Reply to: Is it possible to get an address for a car reg?

[malvolio]

sadly one of us may be when it crashes into us.

Very true. But in my defence, you missed this bit "Both inner edges wearing unevenly". That implies an wheel that is not rotating evenly or a badly aligned suspension with possibly some lost motion..

Although we are discussing a Skoda...

[vetran]

If they have done a rebuild of the front suspension, missing a damaged/ineffective dust cover is negligence. They only cost a couple of quid. You have to ask what else they have skimped on...

As for the tyres, camber won't make the wear uneven, that is a symptom of something else being wrong.

Anyway, none of us will be anywhere near the damn thing again, so who really cares. Apart from the idiot/sucker that bought it of course...

A major cause of inside tire wear is a car's front end being out of alignment. This can be caused by hitting pot holes, curbs or driving on rough roads. Tire alignment is done by adjusting the "camber" of the car which refers to how straight up and down your tires are when looking at them from the front. If the bottoms of the tires lean to the outside, you have negative camber which can cause excessive inner tire wear.

sadly one of us may be when it crashes into us.

[malvolio]

the dust cover is a normal defect if that was the side damaged you would expect it to be replaced but not always.

The tyre wear is possibly camber but it was on the rear so it probably suffered before - did you have very worn tyres?

https://itstillruns.com/causes-insid...r-7205478.html

If they have done a rebuild of the front suspension, missing a damaged/ineffective dust cover is negligence. They only cost a couple of quid. You have to ask what else they have skimped on...

As for the tyres, camber won't make the wear uneven, that is a symptom of something else being wrong.

Anyway, none of us will be anywhere near the damn thing again, so who really cares. Apart from the idiot/sucker that bought it of course...

[vetran]

I think all the work would have been done on the super cheap to have any chance of making money. I even took out the radio.

the dust cover is a normal defect if that was the side damaged you would expect it to be replaced but not always.

The tyre wear is possibly camber but it was on the rear so it probably suffered before - did you have very worn tyres?

https://itstillruns.com/causes-insid...r-7205478.html

[ladymuck]

IIRC a write off has to go through an enhanced MOT before it's allowed back on the road? Maybe the defects noted on the most recent one were items missed in the repairs and subsequently fixed before sale.

Going slightly OT, this is something that very much annoys my Dad. He put his car in for an MOT, knowing that it needed a couple of new tyres on it. Told the garage "replace the tyres then do the MOT". They did the MOT first and put an advisory on the tyres before then replacing them so the MOT history now has an unnecessary advisory entry.

[SueEllen]

I think all the work would have been done on the super cheap to have any chance of making money. I even took out the radio.

It was probably sold at auction to someone who did the car up themselves.

There are still people around me who put one of their cars up on blocks and do them up themselves.

[hairymouse]

My point was the two advisories were unsettling:

Repair as soon as possible (minor defects):

• Nearside Front Anti-roll bar linkage ball joint dust cover severely deteriorated (5.3.4 (b) (i))

Monitor and repair if necessary (advisories):

• Rear Tyre worn close to legal limit/worn on edge Both inner edges wearing unevenly (5.2.3 (e))

The first is only a dust cover, but if the front suspension had been extensively repaired (as per the OP's comments), why omit such a trivial item. The second indicated far more problems than just a worn tyre - such as why is it wearing unevenly? It also failed initially on headlamp alignment on both sides, so clearly the repair work wasn't done particularly carefully.

I think all the work would have been done on the super cheap to have any chance of making money. I even took out the radio.

[NotAllThere]

no I never said it couldn't be driven just that it should be on its history and asking your insurer why its back on the road if it had serious damage is a reasonable action.

Well, according to the RAC link, it'll be the new drivers' insurance who'll tell him it was a (former) write off.

[vetran]

Depends on the category of the write-off. Write-off just means that it's cheaper to buy the car off you than fix it. Or the repair cost is higher than the value of the car. It doesn't mean "can never be driven again".

https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/k...nce-write-off/

no I never said it couldn't be driven just that it should be on its history and asking your insurer why its back on the road if it had serious damage is a reasonable action.

[malvolio]

Depends on the category of the write-off. Write-off just means that it's cheaper to buy the car off you than fix it. Or the repair cost is higher than the value of the car. It doesn't mean "can never be driven again".

https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/k...nce-write-off/

My point was the two advisories were unsettling:

Repair as soon as possible (minor defects):

• Nearside Front Anti-roll bar linkage ball joint dust cover severely deteriorated (5.3.4 (b) (i))

Monitor and repair if necessary (advisories):

• Rear Tyre worn close to legal limit/worn on edge Both inner edges wearing unevenly (5.2.3 (e))

The first is only a dust cover, but if the front suspension had been extensively repaired (as per the OP's comments), why omit such a trivial item. The second indicated far more problems than just a worn tyre - such as why is it wearing unevenly? It also failed initially on headlamp alignment on both sides, so clearly the repair work wasn't done particularly carefully.

[northernladuk]

https://www.gov.uk/request-information-from-dvla

You can ask for information that DVLA holds about:

• you
• your current vehicle
• a vehicle that used to be registered in your name

But it won't tell the OP anything about where it is now and who's got it. That's just akin to a GDPR request for information about you so doesn't help the OP.

[NotAllThere]

If it had been written off that should be on its history most car sites show this. One would want to ask the insurer if they know its been revived? Their sub contractor may be culpable.

Depends on the category of the write-off. Write-off just means that it's cheaper to buy the car off you than fix it. Or the repair cost is higher than the value of the car. It doesn't mean "can never be driven again".

https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/k...nce-write-off/

[Protagoras]

https://www.gov.uk/request-information-from-dvla

You can ask for information that DVLA holds about:

• you
• your current vehicle
• a vehicle that used to be registered in your name

[vetran]

I see, that makes sense. It had been hit by a bin lorry and the front wheel was completely bent. I guess it had to marked as written off so the buyer can't be surprised.

If it had been written off that should be on its history most car sites show this. One would want to ask the insurer if they know its been revived? Their sub contractor may be culpable.

[cojak]

I see, that makes sense. It had been hit by a bin lorry and the front wheel was completely bent. I guess it had to marked as written off so the buyer can't be surprised.

If it had been bought by a dodgy chop shop and done up then sold on, then you can bet your boots the new owner will be surprised…