Car I have had for 2 months has been deemed dangerous.

[clemma]

We bought a car from a dealer on the 27th May this year. It has just had it's MOT and failed dismally. It has been deemed dangerous to drive and the cost of getting it roadworthy is over £1000. These are things that would have been wrong with the car when we bought it. As most of the issues can only been seen from underneath the car we were obviously not aware of them. Also, the rear brake is so dangerous that the car should never have been on the road. It also needs some welding work as it is so corroded near the suspension that it could have given way at any time. The other issues are minor compared to these two.

 

I called the dealer who said that because the car was bought for less than £1000 it's not his problem. He said that we took the car on a test drive and were happy. If you can call a 200ft drive a test, then yes, we did. We could not take the car on to the main road as it had no tax and no insurance. So, in effect, we didn't test drive it at all. Just to the end of his drive at the garage and back again.

 

I'm so angry. I spent hard earned money on a car that is dangerous. I have a young child and knowing that it could have given way at any time is a scary thought. I have resigned myself to scrapping the car but I'm just wondering, should I report him to TS or anything like that? Have I really got no rights to demand he put the car right (after all, it was sold unfit for purpose).

 

Any help would be appreciated.

[marmaris30]

You should definitely complain to TS although it's probably unlikely you'll get any money back from traders like this. It's always worth having a knowledgeable friend around with cars, or an independent inspection (I expect the trader would've run a mile if you'd proposed this!)

[clemma]

Ok, well I will give them a call and see what they say. Does the SOGA not apply to used cars? My oh is very good with cars and, like I said, it would have had to have gone up on ramps and a good poke about underneath to see the corrosion. We knew the rear brake shoe would need replacing but it's actually the whole thing, including the drum, that is dangerous. This is something that could not be seen without getting it up in the air. As for an independent inspection.....it's not something I thought of.

[clemma]

I have just spoken to Tesco 9as I have legal advice through them) and they have told me to write to the dealer rejecting the car, explaining why and to send a copy of the MOT certificate and the cost of the repair. They say, because I have had the car for such a short period of time then that only goes to strengthen my case. As does the fact it clearly states the car is dangerous on the MOT. Off to compose a letter now....

[clemma]

How does this sound:

 

I purchased a Mazda MX-3 as part of a part exchange with a Corsa B on the 2rd May 2012. We were not informed that car had any problems. We also were not able to take the car on a full test drive due to the lack of road tax and insurance on the vehicle.

 

I am writing to you to inform you that I reject the car. My reasons being it's failure on it's MOT. I have enclosed a copy of the MOT certificate and a breakdown of the costs to repair the car. The total repair costs would exceed £1000 when VAT is added to the cost.

 

The car has been deemed dangerous, clearly stated on the MOT certificate. The garage has confirmed that the issues surrounding the failure would have been present when the vehicle was sold to us.

 

Under the Sale of Goods Act it states that items purchased must be fit for purpose and be of a satisfactory condition. It is my understanding, that due to the failures on the car, that it was neither fit for purpose nor of a satisfactory condition. If I had been made aware of the faults on the car then I would not of purchased the vehicle.

 

Further to the issues with the car we have had to incur further losses as we had to purchase a vehicle on the 1st August as a car is essential for my partner to commute to work. We are not able to cover the cost of repairs on the Mazda MX3 as it is uneconomical to do so. Therefore I request a full refund and the car be returned to you as rejected.

 

I ask that you respond to this matter within 7-10 days from the date of this letter.

 

Yours sincerely

[sailor sam]

A couple of questions; Did the car have tax on it when you drove it away? How was the car advertised?

[clemma]

The car had tax put on it after we purchased it as part of the deal so, yes, it was taxed. The car was just on the lot with a price. Nothing to say it had faults, including a dangerous one. The dealer gave no indication that there were any major issues.

[sailor sam]

Was the car advertised in any local publication (local rag) or on auto trader? Or does this outfit have a web site?

[clemma]

They have a website but it just shows the cars they have for sale with basic details such as mileage etc. I'm not sure if they advertise their cars anywhere else.

[sailor sam]

Ok... it's only that it would of strengthened your position if there was evidence of miss-representation. Your letter seems fine to me but send it by recorded delivery. Do not use the car once posted (although i'm pretty sure that you can't anyway). A word of warning though, these type of people will know how a court case pans out so be prepared for a long drawn out case. You will no doubt have to go down that road but you can claim interest on your outlay from the outset plus all your court fees. The longer it goes on, the more expensive it will get for the seller BUT the pitfall is that he may not pay even when you get your judgement. At that point you would send in the bailiffs which is fine if he has anything of value to seize.

 

If it was me, I would borrow/hire a trailer, transport the car to a prominent spot in front of his plot and put large signs inside the car warning others of the type of cars he was selling.

[clemma]

It is only a small business so he may/may not have had dealings with the court before. I can't use the car. It is now off road, SORNed and as it has neither insurance or MOT I won't be taking it anywhere. I can only try.....thank you.

[clemma]

Slight changes to the letter:

 

RE: Mazda MX-3

 

This is to inform you that I formally reject the above vehicle, as is my statutory right under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended).

 

I purchased the Mazda MX-3 as part of a part exchange with a Corsa B on the 2rd May 2012. We were not informed that car had any problems. I was not able to take the car on a full test drive due to the lack of road tax and insurance on the vehicle.

 

After submitting the car for an MOT I have been informed that the car is in a dangerous condition. This is clearly stated on the MOT certificate. The garage has confirmed that the issues surrounding the failure would have been present when the vehicle was sold to me.

 

The Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended), states that items purchased must be fit for purpose and be of a satisfactory condition. It also states that the item must be safe. It is my understanding, that due to the failures on the car, that it was neither fit for purpose, not of a satisfactory condition nor is it safe. If I had been made aware of the faults on the car then I would not have purchased the vehicle.

 

Further to the issues with the car I have had to incur further losses as I had to purchase a vehicle on the 1st August as a car is essential for my partner to commute to work. I am not able to cover the cost of repairs on the Mazda MX3 as it is uneconomical to do so.

 

Therefore I request a full refund and that you arrange for the car to be collected at your expense within 7 days.

[sailor sam]

Well it sounds like a small business that shouldn't be in business to me.

[clemma]

Well it sounds like a small business that shouldn't be in business to me.

 

More than likely. I'm having no luck getting through to TS as of yet. Just want to get him reported!

[clemma]

Trading Standards were useless. Need not put anything more about them.

[Bang!]

A dealer is not obliged to tell you problems with a vehicle, but should tell you what they are aware of if asked.

 

Regarding MOTs, while even VOSA seldom entertain complaints after 28 days from a test - they will investigate if related to corrosion for up to tree months as it cannot appear quickly.

 

Call them - even for the parts they can't look at they will be interested to hear.

 

Call them on 0300 123 9000.

[clemma]

Spoke to the dealer (naughty, I know) and he is offering me a part refund plus I get to keep the tax to claim a refund on that (they paid for the tax, not me). In total I will be short of about £50 that I paid for it. I can live with that. He tried to offer me scrap value but after throwing in SOGA he relented.

[clemma]

A dealer is not obliged to tell you problems with a vehicle, but should tell you what they are aware of if asked.

 

Regarding MOTs, while even VOSA seldom entertain complaints after 28 days from a test - they will investigate if related to corrosion for up to tree months as it cannot appear quickly.

 

Call them - even for the parts they can't look at they will be interested to hear.

 

Call them on 0300 123 9000.

 

I don't understand? Sorry? One thing though, the same company who just failed my car passed it 12 months ago with one advisory (a tyre). I would have thought the corrosion and brakes would have already been in a sorry state.

[clemma]

Ok, reported the MOT place to VOSA as they passed the car last year with no mention of the corrosion. Also, the issuing name is the same on both certificates but the signature is totally different. Not sure if it matters, but I told VOSA anyway. They said they would investigate.

[sailor sam]

Spoke to the dealer (naughty, I know) and he is offering me a part refund plus I get to keep the tax to claim a refund on that (they paid for the tax, not me). In total I will be short of about £50 that I paid for it. I can live with that. He tried to offer me scrap value but after throwing in SOGA he relented.

 

Let us know when you get the money back, then we can celebrate.

[clemma]

They are collecting the car between 6pm and 7pm tonight. Cash in my hand....will let you know if they make an appearance.

[clemma]

Finally got my money back last night. The dealer paid scrap value for it and his mate, who has the same car, paid the rest so he can use it for spares and repairs. Dealer gets his.money back when his mate scraps it. I dont care. Got my money, thats all that matters.