Jump to content

You can now change your notification sounds by going to this link https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/index.php?/&app=soundboard&module=soundboard&controller=managesounds

 

You can find a library of free notification sounds in several places on the Internet. Here's one which has a very large selection https://notificationsounds.com/notification-sounds

 

 

BankFodder BankFodder

 

BankFodder BankFodder

malibu99

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    22
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About malibu99

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. As requested short but I am sure will still raise questions from those who may not have the time to read the lengthy posts. 1) Yes, Top of the range. 2) Picked up by main dealer at 10789 miles first annual service. Abnormal wear was to both rear wheels inside wall panels and edges and not easily visible from a walk round, until on the ramps. 3) No, seller was 200 miles away but instructed that the dealer should ascertain cause of problem and get back to them. Dealer states no warranty on tyres thus they and manufacturer not responsible for any defect however caused. If I want the geometry checked it would be at my expense and I would have to take it to a specialist as they like most main dealers do not carry the specialist equipment. They were not prepared to assist further. Hence manufacturer called. 4) Only after it was established that the fault or problem had been removed/sorted and new tyres checked to ensure no abnormal wear, was the seller again contacted. They immediately made an acceptable offer (as far as I was concerned) but as it was based on a fifty/fifty split between them and the OEM, the offer broke down because the OEM refused to meet their side of a £100.00 contribution.
  2. When a seller offers a settlement and you accept it an agreement is made. The seller in this instance knows that he has to eventually claim from the OEM. Unfortunately the OEM chose to reject the offer. Thus by doing so left themselves open to a direct claim for the balance of the offer made by the retailer. Put yourself in a position that something has gone wrong with a product you have purchased. The retailer says yes I agree how about I and the manufacturer of the product going fifty fifty. You accept only to find the manufacturer refuses the retailers suggestion. You could of course insist that the retailer now pays the full amount but either way the OEM is still liable for restitution and if they have a genuine argument with their suppliers product it should be them who chase, not you. This issue is all about why a consumer has been forced to chase around attempting to resolve a small issue mainly because the OEM stated that as they do not provide any warranty to tyres it is down to you to prove a claim. They provide no comfort and this is quite frankly wrong. They make a vehicle out of component parts. If there is a defect on any part supplied by them they should be responsible for its correction and replacement where applicable. Today tyres and batteries tomorrow the list may well grow. If a component part fails then they have more buying power than the end user to receive the correct compensation. Also and I think this point has actually been lost. I wanted to know what problem had caused the abnormal wear and to rectify it prior to replacing the tyres. It was only after the vehicle was taken back for checking that the high road noise ceased and I was informed nothing had been found or any adjustments made, hence at that time I believed what the OEM was telling me and that's why the tyres were sent to the tyre manufacturer. You see circumstances were such it was no good just claiming new tyres from the retailer until the actual fault that caused the abnormal wear had been found and rectified. That's when everyone started blaming each other. Surprisingly after new tyres were fitted (after the OEM had checked and adjusted) the vehicle they were strictly monitored. The report established that the previous problem had been eradicated. It was now left open to approach the retailer for restitution. They agreed that something needed to be done and made the offer I agreed to but declined by the OEM. I hope this explains things a little better for you so that you can see my reasons for not jumping the gun and following a logical route. When you spend in excess of £23K I think it is only fair and reasonable to expect a little consideration when a problem occurs not of your making rather than experience lots of excuses, buck passing and refusal to meet reasonable recommendations of the retailer. I just have to keep asking why an OEM should be seen to be so intransigent over such a small and quite frankly ridiculous amount. Is there more to this saga than any of us know, are they protecting liability, or has someone just placed themselves in a corner? Who knows? For my part I would have been more than happy to accept the retailer’s recommendation. It is the OEM that chose to reject it and hence the fight. I have now stated more than enough on this matter and no doubt those of you who wish to continue to defend the position of the manufacturer will continue to post. Those of you who might feel like I do that something appears out of the ordinary and that the consumer is doing no more than pursuing a small claim, then I hope you will provide the balance to the argument. In the meantime I thank all of you for what has been a lively and interesting dialogue.
  3. Hammy 1962, You are perfectly correct if the adjustment made was not because the checked tolerances were outside of approved. However, it appears that the adjustment made was to bring the settings back within manufacturers tolerances. Look folks, try to take away any proportion of blame in this matter and look to the consumer’s complaint. Tyres fitted by the OEM have worn in an abnormal way reducing the life to almost a third. The driver is not at fault. The cost to replace new tyres (with a calculation for miles run) was the early claim. If Warranty exclusions were not in force you would be able to claim from the OEM of the supplied product (not the manufacturer of the component part of the product). Failing this you have the right to claim from the supplier who in turn has to claim from the manufacturer or supplier of the product. The OEM would in normal circumstances then claim if they feel it was the tyre manufacture at fault from the tyre company. It should not have to be the customer who has to do all the chasing So we have a claim (forget who is held liable for the cause). The consumer is told that warranty exclusion is in force and that it is down to the consumer to prove failure either of the vehicle or the tyre, at their expense. So you have a choice walk away or say that's unfair and pursue your claim for reasonable restitution. Now the problem. If the OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) refuses to assist and blames the manufacturer of the offending part and that manufacturer in turn blames the OEM, you are left to claim from the supplier/retailer. Your retailer may be one like mine fantastic service, great prices and willing to help. This route was followed and the retailer agreed that the consumer should not foot the bill as it was most probably not their fault but either down to the tyre or vehicle. OK they in turn offer to settle the matter professionally and without any fuss but on the condition the OEM of the supplied product they sold, at least meets 50% of the refund. Very reasonable and would have resolved everything. The OEM refuses out of hand. OK do you walk away being the one who has to foot the bill or do you say enough is enough and try to establish who should meet the cost of a product not fit for purpose. I was and still am not out to cause the OEM bad publicity or to impinge on their reputation. God only knows their stubborn non commercial and quite bizarre approach will create that scenario. All I want as a consumer is for the cost of an item not fit for purpose to be refunded and that ladies and gentlemen is the bottom line. I am not really interested in what caused the defect but know there was one. I am not interested whether it was the tyre manufacturer or the OEM at fault but it should not be up to the consumer to have to run round proving who is at fault before they can make a claim. If you purchase a piece of equipment and it fails in part why should you be told that you have to go after the component part manufacturer for restitution? And don’t forget that an OEM is fully responsible and liable for every part of their product and by applying limited warranties they are apparently attempting to erode consumer rights. The assembler of a product sells a product in its entirety, be it a car, a TV or a mobile phone. That OEM sells through a retailer. If the retailer says he recognises the consumer has a genuine claim and suggests that if you are happy he will recommend that he and the supplier will compensate you, then that should be an end of the matter. One day each of you may face a similar problem where you purchase something and it goes wrong or fails. I hope when it does your supplier and OEM deals with you in a more commercial and professional way rather than seeking to blame everyone else for what is when all said and done an anomaly. Again thank you for your particular response and observation it allows for greater clarification and hopefully understanding. Consumers’ rights surely are worth protecting and fighting for.
  4. Heliosuk Again I take your comments and your personal critique on board. Perhaps the motor vehicle manufacturer should engage you to represent them as you appear to be so supportive to their position rather than the consumer. And that is your right It is not you I have to convince and whilst I appreciate all your views but not necessarily agree with them it is not you that I have to convince or indeed have to provide information over and above that already given. I have been advised by Citizens Advice, a lawyer with consumer expertise. If you are a lawyer and able to provide a qualitative opinion, then fine. I have a third party consultant expert witness that in open forum I am not going to divulge all that he has to say and that's my prerogative. Your earlier post guessing that they are a Canadian company is incorrect; they are UK based and have specific firsthand experience of the matter. I have a Senior Technician from the tyre manufacturer who have provided their technical observations and report. In addition there is of course my personal experience of the way I have been treated over such a small refund by a multimillion turnover company. And with respect, you seem to express a view that irrespective of how a fault has occurred (in this instance) that requires part of a product replacement, that the manufacturer cannot or should not be held responsible, how strange? You seem to have missed the core point that there was a problem somewhere along the line and not of my making that created the abnormal tyre wear. You appear to shrug this off by passing any blame from the vehicle manufacturer onto the tyre manufacturer. Who knows you might turn out right but unfortunately I am in the middle and require a third party (the court) to adjudicate. And before you object again, it is everyone’s right to use the legal system when they are left with no other alternative than to just give up. Finally there are the abnormally worn tyres that everyone including the manufacturer agrees was ‘most’ unusual and has cost me money, time and inconvenience to replace. And just to set the record straight, because every now and then you appear to assume things, I did indeed offer to accept or concede an allowance for the mileage run. That was only fair and reasonable on my part. I am not sure about your personal involvement, if any, with working with manufacturers but clearly from the outset you have shown a bias. Again it is your prerogative, but the facts are very straight forward. By hiding behind a Warranty waiver manufacturers attempt to reduce or water down consumer rights. On this occasion because the retailer/supplier made an offer accepted by me but then declined by the manufacturer, I have every right in law to pursue them especially as I believe there may be more to this ‘than meets the eye’. As I have said, if you are a qualified commercial or consumer litigation specialist, then I will be more than willing for those advising me to discuss the issue with you. Who knows you may in this instance be the only one who is right. However, if a product (the tyres in this instance) have not performed correctly and therefore ended up not fit for purpose, the cause of such needs to be established. The motor vehicle manufacturer has blamed the Tyre manufacturer and vice versa. For my part I am in the middle and will now let the court decide because that is all I am able to do. Yes £100 may well be small fry to you and you may feel that I am wasting the courts time, but it is just for that reason manufacturers and product suppliers get away with things at the consumers expense. Thanks though for your continued interest, your comments do actually stimulate the argument especially as it clearly support the manufacturer and provides perhaps a picture as to how the other side may or could respond and that is very helpful.
  5. Heliosuk, Thank you for suggesting I have been eloquent. There is no need for you to be impatient or feel you are wasting your time. If you are unable to respond without showing complete objectivity then I suggest with respect not to bother. You do appear to be siding totally with the vehicle manufacturer and of course that is your prerogative as you are entitled to your views as I am with mine I take on board all your points without becoming emotional Even when they appear to be aimed at a personal level) and I can assure you I am not in fairyland and do not have to use poor language to make a point. If you read the posts you will see that the claimant is against the vehicle manufacturer who supplied a product part of which was unfit for purpose. Hopefully this will now answer your main query. I also suggest you read the posts a little more thoroughly as it was made clear that the retailer (the supplier) of the vehicle had made an offer Not the tyre company as you believed. I apologise had I not made that clearer. Technically under law if a product is adjusted after a complaint has been made about a problem and the problem apparently appears to have been resolved, it is considered under law that in all probability the adjustment made contributed to a repair. Unlike criminal law where proof has to be beyond a shadow of doubt civil law will look to probability based upon the evidence presented. These are not my words but those of legal advice received. \you are of course perfectly correct as it could be argued that it was actually the replaced tyres that were at fault. But these are the facts. The manufacturer of the tyres and a supporting independent third party specialist who examined the tyres have stated there was absolutely no problem with their manufacturer, had there have been, the tyres on the front of the vehicle would also have worn in a similar way but they had not. Again the law or probability. From the vehicle owners standpoint a problem with the product (part of the product) did not perform to a reasonable expectation from new and under consumer law has the right to request replacement or cost of replacement. I think you will agree a reasonable statement If you wish to take issue with the above then please do but a consumer's rights should not be watered down because a manufacturer decides not to provide warranty on certain items. A manufacturer cannot remove consumer rights by introducing limited waivers to those rights. If you wish to side with the manufacturer then fine, it is your choice but I am positive you would have the same attitude as I if you had paid for a product that in part had failed and everyone was refusing to make restitution. And please at least concede that it is the manufacturer who has taken the hard line here all for the sake of £100.00 that would not have open the flood gates and a complaint that would have sunk into obscurity had they just agreed with the supplying company’s recommendation. You see I did go through the supplier and the matter was being attempted to be resolved amicably. The retailer made and I accepted what was considered by the retailer and I an acceptable offer. The offer/recommendation made by the retailer was to meet the net vat cost of replacement. However it was the vehicle manufacturer who refused a contribution of £100.00. But their refusal then created a difficulty in pursuing full restitution. Having agreed to the retailers offer and support the only avenue left was to ask the manufacturer for a valid reason for not contributing. They just stated the decision not to contribute anything had been taken at the highest level. No product is 100% perfect 100% of time. I am sure you would not wish to debate this point. You appear to believe that it is me that has been difficult when all I wished to do was 1) Identify what had caused the problem in the first place. 2) Prevent it from happening again 3) Be refunded for the actual cost incurred. If you think I have been unreasonable in pursuing all the above then that of course is your opinion (and may well be others) but I return to the issue, all I am asking for is a refund towards the cost or replacing a part on a vehicle that did not perform to a reasonable or life expectancy standard and yes the only one who has been completely stubborn in the matter is the motor manufacturer. And again just ask yourself the question, Why?
  6. Thank you Conniff. County Court sessions are open to the public and whether you genuinely support me or not (and this is not an issue) you would be entitled as anyone would be to attend the public area. Once a date has been set I shall post it. I would be pleased to see you. As all court proceedings are invariably covered by local press I would also ensure a link so the covered outcome is made available. Win or lose I am sure some interesting information will be drawn out especially relating to consumer rights, something that all of us should continue to champion. But let me restate, because it appears to have been lost in all the posts. So this is my personal and public opinion. I am not attempting or trying to prove that there was a manufacturing fault or defect. I do not believe there was a major fault . But something did cause the abnormal tyre wear problem. and the problem mysteriously disappeared after the vehicle was taken in twice for investigation. Maybe pure coincidence!! The fact that so much effort has been apparently made to not address a simple query and so much effort to disclaim responsibility is just out of the normal and certainly not good commercial practice. Such a stance just alienates the end user. Blame for the problem seen has been passed back and fore to either the driver or the tyre manufacturer, where both are adamant that they are not accountable. In normal circumstances the customers inconvenience or genuine loss is addressed quietly and efficiently thus maintaining good customer relations. The response however in this instance is quite bizarre. Or perhaps you might think that this is the way a manufacturer should operate. It is alleged major denials of any responsibility (protest too much )often indicate something different but let me give benefit of the doubt. I am sure you will agree that if a product you purchase from new does not perform and as such incurs you in an expense to repair it, you would expect the manufacturer not to hide behind warranties that preclude all types of things. Sale of goods act gives everyone the right to gain redress from the supplier of the product. Again in this instance the supplier (who agrees with the customer) offers to meet a settlement on a fifty fifty basis put to the manufacturer and accepted by me. A simple way out to end the issue. Having accepted the offer made by the supplier I am then informed the manufacturer refuses to cooperate and hence only 50% of the agreed payment is made. Yep I could just turn tail and put it down to poor customer service, poor commercial judgement and so on. But it has raised an interesting question as to why such a peculiar stance was taken, one that is neither fair or reasonable and certainly gives the impression that there is apparently something else going on. Maybe it was a just a poor customer service decision. Although claimed by the department that the decision was taken after review at the highest level, again most unusual. Maybe there is a hidden agenda but whatever the story, what rectified the apparent fault and why is the manufacturer willing to fund a defence rather than meet the suppliers suggestion of a good will gesture.? Who knows? And I suppose there are those who might say, who cares? Well that’s simple to answer it’s the small guy who has done no more than buy a product that has not performed and just wants to know why, what was done to rectify and requested a contribution towards his unacceptable product failure costs. This is the issue and no more.
  7. Conniff, I am more than happy for the site to be closed whilst legal matters are pending. It is entirely up to the web master but I have requested its temporary removal. In terms of any editorial censorship that you appear to have recommended stating it perhaps should have been closed on the first posting, I must take issue with you. The fact you might personally may dislike an opinion or disagree with someones views is fine but we all know the type of person who advocates censorship to match only their views or opinions be they a majority or minority opinion. A forum is designed to allow for all who wish to have a voice. By all means raise an opposing argument. Express your opinion if it differs from that of the posting, but do it in a professional way and try to do it articulately without wise cracks, it then carries far more weight. Having said that I at least respect your opinion hence the response.
  8. Good to see others making comment but try to see the bottom line question. If your unhappy about a failure of a new product to perform to a reasonable or expected standard do you just accept the cost or request compensation? If the failure of the product is actually admitted by the manufacturer but no reason for it given and a refusal to accept its replacement or some cost towards replacement and you personally accept that then fine but some and I think you will find the majority of any product purchases would not accept a no responsibility attitude for a failed component. Make it simple, you buy a mobile and the screen fails. The retailer says that the manufacturer no longer warrants screens as they do not make them as they use three main suppliers of screens so it has to be the actual screen manufacturer you have to approach at your cost. Annoyed you send it to the screen manufacturing company who inform you that they checked and although it does not work in their opinion a problem occurred with the hand set. therefore you have to pursue the assembler/manufacture of the branded product. You return back to the retailer who receives a report from the handset manufacturer/assembler who infers that you must have dropped the mobile and thus damaged the screen and thus it is not covered by any warranty or guarantee. OK I know an unlikely situation because all the retailer would do is replace it for you........there is no difference in terms of product liability other than some company's have been fortunate to use warranty to reduce the rights of the consumer. And guys don't shoot the messenger because one day you might be in a similar position and I believe take a different view. You of course might even take a different approach and handle it better. But also guys, the manufacturer perhaps could have handled the situation better. And just to answer a question raised. No this is not a game and there are legal reasons why one cannot continue in the public domain to talk openly about matters specific to a case that is pending County Court hearing, which incidentally is open to the public and attended by the media. Hence the reason I refer to theoretical examples to allow for a balanced view or opinion. Again thank you all for your interest and comments, it's what freedom of speech is all about.
  9. Thank you for your last post Heliosuk. All the points you make are well received and of course make sound sense. I will answer your last post as best I can under the circumstances so forgive me for some of the obtuse remarks. You might be surprised to learn that the independent consultant is from a consultancy group who are specialists in the motor industry covering Tyre and Exhaust Centres, Motor Vehicle Dealerships and provide significant support to manufacturers. Their role is not to prove a manufacturing, transportation or geometry problem. The legal issues are quite different. I too have considerable experience in working within the motor industry. Fleet, rental and close associations with manufacturers. What is pertinent to the issue being raised is that as a customer I just wanted an explanation as to what caused the abnormal and significant tyre wear resulting in early replacement of tyres to the rear wheels of a new car. This is more than a reasonable request and has never been answered. The question was. If they found no fault or no out of specification to the geometry of the vehicle in question what caused the abnormal tyre wear. Obviously no one would want to replace problem tyres with new tyres until an explanation had been found and the abnormally corrected. Everyone agreed the abnormal tyre wear was significant but everyone was passing the blame on each other with no one wishing to or attempting to identify the source of the problem. This is unreasonable. If the vehicle was not contributing to the problem and the tyres were to specification and the car had been carefully driven on normal roads at correct tyre pressures, what then created the abnormal wear? Apparently the vehicle was taken by the dealer to two specialist centers for geometry tests and after, at the customers expense, new tyres fitted. Surprise, surprise the problem of abnormal wear ceases? So if (and it may be argued) there were no manufacturing faults with the tyres and the vehicle manufacturer claims they found no problem at either inspection but some adjustments were made, what then was the miracle cure achieved? Clearly something happened that apparently corrected the problem as I am sure you will agree it could not rectify itself. New tyres fitted to the same wheels and same axles monitored over a 2000 mile run on exactly the same roads as previously run did not show any abnormal wear and the road noise that had been experienced (and pointed out) from delivery had also been cured. Was this significant? Should the purchaser of the product foot the bill? The supplier said no. They however created a unique legal dilemma. They contacted the manufacturer and suggested a joint payment of a contribution (each 50%) towards part payment of the new tyres as a good will gesture. The purchaser (me) agreed to accept the suppliers offer but later found that the manufacturer had rejected the making of any contribution. I suppose to answer your specific question as to why I am making such a fuss, you have to question the facts as I have tried to lay out without blame. Why would a manufacturer put themselves in the position of defending an insignificant customer goodwill gesture of £100.00 especially as the supplier is willing to contribute.
  10. Thanks for all the great comments even if some are perhaps becoming a bit personal, please try to keep them objective and professional. I am unable for obvious reasons now to comment about my actual case. My previous posting laid out a scenario for your consideration. Just put yourself in the (scenario) new vehicle owners position and consider what your response would have been. If you are totally happy to accept that personally you would not be bothered at the additional expense for a product failure not of your making then fine. But there are those who might feel differently. Also consider this please. A problem is identified by you on a brand new item (and use any product as an example) as such a part needs replacing. Would you pay and fit a replacement without ascertaining what caused the failure in the first place? No sensible person would because it could result in the same problem occurring again if the cause could not be established. And if the product is within a guarantee period why should you foot the bill. Remember, in this instance the product failure is happening to you be it a new washing machine, fridge, TV or motor car purchased. If and when it does go wrong for you and the dealer tells you sorry but the moving part inside is not covered by warranty and to replace it will be a few hundred quid let me know how you handle it, I am always willing to listen and learn. Again thanks for the interest and lively comments they are all welcome. The cost in my case is not the issue it is the principal.
  11. Hi guys, I really must smile at the remarks made as indirectly most of your comments are well founded and quite understood. No I am not attempting to be funny. Because proceedings have now been served I am no longer able to specifically refer or now make further comment to the actual case and technically the related threads should be closed until the court has made a judgement. However. What I would like to do is try to focus on a specific scenario in order to try to establish where I personally stand regarding guarantees and warranty's and by all means respond if you wish to. Also please understand that the issue now being discussed just does not pertain themselves to motor vehicles but any manufactured product. In todays Global Market products are in the main assembled from parts brought in. Very rarely will you find a complex product with all its component parts manufactured by the branded product company and this is important. If we ever got into a situation where you purchase an item and had to claim for defect from the actual manufacturer of the assembled parts and not the assembled branded product manufacturer, then any claim for restitution would be made extremely difficult. Of course most manufacturers of branded goods stand by their assembled product BUT will wish to reduce their liability on those areas where higher risks of failure or difficulty in measuring cause, poses greater financial risk. And I understand the commercial logic of this. However there are instances (and these are numerous if you look at the various consumer complaint research data available) where a final product has come to market and there was a fault not necessarily first picked up at point of delivery or purchase. In most cases the retailer rectifies the problem by a replacement part or the product itself. This is considered good commercial practice. Of course the larger and higher the value, the greater the cost thus the greater the risk and hence certain known items that have greater frequency of experienced problems are excluded from warranty. So far I am sure you will agree this is all fact. OK here is a scenario Scenario Assume, just for a second that a new motor vehicle (any make) has been delivered to you with a problem not picked up by your retailer. In this scenario it will be any problem not covered by their warranty program. Indeed let's take the issue of a Battery. In this scenario one of the cells is said by the dealership to be defective (drop test) as after 17 weeks the battery is dead requiring a new battery at a cost to you of £106.00. Three months earlier you paid £32,000 for your new car. However returning to the dealer to collect your vehicle with the new battery in place he informs you that they can do nothing to refund any or all of the cost as they do not warrant the battery. This incidentally is taken from an actual case . And before anyone raises the fact that batteries carry a 12 month guarantee, the dealership in this instance claimed that there were signs the battery had been damaged as it was distorted at its base and this would never have been allowed though the quality checks. Thus they were reluctant to accept responsibility. The owner (you) unhappy, contact the vehicle manufacturer and he tells you the same but that they are prepared to send the battery to the manufacturer for evaluation. The response from the battery company after a couple of weeks is received. In their opinion they report the battery was found to have been possibly overcharged resulting in damage to internal cells and that the cause could be a defective consumer battery charger having been used and or the vehicles power generating systems and voltage regulators should be checked. They provide an impressive data sheet and technical report to establish that the battery has been damaged since manufacture. You drive back to the dealer who is ready for you having received a copy of the report and are more than willing to undertake checks. They report that nothing was found and that you have to make a claim against the battery company for a refund. You of course never had reason to charge the battery and when it did fail you had called the AA to get you moving back to the dealership. OK the scenario above is using actual case information but put yourself in the customers position. Firstly is it your fault? Secondly having spent £32,000 would you expect the £106.00 to be refunded as a customer good will gesture and thirdly would you feel aggrieved that you are now in the middle of two large multimillion turnover companies each protecting their position. The actual outcome was that the owner in this instance was a solicitor and he made a fully recoverable claim through the sale of goods act. Sold his car at the end of the year and stated that was the last car of that manufacturer he would purchase. Yes I of course I accept that tyres and batteries are non warrantable items and I am fully willing to accept that in 99.999% of cases the manufacture supplies a vehicle meeting the highest of quality control. But I am sure you will agree that sometimes things can and do go wrong and when it does it should not be the purchaser who has to foot the cost. Oh and one very last point the scenario above. An engineer reported to the owner purely by chance that they had replaced the voltage regulator when in fact they had originally claimed had found no problem during tests. The replacement battery continued to perform well up to the time of the vehicles sale. Was it a faulty regulator, was it a faulty battery/ Did the owner actually leave his lights on necessitating a recharge and was the charger used faulty. No one knows or cares but would it not have been simpler for someone to just say. “Sorry for the inconvenience, this is a rare occurrence but we have replaced it at no charge, rather than everyone defending themselves from liability. Like the solicitor in question I personally believe when you purchase an item the whole item should be guaranteed. Of course there may be some who will just say well one of those things but until it happens to you and you know you have been unfairly treated it may be difficult to appreciate the annoyance and frustration experienced. I shall let you know how we get on and for those who genuinely wish us luck thank you, and for those who genuinely support the manufacturer well done, as any argument should be a balanced one with emotion removed in order to determine its validity. Great forum folks
  12. Thank you Heliosuk once more for your observations. We provide the following but as we have now served papers please wait for our result update that will be published prior to responding. We respond to your observations just for clarity. Your assertions that we have no chance is interesting as a litigation specialist together with a major motoring consultancy expert witness and the technical team of Bridgetone all believe that our case is watertight, as any case could be. To avoid any misunderstanding the issue as far as we are concerned is not what caused the vehicle's influencing factors that led to abnormal tyre wear from date of delivery purchase, but the fact that even when it can be proved the customer was provided with a product not fit for purpose the manufacturer refuses to admit any liability. Under the sale of goods act a supplier cannot cherry pick from a supplied item what items or equipment will be deemed as merchantable quality and fit for purpose, so the dealer or supplier of a new vehicle is placed in a difficult situation. Claims can be quite easily be made against them. However the supplier of a product will be influenced by the manufacturers support programme. In our instance the supplier made what was considered a reasonable and acceptable offer but rejected out of hand by Vauxhall. Look at it this way. You purchase a new car and notice something is not quite right. You notice the tyres have worn at a an angle across the tread on the rear wheels (this is only an example not relevant to this case). You quickly pick up the problem fortunately, because your mileage is high and after only three months of driving return to the dealer as the tyres are illegal to drive at 6,000 miles run. Here is the issue. Although you have not, the dealer informs you that you have driven over speed bumps at high speed or hit a curb and caused the problem. They smile shrug their shoulders and tell you that they recommend you put new tyres on at your cost as they provide no warranty. You are not particularly happy (obviously) as you would expect the tyres to perform to a reasonable life expectancy. Your concern however is that you want to know what caused the problem and have it rectified before you fit new tyres. The dealership informs you that it is possibly the geometry of the vehicle but as they do not have the specialised equipment (rear wheel geometry) you will have to find a specialist and at your expense have it evaluated. OK Heliosuk, you are a careful driver and know that you have driven your brand new car correctly and have not contributed in any way to the out of spec geometry setting that your specialist finds. You have the geometry brought back to within spec have new tyres fitted all at your expense and after a couple of thousand miles establish no more abnormal wear. So are you happy, do you believe that as you have not been the cause of the problem and that the vehicle was supplied in a condition that without adjustment would go through tyres a third or half the normal life expectancy, that the manufacturer should provide you with some compensation? In my opinion customers should not be treated this wa. Oh, and their is another issue. Under the sale of goods act a simple claim can be made against the supplier and in our instance we began this route but the dealer who was very professional and who recognised the problem as being a genuine (his words) claim suggested to Vauxhall to offer a contribution of £200 on a fifty fifty basis. Vauxhall refused to pay their £100.00. Now let us make something very clear. We are not really interested how out of spec geometry was caused but that on delivery it was out of spec and we have fortunately some proof to support this. Secondly after geometry tests undertaken, paid for and supervised by Vauxhall were carried out they reported that (contrary to the report) no error had been found. We also agree with you in respect that at PDI different manufacturers have differing procedures and we also agree with you that with modern day manufacturing techniques and computer quality controls vehicles leave the factory usually 100% to spec. But and this is important some errors do occur they are not 100% quality 100% of the time. With respect your observations regarding transportation. Our expert witness apparently worked with GM on the problems associated with vehicle transportation and their effects. Much of their report was taken up not only by GM but also by Ford. One issue (and we are not relying on this fact) is that some recently introduced vehicles no longer have tie down brackets traditionally used to lock movement. There of course is always two sides to an argument but when you have a David and Goliath situation its's the little guy who needs a little support. If we win or lose the issues will be brought into the public domain and finally one last point. It is unreasonable for a manufacturer or vehicle assembler to cherry pick what they will and will not warrant. The assembler of any item or product manufactured and sold at retail is responsible for their total product irrespective whether or not they made some or all of the component parts. The motor industry has managed to avoid this by issuing warranty statements that DO NOT and should not override the consumers rights. We also go back to the question why has Vauxhall taken a stance over a £100 claim causing even more costs and possibly ruining their customer care reputation? Is it because they really do need to prevent precedent taking place, if so what is the significance?
  13. Thank you both for your excellent input. Sailor Sam is correct that at PDI the dealer is obliged to carry out a number of checks. However and this is an issue nearly all dealers do not have the equipment necessary to check rear geometry settings thus problems will only be seen by the user after some mileage has been run. It is during this mileage the manufacturer can say any out of alignment was caused by the driver. What is of course is weird in this instance is why would a manufacturer of Vauxhall' s size and reputation refuse to meet the supplying company's recommendation of each paying £100.00 towards the costs. As form the end of this week I will be unable to respond to any more replies as the mater will be subject to legal as court proceedings are being issued. But all your comments have been welcome and objectivity appreciated.
  14. We note you have read the case report 001 You might not have seen the latest response from Bridgestone item 22.
×
×
  • Create New...