A follow up to my op I received a call from the branch manger today, he said after listening to the tapes it was clear that new tyres were only recommended to my mother and not as I suggested a must. I got to listen to the tape and he did choose his words carefully. My mother was clearly distressed from the moment he mentioned replacing all four tyres. During the call he used the word recommend rather than need and followed it up with what could go wrong with tyres of that age. My mother questioned the need to replace them a few times including asking how comes they were deemed ok for the MOT. She was told that the MOT just checks the bare minimum safety of the tyres and wouldn't mention poor condition, I questioned this as I would expect an MOT to offer at least an advisory if the tyres were in poor condition. The part of the call that I feel most annoying is when My mother, clearly sounding confused and upset asks/states "if you are definitely saying the tyres need replacing then you had better do them" at this point I would have expected them to clarify things to her and make it clear they don't need replacing we are just recommending they be changed, instead he mumbles his words and and proceeds to authorise the replacement. Is there any consumer laws that would cover this. Kwik fits stance is we only ever advised on new tyres but my mother clearly only agreed of they definitely needed replacing which they didn't.

I pointed out the information on their own website contradicted what they told my mother. It's disgusting behaviour , she is so upset with herself. I spoke with customer service who listened to the call they said my mother agreed to having them fitted they don't seem to care that she only agreed as she was made to feel her tyres were unsafe and it's standard procedure to change to them due to age. They have the call recorded, do you know if I have the right to a copy of it?

Kwik fit Amersham During a recent service My 76 year old mother was told she needed 4 new tyres on her car because they were older than 5 years. They had put an MOT on the car the week before and no mention was made about the condition of the tyres. The car is 6 years old and has done 4000 miles, when my mother asked why they needed replacing if they had passed the MOT she was told the tyres don't get checked during it. My mother agreed to have them replaced believing they were unsafe and on the advice from the garage. The only reason kwick fit can give for advising the tyres needed changing is because they were over 5 years old. After doing my own research including information from their own website there is absolutely no reason to change a tyre because of its age and it's quite reasonable to expect 10 years life from a Set. I feel they have taken advantage of my mother by falsely claiming her tyres needed changing based upon this make-believe 5 year rule, when in fact her tyres were in a perfectly safe and roadworthy condition. Can anyone offer a 3rd party perspective