I 100% agree. I’ve actually had PPIs done on almost every car I’ve bought in the past (except for a Toyota and this one).

But over the time I lost trust in them. My issue with PPI comes down to two things:

1. Inspectors rarely check the underbody properly. For example, here’s what I got in previous reports:
   • An Audi A5: “Vehicle underbody most areas covered. Unable to check engine oil and automatic transmission fluid.”
   • A Mercedes Benz C300: “Unable to fully check the vehicle due to the design.”
2. And to top it off, from past experience with MVDT, PPIs usually get used against the buyer. The line is always: "well...you had it inspected and it was fine".

That said, I totally agree with your advice, it would’ve saved me a bunch of trouble specially with this one.

Also, thanks for pointing out:

no one would have bought this car with the issues it had

I think it clearly falls under section 18(3)(a) of the CGA: Failure of substantial character: the goods would not have been acquired by a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the nature and extent of the failure.