Front tyre bulge

The consumer’s issue:

In April 2023, the consumer took their three-year-old 20-plate compact crossover to their local franchise dealership for its annual service. During the yearly routine assessment, the business advised there were issues with the nearside front tyre, but that it remained safe and legal to drive on. No tyre assessment documentation was provided with the servicing record at the time.

A month later, the vehicle failed its first MOT due to a severe bulge being identified in the tyre, and the consumer was advised that it could have blown out at any time. Following these findings, the vehicle owner therefore got back in touch with the dealership, and they agreed to replace the tyre at no cost as a gesture of goodwill, as the consumer’s tyre warranty had recently expired. The business was also reluctant to supply any documents on the tyre analysis for around a fortnight.

In response to what had happened, the business explained that they would do a full investigation as to why the condition of the tyre was missed, as the consumer deemed to have been put at risk by the defective tyre, and also wanted to know the way that the dealership would be addressing their products and policies to help prevent the same issue from re-occurring.

The case outcome:

When looking at the evidence supplied in relation to this case, The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator noted that part of the consumer’s complaint, specifically the remedy, was for the dealership to divulge all the information on their internal policies and procedures involving products and policies they provide to consumers.

Whilst The Motor Ombudsman was able to investigate this complaint in relation to an accredited business, the adjudicator explained that the body’s dispute resolution service is not used to secure and divulge internal policies kept by a business, or even to address how such issues are investigated by them.

As such, the adjudicator stated that their investigation would instead be focused on whether the business had used reasonable skill and care during their inspection into the tyres as part of the service. Looking at the vehicle health check, it was noted that the nearside front (NSF) tyre was marked as an advisory by the business during the service, stating the tyre side wall was damaged, but no chords were showing. This contrasted with the later MOT findings, which stated the NSF tyre had a lump caused by a failure of its structure, meaning the vehicle failed the test.

In their findings, the adjudicator highlighted that damage on a tyre can be a dangerous defect. However, should it warrant replacing, such as when advised in an MOT, the damage must be significant in the form of a bulge or exposed chords.

It also cannot be ignored that the vehicle’s MOT was carried out six weeks after the service, and the vehicle had covered an additional 600 miles during this time. It is reasonably likely within that timeframe and mileage that the vehicle may have been exposed to external factors, which may have escalated any minor damage at the time, into the major faults noted during the MOT.

As such, the adjudicator surmised that, whilst the NSF tyre was found to be unroadworthy and needed to be replaced during the MOT, it was likely, at the time of the service, to only have suffered minor damage up until this point. Any significant damage, therefore, had occurred after the service. It was concluded by the adjudicator that the business had exercised reasonable skill and care, meaning the complaint was not upheld in the consumer’s favour.

Despite the complaint, the business had already replaced the NSF tyre at no cost to the consumer as a gesture of goodwill. The adjudicator mentioned irrespective of the outcome of this dispute, the dealership’s gesture went above and beyond what would have been expected from them in these circumstances.