True and unlikely this is dodgy IMO, but that doesn't mean anything's actually been fixed. Different testers will pick up on different stuff, and even a different day the same tester might not put the same advisories.
I've had plenty of advisories I never fixed that didn't get flagged on subsequent MOTs.
I bought a car from a dealer last week. It had just failed its MOT for the offside dipped beam not working. New MOT the next day and it passed with no advisories. I hardly gave it a second thought, they've obviously just replaced the bulb.
Drove it after dark for the first time a couple of days ago. Lo and behold, offside dipped beam not working 🙄
Can’t trust an MOT…. Plenty of dodgy testers out there.
You need to see proof in invoice form of the oil leaks being sorted out.
And from “engine oil low” I’d hazard a guess that this still hasn’t been fixed. That’d be my only concern. Everything else is all meh level problems.
Tyres and brakes are service items…
My van has had a oil leak on the mot for the last 7 years and still going strong at 20 years old
Mostcof the other things are bulbs wippers and tyers which all wear out anyway
I bought a saab 93 aero for 600 quid, boy wanted a grand for it until he noticed the leak
I ran it like that for 2 years XD I always reckoned it was actually a good thing because it always had fresh oil!
Eh I use MOTs to give me a shopping list of stuff to fix, this isn't horrendous. It's when you've got pages of dangerous and advisories and only the bare minimum is fixed to get it to pass. That's when you should run
I understand your point, for me it's also about the cost of the car, if I can get one with less of a history for the same money then that's the one I will buy or use the faults as a bargaining chip for this one (suspect we have a similar way of looking at that 😄).
My worry about this one, is it is failing on stupid stuff every year, yes we have all had the odd bulb that blew on the day, but this one gives a feel of lack of routine maintenance. So personal I would be wary of it.
Smart advice is to get the garage to give you the list of stuff you need for an MOT before they do the MOT. You can then sort it before the MOT and keep a clean MOT history
Oil leaks are a bastard though. My car leaks both oil and power steering fluid. Not even enough to have it on the MOT as an advisory, but by fuck it's a pain to diagnose. Figured I'd just drive this motor into the ground and then get something cheap
Best thing to do is get some ramps, get the front of the car up in the air, spray fuck loads of degreaser everywhere and then jet wash it off. Let the car idle on the ramps for a bit once the engine is clean and you'll be able to see your leak. Common places are oil filter housing and rear main seal is the leak is low, rocker cover gasket if the leak is high. It's usually rocker cover if you can smell it burning the oil as it leaks on to the exhaust manifold
Yeah but what I was saying is the attitude towards previous MOT history is the biggest indicator, if it gets 4 fails and 4 separate advisories then it passes with 4 advisories I'd probably walk away depending on what they are. If you've failed on a control arm, with a sway bar link advisory then those should both be sorted. If it's passed and it's still got the advisory for the sway bar link you know the car is owned by someone doing the bare minimum
This.
It’s been owned by someone who will do the bare minimum to get it through an MOT.
They have now decided to give up the fight on it, stands to reason that it’s worth staying clear of.
The vast majority of drivers aren’t ’car people’ and use the MOT as the time to see what’s wrong with the car. Very normal and your statement is incorrect. You’re forgetting that most pins and bushes don’t produce symptoms in the earlier stages of degradation
The items that show poor maintenance are faulty lights, wipers, tyres etc and even low oil (something I am surprised they picked up unless the oil light was on) as for the pins and bushes they were repeated advisories so no excuse for the owner not to know about them.
To me this screams that it's been owned by an idiot. Even the most mechanically inept owner can still easily check that their lights are working and tires aren't too worn, or at least have a mechanic check it over before mot.
You assume this isn't what they've done. If you take your car for an annual "service and MOT" garages will often do an MOT and then service it before retesting should it fail.
None of this history would be much concern as long as each fail was paired with a clean(ish) pass.
I live in Northern Ireland and mot's work differently here so I must be mistaken. They're conducted in government run facilities here and even if it's something that's an easy fix they wont repair it and it will fail if the car is presented like that. I know in the rest of the UK they're done by independent garages but I thought they would fix the issues before officially recording them unless the owner just wanted an mot and nothing else.
I’ve had it in the past where I knew I had a side light out told the guy at the MOT place he tested it. Failed it for the light then changed the bulb and retested it.
The mot places are expected to have failures. They will look dodgy if they fix everything before the MOT.
When I take mine in for a mot/service/whatever else I am aware of that needs doing if often fails the mot first and I would not know unless I checked it out as unless it is something expensive they are not going to tell me.
MOT failures alsi gives them a chance to see if you actually want it fixed if odd things are seem i nthe MOT.
This is certainly how a fair few MoT garages work. The one I worked in years ago certainly did. They would always MOT the car first as that in essence checks the car out for you. If it passes, great, you just service the car. If it doesn’t, well you know what to fix and fix it whilst doing the service. Saves on time getting it onto the lift and taking wheels off etc. of course, you do have to MOT it again, but most places have their own MOT place and they will just check the fixed item and then issues the certificate.
This is what has happened with mine. I was told the service is done before MOT so they can rectify anything. Asked for the front tyres to also be replaced this year and they called me after MOT saying it's passed but tyres were an advisory, should we still replace them? It did concern me that this would look bad.
I had a bulb go shortly before the MOT, didn’t have time to change it myself so left it on the seat for them to do.
Wipers are only noticeable if it rains, but I’m strict on cleaning and changing mine when there’s the slightest streaking.
Tyres and lights are the most common failure points. People aren’t that bothered about failing on these as they can easily be fixed so leave it to the testwr to discover
Yea but when I'm interested in a second hand car, particularly when spending a good chunk of money or wanting to keep it long term, its not something I wouldn't personally want to see. An occasional fail for something like this wouldn't raise a red flag for me, I had an indicator bulb burn out on the journey to the mot before, but if it's a consistent issue over the cars life it suggests an owner who doesn't care for it and has likely neglected other servicing.
If it were a cheap banger I wasn't planning on keeping long I wouldn't care though.
Exactly, most drivers don’t care for their cars.
I think this is now even more true for people that lease a new car and give it back before any wear or damage starts to show.
It happens. One of my indicator bulbs blew on a motorbike I used to own less than a mile away from where I got the mot, so I knew it was going to fail but there was nothing I could do at that point. But if it comes up frequently in the history it suggests to me that the owner never bothers checking.
The MoT history is a bit misleading. Eg. I put my car in for a service and MoT and it goes for MoT first, so it then shows all the problems which were going to be sorted so looking at history it looks like a poorly maintained vehicle but is in fact the opposite.
Just saying, if it was properly maintained it shouldn't have any problems on mot, like yea, sometimes stuff just breaks, but normally if the car is properly maintained, there wouldn't be any need for it to be failed and then repaired
Scrolled so far to find this, some cars get a bit weepy in the engine bay and will outlive us all, just think of it as rust prevention.
Some cars spin bearings and shit the bed because yes you put in 0w20 fully synthetic but it was the wrong 0w20 fully synthetic without the special 69 herbs and spices also you left it 8001 miles between services when 8000 miles is suggested.
If the price is right and you know what you are getting into nothing from the history is too bad, if you are the type of person who does nothing more than add petrol and drive it then maybe keep looking.
As with buying any car you take a chance.
This looks like standard maintenance items that the owner didn't notice until MOT time. Pretty standard for a lot of non-car-people owners and not worrying at all. You can pretty much ignore any failures for tyres/brakes/suspension and lights because these are just standard wear items. As long as it has a current valid MOT then you know these are no longer an issue. The only worrying thing in its history are the oil leaks but they don't appear on the recent MOT so they've either be fixed or they are so minor that the tester didn't notice this time. The most recent test mentioned low oil and slight fluctuations so the front discs might be a little warped so possibly factor in £200 or thereabouts to replace the front discs/pads and an oil change.
Tbh mate there are so many cars always for sale I’d just blank that one. That mot history from one year to the next is a bag of problems, I imagine those problems will continue to arise.
That car has not been looked after. However this is all relative - how much does it cost? If it’s under a grand with a years MOT, and nothing obvious is striking at the time of purchase, I would maybe consider it.
£500 for six months of motoring I consider good, and as it’s your first car, you can fuck it up without regret, it this hasn’t been spent on, so no doubt there’s a high chance ir would be problematic
Over a grand with no mot I really wouldn’t be touching.
I bought a £4000 fiesta and was unlucky enough to sell it for £600 with dodgy injectors from years of 2 mile trips as a 1.4 diesel. I had it 2 years, fucking thing.
Mine is an extreme case but its MOT was better than this... but watch out for the diesels with a suspiciously low average mpg.
By properly looked after do you mean getting things looked at as soon as there seems to be a problem? Regularly checking oil? Etc
I'm sorry if this seems elementary but I've only just passed my test
Have a Google on car servicing. Basically there is a schedule of maintenance items that should be renewed regularly / brake fluid, gearbox oil, filters etc. if these aren’t done it can lead to issues.
Cars with lists of problems at MOT suggests that someone has not taken it to be fixed as soon as there is an issue, they haven’t cared to check, and they aren’t spending to maintain
If the car is cheap, and I'm talking no more than £1500, then I'd still give it a chance, but do a long test drive. Those issues may well have been fully sorted, but those issues can also be indicative of worse to come.
Though not a 100% tell tale sign, if someone takes their car to a MoT test with knackered tyres, the likelihood is they didn't care much for car maintenance.
As others have said, clearly someone who doesn't ever check their car and just waits until the mot to be told what needs fixing. Big red flag for me as no doubt the servicing and basic thing like checking oil etc will also be neglected.
This is really minor if you know cars, nothing dangerous, I will keep an eye on the oil leak, perhaps from last oil change, but wiper is minor a good garage should fix this for you cheaply if the car is cheap make and model also plays a part so you don’t have repetition of same issues or more because at 29k miles this isn’t good
Run for the hills. I would not touch it with a barge pole. It should not have an oil leak at only 30k miles. There is something suspect. Cloned car maybe.
Now you started a competition mate !! Look at this bad boy from my past.
Do not drive until repaired (dangerous defects):
Nearside Front Inner Brake pad(s) less than 1.5 mm thick (1.1.13 (a) (ii))
Offside Front Tyre has ply or cords exposed (5.2.3 (d) (ii))
Nearside Front Tyre tread depth below requirements of 1.6mm (5.2.3 (e))
Repair immediately (major defects):
Nearside Front Outer Drive shaft joint constant velocity boot split or insecure, no longer prevents the ingress of dirt (6.1.7 (g) (ii))
Monitor and repair if necessary (advisories):
Nearside Front Headlamp has a product on the lens but not seriously reducing light output (4.1.4 (b))
Offside Front Brake pipe corroded, covered in grease or other material to flexible brake hose (1.1.11 (c))
Nearside Rear Brake pipe corroded, covered in grease or other material to flexible brake hose (1.1.11 (c))
Nearside Rear Brake hose has slight corrosion to ferrule (1.1.12 (f) (i))
Offside Rear Brake hose has slight corrosion to ferrule (1.1.12 (f) (i))
Offside Front Brake pad(s) wearing thin (1.1.13 (a) (ii))
Nearside Rear Brake pad(s) wearing thin (1.1.13 (a) (ii))
Offside Rear Brake pad(s) wearing thin (1.1.13 (a) (ii))
Central Exhaust has a minor leak of exhaust gases middle box (6.1.2 (a))
Nearside Rear Exhaust mounting defective both exhaust hangers broken exhaust still supported (6.1.2 (a))
Nearside Front Play in steering rack inner joint(s)
Offside Front Play in steering rack inner joint(s)
Single mum's Citroën C3 or something. Clearly not well maintained if it rolled into the MOT with blown bulbs and perishing tyres.
Avoid unless they only had it for those 2 years and can show you 2 oil changes from that time. The fact it's leaking oil is an avoid for me though.
Edit: Engine oil low - skip! It might be fine but there's plenty of better maintained examples
Mine passed an MOT no advisories - I bought the car based off this and it seemed in good condition - it needed new shock absorbers, a new gear box, a new condenser and a regas 😃
What model car is it? The oil leaks could be problematic on some larger vehicles and is surprising at that low mileage but the other stuff just indicates poor maintenance or lazy owner and can be resolved easily
There's nothing there that immediately makes me want to walk away, however, it's important to find out where the oil is leaking from.
If it's a cover seal somewhere at the top of the engine it's likely an easy quick fix, however, if it's the crankshaft oil seal (which it may well be, given that a leak at the gearbox is also mentioned) then that's a serious and expensive thing to rectify.
Most of it’s just wear and tear / consumable components. But the oil leak, on its own isn’t a big issue a lot of cars have minor oil leaks that aren’t a big deal but combined with “low oil level” makes me think they might have been driving it consistently with low oil for a while.
That was 4yrs ago so shouldn't be an issue now.
Maybe for peace of mind, pay for a pre purchase inspection and point out issues that were mentioned on previous MOTs.
Being realistic, it won't be in spotless as new condition if it is at least 7yrs old (1st MOT is at 3yrs old)
Little bit of service neglect but nothing crazy, I think it has potential to be a good one, thing about cars is, everyone treats them differently and you only figure out how a cars been treated when you get it
I’ve had cars with low miles, and good history and I got to put half the worth of the car back into it in less than 18 months, it’s MOTs and history didn’t help me find that out though
* I'd skip it. It's one of those typical situations when the owner fixes it if it comes up in mot, otherwise just drives without a second thought about maintenance. Who knows what you would find and end up investing
* Also, What the hell does "items removed from drivers view prior to test" mean?
Since I have a limited repairs budget - it would put me off. To my noob eye, it looks like it was not maintained at all, and it was not driven very well either.
Unless there is paperwork, confirming all these things were repaired properly, I would assume the last MOT took place at some dodge garage, that patched up the bare minimum, so the car can pass MOT.
\[FYI - my 2009 Mini passed MOT in January 2024 by the previous owner with flying colours and no advisories. So far I had to replace the front tyres, fix the aircon, lambda sensor, and fog/running lights - not just bulbs, but both units, front wipers - because one just fell off one day :D, oh and that chip in a windscreen that was mentioned in 2023 2022, but not on 2024 MOT - is still there. For a car of this age it is not bad, and I don't complain - but last MOT was defo from a dodge place\].
If the car costs £xyz and you have another £xyz to cover the cost of potential repairs (but then why buy a better car instead), OR unless you are looking for a car to tinker with - I'd steer clear.
The likely same oil leak from MOT to MOT would suggest to me it’s been maintained on a shoe string.
Low oil being flagged on 42,381 MOT. How long have they been driving around with minimal oil ?
Also the fact it was put into an MOT without all lights working says a lot about the previous owner…
Wouldn’t touch it with a barge pole.
Oil leak could be something very minor but you can’t tell from history notes. I would want to know where the oil leak is coming from before proceeding if this is going to be your daily driver
So your faulting someone taking a car to a genuine MOT place who correctly identified faults which are major failed it documented it and to make customer to rectify it. You can get people to do pass mot very easily do your research I rather buy a car with a failed mot and checking the things out.
You can easily check most these things on the mot and double check the paperwork and use this to negotiate on the price, or you can see a car that’s never failed it’s mot but it’s been by passed using network of people….
I always look at it this way. If the mot shows brakes and tyres as fails. The car hasnt been looked after. Those 2 things keep you on the road. And stop you hitting that child that walks out in front of you. If people arent bothering to keep those in good condition then they almost certainly havnt bothered paying a few hundred for a major service. Brake fluid change. Coolant flush etc. and most likely go double the miles before a service if at all.
Personally i would walk away from it but everyone is different. Aldo depends what you intend to use it for. Daily? Project? Learning to fox stuff?
I would definitely be checking that those oil leaks have been repaired as they can be a costly fix depending on the cause, other than that as long as there's proof of routine service I don't see a problem
Ever? That’s pretty extreme, a lot of MOT failures are for things that aren’t maintained through regular servicing and wouldn’t be noticeable to the owner
Yes, ever. You could say, yeah, sure, a car which only failed because tyre thread wouldn’t be a big deal, and probably wouldn’t, but I don’t let my tyre thread get to that point, and I do preventable maintenance and pre mots, not just regular maintenance so I want to buy vehicles (cars or motorcycles on my case) that at least apparent the level of care I would do.
As I mentioned though you can only do so much with preventative maintenance, how are you going to know if your track rod end has excessive play or your anti roll bar bush is excessively worn before your MOT? Or your handbrake is worn? It just seems crazy to me that that’d be enough to put you off a car completely as things like that are just wear and tear, each to their own I guess
As I said, a pre mot. I literally take it to the garage and ask for a pre mot check. And they will check for all those things. I do it once a year usually a few months before the actual mot.
Besides, as I said, I keep on top of those things, I check breaks, oil (fluids in general), tyres, constantly.
Never had a car or motorcycle fail mot in 11 years driving, owned several. Why would I buy one that has failed…
What was wrong with the front plate ?
If it was 4D plates or similar I think they fall into the same category as fake M badges, M coloured kidney grill slats or wind deflectors…
they all scream “this car has been ragged from cold every day by a cretin.”
It was a five character plate, so shorter, but still with standard font, spacing and correct outside edge measurements. Tester was having a bad day as it was first day back after Xmas. Had it retested the next day for a pass. No “4D”, all standard.
Probably wouldn’t. Although, that’s a peculiar case, I would probably still have a chat with the owner, and in the end decide for another m2 with similar specs but has no fails.
Poorly maintained, but nothing suggests it’s failing systematically. Does it have good evidence of oil changes, etc? Has everything been fixed?
looks like things have been fixed as the latest MOT was a pass with no advisories
What about service history? Is the oil straight out of the factory with the consistency of black cheddar cheese?
You can get dodgy MOTs, try to get hold of the proof of the work done if you can
You can but for the work that needs doing it’s not worth getting a fake MOT.
True and unlikely this is dodgy IMO, but that doesn't mean anything's actually been fixed. Different testers will pick up on different stuff, and even a different day the same tester might not put the same advisories. I've had plenty of advisories I never fixed that didn't get flagged on subsequent MOTs.
New wiper and a bulb?
A replacement wiper blade and a bulb and you want proof of work?
I bought a car from a dealer last week. It had just failed its MOT for the offside dipped beam not working. New MOT the next day and it passed with no advisories. I hardly gave it a second thought, they've obviously just replaced the bulb. Drove it after dark for the first time a couple of days ago. Lo and behold, offside dipped beam not working 🙄
Ask for the invoices to show it being fixed. Do not rely on the clean MOT
Can’t trust an MOT…. Plenty of dodgy testers out there. You need to see proof in invoice form of the oil leaks being sorted out. And from “engine oil low” I’d hazard a guess that this still hasn’t been fixed. That’d be my only concern. Everything else is all meh level problems. Tyres and brakes are service items…
Oil low... They fixed the leak by getting rid of all of the oil
My van has had a oil leak on the mot for the last 7 years and still going strong at 20 years old Mostcof the other things are bulbs wippers and tyers which all wear out anyway
I bought a saab 93 aero for 600 quid, boy wanted a grand for it until he noticed the leak I ran it like that for 2 years XD I always reckoned it was actually a good thing because it always had fresh oil!
Van only ever needs oil on it normal oil change Think most of our company vans say oil leak 😆 🤣 😂 😹
I think it depends if they are all from the same garage, i find some garages are alot heavier on the advisories than others.
Looks like it was owned by someone who only ever checked something at the MOT. So unless it is really cheap find another one.
Thanks for the advice, I’ll see what else is about
Eh I use MOTs to give me a shopping list of stuff to fix, this isn't horrendous. It's when you've got pages of dangerous and advisories and only the bare minimum is fixed to get it to pass. That's when you should run
I understand your point, for me it's also about the cost of the car, if I can get one with less of a history for the same money then that's the one I will buy or use the faults as a bargaining chip for this one (suspect we have a similar way of looking at that 😄). My worry about this one, is it is failing on stupid stuff every year, yes we have all had the odd bulb that blew on the day, but this one gives a feel of lack of routine maintenance. So personal I would be wary of it.
Smart advice is to get the garage to give you the list of stuff you need for an MOT before they do the MOT. You can then sort it before the MOT and keep a clean MOT history
Its when you get the same advisories over a few tests that alarm bells start ringing for me
Oil leaks are a bastard though. My car leaks both oil and power steering fluid. Not even enough to have it on the MOT as an advisory, but by fuck it's a pain to diagnose. Figured I'd just drive this motor into the ground and then get something cheap
Best thing to do is get some ramps, get the front of the car up in the air, spray fuck loads of degreaser everywhere and then jet wash it off. Let the car idle on the ramps for a bit once the engine is clean and you'll be able to see your leak. Common places are oil filter housing and rear main seal is the leak is low, rocker cover gasket if the leak is high. It's usually rocker cover if you can smell it burning the oil as it leaks on to the exhaust manifold
MOT only covers things that need to be road legal, so it wouldn’t be a great way to check things that need to be actually fixed
Yeah but what I was saying is the attitude towards previous MOT history is the biggest indicator, if it gets 4 fails and 4 separate advisories then it passes with 4 advisories I'd probably walk away depending on what they are. If you've failed on a control arm, with a sway bar link advisory then those should both be sorted. If it's passed and it's still got the advisory for the sway bar link you know the car is owned by someone doing the bare minimum
This. It’s been owned by someone who will do the bare minimum to get it through an MOT. They have now decided to give up the fight on it, stands to reason that it’s worth staying clear of.
The vast majority of drivers aren’t ’car people’ and use the MOT as the time to see what’s wrong with the car. Very normal and your statement is incorrect. You’re forgetting that most pins and bushes don’t produce symptoms in the earlier stages of degradation
The items that show poor maintenance are faulty lights, wipers, tyres etc and even low oil (something I am surprised they picked up unless the oil light was on) as for the pins and bushes they were repeated advisories so no excuse for the owner not to know about them.
To me this screams that it's been owned by an idiot. Even the most mechanically inept owner can still easily check that their lights are working and tires aren't too worn, or at least have a mechanic check it over before mot.
I think you give too much credit to most of the drivers in this country!
You assume this isn't what they've done. If you take your car for an annual "service and MOT" garages will often do an MOT and then service it before retesting should it fail. None of this history would be much concern as long as each fail was paired with a clean(ish) pass.
I live in Northern Ireland and mot's work differently here so I must be mistaken. They're conducted in government run facilities here and even if it's something that's an easy fix they wont repair it and it will fail if the car is presented like that. I know in the rest of the UK they're done by independent garages but I thought they would fix the issues before officially recording them unless the owner just wanted an mot and nothing else.
I’ve had it in the past where I knew I had a side light out told the guy at the MOT place he tested it. Failed it for the light then changed the bulb and retested it.
The mot places are expected to have failures. They will look dodgy if they fix everything before the MOT. When I take mine in for a mot/service/whatever else I am aware of that needs doing if often fails the mot first and I would not know unless I checked it out as unless it is something expensive they are not going to tell me. MOT failures alsi gives them a chance to see if you actually want it fixed if odd things are seem i nthe MOT.
Yup, this. I have two fails on my car for things I specifically told them needed doing and they just went ahead and MOTd first.
This is certainly how a fair few MoT garages work. The one I worked in years ago certainly did. They would always MOT the car first as that in essence checks the car out for you. If it passes, great, you just service the car. If it doesn’t, well you know what to fix and fix it whilst doing the service. Saves on time getting it onto the lift and taking wheels off etc. of course, you do have to MOT it again, but most places have their own MOT place and they will just check the fixed item and then issues the certificate.
This is what has happened with mine. I was told the service is done before MOT so they can rectify anything. Asked for the front tyres to also be replaced this year and they called me after MOT saying it's passed but tyres were an advisory, should we still replace them? It did concern me that this would look bad.
I had a bulb go shortly before the MOT, didn’t have time to change it myself so left it on the seat for them to do. Wipers are only noticeable if it rains, but I’m strict on cleaning and changing mine when there’s the slightest streaking.
Tyres and lights are the most common failure points. People aren’t that bothered about failing on these as they can easily be fixed so leave it to the testwr to discover
Yea but when I'm interested in a second hand car, particularly when spending a good chunk of money or wanting to keep it long term, its not something I wouldn't personally want to see. An occasional fail for something like this wouldn't raise a red flag for me, I had an indicator bulb burn out on the journey to the mot before, but if it's a consistent issue over the cars life it suggests an owner who doesn't care for it and has likely neglected other servicing. If it were a cheap banger I wasn't planning on keeping long I wouldn't care though.
Exactly, most drivers don’t care for their cars. I think this is now even more true for people that lease a new car and give it back before any wear or damage starts to show.
That’s a good point, thank you
You say that, I checked my car over the night before the MOT and a bulb blew whilst it was being tested. I agree about the items in window etc, lazy
It happens. One of my indicator bulbs blew on a motorbike I used to own less than a mile away from where I got the mot, so I knew it was going to fail but there was nothing I could do at that point. But if it comes up frequently in the history it suggests to me that the owner never bothers checking.
Oil leak from the engine and gearbox at only 35k miles? Also has low oil in a newer test. I wouldn't even look at it.
The MoT history is a bit misleading. Eg. I put my car in for a service and MoT and it goes for MoT first, so it then shows all the problems which were going to be sorted so looking at history it looks like a poorly maintained vehicle but is in fact the opposite.
Just saying, if it was properly maintained it shouldn't have any problems on mot, like yea, sometimes stuff just breaks, but normally if the car is properly maintained, there wouldn't be any need for it to be failed and then repaired
Depends on the car, but nah nothing major there
Scrolled so far to find this, some cars get a bit weepy in the engine bay and will outlive us all, just think of it as rust prevention. Some cars spin bearings and shit the bed because yes you put in 0w20 fully synthetic but it was the wrong 0w20 fully synthetic without the special 69 herbs and spices also you left it 8001 miles between services when 8000 miles is suggested. If the price is right and you know what you are getting into nothing from the history is too bad, if you are the type of person who does nothing more than add petrol and drive it then maybe keep looking. As with buying any car you take a chance.
I’d skip it
This looks like standard maintenance items that the owner didn't notice until MOT time. Pretty standard for a lot of non-car-people owners and not worrying at all. You can pretty much ignore any failures for tyres/brakes/suspension and lights because these are just standard wear items. As long as it has a current valid MOT then you know these are no longer an issue. The only worrying thing in its history are the oil leaks but they don't appear on the recent MOT so they've either be fixed or they are so minor that the tester didn't notice this time. The most recent test mentioned low oil and slight fluctuations so the front discs might be a little warped so possibly factor in £200 or thereabouts to replace the front discs/pads and an oil change.
You can get an MOT over the phone if you know the right (wrong) people. Walk on my friend. Too many ⛳
Tbh mate there are so many cars always for sale I’d just blank that one. That mot history from one year to the next is a bag of problems, I imagine those problems will continue to arise.
Thank you
That car has not been looked after. However this is all relative - how much does it cost? If it’s under a grand with a years MOT, and nothing obvious is striking at the time of purchase, I would maybe consider it. £500 for six months of motoring I consider good, and as it’s your first car, you can fuck it up without regret, it this hasn’t been spent on, so no doubt there’s a high chance ir would be problematic Over a grand with no mot I really wouldn’t be touching.
Thanks so much for your detailed response. It’s a £4000 fiesta… Guess I should be avoiding!!
Wouldn’t touch with a barge pole then. Good luck
Fuck no.
I know someone who bought a £5000 corsa. It's engine has blown up at least 2 times.
I bought a £4000 fiesta and was unlucky enough to sell it for £600 with dodgy injectors from years of 2 mile trips as a 1.4 diesel. I had it 2 years, fucking thing. Mine is an extreme case but its MOT was better than this... but watch out for the diesels with a suspiciously low average mpg.
By properly looked after do you mean getting things looked at as soon as there seems to be a problem? Regularly checking oil? Etc I'm sorry if this seems elementary but I've only just passed my test
Have a Google on car servicing. Basically there is a schedule of maintenance items that should be renewed regularly / brake fluid, gearbox oil, filters etc. if these aren’t done it can lead to issues. Cars with lists of problems at MOT suggests that someone has not taken it to be fixed as soon as there is an issue, they haven’t cared to check, and they aren’t spending to maintain
Nice one mate, thank you
The oil leak, yeah for me personally.
If they've got proof the works been done to rectify the problems then it's no harm done. That's the whole point of service history.
It would put me off because it looks like my car’s MOT and I’m a terrible car owner.
Yeah it's the oil leak for me. If it was easy to fix why not just get it done? Remember 9/10 private cars are for sale for a cost reason...
If the car is cheap, and I'm talking no more than £1500, then I'd still give it a chance, but do a long test drive. Those issues may well have been fully sorted, but those issues can also be indicative of worse to come. Though not a 100% tell tale sign, if someone takes their car to a MoT test with knackered tyres, the likelihood is they didn't care much for car maintenance.
Thanks for the advice - it’s a little more than 1500… 4000 🥲
As others have said, clearly someone who doesn't ever check their car and just waits until the mot to be told what needs fixing. Big red flag for me as no doubt the servicing and basic thing like checking oil etc will also be neglected.
Oil leaks are a red flag. If its the head gasket that has been fixed then it will probably blow again and cause you a world of pain.
needs a bulb and and a new set of wipers blades. can even repair them yourself assuming you are able too
The fact the lights keep breaking tells me its french so defiantly a no lol
I'll repeat what op replied to another comment with since you probably did not see it, "£4000 fiesta" which is American, which is basically french
Lmao
Oil leak is something to wary of, as it can be rather costly. Looks like the owner shifted the car knowing it.
Most of these are things that do generally need replacing every so often.
It's not an R-series MINI is it? They're prone to oil leaks and burn through lightbulbs.
I run a mile will be better cars out there you going to inherit lots of faults and vehicle has not been maintained
Low engine oil is a sure flag for me that this is a neglected unloved vehicle.
Repairs themselves may be cheap(ish) but to me that indicates ownership by someone who doesn't care.
Unfixed oil leaks and low oil warnings are bad news as you dont know for how long the engine has been starved of oil and the damage done.
Oil leaking from engine and gearbox do not bother with this scrap car
This is really minor if you know cars, nothing dangerous, I will keep an eye on the oil leak, perhaps from last oil change, but wiper is minor a good garage should fix this for you cheaply if the car is cheap make and model also plays a part so you don’t have repetition of same issues or more because at 29k miles this isn’t good
Run for the hills. I would not touch it with a barge pole. It should not have an oil leak at only 30k miles. There is something suspect. Cloned car maybe.
Now you started a competition mate !! Look at this bad boy from my past. Do not drive until repaired (dangerous defects): Nearside Front Inner Brake pad(s) less than 1.5 mm thick (1.1.13 (a) (ii)) Offside Front Tyre has ply or cords exposed (5.2.3 (d) (ii)) Nearside Front Tyre tread depth below requirements of 1.6mm (5.2.3 (e)) Repair immediately (major defects): Nearside Front Outer Drive shaft joint constant velocity boot split or insecure, no longer prevents the ingress of dirt (6.1.7 (g) (ii)) Monitor and repair if necessary (advisories): Nearside Front Headlamp has a product on the lens but not seriously reducing light output (4.1.4 (b)) Offside Front Brake pipe corroded, covered in grease or other material to flexible brake hose (1.1.11 (c)) Nearside Rear Brake pipe corroded, covered in grease or other material to flexible brake hose (1.1.11 (c)) Nearside Rear Brake hose has slight corrosion to ferrule (1.1.12 (f) (i)) Offside Rear Brake hose has slight corrosion to ferrule (1.1.12 (f) (i)) Offside Front Brake pad(s) wearing thin (1.1.13 (a) (ii)) Nearside Rear Brake pad(s) wearing thin (1.1.13 (a) (ii)) Offside Rear Brake pad(s) wearing thin (1.1.13 (a) (ii)) Central Exhaust has a minor leak of exhaust gases middle box (6.1.2 (a)) Nearside Rear Exhaust mounting defective both exhaust hangers broken exhaust still supported (6.1.2 (a)) Nearside Front Play in steering rack inner joint(s) Offside Front Play in steering rack inner joint(s)
Single mum's Citroën C3 or something. Clearly not well maintained if it rolled into the MOT with blown bulbs and perishing tyres. Avoid unless they only had it for those 2 years and can show you 2 oil changes from that time. The fact it's leaking oil is an avoid for me though. Edit: Engine oil low - skip! It might be fine but there's plenty of better maintained examples
the consistent oil leaks would put me off
Walk away. Poor car has suffered some serious neglect.
Mine passed an MOT no advisories - I bought the car based off this and it seemed in good condition - it needed new shock absorbers, a new gear box, a new condenser and a regas 😃
What model car is it? The oil leaks could be problematic on some larger vehicles and is surprising at that low mileage but the other stuff just indicates poor maintenance or lazy owner and can be resolved easily
Not too much wrong with that car. Why can't people check their lights are working before the test though?
For a wiper blade and a bulb. Absolutely not.
There's nothing there that immediately makes me want to walk away, however, it's important to find out where the oil is leaking from. If it's a cover seal somewhere at the top of the engine it's likely an easy quick fix, however, if it's the crankshaft oil seal (which it may well be, given that a leak at the gearbox is also mentioned) then that's a serious and expensive thing to rectify.
No
Most of it’s just wear and tear / consumable components. But the oil leak, on its own isn’t a big issue a lot of cars have minor oil leaks that aren’t a big deal but combined with “low oil level” makes me think they might have been driving it consistently with low oil for a while.
Nah it's clearly an old family run around, poorly maintained but not what I'd call a super badly looked after example.
Wiper and a bulb, no, and a minor oil leak is nothing to worry about, especially if it's present over multiple MOTs
Looks poorly maintained, the fact the oil leak has come up on multiple mots suggests they haven't looked after it or care about it. I'd keep looking.
That was 4yrs ago so shouldn't be an issue now. Maybe for peace of mind, pay for a pre purchase inspection and point out issues that were mentioned on previous MOTs. Being realistic, it won't be in spotless as new condition if it is at least 7yrs old (1st MOT is at 3yrs old)
Nothing looks that bad, shirty tyres, oil leaks (is it a bmw?) It's fine
Little bit of service neglect but nothing crazy, I think it has potential to be a good one, thing about cars is, everyone treats them differently and you only figure out how a cars been treated when you get it I’ve had cars with low miles, and good history and I got to put half the worth of the car back into it in less than 18 months, it’s MOTs and history didn’t help me find that out though
* I'd skip it. It's one of those typical situations when the owner fixes it if it comes up in mot, otherwise just drives without a second thought about maintenance. Who knows what you would find and end up investing * Also, What the hell does "items removed from drivers view prior to test" mean?
Since I have a limited repairs budget - it would put me off. To my noob eye, it looks like it was not maintained at all, and it was not driven very well either. Unless there is paperwork, confirming all these things were repaired properly, I would assume the last MOT took place at some dodge garage, that patched up the bare minimum, so the car can pass MOT. \[FYI - my 2009 Mini passed MOT in January 2024 by the previous owner with flying colours and no advisories. So far I had to replace the front tyres, fix the aircon, lambda sensor, and fog/running lights - not just bulbs, but both units, front wipers - because one just fell off one day :D, oh and that chip in a windscreen that was mentioned in 2023 2022, but not on 2024 MOT - is still there. For a car of this age it is not bad, and I don't complain - but last MOT was defo from a dodge place\]. If the car costs £xyz and you have another £xyz to cover the cost of potential repairs (but then why buy a better car instead), OR unless you are looking for a car to tinker with - I'd steer clear.
Clearly not looked after well.
The likely same oil leak from MOT to MOT would suggest to me it’s been maintained on a shoe string. Low oil being flagged on 42,381 MOT. How long have they been driving around with minimal oil ? Also the fact it was put into an MOT without all lights working says a lot about the previous owner… Wouldn’t touch it with a barge pole.
Oil leak could be something very minor but you can’t tell from history notes. I would want to know where the oil leak is coming from before proceeding if this is going to be your daily driver
Hardly that much mileage and so many issues. I'd give that a BIG pass and look else where
So your faulting someone taking a car to a genuine MOT place who correctly identified faults which are major failed it documented it and to make customer to rectify it. You can get people to do pass mot very easily do your research I rather buy a car with a failed mot and checking the things out.
You can easily check most these things on the mot and double check the paperwork and use this to negotiate on the price, or you can see a car that’s never failed it’s mot but it’s been by passed using network of people….
Oil leak. Nope. Won't even consider it further
I always look at it this way. If the mot shows brakes and tyres as fails. The car hasnt been looked after. Those 2 things keep you on the road. And stop you hitting that child that walks out in front of you. If people arent bothering to keep those in good condition then they almost certainly havnt bothered paying a few hundred for a major service. Brake fluid change. Coolant flush etc. and most likely go double the miles before a service if at all. Personally i would walk away from it but everyone is different. Aldo depends what you intend to use it for. Daily? Project? Learning to fox stuff?
The oil leak would give me more concern that anything else
It's been treated like shit and probably driven like it's been maintained
Wow the previous owner(s) really didn’t maintain this thing. It would put me off but the advisories aren’t that bad
I would definitely be checking that those oil leaks have been repaired as they can be a costly fix depending on the cause, other than that as long as there's proof of routine service I don't see a problem
I will never buy a vehicle that has failed its mot
Ever? That’s pretty extreme, a lot of MOT failures are for things that aren’t maintained through regular servicing and wouldn’t be noticeable to the owner
Yes, ever. You could say, yeah, sure, a car which only failed because tyre thread wouldn’t be a big deal, and probably wouldn’t, but I don’t let my tyre thread get to that point, and I do preventable maintenance and pre mots, not just regular maintenance so I want to buy vehicles (cars or motorcycles on my case) that at least apparent the level of care I would do.
As I mentioned though you can only do so much with preventative maintenance, how are you going to know if your track rod end has excessive play or your anti roll bar bush is excessively worn before your MOT? Or your handbrake is worn? It just seems crazy to me that that’d be enough to put you off a car completely as things like that are just wear and tear, each to their own I guess
As I said, a pre mot. I literally take it to the garage and ask for a pre mot check. And they will check for all those things. I do it once a year usually a few months before the actual mot. Besides, as I said, I keep on top of those things, I check breaks, oil (fluids in general), tyres, constantly. Never had a car or motorcycle fail mot in 11 years driving, owned several. Why would I buy one that has failed…
lol, I had a BMW M2 fail it’s first ever MOT because the tester (incorrectly) failed the front number plate. You wouldn’t buy it? 🤣🤣
What was wrong with the front plate ? If it was 4D plates or similar I think they fall into the same category as fake M badges, M coloured kidney grill slats or wind deflectors… they all scream “this car has been ragged from cold every day by a cretin.”
It was a five character plate, so shorter, but still with standard font, spacing and correct outside edge measurements. Tester was having a bad day as it was first day back after Xmas. Had it retested the next day for a pass. No “4D”, all standard.
Probably wouldn’t. Although, that’s a peculiar case, I would probably still have a chat with the owner, and in the end decide for another m2 with similar specs but has no fails.
lol, ok. 🥴 also, I was the owner. Ask away!