Thanks DX. Anyone? Exactly what evidence does Blinky need to present in order to get this thrown out. I don't think just saying I sent a letter and they appear on watchdog is strong enough. What type of offence would this be classed as? Civil or criminal?

Obviously we'd need to see the transcript but the Construction and use regs are aimed at preventing grey imports and kit cars being dangerous. Section 45 deals with the MOT. Who knows , we might have uncovered grounds to appeal for the dealer involved!! This is what always amazes me about our legal system. How can a judge or magistrate fully understand the case if they have no engineering background or knowledge? Still does not get over the fact that there is no definition as to what is unroadworthy or not. I'm quite enjoying this thread! tis a good debate so far.

I don't think this is a strong enough case for blinky to go into court with having studied some of the other similar cases. How does one put together a case with prima farce evidence. Blinky, when is it due to be heard? Site team: can you move this post to DVLA issues where it might get some more exposure to people who have been through this before.

Exactly, this is what I have been advocating. There is an element of doubt so let the insurance companies sort it out. Even more so in this case as you don't know what might happen a few months down the line. At least now it's officially recorded.

You need to take action against the insurance company as it they who paid the bill and contracted with the garage. It's perfectly plausible that these were damaged as a result of the accident and subsequent repair works however the contract to repair is between the insurance co and the repairing garage. Don't worry about the pally thing, it's nothing untoward. The requirement to replace the clips is easily overlooked in the estimates given and most clips these days are a one fit only. Stick at the insurance co, the garage is not necessarily at fault as they can only do what the bill payer tells them to do.

Interesting this Mike as S41 a refers to construction and use regulations. In this respect (the OPs post) the car would have complied with S41a as has been homologated for use in the UK. The construction and use regs are in place to prevent grey imports and amateur car builders from putting meccano kit cars on the roads. Obviously I'm not fully au fait with the case as you have not posted what case it actually was. So it might not actually be similar as we don't know the details of the case you quote so can hardly be taken as a precident in the OP's case at the moment. So we go back to S75 which seems to define the MOT test at the point and time of inspection. As the car had a valid MOT it was deemed roadworthy at the time of inspection. Whether or not these rules should be tightened or not is open to debate but personally I think we should align with some European standards where the test centres are government under government control which would enable some consistency over the interpretation of the next years use. It wouldn't be that hard to do either. Therefore, we are still stuck on the interpretation of what is roadworthy or not it seems!

Sorry Daniella, this isn't necessarily so. No blame has been apportioned. Whilst it might seem that the driver is in the wrong, none of us were there. The point I am making is that if the op approaches the driver and he compensates then he leaves himself open to future claims. Whilst I appreciate what the OP is pointing out what has to be borne in mind is what does the OP do if after approaching the driver he says no, refer to my insurance co. You cannot say he was going too fast as if in the opinion of plod he was, he would have been placed under caution pending investigation. It's worth approaching the driver though the OP might find that he has a very different opinion so the question is what does one do next. BTW..all landrovers now with the exception of the defender are "pedestrian friendly" if there is such a thing, just like any other run of the mill car....they have to be by law. (just for info!!)

Stick to your original post but make clear it was a failure. Follow the procedure and you might get somewhere but at the moment the impression you give is that you are impeding resolution. I'll ask the site team to delete this particular thread.

Yes there usually is isn't there. This forum is here to help and it usually does but issues requiring help by not declaring the full information soon get into trouble as it misleads.

Delete this thread and rely on your previous one and calm down. At the moment you are blocking resolution. I can see it in the writing. You also confuse the issue. Put car in for MOT- MOT confirmed dangerous to drive yet then go on to say sent e mail to garage with MOT certificate. If what you say is true then it must have a certificate. Are you referring to the advisories? Have the MOT garage actually issued a certificate with advisories or an actual fail notice?

You are though putting barriers in the way of resolving the dispute and this WILL NOT go down well with a judge should you take recourse to legal action. They are under no obligation to collect the car either. The mot you have had carried out, has the garage actually issued a red ticket on this? (If that is still applicable). Have you actually got an official failure notice? Or was it just a "pre MOT".? If the garage doing the test are insistent that it is dangerous then just video the issue and ask the supplier to authorise to fix this particular issue. Then you can get it into a state where it is able to be driven back to the supplier who has offered to fix the remaining issues and give you a loan car, again something he is not obliged to do. Taking the stance you currently have you are on a hiding to nothing at the moment. There is a set tried and tested procedure in law for this which you have to follow. If they fix the issues you cannot reject. You need to calm down a bit and address the issues a bit more sensibly.

BUMP. Anyone?

Obviously a traumatic experience. I once had a kiddie jump out in front of me chasing a football and ran into oncoming traffic the other way. Not something I'd like to witness again. But when claiming you have to take the emotion out of it and deal with fact. Insurance companies don't deal in emotion....just a monetary value. Whilst it may seem harsh to say this, your case like the one I witnessed was an accident, as the driver of the car who hit you has been deemed to be not in the wrong but neither not in the right, just as you. If the police felt there was any question as to liability towards the driver he would have been cautioned at the time. Conversely it seems there is a question about visibility so who's to say his version might be you just stepped out in front of him. Personally I'd just go through your house contents insurance and let them argue the toss with the drivers insurance company. I think you'll find it's a 50/50 call here. There are two options here, rely on the goodwill of the driver to compensate the pushchair loss which he will be very, very silly to do as would be an admission of liability or you pursuit through your house insurance and let them argue the toss.

That's true George but the seller also has to ensure that the car is legal or is removed legally, i.e. on trade plates if the car is illegal. The problem in this case is that hypothetically the car is legal as it has a current MOT with 6 months to run, was brought at a knock down price with known faults declared. The actual issue is if the car was unroadworthy and the question is what is deemed to be unroadworthy. There appears to be no set bench mark apart from that which Mike has shown. This is why I get fed up of the sue grabbit and run brigade who advocate SOGA as an instrument of recourse when in fact SOGA is far from clear cut on used cars and clearly states is commensurate with age, mileage and price paid, the price paid bit which often gets left out. Personally, if the industry want's to clean up it's act then all second hand cars need to be sold with a new MOT 1 day prior to sale which is carried out at a government run test centre. The way vehicle testing is carried out in the UK is a farce, is open to and is consistently abused but if this was to happen it would dramatically cut the number of complaints on here, would dramatically cut the number of cases with trading standards and give a set standard to bench mark against. At least then there would be a very thin grey line as opposed to the massive one that exists at the moment and would persuade traders to clean up a tarnished reputation. It shouldn't reduce the amount of work through workshops either, it would possibly increase it.

Good way to go Ado. Can you see a physical crack in the head? This is a very unusual failure mode as the engines a pretty bullet proof and if a head gasket has gone is usually an internal failure. It might go someway to explaining why it did not overheat. Be prepared though at some point for that no 4 injector fault as it's a classic and many get caught out that No 4 is at the front of the engine by the front pulley.

Perhaps both for the reliability point of view. Coolant loss is a factor of a head gasket failure but so are many other factors. This is why it's important to get a proper and thorough diagnosis. Ask your mechanic to download the codes stored from the OBD 2 connector and also ask him to pressure test the system. He will need to do this at engine operating temperature and with the heater setting to full. 307's also have a habit I believe of the heater matrix leaking which is evidenced by wet floor mats and condensation on the inside of the screen. The rad is also prone to weeps as is aluminium alloy and can corrode. If you look at the rad and there are areas alongside the vertical black plastic sides which show more white "powder" then it's probably weeping. A lot of this depends as well on the amount of coolant being lost. If it was the head gasket going then you would see a lot steam from the exhaust as well all the time as well as a misfire all the time, not one that clears when it's at it's normal operating temp. Have you noticed any smell that could be described as "curry" like?

Where does it say it sat in a flooded street? Being pedantic as well, one ARB drop link securing nut missing but the link in place depending on whether it's a taper fit or not would not necessarily make the car unroadworthy... ...but it wouldn't help. Of more concern would be the fact that despite a bolt being there, there is movement in the pin connecting the LCA to knuckle interface. And here's another bit of information. Front tracking has no effect on the vehicles pull drift, it's the castor/camber angle that does that! Of course it would make good sense to take it to a local council testing centre who would truly be independent to get a bench mark opinion.

Yes, if the head gasket has gone it will overheat and very quickly. What happens in your case is that due to water ingress the injector shorts to permanently open and it squirts fuel in continuously. Because of the quantities it soon upsets the cat which tries to adjust the mixture so the car is running all over the place. Hence the cat code. I'm not sure why it doesn't record the injector fault. One way to get over it is to start the engine and keep it running at 1500rpm for about 5 mins. It'll be OK all day then. It's also sensitive to registering coil pack faults. Again, if you buy wisely they are cheap as chips as well (if chips could be considered cheap nowadays!). Don't use euro car parts if you can help it, use flea bay. Injectors and coil packs are colour coded and are not interchangeable. Apart from these two items which are high time in service, if looked after and serviced regularly are bullet proof and uber reliable! I expect Conniff will be along to discredit the engine shortly as it's French!!!

I'd do just that. Take it to a mechanic you trust and ask him to read the fault codes. If the distance from Halfrauds to your mechanic is over 5 miles then you can probably safely rule out Head gasket failure as it would overheat big time.

Conniff, I think you are missing the point. Lets use your shirt analogy. You buy a USED shirt for 50p when a NEW one is £15.00. A good USED one is £5.00. When you bought the shirt wifey looked at it and pointed out it had some faults. At the point of sale the seller gave you a list of things they knew to be wrong with it. So you wear the shirt for the first time and find it uncomfortable. You then take it to Jermyn Street and the shirt maker tells you it's the worst example he has seen in 40 years and needs a considerable amount of repair work to make it comfortable to wear. So you go and ask for your money back and the seller kicks off. Now guidelines exist under SOGA with respect to cars as you well know: 1. be of satisfactory quality (taking into account its age and mileage) 2. meet any description given to you when you were buying it ( whether in the advert or in discussions prior to sale) 3. be fit for the purpose (for example, to get you from A to B safely) In this case the car could be deemed to be of satisfactory quality as faults the OP was complaining about appear to have been declared and it was checked by a third party of the OP's. Meet any description....well this is VERY subjective isn't it ? Be fit for purpose....as I point out probably not. So Mikes point is very interesting re RTA S.75 For the purposes of subsection (1) above a motor vehicle or trailer is in an unroadworthy condition if— (a)it is in such a condition that the use of it on a road in that condition would be unlawful by virtue of any provision made by regulations under section 41 of this Act as respects— (i)brakes, steering gear or tyres, or (ii)the construction, weight or equipment of vehicles,. . . F1(iii). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [F2(b)it is in such a condition that its use on a road would involve a danger of injury to any person And this is the bit where it gets difficult. Apart from the MOT test at the time of the test there is NO legal standard that defines what that condition should be is there?

I wouldn't really know about article 23 unless I researched it and for the 500 quid in question it seems a lot of grief but it does indeed raise questions about our legal system. The problem as I see it is everyone is commenting based on what would happen here under English consumer law which is interesting in it's own right. However, it is English and here we have what is technically an overseas buyer. So as far as the OP's post is concerned which triggered the debate Pop quite rightly raised is that would DSR apply for an overseas buyer. I suppose it all rests on whether the bank transfer was from a UK or Eire bank account. It's interesting to note that some months ago we had a case of a member buying wheels in England from Northern Ireland. On the face of one would have thought they had a case but apparently consumer law is different to that in England where the goods were sold from. It could get interesting in the future as well especially if Scotland vote for independence....

Tell me what two systems they used? One of the things with this engine is that the mapping of the cold start is not brilliant and because of this the trigger level that registers a code is not good. What's significant though is the post about the non starting when cold and the subsequent clearing of the issue when warm. If it was head gasket then it would be worse but in fact it would overheat. The cat sensors are the biggest clue though and the way you describe the fault. It's a classic ! I'd suggest the best way forward for you would be to tell them to park the car outside and then start, let idle and I bet it will go down on 3 cylinders. Then get them to read the codes. It will show either the cat code, possibly no 2 sensor, or the injector 4 code. Then feed back the codes here or goofle them. No way is this head gasket.

To use one of your recently quoted terms Conniff "CODSWALLOP" If the former makes gets to the end of the road and meets his maker is no way the responsibility of the dealer. That's a daft statement to make but I understand what you are trying to point out. The buyer was given a list of advisories from the previous MOT along with a valid certificate and the price paid reflected the condition of the car. The fact that MOT advisories existed probably was reflected in the price. Further, the legal position as regards what is road worthy and what is not is determined by the MOT which is a flawed process in it's own right. The question is therefore, was the car of satisfactory quality...probably as reflected in the price. Is it fit for purpose....well possibly not but again reflected in the price. Let's also not forget that the OP also took a friend along and gave it a good to go thumbs up!

Seamus resides in Eire whose official currency is the Euro therefore his intention to buy would be subject to financial market fluctuations on the assumption he paid from an Eire bank account in Euros converted to pounds. Looking forward to the ensuing debate but please make sure this thread is a debate and does not detract from the OPS original one asking for advice. One thing to note everyone...a lot of what we think is UK and Ireland wide legislation actually isn't. Northern Ireland consumer law, like Scotland can be very different. Because this case is drafted from Eire you can disregard any direct UK legislation as you have to determine where, if any, the contract is concluded. Let's remember that a contract is exchanged once money has changed hands in English consumer law.

Thank you Seamus.