Bought a car with 12months MOT I dont think it should have.

pauldaf44, based on your descriptions I agree with phaetonott's decisions.

You have 3 months from the date of the MOT pass to lodge an appeal with VOSA on the corrosion issues

just what I needed to know thanks people. Second question whats the process for reporting it?

Oh and in anwser to your questions it was purchased from a dealer.

Where there any advises?

Corrosion within a body mount isn't always a failure, but the seatbelt stuff is for sure, unless it was presented with no rear seats fitted.

As Baz has already mentioned, I would have a word with the testing station first - An appeal will not get your car repaired where as a word with the testing station might - Just another option you might want to pursue before going the appeal route.

I also agree with the replies above, and yes it is more in your interest to approach the test station first to see what they say, however the AE's on here should know better than me, but didn't VOSA used to say, "if within 14 days of the issue of a test certificate", that you disagree you can appeal, and say along the lines of 1 month for mechanical and 3 months for corrosion, hence the "if within 14 days of the date of issue" being the important part here for the appeal to take place?

Bear in mind pauldaf44, if the rusty floor was advised, and as you say it is difficult to see from below, the tester has probably given the best he can in the circumstances. He has to be 100% sure the rust is excessive, and 100% sure it is within 30cms, otherwise he has to pass and advise. He's not allowed to lift a Disco boot carpet because it is secured under the threshold trim. That could turn in to a case of "it's technically a fail, but couldn't be failed under test conditions"


Disregarding any MOT / VOSA aspect. The guy has sold the car with an MOT, which implies he sold the car for road use, not "for spares or repair". As such the car must be "fit for purpose". A trade seller is considered to be an expert, he shouldn't be allowed to hide behind "Its got a new ticket". That's a trading standard issue, which is something you may wish to threaten him with.

Im afraid my use of testing words comes from the number of vehicles I put through the MOT test and also the terminology is pretty much the same as that used when covering the construction and use regulations which was a compulsory module on my 2 year training course. I only completed that 2 years ago. I never tried to make out I was a nominated tester and even put in the OP that I am not. I am however in the motor trade and due to my speciality of working with classic cars I need to be more familier with the regulations than other mobile mechanics may need to be as the rules have an annoying habit of changing with the age of the vehicle.

Update to try and make things clearer.

1. No I would not consider the corrosion to be great enough to impair the body security. The reason I queried this is that I have had vehicles fail for pin holes in this area.

2. The offside rear boot floor is corroded to point that daylight is visible through it. The car is a 7 seater and this looks to be within 30cm of the seat belt mounting for the right hand dickie seat. Ive measured it it is within 30cm of both the buckle and belt mounts and clearly visible from under the vehicle. This area was not even advised.

3. The right hand dickie seat buckle has no plastic casing although it does still latch. If that's not an issue fair enough it will be changed anyway as it isn't easy to operate.

4. Underneath the rear seats the boot floor is corroded and holed within 30cm of the centre seat belt mounts. This area was advised and I accept it could not be measured from underneath the vehicle as it is obscured by the vehicles fuel tank. I measured from above after tilting the seats forward and lifting the carpet.

5. The windscreen wipers only operate in the fast wipe position and do not self park. Rather just stopping mid screen and obstructing the drivers view of the road. The position of parking depends on when you turn off the switch and you can tweak them out of the way so fair enough there. No advisory issued

6. A repair in the rear wheel arch within 1cm of the door latching mechanism is only welded on 3 sides. This is also within 30cm of the side seat belt mount. I will get a photo of this when I get the vehicle back no attempt at securing or even masking the it is not secured along the top edge of the patch has been made. No advisory issued

I also do not know how the vehicle was presented for test as it was not me that presented it. But I do know that the tester originally failed item 6 for corrosion within 30cm of a seat belt mounting and accepted the repair on retest, again I will get a photo of the area. Also my regular tester has now looked at the vehicle and confirmed it should have failed.

Im not suprised to find rust in the slightest what I am suprised to find is rot that makes for a failure. I knew the windscreen wipers weren't working properly from test driving the vehicle but also had the price reduced to compensate along with a fair few other issues. I just queried whether they should have passed like that. Over all the vehicle is actually not a bad example all the rot bar the repair in the rear wheelarch is confined to the boot floor and rear crossmember which are easy repairs. Suspension and running gear is working all as it should.

Saying that I don't deny shooting myself in the foot for being far too trusting when buying the car.

That will never happen. Here's a snippet of a post I made when setting up the forum... Click here for full post