Cheap used car problem, is this worth chasing?
Cheap used car problem, is this worth chasing?
Author
Discussion

boredofmyoldname

Original Poster:

22,655 posts

216 months

Wednesday 2nd March 2011
quotequote all
ETA: I don't want this to be a dealer bashing thread it isn't a huge amount of money involved but more about the MOT incosistency.

A friend of mine bought a Mondeo from a used car dealer (with a forecourt etc) in January, the car is a 2001 and was £1500. It came with a full MOT carried out 2 days before he picked the car up.

It has developed a blow from the exhaust near the CAT, which is sending lots of fumes into the car. I would normally think that @ £1500 that the car should just be fixed, but I told him to check the MOT history online.

He did and the history shows the blow and exhaust corrosion was an advisory for the 2 previous MOTs, but they could have been fixed.

The current MOT was issued after the car first failed the MOT. With the following being the reasons.

failure notice said:
Reason(s) for refusal to issue Certificate

Windscreen washer provides insufficient washer liquid (8.2.3)

Offside Front suspension has excessive play in a lower suspension ball joint (2.5.B.1a)

Offside Rear Tyre has a lump, caused by separation or partial failure of its structure (4.1.D.1b)

Advisory Notice issued

Front Exhaust has a minor leak of exhaust gases (7.1.2a)

Parking brake Your vehicle has only just met the required park brake efficiency. It would appear that the braking system requires adjustment or repair. (3.7.A.10)

Front brakes only just met the front brake imbalance requirements. It would appear that the braking system requires adjustment or repair. (3.7.A.2d)

Service brake Your vehicle has only just met the required service brake efficiency. It would appear that the braking system requires adjustment or repair. (3.7.A.9)

Advise n/s/r tyre structure
On collecting the car from the garage the dealer said that the rear tyres, rear brakes, and the ball joint had been repaired. He made no reference to any of the other issues and gave a new MOT certificate with no advisories on it.

I know it is probably not worth chasing and I don't know if either the dealer or MOT tester is at fault but it appears that the problems were present at the time of sale.

Edited by boredofmyoldname on Wednesday 2nd March 18:40

Beeby

304 posts

180 months

Wednesday 2nd March 2011
quotequote all
It is two months since the car passed the MOT and in that time the problem has become worse to an extent where now the exhaust is blowing. At £1500 and 10 years old these kind of things are to be expected. I would say there is zero chance of any comeback on this I am afraid. Anybody can check the MOT history before buying a car and your friend would have been wise to do so. A middle exhaust section is going to cost what £100 tops? I would advise your friend to take his car to the council run MOT centres as they don't carry out repairs so have no vested interest in failing you. I have always found them totally fair and straight. In fact the last three times my cars have been there they have passed first time. Pretty impressive considering they are 12 and 19 years old.

Edited by Beeby on Wednesday 2nd March 18:47

boredofmyoldname

Original Poster:

22,655 posts

216 months

Wednesday 2nd March 2011
quotequote all
You can only check the MOT history if you have the documents to hand. But I see your point, I think I just find it odd that the 1st test found faults that the second one didn't.

kentmotorcompany

2,471 posts

227 months

Wednesday 2nd March 2011
quotequote all
So I understand the post correctly:

1) the dealer had an MOT done prior to sale
2) the faults it failed on have been fixed
3) the existing exhaust problem has since become worse
4) current MOT shows no advisories (perhaps advisory sheet was not given, will say "yes" in the "advisory notice given" box on the green sheet of current MOT)

?


Sounds as if dealer fixed existing faults that needed doing at the time. A blowing exhaust would not make a £1,500 car unfit for purpose especially 4-8 weeks/x000 miles later.

How much will cost to repair?
if its a lot, nothing to stop your friend ringing up, explaining what has happened and asking for a contribution. Probably get nothing if I have understood it correctly.

boredofmyoldname

Original Poster:

22,655 posts

216 months

Wednesday 2nd March 2011
quotequote all
kentmotorcompany said:
So I understand the post correctly:

1) the dealer had an MOT done prior to sale
2) the faults it failed on have been fixed
3) the existing exhaust problem has since become worse
4) current MOT shows no advisories (perhaps advisory sheet was not given, will say "yes" in the "advisory notice given" box on the green sheet of current MOT)
Yes that is all correct, the current MOT certificate states no advisories were issued.

I think he is just annoyed that a fault the dealer knew about wasn't pointed out to him. But it is probably £100 max to fix so not really worth creating problems over, just good to get someone elses perspective thanks.


Edited by boredofmyoldname on Wednesday 2nd March 18:59

Fish981

1,441 posts

202 months

Wednesday 2nd March 2011
quotequote all
The exhaust may not have been blowing for the 2nd test, Gun Gum will last for at least the length of an MOT.


kentmotorcompany

2,471 posts

227 months

Wednesday 2nd March 2011
quotequote all
boredofmyoldname said:
Yes that is all correct, the current MOT certificate states no advisories were issued.

I think he is just annoyed that a fault the dealer knew about wasn't pointed out to him. But it is probably £100 max to fix.
Perhaps the dealer had a cheap temporary repair carried out that has not lasted very long.

I understand your friends feeling, but in fairness had the dealer pointed out the fault, it might have put him off buying it. Your friend would have gone to the next dealer and bought another car. At £1,500 almost certainly would have had another fault that would not have been pointed out.

Judging by the work carried out on a cheap car, the dealer already done a lot more than most other sellers of this type of car would have done. Sounds like a decent trader to me.

boredofmyoldname

Original Poster:

22,655 posts

216 months

Wednesday 2nd March 2011
quotequote all
I agree with your comments to be honest, I have never dealt with the bloke but his premises are on a main road in the centre of town so I can hardly see him being properly dodgy.

philoldsmobile

524 posts

224 months

Wednesday 2nd March 2011
quotequote all
caveat emptor - the exhaust is a consumable. Regardless of the MOT status the exhaust should have bee checked, and if it was ropey at the time of purchase, the price adjusted, or the buyer could have walked away.


geeteeaye

2,369 posts

176 months

Wednesday 2nd March 2011
quotequote all
boredofmyoldname said:
I agree with your comments to be honest, I have never dealt with the bloke but his premises are on a main road in the centre of town so I can hardly see him being properly dodgy.
Bodging a car through an MOT to hide some faults is hardly properly dodgy, more standard car dealer behaviour.

kentmotorcompany

2,471 posts

227 months

Wednesday 2nd March 2011
quotequote all
geeteeaye said:
Bodging a car through an MOT to hide some faults is hardly properly dodgy, more standard car dealer behaviour.
Yawn.