Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rusty c15 MOT fail HELP

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    Of course, it is legal to sell unroadworthy vehicles as long as that is clearly declared by the seller before the sale.
    Otherwise if the buyer is sold the vehicle as a " legal runner" in which he/she could be innocently killed the legal nature of the sale changes dramatically and rightly so.
    The fact that the MOT renewal was imminent suggests the vendor knew exactly what he was selling.
    A genuine vehicle would probably have been MOTd prematurely to enhance the sale price too.

    Good luck with your action Ian. That vendor needs taking to the cleaners before he kills someone!
    JimW.
    Keeping people waiting is stealing a part of their lives.

    Comment


      #17
      It is entirely possible that a vehicle could have passed an MOT 11 months ago and now have deteriorated to the point of being an MOT fail. Vehicles rot from the inside out, a piece of metal that looks perfectly sound on the outside can be rotten as a pear inside and you won't know a thing about it until a gaping hole suddenly appears. MOT’s are also far less rigorous than they used to be in terms of structural checks, testers are no longer allowed to poke holes in your vehicle with a screwdriver for example. Most of the test when it comes to bodywork is restricted to a visual inspection. Underseal and the like also hides a multitude of sins.

      On the other hand, it’s entirely possible that the seller knew the van was rotten and that the original MOT was either dodgy or the van was tarted up just enough to pass.

      Trouble is proving it either way is quite tricky.
      Last edited by Rob B; 05-06-2015, 12:35.
      Better a rainy day on the hill than a sunny day in the office!

      Comment


        #18
        Re welding

        I agree Rob b it is hard too prove he knew about it I will hopefully get weldind sorted just hope I don't have to remove the sleeping compartment as I believe that is a big job and not very easy or safe to do so

        Comment


          #19
          Originally posted by ian c View Post
          I agree Rob b it is hard too prove he knew about it I will hopefully get weldind sorted just hope I don't have to remove the sleeping compartment as I believe that is a big job and not very easy or safe to do so
          It matters not that he may not have known, but if he was selling it as a "runner" it was his responsibility to make sure it was structurally safe with all safety items sound and working. That he might not know is no defence.

          Obviously we have no idea of the money which changed hands, and there is no reason we should. But I suspect that, bearing in mind the extent of decay you have mentioned, it is unlikely that the vehicle will pass its due MOT 12months after you have thrown away a lot of money to get it through this one.
          Past experience as an MOT tester made me realise that once welding became necessary to pass more welding before the next (and next, and.......) became the norm.

          JimW
          Keeping people waiting is stealing a part of their lives.

          Comment


            #20
            Hi,

            An MOT certificate has a life expectancy of "until it drives out of the garage". The law only requires that your vehicle passed a test within the last 12 months, not that it could still pass another test the following day. OK, it should ... but that's a different law. However, the Man from the Ministry will frown at the Tester if a structural fault develops with a month of passing an MOT. After a month, the Tester is in the clear. I do not think there is any point in playing the MOT trump card after 12 months.

            Try Googling GOODS DEFECTIVE WITHIN SIX MONTHS The Law assumes that if a fault appears within six months, then it was already present at the time of the sale (Civil Law works on "probabilities", not "proved beyond reasonable doubt"). I do not know if this applies to private sales.

            The V5 should show the name of the person you bought it from and the date he acquired it. If he bought it recently, either he realised he'd bought a lemon, and passed it onto you. or he is a dealer who took it in part exchange. If he regularly buys and sells cars, even from his home, the Law says he IS a trader, and subject to Trading Standards.

            You have the old MOT? Go back to that garage, ask if there were any advisories given with that MOT. If they advised of imminent corrosion, then the seller cannot deny having knowledge. All recent MOT history is held on a central computer. I don't know how to access it, but I'm sure somebody here does.

            If the seller only recently acquired the van, and his name is on the V5, you can send £5 to DVLA, and ask for details of previous owners, which will enable you to contact whoever sold the van to your seller, and ask what he paid for it, and was there any known corrosion?

            Google SMALL CLAIM COURT PROCEDURE. I'm guessing that a claim will cost about £50, and there are no other costs.

            Google HONEST JOHN, log onto his website, send him an email detailing your problem. Get next Saturday's Telegraph ... he runs a Q&A feature in the Motoring Supplement.

            Remember, you are not trying to take something away from the Seller ... he has money that he should not have. Even if he is honest, why should this be your problem? "Sold as seen!" has no legal relevence, but it's a useful cop-out if the buyer believes

            Good luck,

            602

            Comment


              #21
              Hi,

              Try clicking on this ... https://www.gov.uk/check-mot-history-vehicle

              It might help. I can't try it, as GOV websites tend to crash my ancient PC.

              Good luck.

              602

              Comment


                #22
                Originally posted by w3526602 View Post
                Hi,

                Try clicking on this ... https://www.gov.uk/check-mot-history-vehicle

                It might help. I can't try it, as GOV websites tend to crash my ancient PC.

                Good luck.

                602
                I was just going to say that it's always a good idea to check a vehicles MOT history and not just the last one as I suspect that some dodgy sellers get a "friendly" garage to pass a vehicle just before they sell it. I've been looking at second hand vehicles recently and there were some that had old MOT's with a lot of advisories (including serious structural issues) which all magically disappeared at the latest MOT!

                Comment


                  #23
                  Hi Ian,

                  I've been pondering on your problem.

                  You say that there was only a short MOT on your van when you bought it. You don't say how short. Was it less than a month?

                  I tend to take my "clunkers" for MOT testing a month early. That way, I get either a 13 month MOT, or advance warning that I either need to spend some money, or find another car. The old MOT is still valid, so the car can be sold as "spares or repair" and driven home/delivered to the purchaser's home.

                  Note - although the MOT is still valid, the car should not be driven if it is not roadworthy, but hey, it can't be much worse than it was on day before the test. I am ruthlessly honest when describing a car that I am selling.

                  Thinks! If the previous owner of your van took it for an early MOT, and it failed, he may have decided to sell it on the strength of the old MOT, and chosen not to mention the recent failure ... but it's all on the VI central computer.

                  602

                  Comment


                    #24
                    Originally posted by w3526602 View Post
                    Hi Ian,

                    I've been pondering on your problem.

                    You say that there was only a short MOT on your van when you bought it. You don't say how short. Was it less than a month?

                    I tend to take my "clunkers" for MOT testing a month early. That way, I get either a 13 month MOT, or advance warning that I either need to spend some money, or find another car. The old MOT is still valid, so the car can be sold as "spares or repair" and driven home/delivered to the purchaser's home.

                    Note - although the MOT is still valid, the car should not be driven if it is not roadworthy, but hey, it can't be much worse than it was on day before the test. I am ruthlessly honest when describing a car that I am selling.

                    Thinks! If the previous owner of your van took it for an early MOT, and it failed, he may have decided to sell it on the strength of the old MOT, and chosen not to mention the recent failure ... but it's all on the VI central computer.

                    602
                    Well set out!
                    With my motor engineering background I tend to think the items you mention are common sense. And consequently the checks and legal implications are well known.
                    But then again, Anyone taking on the responsibilities of owning and using a motor vehicle should be aware of much more than most seem to be. Both in the legal and safety aspects.
                    As I have mentioned on here before, I watch so many cars being booked Just oouside ny garden fence (to the tune of thousands of pounds by now), simply because so many drivers do not even know the legal aspects of using their cars. In this case parking on the pavement and verge BEHIND double yellow lines on the road.
                    What those peple know about maintaining them safely is probably open to question too.

                    JimW.
                    Keeping people waiting is stealing a part of their lives.

                    Comment


                      #25
                      because so many drivers do not even know the legal aspects of using their cars. In this case parking on the pavement and verge BEHIND double yellow lines on the road.

                      Hi JimW,

                      I will admit that having driven longer than Double Yellows have been in existance, I did not know whether I could park behind them. On the other hand, I always tended to be cautious when I know I'm ignorant.

                      Those with clout say that the highway extends to the fence/hedge/wall/WHY. But I can show you places where there ain't no such topigraphical feature ... like on the Brecon Beacons. Parking is not a criminal offence. But driving off the road is, and is endorsable ... except for the purpose of parking, up to a distance of 15 yards (metres) from the road. If you don't stop, you ain't parking. And while such parking at the side of the road is not illegal, the land owner can still take civil action.

                      Now you have raised the matter, I will investigate further. Is the owner of the land on wrong side of the yellow lines allowed to park there?

                      602

                      Comment


                        #26
                        Hi,

                        I done a quick Google "PARKING OTHER SIDE YELLOW LINES"

                        Wikipedia had this to offer ... The restriction applies from the centre of the carriageway to the back of the footway. Hmm! Centre of carriageway ... must remember that. But what if there is no "footway", just a young prairie?

                        Same search produced a reply from a barrister, saying that she agreed with the Perp, but many adjudicators (not all?) were letting the fine stand. The barrister said that only an appeal to a higher court could give a ruling. Any LOTTO winners want to spend an afternoon parked on a beautiful grass verge?

                        602

                        Comment


                          #27
                          I admire your persistance 602.
                          I must admit that I have not checked lately myself. But I remember (maybe questionably) that on their introduction the quote was "from the centre of the carriageway to its extremeties". Which I think used to mean any part of the Highway including mown grass verges and pavements and laybys.
                          And indeed a driver who worked for me ran out of petrol on a night shift and left his vehicle in a layby without lights outside a 300 limit, for which we were issued a summonse.
                          However, that same layby is often clogged with parked vehicles in the dark, and without lights nowadays so something has changed with regard to the "limits" of the Highway.
                          Must say that I never noticed Double Yellows in the Brecon Beacons last time I was there though. But then, with a motorbike they were not very significant.
                          JimW.
                          Keeping people waiting is stealing a part of their lives.

                          Comment


                            #28
                            I think the Law is different for a layby that is adjacent to the carriageway than for one which has a grass verge, hedge or whatever between it and the carriageway.

                            If there is no physical barrier then it's a bit like the hard shoulder of a motorway - and we all know how dangerous it can be to stop there, it just takes a sleepy driver with slightly wandering steering and BANG.

                            Comment


                              #29
                              Hi Twolitre,

                              There can be problems when an official body offers advice, in their own words, that does not fully reflect what the Act says. Many years ago, the Highway Code stated than an untaxed car can only be used on the road in connection with an MOT. Sort of half right, and could be expensive if taken a literally.

                              Then there is the problem of people not understanding exactly what they have read. A car derived van is subject to the same speed limits as a car ... 60mph on a deresticted single carriageway. But a car derived pick-up is not a van, so is restricted to 50mph .... I think. It would not even cross the minds of some drivers.

                              A Cat B licence holder is resticted to 3500kg Trainweight. It used to be 3500kg MGW, provided the MGW of the trailer did not exceed the ULW of the towcar, but the weight of a trailer (if under 750kg) could be added to the 3500kg. I am completely confused, and distrusting, about what a Cat.B can now tow. (I am a 70+ Cat.B+E, so it doesn't affect me) But take the case of a newly qualified Cat.B driving a Land Rover Discovery (towing max is 3500kg). Can he tow a 1000kg trailer? The MGW of a Disco 200TDi is 2720kg. Add the trailer, get 3720kg. Can a Cat.B licence drive/tow that? Quite honestly, I don't know. I do know that until recently, he couldn't. And if he did, he was driving without a licence. No licence means no insurance. No insurance means six penalty points ... but a lot more to his uninsured victim.
                              How many of us actually check the weights of what we are about to drive/tow?

                              Yes, I'm persistant. I know there is stuff I know, I know there is stuff that I don't know, and I know there is stuff that I think I know but don't know. I want to know if I am breaking the law, so I can decide whether to continue of not. Are there double yellows on the Brecon Beacons? I don't know. I was hoping you didn't know either. But I NOW know that a yellow line must have a T at the end, else it is unenforcable.

                              I have spent an hour and a half, in court, defending myself. Not guilty! The head of DVLA Enforcement Branch, who had come along to watch, stormed out. Persistance pays off ... sometimes. A friend risked losing his house, to appeal against a £110 fine. He won. DVLA lost their counter appeal. We can ALL now stop to buy a packet of fags, chat up the girl behind the counter for 20 minutes, while on our way to a pre-booked MOT.

                              602

                              Comment


                                #30
                                Originally posted by Caz View Post
                                I think the Law is different for a layby that is adjacent to the carriageway than for one which has a grass verge, hedge or whatever between it and the carriageway.

                                If there is no physical barrier then it's a bit like the hard shoulder of a motorway - and we all know how dangerous it can be to stop there, it just takes a sleepy driver with slightly wandering steering and BANG.
                                For what is worth the layby mentioned is a remnant of the original highway about 75 yards long and separated by a grass verge with trees on it.
                                Currently, any number of cars and lorries spend the night there, some occupied and some not.
                                As I said something has changed.
                                JimW.
                                Keeping people waiting is stealing a part of their lives.

                                Comment

                                Related Topics

                                Collapse

                                320x50 mobile only under posts reg users

                                Collapse

                                728x90 google ad under posts desktop only reg users

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X