Unexpected tyres and brakes bill

The consumer’s issue:

“I purchased a used ’16-plate saloon from a dealership in January 2021. Within the first five days of owning the car, I was offered a free vehicle health check by my local franchise dealer, and I proceeded to go ahead with it. They looked at the car and explained that the tyres, brake pads and discs were below the recommended levels.

After 5,000 miles of driving the car, I have to pay £2,000 to change all four tyres, as well as the brake pads and discs. Had I known that I would have to spend another £2,000 on the car after six months and 5,000 miles, I would clearly not have bought it.

As a resolution to my complaint, I am looking for the business to cover the full cost of the pads and discs, and to provide a contribution towards cost of the tyres, so that I am not left out of pocket.”

The accredited business’ response:

  • The customer purchased the vehicle in January 2021, and we paid a refund for one of the tyres two months’ later.
  • We also carried out a health check and warranty repair in that same month for a fault with the parcel shelf and there was condensation in the headlamps.
  • We work on the basis that a car can be sold with brake pads at a minimum depth of 3mm, and during the inspection that we carried out in March 2021, the discs were serviceable, and the pads were measured at 6mm, so within the specification limits.
  • However, we do acknowledge that we have a duty of care to ensure the consumer does not receive an unexpected bill up to 4,000 miles and four months following delivery so we would like to find a suitable resolution.

The adjudication outcome:

  • The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator explained that the business had the evidential burden of showing that there had not been a breach of the Vehicle Sales Code.
  • This is because the faults with the vehicle were found within the first six months from the point of sale. Therefore, the presumption was that the issues were present when the customer bought the car, and it was therefore down to the dealership to provide proof of the contrary.
  • The adjudicator then reviewed the vehicle health check from March 2021 and the results of the MOT test which was carried out in November 2020 (two months prior to the sale).
  • The vehicle health check (at 49,784 miles) showed the brake pads and discs were at 6mm (front and rear). This means that the parts / components did not require a replacement or repair. The health check showed the offside front and nearside front tyres were 78% worn and were at 3mm.
  • The MOT test highlighted that the nearside and offside front tyres were wearing on the edges and starting to perish slightly (advisories). However, there were no issues raised in relation to the brake pads and discs.
  • The adjudicator accepted the MOT test showed the vehicle was deemed as legally roadworthy and the parts under review were prone to wear and tear.
  • The adjudicator acknowledged the evidence submitted did not support the fact that the brake pads and discs were outside of the recommended guidelines, so could not agree the business should be held liable to absorb the cost to replace those parts.
  • The adjudicator went on to consider whether a reasonable person would find it acceptable that, despite the front tyres being flagged as advisories two months prior to purchase, the business failed to replace them.
  • The adjudicator concluded that, based on the evidence submitted, and on the balance of probabilities, they did not consider the two front tyres supplied were of a satisfactory standard, and that this was a breach of the Vehicle Sales Code.
  • Consequently, the adjudicator partially upheld the complaint in favour of the consumer, and asked the business to award the consumer a full refund for the two tyres. The business had subsequently acknowledged that a refund for the tyre was not supplied in March).

Conclusion

  • Both parties agreed with the adjudication outcome, and the business agreed to pay the consumer a refund of £404 for two tyres, as recommended by the adjudicator. As a resolution had been agreed amongst the parties, the case was closed.