Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I understand that the most recent promise was that the car would be delivered to you yesterday. Please could you bring us up to date. Did you receive the car? If so, is the car okay?  
    • On a side note – I think that if they didn't collect the items from you within the next seven days, then particularly given their size and weight – about 26 kg each – I would put Amazon on notice that I was going to be charging them storage. I think £5 per day is probably not unreasonable – although don't expect Amazon to be happy about it.
    • I think that whatever you eventually do, because you are within 30 days of the delivery of each damaged table saw, you should assert your right to reject them under the Consumer Rights Act. You wouldn't normally need to do this with Amazon – but I think that it is a prudent thing to do in the circumstances and it protects your position in case there is any question arrived in the future. So I suggest for the moment that you send to letters – separate envelopes – to Amazon identifying the items by their invoice reference number or whatever and that they have arrived in a damage date and because you are reacting within 30 days, you are now formally rejecting the items under the consumer rights act 2015 and that Amazon should make immediate arrangements to collect the items from you. As I have said, send the letters separately – but also try to confirm by sending Amazon an email using their contact system and maybe some other email address – keep copies of everything. The letters of rejection should be sent at least by recorded delivery. What is interesting here is that you have spent vouchers on an item which was sold to you at £272. Looking at the link you have posted, it now appears that the price has increased to £359 and so there is no doubt in my mind that you should be entitled to a Bosch table saw even though it is now that price. The objective of contract damages is to put you into the position that you would have been if the contract had not been breached. This means that your expectation at the end of a successful transaction would be to be in possession of a Bosch table saw. If that means that it is going to take £359 to put you into that post-contract position, then so be it. If you are prepared to accept a Bosch table saw instead of the DeWalt one which you apparently now prefer, then even if you found one elsewhere at say, £400, you will be entitled to claim the cost of that from Amazon. It gets a bit more complicated if you singly want your money back. If you want your money back then I think that you are only entitled to the value of the vouchers. If Amazon are unable to supply the saw table then it seems to me that you are entitled to receive the cash – and of course that is where Amazon will grind their heels in to the point where you may have to bring a small claim against them for the value of the vouchers. If this is what eventually happened – that you had to issue a court claim – then I think you are not looking at any resolution in the very near future. I can imagine that Amazon would object and muster a lot of energy to defending the claim. I can imagine that it would go on for at least six months and maybe more. I think you need to factor this delay into your calculations about how to deal with this. So I think broadly the position is that if you want the DeWalt then we can probably help you get your £272 cash which you could use to pay towards the DeWalt – but it will take quite a bit of time. If you are prepared to settle for a Bosch table saw then in the event that Amazon are unable to supply one, I think that you could quite reasonably source one elsewhere and if it was more expensive, one Amazon that this is what you are going to do and that you would be looking to them for the full reimbursement. This also would take quite a few months. I notice that one of Amazon's third-party sellers is selling a Bosch table saw for £429. Of course to buy this quickly, you would have to fork out the money now and then start claiming against Amazon. The problem of dealing with Amazon is that although they are generally speaking excellent, when things go wrong, they become very difficult to deal with. They are so huge that they don't act rationally in an economic kind of way. Amazon are not used to being pushed around and they don't have the mechanism for dealing with things. They don't seem to be able to escalate things rapidly to a responsible human person who will look at the problem and understand the principles. It's all done by procedures and that means it becomes very cumbersome to deal with. I've given a pretty convoluted reply here. Have a look and tell me how I can clarify things that you don't understand  
    • I googled North State and found some views on it. The reviews look pretty damning to me, I'm afraid.   https://www.forexbrokerz.com/brokers/northstate-review   https://theforexreview.com/2020/08/31/northstate-review/   https://www.financebrokerage.com/northstate-io-review/   https://www.wibestbroker.com/northstate-review/   HB    
    • Their own very small print at the end states that this is a high risk inestment and that you could lose everything you put in - and more. They're based in the Commonwealth of Dominica in the Caribbean, so no UK regulator unless I've missed something.   I don't think my view has changed, sadly.   HB
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • Ebay Packlink and Hermes - destroyed item as it was "damaged". https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/430396-ebay-packlink-and-hermes-destroyed-item-as-it-was-damaged/&do=findComment&comment=5087347
      • 32 replies
    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
  • Recommended Topics

  • Recommended Topics

2nd hand car suspected false MOT

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1665 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then


Please click the "Report " link


at the bottom of one of the posts.


If you want to post a new story then


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

Hi guys, I was wondering if anyone can offer any advice on what to do with my situation.


On 11th Sept 2016 I bought a used car from a dealer for £1.9k (I got £100 knocked off for a ripped wall in tyre).


The car runs fine and starts every time. It's worth noting that the car was part ex to clear and sold as seen with no warranty (I wasn't made aware it was sold as seen until the deal). I noticed when I was driving it home that it gets shakey from 60mph onwards but doesn't feed back through the steering. Also there is a rattle from the back that I'm trying to get to the bottom of.


Also on the dash is an error light, this light was on when I test drove the car but it thought it was just a notification that the auto headlights were enabled.


Upon inspection this weekend I've discovered that the error light says that the automatic headlight leveling is malfunctioning. The car has xenon lights so this is all requirement.


As a result I'm not too sure that the MOT is legitimate. The dealership told me that the MOT was Carried out as standard and failed due to suspension being worn down at the rear. They said they put £250 into fixing this and then passed its MOT on the 7th September 2016, 4 days before I bought the car.


My concern is that the this error light was on when I bought the car so how could it have passed its MOT? I've looked for sensors on the rear axles that its supposed to have for the auto leveling but can't find them which makes me think part of the system is missing.


I don't have a copy of the MOT certificate and the dealer is 50 miles away. I phoned them to ask them to send me a copy of the certificate and was told to just go online and print off a copy, but you can't do that.


I'd welcome any suggestions on what to do next. Where do I stand?


I think I've bought a second hand car with a false MOT, also the auto leveling system is an expensive fix from what I can tell which is not what I want to be spending on a 9 year old used car. Am I within rights to take the car back for a refund or get them to look into the issues even though it was sold as seen?


Thanks in advance for any advice, if you need more information let me know and I'll do it my best

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't print the mot certificate, but you can check if the mot has been done and any advisory here:




Sold as seen from a car dealer???

He lives in another country, not such thing exists in UK.


It is perfectly possible that the car passed the mot with the headlights warning light on the dash.

As long as the beam is within range when they measure it, the mot centre won't care that the auto-levelling system works or not.

In fact, on older car where this system has failed and it would be uneconomical to repair, the headlights are manually adjusted and fixed into position.

Why did you take his word about the mot?

Maybe there's no mot at all.

Check it out and let us know please

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the response.


IF a car has Xenon lights then it is apparently a legal requirement that they have functioning auto leveling as well as headlight washers from what i've read.


I took his word about the MOT because I checked the online MOT History of the car before I bought it. The previous MOT failed and the reasons he told me matched the history and certificate in the paperwork. The current MOT only had an advisory for worn tyre.


If sold as Seen means nothing in the UK, does this mean I'd be able to take it back for a refund if it turns out to be an issue?

Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as the beam is within range when they measure it, the mot centre won't care that the auto-levelling system works or not.


THIS ^^^^^^


IF a car has Xenon lights then it is apparently a legal requirement that they have functioning auto leveling as well as headlight washers from what i've read.


NOT THIS ^^^^^


I'd like to know where you read it. As far as i am aware, as long as the dip and main beams point in the right direction then its a pass.


TBQH if that's the only fault on a £1900 car i'd say you did very well.


Sold as seen means nothing...but the headlight levelling n/w is not a valid reason for rejection at £1900 in my opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I read it while looking for a solution on the Mazda Forums, a few people with the same error code stated that it was a legal requirement, so I didn't read anything official that said it was.


It's not the only issue with the car, but in my eyes it was the most serious as from all the information I'd read I was under the impression i'd end up needing to spend a lot of money if it was an MOT failure and was worried I was driving around a car on a dodgy MOT, I would have only considered Rejection if i'd been mislead


But these responses have opened my eyes a bit so I'm a bit clearer / wiser now

Link to post
Share on other sites

just for want of info

within 14 days you don't need any reason to return any item

see CRA

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

IF a car has Xenon lights then it is apparently a legal requirement that they have functioning auto leveling as well as headlight washers from what i've read.


No. Not for Xenon but for High Intensity Discharge (HID) lights - if washers and leveling is fitted on the vehicle it must work.


Second item on this page of the Testers Manual http://www.motuk.co.uk/manual_170.htm

Link to post
Share on other sites

So I've had my car checked out. Garage reckons there are no MOT failing faults.


However the work that was done in the last MOT seems to have been a botched job.


Rear anti roll bar is second hand and insulation tape as been used to pad out the bushes to reduce play. Whole lot needs to be replaced... and adding 2 new tyres on top of that as well as Air con needs fixing.. :-(

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, it's due to the way the law is written. Vehicles in England and Wales MAY have headlamp washers and a self levelling system where Xenon HID lights are fitted which exceeds 2,000 lumens of light, which MUST be operative if fitted with such a system.


In Northern Ireland, the regulations stipulate that a vehicle MUST be fitted with headlight washers and a self levelling system if Xenon HID lights are fitted.


A very experienced mechanic who I worked with has been carrying out MOT's for many years, and said the above information is correct.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest roaringmouse

Tape to pad out bushes is unacceptable. The onus is on the selling garage to ensure the car is roadworthy AT THE TIME OF SALE. If they bought it with an MoT it does not release them from their legal responsibility. Tape to pad out a bush is in my opinion dangerous as the tape will break down and fail, leaving a loose bush thus effecting the handling of the car and unlike just a bush failing which would normally happen over time, tape will fail quickly and at motorway speeds a loos bush could seriously effect handling.


REJECT THE CAR as defective and not of reasonable quality and not fit for purpose. They will tell you that you cannot, but trust me you can - I did so on two cars from dealers last year. One gave in and refunded me instantly, the other resisted until they got the letter before action and trust me I made it crystal clear that I would take them to court and then arrange for Lawrence Grix (The Sheriffs are coming) to collect my money. I got a full refund in cash when they collected the unroadworthy car.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...