I said all that and other stuff in my posts.
I would change the tyres as already stated and learn from it.
In my opinion, (I say again) this should have been raised at the time of purchase/collection.
I wonder how long the previous owner had been using the car with the tyres in that condition with no issues…, we know at least a year from the previous test.
The only way of telling how actually bad they are is to remove and inspect.
I am playing devils advocate here.
Your 10 year point is out the window too.
“The dealer said they were okay…”.
If the buyer didn’t like that reply, why did he carry on and buy it.
“That” would be one of the first questions the court would ask perhaps…
I, we, everyone on here, the law, the MOT test say they were not an MOT failure or illegal and its up to the discretion of the tester what they act on.
The actual offence of selling an unroadworthy vehicle doesn’t apply.
If you haven’t already, read what Philip and others are saying.
So what “actually” would the buyer take the seller to court for…
Currently, nothing that I can see.
Where does he stand?
If he didn’t believe the seller, (I say again) why buy it knowing they were like that.
Basically negotiate, see what happens and move on with ones life and don’t let it tarnish the purchase and future enjoyment.
The buyer has already purchased some tyres probably for a lot less than your estimate.
Therefore, to negotiate probably best not to push the issue (price) to high.
You can’t rely on what a 3rd party tells you not knowing all the facts.
The only person able to make a firm judgement was the actual tester at the time of the inspection.
(Debatable agreed, but pointless and will get the buyer no where).
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.
On this one maybe, if the rest of the car is all good physically and mechanically and you’re happy overall then don’t dwell on it too much, whack a new set of tyres on it and chalk it up to experience. It’s definitely something that should of been used at the negotiating stage but now it seems too late whether it’s morally/legally/ethically correct or not. Then you can get on and enjoy the car.
I didn’t say mine were 20 years old, it was making the point that being technically legal doesn’t mean they are safe, as it the extreme example of 20 year old tyres with 1.7mm tread left would not fail an MOT. The dealer is signed up to an AA code of standards, one of which is that cars are supplied in good condition, and there is no way those tyres can be classed as good condition. That is the route I will have to try, I have already changed the tyres for Kumho PS71s.
““The dealer said they were okay…”.
If the buyer didn’t like that reply, why did he carry on and buy it.”
He said that there would be a detailed pre-sale inspection and that if there were any issues with the tyres, they would be changed. That is why I proceeded, and also because it was a rare model that has taken months to find and quite a way from where I live, I may have lost the deposit if I walked away which is more than a new set of tyres. My mistake clearly was trusting what he said and thinking that perhaps a car dealer could be honest.
The bottom line is, it does not matter what you think of the tyres, it is down to what you can evidence as being unsafe or dangerous and how much you want to spend, in court if necessary, to make your point.
If a seller says they are going to provide a car with a new MOT then they do what the MOT says they need to do, if it does not say it needs new tyres, then they are not going to do that. Tyres are a dead loss to the profit from the sale and so garages will not, unless there are other reasons they can afford it, spend money after a sales is agreed, that they are not obliged to. You bought a second hand car, meaning all the parts are worn to a greater or lesser extent, with the promise of a MOT, and it would seem that is what you got.
You will find most garages chuck on budget tyres that are just as lethal as a treadbear or aged tyre, sometimes they even throw on part-worns; use tyres needing replacement as a haggling point and fit rubber you actually want.
If the dealer had replaced the tyres, I’d say 70% chance you’d want to rip them off within a couple of months anyway!
It’s’ possible that you really wanted this car and were prepared to accept the dealers comments re the tyres. 9 year old tyres are well past there sell by date so I believe the dealer has been less than straight with you and should make good. If not then it in my view it really depends how stubbornly determined you want to be to get the dealer to make amend. Whatever course of action you do, or don’t, take try not to loose sleep over this. Might be wrong but it is my understanding tyres should not be on the market for sale 5 years after manufacture. Thing is I personally would advise that they need replaced now. I am on my 3 set of Yokohama Advance sport V105 tyres on my 2016 1.5 ND1 SEL (195x50xR16 84V). The second set of Yokohama were replaced after only 14000 miles driving with 4.5mm tread depth. The tyres were manufactured only 1 year before purchasing and fitting. They were replaced due to cracking all around the circumference of the inner circumferential tread. The cracking was identical to that on the outer circumferential tread of your tyres. I put this down to my low Annual mileage (4000-5000miles per annum).
The third set are recent manufacture and after only 4000 miles and in just over one year of driving slight superficial cracking has appeared (over extremely short lengths on each tyre) in the inner circumferential treads of third set.
Deviated from your circumstances somewhat but I am resigned to having to keep a very close eye on the tyres and be prepared to replace them well under 5 years from manufacture with a good tread.
I deviate just to say safety of driver and passenger is paramount.
I would point out that I am diligent in regard to my choice of premium tyres, tyre pressures and get the steering geometry checked and adjusted. I use a proficient technician on Hunter alignment , (personally observe check and adjustments). I really can only put cracking down to low milage on a modern tyre rubber
