Can I claim money back from the previous owner of the car because of a failed MOT?

[Buckers]

My boyfriend's car has just failed it's MOT- it's a P reg MG F. He's had it about 10 months and has done 5000 miles in that time. When he bought the car, it has been MOTed only about a month or two previously and were told there were no problems.
We've now been landed with a bill over over £500 for things that apparently should have shown up on the previous MOT as at least recommendations. As the previous owner did not tell us about this and possibly passed on a dodgy MOT can we claim the money back from the previous owner or do anything else?
Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks

[Conniff]

Hi Buckers and welcome.

If you suspect a dodgy MoT, there is a number on the certificate that you can ring with your suspicions.

An MoT is only, in a sense, valid for the one day as it says, "at the time of the testing", things could go wrong the next day that would make the car fail.

Visit this site - MOT Information - Introduction - and enter the details and you will be able to see your certificate and any failures as well.

Take note of what it failed on, if it did fail, and match them up with the problems you have had to pay for.

Was the seller a private person or a car sales / garage?

If it was a private seller then unfortunately there is virtually no chance of any comeback on him.

[Buckers]

Thanks very much for your help and advice. It's very much appreciated. I will have a look at that website you forwarded to me tonight and let you know.
We bought the car from a garage in Harrogate and the MOT was done at a Nationwide test centre. We were told that the car had one lady owner and used to be a company car. For it's age it's got a very low milage (~50000, P-reg). Like I said, the garage we had the MOT done at were very surprised what was wrong (11% handbreak efficiency and the like!!) given that the car looked to have passed with flying colours 12 months previously and we've only added 5000 miles to it.
What do you recommend we do? Shall we write to the garage we bought the car from? What is the sort of thing we should say in our letter? If they refuse to pay, would it be a good idea to take them to the small claims court? Do you think we have a case?
Sorry for all the questions. Thanks for all your help!

[Conniff]

I know this isn't going to be what you want to hear, but I don't think you have any claim you can make on the seller.
10 months and 5,000 miles is a resonable time to develope a problem, and the brakes could easily deteriorate in that period. The pads or shoes were probably part worn but with plenty enough friction material to pass the MoT.
If it failed on something that could not have possibly deteriorated during that time then you might be able to get them to agree to do repairs otherwise it will be classed as fair wear and tear.
Warranties very rarely cover wearing parts like brakes, exhaust and clutch lining, unless you paid a hefty premium for such.

[Buckers]

We checked the details of the car on the MOT Information site and it transpires that the car initially failed it's MOT in February 2007 with corroded clutch and brake pipes. An advisory notice was also given stating that the rear tyres were close to the legal limit and that the rear brake discs were corroding. The car was sent for a retest and passed a week later, and no advisory notice was issued. The car was then sold soon after, having covered only 250 miles since the MOT. We find it difficult to believe that the rear discs and the tyres were changed at that point in time, yet the advisory notice was not carried over. Are the MOT test centre at fault here? As purchased, the car came with the MOT certificate stating no advisory notice had been issued. As well as having the brakes done last week, a new set of tyres has also been fitted to the car as they required replacement. Thanks !

[LancerQRL]

an advisory is just that, it advises the work to be done, not the work that is actually required to get the car through the mot.

[Buckers]

Yes, but the advisory from the failed MOT last year was not carried onto the passed MOT a day later. Surely that's wrong?! When purchased, we were only presented with the MOT pass with no record or mention of the fail the day before. We assumed, as there were no advisories on that certificate, that the car was fine. These advisory notices could not have been implemented as the tyres were badly worn (which we recently changed) and the MOT fail a week ago picked up the corroded rear discs.

Should the MOT pass last year have the advisory notices carried forward from the fail the day before? If so, who do you think we need to contact? The garage we purchased the car from? The MOT test centre?

[HSBCrusher]

it does sound a bit dodgy, the brakes fail the mot and then pass the next day without being done.
Have a chat with these peeps...
vosa

[Conniff]

Originally Posted by Buckers

Yes, but the advisory from the failed MOT last year was not carried onto the passed MOT a day later. Surely that's wrong?! When purchased, we were only presented with the MOT pass with no record or mention of the fail the day before. We assumed, as there were no advisories on that certificate, that the car was fine. These advisory notices could not have been implemented as the tyres were badly worn (which we recently changed) and the MOT fail a week ago picked up the corroded rear discs.

Should the MOT pass last year have the advisory notices carried forward from the fail the day before? If so, who do you think we need to contact? The garage we purchased the car from? The MOT test centre?

As Lancer says, the advisory is just that. It means that at the time, (lets take the tyres) they are worn, but not worn enough for it to fail the MoT and that at some time in the future you will have to replace them. The same goes for any other things on the advisory, they are not sufficient to warrant a failure at that time.

[Buckers]

I just thought I'd clarify the situation as it seems to have become a bit confused. As purchased last year, the car had an MoT certificate and there were no advisories listed. However, when I checked on the website shown in the second post above, I discovered that, last year, the car initally failed it's MoT on two separate points and also had a number of advisories (including the tyres and brakes) on the failure certificate (which I never saw until looking on-line). However, when the car was retested the following day (last year) and subsequently passed, the advisories had disappeared and do not show on the pass certificate I received upon acquiring the vehicle. I find it extremely hard to believe that the advisories were also rectified due to the condition of the items in question as tested last week. So, I guess my question is: can an MoT test centre issue advisories on a failure certificate, but then neglect to include them on the following pass certificate? Hope this helps, thanks !

[Conniff]

I understand you now Buckers. You don't get another advisery with a retest, and only those items failed need to be tested if the car is submitted before the end of the next day.

The minimum tread depth is 1.6mm. Which means that if the depth is exactly this depth then the examiner is not allowed to fail it, (even if it would be below the 1.6mm limit a mile down the road), it would then be reported on the advisory.

And though it is very sneaky, especially if there is an advisory, the owner is not compelled to pass on the advisory or failure. This is why the computerisation is good for owners as they can now view all the documents on line, or get a printed copy of them from any MoT station (usually £10), before deciding to part with their hard earned.

[sharonmrtn7]

It seems your after money for old rope here. A car can have an advisery corrected and it wont show on the next mot. As an insite, I had a car that had many advisorys and so called problems. I steam cleaned the engine and took it back. It passed. It may even be that the guy who had the car thought the garage was dodgy and just after money, and took it else where for a re test. Another car I had had corrosion on the break pipes. That in its self IS a problem. So you clean them up and the problem is gone. if you want an iron clad warrenty you have to buy new. Cars go wrong.

[sharonmrtn7]

Originally Posted by Conniff

I understand you now Buckers. You don't get another advisery with a retest, and only those items failed need to be tested if the car is submitted before the end of the next day.

The minimum tread depth is 1.6mm. Which means that if the depth is exactly this depth then the examiner is not allowed to fail it, (even if it would be below the 1.6mm limit a mile down the road), it would then be reported on the advisory.

And though it is very sneaky, especially if there is an advisory, the owner is not compelled to pass on the advisory or failure. This is why the computerisation is good for owners as they can now view all the documents on line, or get a printed copy of them from any MoT station (usually £10), before deciding to part with their hard earned.

Conniff, I believe its 1.6 is the advisory and the legal limit is 1.3. Im sure us drivers have had problems with M.O.T's in the past. I have given to examples of mine above. a lot comes down to the garage.

[Boro]

The legal limit is 1.6mm for tyres sharon, although its good practice not to let your tyres get below 3mm, after all its all thats between you and the road

[sharonmrtn7]

Originally Posted by Boro

The legal limit is 1.6mm for tyres sharon, although its good practice not to let your tyres get below 3mm, after all its all thats between you and the road

Oh I agree. better to have more than less. LOL. I did think it was 1.3 though so my mistake.