Issues with an Online Tyre Retailer

[dci]

Dog Biscuit said:

Sounds like there's a bumpy road ahead with this one....you must be feeling deflated.

Thanks for this one also. When these things take off in other threads it does raise a smile and chuckle when I read them, regardless of the intention of the poster.

[mmm-five]

Is the tyre fitter also the retailer, or are they just a local fitter you've chosen to fit tyres you've purchased online?

Although I am surprised that the extra noise (may not be more decibels, just a different frequency) stopped the car being usable, and if your that attuned to the different volume/harmonics then maybe a non-AT tyre would be more suitable in future?

Edited by mmm-five on Wednesday 27th August 14:35

[E-bmw]

dci said:

paul_c123 said:

For reference: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/part...

I think your problem is you've driven home, not just driven (say) 400 yds before you noticed the excessive noise. Have a good look at:

(9) If (in the case of a sales contract) the value of the goods is diminished by any amount as a result of handling of the goods by the consumer beyond what is necessary to establish the nature, characteristics and functioning of the goods, the trader may recover that amount from the consumer, up to the contract price.

...........

(12) For the purposes of paragraph (9) handling is beyond what is necessary to establish the nature, characteristics and functioning of the goods if, in particular, it goes beyond the sort of handling that might reasonably be allowed in a shop.

All from section 34, "Reimbursement by trader in the event of withdrawal or cancellation".

Basically, the right to cancel is put in place because its a distance sale, there is no opportunity to go into a shop and inspect it. For example, if its a toaster, you can go in a shop and look at the external design, get a good impression of the size, whether it will fit into your home decor etc. But if buying online, you're relying on dimensions and pictures. It doesn't give a right to use the product for 2 weeks, then return it used. I believe you're incorrectly interpreting 34 (9) as giving you a right to have them fitted and drive around for a bit to assess them. You'd not get this if you went into a tyre fitter and bought/paid for them then.

So they have a right to deduct for the "use", and clearly these tyres are no longer brand new. They're going to have some amount of dirt/brake dust/road grime on them and tyre soap too, from the fitting. They have a value, as a "return", much like you could buy a Grade B item from an online shop which is a returned item - at a discount.

TLDR - the law allows you to return within 14 days but not use them for 14 days, because you've not walked into a shop to look at them first.

The retailer in question has refused outright any type of refund. The limited use is of little interest to them and it's a black and white argument, tyres fitted = no refund.

I believe this to be flawed in respect to distance selling rules as there is no option to inspect them prior to them being fitted. The first opportunity a customer would have to see the tyres is when the fitter hands the keys back. By the retailers own terms and conditions, it's already too late and this does not align with the wording of the distance selling rules.

In the example of attending a tyre fitter and buying them in person I would be able to turn around after a couple hundred yards, return to the garage and lodge a complaint.

While it's entirely possible to stop dead in the road, lock the car, walk away as soon as you decide that the tyres aren't what was expected and then phone the retailer. It's just not practical and not going to happen in the real world. The first opportunity to do this is going to be as soon as you arrive home from the fitting appointment and is exactly what I did.

I do get your complaint alas here are my views/opinions.

You keep quoting distance selling rules, but you only paid "from a distance" you then went to an outlet to collect them/have them fitted so you are kind of in the middle of 2 different worlds really. The tyre fitting shop has no contract with you & the "online retailer" is really just an intermediary.

Unfortunately, I suspect your major issue is you will have accepted the Ts & Cs in completing the purchase & everything you are now finding will be adequately covered therein.

On top of that the tyres are now useless to both the website and the tyre outlet so I think you are likely to be stuck.

[dci]

mmm-five said:

Is the tyre fitter also the retailer, or are they just a local fitter you've chosen to fit tyres you've purchased online?

Although I am surprised that the extra noise (may not be more decibels, just a different frequency) stopped the car being usable, and if your that attuned to the different volume/harmonics then maybe a non-AT tyre would be more suitable in future?

Edited by mmm-five on Wednesday 27th August 14:35

I'm not sure that I stated that it made the car unusable but that the car could not be used with the tyres fitted as to do so would definitely place them outside of the reasonable expectation to be returned. As per an earlier poster, the rules don't allow for one to use them willy nilly and come to a conclusion at some point in the 14 days decide they don't want them anymore.

I ceased use as soon as practically possible and then lodged a complaint. When the complaint was rejected I had to use the car but couldn't do so with the tyres fitted so had them replaced immediately with an alternate supplier.

[dci]

E-bmw said:

I do get your complaint alas here are my views/opinions.

You keep quoting distance selling rules, but you only paid "from a distance" you then went to an outlet to collect them/have them fitted so you are kind of in the middle of 2 different worlds really. The tyre fitting shop has no contract with you & the "online retailer" is really just an intermediary.

Unfortunately, I suspect your major issue is you will have accepted the Ts & Cs in completing the purchase & everything you are now finding will be adequately covered therein.

On top of that the tyres are now useless to both the website and the tyre outlet so I think you are likely to be stuck.

I think as far as the 'rules' are concerned, it's only the buying at distance that really matters. The product has to get to the customer in some manner so having them fitted locally by the retailers agent is largely irrelevant in that respect. If I had gone directly to the fitting agent and purchased the tyres there, excluding the retailer entirely, it would be different.

The question that arises from your post is can a company bypass law with T&Cs? Everything Google AI assistant has produced for me suggests that a company cannot bypass law with T&Cs whether the customer accepts them or not. A contract formed on such a basis becomes unenforceable.

[Jakg]

dci said:

That's where I've left it for now. I simply dont know what else to do. Based on my interpretation and limited knowledge of distance selling rules, the retailer isn't complying but they simply dont care and aren't interested in a resolution.

I am not a lawyer - I want to disagree with your interpretation of the distance selling rules, but I think having a fitting service bundled muddies things and you might be onto something.

However, I think your much better going not-as-described than distance selling.

dci said:

A few hours labour charge along with a half day off work wasn't something I was willing to risk on the basis that the retailer could just say that the garage are talking st and we don't believe their report to be accurate. That's even if a garage that likely receives a large portion of their work from the retailer was willing to jeopardise that work stream by siding with a one time customer.

I think if you want to go legal, your going to have to get some kind of assessment done. And your going to have to pay.

dci said:

The question that arises from your post is can a company bypass law with T&Cs?

Largely, for obvious reasons, no.

[MustangGT]

dci said:

MustangGT said:

This does not make sense, AT3 is simply a name for the specific tyre by the manufacturer. There is no specific specification for 'AT3'. Several manufacturers use this name, it is simply their third generation of AT tyres.

The tyres are made by General Grabber and the particular product name is AT3. I'm not sure I implied that AT3 was a specification shared across brands but is simply a product name by a manufacturer.

Maybe I should expand to clarify.

The car has previously had GG AT3 tyres fitted. These were changed to the tyre which I am trying to return which have since been replaced by a new set of GG AT3s.

General Grabber are one manufacturer who uses AT3 as a name, as do Cooper and Toyo.

In your opening post you said:

dci said:

New tyres are of an identical specification but a different brand.

In a later post you also said:

dci said:

To clarify this and some other posts:

The previous tyres fitted were General Grabber AT3s. The replacement tyres are also AT3s as will the future sets be AT3s.

I'm not willing to disclose the new tyres in question. The new tyres are comparable to the AT3s and are often featured in comparison tests with AT3 tyres.

This clearly states the first set of replacement tyres (that you are talking about) are not the same make as the original tyres.

Clearly you think they are noisier, but without noise measurement testing in the same way that the manufacturer carried it out you will have a hard time trying to prove they were mis-sold, or not as advertised.

If pursuing a refund I think you will have a hard time trying to get more than the second-hand value of the tyres since they are not new anymore having been driven on.

[normalbloke]

Not naming the brand and size of tyre is flakey, at best, even taking onboard your ‘reasons’ for not doing so.

[dci]

MustangGT said:

This clearly states the first set of replacement tyres (that you are talking about) are not the same make as the original tyres.

Clearly you think they are noisier, but without noise measurement testing in the same way that the manufacturer carried it out you will have a hard time trying to prove they were mis-sold, or not as advertised.

If pursuing a refund I think you will have a hard time trying to get more than the second-hand value of the tyres since they are not new anymore having been driven on.

I was not aware of the name sharing across brands, apologies.

To be clear(er), the original/ previously fitted tyres were General Grabber AT3s, the 'noisy' tyres were Radar Renegade AT5s and the current tyres fitted are a new set of General Grabber AT3s.

The term specification was used in regard to size and speed/ load ratings.

I appreciate the other replies also.

It seems that unless I want to go legal on the basis of an interpretation of the CCR 2013 distance selling rules which may or may not (more likely) be correct then I've just got to wait out the PayPal dispute and depending on the result, Flog them on marketplace.

Its the reality check I needed, thanks.

[stevemcs]

Radar are budgets and nowhere near the quality of General's, we have a few customers who use the Grabber AT3's on Discos and rate them, Goodyear are also another option.

[dci]

stevemcs said:

Radar are budgets and nowhere near the quality of General's, we have a few customers who use the Grabber AT3's on Discos and rate them, Goodyear are also another option.

To be fair, the radars also have fairly good reviews both officially published and on forums and Facebook groups.

The price difference between the two sets wasn't that great either, perhaps £10-£15 per tyre.

I know what I'll be sticking with going forward anyway.

[Dog Biscuit]

dci said:

Dog Biscuit said:

Sounds like there's a bumpy road ahead with this one....you must be feeling deflated.

Thanks for this one also. When these things take off in other threads it does raise a smile and chuckle when I read them, regardless of the intention of the poster.

Haha well my attempt certainly hasn't lit any fires by the look of things!

I'm wheely disappointed.

[M4cruiser]

Just my 2p worth:-

It may seem a lot of money at the moment, but in the grand scheme of things it isn't.
You have a car that's worth quite a lot, and the running costs total a lot more than this set of tyres.

Look around at your whole life, and see the disproportionate amount of time and effort this thing is taking.
Going legal will risk a lot more, the only winners will be the lawyers.

So, you've guessed what I'm leading up to: just drop it and move on.
Focus on what's really important in your life - I guarantee it's not tyres.

Just to clarify, I don't own a 4x4, I've never bought AT tyres, but I don't think that's relevant. I've bought car tyres on-line and had them fitted locally, in much the same manner. Once or twice in a lifetime I've regretted my purchase, but I've learned to just move on.

[MustangGT]

dci said:

MustangGT said:

This clearly states the first set of replacement tyres (that you are talking about) are not the same make as the original tyres.

Clearly you think they are noisier, but without noise measurement testing in the same way that the manufacturer carried it out you will have a hard time trying to prove they were mis-sold, or not as advertised.

If pursuing a refund I think you will have a hard time trying to get more than the second-hand value of the tyres since they are not new anymore having been driven on.

I was not aware of the name sharing across brands, apologies.

To be clear(er), the original/ previously fitted tyres were General Grabber AT3s, the 'noisy' tyres were Radar Renegade AT5s and the current tyres fitted are a new set of General Grabber AT3s.

The term specification was used in regard to size and speed/ load ratings.

I appreciate the other replies also.

It seems that unless I want to go legal on the basis of an interpretation of the CCR 2013 distance selling rules which may or may not (more likely) be correct then I've just got to wait out the PayPal dispute and depending on the result, Flog them on marketplace.

Its the reality check I needed, thanks.

I wish you luck in getting the resolution you want.

[E-bmw]

dci said:

stevemcs said:

Radar are budgets and nowhere near the quality of General's, we have a few customers who use the Grabber AT3's on Discos and rate them, Goodyear are also another option.

To be fair, the radars also have fairly good reviews both officially published and on forums and Facebook groups.

The price difference between the two sets wasn't that great either, perhaps £10-£15 per tyre.

I know what I'll be sticking with going forward anyway.

Just had a look in tyrereviews & there is one there that says they were so loud conversation was impossible!

[stevieturbo]

M4cruiser said:

Once or twice in a lifetime I've regretted my purchase, but I've learned to just move on.

Sometimes whilst wrong, it is the right and easiest thing to do.

Flog the tyres he doesn't like as good second hand, likely someone out there who will want them

[Haltamer]

To go back to my earlier point, have you tried contacting the manufacturer at all?

I would say that beyond that, It could just be worth driving them around for a little while - Once they're slightly bedded in the noise may drop off or move to a more bearable tone as the tread wears in.

Expediting that with some carpark antics to get them a bit 'melted' would cut down any rougher edges and at least mean you get to enjoy them before throwing them away...

[dci]

M4cruiser said:

Just my 2p worth:-

It may seem a lot of money at the moment, but in the grand scheme of things it isn't.
You have a car that's worth quite a lot, and the running costs total a lot more than this set of tyres.

Look around at your whole life, and see the disproportionate amount of time and effort this thing is taking.
Going legal will risk a lot more, the only winners will be the lawyers.

So, you've guessed what I'm leading up to: just drop it and move on.
Focus on what's really important in your life - I guarantee it's not tyres.

Just to clarify, I don't own a 4x4, I've never bought AT tyres, but I don't think that's relevant. I've bought car tyres on-line and had them fitted locally, in much the same manner. Once or twice in a lifetime I've regretted my purchase, but I've learned to just move on.

Thanks, I did read this last night but I didn't get a chance to respond. It did help along with the other responses that I can't seem to multi quote anymore.

Like arguing with strangers on the internet, it does take up a lot more time and mental resource than its really worth.

There is really no intention to go legal. While there is probably a boat load of solicitors who would happily take my money knowing that I would be clutching at straws at best, the cost and effort would likely dwarf the amount spent on bad tyres in no time.

At worst I'll be around £250 down should the tires sell for at least 60% of what I paid for them. Take it as a life lesson to read more than the first few pages of reviews before committing to a purchase. The less favourable reviews (even on apparent impartial sites) always seem to be buried a few pages in.

[dci]

Haltamer said:

To go back to my earlier point, have you tried contacting the manufacturer at all?

I would say that beyond that, It could just be worth driving them around for a little while - Once they're slightly bedded in the noise may drop off or move to a more bearable tone as the tread wears in.

Expediting that with some carpark antics to get them a bit 'melted' would cut down any rougher edges and at least mean you get to enjoy them before throwing them away...

I looked into it. Radar are based in Singapore with not too much of a European presence other than via their dealers. No Facebook page I could find anyway.

[stevemcs]

Tyres would have to go back to the supplier who would then send them back to the supplier, the whole process take up to 12 weeks as they are sent back to the factory.

Out of interest, were they fitted the correct way around ?