138 replies to this topic

[dyshipfakta]

dont worry about the brake pipe join, its original. ( or at least if it isnt, mine has the same join in the same place )

It's not original for sure.

[midridge2]

It is original, I have seen many later models with it joined in the same place.

[blackbelt1990]

It is original, I have seen many later models with it joined in the same place.

What age? I've got a 94 and 92 and I've also never seen that join originally on any mini I've looked at. It's usually a sign of a repair, my o/h's mini has the exact same joint and a repair in the MOT history... but it's a BMW... so fairly late!

Edited by blackbelt1990, 04 May 2016 - 08:45 PM.

[midridge2]

Its all dependant on the type of brake system the mini has fitted. the front and rear subframes were fitted up before instillation so the brake pipes are joined.
one of mine is a 1995 spi and its joined in the same place as per picture

[Decayingdoll]

Quick update;

The garage have called and said they have done more than they originally said they would. He said it wasn't half as bad as he thought it would be - there was no rot under the subframe and all the bolts undone easily.

He said they have used all new parts, which he didn't have to do but he wanted to keep me happy...

New handbrake cable, new rear shockers, brand new bush kit, new brake pipes. Costing him approx £600.

He has rubbed down the underneath and painted it with a white undersill to match the colour of the car.

In the near future, the front just needs a new couple of sills and the drivers side foot well will need sorting. He suggested a new half panel to cover the front.

He's offering the above at trade price (what the body shop will charge him).

Really hoping to go collect her tonight!

[mina08]

Thats great news, if you can afford it get the rest done on the front end for piece of mind and less hassle in the future.

[Broomer]

Should be free not trade price.

[CityEPete]

Should be free not trade price.

I agree, a mini needing a half floor and sills is not worth £7K, even an otherwise tidy Cooper would be £3-4k absolute maximum imo.

It's good that the rear end is being done but the way he is making it sound good that it only needs sills and a drivers floor is a bit daft, top price dealer supplied cars should come with all this sorted 'before' sale.

Edited by CityEPete, 05 May 2016 - 08:21 PM.

[spiguy]

Same view as most people really, it should be free. It's clear to see that you are very fond of the car and just desparate to get on with enjoying it, which is good in a sense as it will help you to move on from the bad experience, however don't let it soften you to the point that you get taken for a ride. 7k should buy a car that needs NO welding whatsoever - the guy vastly over priced it. If that was deliberate, then he is a fraudster. If it was accidental, then he should have the decency to either refund part of the 7k you paid, or bring the car up to the standard it should have been, for no extra cost.

[SuperDeLuxeNick]

i have kept track of this thread and agree with above.

 

£7000

 

£7000 that is. You should have an immaculate Mini for that as you could have bought an cheap resto project and had it professionally restored to your specification for that.

 

He should put the car right - to the standard expected for £7000 and free of charge.

 

Not an easy situation, I appreciate.

[89miniflame]

Got to agree that you should not be paying for this, stand your ground.

[sonikk4]

Rubbish, that front of the floor and sills need doing now not later. The longer its left the worse it will get. £7k for that is utter tripe. I would expect a rust free car for that money. Fight them to get that sorted if not then get some legal advice.

[Badboytunes]

£7k ???? Id get trading standards involved..... That's shocking

[Mrpeanut]

All the comments that you should expect a cracking car for £7k are irrelevant. The op paid that price and seemingly bought the car without inspection. The old maxim of caveat emptor (buyer beware) still exists.

The op has a claim if the car is not fit for purpose, or it didn't match the description. On the face of it she had a claim but not because she paid way over the odds.

What I don't get is why it took so long to act. Delay is a killer in these types of claims. It gives the seller the excuse that the rot set in post sale. We all know that is unlikely but the excuse is there.

This would be a small claim if it were to go to court. Small claims judges vary in abilities. The op may persuade the court that the car arrived in poor nick but she didn't inspect and left it months to complain. The ad from the seller gave warranties about condition that seemed ott. On balance I think the op would persuade a small claims judge to back her but it's not a dead cert winner. Compromise is needed and the deal struck seems sensible in the circumstances.

[spiguy]

All the comments that you should expect a cracking car for £7k are irrelevant. The op paid that price and seemingly bought the car without inspection. The old maxim of caveat emptor (buyer beware) still exists.

The op has a claim if the car is not fit for purpose, or it didn't match the description. On the face of it she had a claim but not because she paid way over the odds.

What I don't get is why it took so long to act. Delay is a killer in these types of claims. It gives the seller the excuse that the rot set in post sale. We all know that is unlikely but the excuse is there.

This would be a small claim if it were to go to court. Small claims judges vary in abilities. The op may persuade the court that the car arrived in poor nick but she didn't inspect and left it months to complain. The ad from the seller gave warranties about condition that seemed ott. On balance I think the op would persuade a small claims judge to back her but it's not a dead cert winner. Compromise is needed and the deal struck seems sensible in the circumstances.

I think you are spot on, however I think all who are commenting regarding the 7k  - myself included - are assuming that the car's description to the buyer matched the price. The OP has quoted the advert "in great condition...."  I think in simple terms if the car was described as being in great condition etc. then they should have a clear case.

 

If it was described as being mint or words to that effect, then I don't think the fact that the OP did not inspect it should detract from the injustice, as it is not reasonable to expect everyone to be able or qualified to carry out such an inspection. It would all hinge on any mismatch between the way the car was presented for sale against it's actual condition, which has since been discovered - I don't actually think the relatively small timescale between purchasing and discovering the true condition is particularly long for a non technical owner.

Edited by spiguy, 07 May 2016 - 08:38 AM.