Jump to content

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 t
  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
  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
  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
  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 languag
  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. B
  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 desig
  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. M
  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 differ
  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 fe
  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
  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 influen
  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 £
  14. We note you have read the case report 001 You might not have seen the latest response from Bridgestone item 22.
×
×
  • Create New...