A well-reviewed car dealership in B.C. was ordered to pay a customer hundreds of dollars after a tire job didn’t go the way the customer had hoped.
The dealership, located in Victoria, was the respondent in a BC Civil Resolution Tribunal hearing.
According to two applicants in the hearing, after bringing the vehicle to Wille Dodge Chrysler, the respondent, to replace four seasonal tires with four winter ones, the dealership returned the car with a different set of seasonal tires instead.
The pair of applicants asked for $600 in damages to replace the seasonal tires.
In response to the allegations, the dealership stated that one of the applicants was present and witnessed the tire change, and that the applicant was responsible for any issues that arose during the service.
The tribunal “mostly” allowed the applicants’ claim.
JB, one of the applicants, brought their vehicle in for the tire replacement on Jan. 25, 2022. JB was actually an employee of the dealership at the time. He told the tribunal that another employee changed the tires and put the removed tires in bags. Those bags were then placed in the vehicle, and he believed those bags contained the removed seasonal tires.
A few months later, he removed the tires from the bags but told the tribunal that the tires weren’t the same ones he had on his car. He said the dealership refused to resolve the issue.
JB provided a receipt for the original tires he bought in 2019, which were listed as R16. He provided the photos he alleged were returned to him, which said R17 and were listed as a different brand than the original ones.
The dealership claimed they were the same tires, but couldn’t offer proof of that claim.
“Based on the evidence before me, I find it more likely than not that [JB] brought his vehicle to WDC with R16 tires and WDC incorrectly gave the R17 tires to [JB] after completing the tire change. So, I find WDC kept [JB’s] tires after the tire change.”
After determining that the law of negligence applied to this specific dispute, the tribunal then calculated damages.
JB submitted a screenshot of new tires, claiming they were the correct size and listed at $146.99 each. Four would be priced at $587.97. Unfortunately for JB, the screenshot did not indicate the correct type of tire, as no specifications were listed. The tribunal also said that awarding JB full value would overcompensate him.
When JB originally purchased his tires in 2019, each one was $108.74.
“I find a reduction of 25 per cent to this amount is appropriate,” the tribunal said, due to the age of the tires.
Ultimately, the tribunal ordered the dealership to pay JB $493.37, which included $326.22 for replacement tires and the rest in tribunal fees.
- You might also like:
- B.C. homeowner who took up two parking spots loses strata fight after being towed
- B.C. roommates' legal fight over heat and rent ends with no winners
- Unapproved colour changes lead to dispute between B.C. homeowners and strata
Want to stay on top of all things Vancouver? Follow us on