ed by a "Friend" & threw it into the auction where James's "Trader" friend bought it "SIGHT UNSEEN" (I cannot see a "London Trader" goin up to Scotland to buy a vehicle from auction).

The problem now is buying from "Auction" is a whole different ballgame than buying "Privatly" the "Trader" has not 1 scrap of comeback to/at the Auction & is therefore trying to make James pay for (what HE ALREADY KNOWS) is a duffer to re-coup HIS losses...

My opinion .... HARD CHEESE on the trader he "Took the risk" & it came back to bite him in the arse.
Time for him "Act like a man" & pay up & take the hit, it was HIS risk, HIS decision & ultimatly HIS Fault for "Unloading it" on James it is NOT ON.

James DON'T BLINK, DON'T BACK DOWN, DON'T COMPROMISE the trader KNOWS he's at fault he's just hoping you'll go away Which I KNOW you won't.
 
Last edited:
ratty said:
The reason the mot was 3 months previous and yet the vehicle had only done a couple of hundred miles may be that the MOT tester told him about there being in effect a 90 day 'warranty' on rust. The trader then lets it sit for the 3 months to ensure there would be no comeback on the rust. It could also be down to the fact that he was getting the accident damage that he knows nothing about repaired.

I also rekon that looking at the list of previous repairs by the trader it is quite possible that the parts changed were due to the accident. (radiator, aircon re-gas, track rod end, abs etc).
Click to expand...

Yeah but even some of the plonkers that work for VOSA could see the brake pipes have a lot more than three months of corrosion. Jesus you could hang your hat on some of the rusticles in the photo. Not too sure about this bent chassis theory. Unless the vehicle was blocked down and measured properly which i doubt, 5mm difference in wheel base measured with a tape is just not indicative of that. You only need the steering to be slightly off centre when measured to get that sort of difference. Now if it was an inch out with wheels generally aligned there might be a problem.
 
James, A thought just occured to me .............HOW did you first "SEE" the Rangie ??? Was it advertised ? or did you just "Happen Past" the traders lot ???

If it WAS advertised you could also go after him under the "Mis-representation of Goods act"

Just a thought there mate !!
 
wammers said:
Yeah but even some of the plonkers that work for VOSA could see the brake pipes have a lot more than three months of corrosion. Jesus you could hang your hat on some of the rusticles in the photo. Not too sure about this bent chassis theory. Unless the vehicle was blocked down and measured properly which i doubt, 5mm difference in wheel base measured with a tape is just not indicative of that. You only need the steering to be slightly off centre when measured to get that sort of difference. Now if it was an inch out with wheels generally aligned there might be a problem.
Click to expand...

With regards to the "Twist" Tony ..according to James the damn thing MISSES THE BUMP STOPS on one side thats GOTTA be far more than an Inch !!!!
 
the hooded claw said:
With regards to the "Twist" Tony ..according to James the damn thing MISSES THE BUMP STOPS on one side thats GOTTA be far more than an Inch !!!!
Click to expand...

I would agree with that, but 5mm difference in wheelbase with the car sat on it's wheels is neither here nor there. One would wonder how if it totally misses bump stops the difference could be that small. Really would like to have this thing on a ramp and take a look at it. But that is not going to happen.
 
It was advertised - thats why I have mentioned to him about the fact that he advertises that he has his cars inspected.

If it was inspected then the faults were known to him and he knowingly sold a duffer.

If the car was not ispected then it brings the Trades Misdescriptions act into play.

This is when he started to **** himself I think and is asking to get costs together to have it repaired if it makes financial sense to do so. I knwo that I do not want it repaired, and I now also know that its going to cost
him £2500+ to repair. So the refund is the only option.

As it stands, I am getting a repair quote, he stated that he wanted to collect it for him to get another quote done. After I have passed some of the info you guys have provided to me on to his solicitor he is now saying to see what my costs for repair are and he will then make a judgement to repair or refund.

We all know it will be a refund. Just a game at the moment.

I have also stated that if I do not get results within the week he will be recieving a court summonds.

As mentioned, whats £120 to get nearly 5k back.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
Suspension issues, driving me mad
Replies
1
Views
560
Graculus
Graculus
S
Newbie urgent help supercharged 55 reg problems
Replies
2
Views
546
Grrrrrr
Grrrrrr
NiallRussell
need help, can you diagnose this...
Replies
4
Views
272
NiallRussell
NiallRussell
seldom
L320 rear bushes
Replies
8
Views
443
Mark Piercy
Mark Piercy
seldom
Cracked Wheels
Replies
8
Views
288
gold rover
gold rover