tonye60

if you have a complaint about your tyres it is with bmw and no one else, you bought the car of bmw and thats who your contract of sale was with, not dunlop. If you want to pursue this its bmw's problem not dunlops,

ianmcc

My thoughts exactly - unfortunately BMW do not agree. I have spoken to my local dealer and then BMW UK Customer services at length on 4 occasions and even threatened legal action over the fact that the tyres are dangerous, but they just don't want to take anything to do with the issue. The arrogance of BMW is astounding - unfortunately people are practically queuing up to buy their cars, and they know they can get away with it.

I would understand it if this was an isolated case, and they thought I was trying my luck, but the fact of the matter is that this is a known problem that has been admitted by Dunlop and accepted by BMW North America. How can BMW UK keep denying the problem exists?

Does anyone have any ideas as to how I can go about getting them to take responsibilty, or do UK consumers have no power whatsoever?

KAF

UK consumer laws make it clear that goods should be fit for the purpose.

However the law also makes clear that the timeframe you have to claim that goods are defective is limited.

if a 'fault' occurs within 6 months of purchase, the assumption in law is that the fault was there at purchase and you are entitled to replacement.

Your tyres are 18 months old, so fall outside this. You would therefore have to prove they were defective at time of purchase, practically impossible to do.

I am not saying that this is fair or accetable but it is the law in the UK

I quote "If goods turn out to be unsuitable for their intended use or develop a fault in an unusually short period of time, the buyer has a right to a refund or damages. If some time has passed since the purchase was made, yet the fault is still deemed unreasonable for the use the item has had, then the buyer has a right to just damages. This means that the trader might repair the goods or, if this is not practical, pay compensation (adjusted if necessary to allow for any use already obtained from the goods). "
Sale of Goods Act 1979 and then amended in the Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994.

You can argue all you like, but legally you will lose and BMW know this.

ianmcc

Thanks for the reply. However, the tyres were defective at the time of purchase, its just that the problem did not manifest itself until later. How can this law stand up when it would have been impossible to see the problem until you have covered a certain amount of miles? It doesn't change the fact that they were defective at the time of purchase. Also, in respect of proving that they were defective, surely the North American TSB is a clear admission that they are faulty.

However, you are probably correct in saying that I will not get anywhere - it just proves how much of an ass UK law is, and companies such as BMW are exploiting this.

Evenflow545

Dunlop actually makes pretty good tires.

The Dunlops aren't defective, and the BMW is not defective. The "defect" occurs when the tires are placed on a BMW with a sport package and active steering. Combining the products then makes the BMW a defective product. And that makes it BMW's fault.

And BMW knows it.

Everyone knows it, most notably my service advisor.

And that's why I'm on my third set of tires.

In the US, you can't place a defective product into the stream of commerce. I don't know what the laws are in Europe. The US has fairly good consumer protection laws, by the way, because of lawyers filing lawsuts against manufacturers who create a product like BMW has done with the 5-Series runflat setup.

In fact, if BMW hadn't caved in once again, I was going to sue them in small claims court for a new set of Bridgestones. And make them pay five times more than the tires were worth in legal fees. And call my service advisor as an "expert witness." And subpoena the BMW field engineer for this district.

That would have been funny.

znod

Great info Ef545. As, far as I can tell, the problem does not extend to non-RFT's or other RFT's. To your knowledge, is there a theory on why the problem applies only to the Dunlops--assuming this is true.

pedrollo

My e39 530d sport touring did 13k rear and 26k fronts. Applied to both 17s and later 18s.

I am not expecting to get much different out of the E61, if I do it will be a bonus.

I agree about the arrogance, the UK consumer laws, and the generally bad deal we get, but frankly I also think that you are over egging a pudding that is well cold. If there is a case to be put to BMW (and Jaguar) it is the ZF auto gearbox, not the tyres.

Evenflow545

I'm not sure why only the Dunlops are affected, Znod, other than that it's just a bad combination of car and tire. Every tire has different physical properties, I suppose, and the Dunlops just don't seem to work with the e60 setup. It's hard to determine the exact problem, because I'm sure that both BMW and Dunlop are trying to keep things sort of quiet.

And, to make matters worse, I bet BMW has warehouses full of Dunlop runflats. That's why they keep replacing Dunlops with more Dunlops; which is sort of silly.

znod

Thanks much. Maybe BMW has a plan; sell the old RFT's for use in making rubberized asphalt. Maybe Dunlop caught on?

ianmcc

I am rather confused by your post. How do you work out that I am "frankly over egging a pudding that is well cold?" You state that you got 26K on your fronts - so how do you come to the conclusion that 15K on my fronts is acceptable? 26K on the fronts sounds about right in my experience, so maybe you missed the point that I have only 15K on my car. Would you be happy to replace all 4 tyres on your car at this stage?