what would you do?

[Coconutty]

As has been mentioned, you didn't have a contract with or employ the engineer yourself,
so if you have any comeback at all, shouldn't your claim be against the SELLER,
for selling you a machine that is "not as advertised" ?

Any issue with the mechanic and his inspection / service would then be one for the seller that employed him ?

Oh, and with regards to :

the CAA have instigated a MOR (so they don`t believe it either

For your own sake, and so as not jeopardise your situation, I would be very careful about publicly stating what someone else - i.e. the CAA,
believes or doesn't believe - that is for them to state - when they publish the result of any investigation, not for you !

CAP382 :

The objective of the MOR Scheme is to contribute to the improvement of flight
safety by ensuring that relevant information on safety is reported, collected, stored,
protected and disseminated. The sole objective of occurrence reporting is the
prevention of accidents and incidents and not to attribute blame or liability.

[biggles38]

OK understood. No problem. apologies

[Coriolis]

Biggles,

While I do sympathise with your situation (and fwiw, agree mainly with the caveat emptor advice given by others), I'd simply like to caution you not to build up any big hopes that an MOR (whether raised by CAA or anyone else) will do anything at all to help (although it won't do any harm either)

There is a common misconception that an MOR will trigger a full investigation into an event and guns willl be brought to bear on the 'culprit', when in reality all that happens in 99% of cases is that they appear in the monthly digest (now only online for one month, then disappear into obscurity) with a 'closed on receipt' comment.

The likelyhood is that the report is simply added to the ever-growing database of events, and whoever is involved may have to answer a few gentle questions from CAA the next time they meet - the clue is in the title 'Mandatory Occurrence Report', not Investigation

If you feel strongly enough to pursue this, you'll need bigger guns than the 'threat' of an MOR, sorry...

[biggles38]

Thanks for all your views. I am not taking this any further on PPrune.

I will continue elsewhere....

Thanks again

[vfr440]

Appropriate timing

Biggles
You may no longer be monitoring this thread, but I thought the following extract from CAA's GASIL, Iss 7, July 2011 is VERY pertinent and reflects the advice I, and several others, have given you. Here it is

"

Caveat Emptor

We have in the past advised anyone who wishes to purchase a second-hand aircraft to ensure that they have the potential purchase checked out by a qualified engineer before parting with cash. We also advise that at an early stage in the proceedings the intending purchaser consults G-INFO and the CAA’s Aircraft Registration Section to ensure the advertiser really does own the aircraft and that no outstanding mortgage exists.

Fortunately for a Canadian would-be helicopter owner, he did exactly that, even though he had been shown what appeared to be the UK Certificate of Registration. He was therefore able to avoid a scam which wanted him to pay a deposit for a helicopter which belonged to someone else, who had no intention of selling it and no knowledge of the advertisement! The Certificate was a forgery.

This is apparently not the only instance of someone advertising an aircraft for sale without being the legal owner. If you are tempted by an advertisement, beware and make careful checks before parting with any money."

So there you go, wisdom echoed by CAA no less. Put it all down to experience - VFR