The Value of an OPC 111-Point Inspection & an MOT
Discussion
This car passed an OPC 111-Point Inspection & had a valid MOT...
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/porsche-911-technic...
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/porsche-911-technic...
Fek... quite scary stuff.. if indeed the OPC did release a written report then I guess they could be in a bit of trouble... the good is clearly not "fit for purpose" and if the car was sold by the independent dealer the sales of goods acts put the responsibility on him.. and I would think that he would then turn to the OPC if he needs to shell out for the repairs ?
Goes to show that bar a very few OPCs they are only worth using for warranty work and the routine service for the stamp.. inspections, extraordinary maintenance and fine-tuning I think recognised and trusted specialists are the way to go..
On a car like that I would have trusted Peter Morgan more than an OPC though...
Goes to show that bar a very few OPCs they are only worth using for warranty work and the routine service for the stamp.. inspections, extraordinary maintenance and fine-tuning I think recognised and trusted specialists are the way to go..
On a car like that I would have trusted Peter Morgan more than an OPC though...
I don't have time to read the whole thread but from the first photo or two it looks like a car I sold in 2009 (distinctive colour and the Nardi wheel, which didn't suit it well but was really nice to use/feel, being the giveaways).
I bought it via eBay (after someone on this forum highlighted it) but being as the seller was in Malton I had him take it to Mike in SCOM workshops check it over before paying for it & getting it delivered. I then had it thoroughly inspected by Unit 11 and all mechanical work found was done (new exhaust, brakes, might have had dampers too). They did remark that the lower side of one kidney bowl would have benefitted from attention - they said it might be possible to just remove the corroded part, which looked like just the bottom, hence not too expensive, however once you've started the job if the rust does go further then you're into replacement, likely the sills too. I declared all this upon sale. It was a nice, clean, useable 1987 G50 car, mileage somewhere between 90k and 110k, priced around £13k.
The owner did call me only a year or so ago (maybe less, maybe more) to ask for a recommendation for getting the kidney bowl/sill repaired. Who knows, maybe he got it looked at more closely, found out what was involved and he decided to get shut? Of course, I don't really now how he used or stored the car in the 4/5 (?) years he had it, but from the pictures now it looks like a lot more work is needed, probably because it wasn't attended to sooner.
The thead certainly seems to show why where possible you should always have anything inspected by someone that knows them well and works on them often.
I bought it via eBay (after someone on this forum highlighted it) but being as the seller was in Malton I had him take it to Mike in SCOM workshops check it over before paying for it & getting it delivered. I then had it thoroughly inspected by Unit 11 and all mechanical work found was done (new exhaust, brakes, might have had dampers too). They did remark that the lower side of one kidney bowl would have benefitted from attention - they said it might be possible to just remove the corroded part, which looked like just the bottom, hence not too expensive, however once you've started the job if the rust does go further then you're into replacement, likely the sills too. I declared all this upon sale. It was a nice, clean, useable 1987 G50 car, mileage somewhere between 90k and 110k, priced around £13k.
The owner did call me only a year or so ago (maybe less, maybe more) to ask for a recommendation for getting the kidney bowl/sill repaired. Who knows, maybe he got it looked at more closely, found out what was involved and he decided to get shut? Of course, I don't really now how he used or stored the car in the 4/5 (?) years he had it, but from the pictures now it looks like a lot more work is needed, probably because it wasn't attended to sooner.
The thead certainly seems to show why where possible you should always have anything inspected by someone that knows them well and works on them often.
I believe the purchaser reported his communications with the OPC which executed the 111-Point inspection & notes as follows:
Post#1 OPC 111-Point Report identifies "signs of corrosion" but describes the vehicle as a good car with no structural issues;
Post#27 The OP states - "I also phoned them, spoke with reception and the service manager"
Post#52 - OP states "I specifically requested by phone & email (it's on record) to give extra attention to rust in the usual 911 areas plus do compression and leak-down tests";
Post #75 - Email from the Senior Service Manager of Nottingham Porsche stating "paintwork would need repair and paint to make good, but not major work" and the report stating "signs of corrosion and the car is in our opinion in good order for its age and mileage" ;
Post #94 - OP quotes Hamilton Gray Ltd. "it is a stunning car and drives beautifully and I'm sure there are just a few cosmetic issues that can be sorted"
Post #96 - OP quotes Christopher Boot, dealer principal at Nottingham Porsche "we were v surprised to see the photos of vehicle in such poor condition...this does not reflect the condition of the vehicle inspected on 6/12...since the booking for the inspection was made by Hamilton Grays, we suggest you direct any future correspondence to them."
Post #119 - OP states "During the 11 point inspection by Nottingham Porsche they did note both the chassis and number plate on the report" and the OP quotes the report thus "the signatures of the mechanic, workshop manager are confirmation that this Porsche has been meticulously inspected."
Post #127 - OP states "The MOT was done on 14/08/13 by JD Testing, Thurmaston in Leicestershire, LE4 8EY; Test Station V103897."
Post #201 - Photograph of the emailed 111-Point Inspection Report as displayed on the OP's computer
Post#1 OPC 111-Point Report identifies "signs of corrosion" but describes the vehicle as a good car with no structural issues;
Post#27 The OP states - "I also phoned them, spoke with reception and the service manager"
Post#52 - OP states "I specifically requested by phone & email (it's on record) to give extra attention to rust in the usual 911 areas plus do compression and leak-down tests";
Post #75 - Email from the Senior Service Manager of Nottingham Porsche stating "paintwork would need repair and paint to make good, but not major work" and the report stating "signs of corrosion and the car is in our opinion in good order for its age and mileage" ;
Post #94 - OP quotes Hamilton Gray Ltd. "it is a stunning car and drives beautifully and I'm sure there are just a few cosmetic issues that can be sorted"
Post #96 - OP quotes Christopher Boot, dealer principal at Nottingham Porsche "we were v surprised to see the photos of vehicle in such poor condition...this does not reflect the condition of the vehicle inspected on 6/12...since the booking for the inspection was made by Hamilton Grays, we suggest you direct any future correspondence to them."
Post #119 - OP states "During the 11 point inspection by Nottingham Porsche they did note both the chassis and number plate on the report" and the OP quotes the report thus "the signatures of the mechanic, workshop manager are confirmation that this Porsche has been meticulously inspected."
Post #127 - OP states "The MOT was done on 14/08/13 by JD Testing, Thurmaston in Leicestershire, LE4 8EY; Test Station V103897."
Post #201 - Photograph of the emailed 111-Point Inspection Report as displayed on the OP's computer
The OP paid for the inspection therefore I would argue that a contract existed between him & Nottingham Porsche (The OPC). I submit that Hamilton Grays (the vendor) were merely acting as the OP's agent in relation to Nottingham Porsche by facilitating the inspection.
It would be preferable to have Nottingham Porsche & Hamilton Grays held legally accountable for their actions and for the garage which granted the MOT to be reappraised. It's in the area of The Sale of Goods legislation that Hamilton Gray's liability lies.
Unfortunately many people in business have little integrity & while they're quick to charge for their services they're reluctant to take responsibility for the quality of those services. Such parties only ever learn (if ever) through suffering the impacts of legal sanctions.
It would be preferable to have Nottingham Porsche & Hamilton Grays held legally accountable for their actions and for the garage which granted the MOT to be reappraised. It's in the area of The Sale of Goods legislation that Hamilton Gray's liability lies.
Unfortunately many people in business have little integrity & while they're quick to charge for their services they're reluctant to take responsibility for the quality of those services. Such parties only ever learn (if ever) through suffering the impacts of legal sanctions.
No argument from me, one reason I am very hesitant to buy other than from blue chip firms (like these?).
Involving the law can be an expensive crapshoot.
Its dog eat dog out there.
Perhaps the seller felt bolder as the buyer was from the other side of the world.
Involving the law can be an expensive crapshoot.
Its dog eat dog out there.
Perhaps the seller felt bolder as the buyer was from the other side of the world.
Edited by NicD on Saturday 14th June 18:00
Gassing Station | Porsche General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff