Dear All,

I have made a complaint to Steve Settle (Lexus GB) about the service I have received from Lexus Leeds and Bradford. Thus far I have been dissatisfied with the response. I am keen to learn if others have had similar tales of woe, and also if it is OK to put copies of the correspondence on this website.

Thanks for your help

Welcome to LOC

What is the problem you have had with the service?

Welcome to LOC mate,

Only time I've used Lexus Leeds is for buying parts and tbh they've always treated me well- had no bad experiences with them. Don't know what they are like for servicing or warranty work as I have never used them to do this kind of work.

Welcome to the club mate,

Letter to Lexus October 29th 2008

Dear Mr. S. Settle (via email to Alex.Kirkby@lgb.lexus.co.uk )
Chief Executive, Lexus GB

I am sad to report that there are further serious issues that I would like to raise with you for a personal response about this ongoing saga.

1) There has been an allegation by the Servicing department at Bradford that the part supplied by Lexus Leeds (which was allegedly the part supplied to them by Lexus Head office) was a "second hand diff that had been taken out of a car involved in a serious accident". Lexus Bradford further allege that they had to source independently a new rear differential to put in the car in July 2008.

You will recall that I had to go to Lexus customer relations as Lexus Leeds refused to release the part at all to Lexus Bradford.

On reviewing the paperwork for the alleged repair there is no mention of the differential at all, nor it's fitting and I am left in the highly uncomfortable position of not knowing what, if anything, has been repaired, and using what part.

2) When my wife went to collect our Lexus in July 2007 [sic - this should have read July 2008] from Lexus Bradford (for the fitting of the rear differential, front discs and pads, and 60,000 service) it made a loud noise. She was instructed by the then Service Manager (Nigel) to come back later while he looked at the car again. My wife was told that there was a fault with the hand brake cable that should have not have happened; that they had spoken to Lexus Customer Relations and had replaced the faulty part.

When our car recently was taken to Lexus Bradford in regards to a further noise, we were quoted for replacement of both hand brake cables as one had seized. When we pointed out to Amanda Bradley that this had only been replaced in July 2008 and should be under warranty, we were told that there was nothing in the July documentation to indicate that any hand brake fault had been either identified or rectified in in July 2008 (when the car had the rear differential fitted and a 60,000 mile service). Further Bradford servicing alleged that on visual inspection that neither of the hand brake cabled had been replaced.

Again we are extremely concerned that the Bradford documentation has not documented the identification of and the replacement of the hand brake cable fault, and furthermore, that we may have been misled that this had been rectified in July.

3) We raised with Lexus Head office, and our local Trading Standards office, serious concerns that Lexus Leeds had stated that the rear discs and pads needed changing urgently (within 2000 miles at the most), whereas conversely Lexus Bradford had indicated that not only did they not need replacing, but would last another 10,000 miles until the next service. These did not seem compatible opinions to us, especially when franchised dealers from a premium brand should be aspiring to the same level of servicing.

We therefore agreed in writing that Lexus Bradford would honour the price they had quoted for the replacement of the rear discs and pads whilst we obtained an independent opinion. We sought that opinion, not unreasonably in all the circumstances, from Customer Relations who declined to assist us. In any event, the independent opinion was that they did need replacing. We were surprised when we booked this into Lexus Bradford to be quoted 3 times what we had been quoted originally by Bradford (though they did agree to honour the price they had quoted in writing - even stating that they were fitting it for less than the parts). This did leave us wondering whether they should have been replaced in the first instance, but Lexus Bradford had quoted the incorrect (too low) amount (£110 for parts and labour of rear discs and pads).

When we confronted Lexus Bradford about the difference in opinion between Lexus Leeds and Bradford, and the independent opinion, Lexus Bradford stated that they stood by their opinion, and that Lexus Leeds "do not know what they are talking about". Further the Servicing Manager stated, "He [pointing to a senior technician] should know, he used to work for them". When we spoke to Lexus Leeds about the allegation of providing the second hand part they said it was "complete rubbish". Moreover they said of the Bradford service engineer who had told us this had done this because "Let's just say he used to work for us, was relieved of his duties, and sold crisps out of a van for a year. Leeds weren't interested in having him back so he went to Bradford".

I am left with an overwhelming feeling that I am dealing with 2 immensely unprofessional dealerships not supported by the premium brand I have paid for. I have a car at the Bradford dealership that I do not know if it is drivable. Frankly I have no idea whether the rear differential and hand brake cables have been replaced or not, or with what. The documentation I have would suggest that neither have been replaced and I am extremely concerned about the allegations being made about second hand parts being recovered from write-off vehicles being used by a Lexus authorised dealer. Further I had no idea, nor trust in either dealer, whether the current problems I am having with the car (which the AA man who recovered the vehicle has documented as "rear diff") relate to the original problem with the differential and it's repair.

I would call for your urgent intervention in these matters. I would be grateful if you could provide a courtesy car forthwith and intervene in the deeply unprofessional squabbling between your dealerships, and once again, not leave the customer left high and dry. It is my belief, as I previously stated to you, that this matter should have been dealt with in the first instance as a warranty repair with a short extension to the warranty to cover other similar faults that in Lexus's own words "should not have happened".

An extremely disappointed Lexus owner

Dr. & Mrs. A.

Response from Lexus 30th October

Dear Dr G

Thank you for taking the time to speak to me earlier regarding your concerns. I agree that there are certainly aspects of your experience that could have been handled better and I have now had the opportunity to discuss the matter with our Regional Manager as I explained earlier.
It seems that it is not possible to tell by looking at the differential whether the part is brand new or not, once it has been fitted, but we have established that the incorrect box was initially given to Lexus Bradford. The box contained a completely different part that had been removed from another vehicle as part of a warranty repair. Once the mistake had been noticed, the correct part was collected. Whilst I appreciate that you do not have documentation that supports the fitment of the differential, I can confirm that it is clearly noted on the job card at the Centre.
I have been unable to source an explanation as to why you were led to believe that the handbrake cable had been replaced previously. I am sure you can appreciate that we were not privy to any of these conversations and on that basis cannot substantiate this.

However, in order to bring this matter to an amicable close, if you are prepared to authorise the current repairs, I am willing to increase my earlier offer to provide all of the following parts free of charge as a gesture of goodwill:
Part number 46430-48170 handbrake cable

Part number 46420-48170 handbrake cable

Part number 42370-49125 outer joint shaft

Part number 42304-48031 shift assembly

Part number 42305-48031 shift assembly

The total retail price for these parts is £1099.17 and is of course in addition to our previous goodwill in respect of the differential - retail cost of £1136.39.
Unfortunately, we are unable to comply with your request to keep you mobile and of course the labour charges will need to be discussed with Lexus Bradford.
In closing, I do hope this gesture will go someway towards restoring your faith in the Lexus brand. If you wish to accept the offer, please advise Lexus Bradford so that they may progress with the repair.

Yours sincerely
Gill Want

Lexus Customer Relations Team Manager

Original Complaint to Lexus GB

20th December 2007

Dear Mr. S. Settle,

I write further to my earlier discussions with the Leeds Lexus
dealership, customer relations and your PA Alex Kirkby. So we best
understand each others position, we agreed it would be best to put my
complaint, and your response, in writing. I would be grateful if you
could personally consider each numbered aspect of my complaint in
relation to my Lexus RX 300 SEL.

1) I purchased my Lexus RX 300 SEL brand new (with delivery mileage)
from the Lexus Cambridge dealership in 2004. As a first time Lexus
customer (moving from Porsche) I was under the impression I was buying
a prestige new car from an authorised dealer with the full back up of
a prestige manufacturer. However in recent discussions with Customer
Relations I was told that I had bought my car "second hand" from
Cambridge aged 3 months old. I appear to have been misleadingly sold a
second hand car (albeit with delivery only mileage).

2) We moved to Leeds shortly after purchasing the car and maintained a
full service history with Lexus Leeds. At a recent service a fault was
identified. In the words of Lexus Service Manager, and with no
prompting or suggestion by ourselves, he said this "should not have
happened.". He said he would approach Lexus to get the replacement
part free and offered 15% off the fitting. I was unhappy with this.
From my perspective if something by Lexus' own admission "should not
have happened" then I should not have to pay for it. The service
manager said that was all he was in a position to offer so I contacted
the dealership manager.

3) The dealership manager agreed that the fault "should not have
happened". He "completely agreed" with me in regards to not having to
pay for fitting of the part. He said he would speak to Lexus directly
to resolve the issue. He came back to me stating that Lexus are unable
to offer free fitting, so I said I would take it would Lexus directly.

4) Following a number of discussions with your Customer Relations team
it was apparent that in effect, Lexus could not influence the repair
because that was undertaken by a franchise dealership. I was told by
your customer care manager that had I serviced and returned the car to
the Lexus dealer from where I had bought the car (Lexus Cambridge) as
opposed to where I have maintained my full service history (Lexus
Leeds) they may have well offered to repair the fault for free as they
would have had "more profit to play around with". This is precisely
where I would have expected Lexus UK to intervene and protect a
customer - rather than being passed from pillar to post, between 2
independent dealerships and yourselves. To my knowledge, Lexus (UK)
have not even contacted Lexus Cambridge.

I cannot help but feel a great deal of disappointment with Lexus (UK)
and the brand. I am left feeling that I have been misleadingly sold a
second hand car, from a disparate group of independent dealers, and
with little central support from Lexus when things go wrong. I
expected more from a £38,000 car purchased from a prestige car
manufacturer. I would have expected in all the circumstances, that
Lexus would have repaired the fault under warranty, and offered a
further short extension to the warranty to protect against any other
major faults that should not happen to car of this type and age.

I would value your detailed opinion on each of the matters raised,

Thank you in anticipation of your response.

Letter to Lexus 31st October 2008

Dear Mrs. Want
Lexus GB

Thank you for your letter dated 30th September [sic] 2008.

I need to take Advice on a number of issues and will respond more formally to a number of points that you raise.

I note that you are not able to "substantiate" the conversations that my wife (a Senior Sister, in person) and I (a doctor, by telephone) had with your former employee (Nigel) in regards to the hand brake cable. You will appreciate that we had never been aware of any problem with the cable until it made a loud noise on collecting the car from Lexus Bradford in July. By your own admission the paperwork in relation to that service episode was deficient. I further note that Nigel was described yesterday by the Bradford Service Manager as "incompetent". I should be grateful if you could outline what steps you have made to substantiate our version of events (which are both very clear in our minds) versus your employees. Furthermore I should be grateful if you could confirm the circumstances in which Nigel left the employment of Lexus Bradford.

It is disappointing that you will be unable to inspect the car and warrant the differential as being, without doubt, a new part. I need to take further advice on this. As is stands I am not prepared to drive a vehicle which may be fitted with a part recovered from a vehicle involved in a "serious accident".

Yours sincerely,

So in summary.... I am currently carless. I have no idea, what (if anything) was done to my car in July and what part was put in my car. I do not know if it is safe to drive. And I do not know if the new long list of faults all of the back of the car relate to the work on the differential, and/or should have been picked up when this work was done in July (when the car also had, I am told, a full 60 000 mile service).

Just to fill you in.... since Lexus GB refused to get involved in the cost of the installation of the faulty rear differential, I phoned around the local dealers and Bradford was found to be the cheapest. However Leeds refused to issue Bradford with the part they had apparently sent for my car. That also needed Lexus CR to get involved.

I despair with Lexus.

Shocking, simply shocking treatment. I wish you well in getting this sorted to your satisfaction.

Doesn't sit well with "The Pursuit Of Perfection" IMO

Got to agree with DJ Wozza it seems shocking.

If Lexus Cambridge have sold you a 'second hand car' maybe it would be worth your while speaking to them as well, its not unkown for a dealer to collect a car from the other end of the country.

I hope you get this resolved ASAP

I suggested that Lexus GB contacted Cambridge back in December 2007. I felt given the problems they really needed to take ownership of the matter and liase between the dealers. If they allow them to use the brand name they really need to provide better back up and central leadership.

Well to be honest I struggled to follow your story as it's not chronological. I get the jist of it and you have 2 problems:

1). you believe you were sold a second hand car thinking it was new - what did the invoice say and what did the V5? If invoice says new and V% 2nd owner then you need Trading Standards / solicitor. If both say used then you probably haven't got a leg to stand on, especially after 4 years.

2). You have some problem with Leeds and Bradford and somewhere and sometime a problem with your differential and brakes. Not sure when these happened but Lexus GB are offering parts FOC and it's up to you to take this up with the dealer. If they have happened outside warranty then I suggest the offer is a good one ( so far ).

You do need somebody to tell you if the car is currently safe to drive, I would suggest an independent inspection to ascertain this ( R.A.C. / A.A. ) .

One suggestion - not to name people on this forum. I guess you are OK to name Lexus GB personnel but probably not the dearship staff.

Only my opinions ...................

I agree with Steve. I also had difficulty following the sequence of events but kinda got the idea. If you think you were mis-sold a second hand car as new and the purchase invoice clearly says 'NEW' then you're perfectly entitled to employ the services of a solicitor and take the matter up in court. I'm not sure how the length of time will affect anything though. Realising after a week or so is one thing, 3 or 4 years later is something else, but I don't know so look through your documentation. If the purchase invoice says 'USED' or anything to that effect, in theory you should have been aware of this at the time you purchased the car - any decent solicitor on their side would tear your case to shreads for not reading what you signed.

With regards to the repair, whilst you may not want to drive a car that has a part from a vehicle involved in a collision, Lexus must be sure the part is safe otherwise they would not fix it in your car. I'm only guessing but I wouldn't be suprised if many cars involved in collisions act as donor cars for replacement parts - why not? If the part is fine, it cuts down manufacturing costs and helps keep costs to the consumer down. They have agreed to do it free - that, in my opinion is a worthwhile offer- particularly at a cost of £2000 odd.

I would say whilst you may be concerned about driving a car with a part from a collision vehicle, you may be being unreasonable about refusing it completely. Lexus are offering you what is likely a fully useable part in a condition fit to put on a road car. Remember - as you'll know with your job, you would never put your name to a treatment you did not agree with or think was safe/appropriate. Well, I hope for your sake you wouldn't. The same is true, someone has to put their name to and take accountability and responsibility for saying a part is ok - they wouldn't do it if they had any doubt about the safety or usability of the part. If you flatly refuse what they've offered, then you risk them pulling out of any offer whatsoever and you landing with a £2000 bill.

I also concur that you leave your own full identity out but you name every representative in Lexus you dealt with. I don't think this is fair on the Lexus employees - they have a right to confidentiality too.

Whereas I have a degree of sympathy with the OP, I don't think that he has the ... right (for want of a better term) to feel as aggrieved as he does:

(*) New Car/Used Car Issue - I think what has happened here is that the OP was sold a pre-registered car, which technically is 'new' (as it has delivery only mileage only) but is not 'factory fresh new' - this is why it is vital to check (have sight) of the V5 - clearly if the 'new' car you want to buy has already a V5 then it is pre-reg. as a factory new wouldn't be registered I agree that it all comes down to what is written on the invoice and [legal] definition of what is 'new'.

(*) Brake Pads - The advice you were given is an opinion of that particular technician. Like an MOT - one Assessor may pass the same vehicle while another may fail. My concern would be not with the dealership that suggested you needed your brakes changing urgently, but rather with the one that said you had another 10K till they needed changing. In any event, your brakes were changed for a very good price.

(*) I think Lexus have done more than enough to placate the situation and the OP with their offer of supplying key parts 'free' and they have come back with substantive replies without delay.

Just my 2P worth...

As i have said many times before the dealers are independant and can do what they want regardlessif u contact head office or not.

welcome to the shoddy standards of the dealer network

For all it worth you seem to be treat very badly.

I would first contact Trading Standards and then contact a motoring solicitor for there opinion.

If there are think you have a good chance then i would sue them..

I do hope this matter can be sorted.

Ian

I'm not so sure to be honest. I think Lexus have actually been unnecessarily generous in offering what they have given the circumstances.
If the car was missold and is clearly stated as a brand new car on the purchase invoice then yes, you have a right to court action, but with their repair offers, I think they're more than generous. I would consider the fact that you're not meeting them half way. I can understand your concerns, but I think they may be somewhat unsubstantiated.

Just my opinion from the information given and having had an insiders glimpse into dealing with complaints (albeit not motor vehicles).

Oh another thing, you say in your letter that you demand to know the reasons 'Nigel' left the employment - not your business I'm afraid. You almost are making it appear to be a personal attack to many people. You won't get anywhere like that.

Just to clarify.... According to Lexus CR, they claim to have already supplied a brand new and boxed rear differential to Leeds. Leeds were refusing to release this to Bradford, which required customer relations to step in once again. Bradford Lexus claim to have fitted a differential in July this year (though checking the paperwork, and despite paying some 500 labour for this, it has been omitted from the invoice).

Now this new problem (or rather, maybe not new at all, as I understand the CV joint will have been disturbed to change the diff) has arisen, there is now an allegation by Bradford that Leeds had provided them with "a second hand dif" recovered from a vehicle in a serious accident.

That allegation, combined with the lack of any mention of the dif or its fitting on the paperwork, leaves me extremely concerned what (if anything) has been fitted to the vehicle. They had simply made the cost of the 60,000 service up to the agreed total amount including the fitting of the dif.

Lexus CR had originally offered to send an area manager to inspect the part and tell me whether it was the new part they had supplied to Leeds, but they then came back and said they would have no way of telling.

In regards to making "personal attacks" I have done nothing of the sort. I have quoted verbatim what others have said but I been very restrained in making comments about the individuals who I have dealt with. Quite the opposite - I think it extremely unprofessional that one dealership told me the mechanic (who is unamed) at Bradford was sacked by them and "sold crisps out of a van" for a year before going to Bradford Lexus. Hardly what I needed to hear at a time when I didn't even know what had been fitted to my car.

If Lexus Bradford deny that the problem with the hand brake cables were both allegedly identified and rectified in July (but, like the differential, not documented) it may be highly relevant on the circumstances in which the employee concerned left their employment - when both my wife and I independently spoke to him and had a conversation about the same - if Lexus Bradford simply say it is our word against his. Lexus Bradford have made no attempt to contact the person involved.

Issue a writ and name everyone involved that you have spoken to or dealt with in that writ (including Settle)

You'll be surprised how quickly the problem will be sorted!!

The Ed

That's not exactly what you'd want to hear when you took your car in I'll admit!!! Be like walking into your GP's only for the receptionist to tell you the doctor had just left a job as in ice cream man!!

Just to keep you updated....

I have spoken at length with the Dealer Principal at Lexus Bradford. It appears they have paperwork to show that a new differential was fitted. In an attempt to draw a line under that issue, I asked the Dealer Principal to provide me with a copy of that paperwork. He replied that "I'm not going to send you no documents. I'm not going to send you anything" "None of the documents are yours. And the right of having it is none. Nil". Not really very helpful, nor what you would expect from a premium marque.

I have therefore had no choice to involve trading standards again. Unfortunately for Lexus Bradford, West Yorkshire Trading Standards take a different view, and they have requested the documents from Lexus. If Lexus have the paperwork to put the second hand dif. allegation to bed, why they have not simply offered this is simply baffling.

To add insult to injury, moments after getting off the phone to Customer Relations, Lexus Bradford have also increased there formal written quotation from being 9 hours labour to do the remedial work, to 12 hours to include a 3 hours diagnostic charge. Lexus Bradford say this comes having to re-assemble the car after I refused to give authority to have it fixed. This of course arises from my refusal to go ahead ahead and approve the work when I had just been told a part had been reclaimed from a potential write-off vehicle, and that I wanted to speak with the dealer principal. I was told I had to make the decision there and then as they needed the ramp, and I refused stating I needed to discuss the issues with the principal.

Anyway, I am now off to pick up a hire car. If I don't get answers very soon, not only they get my hire car bill, I will strongly consider taking this to the press.

Response from Lexus CR October 31 2008

Dear

Thank you for your e mail of today's date.

I have noted your comments and would like to clarify why we are unable to substantiate conversations you have had with Centre staff. It is simply that we were not present and the Centre are therefore best placed to answer these queries for you.

With regard to your further comments, I feel I should explain that we are the company that distributes new Lexus vehicles within the U.K. The Centre network comprises of independent companies and we are not responsible for their finances, business decisions or their staff.

I note your intention to take further advice but would urge you to advise Lexus Bradford as soon as possible if you wish to accept our goodwill offer.

Yours sincerely

Gill Want

Lexus Customer Relations Manager

Letter to Lexus CR (cc Bradford dealership) 4th November 2008

Dear Ms. Want (Lexus Head Office)

c.c. Dennis Ager, Trading Standard Officer, West Yorkshire Trading Standards
Mr. Paul Fagan, Dealer Principal, Lexus Bradford (via email to Amanda Bradley)

Tuesday 4th November

Thank you for your email dated October 31st 2008. If you are not able to respond to any of the points I would be grateful if you could seek clarification from your authorized dealers.

I have spoken at length with the Dealer Principal at Bradford. He claims to have paperwork that supports that a new differential was fitted, contrary to the allegation made by his employee that a recovered second hand part may have been used, and contrary to the paper work that had been supplied to me after I had paid for the fitting of the differential (which makes no mention at all of the rear differential and instead falsely marked up the bill for the 60,000 service to include this amount.).

I asked Mr. Fagan for a copy of this paperwork so we can try and move forward on this point, and I was extremely disappointed to be told "I'm not going to send you no documents. I'm not going to send you anything" "None of the documents are yours. And the right of having it is none. Nil"

I have therefore re-raised this issue with West Yorkshire Trading Standards. The officer I have spoken with is quite clear that I have a right to the paperwork. It is Lexus Bradford that have made the allegation about a second hand part being supplied by Leeds, and the burden is now on Lexus GB and their dealerships to prove to me beyond any doubt whatsoever that I am not driving a potential deathtrap. Mr. Ager from Trading Standards is going to contact the Dealership directly. I would once again, urge Lexus GB to get involved to bring this to a swift resolution.

I have no choice now but to hire a car so that my wife and I can stay mobile. Lexus Bradford were yesterday meant to replace the rear discs and pads as had been agreed and provide a hire car, neither of which they did.

The way I have been treated by Lexus and your dealerships is staggeringly poor. If I do not receive a rapid resolution to these problems, not only will I be passing on the costs I have incurred whilst I am not on the road, I will have no hesitation but to expose this whole sorry saga fully in the press.

I re-iterate once again that I will not drive a car that may have been fitted with a part recovered from a vehicle involved in a serious accident.

Yours sincerely,

I would suggest that you also make Lexus GB plus Bradford & Leeds Dealerships that this is being discussed
on LOC, and we are being kept updated with your progress in trying to find a mutually agreeable solution.

Just a silly suggestion, have you contacted What Car helpdesk?

This does sound like a very complicated situation to be in. Does actually go to prove that maybe Lexus aren't quite as good as they're made out to be. Any dealer/manufacturer can offer good service when things are fine, but a real test of how good they are is when things go wrong.

If you have any further phone conversations, record them on a dictaphone and they can be used in your case. Doing that saved my bacon once with Evesham Computers so I'd always say it's a good thing to try.

If you are going to record conversations, and I agree it would be a good idea, you MUST make the other party aware that you are doing so. It is ILLEGAL to record conversations without consent of the other party (consent can be implied, by telling them at the start and then just letting them continue talking).

i was wondering how long it would take to bring that statement out - its a " nowt to do with me guv so go and do what you want and stop wasting my time" statement.

mate of mine had an issue with lexus CR in the past and he caught them out telling blatant lies, when he complained and pointed this out the reply was they would no longer engage in any communication exchange but any further letters from him would be kept on file.

i expect you will get a similar response in a while

Good point. I should have said that but forgot. Thanks for clarifying.

Unless the law has changed very recently Mike, the situation is a good deal more complex than that - Oftel offers detailed guidance on the recording of telephone calls and there is a wide range of circumstances in which the recording of telephone calls without notice to the other party is allowed.

If I remember aright, there is no requirement to obtain consent if the recording is purely for your own use, but you must inform the other party if it is your intention to pass on the recording to some third party.

In the case of companies, there is quite a list of circumstances in which "covert" recordings may be made.

I do however wholeheartedly agree that if a private individual is going to record a telephone conversation with the intention of using it as evidence, they would be wise to inform the other party.

I had much the same reply from Lexus GB when I had issues after buying my "pre-owned" RX from a Dealer, basically all they were prepared to do was pass the complaint on to the dealer principal, with whom I had the issues anyway! Fat lot of good that did......

It appears Lexus GB are just like any other franchise holder be it MCDonalds or Slippery Sam's window cleaning.....

Errr... can the franchise not be taken away though?

I would have thought Lexus have a vicarious liability through their dealers!! - Check with a lawyer!!

The Ed

With all that has now transpired, one has to wonder whether the opinion that they did not need replacing for 10k was influenced by the fact that (in their own words) the "incompetant" person who had quoted for this (110 including parts and labour) was costed with the other work at less than the cost of the parts alone. If that is the case, they allowed an unsafe car on the road to not make a loss on their own error.

Anyway, Trading Standards Officers are paying Lexus Bradford a visit later this week.

Reference recording telephone conversations I would be interested to know the act and section which refers to a private individual recording conversations.......

Im not aware of this....you say illegal..how , its certainly not a criminal offence

Certain public organisations under the constraints of the Regulatory of Investorgatory powers act ie Local authority,police etc are bound by this legislation but how is a private individual

I believe you can record telephone conversations, but need to inform the other party before you start recording if you intend to use it as evidence.

When you make a purchase it is up to the supplier of the goods, not the manufacturer, to rectify or arrange for rectification of faults. Suppliers try to get round their responsibility by saying that you should return items to the manufacturer for repair when it is really their job to do this, dependant on the age of an item and what time it should reasonably be expected to last. The same principle holds true here so realistically you only need to be pushing your supplier over whether the car was indeed new, and the other Lexus dealership who carried out the repairs in question. The repairer would be responsible for ensuring that correct serviceable parts are fitted as described on relevant paperwork.
From what I have read so far it would appear that LexusGB have made offers which go beyond any legal requirement in an effort to assist a Lexus customer.

One of the problems is that they have conveniently left off the paperwork any mention of the replacement of the differential nor the handbrake cable. There is, however, email correspondence between me and dealer in regards to the costing of the same.

if you have evidence that these parts were required and the dealer can produce no evidence that they were fitted how on earth did you not notice on collection of vehicle? If they cannot prove they have carried out this work then you should insist that they carry out the work and allow you to view in progress to ascertain that it is being done.
I think that because of the time factor involved the offer by LexusGB should quite possibly be "snatched" before it is withdrawn.

Letter from Lexus GB Dated 7th November

Dear Dr. A

Thank you for your e mail dated 4 November 2008.

I would like to explain that it is our policy to refer contacts of this nature to the Lexus Centre concerned for investigation and resolution. This is not a case of us absolving ourselves of our responsibilities, but is in fact quite the reverse.

Our decision to ask the Centre to look further into this matter was taken with your best interests in mind and because they are fully aware of any conversations and actions that have taken place previously. As a third party it is difficult and unfair for us to speak on their behalf.
I am aware you have requested that we pursue this matter further, however, I am sure you will understand that as Lexus Bradford are an independent business from Lexus (GB) Ltd. we are unable to instruct or accept responsibility for their business decisions.

What I can confirm is that we ordered and delivered a new differential to Lexus Leeds following your acceptance of our goodwill offer back in November 2007. We have no reason to believe this is not the part that was eventually fitted.
It is always regrettable when an impasse such as this has been reached and it appears this is the case in this instance. In closing, I am sorry for any disappointment this matter has caused and thank you for bringing your concerns to our attention.

Yours sincerely


Gill Want

Lexus (GB) Ltd.

Letter to Lexus GB cc dealer 7/11/08

Dear Ms. Want (Lexus Head Office)

c.c. Dennis Ager, Trading Standard Officer, West Yorkshire Trading Standards
Mr. Paul Fagan, Dealer Principal, Lexus Bradford (via email to Amanda Bradley)

Friday 7th November

Thank you for your email dated 7th November.

I would be most grateful if you could further clarify the role of
Lexus GB in dealing with complaints involving Lexus Authorised
Dealerships. When we last spoke you said that an Area Manager (a Lexus
GB employee, independent of the dealership) would be visiting the
dealership involved to investigate the concerns. Moreover, you went on
to explain that Lexus GB may impose financial penalties on dealerships
if complaints are upheld. Did I misunderstand this? Please can you
confirm when the Area Manager has visited or will be visiting the
dealership and if I will have the opportunity to make representations
to them.

Further to my email of 4th November the Dealer Principal of Bradford
was contacted by Mr. Ager (Trading Standards Officer, West Yorkshire
Trading Standards). You will recall the the dealer principal told me
that in relation to the documents concerning my vehicle repairs
(which, apparently, show that the new differential was fitted contrary
to the allegations that a write-off part may have been fitted) that I
was told "I'm not going to send you no documents. I'm not going to
send you anything" "None of the documents are yours. And the right of
having it is none. Nil".

I was informed by Mr. Ager that the Dealer Principal informed Trading
Standards that they are not in a position to release this paperwork
without the consent of Lexus GB due to "Data Protection", which is of
course quite different to his previous stance on the matter. I
remained quite baffled while Lexus Bradford and Lexus GB are not
falling over themselves to fully disclose this paperwork to put an end
to this issue? In the interests of a rapid resolution, and in order to
keep potential costs to a minimum, I would be grateful if Lexus GB
would kindly confirm by return that they have no objection to the
release of all the records concerning my repairs and subsequent
complaint.

Yours sincerely,

Dr & Mrs G

Ah, 'Data Protection'. That old chestnut - and the last resort of someone with something incriminating on paper...

Data Protection is intended to protect people from having details released to third parties. Can't see why they would particularly refuse to let you see it if they have nothing to hide. Quite what it might show is a different matter, chances are it will show 'differential fitted on date xxxxx' and maybe make a reference to the fact it was shipped in from Lexus Leeds. Not exactly anything worth protecting in there!

From what I can see in your posts, and they are certainly very lengthy and aren't especially easy to follow, is that you have had it hinted to you that the diff wasn't new. But that doesn't actually mean it wasn't new, it could very easily have been a mistake by the person who said it. These guys do work like that day in, day out - don't you think that it's entirely possible that he thought your car was a different one, and one to which he had fitted a second-hand diff with the full approval of that car's owner? Or, indeed, he had been refitting a diff which had been repaired (hence looks second-hand) and just added two and two together and ended up with five?

All entirely possible hypotheses. But I'm pretty sure the gentleman involved knew exactly what car it was (they can't have that many RX300 rear differentials that are FOC from Lexus and shipped via Leeds). But then why did the controller who witnessed the conversation and had two 10 minute conversations about the same, then deny the conversations ever took place 2 days later? Furthermore why the complete lack of documentation of the differential on my paperwork, why make efforts to cover up what has been said, and why make efforts to not release any paperwork they have that may prove (or otherwise) their case.

Would you want to drive your children around in a £38,000 car with state of the art safety, with a part that may have recovered from a vehicle that has been written off?

Just because a car is written off doesn't mean every single part on it is broken. All a write off means is that the car cannot be economically repaired.
It's like I said before, someone has to put their name to saying a part is safe, ask yourself this question - would you put your name, career and mortgage on the line signing off a part you weren't totally sure about and hadn't passed quality control inspection subsequently risking all of the above plus possible criminal charges against negligence and so on?
I understand your concern, I just think you are being unreasonable in the circumstances of refusing a replacement part that they're giving you for free - which from as much as I can get by reading the threads, they're under no obligation to do..
If you're that concerned about it, get them to fit the part and then trade the car in and buy something else. That's what I'd do in your circumstances.
I think you're very lucky Lexus hasn't just turned round and withdrawn the offer by now.

I'm not going to say anything about documents as that's between you and them.

Just to note that I'm not defending Lexus - if you have been treated as you describe then that's very poor customer service and deserves to be publicised and you should expect a satisfactory solution - however that may require a bit of give and take. As someone has already said, welcome to the underworld of the dealer network.

PS I still don't think naming individual Lexus employees on the public forums is very professional or necessary.

With respect, Tony, you have been doing just that since July 2007, you just didn't know it. And you've been known for some time now, and you're still doing it. If you genuinely believed the differential was in an unsafe condition you wouldn't be driving it at all.

I can't help but get the feeling that no matter what happens next you would still be unhappy with the vehicle...

Wylie - Not sure if you have missed the point, or sorry if it was not explained properly.

Lexus GB offered, and claim to have supplied a brand new and boxed part. They supplied that to Lexus Leeds, as confirmed by them in today's correspondence. Lexus Leeds refused to release the part to Lexus Bradford which required intervention from Lexus GB. A part was subsequently fitted by Lexus Bradford in July. The allegation now from the Bradford employee (a former Lexus Leeds employee, who was allegedly sacked by them) is that Lexus Leeds provided Lexus Bradford with a part recovered from a write off vehicle (i.e not the brand new part that had been supplied by Lexus GB to Lexus Bradford).

I fully appreciate what the definition of an insurance write off is, and furthermore, appreciate that in some circumstances a part may be recovered from such a vehicle and be warranted as safe (though this raises entirely different legal questions about the ownership of parts of a written off vehicle, and moreover it raises the question what exactly happened to the part that Lexus GB provided).

The serious issue here that I only found out about this some 3 months after it was fitted. If this is the case, I am informed by Trading Standards that this would be a very serious matter indeed, which is precisely why two Trading Standards officers are at Lexus Bradford this morning.

So to clarify I have not refused a part they are giving me for free. I accepted a brand new part, was informed one was fitted, and paid for its fitting.

Hope this clarifies, and once again, sorry if you missunderstood.

The diff was fitted in July 2008 - I think there was a typo in one of the letters. The car has not left the grounds of Lexus Bradford since I was informed about the issue with the differential and I am currently driving a hire car.

That is substantially clearer, actually. But how's this for a hypothesis:

1) Lexus Leeds receive a part from Lexus GB.
2) Lexus Leeds sent a part to Lexus Bradford to fit (having likely wanted to do themselves, an entirely plausible explanation for why they wouldn't send it over very willingly)
3) A former Leeds employee, sacked by them and therefore likely to have a grudge against them, makes an allegation regarding the part sent to Bradford.
4) The part gets fitted, quite possibly by the guy who later made the allegation against Leeds.
5) You get to hear about it 3 months later, from the guy with the grudge, and by which time it is difficult to prove whether the part was new or not.
6) In the near future, all hell breaks loose over at Lexus Leeds, much to the satisfaction of their former employee.

Fair enough then - apologies in that case.

Mike, appology accepted. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

Again an entirely plausible set of events.... in which case Lexus Bradford should have (i) simply apologised rather than made efforts to cover up the whole issue (ii) bent over backwards to show this was the case (rather than be obstructive about whatever paperwork they do hold).

But I have seen so much that concerns me about the set up, I don't know I can take the risk.

I too and read it wrong and misunderstood. I extend my apologies also.

Tony that summary has made it clearer and now it makes a lot more sense. Thanks. I think in threads like this the pattern of events often becomes very disjointed and difficult to follow. Having a brief summary is a huge benefit on a long thread.

Now I can see why you're so p****d off.

Sorry for any confusion.