A warning about Stealers shonky servicing - Page 4
  • Register
  • Help
Page 4 of 4 First 1234
Results 76 to 88 of 88
Like Tree57Likes

Thread: A warning about Stealers shonky servicing

  1. #76
    1000+ Posts robmac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Melbourne / Caulfield
    Posts
    15,892

    Default

    I have actually been on the receiving end of threats of litigation from the now defunct Rick Damelion group based upon a review I made of a massive Cock-up on my brothers commercial van's registration.
    I removed it from AF to save AF any hassle, but was not at all worried because it was the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth!!!!
    The dealer involved obviously didn't think so. And didn't get a chance to present his perspective.

    And AF should have told to you remove it.

    Car Forums are really not an appropriate place to discuss personal grievances, especially on behalf of a third party.
    And are open to the "kill sport" of other members joining in.

    Following one of the legitimate channels like consumers affairs or an industry body after having a face to face discussion with the dealer principal. Would be my chosen approach.

    Advertisement
    gsmack likes this.
    Mutual Respect is Contagious


  2. #77
    1000+ Posts jo proffi's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    sydney
    Posts
    8,110

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by robmac View Post
    The dealer involved obviously didn't think so. And didn't get a chance to present his perspective.
    There was not a great deal of perspective to be had.

    They charged a premium to convert a 3 seat semi commercial vehicle to a 5 seater, and some time after the event it became apparent that the RTA (who has the last word on these matters) considered it a 3 seater because the paper work was not done correctly.

    When alerted to the anomaly, the dealer dragged their heels and would not return phone calls etc, so my bro got it engineered himself.

    We know of at least one other customer who got the same treatment.

    Maybe there is some relationship between this type of service and the company going bankrupt????


    Jo
    Berridale likes this.

  3. #78
    1000+ Posts robmac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Melbourne / Caulfield
    Posts
    15,892

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jo proffi View Post
    There was not a great deal of perspective to be had.

    They charged a premium to convert a 3 seat semi commercial vehicle to a 5 seater, and some time after the event it became apparent that the RTA (who has the last word on these matters) considered it a 3 seater because the paper work was not done correctly.

    When alerted to the anomaly, the dealer dragged their heels and would not return phone calls etc, so my bro got it engineered himself.

    We know of at least one other customer who got the same treatment.

    Maybe there is some relationship between this type of service and the company going bankrupt????


    Jo
    Most likely so, but using the "power of the internet " to resolve the issue, didn't help did it?.

    If I'd seen your post, I could have told about the compliance minefield of seating having owned JDM imported vans.

    Which need to have the rear seats/ belts removed to register and refitted afterwards to obtain an engineers certification in order to present for rego again, this time as a 8 seat vehicle.

    I think the message to take away is it's best to be personally conversant with the transport regulations, rather than expecting a car dealer to tell you.

    Whilst the dealer carried out the mechanical work, it was on your Brother's direction and on paper, their only obligation was follow instructions.

    I had similar situation on a van gas conversion. The dude moved the spare wheel so it obscured the front number plate.
    When I tackled him, he said" You saw the conversion on another van, so you knew how we did it. Sorry it's your problem to keep the car roadworthy"

    Whilst unpalatable, I had to agree with himand made up a bracket myself.

    I see the whole situation as a "storm in teacup" and not worthy of bringing to AF in the first place.
    Mutual Respect is Contagious


  4. #79
    Tadpole
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by robmac View Post
    Most likely so, but using the "power of the internet " to resolve the issue, didn't help did it?.

    If I'd seen your post, I could have told about the compliance minefield of seating having owned JDM imported vans.

    Which need to have the rear seats/ belts removed to register and refitted afterwards to obtain an engineers certification in order to present for rego again, this time as a 8 seat vehicle.

    I think the message to take away is it's best to be personally conversant with the transport regulations, rather than expecting a car dealer to tell you.

    Whilst the dealer carried out the mechanical work, it was on your Brother's direction and on paper, their only obligation was follow instructions.

    I had similar situation on a van gas conversion. The dude moved the spare wheel so it obscured the front number plate.
    When I tackled him, he said" You saw the conversion on another van, so you knew how we did it. Sorry it's your problem to keep the car roadworthy"

    Whilst unpalatable, I had to agree with himand made up a bracket myself.

    I see the whole situation as a "storm in teacup" and not worthy of bringing to AF in the first place.

    I know its near impossible to deal with the ACCC but technically the customer is right in both of your cases.
    There are also RTA, MTA and other bodies that have rules and guidelines you could of used to hammer them.


    Under the ACL, you must meet the consumer guarantees of providing services:
    > with due care and skill You guarantee to use an acceptable level of skill or technical knowledge when providing the services, and take all necessary care to avoid loss or damage
    > which are fit for any specified purpose You guarantee that services will be reasonably fit for any purpose specified by the consumer; and any products resulting from the services are also fit for that purpose. You also guarantee that services, and any resulting products, are of a standard expected to achieve any desired results that the consumer told you about
    > within a reasonable time (when no time is set) You guarantee to supply the service within a reasonable time. What is ‘reasonable’ will depend on the nature of the services.

    I don't think a spare blocking the number plate during an LPG installation which you need to be licensed to do is fit for purpose nor is having the dealer put in extra seats as requested and not registering it as such. Also both of these jobs created illegal modifications which would be covered by the state road authorities who both these groups would have had licenses from.

    They should have fixed both of these cases straight away when you first asked.
    If you go nowhere with that they won't like it when you suggest anything about contacting State government road bodies or ACCC, MTA etc referring their workmanship along with their license number.
    If they still won't budge with the threat, put it into action, refer the matter to a suitable body or organisation. Let them know that you have done it as well.
    At this point they would deserve any of the ramifications from regulatory bodies as well as bad reviews on the internet from frustrated consumers.
    Just don't complain on the internet before getting it fixed unless of course you are right and you are certain they are definitely not going to do anything about the problem.

  5. #80
    1000+ Posts robmac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Melbourne / Caulfield
    Posts
    15,892

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LukeK_GT View Post
    I know its near impossible to deal with the ACCC but technically the customer is right in both of your cases.
    There are also RTA, MTA and other bodies that have rules and guidelines you could of used to hammer them.


    Under the ACL, you must meet the consumer guarantees of providing services:
    > with due care and skill You guarantee to use an acceptable level of skill or technical knowledge when providing the services, and take all necessary care to avoid loss or damage
    > which are fit for any specified purpose You guarantee that services will be reasonably fit for any purpose specified by the consumer; and any products resulting from the services are also fit for that purpose. You also guarantee that services, and any resulting products, are of a standard expected to achieve any desired results that the consumer told you about
    > within a reasonable time (when no time is set) You guarantee to supply the service within a reasonable time. What is ‘reasonable’ will depend on the nature of the services.

    I don't think a spare blocking the number plate during an LPG installation which you need to be licensed to do is fit for purpose nor is having the dealer put in extra seats as requested and not registering it as such. Also both of these jobs created illegal modifications which would be covered by the state road authorities who both these groups would have had licenses from.

    They should have fixed both of these cases straight away when you first asked.
    If you go nowhere with that they won't like it when you suggest anything about contacting State government road bodies or ACCC, MTA etc referring their workmanship along with their license number.
    If they still won't budge with the threat, put it into action, refer the matter to a suitable body or organisation. Let them know that you have done it as well.
    At this point they would deserve any of the ramifications from regulatory bodies as well as bad reviews on the internet from frustrated consumers.
    Just don't complain on the internet before getting it fixed unless of course you are right and you are certain they are definitely not going to do anything about the problem.
    Both of these cases discussed in this thread were several years ago. The spare wheel situation is at least 15 years and Jo's brother at least 7 years (from memory)

    The consumer laws have changed for the better of the consumer and to the detriment of trader in the not so distant past.

    And IMO "gold diggers are encouraged" these days.

    My personal approach to the current "consumer biased" regulations is to go with the action what I would consider fair from the "other side" of the incident.

    Believe me, having been in businesses for 20 years, prior to retirement I've seen most kinds of "try ons" from members of the public.

    I've just returned from Recliner Sofa shopping and will recount a case (told to me by store manager) of the action taken by consumer against a major furniture manufacturer, via VCAT for replacement of 2 year old leather couch, because it had changed color in the Sun, the consumer claimed that they weren't aware of the possibility of fading and weren't explicitly told.

    It was thrown out by the VCAT person, shortly after that the consumer ordered, a pair of matching armchairs, so obviously the claim was not in good faith, but a "try on" .

    EDIT:

    Sometimes I just CBF arguing with suppliers, the effort expended just makes for a Pyrrhic victory, if you do in fact ever get satisfaction. And many cases it's easier to fix it yourself.

    In fact this thread is starting to head down the same path.
    Last edited by robmac; 18th October 2017 at 05:12 PM.
    Kim Luck likes this.
    Mutual Respect is Contagious


  6. #81
    1000+ Posts jo proffi's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    sydney
    Posts
    8,110

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by robmac View Post
    Most likely so, but using the "power of the internet " to resolve the issue, didn't help did it?.

    If I'd seen your post, I could have told about the compliance minefield of seating having owned JDM imported vans….

    I see the whole situation as a "storm in teacup" and not worthy of bringing to AF in the first place.

    The issue was, it was a brand spanking new Suzuki MPV van sold as a 5 seater van.

    Imagine finding out some time after you bought a brand new 5 seater vehicle, that it was actually only legal to carry 3.

    Jo
    Berridale likes this.

  7. #82
    1000+ Posts robmac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Melbourne / Caulfield
    Posts
    15,892

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jo proffi View Post
    The issue was, it was a brand spanking new Suzuki MPV van sold as a 5 seater van.

    Imagine finding out some time after you bought a brand new 5 seater vehicle, that it was actually only legal to carry 3.

    Jo
    Incredibly sad.

    But even sadder is the concept of 5 passengers in sardine can car and your brother making the choice voluntarily.
    Mutual Respect is Contagious


  8. #83
    1000+ Posts Kim Luck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Melbourne, Aus.
    Posts
    16,291

    Default

    Even today, Suzuki list the current APV as having two seats, not three, or five, even as an option....
    It's another lovely day! Again!

  9. #84
    1000+ Posts jo proffi's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    sydney
    Posts
    8,110

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kim Luck View Post
    Even today, Suzuki list the current APV as having two seats, not three, or five, even as an option....
    Thats right, A dealer fitted option.

    Problem was they took the word option too literally.


    Incredibly sad.

    But even sadder is the concept of 5 passengers in sardine can car and your brother making the choice voluntarily.
    Yes, i concour.
    Soon after, he replaced it with a sprinter.

    Jo

  10. #85
    Tadpole
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by robmac View Post
    Both of these cases discussed in this thread were several years ago. The spare wheel situation is at least 15 years and Jo's brother at least 7 years (from memory)

    The consumer laws have changed for the better of the consumer and to the detriment of trader in the not so distant past.

    And IMO "gold diggers are encouraged" these days.

    My personal approach to the current "consumer biased" regulations is to go with the action what I would consider fair from the "other side" of the incident.

    Believe me, having been in businesses for 20 years, prior to retirement I've seen most kinds of "try ons" from members of the public.

    I've just returned from Recliner Sofa shopping and will recount a case (told to me by store manager) of the action taken by consumer against a major furniture manufacturer, via VCAT for replacement of 2 year old leather couch, because it had changed color in the Sun, the consumer claimed that they weren't aware of the possibility of fading and weren't explicitly told.

    It was thrown out by the VCAT person, shortly after that the consumer ordered, a pair of matching armchairs, so obviously the claim was not in good faith, but a "try on" .

    EDIT:

    Sometimes I just CBF arguing with suppliers, the effort expended just makes for a Pyrrhic victory, if you do in fact ever get satisfaction. And many cases it's easier to fix it yourself.

    In fact this thread is starting to head down the same path.
    Yes I agree that there are prick consumers out there trying to get something for nothing using the updated rules to there advantage.

    But to me both your cases actually had work done by a certified licensed motor trade business that had made the product illegal.
    The year it was done in is irrelevant as motor registries and laws existed in both those time periods as well.

    When is the next dealer story coming, I'm waiting.....
    Berridale likes this.

  11. #86
    Fellow Frogger!
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Jerangle
    Posts
    617

    Default

    Both customers and dealers try it on at times.

    When you exhaust all avenues to get some resolution and nothing works you do the internet.

    This is the new power.
    Some don't like it but when i hear and see some work done by dealers i just think
    you do what works.

    Two cases in point were on Alfa engines where the main cam idler bolts into the block and the mount was stripped.
    You can't heli-coil without dropping the sub-frame !
    In both cases the idler was in danger of coming undone from the block.
    Catastrophic consequences for the owner.

  12. #87
    Fellow Frogger!
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    jervis bay nsw
    Posts
    166

    Default

    I recently bought my wife a late model 307 from a lady who sold it cheaply because the fuel gauge kept failing, She had returned it numerous times to the dealer (in a large city not too far south of Sydney) and spent huge money on servicing,could not find the problem .we gave it to a local mechanic/auto electrician who found the problem in 1 hour-a faulty sender. these are only available in Aus. as complete pump assemblies- $300 +. but I was lucky enough to find a second hand wiper-replaced in 30 minutes and still going.As a bonus I repaired the old wiper myself, just a bad solder joint so I now have a spare.

  13. #88
    Fellow Frogger! N5GTi6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    926

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kim Luck View Post
    Assuming you might have a problem with insurance salesmen, the story was told to illustrate the honesty that people I know personally lack when it suits them. For your and everyone else's information, between myself and my spouse we have owned ten brand new cars all of which have been serviced at the selling dealerships. All the services have been carried out according to the schedules, and we have never had our vehicles damaged during the process. The last four vehicles all exceeded 150,000 km and averaged 10 years of service. I'd venture to suggest that perhaps a lot of vehicles bought second hand have not received the same care and attention............
    You've either had an incredibly lucky run with dealers or have an inane ability to judge the good dealers from the bad dealers and stick with the good ones.

    I've been lucky enough to have been able to purchase multiple new cars and motorcycles over the years and have no end of trouble with dealer servicing. Bikes with fuel lines not tightened after servicing spilling fuel onto the back wheel, oil filters not tightened, damaged paint, damaged wheels, bad alignments, doors bent out of alignment when sticking window mechanisms were 'adjusted', excessive over servicing replacing half worn brakes, tyres, batteries etc etc etc.

    We recently had a ducted air-con system installed in our house. Unlike a lot of purchasers I climbed into the ceiling cavity to inspect the work....urgh....ducting not closed off, joints not sealed, old ducting used where new ducting should have been installed, loose brackets, complete distribution boxes left where they should have been removed, ducting bent so tightly it flowed no air, ducting placed over access hatches, anti-vibration mounts not installed - you name it. They claimed no customer had ever had these issues before but I challenged them and said that most customers wouldn't inspect the work, and/or wouldn't know what to look for. They fixed the issues but shouldn't have had to come back.

    If you're happy with the dealer telling you've they've done everything correctly, then great, but quite often it's not that way.

    You get what you inspect - not what you expect.

    Cheers

    Justin
    jo proffi, Mike Tippett and COL like this.
    '07 Megane R26
    '07 C3 Exclusive
    '09 308 XSE Touring
    '10 308 Sportium Touring

Page 4 of 4 First 1234

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •