You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Genuinely, asking for a friend.....
Who bought a 2009 VW MPV five weeks ago from an independent trader. The trader put 12months MOT on the vehicle which had advisories of the sub-frame rusting. Five weeks and 1,000 miles later, the sub-frame has collapsed, probably a grand to repair. The car was also sold with a six-month warranty. Friend hadn't checked out the extent of rusting/corrosion when he bought it or after and no warning was given by the seller that it was imminently going to collapse.
We discussed this last night and a bit torn really...
Should the MOT station have been more robust if the car was that bad, that it would fail imminently? Should they have not even passed it as advisory?
Warranty have declined any cover as it is corrosion.
Can he reject it back to the trader under Consumer law? But he was made aware of the issue, so buyer beware?
I suspect he is goosed as he was "warned" and alerted, but it seems to have collapsed very soon after testing and my gut is that a decent MOT would have picked up on this and failed it.
IANAL
I'm not an expert but I'm pretty sure it shouldn't have passed the MOT in the first place. Advisories are minor items not imminent major failures.
it depends what was observable at the time of the test. rust may have been visible, but the bit that was really really rusty may have been hidden/unobservable within the MOT scope. It may also (unlikely) have been that the subframe (depending on what its a subframe for) isn't a failure even if its really rusty.
its got a warranty so you're getting a new bit. I'd wait till after that then shop the mot testing station to the local VOSA guys
They will be covered by the Consumer Rights Act 2015
“If a fault emerges between 30 days and six months from the date of purchase, the law assumes that the fault was pre-existing and, unless the seller can prove otherwise, the vehicle is still protected by statutory warranty. Here, the seller has one chance to fix the problem. If they do not manage to do that, the buyer is entitled to a refund, which may be less than the original purchase price to account for the time during which the car has been functional”
14 year old cars become a little tricky, whereby if a hypothetical car was sold for £800, it is possible that fitting 4 new tyres would cost £800, which would be unreasonable for the selling garage to cover
But I would have faith in quoting the above and asking for a repair in the first instance, and a refund if unsatisfied with their initial efforts
Yes he can reject it under Consumer Rights legislation. First stage is to inform the trader if the issue and see what their reaction is. If no joy on that route then I'd advise your friend to have a chat with Citizens Advice who will deal with this regularly. It all boils down to the trader being seen as an Expert so should spot things like this and know that selling an unroadworthy car is an offence. A member of the public is assumed to be a Layman with no expert knowledge so has to rely on the trader to point out issues etc. There is also the option of reporting the MOT station to the DVSA as a subframe should not have passed if it fails that quickly. There is a time limit on that though so worth checking that first!
Chop's Garage on YouTube is a good source of info on this, run by a trader who gives the warts n all of dealing with the lower end of the market including warranty claims and rejected cars.
Look up " report a dodgy mot "with DVSA. Who might be able to help , or your friend can tell the garage that is what is going to happen.
A properly looked after and officially MOT'd car should not 'collapse' so something is amiss.
Can you look at the online MOT history to see what the previous MOT's said? Maybe look at something like "Car Vertical" as well to see if it has history.
Before anyone else looks at it, take lots of photos of the failure. Then contact the dealer. If they are half honest they should be horrified and bend over backwards to sort this out as they are hugely exposed to the possibility of selling a dangerous car or one with a false MOT.
MOT was clearly crooked
Dealer hasn't got a leg to stand on
Back to the dealer in the first instance, then if no luck then Citizens advice plus DVLA.
Any dealer who wants to stay in business will get that sorted ASAP
While I don't agree that the car is fit for sale.
Seems Some People put a lot of faith in an mot which is a minimum standard at the time of test and the official corrosion test in no way replicates anywhere like the form of loading a subframe will see in use.
Anyone got a toffee hammer ?
Whilst I agree with @trail_rat on stuff like brakes, power steering, clutch etc - a rotten subframe that is on the point of collapse in a few weeks will be picked up and failed by any competent MOT
Except they corrode from the inside out around here alot and look completely fine until the day the front end drops
yep - fair enough.
But the fact that it has been noted as an advisory (and the fact that it then collapsed) kinda leads me to think it was blindingly obvious, well visible and they were just trying it on whilst attempting to cover their arse.
I don't think an MOT requires the tester to go poking with a screwdriver. If they're trying to get through as many as possible then they're not going to go beyond what they have to. So it's possible it was noted as surface rust innocently. But I would lean cynically towards it being a convenient arrangement between dealer and mot station
Tricky one as IME most small dealers have their ‘preferred’ MOT centre. But…
a) I’d have investigated further before buying.
B) At least looked into the cost of a replacement as it’s a cost that would be coming his way anyway.
C) subframes do ‘just go’ - many rot from the inside out. My 07 Civic rear beams are notorious for it, mine will go one day. Could be tomorrow could be two years down the line.
D) I didn’t think MOT testers could go poking screwdrivers in cars now. It’s more of a visual check. The days of bashing with a hammer are long gone.
And people feel safe with 12 months MOT, all it means is you won’t have to MOT it again for 12 months not that something major won’t go wrong.
Friend needs to return the car under their basic rights that the car is not road worthy.
Be clear that you are not claiming under the faux 6 month warranty.
Don't cloud the issue by claiming the MOT may have not have been thorough.
Reject the car, give the dealer a chance to deal with it amicably, and then try a claim though their credit card or small claims court.
Identify the important load bearing members and ‘prescribed areas’ on a vehicle, then check if they are excessively corroded by:
Visual inspection
Use finger and thumb pressure to assess the extent of the corrosion
If necessary, carefully scrape or lightly tap the affected areas with the corrosion assessment tool
Use of the corrosion assessment tool must be restricted to ascertaining that the failure criteria are met and not used for heavy scraping or poking of the affected areas.
For avoidance of doubt . This is a copy from appendix a of the testers handbook. Appendix a covers corrosion assessment and methods.
The corrosion assessment tool is no bigger than a toffee hammer. - you'd be surprised what can pass legitimately under those guidelines
The approved corrosion test tool
I think spooky approach has best chance of yielding results. Mot test is far to lax and subjective
Unless the corrosion was obvious don't blame the tester. Rule of thumb (from VOSA) is 'pass and advise'. So if tester could not be certain that it was a fail, then 'pass and advise'. It could collapse 3 minutes after leaving the MOT station, but it passed at the time of the test. Very subjective I know.
I'm assuming a Touran? Common (ish) problem and you can't repair - welding not allowed. More than likely scrap unless you DIY.
He's speaking to the garage tomorrow. I'll report back..
Marko, he's had a price for a new rear sub-frame, so it must be a viable repair (at first inspection)
Yeah, he can return it I reckon.
Also, they give advice for a reason..act on it.
Mmm. . .Interesting. Assuming it is a Touran the ECP seem to list the frame at £200. Stupid cheap, but a plenty of labour required + a 4 wheel alignment. I can't see much change out of £1500. I've never done one though, so that's a guess.
At little more info from the MOT history...it's been the same garage for the last five years and apparently, last year the subframe was advisory through corrosion, but it actually wasn't this year, but no work has seemingly been done. Lower arm assemblies also flagged but had been done.
PS, I've sent him the link to this thread and he's very grateful for the advice.,
ECP seem to list the frame at £200. Stupid cheap
Probably a reason for that.
last year the subframe was advisory through corrosion, but it actually wasn’t this year, but no work has seemingly been done.
Not even a lick of paint? A quick spray paint or covering with old engine oil can hide a multitude of sins.
last year the subframe was advisory through corrosion, but it actually wasn’t this year, but no work has seemingly been done. Lower arm assemblies also flagged but had been done.
Trouble is it’s the test persons opinion at the time and what they spot/don’t spot.
Last MOT on our workhorse had no advisory’s despite having some the previous year.
I’ve scrapped a car for corrosion with 8 months MOT. The factory stone chip paint on the sills was structural it turned out when I dug at a small rust spot.
Anecdotal advice, but I had very similar happen last year
Thread here https://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/going-back-to-car-dealer-with-issues/
Mine was 7 months after purchase. I ended up getting rid. Got stiffed on trade-in, but got an extra £250 from the dealer.
The MOT is irrelevant. When buying from a dealer consumer rights applies which have been stated above. I’m repeating, but Within 30 days to 6 months of purchase that car was not fit for purpose, regardless of who/what/when/how the dealer could have or did know that beforehand. “The law assumes the fault was pre-existing” as above. Dealer has one attempt to make good, at their cost, after which they just refund. End of.
I’ve returned a car under such circumstances and had a refund. Dealer did not quibble at all and was very accommodating, was given a courtesy car whilst they attempted a repair. That was a ~6k golf FYI.
Which reminds me of when changing the oil on my fiat uno some 25 ish years ago, I put my finger through the front sub frame. This was a couple of days before its mot was due. Once the oil change was done i whacked a bit of body filler in the hole. The next evening I was back underneath with a paint brush and underseal. The following night I was driving all the local country lanes looking for puddles to splash a bit of mud. The next day I had a new mot. The following Sunday I spent the afternoon going round several scrapyards in the Bristol area before finding a fiat uno.... the 3rd yard had about 6...2 buried beneath serval other cars, 2 with front sub frames far worse than mine, and then I found the one that had clearly got a shiny new one just before something else took it off the road....3 hours later that car was left about 2 foot above the ground balanced on several stacks of wheel rims, and engine and gearbox were dangling beneath as the sub frame was in my greasy hands. £20 it cost me, and a lot of sweat being a hot day. If only cars were as cheap to fix now!
Additional burden for him is that when he got the car, he put a tow bar on it and had a timing chain changed. So he’s already put £700+ into the car so wants to keep it.
I’m repeating, but Within 30 days to 6 months of purchase that car was not fit for purpose, regardless of who/what/when/how the dealer could have or did know that beforehand. “The law assumes the fault was pre-existing” as above. Dealer has one attempt to make good, at their cost, after which they just refund. End
We are talking a car that’s at least 14 years old so well into banger territory. Chances of the dealer making good on this or a court making them is zero given the advisory highlighted the issue.
Which reminds me of when changing the oil on my fiat uno some 25 ish years ago, I put my finger through the front sub frame. This was a couple of days before its mot was due. Once the oil change was done i whacked a bit of body filler in the hole. The next evening I was back underneath with a paint brush and underseal. The following night I was driving all the local country lanes looking for puddles to splash a bit of mud. The next day I had a new mot. The following Sunday I spent the afternoon going round several scrapyards in the Bristol area before finding a fiat uno…. the 3rd yard had about 6…2 buried beneath serval other cars, 2 with front sub frames far worse than mine, and then I found the one that had clearly got a shiny new one just before something else took it off the road….3 hours later that car was left about 2 foot above the ground balanced on several stacks of wheel rims, and engine and gearbox were dangling beneath as the sub frame was in my greasy hands. £20 it cost me, and a lot of sweat being a hot day. If only cars were as cheap to fix now!
Old scrap heaps were ace.
"I need the heavy thing from the engine bay of a Volvo 240"
"Sure mate, you'll find one balanced on top of a washing machine on top of a maestro behind the caravan with no windows, don't go near the dog, the **** bit a customer last week"
Old scrap heaps were ace
I have memories of dangling from a Metro, on top of another car whilst attempting to remove a wing mirror with one wrist in plaster. Those were the days…
Absolutely! I recall being very thankful the answer to my 'how much for this?' Question was a mere £20 as like an idiot I'd not thought to get a price before my 3 hour fight in the oil and dust. I had also not thought to take any water so I was a dry as a bushman crack. I found the nearest shop, bought the largest bottle of water they had and drank the lot.
I'd be making a big thing about the subframe collapsing, especially if there was no advisory for it.
IIRC you can appeal an mot on corrosion for upto 3 months from the date of test. We had DVSA in our work last year inspecting a similar tale of woe.
The vehicle gets taken to an independent test centre, where the owner and previous tester can witness two DVSA inspectors reassessing the vehicle.
Another with memories of scrap yards - getting centrifugal seat belts to retrofit to our Mini, gearbox switches for the 100watt spotlight I put on my Mk1 Escort as a reversing light (so it looked like a rally car despite only being a 1300L) and no end of other stuff that found it’s way (accidentally of course) into my toolbox.
It's more expensive now but a better service via eBay. I just got a new door mirror for the lease car, pretty specific and a relatively new car for £110 removed, checked and delivered.
The same garage for the last 5 years suggests it hasn't been sent to his mate for a dodgy MOT.
One of our cars has had the same rear subframe advisory from the same garage for the last 3 MOTs. I've cleaned it up and keeping an eye on it, but I won't be blaming the tester in the unlikely event that it unexpectedly collapses.
As has been said - it really is very subjective, especially without seeing where the failure is and where the fracture initiated.*
Your friend's course of action is with the seller. Refunding a broken car is going to be expensive, so you'd think they would be keen on facilitating a replacement subframe.
*My day job is laboratory structural durability testing of automotive stuff.
Unless the car was very recently, and obviously, say, launched skywards off a speed hump at 80mph, the dealer claiming subframe collapse on a car they have just sold is "corrosion" is seriously dodgy, would appear on a pre-sale workshop check so the garage probably (ie should..) know this and sounds like they are trying it on.
As far as I can tell for the sale of good act , this happening so soon means the vehicle was not fit for sale so the dealer is at fault.
Nothing at all to do with the MOT, its up to the dealer to be certain that they are selling something that is legit and will work:
Go to CAB and/or trading standards chasing a refund or no cost repair.
you don't need to bother with scrapyards any more as they all break/flog the bits on ebay
rear subframes for sharans and tourans are both under £200 on there, so I suspect the dealer will just buy one, and put the car back right.
I was once in the front boot of a VW 412 in 1983 which was balanced on another car removing the front wings when a Concorde took off right overhead…. The scrapyard was at the end of one of Heathrow runways and the wind was in the right (wrong??) direction. Full afterburners at less than 1000 ft grabbed my attention as everything shook.
edit: a bit like the Fiat, I was getting the wings for my dad’s car as they had rusted through and most others we tried to get were just as bad, this car had obviously recently had new wings as they were pristine and even in the right colour
My son's replaced the front sub-frame on his Fabia, not through corrosion, but a truck dropped it's rear axel right in front of him and it flew into his car and bent the sub frame. Got a used one via ebay and had it changed within the day. You do need the tools and socket's though, fair sized job, but it is just a big bit of metal on the bottom of the car.
Sub frames etc are something I've usually paid attention to on our cars, and they've been sprayed with corrosion inhibitors. Generally check these when servicing the car and before winter.
Son's mate bought an Audi A3 S-Line, about 8 years old. Looked pretty tidy, inside was immaculate, but rear subframe couldn't even be disassembled as it was so badly corroded. Drove it till it failed the MOT then scrapped it.
I use Ebay and on-line scrap yards for parts that are non critical.
My Berlingo which ended up scrapped for other reasons had an advisory for a rusty rear axle going back at least 4 years, oddly didn't appear on it's last one (nothing dodgy, just a different tester).
1) Their axles are notorious for rusting rom the inside out, so if the outside was bad .........
2) The outside rust was so bad you could grab handfulls of the (cast I think) arms/brackets and pull it off.
If it had been anything other than a £600 (at the height of COVID microcamper premium prices) utilitarian shitbox I'd have run a mile, there was so much wrong with that car!
MOT's are a mostly visual check and they can't dismantle/pry into things. If they can't poke a screwdriver through it then it's not considered rusty, if it's behind a plastic cover they can't inspect it. So I think any sort of reporting to VOSA is probably a waste of time. The garage selling it however should have spotted it so I'd focus on that angle (or just get it repaired independently and move on depending on how much it'll cost).