Below is part of a letter outlining the issues that have come to light recently with my 2014 RR 4.4 vogue SE bought through a main dealer locally last year. I haven't received a reply yet but as a result of me going into see the service manager and complaining at the time I picked the car up from its service and MOT I was offered a free MOT for the time I keep the car. Is it me or is there something seriously wrong here that needs investigating further. I love the vehicle but the more I think about the fact I was driving my 5 yr old granddaughter around in the snow with tyres fitted the wrong way round and the rear subframe issues then the more concerned I'm getting......
With reference to my recent correspondence by email and discussions with yourselves I would like to receive your comments on the issues I have had with this vehicle over the past 12 months.

On the 1st February 2018 brought this car into you for a service and MOT. It failed its MOT because of a bulge in one of the front tyres which I appreciate could have happened at any time over the last 12 months. However, I was shocked to be told that it had also failed because the two front directional tyres were fitted back to front. This is of major concern and in my opinion a safety issue:

‘When fitted the wrong way, a directional tyre will be unsafe in the wet, as instead of channelling water away from the contact patch, it will direct the water into the contact patch’.

Bear in mind the car has just done under 20,000 miles and the tyres were the original ones which would still have been legal if one of them hadn’t had a bulge on the inside edge. I bought the car through you on 23rd March 2017 with just 7,000 miles on the clock so I’ve driven around 12,000 miles with tyres considered dangerous and an MOT failure. It was given your 165 point used vehicle check and the fact that the front tyres were on the wrong way round should have been picked up then.

It also had an MOT at a Chester garage in February 2017, presumably when it was still owned by the Jaguar Landrover group but at that point wasn’t owned by you. The tyre issue should have been picked up then. XXXXX has copy of this MOT as he took a photo on his mobile phone when I discussed my concerns with him on Thursday 1st February when I picked the car up.


I didn’t test drive the car as I’m familiar with Range Rovers and this was the colour and specification I was looking for. The low mileage also filled me with confidence that the vehicle was fine and an inspection of the body panels appeared to show no repairs.

When I picked the car up on 23rd March I immediately noticed there was an issue with the steering wheel being 30 degrees off centre and arranged for the car to be dropped off the following week for investigation. One of your technicians test drove the car and noted it needed the alignment checking. Again, this issue should have been picked up during your 165 point used car inspection. You also apparently serviced the car before I picked it up.

It was then discovered that you couldn’t get the rear wheel alignment right as the rear subframe was out of alignment and had to be dropped and the alignment corrected before the wheel alignment could be done. This gave you a third opportunity to notice the front tyre issue. When I mentioned this during my phone discussion on Thursday 1st February you had no record on your system that this work had been carried out which makes me quite suspicious that something is being hidden. I have a photocopy of the work sheet which was forwarded to yourselves in a previous email.

In that work sheet it clearly states that the ACE system was noisy and the vehicle required a valve block. I have no knowledge if that work has been carried out and would ask you to confirm.

I’d forgotten this but according to your records the vehicle was in again on 25th April 2017 to replace parts of the front suspension under warranty as there was a clunking noise. This was your 4th opportunity to pick up the front tyre issue.

I am concerned that this vehicle has had major issues with wheel alignment and tyres being wrongly fitted. At the moment I am unhappy at the information given and am beginning to wonder if my car has a serious underlying problem.

It is possible that they had the two front wheels off at the same time, and simply put them back on the wrong side, at some point...so more likely wheels fitted to wrong side.

I seem to remember seeing somewhere that under the new MOT regs that this would not be an MOT failure anymore - could be wrong...

That said, they should be sorting out the wheel alignment and clunking issues. Not sure how a subframe gets out of alignment!

Oh, you need to update your profile, still an '08  .
Experience is the only genuine knowledge, but as time passes, I have forgotten more than I can remember
Volvo V70 P2 2006 2.4 Petrol 170bhp Estate SE
MG Midget Mk1 1962

Previous: L322 Range Rover TDV8 3.6 2008; L322 Range Rover TD6 3.0 2002; P38A Range Rover V8 1999

What do you hope to achieve from your complaint to the dealer (reassurance or some other outcome) and who have you addressed your complaint to?

Directional tyres ?

What brand do you have fitted ?

I only has them once before and the tread pattern was so distinctive, it would have been hard to put them on backwards.

I used the arrows on the sidewalls  .
Experience is the only genuine knowledge, but as time passes, I have forgotten more than I can remember
Volvo V70 P2 2006 2.4 Petrol 170bhp Estate SE
MG Midget Mk1 1962

Previous: L322 Range Rover TDV8 3.6 2008; L322 Range Rover TD6 3.0 2002; P38A Range Rover V8 1999

Believe it can still fail an MOT. Is it dangerous being the wrong way round? Difficult one as they will still work, just not as well as they should do so probably hard to prove they are dangerous.

What do you want the dealership to do?

Cheers Alex

2018 Skoda Kodiaq vRS
2009 Caterham Supersport Race car
2007 M5 Touring
2005 Range Rover Vogue SE Supercharged
2004 SL55 AMG

If you have not had a problem due to the tyres being the wrong way round all you can probably expect is an apology and for them to be fitted right. Perhaps they need to be replaced anyway as one has a bulge and failed the MOT.

As you are familiar with RRs you will know about the suspension problems with 405s. The work you ask about sounds like it was to cure that problem. You are right to seek confirmation that this work has been completed, though if the suspension feels OK when you drive it, that would be evidence of it being done in itself.

The misaligned rear subframe is not something I have heard of before. If you are trying to build a case for rejecting the car then if you have had it for almost a year I would be sceptical about your chances. The Consumer Rights Act uses six months as a cut-off for most remedies, beyond that the task is much harder. If you have lost confidence in the selling dealer you might want to get a recommendation for someone you can trust and like, to look after it going forward, including sorting out any residual issues to give you peace of mind now. The dealer feedback section of the forum might help. Only Range Rovers since 1988

They were directional tyres and clearly marked 'outside' but they were actually on the wrong way round so that couldn't be seen. They were, apparently the original tyres as the car had only done 7,000 miles when I picked it up. My point being this was an MOT failure yet they'd had 4 previous opportunities to pick this up including the much vaunted 165 point check on used vehicles. The rear tyres are original and have 'outside' embossed on the sidewall. The only reason I needed new tyres was because of the bulge on the inside edge of one of them which I couldn't see unless I'd put the car on a ramp. They still had plenty of tread left on them. They're (the originals) Continental cross contact LX Sports.

The service managers comments about me checking the tyres when I picked the car up put my back up as I assumed this was their job to ensure the car was 'correct' when handed over to me.

I love the car and don't want a replacement. All that concerns me is that this issue wasn't picked up before hand - they even supposedly serviced it before handover. If it isn't a safety issue then why was it an MOT failure?

What I'm looking for is an explanation how this could have been missed 4 times. I'm pretty sure if I'd have been involved in an accident and my insurance company discovered the front tyres had been incorrectly fitted then I'd not be getting a pay out.


P.S - I've changed my profile. Thanks for pointing that out

The explanation is simple - they didn't pay enough attention and missed it  2021 L405 Vogue SE 4.4 V8 DIESEL ~ #17

Does anyone really believe all main dealers really carry out a 165 point check on their cars?

Personally, and its just my opinion, unless the tyres are very noticeably a directional pattern, it would not have been very noticeable issue nor would the tyre funnel water to the contact patch.

The tyres you have fitted are most likely Conti cross contacts or scorpion verde, neither have a directional pattern. The tyres have an outside and an inside, as they have asymmetric grooves (more grooves on one side of the tyre and different shoulder patterns) and these govern which way round they go. the pattern on these tyres is more linear than say a fully directional pattern and will have a V shaped pattern which will funnel water in a certain direction.

The clunking is a common problem and needs sorting out, if it has been done then that should make you more comfortable. The rear subframe is a different matter, I haven't heard of an alignment problem with these, but I can't see how it can be out of line if as I suspect that it has specific place it goes in relation to the body. If that has been fixed, again I wouldn't have an issue.

Yes, I agree they should have noticed the tyres, its not a case of the wheels are on the wrong way round, the tyres are fitted backwards, the tyre has an outside, this goes on the face of the wheel. If they are the original wheel and tyre combo then this happened in the factory, if they are a dealer fit option then this happened in the supplying dealer. However it would not be really easy to notice if you weren't looking for the issue, a lot less so than a V pattern design. There is nothing that can't be fixed with a hammer😜😜
FFRR 4.4 SDV8 Autobiography Santorini Black.
KIA E-Niro 4+
2021 Discovery 5 D300 MHEV commercial

That makes more sense - the Conti’s aren’t directional but do have inner and outer - the tread pattern is asymmetrical but not super obvious - and as stated, it’s whoever fitted the tyres that got it wrong, so unless the dealer had the tyres off the rims, it’s not their fault......

http://www.continentaltire.com/product/cro...r22-108y-0

apologies - re "outside/inside" - this makes sense that the tyres are incorrectly fitted

However this would mean having 2 handed sets of 2 tyres if they were also directional? .
Experience is the only genuine knowledge, but as time passes, I have forgotten more than I can remember
Volvo V70 P2 2006 2.4 Petrol 170bhp Estate SE
MG Midget Mk1 1962

Previous: L322 Range Rover TDV8 3.6 2008; L322 Range Rover TD6 3.0 2002; P38A Range Rover V8 1999

Exactly, not directional, asymmetric. There is nothing that can't be fixed with a hammer😜😜
FFRR 4.4 SDV8 Autobiography Santorini Black.
KIA E-Niro 4+
2021 Discovery 5 D300 MHEV commercial

Alistair wrote:

That makes more sense - the Conti’s aren’t directional but do have inner and outer - the tread pattern is asymmetrical but not super obvious - and as stated, it’s whoever fitted the tyres that got it wrong, so unless the dealer had the tyres off the rims, it’s not their fault......

http://www.continentaltire.com/product/cro...r22-108y-0