2015……20 year tyres ?
You mean just under 10 years.
AA are just another inspection body just like the RAC and indeed MOT Testers and the person who did the MOT on yours.
(I speak from a previous life in vehicle inspection).
As already said above, it’s a matter of an “individual” interpretation.
Agreed, perhaps an advisory may/should have been placed to replace them.
In my opinion a lot of the pre sales inspection would be a tick box exercise.
Legal and passed the MOT. 
You could spend more money with the AA report, but still not get any where.
I would still try negotiating with the seller.
Good luck. 
1 Like
I bought my first NC MX-5 3 months ago and noted that all the tyres needed replacing. Although the tyres had plenty of tread they were 8 years old. I didn’t fancy driving the hardened rubber in the wet through the winter so have it
booked in to get Michelin PS5’s fitted. Best deal I could get was with Black Circle Tyres at £548 including fitting.[quote=“Vectian, post:1, topic:145272, full:true”]
I bought my first MX5 2 days ago. I read up as much as I could about things to check, being particularly careful to look for rust. When I went for the initial look/test drive I noticed that the tyres had small cracks in them. I asked the dealer and they said they were nothing to worry about, that the MOT the month before had not mentioned them, and that it would have a pre-sale inspection and if there was a problem they would be changed. I put a deposit down and a week later collected it.
Looking at the tyres now, it seems from the stamp they were made in 2013, and have quite a bit of cracking. The tread is fine around 4-5mm which is presumably the main reason a dealer would change them. I don’t feel all that comfortable driving around on tyres that look like this that are 11 years old, but should the dealer bear any responsibility here? If they are technically legal and not flagged up in the MOT do I have any case that they tyres are not fit? Buying 4 new tyres days after shelling out for the car is not great!
If I have to get new ones, what tyres last well and don’t crack like this for the MX5? Preferably not really expensive, but decent tyres. Thanks
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.
1 Like
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
It is not an MoT testable item - read Section 5.2.3 - “Tyres” of the MoT Inspection Manual for what is, and is not, within the scope of testing.
You might as well say that you doubt the MoT station’s competency because they didn’t report that the radio wasn’t working.
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’ll not be using him again.
Apparently 1 in 10 MOT passes should be fails
Unfortunately for me the tester labelled the perishing as cuts & failed all four tyres under section 5.2.3 (d) (i)
Did you read the link in my earlier post, explaining the cracked tyre situation??
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.
I was a tester for years , pass and advise nowt else
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.
From your picture advise only
2 Likes
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.
1 Like
The tyres are Under 10 years of age.
(Manufactured mid 2015).
Also they don’t actually start degrading until fitted/in use.
They could have been fitted “some time” after that.
They get stored correctly for this very reason.
That is also a recommendation and not mandatory.
Small claims court ?
Don’t see any satisfactory conclusion with that seeing as the poster knew about the condition on his initial inspection and still bought the car.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but trying now to blame the seller…………
3 Likes
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.
2 Likes
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
Thanks and I can’t disagree with what you say.
It would be rather arrogant for anyone to do so.
“However”, as part of my Michelin Tyre Course and extensive tests in various different climates over the years (including other aspects) they stated this.
Just two paragraphs.
Michelin states that tyres are not like fruits that go bad if left untouched. The French tyre manufacturer says the “expiry date” of a tyre should be determined from the day it is fitted on a vehicle, and not just from the date of manufacture only. This is because the tyre is only being “worn out” when fitted, subjecting it to the above-mentioned factors, and not while in storage. (Which is oxygen, weight, UV, Salt, rain, speed, heat etc etc).
The fact of the matter is, you don’t need to worry if the tyre being presented to you has been kept in storage for two or three years because its performance is on par with those that just came out of the factory.
PS - I think we are all just going around in circles now and not the black rubber ones.
3 Likes
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.
1 Like
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.