Mileage discrepancy on ebay ad and actual MOT history
Discussion
So was looking at a 'great, excellent' Range Rover ad on e-bay and run the MOT history check. Car has only failed on tyres and windscreen wipers before so about to bid....then notice the MOT tester has listed the year's mileages as...46,000....55,000.....38,,000 and now the 45 or so she is advertising at. So in one year the mileage reduced from 55, 000 to 38,000.......
I could ask for an explanation but already have worries. Could there be any real explanation (apart from maintaining the tester made an error) and is there a legal requirement to address this on ebay? I can imagine ALL buyers will be right peed off and stressed if they buy this car then notice this.
I could ask for an explanation but already have worries. Could there be any real explanation (apart from maintaining the tester made an error) and is there a legal requirement to address this on ebay? I can imagine ALL buyers will be right peed off and stressed if they buy this car then notice this.
One dubious mileage record could be a typo by the MOT tester. However if it's gone 55K -> 38K -> 45K that's two, which would suggest the mileage has been adjusted. With older cars this can sometimes be because the clocks have been changed but I'm guessing this is a newer vehicle for which that wouldn't apply.
Having said that, 55K -> 38K is an odd bit of clocking. How old is the car?
Having said that, 55K -> 38K is an odd bit of clocking. How old is the car?
jondude said:
'great, excellent' Range Rover ... failed on tyres and windscreen wipers
Everything else aside, if a owner can't be bothered with the basics then I can't imagine they'll have been especially scrupulous about the rest of the maintenance. Sounds like the kind of person who treats the MOT as a "tell me what I need to fix on my car" alternative to actually servicing the thing.sim72 said:
One dubious mileage record could be a typo by the MOT tester. However if it's gone 55K -> 38K -> 45K that's two, which would suggest the mileage has been adjusted. With older cars this can sometimes be because the clocks have been changed but I'm guessing this is a newer vehicle for which that wouldn't apply.
Having said that, 55K -> 38K is an odd bit of clocking. How old is the car?
How do you come to the conclusion that's two typos? A 7k increase from 38 to 45 could be quite legit. It's the earlier reduction that requires an explanation.Having said that, 55K -> 38K is an odd bit of clocking. How old is the car?
It is even possible that the discrepancy occurred during a previous ownership and the current owner never bothered to check.
I wouldn't jump to conclusions without evidence/proof. Still a good reason to be wary though. Ask the question , await the answer, then decide.
Red Devil said:
How do you come to the conclusion that's two typos? A 7k increase from 38 to 45 could be quite legit. It's the earlier reduction that requires an explanation.
It is even possible that the discrepancy occurred during a previous ownership and the current owner never bothered to check.
I wouldn't jump to conclusions without evidence/proof. Still a good reason to be wary though. Ask the question , await the answer, then decide.
46 55 38 45It is even possible that the discrepancy occurred during a previous ownership and the current owner never bothered to check.
I wouldn't jump to conclusions without evidence/proof. Still a good reason to be wary though. Ask the question , await the answer, then decide.
If 45 is correct the 55 and the 46 must have been wrong, that's 2 errors
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff





