When servicing my wife's car back in January I noticed a stepped ridge on the inner edge of the LH rear tyre with the tyre carcass exposed by lifting tread. I then checked the RH rear and there were the beginnings of the same fault. I promptly had both tyres changed and arranged for the tyre manufacturer to inspect them.
The response I have had is a proportional percentage of the purchase cost based on the life left in the tyres.
Quote:
?The concession is of a commercial nature only and does not constitute an admission of liability, nor imply a fault with the tyre.? ?The concession is given on the residual value of the product; this is based on the useable tread left on the tyre at its removal. This is the standard industry practice.? Unquote
Before accepting their offer my question is - are these tyres of a merchantable quality if they go like this within 12 months?
|
If you noticed the fault within 1 week I guess it would be reasonable to expect a total refund.
If you noticed the problem after 2 years and 20,000 miles it would be a bit much to expect anything.
Given that you were in between the two, an offer equally between the two doesn't seem unreasonable.
What was it you wanted from them ?
|
|
Unless you can show that the extent of the tyre's wear is excessive overall due to a fault in the tyre, it seems reasonable enough to me too.
|
|
Seems fair - you pay for what was used, kinda tyres on lease or rent.
|
|
|
|
Mark
The money refund offer is one issue and I appreciate the the tyres were worn and I have come across proportional offers before.
The point that I take great exception to, on a safety related product is that they have not shown any level of concern that ultimately would have led to an instant deflation blowout.
My memory is hazy on this but the same manufacturer was held responsible for supplying a faulty tyre that caused a coach crash in France with several fatalities.
It seems to me, as a customer, that they still do not regard tyres as a safety related item.
All it would have taken would have been a reassuring response to my concern like any organisation that has a grasp of PR would do.
|
I'm no expert, but isn't it conceivable that some factor other than manufacturing fault (mechanical could have brought this problem on?
I must say I'd think I'd got quite a result if I got a refund in similar circumstances.
It's unthinkable that the company would admit any kind of liability unless they were really in a legal corner. Just like any of us wouldn't freely admit liability if we were to blame for an accident.
|
It's unthinkable that the company would admit any kind of liability unless they were really in a legal corner. Just like any of us wouldn't freely admit liability if we were to blame for an accident.
Agreed. Just because they're denying liability etc doesn't mean they're not going to look at the tyres and work out what went wrong, for internal analysis only.
|
It is difficult to make a judgement without seeing the tyres.
If the mileage is quite low (say under 12000 miles in the 12 months) then I would be very concerned. What you seem to be saying is not that the tyre is worn, but that the tread is parting company with the carcass. If that is the case then I would get in touch with local Trading Standards and/or Vehicle Inspectorate. This would be quite a serious fault.
|
But it's too late, Aprilia, as the tyres have gone back...
Involving trading standards quite possibly wouldn't give rise to the refund anyway.
I'd just sit back, and pour a nice large whisky and relax, if I were you. Not worth worrying about. Maybe it was a faulty batch, but in the long run, you're not out of pocket, and you're only putting up your blood pressure.
Provided that they paid you (Cost price)*(tread thickness when removed - 1.6mm)/(original tread thickness - 1.6mm), then you're in pocket as you wouldn't have run your tyres down to 1.6mm anyway, would you?????
|
|
|
|
|
With people sueing at the drop of a hat, a company is not going to admit liability, or even give any sort of statement which suggests that they have got things wrong, even if it would be good PR.
|
|
|
|
|
:no_upscale():format(webp)/https://cdn.uk.prod.group-mobility-trader.com/images/cas/fc8d5aaa396b844550aafd1dd5657c52/d6773cab48c576b027b0654146b4cfa0.jpg)
:no_upscale():format(webp)/https://cdn.uk.prod.group-mobility-trader.com/images/cas/91d884ab4a60aa26da5c6257c2434401/9a241634430973676aeda1cea25e57ac.jpg)
:no_upscale():format(webp)/https://cdn.uk.prod.group-mobility-trader.com/images/cas/2425cbd83ba7d8a7c5274924e8bee995/051799222a20737c6fe51c90da4a58a2.jpg)
:no_upscale():format(webp)/https://cdn.uk.prod.group-mobility-trader.com/images/cas/6f862f01984d23f0a95be0daeb621744/c8e1f37a0b016d7c7f3e78ee78202008.jpg)
