Inspection expectations: What would you do?

[Sharn]

So, long story here guys, wanting some other opinions before I decide what to do next...

I purchased a bike privately after having it put thru a pre-purchase inspection at an mta approved shop. I'm no mechanic, and I have little knowledge of 'what to look for', hence seeking an expert opinion to base my purchase on. The amount I paid for the bike was based on the minor inconsistencies identified (fairings damaged from falling over, clutch dragging etc). Two weeks and 200km later I got the bike serviced and found several things that I didn't know about including a decent rocker cover leak, a dented radiator, indications of a decent crash, possible indications of being a race bike (spacer added to shock), painted, sanded and repainted frame, damage to swingarm from the exhaust bouncing around etc. It appears to me as though a torch hasn't even been shone in the fairings, and multiple items on the associations checksheet have not been considered (they did not base their sheet on the mta checklist despite being mta members). Fault has pretty much been admitted, as I have been informed that pre-purchase inspection standards have now been changed as a result of my issue. The shop maintains that I paid too much for the bike, and that is 100% true, because I paid a price for a desirable model that was portrayed to me in a particular condition.

Now, it is completely fair to say that these things could be expected for the age of the bike. However, and this is what my problem is- I think that the purpose of a pre-purchase inspection is to identify any inconsistencies so that these can be factored into the arrangement of the purchase. I purchased this bike not knowing any of these issues, and as a result was completely surprised, and massively dissapointed to find my bike was actually... a dog :no:

So, what do you guys think? Is it reasonable to expect that things such as crash damage and oil leaks are identified in a pre-purchase? I am probably going to be at a financial loss because of my trust in these 'experts', so does financial compensation for the loss seem reasonable?

Lemme have it :rolleyes:

[mossy1200]

Thats a shame. Im assuming its a 20 year plus old bike so its likely to have had a few crashes.
It would be advised to align yourself with a long time bike owner who does his own restores and repairs or take any bike you buy to a bike mechanic rather than a Car testing station etc.

I guess you can enquire as to how much of the repair bill they are prepared to pay due to you paying them to undertake a pre purchase check in which they failed to provide you with basic information that would effect your purchase or price to offer on the bike.
I guess small claims if they wont help you out. Best to get a repair estimate and faults list in writing from the bike shop if your going to do this. A fixed quote would be even better.

[tigertim20]

I dont see you getting any money. what you have paid for is an opinion, yes, I think they should have seen more of these faults, but I doubt you have any recourse.

[Sharn]

Hey Mossy, it's not quite 20 years old, it's 17 :msn-wink:. Also, it was a bike shop I took it to, apparently the best in NZ according to some *cough*. They are not prepared to pay/offer anything towards the repair bill, except for a gasket which I have to pay to fit. Faults to fix... well it's not really worth it because of the overall condition of the bike... A new swingarm, possibly subframe (it may be warped) etc. In all honesty, I wouldnt have bought this bike at all if I had known what I do now... The consumer guarentees act mentions services are required to be fit for their purpose and it covers issues such as consequential loss.

Tigertim- whats the point of a prepurchase then if its 'just an opinion'? It's supposed to be a service offered by experts to inform buyers, and to be honest, the faults they identified were pretty basic...

I am in the process of getting another shop to inspect the bike to identify faults, as well as identifing the value of the bike if it was in the portrayed condition and the value of the bike as it sits. We will see what happens from there...

[jellywrestler]

possible indications of being a race bike (spacer added to shock), was the sump bung drilled? that's what they do to race bikes before shock spacers...

[jellywrestler]

being mta members simple, the third word in MTA is Association, got that, now go and see the association about this and let us know how you get on

[Sharn]

Jelly- I'll have to have a look at that. I wasn't aware that that can be an indication, but will check it out tomorrow. The MTA have offered their mediation service, and this has resulted in nothing except the offer of a gasket. They have advised me they are unable to offer any further service as they are advisory only. I expect that an MTA member would use/base their inspection on the MTA's *free* inspection form...

[Zamiam]

Think its quite simple. They undertook a service for you and you paid for it = a contract. If you've got receipts and a written report from them then I'd be heading to the disputes tribunal - costs you 100 to lodge and you can claim upto 15,000. Obviously amount claimed needs to be reasonable/justifiable. See if you can find some ads etc. from them that highlight their expertise and even that they offer prepurchase services.

[Sharn]

Thanks, I have all the written work needed except the new info from another shop which I will be getting onto. The situation sucks... This bike is my favourite model, perfect size/power for me, and now I have to keep the lump of junk until summer as it is needed as evidence! I can't drag it, take it to the track, or any other racey things, so I pretty much have to buy another bike now, and wait until the other sells to recoup some costs. Perfect timing while working 50 hours, and undertaking full time study towards a Bachelor in Teaching... Got a whole lot of time for this *tui*

[ellipsis]

...sometimes life just doesn't run the preordained and paid for course it's supposed to...that's life...it sounds like you should go and do the 'front them' and 'demand' thing...but if thats not you, then it's just another bunch of arseholes getting away with it...i had a grands worth of pre-loved laptop checked out before i bought it...the company wasn't just reputable, it was huge...major meltdown within hours of purchase and they were not interested in the least when i had a go at them...grand gone, lesson learnt...it's a slippery rock and a hard place out there...that dont help much though, does it:blank:...

[Scuba_Steve]

Think its quite simple. They undertook a service for you and you paid for it = a contract. If you've got receipts and a written report from them then I'd be heading to the disputes tribunal - costs you 100 to lodge and you can claim upto 15,000. Obviously amount claimed needs to be reasonable/justifiable. See if you can find some ads etc. from them that highlight their expertise and even that they offer prepurchase services.

^ might be worth checking in with the free legal advice in your area beforehand too (find out about it at citizens advice bureau).
Another option is always the corporate media, about the only thing they're good for is getting companies to own/pay up

But this whole thing is sad I thought the pre-purchase inspections had some credibility especially given they're a full inspection, seems they can be just as useless as the WoF system, not worth the material they're printed on.

[Sharn]

Steve- have already talked to a lawyer and they believe I have a case. They are expected to be credible as they are providing service, and thats why it comes back to the consumer guarentees act.

Ellipsis- have fronted and demanded already, assholes shouldnt get away with sh*t. If that was a 15k Ducati I had bought, I'd be spewing....

[Woodman]

Did the previous owner tell you of the faults with the bike? if not you may be able to go them.

The way I understand it, all you are entitled to from the bike shop who did the inspection is a refund.

happy to be corrected though.

[mossy1200]

By accepting and undertaking the pre purchase check for payment they have become liable for the quality of the service provided.
Any item that is external and can be visually inspected should be inspected and reported if not up to above a good standard.
I think you should ask the shop to re-consider their position as you intend to take the mater to the disputes tribunal if the mater is not resolved.

[mossy1200]

Did the previous owner tell you of the faults with the bike? if not you may be able to go them.

The way I understand it, all you are entitled to from the bike shop who did the inspection is a refund.

happy to be corrected though.

Idd say it extends further than refund.
If a builder gives you a pre purchase inspection on a home and it is found that they have missed what would be expected to be found they become liable for the cost of repairs.

Why would this be any different?

[Sharn]

Woodman- no the owners did not, and when informing them of my findings they have expressed surprise (which could be true or false, but I am in no position to make a judgement)

Mossy- all faults I have noted are visual. I am going to inform the shop in writing if I am taking this matter further and allow them 10 days to offer a response/solution to my problem.

The issue I forsee is finding a shop locally who is willing to provide a legal document for me. Seems they may like to stay in bed with each other....

[Road kill]

Unfortunately the MTA are a pretty toothless lot to deal with from what I've heard.

In the real world a lawyer is just another person that will probably cost you more than their worth.

Another unfortunate,,is the amount of times I've read this same story here and on other bike sites.

Cracked fairing,dented radiator or repainted frame is not hard to see,,,all you need is eyes.

A damaged swing arm,,,eyes again.

I think you should at lest get a refund on the inspection cost,but your pushing it up hill for any more than that.

[Paul in NZ]

does it run well.....

[carburator]

you might get a refund of the inspection costs and thats it..
bit like building reports might as well wipe your ass with them when you read the fine print.

what stopped you from poking a torch around the bike in the first place, as for a spacer on the shock
thats common ive seen it a number of times to raise the rear of the bike..

[tigertim20]

Tigertim- whats the point of a prepurchase then if its 'just an opinion'? It's supposed to be a service offered by experts to inform buyers, and to be honest, the faults they identified were pretty basic...

I am in the process of getting another shop to inspect the bike to identify faults, as well as identifing the value of the bike if it was in the portrayed condition and the value of the bike as it sits. We will see what happens from there...

Pay $500 an hour for a lawyer and youll still only be getting their opinion. even if they are qualified, they can only tell you what THEY think.
Id be interested to see some detailed photographs of the bike to see how obvious these faults are.

Were you paying for a mechanical inspection or a cosmetic one, or both? I check bikes myself, I dont trust other people to tell me if something is shit or not, so I have never used places like that.

Its rough I know, but I think you are lumped with what you have. You might get the cost of the inspection back, but thats about it I would have thought.

[Hitcher]

You've got no case, unfortunately.

The shop doing the "inspection" wasn't selling the bike. They have no liability for not finding faults, including "obvious" ones. Any liability depends on the basis of sale between you and the bike's previous owner.

You could try naming and shaming. However that tactic is largely pointless, as most New Zealand distributors and retailers will attest. Many don't actually care what people think about them, despite the legitimacy of any claim. Given the low margins most operate under and the currently depressed motorcycling business generally, such behaviour while reprehensible is also understandable.

You should chalk your purchase up to experience and try selling the bike to some other gullible soul for the same price for which you acquired it. You could also recommend the dealer who did the inspection for you.

[Padmei]

Idd say it extends further than refund.
If a builder gives you a pre purchase inspection on a home and it is found that they have missed what would be expected to be found they become liable for the cost of repairs.

Why would this be any different?

WTF? I don't believe a word of that sorry. If this was true nobody would give prepurchase inspections on anything.

In my book you can't really be serious wanting the bike shop to repair faults that weren't caused by them.
Bike shops seem to take quite a thrashing on KB. All they're doing like anyone is trying to provide a service - sometimes they don't provide a good enough service -like many many businesses.
Did the bike shop know how much it was worth? When I've asked mechs in the past if a car/ bike whatever was worth the asking price they defered as it wasn't really in their interest to pass judgement.

[Matt_TG]

I'd consider the Disputes Tribunal.

The mediator: "So you wanted a professional opinion on what sort of condition the bike was in and you employed a professional in the field of motorcycling to give you that opinion?"

You: "Yes"

The mediator: "And that professional that you engaged failed to identify or advise on aspects of the motorcycle that would have a bearing on whether you purchased it or not, leading you to a decision with future financial ramifications"

You: "Yes"

I see it as being a win for you as long as you are sure that the faults found now would have reasonably been found by a competent person at the time that it was presented for inspection (get a report from whoever has recently looked at the bike), and you had no reason to believe the person not to be competent (reputation, advertising, general business longevity etc).

OR, name and shame here....

[flyingcrocodile46]

you might get a refund of the inspection costs and thats it..
bit like building reports might as well wipe your ass with them when you read the fine print.

what stopped you from poking a torch around the bike in the first place, as for a spacer on the shock
thats common ive seen it a number of times to raise the rear of the bike..

That bit is both true and not true. The average pre-purchase inspection service provider for housing is providing seriously substandard reports, but recent determinations have held that the report provider has a duty of care under both the CGA and FTA to provide services in accordance with the NZ standard for condition reporting. More than a few have had to foot the bill to remediate the faults in houses (running to hundreds of thousands). If the money and/or insurer is there, and it can be demonstrated that there is a failure to have provided professional advice to the established minimum industry standard, then it is game on.


You've got no case, unfortunately.

The shop doing the "inspection" wasn't selling the bike. They have no liability for not finding faults, including "obvious" ones. Any liability depends on the basis of sale between you and the bike's previous owner.

You could try naming and shaming. However that tactic is largely pointless, as most New Zealand distributors and retailers will attest. Many don't actually care what people think about them, despite the legitimacy of any claim. Given the low margins most operate under and the currently depressed motorcycling business generally, such behaviour while reprehensible is also understandable.

You should chalk your purchase up to experience and try selling the bike to some other gullible soul for the same price for which you acquired it. You could also recommend the dealer who did the inspection for you.

Not correct imo. The provider of the professional services has a duty of care to (the party paying for the services) to satisfy the established minimum industry standards of inspection and reporting.

The customer has an expectation that they will receive professional advice as to the condition of the machine and they base their decisions (incl how much they will pay) on that advice. The breach of duty isn't about who's is responsible for the defects in the machine (obviously neither the buyer or the report provider) it is about the failure of the service provider to provide the expected level of service (which in this case was to identify the defects in the machine).

It's pretty clear that there has been a failure on the part of the service provider in this instance but unless the machine was marketed as/or reported to be in as new or fully restored condition the question as to what the fair and reasonable expectation of condition should be, will be subjective and cost time and money to confirm.

However, if it was me, I would "chalk your purchase up to experience and try selling the bike to some other gullible soul for the same price for which you" acquired it." As long as I could get 60% or more of my money back.

[Paul in NZ]

Look - you feel agrived and let down but again this is a case of expectation vs reality.

There is nothing on your list that i would not expect to see on a 17 year old 400... These bikes were sold to people who used them hard and put them away wet. There is very little to say its been raced, it may have done a few track days and if its a japan import it may have sat around outside for months awaiting export. Hell given the lack of garage space in japan its probably spent all its life outside. What makes you think the frame wouldnt need a touch up? Go look at a commuter bike park in wellie and GN250's / FXR's etc and scope out the frames....

Seriously - any 400 race rep will have had a bin at some point.... At least in my experience its probably not a biggie if its going OK.

As for the shock? Those things were never up to the job of keeping a scrawny 16 year old Japanese boy racers arse off the tyre when they were new. 17 years hasn't helped - sorry they are not much chop on any of the 400's stock...

You placed your trust in a company and you feel let down because now you think the bikes not up to your expectation.... Its just possible your expecations are too high.

If the bike runs and rides OK. Just go ride it and enjoy it and stop making yourself miserable. You simply can't shortcut the process of becoming a proficient and knowledgable motorcyclist any more than you can shortcut the process in becoming a teacher. There is pain involved... sorry...

[Ocean1]

There is pain involved... sorry...

That BSA bushman in a couple of boxes still hurts eh?

[mossy1200]

WTF? I don't believe a word of that sorry. If this was true nobody would give prepurchase inspections on anything.



Only 2 building firms in Wellington do full pre home building certificates now due to liability. Unless a special favour for a friend my neighbour who is a builder and company owner wont touch them as his friend had to do $10k of work attaching piles due to missing them in a inspection.
Maybe thats specific to the building industry.
Im looking at buying a house and he wont even do one for me.

[Paul in NZ]

That BSA bushman in a couple of boxes still hurts eh?

Don't I wish I had one....

But a thousand busted knuckles and assorted disappointments line the path... still not sure if im there yet but always learning

[Usarka]

You've got no case, unfortunately.

The shop doing the "inspection" wasn't selling the bike. They have no liability for not finding faults, including "obvious" ones. Any liability depends on the basis of sale between you and the bike's previous owner.



The CGA covers services. And it covers consequential loss. So why wouldn't there be a case?

http://www.consumeraffairs.govt.nz/pdf-library/publications/Your-Consumer-Rights--Services-2-.pdf

Certainly not cut and dry though in this instance - some factors against a successful case would be the age of the bike, whether there was any agreement on the scope of the inspection etc. It would be interesting to know if there has been a test case like this where someone buys a product (house, car etc) based on shoddy advice.

[AllanB]

New Zealand has a special website for cases like this. Trademe - list your bike and pass it on ................

[Ocean1]

Don't I wish I had one....

But a thousand busted knuckles and assorted disappointments line the path... still not sure if im there yet but always learning

Swapped one for a 250 Villiers James once.

That's at least one deal I got right. Sorta.

[jasonu]

What would be the liability of the inspection provider if they inspected a bike for me (as I don't know what I am looking at and want a qualified professionals report which I paid top coin for) and they failed to notice the tires were down to the cords and the brakes didn't work for shit. I then buy the bike, ride it down the road and stuff it up the back of a bus because the brakes failed. Total write off, I'm really banged up and the owner of the bus wants me to pay for the damages.

[Sharn]

Thanks for all the replies. I gathered there would be a mixed bag of responses.

I agree with you all, and there is no disagreement with the fact, that for the age of the bike that these inconsistencies are to be expected. However- when an expert is contracted to perform a service (which should be inline with the association of which they are a member of) it is reasonable to expect that they would identify these 'expected faults', so one could then say 'ok, that is a fair representation of the vehicle, I know about these issues and can factor them into my purchase'. What has happened in this case, is the inspection has not identified any of the faults, and as a result the bike has been purchased under the assumption that the expert opinion disclosed all the visual faults they could find, with an according price paid. I definately do have a case here under the CGA, and it will be interesting to see what the results of my efforts are.

What stopped me from looking at the bike myself? I have little mechanical knowledge, and what I do know is not what I would consider to be substantial enough to make an informed decision- and the so called experts come in here. My knowledge, or what the provider assumes I know, is completely irrelvent to the service they provide. Naming and shaming is not really in my interests at present, but spme of you might take a hint...

This bike is what I wanted and a road legal one is desirable, due to the high demand for other uses. It runs ok despite needing a bit of work, really just what one would expect (and I definately do not have high expectations for a bike of this age). I don't want to sell it yet, I am using it as a stepping stone to a larger bike next year and I am not in a financial position to go ahead and splash out on another- if I can even find one. It's not what I thought I was getting, but I will enjoy it and treat it well while its mine.

Chalk it up to experience, while knowing that I am unable to fully trust any motorcycle shop due to their apparent variance in service? Absolutely. In future, put my faith in private mechanics who can demonstrate an expert opinion? Yes. Let the top shop fail to open their eyes and flash me off (cause I'm a chick?). No.

I will update this thread in quite some time, once the outcome of my dissatisfaction is defined. Over and out!

[rocketman1]

I have found that most bike shops in Hamilton are good to deal with.
They will spend to time to talk to you, or just talk bikes, That the most important thing for me.
The local Yamaha dealer was the only one that would not have a chat, but they have now gone broke, wonder why.
Bugger cos guess whos now got a Yamaha...
Honesty isthe next, be careful of those that push their own brand too hard , they will not have a balanced veiw, and are more likely to BS you.
If they knock other brands then be on your guard.
If They are not interested in you when you havent bought, they are going to be far less interested in you when u go back to complain about something that has gone worng with what you may have bought.
Buy from the guys that are good to you, and make you feel good, and are friendly, you should always be able to reason with them.

[Katman]

What stopped me from looking at the bike myself? I have little mechanical knowledge, and what I do know is not what I would consider to be substantial enough to make an informed decision

You do have a pair of eyes in your head though, don't you?

[flyingcrocodile46]

You do have a pair of eyes in your head though, don't you?

Not much value in opening them when you abdicate responsibility for using them by purchasing indemnity for a ridiculously small fee (when considering the unrealistic expectation of liability by some):facepalm:.

[Hoon]

I'm selling my '91 ZXR400 L1 shortly. It's an ex-race bike. A lot of people shun away from ex-racebikes but I'd vouch mine is more reliable and in better condition than 95% of similar bikes on the road today. It's done 1'10's around Puke (a better rider would shave 3s off that) and I also beat the NZ 400cc 1/4 mile record with a 12.95s. I take my racing seriously and made a lot of effort to ensure everything was well maintained and working optimally. Yes its been laid down a few times but its all been fixed and I'll be selling it with new factory fairings and new original paint scheme.

My point is that ex-race bikes shouldn't be an instant turn off. If I was the buyer I'd start asking more questions like race history/lap times, go faster parts, how good the previous owner was with maintenance, any crashes (lowsides pfffttt!!!). You might be onto a winner and could be riding home on a well prepped bike that is ready to join the starting grid.

[CookMySock]

Nar sorry I think you're being picky. :yes:

[JimmyC]

My experience with pre-purchase checks tell me they're not worth the money. I bought an AA inspection for my third car which I bought from a LMVD who wouldn't get one done for me. It passed the inspection with flying colours, but it was only at its next WoF I was told I'd been driving around for 6 months without an air filter... Right there in the fine print the AA 'inspection' states they will not remove anything to look at something else. Useless.

[GDOBSSOR]

Woodman- no the owners did not, and when informing them of my findings they have expressed surprise (which could be true or false, but I am in no position to make a judgement)

Mossy- all faults I have noted are visual. I am going to inform the shop in writing if I am taking this matter further and allow them 10 days to offer a response/solution to my problem.

The issue I forsee is finding a shop locally who is willing to provide a legal document for me. Seems they may like to stay in bed with each other....
You go girl. If they had done the job they are supposedly qualified to do and you paid them to do, it would have saved you pain, time and money. If it was my bike, I'd tear them a new one.