Received MCOL for car sold with almost expired MOT?

[Buel10]

A friend sold his car in late November for £500 after advertising it on a local for sale site.

The friend had explained to the buyer that the MOT had almost run out and that the car needed quite a bit of work.

 

Last week he received a MCOL claim for the full £500 and the buyer stated that my friend sold him a car with a 'false MOT' and that my friend 'withheld the true state of the vehicle's condition'.

 

The MOT was provided by the keeper previous to my friend and after having looked on the Gov website, it appears to be fine.

Surely this can not be a 'false MOT'?

 

My personal suspicion is that the buyer realised that there was more work needed on it than he first thought and decided, over 4 weeks after the sale, to issue a MCOL.

 

Any advice would be greatly appreciated....

[BazzaS]

Tell the claimant to "do one" (politely, in case the claimant is daft enough to take it to court!)

 

The MOT gives an indicator of the car meeting the minimum standards set on the day of testing, nothing more or less. It means nothing close to a year later other than the requirement to have the MOT having been met.

In particular, it doesn't mean the car meets roadworthiness condition after the time/date of the MOT.

 

So, this is your friend's defence ; that and the fact they made it clear it "needed quite a bit of work".

[BankFodder]

I'm afraid that you can't tell anybody to "do one" because the claim has been issued.

 

The first thing you should do is to tell your friend to file an acknowledgement of the claim and that will give you a further two weeks in order to deal with it – meaning 28 days from the date of service.

 

After that, I suggest that you put up a copy of the advertisement here in PDF format so we can see and understand it. Also a copy of the claim also in PDF format redacted for identifiers.

 

How convinced is your friend that the MOT was genuine?

[BazzaS]

I think the MOT appearing on the .gov.uk website is fairly convincing it is genuine.

Almost a year later it'd be hard for the claimant to say it was a valid MOT test station but that the tester should have failed the vehicle.

[Buel10]

I'm afraid that you can't tell anybody to "do one" because the claim has been issued.

 

The first thing you should do is to tell your friend to file an acknowledgement of the claim and that will give you a further two weeks in order to deal with it – meaning 28 days from the date of service.

 

After that, I suggest that you put up a copy of the advertisement here in PDF format so we can see and understand it. Also a copy of the claim also in PDF format redacted for identifiers.

 

How convinced is your friend that the MOT was genuine?

 

The first thing you should do is to tell your friend to file an acknowledgement of the claim and that will give you a further two weeks in order to deal with it – meaning 28 days from the date of service.

He has acknowledged it and submitted a defence, stating that: 1. He had not owned the car for more than the 12 months that is stated in the car ownership history (don't know why he mentioned this?). 2. The buyer was happy to buy the car in the condition that it was in. 3. That he was honest in his description of the car.

The Claim was originally issued on 18 Jan and the Notice of Proposed Allocation was received and dated 24 January.

It says that he has until 10 February to complete the Small Claims Directions Questionnaire?

 

I suggest that you put up a copy of the advertisement here in PDF format so we can see and understand it.

I will try to find this but the website no longer has it on sale, for obvious reasons.

a copy of the claim also in PDF format redacted for identifiers.

Bear with me....

[BazzaS]

Which month/year was the "MOT that had almost run out" from?

What was the month/year of sale?

 

Your original post makes it sound like there was almost 12 months between them, while the PofC says "9 days later".

If the claimant just means the MOT was almost a year old, but their MOT attempt was 9 days after sale : it remains that the previous MOT was likely a valid representation of the state of the vehicle almost a year before sale and irrelevant regarding the condition of the vehicle at time of sale.

 

Will the claimant be able to suggest your friend was acting in the course of business / a trader? Or was this a "one-off" / private sale ?

[Buel10]

Which month/year was the "MOT that had almost run out" from?

The MOT was to run out 9 days after the buyer bought the car. Apologies for any confusion, I'm trying my best to get the correct info.

 

Will the claimant be able to suggest your friend was acting in the course of business / a trader? Or was this a "one-off" / private sale ?

Definitely a private sale.

[BazzaS]

I don't think you are being confusing, I just wanted to be sure!.

 

 

The claimant (either deliberately or through misunderstanding what the MOT certificate means!) might be trying to paint a picture of "9 days between one certificate and the next test";

 

 

the answer to that is the factual statement

"MOT was 356 days" (or however many) before sale,

and that the only representation made by it was that the one year prior to a new MOT being required hadn't yet run out..

. it wouldn't have made any representation as to the roadworthiness of the car a week or a month post MOT, let alone 11 months later.

 

If a private sale, and your friend said "car needs quite a bit of work on it" ; defence should include that this was a private sale, that because the D isn't an expert, but suspected work needed doing that they said "needs quite a bit of work on it", so:

 

a) the MOT wasn't false; it was almost a year old, and the buyer knew this.

b) No representation beyond a non-expert's concern it "would need quite a bit of work" was made, and thus no concealment of the car's condition occurred. Additionally, the purchaser was at liberty to inspect the car / have it tested prior to purchase.

[Buel10]

Utterly brilliant! Thank you.

 

Briefly, if he has already submitted his defence, can I (he) add to it using some of what you stated?

[dx100uk]

no he cant

can you post the claimform as a PDF please

 

 

and the defence that was filed.

 

 

dx

[Buel10]

Okay, thank you, give me 12 hours...

[Buel10]

Not quite 12 hours but better late than never.....

[BazzaS]

So, not a perfect defence, but adequate.

 

You'd asked if a defence can be amended : in theory it can, but either:

a) with the permission of the claimant (unlikely!), or

b) with leave of the court (which means making[& paying for!] an application to amend the defence), which the court may or may not grant.

 

So, based on that defence, if the claim proceeds, then your friend could submit a witness statement. Whilst this is a statement of facts, it can be done in such a way as to present the facts leading the court to conclude the points they might have overtly made in the defence .......

[dx100uk]

sorry I tried to pop those up as an attachment and lost them

can you pop them up as a PDF please

[Buel10]

sorry I tried to pop those up as an attachment and lost them

can you pop them up as a PDF please

 

No problem, thank you very much for the help......

 

[Buel10]

[Buel10]

So, to check, all I can do right now is fill in the questionnaire and wait?

[Buel10]

Shall I/he choose to go the mediation route? My concern is that he now lives in Scotland so would be a massive inconvenience to come down for this?

 

Also, expert advice or witnesses?

[unclebulgaria67]

Shall I/he choose to go the mediation route? My concern is that he now lives in Scotland so would be a massive inconvenience to come down for this?

 

Also, expert advice or witnesses?

 

Mediation is done by phone and is where both parties are wiling to come to a compromised agreement. If you are sure that you have not done anything wrong here, then i am not sure mediation is worth it, as it will fail, as soon as the mediation company phone you to ask some initial questions about your position.

 

You don't need any experts or witness evidence at this stage. If the claimant wants to proceed with the claim, then let them do the running, as it is them who has to prove their claim. Just keep an eye on post received as see where this goes. It is easy to issue a claim online, but i suspect a large number are never continued,

[Buel10]

Excellent advice!!

Thank you so much!

P.S. It isn't me, it is a friend (it actually is!!)

[unclebulgaria67]

I can't see this claim going further. A £500 car sold with a short MOT, advertised as a project. If the claimant has sought advice on this, i suspect they have been advised they are wasting their time and money. If the repair is uneconomic, that is their problem, as they should have had the car inspected by a mechanic to calculate the cost of likely repairs, before they bought it.

[Buel10]

So, not a perfect defence, but adequate.

 

You'd asked if a defence can be amended : in theory it can, but either:

a) with the permission of the claimant (unlikely!), or

b) with leave of the court (which means making[& paying for!] an application to amend the defence), which the court may or may not grant.

 

So, based on that defence, if the claim proceeds, then your friend could submit a witness statement. Whilst this is a statement of facts, it can be done in such a way as to present the facts leading the court to conclude the points they might have overtly made in the defence .......

 

So shall I still leave the box unticked in the questionnaire regarding whether or not we are calling witnesses?

[AndyOrch]

And the particulars of claim or the full first page of the claim form Buel10 ?

 

Andy

[Buel10]

And the particulars of claim or the full first page of the claim form Buel10 ?

 

Andy

 

Apologies, I thought dx100uk just meant the defence (which I re-posted earlier) but now see that it is the POC, etc too.

Hold fire....

[AndyOrch]

Your friend is the Witness to the claim so its 1.