Issues with an Online Tyre Retailer
Discussion
I'm opening this one up to PH for advice on where to go next.
I'm currently going through the process with the customer services department of a well known online tyre retailer and simply hitting the wall.
I believe PH has name and shame rules so I'll simply refer to the retailer in question as the retailer.
A summary of a situation is as follows:
I purchased a set of all terrain tyres to be fitted to an SUV.
On the drive home from the tyre fitters it becomes apparent that the tyres are horrendously noisy and not in line with the advertised noise rating of 73db.
I contact the customer services of the retailer to see what they can do. I'm met with old 'they've been fitted now sir, there is nothing we can do'. The service agent suggests that I can, at my own cost, obtain an engineers report from the garage stating the tyres are faulty but even with an engineers report which supports this they could not guarantee that any assistance would be offered.
I need the car but cannot use it with those tyres fitted so arrange a replacement set from an alternative manufacturer and retailer. The car sits on the driveway and doesn't move until the fitting appointment a few days later.
Tyres from the original retailer are retained and stored indoors until a resolution can be found. New tyres are of an identical specification but a different brand. New tyres are otherwise silent and as expected from a tyre of that noise rating. There is clearly an issue with the tyres sold by the original retailer.
I leave a review of my purchase on trust pilot to advise of my experience and retailer reaches out within the hour via a trust pilot response and promises to contact me privately to resolve the issue. They do contact me but only to parrot what the first customer service advisor stated.
This dialogue extends to a few back and forths via email with the jist being that the retailer acknowledges that the tyres did not perform as expected, they were sorry but as far as they were concerned, they had fulfilled their contract of sale and no refund of any kind would be offered.
I open a dispute with PayPal as the retailer is not interested in a resolution and will not entertain a refund under the consumer contracts regulations 2013 distance selling rules.
I am contacted by a customer services specialist from the retailer and asked to close the dispute with PayPal.
We go through the back and forth again of me advising that the tyres were miss sold and did not meet the performance figures advertised on the retailers website albeit evidenced only by comparing the two tyre sets purchased. I'm met with 'nothing more we can do sir'. Again, the retailer asks me to close the PayPal dispute.
I then suggest that I am entitled to cancel the order within 14 days under distance selling rules and that I wished to persue this right to cancel and return the tyres for a refund.
Retailer rejects this and instead leans on their terms and conditions which state that as the tyres have been fitted there is no right for a refund.
I suggest that according to the CCR 2013, a customer is permitted to determine functionality and quality that is reasonable and necessary to determine if the goods meet the customers expectations and the seller's description. I also suggest that a companies T&Cs cannot overwrite law and that while limited usage can enable the retailer to reduce the refund in line with the diminished value of the goods, they cannot refuse a refund outright.
(To clarify, the tyres have driven from the retailers fitter to my home and then to the premises of the alternative supplier. Less than 25 miles overall.)
Retailers refers to their T&Cs again and states that while I have the right to inspect goods to ensure that they are suitable by installing them and using them they are now exempt from the retailers returns policy.
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.
The overall attitude shown is that they have my money and what am I going to do about it?
From where I'm sat i have a few options.
- Flog the used tyres on marketplace for a fraction of the cost of buying them, delivery, fitting etc, forgetting about this whole thing and move on while vowing never to darken their theoretical door ever again.
- Wait on the result of the PayPal dispute which I fully expect to go the way of the retailer. As far as PayPal are concerned, I purchased tyres, the retailer delivered them and their fitters installed them. Job jobbed.. not a leg to stand on. I've been updating the dispute with the email dialogue with the retailer but I've no real faith that anything will come of it.
- Employ some form of mechanism to force the retailer to act lawfully (should they be incorrect that is). I don't what this would be, I've no idea where to go with that.
Of course, there is the possibility that I am completely wrong, need to suck it up and take it on the chin.
If you've managed to make it through all and have something constructive to add then I thank you. It's been a tough few months and not a lot has gone our way recently. Just one kick in the nuts after the other. We could do with a win.
I'm currently going through the process with the customer services department of a well known online tyre retailer and simply hitting the wall.
I believe PH has name and shame rules so I'll simply refer to the retailer in question as the retailer.
A summary of a situation is as follows:
I purchased a set of all terrain tyres to be fitted to an SUV.
On the drive home from the tyre fitters it becomes apparent that the tyres are horrendously noisy and not in line with the advertised noise rating of 73db.
I contact the customer services of the retailer to see what they can do. I'm met with old 'they've been fitted now sir, there is nothing we can do'. The service agent suggests that I can, at my own cost, obtain an engineers report from the garage stating the tyres are faulty but even with an engineers report which supports this they could not guarantee that any assistance would be offered.
I need the car but cannot use it with those tyres fitted so arrange a replacement set from an alternative manufacturer and retailer. The car sits on the driveway and doesn't move until the fitting appointment a few days later.
Tyres from the original retailer are retained and stored indoors until a resolution can be found. New tyres are of an identical specification but a different brand. New tyres are otherwise silent and as expected from a tyre of that noise rating. There is clearly an issue with the tyres sold by the original retailer.
I leave a review of my purchase on trust pilot to advise of my experience and retailer reaches out within the hour via a trust pilot response and promises to contact me privately to resolve the issue. They do contact me but only to parrot what the first customer service advisor stated.
This dialogue extends to a few back and forths via email with the jist being that the retailer acknowledges that the tyres did not perform as expected, they were sorry but as far as they were concerned, they had fulfilled their contract of sale and no refund of any kind would be offered.
I open a dispute with PayPal as the retailer is not interested in a resolution and will not entertain a refund under the consumer contracts regulations 2013 distance selling rules.
I am contacted by a customer services specialist from the retailer and asked to close the dispute with PayPal.
We go through the back and forth again of me advising that the tyres were miss sold and did not meet the performance figures advertised on the retailers website albeit evidenced only by comparing the two tyre sets purchased. I'm met with 'nothing more we can do sir'. Again, the retailer asks me to close the PayPal dispute.
I then suggest that I am entitled to cancel the order within 14 days under distance selling rules and that I wished to persue this right to cancel and return the tyres for a refund.
Retailer rejects this and instead leans on their terms and conditions which state that as the tyres have been fitted there is no right for a refund.
I suggest that according to the CCR 2013, a customer is permitted to determine functionality and quality that is reasonable and necessary to determine if the goods meet the customers expectations and the seller's description. I also suggest that a companies T&Cs cannot overwrite law and that while limited usage can enable the retailer to reduce the refund in line with the diminished value of the goods, they cannot refuse a refund outright.
(To clarify, the tyres have driven from the retailers fitter to my home and then to the premises of the alternative supplier. Less than 25 miles overall.)
Retailers refers to their T&Cs again and states that while I have the right to inspect goods to ensure that they are suitable by installing them and using them they are now exempt from the retailers returns policy.
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.
The overall attitude shown is that they have my money and what am I going to do about it?
From where I'm sat i have a few options.
- Flog the used tyres on marketplace for a fraction of the cost of buying them, delivery, fitting etc, forgetting about this whole thing and move on while vowing never to darken their theoretical door ever again.
- Wait on the result of the PayPal dispute which I fully expect to go the way of the retailer. As far as PayPal are concerned, I purchased tyres, the retailer delivered them and their fitters installed them. Job jobbed.. not a leg to stand on. I've been updating the dispute with the email dialogue with the retailer but I've no real faith that anything will come of it.
- Employ some form of mechanism to force the retailer to act lawfully (should they be incorrect that is). I don't what this would be, I've no idea where to go with that.
Of course, there is the possibility that I am completely wrong, need to suck it up and take it on the chin.
If you've managed to make it through all and have something constructive to add then I thank you. It's been a tough few months and not a lot has gone our way recently. Just one kick in the nuts after the other. We could do with a win.
AT tyres are always loud, and yes as soon as they have been fitted they are no longer returnable it’s just standard practice. You may have to live with them or sell them as a used set. Out of our 4 suppliers all of them have the same policy for returns, one charges 25% restocking fee
Can you prove they are noisier than 73db?
If so, why is it not a breach of
1979:s. 13(1) SGA 1979: “Where there is a contract for the sale of goods by description, there is an implied term that the goods will correspond with the description”s. 13(1A) SGA 1979 : “As regards England and Wales and Northern Ireland, the term implied by subsection (1) above is a condition”
Your loss is the cost of the new ones.
If so, why is it not a breach of
1979:s. 13(1) SGA 1979: “Where there is a contract for the sale of goods by description, there is an implied term that the goods will correspond with the description”s. 13(1A) SGA 1979 : “As regards England and Wales and Northern Ireland, the term implied by subsection (1) above is a condition”
Your loss is the cost of the new ones.
Austin_Metro said:
Can you prove they are noisier than 73db?
If so, why is it not a breach of
1979:s. 13(1) SGA 1979: “Where there is a contract for the sale of goods by description, there is an implied term that the goods will correspond with the description”s. 13(1A) SGA 1979 : “As regards England and Wales and Northern Ireland, the term implied by subsection (1) above is a condition”
Your loss is the cost of the new ones.
Sadly, I cannot prove this. Primarily because these ratings are determined in a strict test environment that would be difficult to replicate. Even if I could bodge together some test equipment there is likely no way the retailer would accept the findings. If so, why is it not a breach of
1979:s. 13(1) SGA 1979: “Where there is a contract for the sale of goods by description, there is an implied term that the goods will correspond with the description”s. 13(1A) SGA 1979 : “As regards England and Wales and Northern Ireland, the term implied by subsection (1) above is a condition”
Your loss is the cost of the new ones.
The initial conversation with the retailers customer service ended with a suggestion that I engage the garage that fitted the tyres on the retailers behalf and request an engineers report on the issue. The retailer did confirm that they had no obligation to act on the findings of the report and any assistance provided would be at the discretion of the retailer.
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 s
t 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. stevieturbo said:
Rather lacking in info.
What tyres were previously fitted ?
What tyres did you choose, and why did you choose them ?
As you say these are all terrain tyres, where your previous also AT tyres ?
And what vehicle ? road conditions you normally drive on etc etc ?
To clarify this and some other posts:What tyres were previously fitted ?
What tyres did you choose, and why did you choose them ?
As you say these are all terrain tyres, where your previous also AT tyres ?
And what vehicle ? road conditions you normally drive on etc etc ?
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 fitted as they aren't widely available and could narrow down the amount of possible retailers and fall foul of the name and shame rules the forum has. The new tyres are comparable to the AT3s and are often featured in comparison tests with AT3 tyres.
I'm not quite sure why I chose them other than they were different, scored similarly in comparison tests and on the basis that if you don't try all of the options then you don't know if you're missing out on something better. In this instance it's bitten me on the arse..
Vehicle is a Land Rover Discovery 5. Not typically something that could be considered cheap, tinny and susceptible to intrusive road noise.
Road conditions are standard for the UK for time of writing, A roads and B roads mainly in the limit miles the new tyres were used.
I am aware of the nature of A/T tyres however these are well outside of what one could consider the usual for A/T tyres and are comparable to aggressive mud tyres with tyre roar they produce and vibration felt within the cabin.
dci said:
Primarily because these ratings are determined in a strict test environment that would be difficult to replicate.
As others have said it is a drive-by noise rating i.e. external to the vehicle. In your case, it is possible that the noise from the tyres is exciting a resonance within the vehicle or being transmitted by something in your particular vehicle, making it louder than it would otherwise be.stevemcs said:
AT tyres are always loud, and yes as soon as they have been fitted they are no longer returnable it’s just standard practice. You may have to live with them or sell them as a used set. Out of our 4 suppliers all of them have the same policy for returns, one charges 25% restocking fee
That may be standard practise in the commercial environment (garage to wholesaler and so on) but I do not believe that to be in line with the requirements of the distance selling regulations. The retailer is entitled to a fair deduction based on any use of the product but they cannot outright refuse a refund regardless of the retailers T&C's. At I believe it to be the case that a company cannot overwrite law with T&Cs and any contract which does so becomes unenforceable.
The rules suggest that a customer is permitted to determine functionality and quality that is reasonable and necessary to determine if the goods meet the customers expectations and the seller's description.
In the instance of tyres that are ordered online and fitted by the retailers nominated installer, the customer is not presented with an opportunity to do this until after the installer hands over the vehicle with the tyres installed.
The retailers T&C's make returns ineligible once the tyres have been fitted and this is what they are leaning on.
The retailer is not complying with the distance selling rules of CCR 2013 by making it impossible to carry out the above.
Edited by dci on Wednesday 27th August 10:43
trevalvole said:
As others have said it is a drive-by noise rating i.e. external to the vehicle. In your case, it is possible that the noise from the tyres is exciting a resonance within the vehicle or being transmitted by something in your particular vehicle, making it louder than it would otherwise be.
That could be correct but I dont believe it to be so. It's a tyre tread roar rather than a resonating noise. I have experienced both and I believe I can determine the difference. However, it's established that in the absence me being able provide evidence of the noise being outside of the advertised rating which I cannot, this avenue is a non starter and I am instead left to rely on distance selling rules which I believe the retailer are not complying with.
paul_c123 said:
Are you trying to obtain a refund because
a) its a distance sale and you're entitled to a refund up to 14 days
b) there's some kind of fault
a) Distance sale. a) its a distance sale and you're entitled to a refund up to 14 days
b) there's some kind of fault
I don't believe the tyres to be faulty though I do believe them to be not as advertised. If I was to go down this route then the onus would be on me to prove it and I just don't have the means to do that.
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 fitted as they aren't widely available and could narrow down the amount of possible retailers and fall foul of the name and shame rules the forum has. The new tyres are comparable to the AT3s and are often featured in comparison tests with AT3 tyres.
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 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 fitted as they aren't widely available and could narrow down the amount of possible retailers and fall foul of the name and shame rules the forum has. The new tyres are comparable to the AT3s and are often featured in comparison tests with AT3 tyres.
dci said:
a) Distance sale.
I don't believe the tyres to be faulty though I do believe them to be not as advertised. If I was to go down this route then the onus would be on me to prove it and I just don't have the means to do that.
Surely tyres are excluded from distance selling regs, much like condoms, you wouldn't want to buy some that someone else had tried on....I don't believe the tyres to be faulty though I do believe them to be not as advertised. If I was to go down this route then the onus would be on me to prove it and I just don't have the means to do that.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thanks for your reply. 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.
I agree that the retailer has a right to deduct a reasonable amount in line with the use but they do not have the right to outright refuse a refund. Deductions should be fair and inline with what is reasonable and practical.
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.
A similar analogy would be ordering a pair of shoes online and having your right to return revoked the second the courier placed them into your hand. You've no choice but to accept the delivery but the supplying companies terms state that once you take delivery, you are no longer eligible for a refund. Its not aligned with 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.
In this instance, the fitters are just a third party service paid for by the retailer. As far as they are concerned, any issues are to be reported to the retailer. I don't have the option to turn around and go back. It's not their problem. I didn't get any paperwork and my contract was not with them.
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.
Gassing Station | Suspension, Brakes & Tyres | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff