Should a car dealer replace a tyre that doesn't match the other three?
– BH
No. While not an ideal state of affairs, the car you bought is road legal and is not deemed to be unsafe. You're correct that it is not best practice to mix tyres across an axle, and as a result, my suggestion would be to replace the odd tyre (or both front tyres, if the tread depth has dropped significantly on the Bridgestone) with matching rubber.
I've bought cheap used cars that have had four different brands of tyre – and while I always got them changed, I didn't deem it something I had to take issue with the seller over.
As the dealer says, it will still pass an MOT test, while you'd have a hard time proving in a court of law that the dealer sold you a car that was not fit for purpose.
Besides, if you took the matter further, the dealer could entirely reasonably point out that you should have checked that the tyres were matching when inspecting the car before purchasing it; you could even have suggested you wanted the tyre (or tyres) replaced as part of the deal.
My advice is to replace the Lassa tyre at the earliest opportunity, chalk this one up to experience – and, the next time you buy a car, check that the tyres match.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
24 minutes ago
- The Independent
Why millions of motorists denied payouts after car finance court ruling
The Supreme Court ruled that car finance lenders are not liable for hidden commission payments to millions of drivers, overturning a previous Court of Appeal decision. This decision significantly reduces the potential compensation payout for lenders from an estimated £45bn to between £5bn and £15bn. The court rejected arguments that the payments were 'bribes' or that car dealers had a 'fiduciary duty' to customers, but upheld one case where the finance relationship was deemed unfair. Despite the ruling, consumers who paid particularly large commissions may still be eligible for compensation under the Consumer Credit Act. The Financial Conduct Authority is expected to announce a redress scheme for cases where the relationship is deemed unfair, with experts advising consumers to await further guidance.
The Sun
24 minutes ago
- The Sun
Incredible Bentley TANK uncovered by cops after being abandoned & left to rust in bushes outside garage
AN astonishing Bentley tank has been unearthed from a bush by cops after being abandoned outside a garage. The £200,000 GT Coupe was discovered during a raid on a workshop in St Petersburg, Russia. 2 2 Immigration officers found the luxury vehicle on 30 July when they were looking for illegal workers. Police video footage of the operation shows the hybrid motor parked up among weeds and bushes outside the garage. Officers also discovered 67 hybrid and heavily adapted vehicles on the site either with illegal registration documents or unroadworthy bodywork changes. A police spokesperson said: "Given the nature of the site, special attention was paid to vehicles." The Bentley is believed to be modelled on an earlier "Ultratank" built by Russian petrolhead Konstantin Zarutskiy for his YouTube channel AcademeG. His prototype, with higher tracks, could reach 81 mph, slower than the Bentley's original 200mph but still faster than any other tracked vehicle. This isn't the first time a luxury motor has been seized in a police crackdown on crime. In the UK too, police are frequently confiscating supercars to improve safety in the capital. Last year, Scotland Yard confiscated vehicles including a McClaren, Bentley, Rolls-Royce, Ferrari and Lamborghini. I bought £13,000 Bentley only to learn it was once owned by legendary TV host of classic 1980s game show Westminster local residents complained about cars driving poorly or at high-speed. So the force worked with Westminster City Council and the Motor Insurers' Bureau to remove nuisance drivers who drive around the area more frequently in the summer months. The operation launched on the evening of August 2 and ran across that weekend seizing £6million worth of cars. Officers also made five arrests including for insurance fraud, using a mobile phone at the wheel, not using a seatbelt and driving without due care. Metropolitan Police Special Inspector Geoff Tatman said: "The Met is working to put communities first - listening to and tackling their concerns. "This hugely successful operation has proved we are dealing with those crimes, such as anti-social driving, that is causing most distress to residents and tourists. "This brilliant partnership work between the Met's Vehicle Enforcement Team, Motor Insurers' Bureau and Westminster City Council demonstrates to Londoners we are doubling down on crime on the roads. "It's also testament to the hard work and dedication of the Met Special Constables – volunteer police officers - that play a vital role in our mission to make London safer and kindly give up their free time help serve the community."
Times
27 minutes ago
- Times
Supreme Court puts brakes on car finance payouts but it's not end of road
All it took was a statement from the Financial Conduct Authority in January last year announcing it would 'undertake work' on car loans to set off more than 18 months of turmoil in one of Britain's biggest consumer finance markets. Now, with a landmark ruling on Friday from the country's highest court, consumers, motor finance lenders and car dealers finally have some clarity on the potential scale of any consumer compensation the industry might have to pay. It is good news for the lenders who are on the hook for any redress. This is because the Supreme Court overturned the main arguments put forward by the consumers who brought the cases that might have resulted in a compensation crisis for motor finance providers akin to the £50 billion payment protection insurance (PPI) redress saga. • Consumers denied car finance payouts by Supreme Court While lenders may still end up paying billions in compensation, the worst-case scenario for the industry, which one City analyst had pegged at £44 billion, appears to have been avoided. It is the latest twist in a scandal that had caused consternation at the very top of the government over fears of the size of the hit lenders may face. While motor finance has been around since early in the 20th century, it has exploded in popularity in the UK in recent decades. Between 80 per cent and 90 per cent of new cars are bought using finance. The market is huge, with £18.4 billion in finance provided for 646,080 new cars and £21.3 billion for 1.4 million used vehicles in the 12 months to May, according to the Finance & Leasing Association, which represents the industry. The issue at the heart of the furore is the commissions that lenders pay to car dealers acting as brokers in the sale of motor finance. • Discretionary car finance commission was a disaster waiting to happen They have been in the crosshairs of the FCA, the City regulator, for almost a decade. In 2017, the authority announced a review of the car loans industry over concerns 'there may be a lack of transparency, potential conflicts of interest and irresponsible lending'. This culminated in the FCA's decision to ban so-called discretionary commissions. Under this payment model, the commission paid to the dealer was linked to the interest rate paid by the borrower, which the dealer was allowed to set. This created an obvious conflict because dealers earned more commission if they charged higher interest rates. The authority's ban came into force in January 2021. The regulator estimated that it would save consumers £165 million a year. Yet controversy over commission did not go away. Customer complaints to motor finance firms about pre-ban deals surged. Borrowers argued that commissions had not been disclosed, car dealers had failed to give impartial advice and that they therefore had not received the best deal. There was also a rise in county court claims. Most grievances were rejected by firms and went up to the Financial Ombudsman Service, an independent body that adjudicates on unresolved complaints. It published its first two decisions on representative cases in January last year. One of the disputes related to Black Horse, the car loans division of Lloyds Banking Group that is the UK's biggest motor finance provider, and the other related to a unit of Barclays. In both instances the ombudsman found against the lenders, deciding that they had acted unfairly because the discretionary commissions had not been disclosed to the borrowers, and that they should pay compensation. This immediately prompted the FCA to begin another review of the market, examining discretionary commissions as far back as April 2007, blindsiding the industry with its wide-ranging, retrospective nature. This fuelled City speculation that car loan providers, which include the lending arms of car manufacturers as well as banks, would ultimately be forced to pay consumer compensation totalling billions of pounds and, inevitably, a whole industry of claims management companies and law firms seeking to cash in on redress claims quickly sprang up. • 23m people expecting compensation for car finance scandal Industry data compiled by the authority covering most of the car loans market suggests there were about 25.9 million motor finance deals arranged between 2007 and the end of 2020. Some 14.6 million of these included discretionary commissions of about £8.1 billion. It was just weeks after the authority started its review that the fallout on lenders began to materialise. The first casualty was Close Brothers, a London-listed merchant bank that has large exposure to motor finance relative to the size of its wider loan book. Its shares had slumped following the regulator's announcement after investors identified the 147-year-old lender as being at risk from the inquiry. Their fears were confirmed in February last year when Close revealed it was scrapping its dividend to bolster its balance sheet to prepare for possible compensation payouts. It has since taken a series of emergency actions to boost its capital position by more than £400 million. A week after Close Brothers axed its dividend, Lloyds announced it was setting aside £450 million to cover its potential customer redress bill. This was increased by Lloyds to £1.15 billion this February following a seismic ruling last autumn by the Court of Appeal, which found against lenders MotoNovo and Close in three cases brought by consumers. It was this judgment, which stunned the industry because of its far-reaching implications, that was referred to the Supreme Court after the lenders involved appealed. While the FCA's continuing review relates to discretionary commissions, the Court of Appeal ruled that any commission was unlawful if it was not properly disclosed to, and consented to, by consumers, and that dealers, in their capacity as brokers, had to act in the best interests of their customers because they owed them a fiduciary duty. It also ruled that lenders were liable to compensate consumers for the commissions. By going much further than what had been required under regulation, it immediately caused chaos in the motor finance market, as lenders halted operations to check that they complied with the ruling, and prompted several banks to follow Lloyds by making compensation provisions. They included Santander UK, which set aside £295 million, Close, which has earmarked £165 million, and a £90 million provision by Barclays. The UK motor finance arm of BMW set aside more than £70 million, although this provision pre-dated the Court of Appeal ruling. All of this significantly increased estimates for the overall bill faced by the industry. Some lawyers warned the ruling could have implications for commissions in other areas involving brokers, such as asset finance and energy. • Car finance revival as memories of the mis-selling scandal fade The prospect of another PPI-style scandal unnerved the Treasury, not least because Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, has placed fostering the financial services at the heart of her efforts to boost Britain's faltering economy. This risked being undermined, not just by a big compensation crisis for lenders, but also by the frenzy of activity by claim-chasing companies and law firms that have been seeking to feast on the scandal. Yet the Treasury can breathe a sigh of relief. The Supreme Court on Friday rejected the idea that dealers owed a fiduciary duty to their customers and also dismissed the argument, which had been upheld by the Court of Appeal, that the commissions amounted to a bribe. The industry is not completely out of the woods, however. While the Supreme Court upheld two of the appeals made by the lenders, it backed consumers in the third case. • Common sense has triumphed over compensation culture The FCA also still has to make a decision about discretionary commissions. It previously signalled that it was likely to impose a redress scheme on the industry over these arrangements. It said on Friday night that it would confirm whether it will consult on a compensation scheme before markets open on Monday. Even so, the Finance & Leasing Association hailed the judgment as 'an excellent outcome'. The Treasury, which had been considering bringing in legislation to supersede the court ruling if it threatened a huge compensation blow to lenders, signalled that it would not intervene, with a spokesman saying it respected the judgment. Kate Scott, a partner at the law firm Clifford Chance, called it 'an eminently sensible, commercial decision from the Supreme Court. As any man on the street will confirm: car dealers act in their own interest'.
