The Mitsubishi Pajero Owners Club®

NickA · Posted: Tue Jan 28, 2014 20:44 Post subject:

From 17-12-2011 until 19-01-2013 it only did 1832 miles as there is nothing recorded between those dates.

Google · Sponsor

D4B · **** Joined: 19 Oct 2011 Posts: 263 Location: Hampshire

Nick A...............

I assume it was repaired between 19/1 and 23/1 yes?

I am having similar issues with mine and may contact trading standards.......

NickA · Posted: Tue Jan 28, 2014 22:15 Post subject:

Yes, the garage I bought it from said it had a £700 overhall of the brake lines and some exhaust sections replaced and pointed them out to me when I viewed it so I could see the new parts were in place.

D4B · **** Joined: 19 Oct 2011 Posts: 263 Location: Hampshire

This thread prompted me to check my MOT history......

on 1/2/2011 it was tested and passed no advisories

I bought it from a car sales lot with this MOT cert on 18/10/2011

however what I wasn't told was that it was tested again (4 miles up the road from the car sales lot) on 30/08/2011 and failed on:

Reason(s) for refusal to issue Certificate

Nearside Front Brake hose excessively deteriorated (3.6.B.4d)

Offside Front Brake hose excessively deteriorated (3.6.B.4d)

Nearside Front Shock absorber has an excessively worn bush (2.7.4)

Offside Rear Shock absorber has an excessively worn bush (2.7.4)

Centre Exhaust has a major leak of exhaust gases (7.1.2)

Offside Front Service brake indicates brake bind (3.7.C.2a)

Advisory Notice issued

Nearside Rear Shock absorber has a light misting of oil (2.7.3)

So the car sales sold me the truck with the OLDER MOT

As you can imagine I had many many problems with it in those early months inc all the above items and many more.....

It seems they had good intentions on putting a new MOT on it, but when they saw the list of repairs needed, decided to forget about that failure sheet
and just sell it with the old MOT from February.... Shocked

So nearly 3 years on, do you think it's too late to notify Vosa or Trading standards?

TooMany2cvs · Posted: Wed Jan 29, 2014 19:59 Post subject:

laddo · Posted: Wed Sep 03, 2014 19:33 Post subject:

This is great it shows the owner before cared as much as he claimed.All advisories were fixed as he claimed and never came up again the following year.I new i bought a goodun. Laughing

harley73 · Posted: Thu Sep 04, 2014 21:27 Post subject:

ive just looked ours up.its a k reg which we thought was 96 but at the beginning of the write up it says it was first used 31/12/1992??
is that strange or is it before it came into the country?i thought the reg still had to reflect the year of the vehicle?

harley73 · Posted: Thu Sep 04, 2014 21:27 Post subject:

ive just looked ours up.its a k reg which we thought was 96 but at the beginning of the write up it says it was first used 31/12/1992??
is that strange or is it before it came into the country?i thought the reg still had to reflect the year of the vehicle?