Im pretty sure Portugals is yearly too
Spain is test at four years old, every two years until ten years old, then every year.
Portugal is test at four years old, every two years until seven years old (how do they do that) then yearly after that.
Im pretty sure Portugals is yearly too
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.
So why this statement then?
I fail to see how he has lost ???
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
As I see it, it seems to be five or six WEEKS since he first took the car and realised it was a duffer.
In all that time, where has he got to?
Nowhere.
After the FIRST rejection by the seller, Jay could (and I think SHOULD) have INSTRUCTED his solicitor to raise a civil action in the courts. In fact, this can be done by Jay himself up to some limit which in England may be £5,000. The law up here is not the same.
So as time passes, the seller is emboldened to stick it out. He's possibly got lots of similar cases on the go. He may know how weak "punters" are about these things. I bet jay gives up before the seller does, and remember, who has the cash, and who has the dud car.
If you don't agree that Jay has lost or is losing, please explain to me how Jay is winning, because I can't see it at this stage.
CharlesY
As I see it, it seems to be five or six WEEKS since he first took the car and realised it was a duffer.
In all that time, where has he got to?
Nowhere.
After the FIRST rejection by the seller, Jay could (and I think SHOULD) have INSTRUCTED his solicitor to raise a civil action in the courts. In fact, this can be done by Jay himself up to some limit which in England may be £5,000. The law up here is not the same.
So as time passes, the seller is emboldened to stick it out. He's possibly got lots of similar cases on the go. He may know how weak "punters" are about these things. I bet jay gives up before the seller does, and remember, who has the cash, and who has the dud car.
If you don't agree that Jay has lost or is losing, please explain to me how Jay is winning, because I can't see it at this stage.
CharlesY
I don't really understand how all this got sidetracked on the the MOT, but I fear you are right, the more time that passes without the main issue of an unroadworthy vehicle being passed off by the trader, the less likely it is that the case will be resolved in the favour of the purchaser. The traders solicitor is doing a good job of delaying and at the same time manouvering Jay into a position where he will appear to be behaving unreasonably in the eyes of the court.
All is not yet lost, but as sure as hell that is the way it's heading.
Jay sit up, take notice, get a county court summons issued, don't wait for more delays by the solicitor.
I agree i think jay should have issued a small claims summons against the dealer a couple of weeks ago to show that he is wiling to show the dealer he is prepared to see him in court .I apologise to jay if he has already started proceedings
And the burning question is ....WHY!??? ..(its **** all to do with Jay) its "Condition at purchase" is between the MOT station (assuming THEY SOLD IT) & the Purchaser i.e. THE DEALER that sold it Jay!!!I went out of my way to help Jay contact Mr Mills,
UTTER BOLLOCKS!!!!the MoT garage is COMPLETELY BLAMELESS in this case
Try Practicing wot you preachPlease 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.Don't chase spooks guys! Chase the seller who sold a dud car.
You really are "A Piece of Work" you are aint yer ?? What do you do if you find a Pensioner on the ground in this weather ??? Walk over & tell him he's a Silly old sod fer coming out in icy conditions ???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.
Here is legal advice free of charge, not from me, from a lawyer:
The one thing he has not yet done which is critical is that he has not yet....so far as I can see....formally rejected the vehicle and requested a refund of his money. HE MUST DO SO WITHOUT DELAY.
Says it all for me. We were all saying more or less that on the first day.
DO NOT BE DIVERTED.
CharlesY
You really are "A Piece of Work" you are aint yer ?? What do you do if you find a Pensioner on the ground in this weather ??? Walk over & tell him he's a Silly old sod fer coming out in icy conditions ???
And just when did the vehicle become, to use your word, unroadworthy?
And the burning question is ....WHY!??? ..(its **** all to do with Jay) its "Condition at purchase" is between the MOT station (assuming THEY SOLD IT) & the Purchaser i.e. THE DEALER that sold it Jay!!!
UTTER BOLLOCKS!!!!
Try Practicing wot you preach
You really are "A Piece of Work" you are aint yer ?? What do you do if you find a Pensioner on the ground in this weather ??? Walk over & tell him he's a Silly old sod fer coming out in icy conditions ???
That is a pretty pointless comment, but according to you, before it was sold to Jay. Certainly within 2 weeks of the sale according to Jay.
And just when did the vehicle become, to use your word, unroadworthy?
It is ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT WHEN IT BECAME UNROADWORTHY!
The ONLY relevant fact needing proved is that on the day James was sold that car, it was NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE.
That is IT - END!
DO NOT BE DIVERTED!!!!!
CharlesY