[Melly]

Absolutely Paul, but who defines what 'minor' defects are and what 'major' defects are. As far as I can see from what was said in the first post, these faults can be fixed/are being fixed and that they are not grounds for rejecting the car. I completely sympathise with the case (even though some of my collegues dont ever sympathise with customers) but I don not feel that they make the vehicle deemed unfit for purpose just yet. I'm sure with hindsight once everything is fixed, the customer will be happier even though it has taken time and effore-then having to battle with trading standards, the dealer, the manufacutrer, the finance company in a rejection of the vehicle.

I really don't want to fall out with anyone I suppose I am merely playing devils advocate. This is my job and I deal with cases like it every day. There has to be a line to draw somewhere and unfortunately it is not always to the customers satisfaction. I agree it's not always fair...

[Paul]

You can argue what a minor or major is, but the point is, everything I've read says that a new car must be free from MINOR defects, not major. Which means any minor defect should not be there. There is also nothing written in recent law which says anything about allowing the supplying dealership any amount of time and attempts to fix a new car with minor defects. So the law states that minor defects on a new car means it is not in the view of a reasonable person "of satisfactory quality", which entitles you to a replacement or refund.

Not arguing over what's considered major or minor, as minor is enough for the law to be on your side. As much as those in the motor industry might like to believe and tell everyone otherwise.

[Martin F]

Paul

I have no wish to pick a fight here but could you point out to me where in the law it says that minor defects entitle the buyer of a car to a replacement or a refund.

The law is set out in the Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994 which amends the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and reads as follows:

1.—(1) In section 14 of the [1979 c. 54.] Sale of Goods Act 1979 (implied terms about quality or fitness) for subsection (2) there is substituted— "(2) Where the seller sells goods in the course of a business, there is an implied term that the goods supplied under the contract are of satisfactory quality.
(2A) For the purposes of this Act, goods are of satisfactory quality if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking account of any description of the goods, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances.
(2B) For the purposes of this Act, the quality of goods includes their state and condition and the following (among others) are in appropriate cases aspects of the quality of goods—
(a) fitness for all the purposes for which goods of the kind in question are commonly supplied,
(b) appearance and finish,
(c) freedom from minor defects,
(d) safety, and
(e) durability.


So I accept that a buyer of defective goods has a remedy.

But case law seems to say that the buyer must give the seller the opportunity to put the defect right. What is the source of your belief that in law this is not necessary and that the buyer is entitled to immediate rejection or a refund?

[Melly]

Quote: Originally Posted by Paul Mullett (original)

There is also nothing written in recent law which says anything about allowing the supplying dealership any amount of time and attempts to fix a new car with minor defects. So the law states that minor defects on a new car means it is not in the view of a reasonable person "of satisfactory quality", which entitles you to a replacement or refund.

Not arguing over what's considered major or minor, as minor is enough for the law to be on your side. As much as those in the motor industry might like to believe and tell everyone otherwise.

No offence but surely you would want to allow the dealer a chance to fix the problem before taking it to court. Otherwise perhaps when you are standing in court with everyone, you might be seen as unreasonable for taking it straight to rejection without giving them a fair opportunity to rectify the problem.

I think you are misunderstood on what the law is.... and also what case historys indicate.

[Paul]

The only previous case history I have seen quoted that says anything about allowing them chance to fix problems dates from either 1987 or 1983 (cant remember which) and the law (as Martin has pointed out) has been revised since then to be more in favour of the consumer, where it should be.

Personally I always think it's best to allow people, the dealer, shop, whatever the chance to fix minor problems as it's usually easier and happier for all in the long term, but to assume people have to accept things is wrong, and generally it seems the "customer service" people at all large companies assume they've the right to bully and force consumers to do what they want, not what they're entitled to.

[Martin F]

Quote: Originally Posted by Paul Mullett (original)

The only previous case history I have seen quoted that says anything about allowing them chance to fix problems dates from either 1987 or 1983 (cant remember which) and the law (as Martin has pointed out) has been revised since then to be more in favour of the consumer, where it should be.

.

The change in the law was, in particular, to improve the description of what represented satisfactory quality. The original Act used terms such as "merchantable quality" which was not very helpful.

However, I don't believe the changes to the law had much, if any, effect on the law relating to the remedies available to a buyer where the quality of the goods is not satisfactory. I therefore believe that the quoted cases are still relevant.

But at the end of the day, I think we both agree that the best approach is to give the dealer a reasonable chance to put things right.

[Paul]

Absolutely, as we all know, the law is an ass, and the only people who want things to go to court are the lawyers.

[Melly]

Exactly!

[popey]

I'd like to see your reaction if you had spent £26/27k on a car that was sub standard.

My rejection was successful, glad you don't work for MINI .

[craigd]

Well Melanie, I have read your posts with interest.

I must say as someone who has also worked in a customer service background for 17 years you sound incredibly unsympathetic to a valued customer of MINI. I think too many years of you dealing with complaining customers has taken it's toll on you..

I am now on my third MINI and have spent a small fortune on top of that with my dealer in accessories, notwithstanding the work I have done with the dealership in organising runs/promotion events with them.

You seem to focus on the "Minor" faults. Is a grinding gearbox to u minor? You seem to have forgotten that my vehicle has already been into 2 separate dealerships and come back out after a total of 8 days without a single fault fixed ?

are you seeing where this is going yet? ?

Do you believe it is correct and proper of a dealership and manufacturer to lie to a customer? I was told that my vehicle was late in being delivered to the dealer due to "additonal quality control" ? This actually turned out to be a fabrication and the problem was a faulty fuel pump. My car was (if your interested) 4 weeks late in being delivered and took a shine of Xmas and my new car.

One of my faults which you also state as minor is the rattle from the engine area at low revs. I was told by Steven Knowles of BMW that this was a characteristic of the vehicle. This has also been proved to be a lie as it is a problem with the V Pulley Poly Belt. It ossilates at low revs which causes the rattle. There is also now a fix.

I frankly wish I had kept my last MINI as it was virtually flawless, however I am an enthusiast and as such wanted the new model. I was prepared to accept minor faults as it was a new model, however 4 of my friends have new models and don't have my issues. Combine that with the fact that I have already given them 2 chances to fix the problems without success, do you not thing I have a case for rejection ?

I hope you can give me an honest answer, it seems that is beyond MINI at the moment

Disgruntled from Scotland.

[Melly]

Quote: Originally Posted by craigd (original)

Well Melanie, I have read your posts with interest.

I must say as someone who has also worked in a customer service background for 17 years you sound incredibly unsympathetic to a valued customer of MINI. I think too many years of you dealing with complaining customers has taken it's toll on you..

I am now on my third MINI and have spent a small fortune on top of that with my dealer in accessories, notwithstanding the work I have done with the dealership in organising runs/promotion events with them.

You seem to focus on the "Minor" faults. Is a grinding gearbox to u minor? You seem to have forgotten that my vehicle has already been into 2 separate dealerships and come back out after a total of 8 days without a single fault fixed ?

are you seeing where this is going yet? ?

Do you believe it is correct and proper of a dealership and manufacturer to lie to a customer? I was told that my vehicle was late in being delivered to the dealer due to "additonal quality control" ? This actually turned out to be a fabrication and the problem was a faulty fuel pump. My car was (if your interested) 4 weeks late in being delivered and took a shine of Xmas and my new car.

One of my faults which you also state as minor is the rattle from the engine area at low revs. I was told by Steven Knowles of BMW that this was a characteristic of the vehicle. This has also been proved to be a lie as it is a problem with the V Pulley Poly Belt. It ossilates at low revs which causes the rattle. There is also now a fix.

I frankly wish I had kept my last MINI as it was virtually flawless, however I am an enthusiast and as such wanted the new model. I was prepared to accept minor faults as it was a new model, however 4 of my friends have new models and don't have my issues. Combine that with the fact that I have already given them 2 chances to fix the problems without success, do you not thing I have a case for rejection ?

I hope you can give me an honest answer, it seems that is beyond MINI at the moment

Disgruntled from Scotland.

I haven't been in customer services for very long. And for an Automotive company only 3 months actually, so please accept my apology if I have come accross as arrogant or incredibly knowledgeable on the subject because i'm not... I only know what I know.

My main point was, give them another chance.... then if it is still a problem I would wholeheartedly say reject it. Also, some comments were made about trading standards and the sale of goods act which were incorrect. I'm learning everyday in my job and i found reading all this very interesting as although it is a different manufacturer, it is a simular story to what I may have to come accross dealing with.

In all honesty, most of our customers who wish to officially reject the vehicle have had major problems with dealers who are on our black list anyway. It's an absolute nightmare situation. From my perspective its a 3 way battle- the customer, the dealer and then me. Officially once they put it in writing to the dealer that they wish to reject the car it is out of our hands, but everytime the dealer refers it to us....

Unfortunately a lot of people make threats to reject their car even when they are not entitled to (one at the moment was a private sale, 5 yrs old, non loyal service history) which makes it more difficult for people who have genuine cases. Decent car dealerships are difficult to come by.

At the end of the day what i'm trying to say is that this can happen to anyone with anycar and it is more than unfortunate, however, saying that you would never buy another MINI because of it is something i disagree with.... In those circumstances-as I said earlier- you'd have probab;y been dealt with the same wayby another manufacturer unless of course you have a car which is manufactured by a company who have the lowest failiure rates and the best customer service....

[Chris.F]

Quote: Originally Posted by MINImelanie (original)

However, it is not a few hundred quids worth of TV so it is unfair to compare it to returning and replacing in a shop. It is a car with a certain specification and they cannot magic up a twin of your car very easily.

PRICELESS!!!!!!!

Quote: Originally Posted by MINImelanie (original)

I get calls everyday from people who swear at me,

NO WONDER! and I don't swear at all.

I personally find your post offensive and representative of poor customer service typical in Great Britain.

We have rejected a car that had 33 minor faults! (Not the mini I might add but an Alfa (serves us right I suppose!) The same line as the above statement was used and our argument was yes you are quite right the car costs many times more so even more care should be taken. If you want the negative publicity I will oblige. Horrible to do but WHY should we accept poor quality service just because the products high value?

After using the 'standard' rejection letter available on Trading Standards websites and stating the FACTS as you are keen on them to both manufacturer and dealership just in case someone tries to pass the book, (Contract law is based on the Latin phrase pacta sunt servanda (literally, promises must be kept) have they in this case?

We received a replacement within 14 days to a better spec at the same price thats customer service and a reasonable resolution. We must have had a decent case despite posts on here.

Good luck Craig don't let them grind you down.

[Melly]

Woah woah woah Chris I don't want to argue with anyone....!!!!

I 'm sorry if i've not explained it properly.

I am not rude to people on the phone, but I don't always tell them what they want to hear. That does not give them the right to speak to me the way they sometimes do. Anyway- that was a very small sentance in all the discussion here and i'm sorry you pulled it out and mocked it.

I'll go back to OT&B where I think i'm more suited...


I really am sorry if i offended anyone. I just wanted to have a go at discussing it. The whole matter of rejecting vehicles-not JUST this case.


I really hope it gets sorted soon Chris.

[Chris.F]

nor mocking you...sorry if you thought that......just think on reflection you could have put it better. Sorry if I was a tad harsh. Nothing personal. Its a hard job but having experienced rejecting a car in the family its not a decision taken lightly. Feel for Craig its horrible.

Good luck with your job it sounds demanding and a sharp learning curve.

Mum has a Honda CRV that wouldn't start last week. It's in next Wednesday for a new EGR valve re-designed by Honda in less than a month. Thats service as you rightly identified.

[J1JPE]

Craig - good on you, PLEASE "Stick to your guns"

People who work in UK Customer Service seem to forget that people have spent their hard earned money, are under stress because of the fault / complaint and the situation is personal not 'just a job';

It makes me laugh that companies spend all this money on Marketing & PR to chase loyalty etc but don't bother to do the basics of providing good products and treating the people who have bought / want to buy their products well ... know many people from abroad who live in the UK who can't believe how bad the service we receive generally is

As Paul says knowing your rights & 'exploiting' them as much as MINI, some dealers seem to want to exploit customers is the way forward

Oh for the 'good old days' of customer satisfaction, is king / always right ... rather than the short-sighted, profit greedy 'new generation'

Contact details for watchdog are here:
BBC - Consumer - TV and radio - TV and radio

[Melly]

Quote: Originally Posted by J1JPE (original)

People who work in UK Customer Service seem to forget that people have spent their hard earned money, are under stress because of the fault / complaint and the situation is personal not 'just a job';

It makes me laugh that companies spend all this money on Marketing & PR to chase loyalty etc but don't bother to do the basics of providing good products and treating the people who have bought / want to buy their products

Perhaps sometimes the customers forget that a customer service advisor is still a human being. They obviously will have certain emotions about a case and want to take into consideration that perhaps the poor lad worked from 14 to save up and buy his first car and now its a pile of junk and he's depressed and they are worried about it-but you can not expect all personal circumstances to affect what treatment you get. I remain assertive and objective when dealing with very emotional people, and I think that is the right choice.

On your second point-i agree. Our MD took us all into a meeting a month ago to tell us how much money we've made and how successfull certain parts of the industry have been. It's an absolute Joke then that they refuse to pay overtime in my department when I work well over and above my normall hours to help customer cases- i stress about these cases when i'm not at work and i am bothered by the fact that i am TOO BUSY due to short staffing to provide GOOD customer service..... Basically, because we have too many cases and not enough people, everything takes longer and people don't get calls back etc..... If they put more money into my department then the customer services from here would be a lot better and we would all be able to carry out our jobs to a higher standard. Anyway-that does stray away from the subject but I just wanted to say why I agree with that. They put all the effort into getting new people, then don't seem to care much about aftersales.

[popey]

I would never swear at you....... I'd put the phone down, ring back and speak to someone else

[Melly]

Quote: Originally Posted by popey (original)

I would never swear at you....... I'd put the phone down, ring back and speak to someone else

Good idea, only where I work we all give the same answers so it wouldn't make a difference.

[morrisminiminor]

Have to agree with you Ken L. The Menzies Mini's sales guy dealing with me was absolutely 1st class. Unfortunately all his good work was wasted by the disappointing Service side. Shame really. I also felt for the service receptionist though. She does try her best but is constantly let down. I don't envy her job. It's sad that in this country, service is as poor as car dealers can get away with. Pity they don't follow the American ethos.
How does Douglas Park fare?
morrisminiminor

[JG.26]

I think what everyone is forgetting here is you are dealing with car dealers they will never change, they have always had this attitude that once they have your money your in their hands totally regarding any future problems. You have to realistically expect that any dealer will go out of their way to avoid replacing a customers car and like others have said dealers have come out with rubbish and tales that it is a characteristic etc. Remember they still have to sell your bundle of troubles once you have washed your hands of the car.

For me minor problems are rattles and maybe loose trim that can be easily fixed. I had these on my MINI from new and had every confidence these could be fixed under warranty, luckily they were after 3 visits. However case for rejection would be numerous problems like Paul had and faulty mechanicals where major work is required, ie gearbox replacement etc.