I didn’t say what I would do. I wouldn’t buy a car with tyres like that.
If you have reason to think you have a bent MOT, that’s what you do. An actual MOT tester on the thread, as opposed to the amateurs commenting, has stated it would be an advisory. Used car dealers do use tame MOT testers. The point of a DVSA test is not to identify if the tyres are road legal or not, but to determine if they served as a red flag if the overall MOT was a fair reflection on the mechanical safety of the car.
If you have a car that’s failed, and you think it should have passed, the DVSA can test within 14 days, you need to pay the fee, which is refunded if the car passes.
If you have a car thats passed, but you feel it should have failed (it doesn’t matter whether it would fail on the tyres; the condition of the tyres, considering the advisory issues the year before, makes you doubt the overall safety of the car), you need to apply within 3 months. It appears if you do this, you will get a full report on the condition of the car for free (according to the Motoring Ombudsman). I guess the DVSA will make their own judgement to determine if this triggers an audit of the MOT tester, or some reminder about his responsibilities.
When dealers promise to “put on a fresh ticket” on a car when selling it, what happens if the car comes back with a stack of advisories? Is the buyer contracturally obliged to proceed with the sale, or pay the previously agreed price. When a car is agreed sold, subject to any work that was agreed at the time of sale, the dealer’s interest in investing in the car is less than zero. And even agreed work, the dealer is going to look to spend as little as possible? Iffy tyres? Well the dealer is going to try and find matching brands of used tyres or its a set of LingLongs for you.
Dealers never seem to MOT a car as soon as they get it in stock; thats spending money for losers. Their tame mechanic might give it a look over to see if they can make money from it, or scrap it/palm it off to the trade.
You appear to be missing the point that the issue here about a defect WHICH IS NOT COVERED BY THE MOT TEST.
Just because one conscientious MoT tester on the thread said that they would raise it as an advisory, it does not mean that other MoT testers have any obligation to do so. Nor do they need to look at previous advisories - they are expected to test the car “as presented”.
As the defect is outside the scope of the MoT test, DVSA would have zero interest (or remit) in investigating.
When I had my MX5, it failed it’s MOT for perished tyres, all on the inside so not visible until the car was lifted or over a pit & they all still had 5-6mm left on them. I would be doubting the MOT station’s competency
No, I’m just making idle discussion on a forum discussion. The thread is about a car that was recently purchased from a dealer.
Again, referring it to the DVSA is not about deciding if the tyre is legal or not. Its about deciding if the tyre causes enough worry if anything was missed. The appearance of that tyre, and looking at the general reaction, would create reasonable doubt. That the MOT tester is issuing passes based purely on a sniffer test, 5 minutes work for £50 on a late car, anything missed can’t be proved,
The DVSA will retest any car presented. Its sufficent for the owner to have reasonable doubt; they don’t have to have mechanical skills to appeal. The DVSA will levy a charge if you are appealing against a fail, but interestingly, no charge if appealing against a pass. For non-corrosion appeals against a pass its 28 days after the previous test. The DVSA
My Jag XJ has a pretty clean MOT record for a 20 year old big car. I have it seviced, repaired by a Jag specialist, and he always pops it over to the same test station. Never an advisory, doesn’t even mention the little crack in the windscreen that hasn’t changed in 7 years, For a little while, I’d been expressing concern about the condition of one of the tank straps; one of the straps looked a bit twig like. Nothing mentioned at the MOT; technically (bizarrely) the component that stops the fuel tank from dragging itself down the motorway is not testable. But you’d think the tester might say something about it. Least thats what the AA said when they had to strap the tank to the rear ARB after said twig bracket snapped a week later after a funeral.
I’ve used the same garage for my mots for over 20 years now, small family business and I know them well and trust them implicitly (they are the only garage I’ll use). Despite this relationship they will still rightly put down defects on my advisories as well as let me know verbally before it’s printed out in case I want them rectified before the test is completed. Last year I got an advisory for exactly the issue described. Any mot garage that inspects the tyres, sees that they’re cracked and doesn’t even make a note isn’t really being diligent, as a simple advisory isn’t a flat out fail - this was my missus car and despite it being an inconvenient expense I was more than happy to get them replaced and glad he brought it to my attention as our daily cars just get used, serviced and mot’d (not babied). This was classed as a partial failure or separation of structure which is accurate as the cracking is essentially that.
Car garages shouldn’t be allowed to mot their own cars for sale as its a conflict of interest, or at least if they do they should maintain the same standard that anyone else would. Many a previous advisory miraculously disappears from the latest mot when the car goes up for sale with a ‘fresh’ one, despite no record of the work ever being done or the part(s) replaced. This is why caveat emptor should always be your attitude when buying, because unfortunately it’s in many car dealers nature to be economical with the truth.
You’d advise tyres covered in tread cracks though wouldn’t you? Even if you know there’s more miles left in them, just to cover your ■■■■. I know I would and wouldn’t blame any station for doing it.
My view is you have a legal claim in the small claims court for the following reasons
1 You relied on the dealers assertions that the cracking was not significant which is false as the manufacturers state a max 10 year life. So clearly this was false.
2 Motordealers have a legal liability to make good defects which arise in the first 6 months.
3 If the dealer did do the MOT and passed a car with those defects you could report them to the MOT authorities and I suspect they wouldn’t want that.
4 I agree with others driving a car with cracked tyres is completely unsafe either for a MX5 or a Morris 1000.
5 I would play hardball with this dealer and start by claiming cost of tyre replacements for the type fitted to the car.
Not sure if that is quite so. Rubber compounds of all sorts start to degrade after manufacture. Such things as rubber “O” rings have a shelf life even when stored in sealed bags. This was a very important condition of purchase and storage when I worked in the oil and defence industries.
I bought a Mark 1 from my dad who wasn’t using it. When I took it to get MOT’d they said the tread was legal but the tyres were 20yrs old! I replaced them with Falken Sincera SN110 195/50R15 82H - and the difference in performance is night and day, the car is much more assured on the road now, and much more fun to drive. Something to bear in mind whoever ends up paying for them
Do let us all know what difference your new tyres make once you’ve got them fitted. They should put a big smile on your face, and bring out the full pleasure of driving your lovely new car.
Thanks. I don’t agree as buyer raised the point with the dealer and the dealer told him they were ok. They weren’t.
He was entitled to rely on the statements of the garage who are professionals and in my view the statements made were demonstrably incorrect . My Mot guys tell me that cracked tyres are either a direct MOT failure or at very best an advisory.
As I understand there were neither on the MOT.
I have friends who have been very successful in taking motor dealers to the small claims court. It just depends on how much trouble you are prepared to put yourself too.
If the garage have their own MOT set up then if they are found to be making preferential treatment for their own cars that could cause them a whole heap of trouble but of course there may be other factors at play that I don’t know about.
Motor dealers have the thickest skins but I would advise the buyer to write a formal letter setting out their concerns and seek an amicable redress which I suspect will be rejected then if they decide to proceed with Small Claims Court Action it will put them in good stead as they have tried to redress the matter.
Whether this is worth the cost of 4 premium new tyres and tracking for circa £600-700 is up to the buyer.
Tyres bought get them fitted and move on.
I learned a long time ago to be very wary of dealers and their car selling ways, some once you’ve handed over the money aren’t interested.
If it was a serious defect like mechanical or something like an insurance damaged/claim undisclosed then yes you can persue them for it.
The tyre thing, I’ve just remembered…
I bought a Vauxhall Astra (G reg) a few years ago, at the time it had 20 year old tyres on it, Michelins. Lovely condition, elderly chap owner, I bought it through his son to use it as a run around.
He said his dad and mum used to travel down to Cornwall for holidays in in every year, recently been, same year there on those tyres. His dad produced the current MOT and said to me I specifically asked my mechanic to check the tyres before MOT time again, he did and presented the car to MOT place. Not a mention about the tyres, all good and passed.
Now his son said there are cracks in the tyres (minor) so if I had the car I’d be changing those first, I agreed.
Didn’t keep the car long as intended, back trouble preventing me any real movement for a few weeks so I reluctantly sold it on, old tyres still on with a warning for the buyer.
To a degree it depends on the MOT tester . If you look at the MOT test on the government website it may be mentioned as an advisory on the certificate. However my sons Fiesta failed on this issue and we had two new tryes fitted.
