Hi, New proud RS 250 owner here and I'm hoping for a little advise. After owning the car for 2 days I've notice that the Michelin tyres that were ftted when I viewed the car have now changed to cheap Jinyus! I called the dealer to query this and they told me that it was advised on the new MOT that the tyres shortly needed changing so they changed them. Am I been unreasonable by saying they should have been replaced like for like? I personally wouln't of purchased the car with rubbish rubber on at the price I paid.
Is it a car supermarket type place? If so that's what they did at the one I used to work at. It's worth kicking off about as you have a valid argument, but our place never used to give in to the customer. I didn't agree with their policies though.
I have the oringinal advert photos showing the car had Michelins fitted. The dealer tried to tell me the car was fitted with budgets but quicky changed his tune when I forwarded him the pictures. And yes the reason they were changed was due to been advised on the MOT.
Hmmm it's going to be a hard one then. He wants to sell cars that have no advisories or they have been rectified. Which he has done but not to your satisfaction.
exactly the same happened to me when I got mine. Viewed and test drove it when it was wearing Mich PS2's, only to find 4 Triangles on it 3 days later when picking it up. Dealer just said it needed new tyres and I couldn't really complain as I hadn't checked the treads. I'd never heard of Triangle before and strongly advise against anyone getting them..!
I can't speak for other garages, but the one I worked at sold genuinely cheap cars back in the day... I bought a pre-registered 197 for £11,300 with only a handful of miles on it, so if it had a couple of Linglongs on it (which it didn't) I couldn't complain too much.
Effectively the car isn't the same spec as when you signed the deal so I'd have thought you could get your money back. Anyone knows that budget tyres are sh!t at the best of times so to view a car with manufacturer spec performance tyres which as far as you as a buyer are concerned should be road worthy to then be replaced with cheapo tyres is a p!ss take. Legally I'm not sure where you stand but don't you have a 14 day cooling off period to return the car? I'd go back to them and tell them you want your money back, they may be prepared to offer you some money back to replace said tyres with decent ones.
Looks like they're going to replace them back to a premium brand. I just wanted to know if I'm been unreasonable by telling them I'm not happy. To be fair to the guy he originally discounted the screen price by £200 and also had to replace NSF hub as that was also advised on the MOT. But on the other hand I wouldn't have bought the car at the price I paid if it had budget tyres on. Am I taking the P*ss?
No you're not, or being unreasonable. He was expecting to reduce the price, so don't think he's done you any favours there. Although he's not done anything illegal, it's a pretty poor show and would give me enough reason to complain and ask for my money back if he didn't sort it out. I'd be concerned at what work he as had done to the hub to be honest.
If you want my opinion I'd say 'if you want everything perfect then buy a brand new car' it's second hand what do you expect? The tyres are legal, they don't need to be a brand name. That's like expecting to get the stone chips painted.
I suppose it beneficial you have photos of how he advertised the car and hes still gonna make money off the sale anyway. These places usually buy the car for 50-60% of what they sell it on for anyways. I dont think garages should be selling performance cars with poor rubber IMHO. Altho I guess theres no law against it..... When i bought my R26 i checked the tyre treads and found them to be low, the dealer did agree to replace them but when i said i wanted PS2 re-fitted (my arguement was that the car was developed/ made for them) he kinda looked a bit reluctant when he found out the cost of them. I didnt think i was taking the p*ss, just a customer getting what he wants!
Second hand or not, he viewed the car with Michelin tyres and then when picking it up got a set of Kung-Pow ditch finders. Effectively the spec of the car has changed from when he agreed to purchase the car so I don't think it's unreasonable. If the OP was moaning about a parking ding or stone chip he hadn't noticed prior to collection then I'd say you'll only get perfections from brands new but changing decent tyres to a set of cheap ones is a p!ss take by the seller. It's not the buyers fault that the garage didn't check the tyres prior to MOT as if they had, maybe they'd have had the budget tyres on the car when the OP decided to buy. In theory changing those tyres to cheap sh!t means it's not 'sold as it's seen' as it's different to how it was seen!
That's just my opinion, the tyres were bald (advised on the mot) they aren't required to replace them with a brand tyre.
No it's not. stone chips would have been there when the car was viewed. If they hadnt been and on collection I noticed a load of chips then yes I would expect them to be sorted. wouldn't you?
I only used this as an example, you wouldn't expect them to paint stone chips so why would you expect them to replace the tyres with brand ones. Dealers are all the same, they don't give a fuck
Good point. When I viewed the car online it showed detailed pictures of all four wheels . I wouldn't of wasted my time going to view it had I seen it had budgets fitted, especially at the price advertised. I also checked the tread in person which seemed good but according to the dealer they were worn on the inside edges. Admittingly i didn't get down on all fours as I knew it was going for an MOT.
Yes I did but admittingly didn't get under the car as they looked new and there was loads of tread present. apparently the inside edges were worn.
But based on that logic, you go view a second hand car and it looks good. Ok, so it's second hand so you accept it's got a few little chips or a chip on a wheel because it's second hand. So you put down a deposit based on the condition it's in. Then when you go and collect it a week later there's a dent on the door where someone has carelessly opened theirs onto it. It definitely wasn't there when you left the deposit but, it's a second hand car so do you accept it? Or do you think that actually it's not the same condition as the car you left a deposit on and bring this up? The car may be second hand but it should be the same as when you picked it up. If it was advertised with or initially viewed as a car with new, all be it budget tyres then you couldn't argue it. But to get it through it's MOT the cheapest way possible is a bit cheeky when the car was viewed with quality tyres. Even if they'd replaced them with second hand versions of the ones on there that had legal tread as then you'd go, 'Well it's second hand, I'd expect the tyres to be worn but safe'. I don't think like for like is too much to expect second hand or not.
I deal with contracts all day long. i would say it was a fundamental change going from premium to budget tyres, and unless he could get in writing from the car manufacturer that they endorse the use of 'slip-well-never-grips' then you are perfectly entitled to expect to have your performance car with premium tyres on it just as it was shown to you when you agreed to purchase it on that basis. end of.
So if the car needed a set of brake pads renewed for the mot and they fitted a set of cheap pads from an aftermarket supplier what would you say then?? Nothing because you'd have no idea. Listen to yourselves. It's a wear and tear item that has been replaced, as long as the tyres are the correct size/load there's no stipulation as to what they should fit or what you think should be fitted. Oh because it's a 'performance' car it SHOULD be fitted with a brand tyre. Behave. Saying you would never have bought the car if it had cheap tyres is just ridiculous. And as far as replacing worn car parts goes I know for a fact the local Renault dealer here use aftermarket parts if they don't have something on the shelf so how do you know it's 'quality' parts used when they changed the hub.
I think your slightly missing the point. If I wanted a poor handling car I would of spent less money and bought one. I agree that the dealer didn't have to refit good rubber, I just personally think it was bad practice not to have done. If it was 4 grand runaround I wouldn't of expected anything less but a performance car isn't a performance car without good rubber in my opinion. The car was sold as a performance car with performance brakes and tyres ect, so why should I now expect less?? Regarding the hubs they could and probably have done the job on the cheap but I have no way of knowing that the parts replaced weren't already cheap parts, so can't argue.
So why is it bad practice not fitting a brand name tyre? And if someone fits cheap tyres to a Megane or an M3 or whatever it no longer is a performance car, how is that even possible? You've obviously paid over the odds for it if you're moaning about a couple of budget tyres being fitted?
Each to their own. I asked for people's opinion and your the only one that thinks I'm wrong. I think I've got the answers I was looking for. The garage are fitting brand new michelins it's all sorted. Thanks for the advice guys
If you viewed the car with a 200 quid tyre on then that figures into the price, if you viewed it with a 50 quid tyre on that should be reflected in the price. The fact they replaced them does not matter they are bound by law to sell a roadworthy car unless stated.
I think very many people use this as one of the deciding factors when buying a 2nd hand car or not. I know I certainly would if it was a performance car like this. The dealer is clearly taking the piss, as somebody else already mentioned it's 'common' practice. If the hub needed replacing then, as Jamie says, the tyre in question could well have been worn on the inside shoulder (that the OP as admitted to possibly not noticing). If this was the case, why would the dealer replace all four tyres when, according to the OP again, the tread was okay? I'll tell you why, he's taking the piss. If the tyres were so bad they had to be replaced, the car would have failed the MOT.
200 quid was just an arbitrary number mate I wasn't suggesting that's what I pay. If I saw a car and bought it with 200quid tyres on and on collection it had cheap shit 50quid replacements I'd be asking for a discount to go towards the re spec the car. If the tyres were mot failures and the car was not sold as such, the dealer has to replace them, if they use shite, the OP should get a discount to re spec it!
Something I'm confused about which I don't believe has been mentioned.... Why is the dealer making these decisions about what to do with the car, after you have already agreed legally to purchase it? Once you have entered into the purchasing agreement, whether verbally or written, the property is your responsibility, unless otherwise stated. Even if the f@@king engine was falling out on an MOT, it was still up to you what to do about it, not up to them to decide amongst themselves and talk shit! I work within, and have plenty of experience within the motor industry, dealerships in particular who will do ANYTHING possible to save a few quid. Sorry to stereotype, I'm sure there are genuine people out there, I'm only talking from personal experience. Glad you got it sorted any, at least now the point is moot
I think the point is mate the purchase was agreed on the car as it stood, performance tyres included. He's gone to pick up the car and the performance tyres have gone and been replaced with cheap ditch finders which we all know impairs the handling of even a non sporty car. If he'd looked at the car and it had the cheapo tyres fitted which I agree the seller is fully entitled to do and agreed the purchase based on that then so be it. The point is the seller should sell the car with the same spec as it was viewed and it's their stupidity to swap something that is obvious to a potential where as you say brake pads you wouldn't tell. Another example could be you go to view an R26.R with the titanium exhaust option. You agree to buy and go to collect it after its MOT. You find its got an original exhaust but not titanium option because the previous one had a hole in and needed it replaced. They picked the perfectly MOT friendly but cheaper option but it's not the same as what you agreed to buy! If it had been on there when you first saw the car you couldn't argue but it's changed between agreeing to buy and collection, that's the point!
