Hey I got 2 MOTs!

Tell us about it.

It doesn't only apply to traders. I once fell foul of it on a private sale.

AIUI traders have to comply with the Road Traffic Act when selling a car. This means it should be roadworthy unless described as Spares or Repair, Sold for Parts etc. Car should also comply with descriptions applied for Trade Descriptions Act (inc mileage unless disclaimed.) These are criminal Acts (usually enforced by trading standards etc) and in addition to the Sale of Goods Act etc which are not criminal Acts, and the remedy for which is the injured party suing in the small claims court.

Not sure if private individuals have to comply with RTA, certainly TDA only applies to traders. This is why you have more rights when buying from a trader rather than privately.

Interested to know about your incident though. Who was chasing you?

I'm putting my F reg quattro up for sale soon, so was in this situation=20 myself last week. According to the tester, it was flagged up that there=20 was another certificate, but that was no reason not to issue another=20 one. He also said that if the car failed, I could carry on driving using=20 the old one. That doesn't sound right to me. I was also told that the=20 rules changed recently, so that you now have 10 days to fix one of a=20 specified list of minor faults if it fails. I couldn't find a definitive=20 answer on either point; can anyone point me to one?

Dave B

I would think you could get the problem(s) fixed and keep running it on the old MOT *without* needing a retest.

I'm putting my F reg quattro up for sale soon, so was in this situation myself last week. According to the tester, it was flagged up that there was another certificate, but that was no reason not to issue another one. He also said that if the car failed, I could carry on driving using the old one. That doesn't sound right to me. I was also told that the rules changed recently, so that you now have 10 days to fix one of a specified list of minor faults if it fails. I couldn't find a definitive answer on either point; can anyone point me to one?

Dave B

if it failed and you were issued a failure then thats it, its been placed on the computer as a failure, dvla's computer as a failure, the police national computer as a failure get the idea, irrespective that it had a certificate prior, its been tested & failed, so your driving an unroad worthy car. your "current" certificate isnt a "get out of jail card" if you get stopped.

heres a link for the re-test procedure

reg ( snipped-for-privacy@somewhere.fsten.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

If it failed, and was (and remains) unroadworthy - it is therefore illegal even without that second test.

That, indeed, could be prosecuted.

However, he _cannot_ be prosecuted for not having a current MOT, because he has.

Duncan Wood ( snipped-for-privacy@dmx512.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

I think I covered that... Plus the "failed then fixed" option...

Yeah, I checked this out some time ago - whether from a trader or private seller, the buyer has the right to expect the vehicle to be roadworthy unless it's explicitly stated to the contrary (spares or repairs, scrap, whatever - 'sold as seen' doesn't cut it). The only time it gets iffy is if you buy at auction. And the accepted legal test for roadworthiness is ability to pass MoT.

I did. I fully disclosed the leaking wheel cylinders as they were all=20 shot to hell. Still didn't stop the Police paying me a visit.

--=20 Conor

I'm really a nice guy. If I had friends, they would tell you.

Earn commission on online purchases, =A32.50 just for signing up:

Did they do more than visit?

cheers, clive

If I hadn't refunded the bloke on the spot, they would have.=20

--=20 Conor

I'm really a nice guy. If I had friends, they would tell you.

Earn commission on online purchases, =A32.50 just for signing up:

What was their/the bloke's argument? Did he dispute you'd told him the wheel cylinders were knackered?

cheers, clive