used car not fit for purpose

[ukspooner]

:mad2:10 days ago i purchased a used car for £3000 (£600 trade in for mine)

they put an mot on the car and then told me that there was no advisories.

a couple of days ago i noticed that i was having to press harder on the pedal when breaking.

with this i booked the car into a garage i have always used only to be told that by back breaks (pads and discs) were completely shot and needed replacing immediatly, my front breaks would also ned doing within a couple of months, 2 tyres are only just above legal limit and i needed 2 new wiper blades.

with all this in mind i authorised the garage to replace the back brakes adn wipers which cost me £260 and i would get the rest done next month when i had been paid.

 

after looking online last night and reading through the various advice sights i read that i could take the car back to the garage and get my money back as the car is deemed to be not roadworthy.

 

i spoke to the mot garage that the dealership use this morning and got a list of the advisoryes which i should of been given when i purchased the car.

 

i went to the dealrshiop this morning who didnt give 2 hoots abiut my problems

after about 30 mins of arguing with him he offered to give me £80 which is what it would of cost him as trade to buy the brake parts.

i told him in no uncertain terms that i wanted my money and old cr back which is on his forecourt,

 

no joy gained and i left very angry.

can anyone advise on what action i can take to resolve this, i looked on trading standards and cab website and they seem to bqack up what i read last night.

 

i spoke to the mot garage and they say that the brakes passed the mot just adn the garage were advised that they need doing urgently.

 

i dont think the garage would get involved and put anything in writing for me so i can rule them out for help.

 

 

PLEASE HELP!!!!!!!!

[sailor sam]

Well you've dropped a few clangers here to be honest. First of all, yiou should of given the seller the opprtunity to rectify the defects as he has the right to do so under the SOGA. The fact that you have had the repairs carried out without doing so provides the seller with a defence on the repair cost. As it now stands, you can only expect to recover the costs of the parts. In addition to that, if the car was sold as un-roadworthy, you could (and should) of rejected it out-right due to the timescale involved. But but now you have had it repaired probably blows that option out of the water although you may get some different advice from Trading Standards. As for the MOT garage, I cannot imagine a pass being given when there are issues with the brakes. It is not normally an item where an advisory can be given from the way you have described the faults. Low pads/shoes could be covered in an advisory but completely 'shot' pads and discs would unlikely to have passed an MOT just 10 days previously unless you have drive from one end of the country to the other in that time. If the MOT was done just before the purchase, you could ask VOSA to investigate. Also, If you can prove that the car was miss-sold (by the seller claiming to not having any advisory's), then you may have an avenue to persue there. But you would need a copy of the advertising or some written evidence to support a claim.

 

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

 

[ukspooner]

hello mate thanks for your reply

 

just wanted to point out a few points,

firstly i never knew the car was un-roadworthy when i purchased it if i knew what i know now then i would of gone elsewhere,

secondly i have kept the brake discs and pads that were taken off the car and they are completely gone, the car was braking on rust.

and in the last 10 days we have done a total of 63 miles.

and i felt i had no option than to replace them, with my kids in the car i need it to be safe and i never knew that i could approach the garage untill i read abiut it online.

as for the mot even if i get vosa involved it would not help me to get my money back .

 

are you saying that there is nothing i can do about this?

so once again a shoddy second hand car salesman gets to rip off a decent hardworking family and get away with it......

[sailor sam]

hello mate thanks for your reply

 

just wanted to point out a few points,

firstly i never knew the car was un-roadworthy when i purchased it if i knew what i know now then i would of gone elsewhere,

secondly i have kept the brake discs and pads that were taken off the car and they are completely gone, the car was braking on rust.

and in the last 10 days we have done a total of 63 miles.

and i felt i had no option than to replace them, with my kids in the car i need it to be safe and i never knew that i could approach the garage untill i read abiut it online.

as for the mot even if i get vosa involved it would not help me to get my money back .

 

are you saying that there is nothing i can do about this?

so once again a shoddy second hand car salesman gets to rip off a decent hardworking family and get away with it......

 

You could of rejected and demanded a refund when you found out the brakes were 'shot', especially after just 63 miles in 10 days. Its quite obvious that the car was sold in an unroadworthy condition according to your info. I do take your point about having it repaired but the fact remains that you havn't allowed the seller to mitigate his costs by not allowing him to carry out the repairs himself.

 

I am not saying that there is nothing you can do, but you have reduced the strength of any case for a full refund by having the car repaired. As I see it, if you can show that the car was miss-sold then you could have a case but you will need some evidence. Outside of that, unfortunately you can only expect the seller to re-inburse you for the cost of the parts.

 

As far as the MOT garage is concerned, if they are passingc ars with iffy brakes then I would certainly be involving VOSA. Their involvement may assist you in proving the car was not in a roadworthy condition as they could cancel the MOT. But again, that may be tricky now that you have had the car repaired unless the repairing garage will confirm that the brakes were 'shot' and should not have passed an MOT.

 

Obnviously there is nothing stopping you speaking to Consumer Direct to clarify whether what I am saying is right or not. I am happy to be corrected if it goes in your favour.

Please Note

 

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

 

[ukspooner]

hi thanks once again for you reply.

i willbe contacting vosa on monday morning,

and the garage i have the repairs done in probably wont get involved.

 

ill contact the trading standards and see what they say apart from that ill have to swallow it.

 

i intend to park my car outside his garage with the old brakes on full display if theres nothing else i can do about it.

[heliosuk]

Forget doing that, you could end up in more trouble than you think. Sams post No 2 is spot on. Just because brakes are rusty does not mean they are not suitable or dangerous. The dangerous thing would be you doing what you suggest!!!

[j66]

The MOT standard with respect to brake discs is very low, much lower than what would be considered as acceptable during a service inspection. If the pad thickness can't be assessed with the wheels on the car, then the tester can'r really comment of their condition. If your brake discs weren't wafer thin, cracked, have chunks missing out of them and not contaminated with grease etc, they'll meet the test requirements on condition. They can be as corroded and scored as you like, provided that they meet the requirements on the roller brake test or accelerometer test, they're acceptable as far as VOSA is concerned.

 

With respect to the issue of advisory notices, there is a box on the certificate that says 'Advisory notice issued', which will have either a yes or a no in it. It could also be argued that the advisory notice is the property of whoever paid for the MOT test, so they don't have to give it to you.

[sailor sam]

The MOT standard with respect to brake discs is very low, much lower than what would be considered as acceptable during a service inspection. If the pad thickness can't be assessed with the wheels on the car, then the tester can'r really comment of their condition. If your brake discs weren't wafer thin, cracked, have chunks missing out of them and not contaminated with grease etc, they'll meet the test requirements on condition. They can be as corroded and scored as you like, provided that they meet the requirements on the roller brake test or accelerometer test, they're acceptable as far as VOSA is concerned.

 

With respect to the issue of advisory notices, there is a box on the certificate that says 'Advisory notice issued', which will have either a yes or a no in it. It could also be argued that the advisory notice is the property of whoever paid for the MOT test, so they don't have to give it to you.

 

Agree with your post apart from the high-lighted bit. An advisory is signifitant in describing the condition of the car. The buyer is entitled to know whether there are any advisory's issued or not and there is no reason for him/her to have access to them unless the seller is witholding signifitant information which could be seen as being diss-honest.... perish the thought.

 

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

 

[j66]

Too many people, without giving it a second thought, think that a MOT is report on the vehicles condition. It's not, it won't report on the state of the clutch, transmission, whether the bodywork has had repairs, the paint condition and a whole host of other things.

 

On the advisory notice the tester gives an opinion as to what may require attention in the future, different testers will give different opinions. An important factor behind a tester issuing an advisory is to cover his back, should VOSA become interested in a particular test.

 

The buyer can look at the certificate, see as to whether an advisory was issued, note down the test number and view the advisories over the internet.

 

From September, it is likely to change when the testing stations go over to black and white plain paper printing. The certificate will be on one half of a landscape A4 sheet, with the advisories adjacent.

[patdavies]

The state of the brakes is irrelevant to the MoT test as long as they work with the required efficiency and balance during the test and nothing appears to be wrong without dismantling