bought car which turns out to be unroadworthy

[sailor sam]

I don't think this is the case with this thread Conniff, more a case of the SOGA brigade not being able to define what is the legal situation and or a definition as to what is road worthy and what is not. Hardly the Arfer Daley club taking over is it?

 

It's not for the "SOGA brigade" to define what is road worthy or not though is it? The scenario that the OP has presented puts the seller in the position of deciding for himself (as a responsible and knowledgeable trader) whether or not he is about to retail, a potentially un-roadworthy car or not. The consequences of such a sale could lead to a criminal prosecution which is outside the remit of the SOGA. Therefore ultimately, only a duly qualified police officer (one who can issue prohibition notices) could actually make that assessment. And it would be the seller (in this particular instance) who would be guilty of an offence IF the car was found to be un-roadworthy at the point of sale (assuming the car was sold that it could be driven off the sellers premises).

 

Point being that if the seller has reason to suspect or believe that the car is un-roadworthy, he should not be selling it as "drive-able" to a member of the public.

[oddjobbob]

Well I would probably be put in the Arthur Daley lot by the SOGA brigade.

 

 

But I posted on this about a week ago and it remains true, they're BOTH at fault here. The dealer shouldn't have sold it on a retail basis if it was unroadworthy and the buyer should never have bought it, but did so after having an 'expert' inspect it, thinking it was cheap enough and then finding it wasn't

 

 

Hardly Arthur Daley is it?

[scaniaman]

Guys, Guys Guys you are going round in circles with this one.

Why don't you "Humour" me and accept my post 105 as a fair assesment of what unroadworthy is.

[heliosuk]

The problem being Scania, which most of the SOGA brigade seem to miss is what is a legal definition of unroadworthy and how would one measure it to determine what is roadworthy and what is not. The truth is there isn't one and the current definition as pointed out by Mike is very subjective, just like the MOT. It relies on peoples opinion which is where the whole argument being put forward by those who advocate SOGA falls down.

 

So lets take the nut missing off the ARB to strut link. Not ideal, but does it make the car unroadworthy? In the eyes of the MOT then perhaps yes but that is only valid at the point and time of inspection and is meant to reflect what the tester sees and the opinion of the tester as to what he deems the condition of the part is likely to be in one years time.

 

If you look at manufacturers DFMEAS this is considered a relatively low risk item to the overall safety of the car however the detection method would score quite highly as an issue to be picked up on examination. It does not though make the car unroadworthy as is an aid to the stability of the car and is not necessarily essential.