Vehicle Inspection

[HowardD]

I had a bad car buying experience over the weekend, which I want to get off my chest. We've been looking for a 1-series hatchback and I rang a well known local(ish) independant BMW online showroom on Friday about a 1 year old, with very low miles. The call went ok, the salesman went out of his way to stress the car's immaculate with one careful lady owner , having had a 114 point check, and a full inspection by a well-known motoring organisation. The dealers' website uses the organisation's logo and often references that all cars have the comprehensive inspection. I made an appointment to see it on Sat. (I also asked if I could see it dry).

We went to see the car; it had rained overnight. While it was being dried, I looked at the paperwork. HPI clear . Inspection report showed no problems - only note was the Satnav disk not present. The report showed a number of diagrams of a car's profiles, where the examiner could note any scratches /dents. There were nothing . So far, so good.

The car itself was bad : -

• The windscreen had a 3 inch crack in the driver's line of sight
• 3 wheels were kerb damaged (the advertisement photo was the only one that wasn't)
• The front spoiler had a 12 inch scratch where it had hit a bump/kerb
• The passenger rear wing had been repainted, but the paint was blistered and scratched across the whole wing. It was minging!
• It had dozens of scratches - although most would have polished ok

Apart from that, it's a nice car. I had an amicable conversation with the salesman. I showed him the areas, not for a discount, but to explain why I wasn't going to buy. He felt I was being picky and we said goodbye.

On the way back, I festered a bit, by the time we were home, I'd made myself cross about wasting my morning . In a fit of British ineffectiveness - I emailed the inspection organisation to ask their views. Part of the exact answer -

"The inspection taken place on this car is not one which we would sell to the general public as its a VERY BASIC check....As far to my knowledge this doesnt check the bodywork of the car."

So, there you go. I'm sure most of you canny folks are very observant and know exactly what to watch out for when you buy a used car.

For anyone like me; a bit slower, and doesnt know what they are looking for - an inspection report through a dealer isn't worth a lot.

I've not mentioned either organisation, but I stand by my comments, and would be happy to tell anyone who asks by PM.

My rant's over - I'm interested in your thoughts, negative or otherwise.

 

[kth286]

So you are saying that car would not pass an MOT due to the windscreen crack and would therefore be illegal after the MOT refusal.

Did they talk about a screen replacement/length of MOT remaining etc

 

[HowardD]

So you are saying that car would not pass an MOT due to the windscreen crack and would therefore be illegal after the MOT refusal.

Did they talk about a screen replacement/length of MOT remaining etc

I dont know much about MOT standards - although this car wouldnt need one for a couple of years. It was a stone chip, that had grown to a 3inch crack - on the driver side but in reach of the windscreen wiper.

Thing is, I had a Mini last year, which picked up a chip and I did nothing about it - in a frosty week, the chip became a 2ft crack. (I sound like an advert for autoglass!)

The salesman told me it could be repaired. I know chips can be repaired - I can't see how a crack is fixable without replacing the glass.

He was a nice chap, but his answers were "we'll repair the chip, we'll touch up the alloys, we'll polish out the rear wing, we'll touch in the front spoiler"

I walked away as it all just felt wrong. I expected more from a 1 year old car.

 

[Baron_Samedi]

Am I not right in thinking that a cracked windscreen impairs the safety of the vehicle?

 

[kth286]

Interesting anomaly that.

An obvious fault in a newish car that legally does not require an MOT, but with that same fault being a fail of MOT on a slightly older car.

The failed MOT making the older car illegal to drive; but the newer car is still legal to drive, and both have the same fault.

If the newer car was stopped by the police would the newer car owner get done - probably not.

BUT if it was a similar situation with tyres and both cars had illegal tyres, I guess both car owners would get done.

 

[tobus10]

Bad experience

I to have had a couple of annoying experiences over the past week,the first concerned a fairly local large dealership.I rang to arrange a viewing and was given a full rundown of the vehicle and it seemed ok for my wife.On arrival we were given the keys and the sales guy said he would come over in a while.We soon found the car it looked good........Unfortunately the battery was dead flat! not a good start but even worse the estate part of the vehicle was was very untidy.A lot of the trim had been removed and just left.I must add this was not a cheap vehicle,we went back to the sales office to hand in the keys and the staff just had no interest whatsoever! when I explained we had phoned earlier to arrange this the sales guy said.....Well you didn't speak to me mate... and walked away.Totally pixxed off we left...
The next vehicle we found was on Ebay at a main dealership and looked good, unfortunately it was quite a distance away,so I emailed for a few more details.This was a week ago still no reply!!!! I must say the Add was
very proffesional and it was a very large multi franchise dealership.
Really annoying...

 

[Doodle]

If the newer car was stopped by the police would the newer car owner get done - probably not.

If it was deemed unroadworthy then they can pull you up on it, be it 10 years or 10 weeks old. An MoT certificate is merely proof that the car was met the required standards on the given day of testing.

 

[bennesspipers]

You've done the right thing,keep walking !

 

[Shude]

BUT if it was a similar situation with tyres and both cars had illegal tyres, I guess both car owners would get done.

It's the same situation for cars of all ages: if it's not roadworthy then it's illegal to use it on the road in normal circumstances.

It's true to say that you are less likely to be pulled up on it with a new car and you could go three years with no headlamp bulbs, bald tyres and cracked windscreen without an MOT failure but it's still illegal. All we've proved is that cars older than 3 years are more likely to have seen a mechanic recently than a newer car...

 

[219]

My own personal opinion is that there should be no MOT exemption for cars less than 3 years old : if it were up to me , I would make an MOT test a requirement for even brand new vehicles at the time of first registration , and annually thereafter . Just because a car is new does not mean it is defect free , and if being made to go through an MOT before being handed over to the first user saved even one life by picking up on an otherwise unnoticed fault that might have been missed in the PDA ( how many garages complete the PDA by just ticking all the boxes on the sheet as opposed to actually checking things , I wonder ? ) then it is all worthwhile .

 

[crockers]

I like the American system (well MA) - if you buy a used car (no matter what age) it has to be inspected and issued with a new sticker. So if the car is 2 months / 2 years / or 20 years it has to be inspected and issued with a sticker.

Waiting 3 years for the first inspection is silly and can be dangerous...IMHO.

I too sometimes wonder about salemen's attitudes - but there are plenty of GOOD cars and GARAGES out there - so just keep looking.

 

[HowardD]

I emailed the inspection organisation to ask their views. Part of the exact answer -

"The inspection taken place on this car is not one which we would sell to the general public as its a VERY BASIC check....As far to my knowledge this doesnt check the bodywork of the car."

I had a follow up email from the inspection organisation this morning.

"As our inspection has been arranged for the showroom for the purposes of Data Protection I am unable to discuss any aspects of this report with you directly".

Even second hand cars have rights to privacy!

 

[johnsco]

Do I detect a certain cosy relationship between certain dealers and certain inspection organisations ?
Similar to the one that clearly exists between some dealers and some "providers of MOT cetificates"

You did right to walk away.
Pity you wasted your time.