Auckland man claimed tyres on his new Toyota were too noisy and made a ‘zoom, zoom’ sound

The Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal has dismissed a man's complaint that the tyres on his car were "too noisy". Photo / 123RF

A man has failed to get traction over a claim that the tyres on his new Toyota were too noisy.

Syed Haider bought the 2017 Toyota C-HR in May for $28,870 but wasn’t happy about a “zoom zoom” or humming noise from the tyres when he was driving at between 40 and 55 km/h.

He took his complaint to the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal, seeking an order that the Auckland company from whom he bought the car replace the tyres, plus compensation for what it cost him to diagnose the noise.

The company that sold the car, New Zealand Car Limited said it didn’t believe the vehicle made any unacceptable noise, that the tyres were safe and complied with warrant of fitness requirements.

The tribunal dismissed Haider’s claim - a ruling he told NZME was “absolute rubbish”. He had planned to appeal the decision but missed the deadline because of a family matter that had diverted his attention.

New Zealand Car general manager Gorjan Sidorovski told NZME it wasn’t the strangest complaint he’s had in his 10 years in the business, but it was the strangest he’s had progress through the justice system.

A Toyota C-HR similar to the model bought by Syed Haider who then complained about its noisy tyres.

“I’ve had complaints about the size of a car after it’s been purchased. I’ve had my fair share of all sorts of strange things asked but I believe this was the strangest court case I’ve been to.”

Haider told the tribunal he noticed the “zoom zoom” noise during a test drive and pointed it out to a vehicle inspector who conducted a pre-purchase inspection. The inspector checked the wheel bearings and found no issues, but that the noise may be coming from the tyres.

Haider said he noticed the noise on the day he bought the vehicle on May 12. Two weeks later he returned the vehicle to NZCL where Sidorovski test-drove it with him. The tribunal was told Sidorovski accepted that there was a noise from the tyres but it was “extremely minor” and only evident at particular speeds on smooth roads when no other traffic was nearby.

Sidorovski told NZME that “the long story short” was that the car was fairly new with low mileage (about 13,500km), but they had made an effort to try and pinpoint the sound.

“We had to go on an absolutely empty road that was very smooth and only when the vehicle was travelling at 50km/h, with closed windows, could we hear a minor sound.

“I explained to Mr Haider that this was normal,” Sidorovski said.

Haider told NZME he felt he had been let down, and after detecting the noise at the initial pre-purchase test drive, claimed he had only bought the car on the grounds the problem would be fixed.

He said the dealer claimed it wasn’t a defect, and that it was because they were driving in wet conditions and that the noise - which he describes as “annoying” would go away on a dry road, but it hasn’t.

“I can hear it, my wife can hear it, the mechanics can hear it, so it’s not only me.”

After the test drive, Sidorovski then told Haider to take the vehicle to another business to have the tyres rotated.

The business refused to rotate the tyres after a mechanic test-drove the vehicle and told Haider that the noise from the tyres was okay.

Haider then took the vehicle to a mechanic at another business, who found what it said were flat spots on the tyres due to uneven wear. The tyres were rotated but the noise remained.

Haider was then told that the noise might be due to worn wheel bearings, but an inspection report found no fault.

Different wheels were then placed on Haider’s vehicle, and no noise was present. The business then advised that the tyres needed replacing, and charged Haider $287.50 for the assessment.

Evidence from a warrant of fitness inspector at the company that did the assessment said the tyres met the warrant of fitness requirements, but they made a “rough” noise like the sound of a worn wheel bearing.

Haider also had the vehicle assessed by a tyre service specialist firm that found “minuscule flat spots” on the tyres, that “may be resulting in a noise frequency emitting which may sound like a bearing fault”.

The tribunal’s assessor said that small flat spots on tyres could cause a “cyclical humming noise” as described by Haider.

The tribunal ultimately found that the minor intermittent noise from the vehicle’s tyres when it was driven on certain road surfaces at speeds between 40 km and 55 km/h was likely caused by minor flat spots on the tyres.

It said in dismissing the claim that although the vehicle had low mileage, given its age a reasonable consumer should understand that the vehicle may have minor wear and tear issues that would not be present in a newer vehicle.

Haider said the Consumer Guarantees Act highlighted matters around acceptable quality, which Haider believed meant it had to be acceptable to him as the consumer, and not the tribunal.

“I’m now paying $200 a week in finance and I’m still not happy,” Haider said.

He said he would change the tyres if he could afford to do that.

Tracy Neal is a Nelson-based Open Justice reporter at NZME. She was previously RNZ’s regional reporter in Nelson-Marlborough and has covered general news, including court and local government for the Nelson Mail.