Status
Not open for further replies.
Datatek said:
So the MOT has nothing to do with road safety, it's just another tax collecting scam:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

It would seem that way with the yearly test, it does keep a lot of scrap off the roads but basically it's at time of test only. When i first started doing tests it was brakes, steering, lights. Now they have introduced almost the entire road traffic act compliance into it. I fail to see how a number plate lamp bulb blow is unsafe. But it only has to be compliant at time of test. It can fall apart three months later. We, as far as i know, are the only country in Europe that test every year all the others are every two i think.
 
The_Big_P said:
*snigger*





I'm confused, are you saying CharlesY is on Jays side or the MOT stations side:confused:
Click to expand...

It would "Appear" (at face value) that "Something in the garden is not what it appears to be!!!

What we are discussing on here IS (without Doubt) being comunicated to Peoples that are not on Jay's side. & it MAY WELL be "refered to" within any legal proceedings that May (or May not) subsequently follow on from this.

Could I suggest therefore that the subject of the MOT be "laid to rest" (at least until Jay has his money back) As I said in Post 735 the MOT is NOT RELIVENT at THIS stage.

Jay getting his money back is!!!
 
Last edited:
wammers said:
It would seem that way with the yearly test, it does keep a lot of scrap off the roads but basically it's at time of test only. When i first started doing tests it was brakes, steering, lights. Now they have introduced almost the entire road traffic act compliance into it. I fail to see how a number plate lamp bulb blow is unsafe. But it only has to be compliant at time of test. It can fall apart three months later. We, as far as i know, are the only country in Europe that test every year all the others are every two i think.
Click to expand...

I think Spains ITV or whatever it is is yearly. Correct me if I'm wrong.
 
Charlesy I could agree with you comments if he had purchased the vehicle from e-bay or a private buyer but as I think Jay said in a previous post the reason he bought into the trader is because it was advertised with an inspection and obviously believed he would have some kind of come back if all was not how it was presented.
Now as a trader he has a responsibilty to honor that and be truthfull which he clearly has not been from day 1.
The cars a lemon, the trader has been caught out and should frankly know better and I still believe the law(albeit sometime an ass) should protect Jay from this trader as he is a trader.

STICK WITH IT JAY, I CAN'T HELP BUT THINK THERES ANOTHER AGENDA GOING ON HERE.
REMEMBER THIS YOUR IN THE RIGHT AND THE TRADER WHOEVER HE MAY BE IS IN THE WRONG!
 
Last edited:
The_Big_P said:
I think Spains ITV or whatever it is is yearly. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

Don't know, sons father inlaw lives there and i am sure he said every two years. It may depend on age of car. I know European law says cars over a certain age must be done every two years maximum. But like everything else we go our own way. Keeps the garages busy i suppose.
 
The_Big_P said:
CharlesY - Are you friends with Mr Mills by any chance?
Click to expand...


I suppose it depends what you mean by "friends".
Mr Mills is not a 'friend', but he is certainly not an enemy.
I reckon he is one of the world's "good guys".

I have never been in his house, and I have no idea where he stays, or anything about him other than he owns the garage, and knows his stuff. He came here once a while back to collect some more tow-ropes.

I have never socialised with Mr Mills in any way. I get my cars MoTed at his garage because it is handy, and they are fair, and I can trust them.
We have never even given each other a cup of coffee.

They are not scared to fail things - they told me to scrap my nice wee red van at a time when that was a near disaster to me. It wasn't fit to be on the roads, and that was that.

Do I call Mr Mills a friend? Yes I suppose I do, but so too is the doctor, the butcher, the baker and even the candle-stick maker.

Do you see what I am getting at?

I tried to give James best advice. I arranged for Mr Mills and James to speak. They have had phone calls.

It appears James does not want to take the very good advice he was given by several wise people, and so there's not a lot else I can do.

CharlesY
 
This has become a non thread full of misinformation,speculation and insults.:deadhorse:

Good luck with the motor j.

Right I'm off to build a Snowman
 
CharlesY said:
From CharlesY:

That is all complete balderdash, and it is clear that Jay and Wammers STILL do not get the message about MoT tests.

YES --- "the issues" may well have been there at the time of the test! But that does NOT mean a damned thing. Geez, didn't they FAIL it first time round? WHY? It did NOT FAIL for brake pipes, did it? The pipes PASSED the pressure test, but were a bit rusty, and "advised". If the car was re-presented with fail items sorted and within the time, then the tester MUST issue a pass.

The car NEED NOT BE IN "AS NEW CONDITION" TO PASS A MoT TEST!!!!!

Get that message!

Now,
Jay was not there when it was tested.
Wammers was not there when it was tested.
Mr Mills was on holiday when it was tested.
Not a single person (not even the expert Mr Wammers) who has been involved in this so far on LZ was there when the car was tested.
Not even the Big Expert Mr Wammers. He can make pronouncements from photos! Try that in Court Mr Wammers.

The MoT test was in JULY!!!!
Jay bought the car in NOVEMBER!!!!
Meantime we KNOW the car HAS BEEN DAMAGED and a dodgy repair or three done BETWEEN those times. What else harm did it come to? Who had the car? What was it being used for? Is the axle bent? Is the chassis twisted too? HOW and WHEN did these things happen? Is the MoT garage going to be blamed for those things too? GET REAL GUYS!

How come does any of that become the fault of a MoT Test Station who last saw the car in in JULY?

The garage is not on the defensive James. Far from it, The garage WAS trying to help you in your case, but after that ill-advised blast I will be surprised if you get a lot more co-operation from there. They will have better things to do with their time than suffer the SHAMEFUL idiocy going on in this thread.

By the way, the moment the garage heard about this case THEY CONTACTED VOSA right away, and VOSA looked into the case. So are you guys now going to say VOSA and the Garage are in a conspiracy against you? GET REAL!

Jay, you have blown it. You would not take the advice you were given on DAY-ONE, and time after time thereafter, and now it is many weeks later, and the other side know they have you beaten. You are an amateur up against professionals. You have lost. You are stuck with that car, sorry about that, and if you get a penny from the seller I will be surprised. Remember, your solicitor's fees are building up too.

James, remember this - CAVEAT EMPTOR is a basic principle of English Law - Let the BUYER take care. YOU bought a duff car AS SEEN without inspecting it properly or at all. How do we know this? Because YOU TOLD US. If the faults were as obvious as you NOW say they were, how come did you and no-one else acting for you not see them when you were thinking about buying the car? Or is it perhaps the case you have been a silly boy, bought an over-priced plug without taking any care, no proper (or any?) inspection and now you want to blame everyone else for YOUR OWN NEGLECT to take a decent look at what you were buying before handing over your cash?

I am disappointed James. After our emails I thought you had more in you.

CharlesY
Click to expand...

You pretended to befriend him and hung him out to dry, none of this Alan Mills stuff would have happend if you had not insisted on the station and location being posted. I am fully aware of the condition requirements MOT test. So photographic evidence of just where you stuck the knife into Jay would not be admissable in court. Think again my friend. If the vehicle had been inspected by VOSA and a court case ensued would they bring the car in and put it in the dock or supply photographs of the problems. When in a hole stop digging.
 
Just a thought. If Mr Mills has nothing to hide and is apparently trying to help Jay then why did he say to Wammers on messenger "that he had a lot more" and "to mind his own business" amongst other things?
 
The_Big_P said:
Just a thought. If Mr Mills has nothing to hide and is apparently trying to help Jay then why did he say to Wammers on messenger "that he had a lot more" and "to mind his own business" amongst other things?
Click to expand...

Are you somehow involved?

Nope

Shut up then and let the relevant people sort it out;)
 
wammers said:
You pretended to befriend him and hung him out to dry, none of this Alan Mills stuff would have happend if you had not insisted on the station and location being posted. I am fully aware of the condition requirements MOT test. So photographic evidence of just where you stuck the knife into Jay would not be admissable in court. Think again my friend. If the vehicle had been inspected by VOSA and a court case ensued would they bring the car in and put it in the dock or supply photographs of the problems. When in a hole stop digging.
Click to expand...



What?
You are twisted, Wammers.
You reckon I stuck a knife into Jay? Good gracious!
I don't think so. I went out of my way to help Jay contact Mr Mills, the one person who could AND DID provide useful Post-Test information about that car. Then later Jay himself posted some unwise comments. Bad idea.

Remember this - the MoT garage is COMPLETELY BLAMELESS in this case, and the garage has NO PART WHATEVER in the matter of Jay and the seller of the car involved.

You Mr Wammers, and Jay, seem not to be able to keep your minds on the ONE REAL AIM, which should have been to get that dodgy car returned RIGHT AWAY, and the cash refunded..
It isn't I who is in a hole Mr Wammers - it may be you, for making a fool of yourself, and for not seeing when it is time for you to calm down and back off. You have provided NOTHING of value to Jay so far, whereas others of us have, including Mr Mills.

Once again, everyone has to accept, - the MoT garage is COMPLETELY BLAMELESS in this case. There is NOTHING to be gained by sidetracking about the MoT. The simple fact is that when Jay bought that car it was NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE, and the garage which did the MoT in July are not in any way to blame for that. This is a matter ONLY between the seller and the buyer.

Once again, I remind you all, CAVEAT EMPTOR - let the BUYER beware.

Oh yes, Photographs ... if VOSA take pictures they will be properly logged and proven in a manner the courts will probably be able to accept as evidence. Amateur snaps may not be as easy to introduce as evidence, even in a civil case. For a start, what independent proof exists they are even pics of bits of the car involved on the date and time concerned?


Please Mr Wammers, calm down, and stop trying to act like a big shot. You aren't one of those, as is so plain to all those who have read your posts. As I see it, you have no locus to be attributing blame in this case, in which you are not involved other than out of curiosity and as a fellow member of LandyZone. By all means try to help Jay, but that requires you all MUST get back on the rails and chase the ONE AIM that matters - Getting the car returned and a full refund. NOTHING else matters.

Don't chase spooks guys! Chase the seller who sold a dud car.

CharlesY
 
Last edited:
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
287
gold rover
gold rover