Dodgy MOT

[Kelvin-s7ztw]

Hi

I bought a car privately in mid April 21. The car had passed an MOT on 30 March 21, following a subsequent rear shock failure, which should never have passed an MOT, I had the vehicle inspected and retested.

The car failed the second MOT on 4 July 21, due to extensive corrosion in all of the sill areas.

What comeback, if any, do I have regarding the seller and or MOT garage?

Thank you in advance

[Rushjob]

Contact DVSA

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/complai...

[Kelvin-s7ztw]

Thank you for your reply
I have contacted DVSA, but they are not interested as it has passed the 3 month cut off date for corrosion, by only a couple of days!

[fat80b]

Not sure you have any come back do you?

The car passed an mot, which is mostly a visual inspection - all that says is that on the day it was presented for mot, the tester thought it was a pass.

You thought it also looked ok and bought it based on that.

It then later failed with stuff.

Who’s going to say it wasn’t possible for the shock and the corrosion to all go from ‘looking ok’ and an mot pass to an mot fail in that time?

What exactly are you after? Causing grief for the mot tester? Getting money back from a private sale ? Probably if you stop and think, there isn’t much of an outcome here for you beyond suck it up?

[Kelvin-s7ztw]

I don't think the level of corrosion could possibly occur within a matter of a couple of months
This is serious structural corrosion, the car is unroadworthy and dangerous

[fat80b]

Sure but did it look ok at the time of the first test - Occam’s razor / balance of probabilities suggests that probably it did look ok.

Or are you trying to suggest that the original mot tester had something to gain by lying. Seems unlikely doesn’t it ?

Cars go from being roadworthy to being unroadworthy all the time. I’ve a mate who had an Alfa pass an mot and it went on to need both sills completely redoing later that year. Does this mean it shouldn’t have passed the mot at the time? No..

[northwest monkey]

Kelvin-s7ztw said:

I don't think the level of corrosion could possibly occur within a matter of a couple of months
This is serious structural corrosion, the car is unroadworthy and dangerous

If you're a qualified corrosion expert, then your opinion may have some weight behind it. If not, then it's just an opinion of someone who has bought a car that is very probably a lemon but (a) proving that and (b) being able to do something about it is a different matter.

Sorry if that sounds harsh but that's part & parcel of buying used cars - pretty much everyone who has bought a used car has at some point bought a duffer but that's the risk you take.

[Monkeylegend]

Kelvin-s7ztw said:

Hi

I bought a car privately in mid April 21. The car had passed an MOT on 30 March 21, following a subsequent rear shock failure, which should never have passed an MOT, I had the vehicle inspected and retested.

The car failed the second MOT on 4 July 21, due to extensive corrosion in all of the sill areas.

What comeback, if any, do I have regarding the seller and or MOT garage?

Thank you in advance

Why did you have it retested only 4 months after it passed?

Did you not notice the corrosion when you bought it if it is so bad?

[Tyre Smoke]

What exactly are you wanting OP?

You have explained a scenario but not what you would like the outcome to be.

[Gram67]

If you're a qualified corrosion expert, then your opinion may have some weight behind it. If not, then it's just an opinion of someone who has bought a car that is very probably a lemon but (a) proving that and (b) being able to do something about it is a different matter.

Sorry if that sounds harsh but that's part & parcel of buying used cars - pretty much everyone who has bought a used car has at some point bought a duffer but that's the risk you take.

Fair enough, but surely the opinion of the second MOT tester holds weight in this matter

Edited by Gram67 on Saturday 9th October 13:29

[Monkeylegend]

Gram67 said:

If you're a qualified corrosion expert, then your opinion may have some weight behind it. If not, then it's just an opinion of someone who has bought a car that is very probably a lemon but (a) proving that and (b) being able to do something about it is a different matter.

Sorry if that sounds harsh but that's part & parcel of buying used cars - pretty much everyone who has bought a used car has at some point bought a duffer but that's the risk you take.

Fair enough, but surely the opinion of the second MOT tester holds weight in this matter

The quote button is your friend, makes it easier to see who is saying what especially when you change your name mid thread.

[anonymous-user]

is it a jag x type?

[Gram67]

Monkeylegend said:

Kelvin-s7ztw said:

Hi

I bought a car privately in mid April 21. The car had passed an MOT on 30 March 21, following a subsequent rear shock failure, which should never have passed an MOT, I had the vehicle inspected and retested.

The car failed the second MOT on 4 July 21, due to extensive corrosion in all of the sill areas.

What comeback, if any, do I have regarding the seller and or MOT garage?

Thank you in advance

Why did you have it retested only 4 months after it passed?

Did you not notice the corrosion when you bought it if it is so bad?

The corrosion wasn't apparent to the sill sections from the outside as the car has a factory fitted kit. I had the car retested following a professional inspection to prove the car was unroadworthy

[ARHarh]

every car that has ever failed an MOT for corrosion has passed the year before unless it has been off the road for some time without an MOT. So it is entirely possible for the corrosion to become bad enough for a fail in that time.

[Gram67]

Monkeylegend said:

Gram67 said:

If you're a qualified corrosion expert, then your opinion may have some weight behind it. If not, then it's just an opinion of someone who has bought a car that is very probably a lemon but (a) proving that and (b) being able to do something about it is a different matter.

Sorry if that sounds harsh but that's part & parcel of buying used cars - pretty much everyone who has bought a used car has at some point bought a duffer but that's the risk you take.

Fair enough, but surely the opinion of the second MOT tester holds weight in this matter

The quote button is your friend, makes it easier to see who is saying what especially when you change your name mid thread.

Thank you, i've just realised this, my bad

[Gram67]

ARHarh said:

every car that has ever failed an MOT for corrosion has passed the year before unless it has been off the road for some time without an MOT. So it is entirely possible for the corrosion to become bad enough for a fail in that time.

The car passed on 30 march 21 and retested and failed on the 4 July 21

[Monkeylegend]

Gram67 said:

Monkeylegend said:

Kelvin-s7ztw said:

Hi

I bought a car privately in mid April 21. The car had passed an MOT on 30 March 21, following a subsequent rear shock failure, which should never have passed an MOT, I had the vehicle inspected and retested.

The car failed the second MOT on 4 July 21, due to extensive corrosion in all of the sill areas.

What comeback, if any, do I have regarding the seller and or MOT garage?

Thank you in advance

Why did you have it retested only 4 months after it passed?

Did you not notice the corrosion when you bought it if it is so bad?

The corrosion wasn't apparent to the sill sections from the outside as the car has a factory fitted kit. I had the car retested following a professional inspection to prove the car was unroadworthy

Well you have proved that but now you are stuck with a car that you can't drive but could have legally before you retested. Surely you didn't need to get it Mot'd to prove a point, a professional inspection would have been just as good.

An MOT is only a personal opinion in many cases after all and what some view as a failure others might not.

Think you have shot yourself in the foot with this one.

[Gram67]

The Spruce Goose said:

is it a jag x type?

No, It's a BMW E28 M535i 1987

[Gram67]

fat80b said:

Sure but did it look ok at the time of the first test - Occam’s razor / balance of probabilities suggests that probably it did look ok.

Or are you trying to suggest that the original mot tester had something to gain by lying. Seems unlikely doesn’t it ?

Cars go from being roadworthy to being unroadworthy all the time. I’ve a mate who had an Alfa pass an mot and it went on to need both sills completely redoing later that year. Does this mean it shouldn’t have passed the mot at the time? No..

I subsequently discovered the seller is the Director of the garage that passed the MOT on the 30 March 21

[Gram67]

Monkeylegend said:

Gram67 said:

Monkeylegend said:

Kelvin-s7ztw said:

Hi

I bought a car privately in mid April 21. The car had passed an MOT on 30 March 21, following a subsequent rear shock failure, which should never have passed an MOT, I had the vehicle inspected and retested.

The car failed the second MOT on 4 July 21, due to extensive corrosion in all of the sill areas.

What comeback, if any, do I have regarding the seller and or MOT garage?

Thank you in advance

Why did you have it retested only 4 months after it passed?

Did you not notice the corrosion when you bought it if it is so bad?

The corrosion wasn't apparent to the sill sections from the outside as the car has a factory fitted kit. I had the car retested following a professional inspection to prove the car was unroadworthy

Well you have proved that but now you are stuck with a car that you can't drive but could have legally before you retested. Surely you didn't need to get it Mot'd to prove a point, a professional inspection would have been just as good.

An MOT is only a personal opinion in many cases after all and what some view as a failure others might not.

Think you have shot yourself in the foot with this one.

Point taken, but surely an MOT should hold more weight than a professional inspection?
Personally, I'd rather not be driving a car that is clearly dangerous and unroadworthy