Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I actually agree with the paper letter idea and would send this off tomorrow (1st class post with a free Certificate of Posting.  Don't send  it recorded mail, they would probably refuse to sign and then you'd have no proof the letter was ever sent).     Dear QWG Roofing Contractors Ltd with over 15 years’ experience in the roofing trade but only set up in 2021,   Re: your invoice no.XXXX   I refer to my e-mail of XXXX which you haven't bothered to reply to.   You are well aware that I dispute this invoice.  If you disagree with my position, I suggest you follow the normal civil law procedure to resolve the dispute.   Normal civil law procedure does not include visiting my property, disturbing my neighbour, knocking open their door and harassing them to give you my phone number.   Should you again indulge in this intimidatory behaviour I will film you and your vehicles and immediately call the police.   Yours,   XXXXX"     That should get rid of them.  After all they are conmen operating in a big city and there are loads of others they can pry on instead.   If I'm wrong, and if they appear again, then, depending on how confident your feel, really do film them and their vehicles ... or if that is too intimidating call the police.   I'm unclear if they have actually given you an invoice.  if not, change that bit of the letter to "Re: your demand for £XXXX" and later "this demand".
    • @FTMDave  -  Simeon's had a go at incorporating the attachments at #100 (I think?) but I think what he's done needs tidying up.  But as you say that's just an admin/clerical task and all simeon needs to do is to ensure that it all hangs together and makes sense.  Doesn't require specialist knowledge.   I agree with your comment regarding my paras 13 and 14.  You've made it clearer than I did!   I've also advised simeon to incorporate the report he got from the surveyor.  (Was it Hale Survey Limited?)  Let's see how he got on.   Oh - I also introbuced an error in my draft.  I had simeon down as paying the piling company £3300 but it was only £3000 (I think).  Simeon needs to check that the correct figure is in.  (Simeon had corrected my error* in #100.  I think you may have missed that because you've got a day job to do!)   Oh - and of course simeon needs to ensure that he has taken account of the corrections you have made to the claimant/defendant terminology.   Apart from the above and the interest, I'm not sure if anything else is required.  It's up to simeon now...    *I think the only thing simeon changed in #100 from my earlier draft was the piling bill from £3300 to £3000, and he attempted to add the attachments.  It might have been better - and less confusing for you! - if he'd left that until you'd completed your amendments.  Ah well...
    • We don't need the claim form, they are standard so we know what they look like.   We needs (a) the fleecers' particulars of claim verbatim with the amounts they are claiming, and (b) the date of the claim so we know the deadline for getting your defence in.
    • I see simeon  has several quotes for remedial work and also a report on some of the damage.  They need to be given exhibit/attachment numbers and linked to (16) and (17).  That is simple clerical work, you don't need any legal knowledge to do so.   Obviously the piling receipt has to be linked to (10).   As MiE has pointed out, the total needs to go in (18) and personally I would include the four sub-totals in (18 a b c d).  After all, the court did ask for a properly itemised counterclaim.   If simeon can do the above tomorrow we can then add Andyorch's point about interest at the end.
    • Hi, I’m really scared and nervous to write here, as I’ve never done anything like this before.    I had a telephone DWP compliance interview the other week, when I had the letter I thought I’d been called up at random as I couldn’t think what I’d done wrong.  In 2016 I started an open uni course part time as I was working, however a few months later I suddenly became unwell and was off work a year before finally becoming dismissed. I had to claim ESA while I was still employed as I hadn’t paid enough tax. My mum helped me make the ESA claim over the phone and one of the questions was ‘are you in full time education’ which I replied no to, but we said I had as at the OU part time.  I had to attends job centre visits and told them again about my open uni course, and every year I phoned up for a letter to confirm my ESA for my student fee loan and a part time grant.  The compliance officer is investigating me because I hadn’t declared my studying even though he had it down that I said I was with them. So I’ve had to send in all my information on my student grant which is £1155 a year.  I’m terrified of what is going to happen because I’m sure they had everything down about it all. I’m still claiming ESA for my illness and I’m in the support group, and I’m upset because I’m sure everything was down.  I just wondered if anyone knows what’s going to happen to me.    Best wishes 
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

76 year old mother convinced into buying tyres she did not need by kwik fit


Recommended Posts

Kwik fit Amersham

During a recent service My 76 year old mother was told she needed 4 new tyres on her car because they were older than 5 years. They had put an MOT on the car the week before and no mention was made about the condition of the tyres.  The car is 6 years old and has done 4000 miles,


when my mother asked why they needed replacing if they had passed the MOT she was told the tyres don't get checked during it. My mother agreed to have them replaced believing they were unsafe and on the advice from the garage.

The only reason kwick fit can give for advising the tyres needed changing is because they were over 5 years old.

After doing my own research including information from their own website there is absolutely no reason to change a tyre because of its age and it's quite reasonable to expect 10 years life from a Set.

I feel they have taken advantage of my mother by falsely claiming her tyres needed changing based upon this make-believe 5 year rule, when in fact her tyres were in a perfectly safe and roadworthy condition.


Can anyone offer a 3rd party perspective 

Edited by dx100uk
added A few blank lines only..dx
Link to post
Share on other sites

I worked for Kwik Fit many years back.


Does not surprise me. 


Neighbour of mine, also female was also convinced to spend money she didn't need. Husband went back and got a full refund. 


It's not subjective with tyres. MOT would have covered the age and replacement issue. Or as is the case didn't. 


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to 76 year old mother convinced into buying tyres she did not need by kwik fit

I pointed out the information on their own website contradicted what they told my mother. It's disgusting behaviour , she is so upset with herself. I spoke with customer service who listened to the call they said my mother agreed to having them fitted  they don't seem to care that she only agreed as she was made to feel her tyres were unsafe and it's standard procedure to change to them due to age.

They have the call recorded, do you know if I have the right to a copy of it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes send them an sar on behalf of her.



please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

A follow up to my op


I received a call from the branch manger today, he said after listening to the tapes it was clear that new tyres were only  recommended to my mother and not as I suggested a must.


I got to listen to the tape and he did choose his words carefully. My mother was clearly distressed from the moment he mentioned replacing all four tyres.


During the call he used the word recommend rather than need and followed it up with what could go wrong with tyres of that age. My mother questioned the need to replace them a few times including asking how comes they were deemed ok for the MOT.


She was told that the MOT just checks the bare minimum safety of the tyres and wouldn't mention poor condition, I questioned this as I would expect an MOT to offer at least an advisory if the tyres were in poor condition.


The part of the call that I feel most annoying is when My mother, clearly sounding confused and upset asks/states "if you are definitely saying the tyres need replacing then you had better do them" 


at this point I would have expected them to clarify things to her and make it clear they don't need replacing we are just recommending they be changed, instead he mumbles his words and and proceeds to authorise the replacement.


Is there any consumer laws that would cover this. Kwik fits stance is we only ever advised on new tyres but my mother clearly only agreed of they definitely needed replacing which they didn't.



Edited by dx100uk
added A few blank lines only..dx
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have time for a full response this evening. 


Kwik Fit are clearly not stating that correctly.


The guidance is clear and here.  I assume I can post a link to the Gov Guidance




Perhaps they are in breach of not doing the mot correctly or in breach of not saying that 'the replacement' is advisory by our standards just not by the less stringent Government guidelines.


I'd be asking for a refund. 


Definitely is a funny word.

Wonder why calls are recorded? 

Perhaps they've had problems before. 



Link to post
Share on other sites



Just to clarify for you yes you can post that link you have provide in your post.


Here is the full link: (Remember to got to 5.2.3. Tyres)



Inspection processes and rules for car, private bus and light commercial vehicle (class 3, 4, 5 and 7 vehicle) MOT tests.



How to Upload Documents/Images on CAG - **INSTRUCTIONS CLICK HERE**

FORUM RULES - Please ensure to read these before posting **FORUM RULES CLICK HERE**

I cannot give any advice by PM - If you provide a link to your Thread then I will be happy to offer advice there.

I advise to the best of my ability, but I am not a qualified professional, benefits lawyer nor Welfare Rights Adviser.

Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Link to post
Share on other sites


Good morning.


Couple of things  here. 


1. Kwik Fits own MOT inspection revealed that the tyres were in line with motoring law and the Government guidelines - the previous tyres obviously me with all 

standards for safety and the law. 

2. Kwik fit obviously apply a 'best practice' standard which is clearly higher than the legal requirement and indeed makes sense. The law is of course a minimum legal 

requirement and of course to be well above the law and to make sure you are safer than just safe makes sense for those that understand these things. 


Were the removed items offered back to your mother. The return of parts of is a default option in order to provide the chance of second inspection and to allow

the risk of independent inspection - therefore making sure that only parts that needed replacement were actually replaced.It is still common practice, not sure about KF


it does sound like your mother was put under a good deal of pressure, something that all Kwik Fit staff are trained to do - sell/upsell I was one of the first managers to go

through their new training programme as a manager (1980 - 81) having previously worked for Euro Exhaust - and having never used once since, nor would I. 


I would be inclined to ask them for the evidence that these tyres needed replacing,  ask them why it was not explained about their own higher standards for tyres, and put it to them that they have taken advantage of an elderly member of the public but don't threaten anything.  


All of this  is pointing to an oversell to an elderly woman - an easy mark in my opinion.  


There is also the issue of their own guidance- they recommend inspection at least every five years! 


From their website. 

How long do tyres last?

There is no standard rule for how long tyres should last before they need replacing. Generally, it is recommended that front tyres should last for approximately 20,000 miles and rear tyres should last 40,000. However, many factors influence the rate at which tyres degrade; including driving conditions, weight carried, and driving habits. Fast driving and harsh weather conditions can lead your tyres to deteriorate much faster. At Kwik Fit, we recommend that you have your tyres professionally checked at least once every 5 years. If you think your tyres are getting close to needing replacements , or even just for peace of mind, why not bring your tyres in to Kwik Fit for a free tyre check."


I hope that helps. 


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...