Alfa_Delta
New member
Why is it that people put, when selling a car "Good condition for year" and in the same advert "No MOT"?
If you are trying to sell a car surely it's worth the expense of a fresh MOT as without it the car is technically usesless as a car.
If it is good condition "for its year" then surely it must therefore be capable of passing an MOT as other cars of the same (or older) year are still being used on the road and still capable of passing an MOT.
In my book, a car with no MOT is worth little more than scrap value unless its something a bit special.
If it's not turned a wheel in ten years, make the effort to get the thing running and get it to an MOT station. Even if it doesn't pass, selling a car with an up to date failure certificate showing exactly what it needs to get it back on the road is surely more meaningful then selling a car as "Good condition for year - No MOT" as if putting "for year" cancels out the "good condition" statement.
Having looked at many cars that were described as such I have to say "poor condition - even for a car that is twice its age" would be, in 90% of cases, a more accurate description...
It is just me?
If you are trying to sell a car surely it's worth the expense of a fresh MOT as without it the car is technically usesless as a car.
If it is good condition "for its year" then surely it must therefore be capable of passing an MOT as other cars of the same (or older) year are still being used on the road and still capable of passing an MOT.
In my book, a car with no MOT is worth little more than scrap value unless its something a bit special.
If it's not turned a wheel in ten years, make the effort to get the thing running and get it to an MOT station. Even if it doesn't pass, selling a car with an up to date failure certificate showing exactly what it needs to get it back on the road is surely more meaningful then selling a car as "Good condition for year - No MOT" as if putting "for year" cancels out the "good condition" statement.
Having looked at many cars that were described as such I have to say "poor condition - even for a car that is twice its age" would be, in 90% of cases, a more accurate description...
It is just me?