Lexus Complaint (bradford / Leeds)

[WylieCoyote]

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.

[Mike_B]

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).

[Rob]

Response from Lexus CR October 31 2008

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.

Gill Want

Lexus Customer Relations Manager

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

[WylieCoyote]

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).

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

[Sagitar]

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).

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.

[Boxbrownie]

Response from Lexus CR October 31 2008

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.

Gill Want

Lexus Customer Relations Manager

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.

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..... :shutit:

[The Editor]

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

[tonygo]

(*) 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.

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.

[doog442]

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

[Steve ( West Mids )]

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.

[dave1]

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

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.

[tonygo]

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

The repairer would be responsible for ensuring that correct serviceable parts are fitted as described on relevant paperwork.

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.

[dave1]

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.

[tonygo]

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.

[tonygo]

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

[Mike_B]

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?

[tonygo]

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?

[WylieCoyote]

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.

[Mike_B]

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?

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...

[tonygo]

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.

[tonygo]

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?

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...

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.

[Mike_B]

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.

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.

[Mike_B]

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?

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...

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.

Fair enough then - apologies in that case.

[tonygo]

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.

[WylieCoyote]

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.