If you say so spirit. However whilst Sam has a valid point it is NOT the same as accusing a dealer of deliberatly forging without proof that they have actually done so which is what I am pointing out and is a very dangerous accusation to make, especially on a public forum.

 

As Conniff and others have pointed out to you previously, advisories are NOT a legal document or a legal requirement to be carried out but yes they could affect a decision to buy which is what Sam is saying.

 

The OP has no definitive evidence that the dealer did the alleged dirty deed or supplied any copies for objective opinion.

 

When making allegations of the nature that have been, you need to be on very sure ground as it can, and has been shown to backfire big time.

I can only suggest you read this thread again from the beginning.

Also no names have been mentioned. All the opinions are conjecture but everyone is allowed such without threat of legal action.

Apart from anything else, this could be a case of falsely describing the car. A court may be concerned that the OP was swayed into buying the car because it apparently had no advisories. The OP may well have not purchased the car had he of known the advisories existed. The fact that they are 'just advisories' is pretty irrelevant IMHO. If the OP is correct, this is miss-selling.

My point exactly.

You can say what you like Spirittamer but as Conniff says think first before jumping in with two feet. Obviously your vast experience and knowledge far exceeds other members of the CAG. Again, advisories are not a legal requirement, just advisories and if they have been changed does not necessarily make it an offence unless used to deliberatly deceive and the OP has to prove this.

 

One thing not mentioned throughout is what the car actually is, age and mileage. All that is known is that it cost nearly £5K. Theoretically it could be a 200 grand Bentley when new but now has 400k miles on it and is 15 years old. You need to get the right perspective as I repeatidly keep reminding, though doubt it in this case.

 

You will learn that objective opinion can only be given when in possession of the full facts.

 

There are a lot of dangerous accusations here which to give an opinion needs the full facts and wild accusations without understanding what the MOT and what advisories actually are exposes the OP significantly to any counter action, the costs of which are immense.

 

But of course this is also "Duff Information" isn't it.

In my opinion with my vast amount of experience and knowledge, having an Advisory Sheet, that has been deliberately altered, in my possession and the faults on the vehicle to match the unaltered copy from VOSA, proof enough don't you think? Please read my previous post regarding legality of Advisories as I find that I will have to repeat myself.

Do you actually know what you are talking about??

 

The OP states the dealer 'provided the warranty' which in fact, is an insurance policy making the dealer the 'broker'. The only part of your post that almost makes sense is the bit I have highlighted. Yes, the warranty should still be valid even if the dealer 'no longer exists'.

 

Having said all that, just because the ownership of the dealer has changed hands, dosn't necessarily mean that the OP has lost his statutory rights under the SOGA which is why I advised the OP to speak to Trading Standards via the link I provided earlier.

I thought this forum was for persons to offer advice and insight, not to dis*

Your reply starts by questioning (Do you actually know what you are talking about??)

But then ends with totally agreeing (The OP states the dealer 'provided the warranty' which in fact, is an insurance policy making the dealer the 'broker'. The only part of your post that almost makes sense is the bit I have highlighted. Yes, the warranty should still be valid even if the dealer 'no longer exists'. ) which is what I was originally doing to your post, reinforcing your reply.

Hi guys

 

After reading this post with great interest can i point out my issues.

 

In 2008 i went to buy a new van i looked at different vans and the only one that was for me was a MB, thinking this will last the rest of my working life.

So i approached Bell Trucks and enquired about the sprinter and asked them can this van carry the weight of a 600 ltr reach & wash system and ladders and cleaning equipment (basically my job is window cleaner) i work in the newcastle, sunderland areas and i was quite strong what my job was, anyway the reply was that this van will last you for years and is great on fuel around the town (boy they were wrong)

 

 

All started at 6995 miles into my ever long lasting relationship with my beloved mercedes 315 2008 mwb sprinter i was at work and the oil warning light come on saying oil lvl to high, so i phoned bell trucks up they sent an engineer out, he said oil lvl ok needs to go in to garage was in for a day they phoned me saying all done come and collect your vehicle, so when i arrived at the garage, they said that will be £186 please £££ they informed me you put to much oil in so the price was £150 for the call out and £36 to drain the oil.

WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP I SAID Any way got that sorted.

 

Well anyway over the next 2 and a half years the van had been in the garage a number of times getting oil and filter changes and they also changed the injectors last october (or so i am lead to believe) but the problem is still there.

 

I was advised by MBUSA that !!

 

1 Avoid frequent short distance driving. (Window Cleaner)

2 Or large amount of idling. (I not an ice cream van)

3 Preform a major drive on the motorway every 500 kilometers to support DPF regeneration.

4 If this problem occurs, preform a premature oil service (YET MORE MONEY) on top of the £38,000 its costing me to buy this vehicle.

 

How about this Mercedes-Benz Sprinter ECO-START : STOP, START, SPRINTER

they call it the the best van for the urban user. i think that answered the first point MBUSA advised

 

My van has only done 27,571 miles

My job is a self employed window cleaner.

Do any of you guys think we have the RIGHT to be told of this problem before we spend this sort of money and they were informed what i do and where i worked.

 

And to top that all off i had it in garage for some warranty corrosion removal they wanted me to pay 55% and they pay 45% is that because it was the day before my warranty run out i don't know.

 

Thats just a bit among other lies i have been told about changing parts and they did not.

 

Well thats me done for now sorry for me going on a bit.

 

Jim

Doesn't the anti-corrosion warranty last longer than the mechanical warranty?

What contract are you talking about? If it's the actual purchase of the car, then you are wrong.

The warranty is a contract with the company supplying the warranty not the dealer who would of course furnish the repairs under the warranty and then claim back the costs from the warranty issuing company. The fact the dealer no longer exists doesn't change the contract of the warranty with the issuing company.

I am afraid that Mazda are quite correct.

 

These cars with DPF are designed for long distance drivers,the car needs to get hot to work effectively and to burn the soot from the exhaust when it starts to build up otherwise you WILL get problems.

 

It is not just Mazda, VW, Audi, Mercedes and Vauxhall all currently use this system as do (or will) many more.

 

Try to find out exactly how the system works or I can send you the details and that should help.

 

Ultimately if you are only doing short journey's then this is not the car for you.

 

The salesman will never tell you NOT to buy a car, that is only too obvious - "no sir I do not want to earn any money, go buy elsewhere" is not going to happen I am afraid.

 

It is not fit for purpose and if you can prove that then you may get somewhere though it wont be easy.

 

It's funny that in the days of the internet when people search for the best deals they never research the products.

 

This is not a dangerous fault - it is how the system is designed, granted it has flaws but this is most commonly as it is miss sold and not "a fault with the car".

 

If you sold an item and the buyer broke or damaged it it is not the sellers fault if the buyer did not use the item for its intended purpose.

 

Would you then take it back and offer a refund?

 

It sounds harsh but then that is how it is.

 

Mazda are not in the wrong, maybe the sales people are but then lets be honest, when is a sales person ever right?

 

I have a vast amount of knowledge on this subject given my job role and I am the first to admit it is not a great system but let's look at the full picture and not automatically blame Mazda or whoever the manufacturer may be as they only designed it for its intended use.

 

If we do not use it that way then who is to blame?

I know this is over a year old but can I just say "what a load of rubbish". If you bought a Hummer and then got home to find it didn't fit in your garage???

Mazda produce a vehicle that is defective but these defects can be hidden by driving in a certain way and having ridiculous service schedules with high cost and don't inform the dealers or salesman but it is still the customers fault? Wow

Ok lets re-wind a bit. When you say the dealer has sold 'his business' do you mean that it has closed down or it has been taken over by someone else? Has the seller opened up somewhere else? Also, when did you actually buy the car?

 

As for the warranty, what they have told you is complete rubbish. It matters not that the seller's business has either been sold or closed down. The warranty is an insurance policy and can be used at any other garage which deals with the same company. if they stick to their guns, you should report them to trading standards as you have paid for something that you are not getting.

The contract is with Warranty Company not the dealer.

Correct. The warranty is a contract with the warranty company not the seller/dealer.

Good evening everyone.

 

I shall try and keep this as brief as possible.

 

On 21 Nov I bought a car through ebay. I had previously been to see the vehicle and the seller had told me it had a 12 month MOT. I drove the car briefly and it appeared to be fine.

 

Subsequently, I bought the car. On the MOT certificate, it had advisery notes about play in the front suspension arms ball joints. I decided that it would be prudent to get this looked at, took it to my mechanic, only to be told that there was no way that the car should have been given an MOT. There were various other things wrong with the brakes and bearings in the rear wheels. Also, a bolt holding two parts of the off side front suspension sheared completely in two from corrosion when the mechanic attempted to tighten it up.

 

Having never been in this situation before, I decided to get the work carried out as I use the vehicle every day for self employed work. I got in touch with guy I bought the car from as I wasn't particularly pleased. Not surprisingly, he said he didn't feel responsible for any problems that arose 'after the point of sale'. Ordinarily I could accept this, however, the mechanic who did the work for me was adamant, from the condition of the parts, that the faults had definitely been there from before the MOT.

 

I started a dispute through ebay to get some money back towards the cost of the repairs, but the seller is still not forthcoming. I have also contacted the consumer advice line, but they have said that VOSA cannot help now as the car has been fixed; even though I have all the parts that were taken off the car, a receipt for the work done, ad the testimony of the mechanic who worked on the car for me.

 

I didn't know what avenues to explore, so decided to check the sellers history. Lo and behold he had sold another car in September. I contacted the buyer of said car, and he had the same issues that I did. I found this especially interesting as when I initially confronted the seller about the issues, he said that he hadn't used this garage before. There is definitely something untoward going on.

 

The problem is, I know I've been ripped off, I would like some money back to help towards the cost, but every way I turn it doesn't seem that I have any rights.

 

Can anyone help???

 

Cheers

Continue with eBay. Give them all the information. Opening a case should put a hold on the sellers money if paid by Paypal. If paid cash it will probably just lead to you leaving negative feedback and warning future potential buyers.

I'm afraid that advisories are just that, advisories. They do not mean the car is unroadworthy or dangerous, they mean that at the time of the test, they were showing signs of wear but were considered by the examiner to still have usefull service in them.

They will probably need replacing at or before the next MoT is due so something to keep an eye on.

 

You can visit any MoT station and ask for a copy of the MoT which will also have a complete version of the altered copy you were given and then the difference can be seen very plainly.

Connif. You too seem to have missed the point. The MOT Certificate has been forged. It doesn't matter what the advisories were for. The Certificate has been altered as to deem the car mechanically 100% sound and to generate as much money from the sale using this forged document as a platform. It is not only deceitful it is illegal.

Need to be carefull about accusations of forging the MOT certificate as you could find yourself on the recieving end of something very more serious for you. Advisories are as such, as is technically the MOT certificate as it does depend on the the testers opinion. The advisory notice is not a legal document and there is no legal obligation for anyone to show it.

heliosuk.

I have read some of your answers to other threads and must say you give some duff information. How can taking a legal document, altering/changing/copying that document as to not reflect possible repairs/faults in the future to aid the sale of an item, not be classed as forgery?

emtom123

Give em hell!