Need Urgent Advice and Help

This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
Status
Not open for further replies.
The_Big_P said:
I was going to say how do you know Alan Mills was the tester until I seen Dafts post.

Lost all respect for CharlesY. :(
Click to expand...

Alan Mills was not the tester apparently. He is a tester i think but did not do this particular test. He owns the garage. He and the tester are in the clear according to VOSA rules so i don't see why he even showed himself. Unless the old rule of "he protesteth too much" applies.
 
wammers said:
Alan Mills was not the tester apparently. He is a tester i think but did not do this particular test. He owns the garage. He and the tester are in the clear according to VOSA rules so i don't see why he even showed himself. Unless the old rule of "he protesteth too much" applies.
Click to expand...

How can the garage be in the clear?

Everyone, inc you if memory serves me correctly has said that the P38 should never have passed an MOT.
 
If the MOT place are in the clear thats fine, all I was out to find initially was whether the issues were present at the time of MOT, which they were. They are still present now - Draw your own conclusions.

I was put in touch with the garage, who appear to be on the defensive to both myself and wammers.

Either to clear their name
or to hide something

This we will never know.

What I can prove it that the issues were in place in July, and are now so they were when the car was sold to me. As mentioned the car was sold to me as having an inspection which clearly wasnt done - this is my main arguement with the trader I got the car from. I have mentioned this several times in writing to him and his solicitor but they just ignore it.

Ignoring it only make them look more guilty in my eyes, as if it was done he would have said yes here is the inspection report.

I am expecting the next corrispondance from Mr solicitor by tuesday as he always takes a week to reply.
 
I recon the inspection that your trader had done was done by him whereby he walked round it twice and thought "hmmmm, that's nice and shiny" and passed it.
 
IMO The MOT is an important issue but not one Jay needs to get tied up with at the moment.
As I see it the trader either did not inspect it as advertised or he did and was aware of the very serious defects and if he has any sence he'll admit the first, take it back give you your money back and dump it probably onto some poor unsuspecting mug on e-bay/auction and stop getting his solicitor to dick you about.
If it was me, the more I'm dicked about the more I'd be looking for compensation or revenge!
 
I find it strange how the traders solicitor is taking a week to reply every time.

Could this be a stalling tactic to allow the trader to get shot of his stock and wind up his business/go bankrupt?
 
The_Big_P said:
How can the garage be in the clear?

Everyone, inc you if memory serves me correctly has said that the P38 should never have passed an MOT.
Click to expand...

In my view it should not have. But VOSA has rules about failures. Basically you can have a test done, at the time of test all is acceptable in the testers opinion. After that it is the owners responsiblity to maintain his vehicle in a road worthy condition. There are time spans after the MOT were major failures would be investigated. I personally would say brakes pipes failing through bad corrosion within three months of a test (which is potentially leathal) would be investgatable but VOSA think otherwise. So basically the garage has no case to answer, other than maybe a moral one, so it makes you wonder someone insisted on them being named in the first place.
 
Manheim car auctions allow registered users (free to anyone) to view basic condition reports. Those with accounts (traders) are able to bid online. I believe BCA also offer this.
I suspect your trader is a chancer who has registered with BCA, bid blind on a shiny one, paid the auction house to transport the car (its not as expensive as it sounds). given it a wash. copied some sales spiel off someone's website (which fortunately for you included the inspected bit)
.
When i trying to buy my Disco at bottom price I tried the auction's. On one occasion was out bid and then 2 weeks later found the same car at a hertfordshire LR specialist for £3K more than the final bid price! presumably the other 15 LR's he had all come from the auction too?

The MOT issue is a disgrace and I hope VOSA get to the bottom of it.
If I'm right the trader wouldn't have known about the car's faults. He's tried to make a quick easy buck, been caught with his pants down (hopefully he'll try a new career now). You need to get the refund before he wastes anymore of your time or worse shuts up shop. Good luck, sounds like every buyers nightmare!
 
wammers said:
In my view it should not have. But VOSA has rules about failures. Basically you can have a test done, at the time of test all is acceptable in the testers opinion. After that it is the owners responsiblity to maintain his vehicle in a road worthy condition. There are time spans after the MOT were major failures would be investigated. I personally would say brakes pipes failing through bad corrosion within three months of a test (which is potentially leathal) would be investgatable but VOSA think otherwise. So basically the garage has no case to answer, other than maybe a moral one, so it makes you wonder someone insisted on them being named in the first place.
Click to expand...

So the MOT has nothing to do with road safety, it's just another tax collecting scam:rolleyes:
 
kooky_guy said:
He's probably charging by the hour...:)
Click to expand...

*snigger*



wammers said:
In my view it should not have. But VOSA has rules about failures. Basically you can have a test done, at the time of test all is acceptable in the testers opinion. After that it is the owners responsiblity to maintain his vehicle in a road worthy condition. There are time spans after the MOT were major failures would be investigated. I personally would say brakes pipes failing through bad corrosion within three months of a test (which is potentially leathal) would be investgatable but VOSA think otherwise. So basically the garage has no case to answer, other than maybe a moral one, so it makes you wonder someone insisted on them being named in the first place.
Click to expand...

I'm confused, are you saying CharlesY is on Jays side or the MOT stations side:confused:
 
jay140285 said:
If the MOT place are in the clear thats fine, all I was out to find initially was whether the issues were present at the time of MOT, which they were. They are still present now - Draw your own conclusions.

I was put in touch with the garage, who appear to be on the defensive to both myself and wammers.

Either to clear their name
or to hide something

This we will never know.

What I can prove it that the issues were in place in July, and are now so they were when the car was sold to me. As mentioned the car was sold to me as having an inspection which clearly wasnt done - this is my main arguement with the trader I got the car from. I have mentioned this several times in writing to him and his solicitor but they just ignore it.

Ignoring it only make them look more guilty in my eyes, as if it was done he would have said yes here is the inspection report.

I am expecting the next corrispondance from Mr solicitor by tuesday as he always takes a week to reply.
Click to expand...

From CharlesY:

That is all complete balderdash, and it is clear that Jay and Wammers STILL do not get the message about MoT tests.

YES --- "the issues" may well have been there at the time of the test! But that does NOT mean a damned thing. Geez, didn't they FAIL it first time round? WHY? It did NOT FAIL for brake pipes, did it? The pipes PASSED the pressure test, but were a bit rusty, and "advised". If the car was re-presented with fail items sorted and within the time, then the tester MUST issue a pass.

The car NEED NOT BE IN "AS NEW CONDITION" TO PASS A MoT TEST!!!!!

Get that message!

Now,
Jay was not there when it was tested.
Wammers was not there when it was tested.
Mr Mills was on holiday when it was tested.
Not a single person (not even the expert Mr Wammers) who has been involved in this so far on LZ was there when the car was tested.
Not even the Big Expert Mr Wammers. He can make pronouncements from photos! Try that in Court Mr Wammers.

The MoT test was in JULY!!!!
Jay bought the car in NOVEMBER!!!!
Meantime we KNOW the car HAS BEEN DAMAGED and a dodgy repair or three done BETWEEN those times. What else harm did it come to? Who had the car? What was it being used for? Is the axle bent? Is the chassis twisted too? HOW and WHEN did these things happen? Is the MoT garage going to be blamed for those things too? GET REAL GUYS!

How come does any of that become the fault of a MoT Test Station who last saw the car in in JULY?

The garage is not on the defensive James. Far from it, The garage WAS trying to help you in your case, but after that ill-advised blast I will be surprised if you get a lot more co-operation from there. They will have better things to do with their time than suffer the SHAMEFUL idiocy going on in this thread.

By the way, the moment the garage heard about this case THEY CONTACTED VOSA right away, and VOSA looked into the case. So are you guys now going to say VOSA and the Garage are in a conspiracy against you? GET REAL!

Jay, you have blown it. You would not take the advice you were given on DAY-ONE, and time after time thereafter, and now it is many weeks later, and the other side know they have you beaten. You are an amateur up against professionals. You have lost. You are stuck with that car, sorry about that, and if you get a penny from the seller I will be surprised. Remember, your solicitor's fees are building up too.

James, remember this - CAVEAT EMPTOR is a basic principle of English Law - Let the BUYER take care. YOU bought a duff car AS SEEN without inspecting it properly or at all. How do we know this? Because YOU TOLD US. If the faults were as obvious as you NOW say they were, how come did you and no-one else acting for you not see them when you were thinking about buying the car? Or is it perhaps the case you have been a silly boy, bought an over-priced plug without taking any care, no proper (or any?) inspection and now you want to blame everyone else for YOUR OWN NEGLECT to take a decent look at what you were buying before handing over your cash?

I am disappointed James. After our emails I thought you had more in you.

CharlesY
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Rockingit
L322 How big a job is it to replace the upper rear wishbone?
Replies
17
Views
1K
Rockingit
Rockingit
B
P38 diesel FIP leak
2 3 4
Replies
62
Views
4K
Grrrrrr
Grrrrrr
Wizard2003
Update, Need Urgent help!
Replies
14
Views
944
Wizard2003
Wizard2003
Charles Banbury
L405 Vibration. Love this car, best advice?
Replies
14
Views
534
Charles Banbury
Charles Banbury
Rockingit
Air sunk to the stops / access mode after jacking
2
Replies
21
Views
1K
Rockingit
Rockingit
Back
Top