Tires on truck advertised and verbally described as new, in fact were not new at all, they actually failed. Paint issues all over vehicle.
The truck was described in online advertising as having new tires, and when viewing the truck the first time in the basement of CARVISTA, I asked Mat about the tires and he said they had to put new ones on because the others were "no good". At a quick glance, the tires did LOOK new, as the tread depth was good.
4 months and 4000kms later, on April 10th, 2014, I had the truck in at ************ for some service, and they called me to advise that the driver front tire was leaking from the sidewall, was not repairable, and they did not have a replacement available. When I picked up the truck, they inflated the tire for me so I could get it home and inspect. I did so, and discovered on close inspection that the tire had sever tread separation (cracks in between the tread) not only on the front driver side, but on the other 3 as well. Because I was taking the truck on the highway the following weekend, I immediately called ******** to order some new tires and get an appointment to have them installed.
While talking to ******** trying to choose tires, we discovered that the tires on the truck were actually the wrong size. The overall diameter of the tires CARVISTA installed on the truck was 5% larger than OEM. Some online resources including **************************************** all recommend a maximum variation of 3% total diameter, because the tire diameter affects the speedometer, odometer, transmission shift points and fuel economy. We of course ordered the correct size and moved forward.
At this point, I was furious about the tires that were supplied with the truck and contacted *****, the manager at Carvista via email to inform him about the tires, as well as several other issues I had with the truck, including the fact that a significant amount of poor quality touch up paint work applied to the truck all flew off in the first car wash. (I spent 1000 dollars at a local body shop having this repaired). He initially, I believe, assumed that they did put new tires on the truck, and said he would have them warrantied by the manufacturer had I not already ordered new tires, but then obviously realized that they were not new tires, and said he would cover $200 towards my new tires, but could not do anymore. At one point in the conversation he said "I don't like putting used tires on vehicles" when I suggested he buy the tires from me if he insisted they were so good.
I wasn't happy with that outcome, but I was going to accept it at that point. However, when I took it in to********* for the installation, I asked them to leave the old ones in the back of the truck for me. I brought them home, and inspected them further. They had a total of 7 patches in them, including one in the sidewall. Sidewall patches are not legal according to MPI. I now had absolute proof that not only were the tires not new, newer or whatever, but they were in fact someone else's garbage.
I called ***** back with the new information, and we argued, but he stated that his owner would not do any more for me. I asked to speak with the owner directly, and I was told he would be in touch with me. That did not happen, and when I tried to follow up I was told he was not going to speak to me.
At this point I decided to speak to the MPI Vehicle Safety Department about the issue. The safety inspection on the truck was performed by CARVISTA themselves on October 29th, 2013 with XXXXXkms. The inspector at MPI told me those tires, with separation like that and a sidewall patch would absolutely not have passed * proper safety in the time frame in question. He also stated that had the tires still been on the truck at that point, he would have pursued the business/mechanic leading to potential suspension.
***** would not reconsider.
I am requesting a reimbursement for the balance of the cost of the new tires from ********. The total was 1269.16, less the 200 already paid by Carvista. Balance of 1069.16. Failing help from the BBB, I intend to pursue the matter through small claims court.
Carvista addressed any issues with the paint on ********* 3 year old, 77,379KM, used F-150 that had been performed to the back bumper on the vehicle, due to stone chips. Any other repairs that ******* requested, appeared to surface after enduring one of the worst winters recorded in Canadian history, and Carvista cannot be held accountable for wear and tear on a used vehicle.
******* admittedly acknowledged that he inspected the tires at the time of the vehicle showing, and acknowledges by virtue of his own admittance that the tires did look new with good tread depth. ******* had been given two visits to the dealership before purchasing the vehicle to determine that the tires were of merchantable quality.
Our ads all state "While every reasonable effort is made to ensure the accuracy of this information, we are not responsible for any errors or omissions contained on these pages. Please verify any information in question with Carvista." And as stated on our bill of sale, "Verbal agreements will not be recognized."
******* did not contact Carvista until after the tires were ordered for his truck through********. For reference, according to the vehicle inspections handbook, a tire will not pass ** inspection once the tire cords are showing inside the cracks. The photos that ******* provided of the tires that were supposedly on his truck, did not show any signs of cords showing. Age/weather cracks were evident, and will develop on any used tire over time. Because ******* decided to not allow Carvista to inspect the tires before replacement, Carvista cannot verify any of the statements he has claimed.
Trusting *******s word, that they were new tires on the truck, ***** requested photos of the tires, and by reference of the photos, the tires appeared to be used. The tires equipped on the vehicle did not offer any warranty. ***** offered to get ******* tires at dealer cost, however he had already replaced the tires. In the interest in helping the customer, Carvista offered a good will credit of $200 (which was Carvista's cost on 1 tire), towards one new tire for ******* that he states was damaged or plugged. ******* accepted the good will credit. It was ********* sole decision to change all four tires and that is beyond Carvista's control. Carvista had no way to verify if ******* had the tire repaired in the 4 months that passed **** the time of purchase, nor to reference if the tires in question were the tires originally sold on the truck as ******* had them removed from the truck before Carvista had a chance to even inspect the vehicle.
Carvista employs safety inspectors to perform Manitoba Safety Inspections. Each inspector goes through a rigorous training and performance audit by MPI directly. For reference, Carvista's service department has recently passed *** annual mandatory audit of its processes. Because ******* did not give Carvista the opportunity to inspect the tires in question, we cannot verify what the condition of the tires were, four months after purchase of his used vehicle.
Carvista has been generous in providing a good will credit to help ******* with the replacement of the tires in question, without having the opportunity to even inspect the vehicle or the tires. Carvista has taken ********* word that there was indeed a problem with the tire on his used, 4 year old, 77,379KM 2011 F-150, and the $200 is the gesture of good will that Carvista provided.
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
CARVISTA did not address all issues with the paint. They addressed ONE, the back bumper, because it was warranty for them and did not cost them a cent. "One of the worst winters recorded" has absolutely nothing to do with the paint on this vehicle at all. I bought the truck, and a week later when I washed it the first time, touch up paint from numerous places came off in the carwash. It was applied to road rash with no prep and no primer. Plain and simply, the touch up paint was applied to hide the road rash in prep for sale, with no regard for what would happen after.
Neither of the disclaimers **** mentions in his response are anywhere to be seen in the online ad, which I do still have a copy of. The only disclaimer reads "please confirm with seller accuracy of information", which I did when I asked *** about the tires. I'm really not sure what else I could have done there. Trying to then state that "verbal agreements will not be recognized" sort of makes it impossible to get the actual truth then I suppose. In reality, all of this is seemingly an attempt to relieve anyone of actually having to know what they are talking about when selling a vehicle.
It is also worth pointing out that they advertise "*REAL PRICING* Prices shown are $0 down, no deceiving finance gimmicks, and trades welcome but not required!", but then when you are in the office doing the paperwork they add on a random 500 dollar "detailing" fee that nobody mentions prior.
For further reference regarding the safety inspection, a QUOTE from "Tread Section of Tire" portion of the MPI "LIGHT VEHICLE INSPECTION METHODS AND STANDARDS".
"A tire will be rejected if ANY of the following:
Has a cut exposing cord greater than 25mm
Has any tread separation, any peeling
Tread no longer evident in cupped area
Has any breaks, boots, blow-out patches
run-out indicates broken or slipped belt"
These tires had significant tread separation, and as you can see above, there is no "allowable" amount. Carvista had every opportunity to inspect the tires both before and after replacement, and in no way did I "not allow them" to do so. In addition, they were SUPPOSED to have inspected the tires before they installed them. They were provided with photos of the tires still on the truck, showing the issues, and ***** was made aware a week before the new ones were to be installed. At no point did he ask to see anything more than the photos. In addition, I STILL have the tires in my garage as evidence as I pursue this. Carvista elected not to see them, although maybe **** would have changed his mind about that had he not refused to speak to me.
The bottom line on this is simple - The truck was advertised as having new tires, which was confirmed by the salesman. I believed I was getting new tires on the $38000 truck. In reality, they were not new, they were used, they were the wrong size, they had SEVEN patches in them, all 4 had tread separation, and one functionally failed. They should not have passed *** safety inspection, which I have confirmed with the MPI Vehicle Standards Department.
Financially, between the tires and the body work, the truck cost me far more than it was/is worth, but more importantly, the tires provided on the truck were a
legitimate human safety issue, and the lack of ethics shown by all levels at Carvista to knowingly ignore that and lie about it both before and after the sale, and spin it as if I am in the wrong for removing the pieces of garbage from my truck too quickly is really quite mind boggling. I trust that this complaint will be made available to the public so other potential customers can be educated on the operations at Carvista.
Final Business Response
Carvista addressed the issue of paint work on the customer's back bumper, as that was the only paint work performed on the vehicle before the time of purchase. The vehicle purchased was a used vehicle, and part of buying a used product comes wear and tear. Unfortunately the customer did not purchase a new vehicle, and therefore, the previous owner of the vehicle could very well have performed touch ups on the vehicle at any point of ownership.
The disclaimer presented in the previous response is present on our website, www.carvista.ca, and any third party advertising beyond that is syndicated to those websites, referring customers to verify information with the dealership.
The statement that the customer points out is in no way false, as we do offer "real pricing", that does not require any trade in, financing, or money down to receive our advertised price, unlike much of the competition. The fee that the customer presents is not denied in that statement, and was not hidden. If the customer did not want to pay the fee, he did not have to proceed with the purchase. The fee consists of ownership transfer, history reports, lien checks, and the vehicle reconditioning that is performed on the vehicles, that include a power polish, and interior clean.
The customer references the MPI safety inspection manual, however misinterprets the guidelines. According to the guidelines, it states tread separation as a failing item. Carvista has confirmed with MPI Vehicle Standards to identify the proper definition for "tread separation", and that the age/weather cracks on the customer's F-150 tires were in fact, not classified as tread separation. Tread separation was described to Carvista as a failure in the tires tread, to the point that it peels off of the tire cords, or tire cords are exposed over 25mm in length, by a MPI vehicle standards officer. Neither of which are present on the tires the customer is requesting reimbursement for.
It should be noted that the technician that performed the safety inspection, has held a Manitoba safety ticket for over 20 years, and is a licensed Red Seal mechanic. Over those 20 years, it is evident that he has the ability and strong understanding of the rules set forth by the Manitoba Vehicle Standards.
The customer argues that the tires that were on the vehicle at time of purchase were the wrong size for the vehicle. However, the customer claims to have taken the tires off and put the correct size on the vehicle. As stated in a previous BBB response, the customer stated "we of course ordered the correct size and moved forward". The factory size for the vehicle is 275/45R22, and after referencing the invoice the customer supplied, it shows that he chose to put 4 over sized tires on the truck once again, in a 305/40R22.
Carvista has taken the customer's word that a tire had failed long after the safety on the vehicle had been completed, and provided him with a good will credit of $200 towards the purchase of his new tire. It should be noted that Carvista has done this on a good will offering, and had no obligation to do so, and that it was the customer's sole choice to put 4 different tires on the truck. On all Manitoba safeties, it states "This inspection is not a warranty - This inspection addresses safety components within the Provincial Vehicle Inspection Handbook but does not guarantee these components will comply with the standards for any unspecified future period of time." Carvista should not be held accountable for tires that visually and functionally passed ** the time of inspection. The tires on the truck were not a "legitimate human safety issue, and lack of ethics shown by all levels at Carvista". The customer purchased a 4 year old vehicle, that was of merchantable quality at the time of sale.
It appears that the customer has been misinformed, or is misinterpreting the safety guidelines in regards to the tires. Carvista suggests that the customer and Carvista meet with MPI Vehicle Standards to have a independent, third party inspection of the tires. Carvista will put faith that the customer will supply the original tires sold with the truck for inspection.