PPI results - a legal question?

When I had my PPI done on the C2 I now own, the Porsche dealer noted the rear tires were worn. They also noted a vibration in the steering above 70mph. So, I had the seller replace the rear tires. When I picked up the car, I went to have the front wheels re-balanced, to see if that was the cause of the vibration the dealer talked about. Turns out, the inside of the front tires are worn almost to the cord! Needless to say, I need front tires! Shouldn't the PPI have caught this? Do I have a leg to stand on in getting the money spent for the PPI back? Pisses me off to think the PPI dealer just checked the RMS out, and didn't bother looking at the front tires?

was there a PPI checklist which covered every component subject to inspection? if that says the tires were fine, i'd at least ask for your money back.

The checklist for the tire section lists remaining tread: LF - 5mm, RF - 5mm / LR - 3mm, RR -2mm. Maybe 5mm left on the outside front tires, but near zero on the inside.

If it was Princeton Porsche good luck. They screwed up the PPI on my S2 and I got nowhere with them. I did not have the time/energy to try court so I make sure to tell everyone I can that they are terrible and stand behind nothing.

No, Porsche of Roslyn, LI. Nice S2!

Sorry, no legal claim here because you have not been damaged. Even if you are correct that they erred by missing this (or by failing to report it to you), you would have ended up with the same result had it been uncovered/reported-- i.e. new tires which are paid for on your dime.

Not necessarily true. Had they spotted the tires and told the buyer, there's a good chance he could have used that as a negotiating chip to reduce the purchase price of the car. Pretty common to do that for stuff noted on a ppi, no? Given it's a wear item and a safety concern, tires are a classic PPI bargaining chip. (On another note, it is surprising they didn't write it down on the ppi report. That's the kind of easy stuff that even the laziest shops like to write down- takes 2 seconds to do the inspection but at least gives the impression they are doing something).

Dude, get real. It's a used car. It's should be obvious that the tires are worn to a great degree, even without putting it on a lift. That should have factored into the price before the PPI. In my mind, a PPI is to detect what can't be readily discerned by a non-professional in a simple visual inspection. Put another way, I don't think tire condition is a PPI negotiating chip.

Most shops give a written PPI report, usually on a form. Every one of them is going to have a spot to fill in for tire condition. In addition, many, many people never even see the car they are buying because they are long distance, and rely on the PPI. And, your average car buyer isn't generally going to be able to accurately tell if tires have 25% life, 50% life, or 75% life. It's a basic part of any PPI, and it's part of what a shop gets paid to do. They didn't, and they were paid for work that they did not do. Tire condition certainly would have been a PPI negotiating chip in this case. The buyer didn't know the bad condition of the tires, for whatever reason, and he reasonably relied on the shop to catch such an issue. They failed to do their job, and it cost him.

Fair enough, if there is such a written report and the buyer is sight unseen. However, when I had my PPI done (993 C2S) there was no such written report and it is all pretty informal. You are still buying the car as is, and without any warranty or assurance from the PPI mechanic (at least in my case). Even still, I don't see what the damages are here-- at most, value equal to 10% of the remaining tire life? This translates to the proverbial "peppercorn."

You paid your mechanic to make no assurances to you? Did he just guess at your compression? Did he say "these are the compression numbers, but they may or may not be accurate." "The brakes may or may not have 80% life left, but don't take my word for it." The poster simply asked if the PPI should have caught it, the answer is yes, and if he has some grounds for getting his PPI money back. I wouldn't bother, myself, but if the shop had done their job and told him the tires were worn out, he probably could have negotiated another few hundred off the purchase price (most sellers aren't going to kill the deal for a few hundred for 2 new tires). That money would have paid for the PPI, i.e., the peppercorn the poster seeks to have returned.

If I were selling my car and the buyer said he wants money off because the tires are worn I'd probably tell him to take a hike. It is a used car. On the flipside, I wouldn't try to sqeeze a seller for a couple hundred bucks on that basis. I think it smacks of bad faith. And yes, the shop did report those figures to me but so what. A PPI costs all of $200. Do you really expect that they are somehow giving you a warranty for a $70K car if something goes wrong after the fact.

As you paid for a service which quite clearly wasn't done - I'd say you have at least a fighting chance to get some $$$ refunded. Legally - well that's anyone's guess. Try the direct approach first, and see what they say - at this point you have nothing to loose. Also - if you paid for the PPI using a credit card - talk to the credit card company about it - you paid for something that you're not happy with, they have people for that!

There's no such thing as a bad faith offer to purchase a used car, or a reduced offer after a PPI. It's just a number, which the seller is free to accept or reject. The poster isn't asking the shop to provide a warranty for the car for things that break after the PPI, I don't know where you get that non-related issue from. Your shop provided compression figures to you, and yes, I would view those as assurances from them that they are accurate figures. I would expect that they would represent and warrant to you that they competently provided the services for which you paid.

This sums it up nicely! If I was buying a used car, and the seller told me to take a hike when I noted the tires were bald, and wanted to negotiate the price down on that basis, I would just walk away, wondering what else the seller didn't feel was important or material to mention. I paid close to $300 for this PPI, they Porsche service manager told me over the phone that the rear tires were worn. I asked about the front tires, and he said "they have wear, but not as bad as the rear", so, without having the car in front of me, I called the selling dealer, and he replaced the rear tires. If the PPI said ALL tires were worn out, the seller would have replaced all 4 tires, and I wouldn't be out $300 for the PPI, and another $400 for front tires, etc, etc. I won't bother looking for my money back. But a PPI is really not the dependable report I thought it was. You have a service guy that doesn't really care, and knows the out of state customer will never give his shop another penny, so, you get the idea--and now, so do I. Live and learn. Andy

It's not non-related, it goes to whether this poster has suffered damages. There must be liability AND damages to have a claim (at least one which is more than nominal). The fact that the poster has concluded that it is not worth pursuing confirms this.

The above statement is totally irrelevant. Unless you are saying the tires wore out AFTER the ppi. The poster never raised any issue about anything that went wrong "after the fact." The fact that he concluded it is not worth pursuing does not mean there were no damages. People who are financially injured walk away from their damage claims all the time. That doesn't mean the damage claim didn't exist.

The poster did suffer damages. The vehicle is worth less than he paid - because he paid for a car with serviceable front tires. He didn't get what he paid for. That constitutes damages.

You do not get a PPI to tell you that a tire need or do not need replacement. If the buyer missed that, is it a crime that the mechanic missed it too? It is a normal wear item that will not break the bank. If it was a RMS issue I would understand but not worn out tires. Get new tires and you will be better off.