Devilbuick41

Hi Magnet - I think that the point is that Goodyear (Dunlop) won't pay out unless they see the tyre so if you only send one they may only pay you for part of that tyre, i.e. nothing for the tyre you keep. This also relies on the consumer being aware of the potential issue with these tyres so that you request the tyre fitter that you want the tyres before they are disposed of and they are willing to return them to Goodyear through the dealer network. Otherwise you will have to get them to Goodyear at your cost. Hi Ross - Thanks for the offer of picking up the baton here. I've just been on to Citizens Advice Bureau who suggest that initially the responsibility lies with who sold you the car (or finance company) and then the company that replaces the original tyres, as this is the way the law works under Consumer Rights Act 2015. Therefore Audi Finance, if most people bought there vehicles on their finance, would be liable for the tyres sold with the car. Any tyres replaced maybe through Audi or other tyre fitters. This has also got me thinking that a lot of people may have been sold tyre protection insurance when they bought the vehicle and simply claimed off that. The insurance company, Car Care Plan?, may be a good source of info if they are willing / able to provide it. They said that any warranty provided by Goodyear (Dunlop) sits outside the Consumer Rights Act 2015 law and is only subject to the rules that they offer with the warranty. Finally, they did say that they would pass the details on to trading standards who would contact me if they needed more info.

Update 6/10/20 - Peter Wayte from Goodyear technical advisor called to say that they won't pay anything out unless they have the tyres for inspection. This means every time there is an issue someone, i.e. the consumer, has to remember to retain the tyres when they are changed and find somewhere that will send them back via the dealer network, not all places will. He has kindly (!) resent the test reports from the previous tyres which only states "The tyre shows clear evidence of having been used over-deflected by overload, underinflation or a combination of both". This does not clearly state what happened just that it isn't a manufacturing issue, which translates as user error. He responded to my comment about failing on the inside shoulder that "Where a vehicle is set up with a negative camber more weight is carried by the inside of the tyre than the outside. Under the circumstances if there are load or pressure issues this is the area most likely to show it." I still don't buy this as this would surely show as uneven tyre wear. For me there is also the question of Audi having OEM wheels and tyres that result in premature failure of the side wall despite there being a tyre monitoring system. If the system is not granular enough to detect low pressures in an OEM tyre contributing to its failure then some culpability rests with Audi. Answers on a postcard please, but I'm considering my next steps are Citizens Advice Bureau or the small claims court. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 describes goods as being fit for purpose and lasting a reasonable length of time. Email from Peter Wayte 26th March 2020 after last set were sent for analysis: "thank you for taking my call and I was sorry to have to advise you no warranty allowance had been recommended by our inspection centre. I have attached the letters which went in the post but it looks as though the submitting dealer did not have your house number or name. The letters are addressed as information is submitted into our computer by the dealer. The examiner felt the tyres exhibited over-deflection. This is when a tyres sidewall can flex more then it was designed to do. After a while it can exhibit splits. This can either happen if the tyres have not had enough air in them, (we recommend checking the inflation every month at a minimum as tyre / wheel combinations will over time lose air), or by overload for example a vehicle is loaded for a journey with family, pets luggage etc. If the vehicle manufacturer recommend higher pressures for such a journey inflating to these is required. The condition can also be caused by a combination of both. I have also added below a couple of pictures for each tyre. Both sets of photos show the sidewall and also the beads. The beads are the part of the tyre which sits on the rim. Both beads exhibited some blueing which is a sign of heat build up and also grooving. Both blueing and grooving are conditions which would be expected to be seen if the tyres have had over-deflection from underinflation or overloading. 400710465 400710446 I appreciate that you are likely to be disappointed by this reply and can only suggest that if you remain doubtful about our decision, you seek the services of a recognized independent tyre consultant, details of which should be available from the British Tyre Manufacturers' Association, telephone 01787 226995. I must point out that we will only accept the findings of a BTMA approved examiner and that you must pay for the examination yourself in the first instance. However, if such an expert believes that your tyre contains any evidence of a manufacturing irregularity, on receipt of their written report we will gladly change our dealer advice to a 100% allowance on the tyre and refund to you the cost of such expert examination. Under the circumstances and given the delay in you receiving the letter I have asked our inspection centre to now hold your tyre for a further 28 days from todays date (26/3/20). I have done this should you decide upon using a BTMA registered examiner. If you are requiring the tyres back for such an examination please as per our original letter, contact the Easy Tyre dealer who returned the tyres to us so they can arrange return to themselves."

So, to join the lengthening debate. I had two rear blow outs originally and not knowing any better I replaced with like (doh!). Since then I have had the other four tyres go the same way, the rears again being the latest. When the second set went I got the tyres back to Goodyear Tyre UK for examination and in the report they mainly hand their hat on two points; underinflation or accidental impacts which over extend the side wall of the tyres. I take issue with this on the following points: 1. It always seems to the be the inside wall of the tyre that goes, not the outside. Underinflation would cause both side walls to over extend. 2. Accidental impacts appear to be ruled out at tyres crack at the same time across axles, rears, then fronts and then rears again. Suggesting this is a lifecycle issue not underinflation nor impacts. 3. No uneven tyre wear was mentioned in the report which would be the case of underinflation, noting also the tyre monitoring system in the A7 should be sufficient to catch these things or why have it on the car Audi?, hence should be ruled out. 4.Noting the speed rating for the tyres being considerably in excess of UK road speed limits the impact would have to be severe to over extend the side wall and would therefore likely be evident on the wheel itself. I've just written most of the above back to them today asking for 60% of six tyres, as I did get some life out of them, as well as several hours messing around getting replacements. Time will tell........ Steve