- This topic has 27 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 1 month, 1 week ago by
.
- Topic
For the reference – if someone finds it useful and may want to use it in the future
Dear Motability Scheme Team,
I am writing to formally dispute your decision to impose a Fair Usage Policy limit in respect of tyre replacements on my vehicle, and the resulting assertion that I am now responsible for future tyre costs.
The decision appears to have been reached without adequate consideration of the known wear characteristics of the vehicle configuration in question, nor of well-documented performance issues associated with the specific tyre fitment supplied.
1. Vehicle and usage context
The vehicle is a Škoda Enyaq 85x SportLine, fitted with 21-inch wheels and Bridgestone Turanza Eco tyres, and has covered approximately 48,000 miles. This is a high-mileage usage profile within the normal scope of a Motability lease.It is widely recognised within both OEM documentation and independent analysis that large battery electric SUVs of this type impose significantly higher tyre loadings due to:
High kerb weight (c. 2.2 tonnes depending on specification)
Instant torque delivery to both axles (AWD configuration)
Increased tyre deformation under acceleration and regeneration loads
Larger wheel diameters with reduced sidewall compliance (21” configuration)
These factors materially increase wear rates compared with equivalent internal combustion vehicles.2. Known Enyaq tyre wear behaviour
Independent owner reports and technical discussions relating to the Enyaq platform indicate a recurring pattern of accelerated tyre wear, particularly on 20” and 21” wheel configurations, including:Inner and outer shoulder wear linked to alignment sensitivity on the MEB platform
Reduced tyre life in high-mileage usage (often reported in the 15,000–25,000 mile range per set depending on driving conditions)
Higher-than-expected wear rates on OEM Bridgestone fitments compared with premium alternatives
This is consistent with broader EV fleet data showing that heavy electric SUVs routinely experience accelerated tyre consumption relative to ICE equivalents, particularly when fitted with large-diameter wheels.3. Bridgestone Turanza Eco (21”) – documented concerns
The Bridgestone Turanza Eco (OEM 21” fitment) has been widely discussed in owner forums and independent tyre review platforms, with recurring observations including:Moderate treadwear ratings relative to premium touring EV alternatives
Noticeably reduced tread life under high-torque EV applications
Earlier-than-expected replacement cycles on heavy EV SUVs
Performance trade-offs linked to efficiency-oriented compound design
While performance characteristics vary by driving style and conditions, there is a consistent pattern of shorter-than-average service life when used on heavy AWD EV platforms such as the Enyaq 85x.4. Deficiencies in your assessment
Your correspondence does not provide:Any defined numerical threshold for “Fair Usage” in measurable terms (miles, tread depth, or cost ceiling)
Any differentiation between standard passenger car usage and heavy EV SUV usage
Any consideration of OEM tyre specification and its impact on wear rate
Any evidential basis demonstrating abnormal or excessive usage on my part
In the absence of such information, the application of the policy appears arbitrary and not properly grounded in vehicle-specific engineering reality.5. Position
On the basis of the above, I do not accept that tyre wear in this instance constitutes excessive or non-standard usage. The wear profile is entirely consistent with:Vehicle mass and drivetrain characteristics
Wheel and tyre specification selected at factory level
Established real-world EV SUV wear behaviour
Accordingly, I do not accept liability for future tyre replacements arising from normal operational wear of the vehicle as supplied.6. Required resolution
I request the following without delay:Full written definition of the Fair Usage Policy threshold applied, including methodology and measurable limits
Confirmation of the baseline tyre life assumptions used for the Enyaq 85x or equivalent EV SUV
Complete record of tyre replacements on my vehicle, including mileage and justification
Written confirmation of how EV-specific wear characteristics and 21” OEM tyre fitment have been factored into your assessment
Suspension of any charge liability pending formal review of this determination
Until such time as this information is provided and properly assessed, I do not accept the validity of the decision as communicated.Yours faithfully,
Sent from a mobile device.
Apologies for briefness and spelling mistakes.Motability Skoda Enyaq SportLine 85x April 2024 (unhappy customer - Ombudsman pending)
Motability Mazda CX-60 PHEV July 2023 (unhappy customer - early termination on mechanical grounds)
Motability VW Touran Family Pack May 2019 (happy customer)
- Replies
Another reason why high mileage drivers will increasingly struggle to find Motability cost effective in future. Add to this the 25p per mile excess mileage surcharge plus, if it’s an EV, the 3p per mile government mileage charge (which will no doubt increase further in the future) for good measure.
Good correspondence JD, although I suspect it will be met with a standard answer of these are the new rules and we can’t make exceptions.
It seems to me that Motability have no staff members who know anything about cars, tyre brands or tyre wear or any of the nuances between different marques of car manufacturers. Pure bean counters ( with respect to those on here who held senior positions in Accounting and Finance!)
2024 - BMW i4 Grand Coupe eDrive 35 Sport
2020 - Volvo XC40 T4 Inscription
2017 - Audi Q3 TFSi Sport S-TronicGood effort.
But Motability set the rules you sign up to, and they have the stats on each model. They can easily cherry pick what data in their favour.
Knowing full well it is not going to go anywhere.
Like Iran, they hold all the cards.
But good effort. You dont have any measurable stats to prove your position, and Motability does.
@kdwolf I’ve not looked in to the fair use policy, as the most tyres I’ve ever needed during a 3 year lease is 2 or 3. However, and this is just a thought, but is this a new thing that didn’t apply when you took out the lease? If so, it isn’t something that you signed up to and has been imposed mid-lease. I know that Motability claim that they can vary the terms of the lease at will, but I took them on over this issue (regarding an extension) a few years ago and they backed down on their refusal.
I think that it would be nigh on impossible to make this argument in the future with new leases, as the policy is now clearly stated so you sign up to it at the outset, but it might be worth running this argument.
This is not just an EV wear and tear thing as my last MB car (VW Tiguan) had self sealing tyres that within the first 2k miles had a tyre replaced because it had a nail in it, right in the middle of the tread so normally a simple repair.
Within the next 3k miles I had another nail in the middle of the tread and again a new tyre fitted, so two more or less brand new tyres replace with no fault of my own. If Kwik-Fit are ripping MB off then MB need to sort that out with their contractors not take it out on us.
Thankfully my current car has good old fashion tyres that can be repaired (not that self sealing tyres can’t) but one bit of advice to those that use B&Q stores, don’t drive passed the end of the store where white van man drops all there screws and nails all over the road.
I’ve had tyres replaced by Kwik fit that didn’t need replacing over the years, I know that for a fact. So Kwik fit has been at it and that is now effecting us. Just recently I had a tyre replaced when it should have been two, it had to be replaced a few weeks later, also the other two are thin on rubber but within the rules, these are the tyres they would have replaced before.
So I think motability may have had a word with Kwik fit.
@kdwolf I’ve not looked in to the fair use policy, as the most tyres I’ve ever needed during a 3 year lease is 2 or 3. However, and this is just a thought, but is this a new thing that didn’t apply when you took out the lease? If so, it isn’t something that you signed up to and has been imposed mid-lease. I know that Motability claim that they can vary the terms of the lease at will, but I took them on over this issue (regarding an extension) a few years ago and they backed down on their refusal. I think that it would be nigh on impossible to make this argument in the future with new leases, as the policy is now clearly stated so you sign up to it at the outset, but it might be worth running this argument.
https://www.motability.co.uk/utilities/fair-usage
“Bridgestone’s Turanza Eco is the first tyre to include the manufacturer’s low rolling resistance, reduced materials technology, Enliten. Debuting on VW’s ID.3, Bridgestone said the Turanza Eco’s Enliten Technology “sets a new lowered standard in material use and rolling resistance to deliver significant environmental benefits.” Bridgestone says Enliten promotes further fuel or battery conservation by reducing tyres’ weight by up to 20 per cent against equivalent standard premium summer tyres. This equates to up to 2kg fewer raw material resources required to produce every tyre. The Turanza Eco, available in Europe since spring 2020.”
The tyre has a 5.9mm tread depth rather than the standars 8mm. ENLITEN tyres are recognised by a specific marking on the sidewall, indicating their EV readiness and sustainability features.
The Turanza tyre doesn’t get the nest longetivity reviews and the ECO Enliten gets slated across the VW group.
Will they complain when all the cars come back with the cheapest part worn Chinese tyres anyone can find.
The Tuaranza Eco is an oem tyre and has Bridgestones Enliten technolgy.
Looking at the Turanza 6 with Enliten technology, which has a mileage guarantee of 25,000 miles or 20,000 miles for EV vehicles, its hard to think the Eco will significantly outlast by more than 2x, (though the Eco don’t get a mileage guarantee)
@kezo Thanks. As I’ve never had more than 2/3 tyres per lease I had no idea that we were already limited to 8 tyres and it’s just the number changing from 1st July (down to 6).
I imagine that @kdwolf must have just had the 8th tyre replaced, hence the warning? I wasn’t aware that EVs eat tyres quicker than ICE cars. Our PHEV will be going back with 16k miles covered in just under 2 years and all 4 tyres still have loads of tread on them, in spite of the added weight of the vehicle.
I note that the policy says that they might enforce it. Sounds like if you make a valid case, as @kdwolf has done, exceptions can be made.
I have had 6 tyres 2 of them unrepairable punctures in self seal tyres, I have also had the warning about the tyres.
Good effort. But Motability set the rules you sign up to, and they have the stats on each model. They can easily cherry pick what data in their favour. Knowing full well it is not going to go anywhere. Like Iran, they hold all the cards. But good effort. You dont have any measurable stats to prove your position, and Motability does.
I agree Iran holds all the main cards
But Trump still has the Jokers
@kezo is there some official reference I can use that the original tyre tread has 5.9mm vs 8mm ? I see lots of AI generated content, but not official reference – if this is the case and all standard tyres have 8mm, MB have no chance.
Sent from a mobile device.
Apologies for briefness and spelling mistakes.Motability Skoda Enyaq SportLine 85x April 2024 (unhappy customer - Ombudsman pending)
Motability Mazda CX-60 PHEV July 2023 (unhappy customer - early termination on mechanical grounds)
Motability VW Touran Family Pack May 2019 (happy customer)I have the Eco Enliten Tiranza tyres on my Enyaq 85x and got 10,600 out of the front set. The guy at Kwik Fit said that was not unusual for my car, so I think Motability need to start looking at this or people will start raising complaints regarding their new rules.
On the other side of the argument, Suzuki Across PHEV (over 2000kg) 304bhp towing a 1500kg caravan for the last 3 years 20,000, tyre only half warn ?
Unfortunately I have suffered a brain injury and occasionally I get confused and often say the wrong thing.
@kezo is there some official reference I can use that the original tyre tread has 5.9mm vs 8mm ? I see lots of AI generated content, but not official reference – if this is the case and all standard tyres have 8mm, MB have no chance.
I haven’t gone hunting for the exact size, as the tread depth will remain the same across the particular model. You could of course screenshot the page and edit, so the bottom half on, showing the important bits etc, from manufacturer.
@kdwolf I have the same issue on the same car. Not a coincidence…
My Enyaq 85x has the same cr@ppy tyres, as did my previous Ateca. They lasted OK on the Ateca but the Enyaq is now 2-1/2 years old with 13,500 miles on it and 3 of them are quite worn.
When the car was MoT’d in early January 3 were down to 3mm, weirdly the rear drivers side still had 5mm on it. According to Halfords tyre calculator at 500 miles a month they should last 10 months, hopefully that’ll get me to the end of my lease in Dec/Jan, I’ll go into Kr@p Fit for a check in August to see how they’re doing.
Please excuse spelling/typos. Apart from being a clot it turns out I had one on my cerebellum that's now causing various problems!
I know I may be in the minority but I find the new usage policy more than fair. I’ve never had more than four tyres and really should have only been two. I had a slow puncture that could have easily been repaired and kwik fit told me they need to ask motability to authorise the work. When my car was ready I saw it and both back tyres had been changed, which was ridiculous as a simple repair would have been sufficient. I don’t know why motability don’t start their own mobile fitting service, would save loads as kwik cannot be trusted. It’s not just individual kwik fits either, it seems like company policy.
I know I may be in the minority but I find the new usage policy more than fair. I’ve never had more than four tyres and really should have only been two. I had a slow puncture that could have easily been repaired and kwik fit told me they need to ask motability to authorise the work. When my car was ready I saw it and both back tyres had been changed, which was ridiculous as a simple repair would have been sufficient. I don’t know why motability don’t start their own mobile fitting service, would save loads as kwik cannot be trusted. It’s not just individual kwik fits either, it seems like company policy.
would it be correct to assume you drive less than 10,000 miles and mainly within an urban area?
Sent from a mobile device.
Apologies for briefness and spelling mistakes.Motability Skoda Enyaq SportLine 85x April 2024 (unhappy customer - Ombudsman pending)
Motability Mazda CX-60 PHEV July 2023 (unhappy customer - early termination on mechanical grounds)
Motability VW Touran Family Pack May 2019 (happy customer)I know I may be in the minority but I find the new usage policy more than fair. I’ve never had more than four tyres and really should have only been two. I had a slow puncture that could have easily been repaired and kwik fit told me they need to ask motability to authorise the work. When my car was ready I saw it and both back tyres had been changed, which was ridiculous as a simple repair would have been sufficient. I don’t know why motability don’t start their own mobile fitting service, would save loads as kwik cannot be trusted. It’s not just individual kwik fits either, it seems like company policy.
would it be correct to assume you drive less than 10,000 miles and mainly within an urban area?
The reason for tyre change is safety, fix a puncture and have a blow out, whose fault is it? I have seen many lease cars with 8mm new tyres irreparable puncture. Kwik fit tyres are checked many times to make sure they are not changing tyres for nothing.
For the reference – if someone finds it useful and may want to use it in the future Dear Motability Scheme Team, I am writing to formally dispute your decision to impose a Fair Usage Policy limit in respect of tyre replacements on my vehicle, and the resulting assertion that I am now responsible for future tyre costs. The decision appears to have been reached without adequate consideration of the known wear characteristics of the vehicle configuration in question, nor of well-documented performance issues associated with the specific tyre fitment supplied. 1. Vehicle and usage context The vehicle is a Škoda Enyaq 85x SportLine, fitted with 21-inch wheels and Bridgestone Turanza Eco tyres, and has covered approximately 48,000 miles. This is a high-mileage usage profile within the normal scope of a Motability lease. It is widely recognised within both OEM documentation and independent analysis that large battery electric SUVs of this type impose significantly higher tyre loadings due to: High kerb weight (c. 2.2 tonnes depending on specification) Instant torque delivery to both axles (AWD configuration) Increased tyre deformation under acceleration and regeneration loads Larger wheel diameters with reduced sidewall compliance (21” configuration) These factors materially increase wear rates compared with equivalent internal combustion vehicles. 2. Known Enyaq tyre wear behaviour Independent owner reports and technical discussions relating to the Enyaq platform indicate a recurring pattern of accelerated tyre wear, particularly on 20” and 21” wheel configurations, including: Inner and outer shoulder wear linked to alignment sensitivity on the MEB platform Reduced tyre life in high-mileage usage (often reported in the 15,000–25,000 mile range per set depending on driving conditions) Higher-than-expected wear rates on OEM Bridgestone fitments compared with premium alternatives This is consistent with broader EV fleet data showing that heavy electric SUVs routinely experience accelerated tyre consumption relative to ICE equivalents, particularly when fitted with large-diameter wheels. 3. Bridgestone Turanza Eco (21”) – documented concerns The Bridgestone Turanza Eco (OEM 21” fitment) has been widely discussed in owner forums and independent tyre review platforms, with recurring observations including: Moderate treadwear ratings relative to premium touring EV alternatives Noticeably reduced tread life under high-torque EV applications Earlier-than-expected replacement cycles on heavy EV SUVs Performance trade-offs linked to efficiency-oriented compound design While performance characteristics vary by driving style and conditions, there is a consistent pattern of shorter-than-average service life when used on heavy AWD EV platforms such as the Enyaq 85x. 4. Deficiencies in your assessment Your correspondence does not provide: Any defined numerical threshold for “Fair Usage” in measurable terms (miles, tread depth, or cost ceiling) Any differentiation between standard passenger car usage and heavy EV SUV usage Any consideration of OEM tyre specification and its impact on wear rate Any evidential basis demonstrating abnormal or excessive usage on my part In the absence of such information, the application of the policy appears arbitrary and not properly grounded in vehicle-specific engineering reality. 5. Position On the basis of the above, I do not accept that tyre wear in this instance constitutes excessive or non-standard usage. The wear profile is entirely consistent with: Vehicle mass and drivetrain characteristics Wheel and tyre specification selected at factory level Established real-world EV SUV wear behaviour Accordingly, I do not accept liability for future tyre replacements arising from normal operational wear of the vehicle as supplied. 6. Required resolution I request the following without delay: Full written definition of the Fair Usage Policy threshold applied, including methodology and measurable limits Confirmation of the baseline tyre life assumptions used for the Enyaq 85x or equivalent EV SUV Complete record of tyre replacements on my vehicle, including mileage and justification Written confirmation of how EV-specific wear characteristics and 21” OEM tyre fitment have been factored into your assessment Suspension of any charge liability pending formal review of this determination Until such time as this information is provided and properly assessed, I do not accept the validity of the decision as communicated. Yours faithfully,
I cannot see Mobility giving you the the answer you wish to hear, you are a high mileage user and disputes now on both your last 2 currrent leases, basically they see you as a minority customer and will no longer want your business. Unfortunately the days of high mileage and lease extensions has gone.
Mobility is looking at streamlining to reduce cost to whether we agree or disagree it is going to happen, for the majority of Mobility customers it will make little or no difference. I am not too keen of some of the changes no one is forcing me to use the Mobility scheme, I have decide to wait before I make a decision to stay or go elsewhere, I have viewed quite a few more competitive lease outside the scheme, lets see what happens in July.
Unfortunately I have suffered a brain injury and occasionally I get confused and often say the wrong thing.
I would tell Motability, you haven’t got the funds, to pay a grand or so for a new set of tyres, leaving you no choice, but to return the car and end the lease. Should they then back down, make sure you opt for a different brand of tyres.
Superia EcoBlue EV are one of the cheapest EV tyres available, but still going to cost £104 corner front and £105 corner rear or the option of part worns, but I wouldn’t give up that easily.
P.S the above link shows the Turanza Eco having 5.9mm tread from new.
I only recently realised the front and rears are different sizes, why is this?
Supposedly handling, but very much a VW group thing, like the rear drum brakes and typically seen on performance, sports cars
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.