Mismatched tyres from BMW

[anonymous-user]

ukpolak said:

Good outcome.

Tbh for all of the “doubters”, to what extent should we verify (/forensically audit) every other assertion or assumption? Is there a checklist?

Of course cars are sold as seen etc but mixing up RFs and non-RFs or fitting unapproved / incorrectly rated equipment is awful. That’s one of the reasons why one would purchase AUCs from BMW over independent garages where there could be less come back and at least this gives some good-will and the OP “may” come back for servicing or for future purchases.

Great result in the end and I’m glad the dealer sided with common sense.

Thank you ukpolak. It is exactly why I purchased from a main dealer. I do however think it is a genuine mistake by someone within their business. I do not think it was done with any malicious intent eg wanting to cut corners or save money. I do though think that a closer inspection by the dealer is required before letting vehicles go, in particular with mixing runflats and non runflats. Although I'm not sure if thats an issue or not, but it's not something I'd willingly do.

[anonymous-user]

Let's be clear here folks, the issue isn't checking tyres. I was aware of the brand, not an issue. It is however an issue for BMW. It's against their terms and conditions of the AUC programme. Despite what others have tried to highlight, it's a real issue and they aren't happy it has happened.

Thanks to the tyre fitter who pointed this out. Without it, I'd have done nothing and carried on untill the rubber needed replacing.

[anonymous-user]

320d is all you need said:

What's your point? I wasn't defending the dealer. I was simply saying it seems dishonest to go through this process now 4-5 months down the line rather than within a few weeks of purchasing.

How many miles has OP driven in that period?

Interesting view point and typical of both a keyboard warrior and troll. But I like feeding you so here you go:

7500 miles.

[anonymous-user]

320d is all you need said:

I'm a "keyboard warrior" and a "troll" because I have a different opinion?
Grow up. I suspect the internet is not for you.

[anonymous-user]

DJMC said:

Absolutely the correct result and well done for ignoring the trolls. Whoever heard of run flats and non-RF mixed - ridiculous!

Anyway... one question... I assume the car is under three years old as the original warranty requires "approved" tyres (BMW * marked). After three years your dealer may tell you it's wise to fit approved tyres but their extended warranty allows any brand of correct spec tyres to be fitted. Maybe the car is over three years but Sytner were so embarrassed they fitted premium approved tyres anyhow?

My cars are with Sytner - I've found them very accomodating IF you push them a little. Waived excess on £10k+ warranty claim; paid for two new PZero tyres when they couldn't supply matching P7s (this OE tyre had been discontinued).

Its a 2015 BMW. It's not about the approved tyres, its the fact they failed to tell me:

- the car did not have run flats
- the car had run flats on front, non run flats on rear
- they changed the rear tyres for the farroad's
- they fitted an incorrect speed rating and subsequently sold a car with the incorrect speed rating.

[anonymous-user]

Trevor555 said:

I'll give you a proper Pistonheads reply/comment.

7500 miles?

You're not driving hard enough.

I beg to differ, did you not see my unmarked traffic copper thread..... Clearly I'm mr smooth

[anonymous-user]

DJMC said:

Apologies if this has been covered...

The car is under a finance agreement, yes? If you are considering a FOS complaint, have you spoken with the finance company first?

Do a Google "car credit agreement faults" - here's an example regarding rejecting a car: https://www.thecarexpert.co.uk/rejecting-a-car/2/

Good luck with it.

Not on finance DJMC. But thanks anyway.

[anonymous-user]

Ninja59 said:

I am not wrong having read that document from bmw themselves OP.

Technically speaking the AUC scheme will allow size, speed being right and being matched. Also they must be a min of 3mm.

None of the requirements under AUC actually mentioned in the AUC say anything wrong beyond the speed rating.

Overall good result for you, there is clearly an element of goodwill going on.

More than good will ninja.

I sent my email to BMW UK, the owners of sytner, the managers and the sales chap.

This is from their document .....

However, you must
provide a mobility kit, note the tyre issue on the AUC Check
sheet and inform the customer prior to agreeing the sale.


I'm sure there is some safety issue with fitting the incorrect speed rating and mixing rfts with non rfts.

If this wasn't an issue, they would have told me to go away. It was instant rectification.

[anonymous-user]

doc261 said:

Saw an AUC check list somewhere that specifically states that combination of tyres must be checked as acceptable. As well as noting whether each tyre is a Non run flat or run flat. As BMW don’t recommend mixing NRF and RF can’t see that this would be an acceptable combination. All interested parties have accepted that this was wrong so don’t understand why anyone would argue otherwise. OP has been very measured I think.

Thank you.

[anonymous-user]

Bonzaroo said:

That’s a good result and better than the service I’ve had from BMW, albeit slightly different situation.


I’m sure I should have spent more time arguing or trying to get it fixed but during covid it’s mostly sat still so I’ll just change it once I need a car again.

Yes it is, and another PH member benefited from the used pair I took off. Just so you know, I didn't spend any time arguing. BMW dealt with the issue quickly and professionally. I'm surprised another BMW franchise would not, particularly if they had only just fitted tyres.