Vauxhall Tyre Issues

[heliosuk]

I would say on the moral issue you have a point but you can't pursuit a moral issue. I think the dealer has let you down and could have done more even though they have dealt with it by the book. Suppliers lie, fact. As I have pointed out, what they have sent you is highly questionable and the substance and details of your individual claim are very sparse. I've also learnt as a professional engineer investigating these same said type of issues and with some 30 years plus experience that customers all too frequently are forgetful of material facts, never read the handbooks, never abide by advice/direction in those books and then cry foul when they have to put their hands in their pockets to fix something of their doing. Even giving you the benefit of the doubt, it is still highly unlikely this is a manufacturing defect with the car.

The main thing is though, you have never actually stated who you are going after. Is it Vauxhaul or the Vauxhaul dealer? If it is Vauxhaul themselves and they do indeed defend then you are a dead duck. If it is a dealer then you stand some chance, though I would still argue remote.

 

Frankly I don't think "you/We" as you continually put it, can be litigation specialists as a litigation specialist would not take on a case for £100. It's just absurb. As a private individual who has more time on their hands and money to waste might merit something, but what heaven knows.

 

I think at the minimum you should state this as it is general public knowledge if you have actually served papers.

 

If you have so much time on your hands, try looking up the relationship between Cpk figures of 1.33 and how that relates to defects per million operations. You might get some understanding then of why it is highly unlikely to be a manufacturing fault. That's what the GM plants operate to as just about any other euro plant does as well.

 

I'd be very interested to hear who the consultancy is as well. Probably one whose consultants are RMI, IMI qualified, hardly engineers, just time served fitters and accountants.

 

It is though an interesting post overall as I have had a very similar scenario put on my desk lastTuesday.

[malibu99]

Thank you for your last post Heliosuk.

 

All the points you make are well received and of course make sound sense.

I will answer your last post as best I can under the circumstances so forgive me for some of the obtuse remarks.

 

You might be surprised to learn that the independent consultant is from a consultancy group who are specialists in the motor industry covering Tyre and Exhaust Centres, Motor Vehicle Dealerships and provide significant support to manufacturers. Their role is not to prove a manufacturing, transportation or geometry problem. The legal issues are quite different.

 

I too have considerable experience in working within the motor industry. Fleet, rental and close associations with manufacturers. What is pertinent to the issue being raised is that as a customer I just wanted an explanation as to what caused the abnormal and significant tyre wear resulting in early replacement of tyres to the rear wheels of a new car. This is more than a reasonable request and has never been answered.

 

The question was. If they found no fault or no out of specification to the geometry of the vehicle in question what caused the abnormal tyre wear. Obviously no one would want to replace problem tyres with new tyres until an explanation had been found and the abnormally corrected.

 

Everyone agreed the abnormal tyre wear was significant but everyone was passing the blame on each other with no one wishing to or attempting to identify the source of the problem. This is unreasonable.

If the vehicle was not contributing to the problem and the tyres were to specification and the car had been carefully driven on normal roads at correct tyre pressures, what then created the abnormal wear?

 

Apparently the vehicle was taken by the dealer to two specialist centers for geometry tests and after, at the customers expense, new tyres fitted.

Surprise, surprise the problem of abnormal wear ceases?

 

So if (and it may be argued) there were no manufacturing faults with the tyres and the vehicle manufacturer claims they found no problem at either inspection but some adjustments were made, what then was the miracle cure achieved? Clearly something happened that apparently corrected the problem as I am sure you will agree it could not rectify itself.

 

New tyres fitted to the same wheels and same axles monitored over a 2000 mile run on exactly the same roads as previously run did not show any abnormal wear and the road noise that had been experienced (and pointed out) from delivery had also been cured. Was this significant?

 

Should the purchaser of the product foot the bill?

 

The supplier said no. They however created a unique legal dilemma.

 

They contacted the manufacturer and suggested a joint payment of a contribution (each 50%) towards part payment of the new tyres as a good will gesture.

 

The purchaser (me) agreed to accept the suppliers offer but later found that the manufacturer had rejected the making of any contribution.

 

I suppose to answer your specific question as to why I am making such a fuss, you have to question the facts as I have tried to lay out without blame.

 

Why would a manufacturer put themselves in the position of defending an insignificant customer goodwill gesture of £100.00 especially as the supplier is willing to contribute.

[blackknight]

Blimey,are you a politician? A perfect example of how to answer a question without answering a question.

 

 

 

"Why would a manufacturer put themselves in the position of defending an insignificant customer goodwill gesture of £100.00 especially as the supplier is willing to contribute."

 

Why would a manufacturer put themselves in the positioning of opening the floodgates to frivolous claims and paying out millions in compensation just because someone asks for some money.

[Conniff]

Because proceedings have now been served I am no longer able to specifically refer or now make further comment to the actual case and technically the related threads should be closed until the court has made a judgement.

 

I am unable for obvious reasons now to comment about my actual case.

 

These are the jokes folks - this is so hush hush that even MI6 isn't allowed to attend the hearing.

 

What a load of crap. You are right about one thing, this thread should have been closed, probably after the original post.

[malibu99]

Good to see others making comment but try to see the bottom line question.

 

If your unhappy about a failure of a new product to perform to a reasonable or expected standard do you just accept the cost or request compensation?

 

If the failure of the product is actually admitted by the manufacturer but no reason for it given and a refusal to accept its replacement or some cost towards replacement and you personally accept that then fine but some and I think you will find the majority of any product purchases would not accept a no responsibility attitude for a failed component.

 

 

Make it simple, you buy a mobile and the screen fails. The retailer says that the manufacturer no longer warrants screens as they do not make them as they use three main suppliers of screens so it has to be the actual screen manufacturer you have to approach at your cost.

 

Annoyed you send it to the screen manufacturing company who inform you that they checked and although it does not work in their opinion a problem occurred with the hand set. therefore you have to pursue the assembler/manufacture of the branded product.

 

You return back to the retailer who receives a report from the handset manufacturer/assembler who infers that you must have dropped the mobile and thus damaged the screen and thus it is not covered by any warranty or guarantee.

 

 

OK I know an unlikely situation because all the retailer would do is replace it for you........there is no difference in terms of product liability other than some company's have been fortunate to use warranty to reduce the rights of the consumer.

 

And guys don't shoot the messenger because one day you might be in a similar position and I believe take a different view. You of course might even take a different approach and handle it better. But also guys, the manufacturer perhaps could have handled the situation better.

 

And just to answer a question raised. No this is not a game and there are legal reasons why one cannot continue in the public domain to talk openly about matters specific to a case that is pending County Court hearing, which incidentally is open to the public and attended by the media. Hence the reason I refer to theoretical examples to allow for a balanced view or opinion.

 

Again thank you all for your interest and comments, it's what freedom of speech is all about.

[malibu99]

Conniff, I am more than happy for the site to be closed whilst legal matters are pending. It is entirely up to the web master but I have requested its temporary removal.

 

In terms of any editorial censorship that you appear to have recommended stating it perhaps should have been closed on the first posting, I must take issue with you.

 

The fact you might personally may dislike an opinion or disagree with someones views is fine but we all know the type of person who advocates censorship to match only their views or opinions be they a majority or minority opinion.

 

A forum is designed to allow for all who wish to have a voice.

 

By all means raise an opposing argument. Express your opinion if it differs from that of the posting, but do it in a professional way and try to do it articulately without wise cracks, it then carries far more weight.

 

Having said that I at least respect your opinion hence the response.

[Conniff]

So lets have the date and court the hearing is to be held in so we can all come along and support you ??

 

i also see absolutely nothing in here that would warrant closure or even temporary suspension of the thread.

[malibu99]

Thank you Conniff.

 

County Court sessions are open to the public and whether you genuinely support me or not (and this is not an issue) you would be entitled as anyone would be to attend the public area. Once a date has been set I shall post it. I would be pleased to see you.

 

 

As all court proceedings are invariably covered by local press I would also ensure a link so the covered outcome is made available.

 

Win or lose I am sure some interesting information will be drawn out especially relating to consumer rights, something that all of us should continue to champion.

 

But let me restate, because it appears to have been lost in all the posts. So this is my personal and public opinion.

 

I am not attempting or trying to prove that there was a manufacturing fault or defect.

 

I do not believe there was a major fault . But something did cause the abnormal tyre wear problem. and the problem mysteriously disappeared after the vehicle was taken in twice for investigation. Maybe pure coincidence!!

 

 

The fact that so much effort has been apparently made to not address a simple query and so much effort to disclaim responsibility is just out of the normal and certainly not good commercial practice. Such a stance just alienates the end user. Blame for the problem seen has been passed back and fore to either the driver or the tyre manufacturer, where both are adamant that they are not accountable.

 

In normal circumstances the customers inconvenience or genuine loss is addressed quietly and efficiently thus maintaining good customer relations. The response however in this instance is quite bizarre. Or perhaps you might think that this is the way a manufacturer should operate. It is alleged major denials of any responsibility (protest too much )often indicate something different but let me give benefit of the doubt.

 

I am sure you will agree that if a product you purchase from new does not perform and as such incurs you in an expense to repair it, you would expect the manufacturer not to hide behind warranties that preclude all types of things. Sale of goods act gives everyone the right to gain redress from the supplier of the product.

 

Again in this instance the supplier (who agrees with the customer) offers to meet a settlement on a fifty fifty basis put to the manufacturer and accepted by me. A simple way out to end the issue.

 

Having accepted the offer made by the supplier I am then informed the manufacturer refuses to cooperate and hence only 50% of the agreed payment is made.

 

Yep I could just turn tail and put it down to poor customer service, poor commercial judgement and so on.

 

But it has raised an interesting question as to why such a peculiar stance was taken, one that is neither fair or reasonable and certainly gives the impression that there is apparently something else going on.

 

Maybe it was a just a poor customer service decision. Although claimed by the department that the decision was taken after review at the highest level, again most unusual.

Maybe there is a hidden agenda but whatever the story, what rectified the apparent fault and why is the manufacturer willing to fund a defence rather than meet the suppliers suggestion of a good will gesture.? Who knows? And I suppose there are those who might say, who cares?

 

Well that’s simple to answer it’s the small guy who has done no more than buy a product that has not performed and just wants to know why, what was done to rectify and requested a contribution towards his unacceptable product failure costs. This is the issue and no more.

[Conniff]

Ok, I agree with the principle in it's entirety. I don't agree with the sentiment that this is a fine old English company and shouldn't be allowed to fail. I am fed up to the back teeth with companies, all companies, who rip people off.

[heliosuk]

Again the OP does not disclose who he is pursuing!

 

One thing I would say despite the very welcome elequant ways his responses are put and this is getting back to sort of high school reasoning lesson. If the complaint is that the fault must have existed at the time of purchase so he is entitled to compensation, Vauxhaul confirm as do the independant checks, that there is no issue with the suspension geometry on the rear and no adjustments are made, the tyre supplier offers some sort of compensation, the claiment confirms that with new tyres the problem no longer exists.............somewhat suggests to me that the tyre supplier has admitted liability and indeed the problem is with the tyres. Often liability is described as goodwill, like I said, suppliers lie!! The allowance of goodwill is probably a mask for liability.

 

What really gets me is that here we have a poster purporting to be a litigation specialist, have a class action going but won't say against who or exactly what they are going after, seems to think that a consultancy based in Canada who did a little bit of research not ever substantiated are expert witnesses for the UK and Europe.............and all for a couple of hundred quid.........?

 

Would Malibu please answer who the claim is against, for how much and for what?

 

If not, sod off back to fairytale land and stop wasting peoples valuable time.

[malibu99]

Heliosuk,

 

Thank you for suggesting I have been eloquent. There is no need for you to be impatient or feel you are wasting your time. If you are unable to respond without showing complete objectivity then I suggest with respect not to bother. You do appear to be siding totally with the vehicle manufacturer and of course that is your prerogative as you are entitled to your views as I am with mine

I take on board all your points without becoming emotional Even when they appear to be aimed at a personal level) and I can assure you I am not in fairyland and do not have to use poor language to make a point.

If you read the posts you will see that the claimant is against the vehicle manufacturer who supplied a product part of which was unfit for purpose.

 

Hopefully this will now answer your main query. I also suggest you read the posts a little more thoroughly as it was made clear that the retailer (the supplier) of the vehicle had made an offer Not the tyre company as you believed. I apologise had I not made that clearer.

 

Technically under law if a product is adjusted after a complaint has been made about a problem and the problem apparently appears to have been resolved, it is considered under law that in all probability the adjustment made contributed to a repair. Unlike criminal law where proof has to be beyond a shadow of doubt civil law will look to probability based upon the evidence presented. These are not my words but those of legal advice received.

 

\you are of course perfectly correct as it could be argued that it was actually the replaced tyres that were at fault. But these are the facts. The manufacturer of the tyres and a supporting independent third party specialist who examined the tyres have stated there was absolutely no problem with their manufacturer, had there have been, the tyres on the front of the vehicle would also have worn in a similar way but they had not. Again the law or probability.

 

From the vehicle owners standpoint a problem with the product (part of the product) did not perform to a reasonable expectation from new and under consumer law has the right to request replacement or cost of replacement. I think you will agree a reasonable statement

If you wish to take issue with the above then please do but a consumer's rights should not be watered down because a manufacturer decides not to provide warranty on certain items. A manufacturer cannot remove consumer rights by introducing limited waivers to those rights.

If you wish to side with the manufacturer then fine, it is your choice but I am positive you would have the same attitude as I if you had paid for a product that in part had failed and everyone was refusing to make restitution. And please at least concede that it is the manufacturer who has taken the hard line here all for the sake of £100.00 that would not have open the flood gates and a complaint that would have sunk into obscurity had they just agreed with the supplying company’s recommendation.

 

You see I did go through the supplier and the matter was being attempted to be resolved amicably. The retailer made and I accepted what was considered by the retailer and I an acceptable offer. The offer/recommendation made by the retailer was to meet the net vat cost of replacement. However it was the vehicle manufacturer who refused a contribution of £100.00. But their refusal then created a difficulty in pursuing full restitution.

 

Having agreed to the retailers offer and support the only avenue left was to ask the manufacturer for a valid reason for not contributing. They just stated the decision not to contribute anything had been taken at the highest level.

 

No product is 100% perfect 100% of time. I am sure you would not wish to debate this point.

 

You appear to believe that it is me that has been difficult when all I wished to do was

 

1) Identify what had caused the problem in the first place.

 

2) Prevent it from happening again

 

3) Be refunded for the actual cost incurred.

 

If you think I have been unreasonable in pursuing all the above then that of course is your opinion (and may well be others) but I return to the issue, all I am asking for is a refund towards the cost or replacing a part on a vehicle that did not perform to a reasonable or life expectancy standard and yes the only one who has been completely stubborn in the matter is the motor manufacturer.

And again just ask yourself the question, Why?

[heliosuk]

Ask myself the question why?

 

Because they have done nothing wrong. The car is normal, is proved to be normal and I would go so far as to suggest you are wasting court time. You have provided no evidence other than proof it was the tyres, forget you have had use of those tyres, pupport this to be a class action which appears not to be the case, pupport to be a litigation specialist and take legal advice, quote consultancies but refuse to name them ...........etc..etc.etc.etc.

 

That's why I side with the manufactuer.

 

You have no case other than perhaps a moral issue and even then that is questionable.Your technical back up is extreamly weak as well despite what you think.

 

I sincerely hope you have sufficient resources to fight this because if Vauxhall do defend it you are going to be into serious money.

[malibu99]

Heliosuk

 

Again I take your comments and your personal critique on board. Perhaps the motor vehicle manufacturer should engage you to represent them as you appear to be so supportive to their position rather than the consumer. And that is your right

 

It is not you I have to convince and whilst I appreciate all your views but not necessarily agree with them it is not you that I have to convince or indeed have to provide information over and above that already given.

 

I have been advised by Citizens Advice, a lawyer with consumer expertise. If you are a lawyer and able to provide a qualitative opinion, then fine.

 

I have a third party consultant expert witness that in open forum I am not going to divulge all that he has to say and that's my prerogative. Your earlier post guessing that they are a Canadian company is incorrect; they are UK based and have specific firsthand experience of the matter.

 

I have a Senior Technician from the tyre manufacturer who have provided their technical observations and report. In addition there is of course my personal experience of the way I have been treated over such a small refund by a multimillion turnover company. And with respect, you seem to express a view that irrespective of how a fault has occurred (in this instance) that requires part of a product replacement, that the manufacturer cannot or should not be held responsible, how strange?

 

You seem to have missed the core point that there was a problem somewhere along the line and not of my making that created the abnormal tyre wear. You appear to shrug this off by passing any blame from the vehicle manufacturer onto the tyre manufacturer. Who knows you might turn out right but unfortunately I am in the middle and require a third party (the court) to adjudicate. And before you object again, it is everyone’s right to use the legal system when they are left with no other alternative than to just give up.

 

Finally there are the abnormally worn tyres that everyone including the manufacturer agrees was ‘most’ unusual and has cost me money, time and inconvenience to replace. And just to set the record straight, because every now and then you appear to assume things, I did indeed offer to accept or concede an allowance for the mileage run. That was only fair and reasonable on my part.

 

I am not sure about your personal involvement, if any, with working with manufacturers but clearly from the outset you have shown a bias. Again it is your prerogative, but the facts are very straight forward.

By hiding behind a Warranty waiver manufacturers attempt to reduce or water down consumer rights. On this occasion because the retailer/supplier made an offer accepted by me but then declined by the manufacturer, I have every right in law to pursue them especially as I believe there may be more to this ‘than meets the eye’.

 

As I have said, if you are a qualified commercial or consumer litigation specialist, then I will be more than willing for those advising me to discuss the issue with you. Who knows you may in this instance be the only one who is right. However, if a product (the tyres in this instance) have not performed correctly and therefore ended up not fit for purpose, the cause of such needs to be established.

The motor vehicle manufacturer has blamed the Tyre manufacturer and vice versa. For my part I am in the middle and will now let the court decide because that is all I am able to do.

Yes £100 may well be small fry to you and you may feel that I am wasting the courts time, but it is just for that reason manufacturers and product suppliers get away with things at the consumers expense.

 

Thanks though for your continued interest, your comments do actually stimulate the argument especially as it clearly support the manufacturer and provides perhaps a picture as to how the other side may or could respond and that is very helpful.

[malibu99]

Again the OP does not disclose who he is pursuing!

. If the complaint is that the fault must have existed at the time of purchase so he is entitled to compensation, Vauxhaul confirm as do the independant checks, that there is no issue with the suspension geometry on the rear and no adjustments are made,

 

Heliosuk

 

I have just reviewed some of your posts and would like to correct the above statement I am sure made by you through a misunderstanding.

 

The vehicle manufacturer did allow and authorise an adjustment to be undertaken.

 

The vehcilae manufacturer authorised the vehicle to be taken by their dealer to their appointed specialist agents and irrespective of how minor (in your view) the adjustment made was, they (the manufacturer) none the less actually allowed an adjustment to the settings to be made.

 

I think you will find that by doing such they no longer can claim the geometry was to specification with total conviction. Once the adjustment was made, by default they accepted responsibility. You may argue this point but I suggest before doing so you look at case law. I hope this clarifies and corrects.

[Hammy1962]

 

I think you will find that by doing such they no longer can claim the geometry was to specification with total conviction. Once the adjustment was made, by default they accepted responsibility. You may argue this point but I suggest before doing so you look at case law. I hope this clarifies and corrects.

 

It is very common to find front or rear geometry within the tolerance's set by the manufacturer but not actually set smack on to the specification. An adjustment can be made, to set it to the exact specification, if necessary, but that doesn't mean it was 'Out' to start with.

 

H

[malibu99]

Hammy 1962, You are perfectly correct if the adjustment made was not because the checked tolerances were outside of approved.

 

However, it appears that the adjustment made was to bring the settings back within manufacturers tolerances.

 

Look folks, try to take away any proportion of blame in this matter and look to the consumer’s complaint.

 

Tyres fitted by the OEM have worn in an abnormal way reducing the life to almost a third. The driver is not at fault. The cost to replace new tyres (with a calculation for miles run) was the early claim.

 

If Warranty exclusions were not in force you would be able to claim from the OEM of the supplied product (not the manufacturer of the component part of the product). Failing this you have the right to claim from the supplier who in turn has to claim from the manufacturer or supplier of the product. The OEM would in normal circumstances then claim if they feel it was the tyre manufacture at fault from the tyre company. It should not have to be the customer who has to do all the chasing

 

So we have a claim (forget who is held liable for the cause).

 

The consumer is told that warranty exclusion is in force and that it is down to the consumer to prove failure either of the vehicle or the tyre, at their expense. So you have a choice walk away or say that's unfair and pursue your claim for reasonable restitution.

 

Now the problem. If the OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) refuses to assist and blames the manufacturer of the offending part and that manufacturer in turn blames the OEM, you are left to claim from the supplier/retailer. Your retailer may be one like mine fantastic service, great prices and willing to help.

 

This route was followed and the retailer agreed that the consumer should not foot the bill as it was most probably not their fault but either down to the tyre or vehicle.

 

OK they in turn offer to settle the matter professionally and without any fuss but on the condition the OEM of the supplied product they sold, at least meets 50% of the refund. Very reasonable and would have resolved everything.

 

The OEM refuses out of hand.

 

OK do you walk away being the one who has to foot the bill or do you say enough is enough and try to establish who should meet the cost of a product not fit for purpose.

 

I was and still am not out to cause the OEM bad publicity or to impinge on their reputation. God only knows their stubborn non commercial and quite bizarre approach will create that scenario.

 

All I want as a consumer is for the cost of an item not fit for purpose to be refunded and that ladies and gentlemen is the bottom line.

I am not really interested in what caused the defect but know there was one.

I am not interested whether it was the tyre manufacturer or the OEM at fault but it should not be up to the consumer to have to run round proving who is at fault before they can make a claim.

 

If you purchase a piece of equipment and it fails in part why should you be told that you have to go after the component part manufacturer for restitution? And don’t forget that an OEM is fully responsible and liable for every part of their product and by applying limited warranties they are apparently attempting to erode consumer rights.

 

The assembler of a product sells a product in its entirety, be it a car, a TV or a mobile phone. That OEM sells through a retailer. If the retailer says he recognises the consumer has a genuine claim and suggests that if you are happy he will recommend that he and the supplier will compensate you, then that should be an end of the matter.

 

 

One day each of you may face a similar problem where you purchase something and it goes wrong or fails. I hope when it does your supplier and OEM deals with you in a more commercial and professional way rather than seeking to blame everyone else for what is when all said and done an anomaly.

Again thank you for your particular response and observation it allows for greater clarification and hopefully understanding.

Consumers’ rights surely are worth protecting and fighting for.

[Conniff]

Consumer rights certainly are worth protecting especially today, but they are not the be all and end all of everything. How has the manufacturer become involved in this when as a consumer your beef is solely with the seller?

[malibu99]

When a seller offers a settlement and you accept it an agreement is made.

 

The seller in this instance knows that he has to eventually claim from the OEM.

 

Unfortunately the OEM chose to reject the offer. Thus by doing so left themselves open to a direct claim for the balance of the offer made by the retailer.

 

Put yourself in a position that something has gone wrong with a product you have purchased. The retailer says yes I agree how about I and the manufacturer of the product going fifty fifty. You accept only to find the manufacturer refuses the retailers suggestion.

You could of course insist that the retailer now pays the full amount but either way the OEM is still liable for restitution and if they have a genuine argument with their suppliers product it should be them who chase, not you.

 

This issue is all about why a consumer has been forced to chase around attempting to resolve a small issue mainly because the OEM stated that as they do not provide any warranty to tyres it is down to you to prove a claim. They provide no comfort and this is quite frankly wrong. They make a vehicle out of component parts. If there is a defect on any part supplied by them they should be responsible for its correction and replacement where applicable. Today tyres and batteries tomorrow the list may well grow. If a component part fails then they have more buying power than the end user to receive the correct compensation.

 

Also and I think this point has actually been lost. I wanted to know what problem had caused the abnormal wear and to rectify it prior to replacing the tyres.

 

It was only after the vehicle was taken back for checking that the high road noise ceased and I was informed nothing had been found or any adjustments made, hence at that time I believed what the OEM was telling me and that's why the tyres were sent to the tyre manufacturer.

You see circumstances were such it was no good just claiming new tyres from the retailer until the actual fault that caused the abnormal wear had been found and rectified.

That's when everyone started blaming each other.

Surprisingly after new tyres were fitted (after the OEM had checked and adjusted) the vehicle they were strictly monitored. The report established that the previous problem had been eradicated.

 

It was now left open to approach the retailer for restitution. They agreed that something needed to be done and made the offer I agreed to but declined by the OEM.

 

I hope this explains things a little better for you so that you can see my reasons for not jumping the gun and following a logical route.

When you spend in excess of £23K I think it is only fair and reasonable to expect a little consideration when a problem occurs not of your making rather than experience lots of excuses, buck passing and refusal to meet reasonable recommendations of the retailer. I just have to keep asking why an OEM should be seen to be so intransigent over such a small and quite frankly ridiculous amount.

Is there more to this saga than any of us know, are they protecting liability, or has someone just placed themselves in a corner? Who knows?

For my part I would have been more than happy to accept the retailer’s recommendation. It is the OEM that chose to reject it and hence the fight.

I have now stated more than enough on this matter and no doubt those of you who wish to continue to defend the position of the manufacturer will continue to post.

Those of you who might feel like I do that something appears out of the ordinary and that the consumer is doing no more than pursuing a small claim, then I hope you will provide the balance to the argument.

 

In the meantime I thank all of you for what has been a lively and interesting dialogue.

[Conniff]

Can we bullet point this so making it easier.

 

1. You bought a brand new unregistered car ?
   
2. You noticed premature tyre wear, at what mileage did you notice this ?
   
3. You took the car back to the seller with a complaint that the tyres were suffering premature wear ?
   
4. The seller agreed ?
   

[malibu99]

Can we bullet point this so making it easier.

 

1. You bought a brand new unregistered car ?
   
2. You noticed premature tyre wear, at what mileage did you notice this ?
   
3. You took the car back to the seller with a complaint that the tyres were suffering premature wear ?
   
4. The seller agreed ?
   

As requested short but I am sure will still raise questions from those who may not have the time to read the lengthy posts.

 

1) Yes, Top of the range.

 

2) Picked up by main dealer at 10789 miles first annual service. Abnormal wear was to both rear wheels inside wall panels and edges and not easily visible from a walk round, until on the ramps.

 

3) No, seller was 200 miles away but instructed that the dealer should ascertain cause of problem and get back to them. Dealer states no warranty on tyres thus they and manufacturer not responsible for any defect however caused. If I want the geometry checked it would be at my expense and I would have to take it to a specialist as they like most main dealers do not carry the specialist equipment. They were not prepared to assist further. Hence manufacturer called.

 

4) Only after it was established that the fault or problem had been removed/sorted and new tyres checked to ensure no abnormal wear, was the seller again contacted. They immediately made an acceptable offer (as far as I was concerned) but as it was based on a fifty/fifty split between them and the OEM, the offer broke down because the OEM refused to meet their side of a £100.00 contribution.