POOR CUSTOMER SERVICE FROM TYREMART PINETWOWN

POOR CUSTOMER SERVICE

Customer Feedback report

Further to the Technical report from SA Tyre, re: Bret Hennessey please find below my summation of my report. I will be providing evidence with pictures to validate my statement that the report received by Bret is not justified and requires a re-investigation to allow for the correct process to be followed. On the 17th of August I met with Bret Hennessey at the Tyre Mart offices in Crompton Street. Bret requested for the vehicle to be removed from the vehicle which was executed. On viewing the tyre Bret could not determine the root cause hence requested for a tyre gauge to validate the tyre pressure on the tyre. One of the employees brought through an electronic tyre gauge and validated that the tyre was inflated to 215 KPA. Bret then confirmed that the tyre was under inflated and hence stipulated that the cause for the side wall failure was under -inflation. Bret also confirmed that the vehicle (Toyota Hilux 2009 Model- Double Cab) vehicle specification for tyre inflation was at 240 KPA. I requested for a report and he agreed to submit one the following week to Tyre Mart. Just some background information on my dealings with Tyre Mart, I fitted two tyres 265 x 35 x 22 and around two months later picked up the LHS tyre had a sever bulge on the side wall. I called Tyre Mart and Bret inspected the tyre. Bret removed the tyre from the vehicle and confirmed that the tyre had a manufactures defect and replaced the tyre Free of charge. Two months later I have the same issue with the RHS wheel and the claim is rejected based on under -inflation of the tyre. What is the possibility of both the tyres being manufactured off the defective batch? Based on the events above I will depict my proposed findings to persuade the decision taken to reject the claim.

Please view the vehicle manufacturers specification re: tyre inflation – It specifies 200 KPA, my tyre was inflated to 215kpa hence if anything the tyre was over inflated. Bret confirmed that my tyre should be inflated to 240kpa which is totally incorrect. Could the claim be rejected based on Bret’s statement or could it be honoured based on the facts presented? This device was utilised to provide a view on the tyre pressure. Has this device been calibrated? Please could I have the last calibration certificate?

This is a pic of the defective tyre. There is a bulge on one part of the side wall, we viewed the back of the tyre and there is no defect. If the tyre was under-inflated the entire wall will have the similar issue which will include the back of the tyre however this tyre has no issue on the reverse side? Tyre inflation must be consistent as the entire tyre is inflated to one tyre pressure and we should see the issue on the entire tyre.

This is one of my other tyres that I have currently on the vehicle and I have had this tyre for the last two years and would like to bnng to your attention the construction on this tyre and the thread wear on the tyre. The make is a Full Way and as you can view from the Pic the tyre has less than 5% thread left however there is no wall defect as this tyre is running at a 215kpa tyre pressure as well Further to this the construction of the tyre is different to the Pace Tyre supp**** by SA tyre, The Pace tyre has an oval structure and is defiantly not a road friendly tyre hence there are issue with my current tyres. This is the second tyre supp**** by Tyre Mart that I have the same issue with – SIDE WALL FAILURE. This makes me believe that the Pace tyre is an inferior quality and does not support the current roads conditions.

Please view the tyre thread gauge for the defective tyre, as you may see the tyre is still virtually brand new. Below is the tyre gauge of the tyre when it was purchased, as you can view it doe not differ very significantly form the above pic.

The first pic is the previous tyre that was replaced by Bret for a side wall issue – same to the current issue. The second pic is the current tyre with the side wall issue, from the two pics you can clearly see the defects are the same hence if one tyre was replaced, surely the other one could be replaced as well.

In Summary, From the above one can clearly note that the SA Tyre Representative is not aware of the Toyota manufacturers tyre inflation requirement. One can also conclude that the Pace tyre is an inferior quality tyre and the construction is not one that is popular. Also, the first tyre was replaced due to the same issue and now the Rep has declined the claim based on his assumption which is totally not correct. From the above evidence provided, I require a second opinion on the issue. Thank you. R Moodley ********** 630