firesm

Here is the wording directly from the MTO website:

What if I believe the inspection of a vehicle I just purchased was carried out improperly?
You should do the following three steps:

1.Check the regulations and ensure that the defect is an inspection requirement under the Highway Traffic Act - R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 611 Schedules 1 through 9, whichever applies to the type of vehicle inspected.
2.If you still believe the vehicle inspection was carried out improperly, you are encouraged to have your vehicle re-inspected at another MVIS location. Be sure to request they provide you with a list of items, including applicable measurements that do not meet the minimum SSC requirements. This information will support a possible ministry investigation.
3.If the results of the second inspection indicate the inspection was not properly conducted, you can contact your local Ministry of Transportation enforcement office as listed in the blue pages of your local telephone book (see “Drivers and Vehicles”).
In order to support a possible ministry investigation, do not have the defective vehicle components changed, modified or repaired before you discuss your situation with an officer at your local MTO enforcement office.

If an enforcement officer inspects your vehicle and finds that the vehicle could not have met the minimum requirements on the day of inspection, then a charge may be laid against the garage/mechanic that did the inspection. The fine range upon conviction is from $400 to $20,000.

If the officer inspects your vehicle and finds that it has critical defects, the vehicle must be repaired before it is put back on the road. If the vehicle is not going to be repaired at the location where the officer inspected it, then the officer will remove the plates and will put the vehicle in “unfit” status.

When requested, the ministry will supply the vehicle owner with a copy of the inspection results. The ministry cannot force an MVIS station to pay for any repairs on a vehicle to bring it into compliance. To recoup any out-of-pocket expenses that were required to make the vehicle comply with the minimum safety requirements, you may choose to seek legal advice and/or consider civil action against the MVIS station/mechanic.

Torontoworker

In fact the OMVIC won't say what IS the limit of what this 'used car industry dealer group' says is a dealer and therefore what IS a private sale. There is a good reason why they don't.

1. It's all about fees for their organization - $500. up front - $250. per year there after. Then there is the $5.00 per vehicle sold fee on every car sold by their dealers. Does anyone see a big issue here? It's all about dealers selling (market protection!) used cars and Government able to track (sellers names) sales and see that they get 'correct' income tax data.

The real reason this organization won't go on public record as what number of cars per year sold is considered a curbsider is because they want to avoid a messy charter challenge based upon the fact that people have a RIGHT to sell personal possessions. That the OMVIC have a major conflict of interest that could be thrust into the limelight in a challenge is secondary. Every car not sold by their members is lost revenue for OMVIC and to their members personally.

If you review recent court cases they have been involved with - the major issue of corruption is with their OWN MEMBERS and not curbsiders! There have been no court cases where this group has gone after an individual who has fixed up one to two cars per year and resold them.

Their statement in the FAQ's is total BS and they know it and any good lawyer could rip them a new one in court if they attempted to go after some one like Imo who in my view is a 'HOBBYIST' . Their definition of 'trading' is total crap. In your definition Onami, EVERYONE who sells a car this year in Ontario as a private seller IS A CURBSIDER! If I sell my 996, a car I have put a lot of needed maintenance into, and added upgrades to and sell it for more then I paid - am I a curbsider as well? Total HS.

Here is the FTC's rules on what a dealer is in the US.

This is what happens when you allow fox's into the hen house as Mike Harris did in 1997. Notice how the US Government sets a STANDARD for their industry and that up here, this INDUSTRY RUN group in Ontario refuses to state any numbers? Harris was told at the time that your allowing an industry to self regulate that never ever showed itself to enjoy regulations. But wait.... who in Government had family connections in this industry? Which three out of eight cabinet Ministers at the time owned dealerships or had family members who owned dealerships....

But a funny thing happened; the few real curbsiders - mostly found on the Craigslists/Autotraders of the world came in real handy - like real handy in the gravy train way. They found a way to high jack the process and began a PR campaign that told of the 'horrors' of 'curbsiders'. It worked - now people are driven to these five and dime / mom and pop OMVIC 'registered' dealers such as you see on every corner in Brampton it seems - to be RIPPED OFF instead! Everyone feel better now? The dispute resolution system they have in place works as well as the SIU complaint system and the better business association arbitration system does!

This organization gets it's $5.00 per car levy that YOU the used car buying consumer pay, (hidden). Think about that for a minute. Where the hell is this $5.00 per EVERY OMVIC dealer used car sold in Ontario going??? Does anyone really believe that they need all this amount of income to run themselves? Some of the income I can see from reading their press clippings is being used for fighting problems their own members are creating! The only real way to get turned down for membership is if you have a criminal record. Ok, so your wife, brother, sister, pet dogs name gets put down on the application. Big deal.

If Imo wanted to make 'real' money he'd open a corner store in Markham and rip off 649 winners! Ontario - open for business! (Now pay us our damn fee and F off!)

Onami

TW you can believe what you want. I called OMVIC, UVDA and CRA in my situation and know what I was told. It is not considered a "hobby" to buy, fix and resell vehicles for a profit. Now, if IMO is doing this at a loss or a break even AND the vehicles are registered in his name, then yes he can do this, but I highly doubt he is doing this just for fun and not profit.

Your 996 is registered in your name therefore you can sell it for whatever you want. However, if you profit on the sale, you are obliged to pay taxes on the profit - whether you claim it or not is your perogative. Any vehicle bought in Ontario needs to be registered in the buyer's name within 6 days (I think that is the current reg). This is done specifically to discourage curbsiding or "flipping" as it is more commonly called.

I don't disagree with your comments about the fees etc., but the fact is that under current legislation, OMVIC has the power to make these decisions.

Imo000

Thanks, this is what I thought would happen if MTO gets involved. I could easily say, this is not my problem and then the buyer would have to go after the mechanic that did the safety but, I would like to avoid that from happening. I have no beef with the buyer but I am pissed at the mechanic who did the safety. He created a huge headache for both of us.

theiceman

i guess he thought he was doing you a favor .. but as always .. no good deed goes unpumished.. If you feel this way Imre what not just contact the buyer offer to fix what is wrong as a gesture of good will , move on and put this behind you ?

Christien

Now this I disagree wtih
Yes there is. 2 (1) 7. of the MVDA under "exemptions":

A person that trades in a motor vehicle that is used or to be used by the person as sole proprietor for the purpose of carrying on the person’s business or for the personal use of the person or a member of the person’s family, but not if the person is in the business of trading in motor vehicles or repairing them.

As best I remember, the legislation for exemptions with regard to the number of vehicles a private individual can sell in a year is under the tax legislations, and it's five.

That's right, and that reason is that OMVIC doesn't know the legislation. I've come across this several times with it - their reps are NOT lawyers, and often don't know how to read legal jargon, so they have guidelines that they interpret. However, they're not judges. I've had to explain legislation to them on more than one occasion.



While I don't dispute that, there are much more difficult obstacles to overcome in getting a dealer's license, than just the $500 registration and $250/year. Like having properly-zoned commercial property, with permanent signage, a signed lease agreement, RCMP background checks, proof of (can't remember how much $$) equity (or backed loans). If it was just the fee, then any joe could get a license. Getting registered is one of the most difficult and complicated procedures I've ever gone through.

Now this I disagree with. First, I don't think the industry is really losing out to private sales. I haven't looked at the #s, but I suspect that private sales account for less than 10% of sales. Second, to be honest, I don't think OMVIC gives much of a damn about its "member" dealerships. We don't have a choice - we have to be members. Their stated mission isn't to protect us, it's to protect the buying consumers from us. (ftr, the UCDA (used car dealers association) is the organization that can help protect us, educate us, help us do business, etc) My personal belief is that OMVIC raison d'etre (to administer the MVDA) started out well, and was/is required, however it's grown into a typical arm's-length gov't bureaucracy, and is bloated, wasteful and greedy. The new $5 levy introduced is just pure greed, nothing more.

Very true. There are tons of examples of shady dealers, who are OMVIC-registered. In fact, you can read the tribunal's notes online, if you search for them.

I more or less had one of their legal reps state this outright to me. A number of years ago, before I was a dealer, I was doing only financing. I called them asking for legal advice about disposing of repossessed cars. I noted that the MVDA said it would be illegal for me to sell repo'd cars retail, however the Personal Property and Security Act (which is the legislation under which vehicle liens are registered) states that repossessed property can be disposed of via retail sale, regardless of what that property is. Furthermore, it clearly states that the PPSA overrides all other conflicting legislation, except the Consumer Protection Act. When I brought this up to OMVIC's "legal department", she admitted that yes, in court a judge would find for me, however OMVIC would still pursue it every time and make it far too expensive and time-consuming for me to bother with. True story.

Onami

What you are quoting Christien is the definition of a personal property vehicle....not a car being bought to flip for a profit. My comment was relating to there not being an allowable number of cars that a private individual is allowed to flip. There is no limit to the number of personal property vehicles that one can own as long as they are registered in your name AND they are not being bought and sold to generate a profit.

As for getting a dealer's license...it is really quite easy if you have a clean record and proper funding. The most difficult thing I found was locating a small industrial unit that would allow automotive uses (many of my US friends who collect muscle cars have their collections set-up as dealerships and I was going along this route - to the point where I got my auto sales certification, incorporated a company and applied for a license). Finding a suitable location in Mississauga or Oakville was nearly impossible. Burlington was much more "auto friendly" Insurance was also pretty costly. My business plan had a total operating cost for a 2,000 sq ft building at about $22,000/year. I was going to do a combo of storage and selling a few cars/year to cover the costs, but then the muscle car market tanked and I abandoned the whole idea.

Imo000

I guess he was but I didn't ask for a favor. When it comes to a safety inspection, I don't want favors. Other people's lives can be affected when the mechanic looks the other way during a safety. I'm fixing the car for him, he'll be dropping it off at my house as soon as the parts are here. I don't wnat to pay for labour when the mistake had nothing to do with me and this was ok by the buyer. He could see my point of wiew and I can see his.

I just wanted to know who should technically fix the car. From the MTO article it looks like the new owenr would and then, sue the mechanic or garage to recover the cost of the repairs.

Mark Lue

You're a stand up guy, I hope this works out.

theiceman

Good for you Imre ....

and as for curbsiders I think they come in every form .. whether it be for Pontiacs or Porsches. It could be argued that people who buy Porsches in the US , bring them up North and sell them for the intent of profit regardless of wether they bury the cost of the tax and trasfer ownership or not .. are in fact curbsiders. There is definition of the law and there is spirit of the law .. So lets close this thread to be fair to Imre and start a new one to debate the topic if you guys are up for it .

atr911

To follow up on the original question here is what I KNOW:

CV boots are not a safety related item and a vehicle CANNOT fail because one is torn.

Control arm bushings are only a safety concern if under complete failure a component of the vehicle risks falling off. If this is the case they must be more than 50% completely seperated to fail a safety inspection.

Most likely, your safety is valid. Check with the MOT website, they entire Motor Vehicle Inspection Station Manual is listed there somewhere.

Sultan

The only problem with fixing the car without going through MTO is that this "mechanic" at mufflerman may miss safety items in the future for other less educated buyers/sellers and someones life could be at risk.

atr911

From the info I got he didn't miss anything except an opportunity to upsell a RECCOMENDATION.

If you had the slightest how lax a safety is you'd realize how many truly unsafe cars where out there. I believe that safety checks should be required every other year for everybody. You should see some of the wrecks we see every year.

Again, I have 5 licenses techs and we perform 5-15 safety Inspections a week. Although we would have pointed out the bushing and cv boot deficiencies to the customer, we could not have failed it based on mot guidelines (and the information the OP has given).

Brakes and tires don't even fail an inspection until they're well below what I consider safe. Old brake fluid and rotting lines that are days from failure don't fail. Even loose ball joints dont fail unless they exceed a spec that is checked with a dial gauge.