Premature tyre wear

The consumer’s issue:

I bought a brand new estate car from a dealership in July 2018, and at its first annual service (by which time I had completed only 9,700 miles), the business informed me that the car needed two new front tyres costing £1,000.

 I believe this to be totally unacceptable for a one-year-old vehicle, but the service department explained that this particular four-wheel-drive model ‘displays these characteristics’, and consequently the mileage I have got out of the tyres, is ‘fairly typical’ and I should be satisfied with this.

 I am astounded that the vehicle manufacturer can build and sell a car that isn’t fit for purpose with regards to tyre wear. Over the years, we have had eight cars of the same make, and we have always got between 20 and 30,000 miles out of a set of tyres. When buying the car, we discussed our specific requirements around running costs with the seller, but the tyre wear issue was never mentioned.

 I am intending to keep the car for three years, and am therefore looking for the business to pay for four new tyres (the rear tyres will need changing in a few months). This still means we will be out of pocket, as we will need to change the front tyres a couple more times before we get a replacement vehicle.”

The accredited business’ response:

  • It is very difficult to anticipate tyre wear on any vehicle, as this depends largely on whether or not the customer maintains tyre pressures correctly, their driving style, and road conditions.
  • We would not give any guarantee as to the overall running cost of a vehicle where wear and tear items are concerned.
  • To our knowledge, there is no technical information published to indicate accelerated tyre wear for this model.
  • We therefore consider the customer request for four new tyres to be unreasonable, as it is not unusual for front tyres to wear more quickly than the rear, given the braking forces they are subjected to.
  • In our opinion, the vehicle is performing as we would expect, and the rear tyres clearly have 5mm of tread left.
  • In addition, we are confused by the customer’s claim that two tyres cost £1,000 when our quote stated £263 per tyre including VAT.

The adjudication outcome:

  • The adjudicator explained that the onus was on the consumer to provide proof that the car suffered from an inherent fault that was present at the point of sale.
  • After reviewing the evidence, it appeared that the consumer was not arguing that there was a particular ‘fault’ that was causing the tyres to wear prematurely, but rather they believed that the accelerated tyre wear was a known characteristic of this model, and that this information should have been disclosed to them during the sales negotiations.
  • The business also stated that it was unaware of issues with the consumer’s model suffering from premature tyre wear that should have been disclosed at the time of sale.
  • The adjudicator concluded that, on balance, it was unlikely that any experienced sales representative would have provided any specific assurances or indications about expected tyre maintenance costs at the time of purchase.
  • As a result, in the absence of any evidence to suggest the car supplied was not of satisfactory quality, or that its anticipated tyre wear was misrepresented, the adjudicator found that the dealer had not acted unreasonably when it declined the consumer’s request for a financial award.
  • Therefore, the consumer’s claim was not upheld in their favour.

Conclusion:

  • Neither party disagreed with the adjudication outcome, and the case was closed.