Taylormade Ducato Screen

[flicka]

GypsyTom - 2010-03-11 9:54 AMWhen did the British become so unreasonable and demanding that they won't allow a dealer a few days to ascertain what this obviously unusual fault is?

Dealers are expected to be flexible in their application of contracts, so why not customers as well? QUOTE]Sorry Tom, BUT a contract is a Contract and flexibility is NOT an option. Taylormade (in this case) have accepted the product is faulty, not of the customers making. Therefore they have no legal reason to refuse the customer a full refund when failure is in such a short time. It is therefore Taylormade who are being unreasonable, which is what is potentially damaging to their reputation. When they have accepted fault, giving a refund potentially enhances their standing as a reputable Company.They should comply with the the Sales of Goods Act, which overrides any Clause in their specific Terms & Conditions.The actual cause of the fault is irrelevant, as it was NOT caused by the customer, although may be of interest & in Taylormade's own interest to reassure the customer(s) regarding future supplies.

[GypsyTom]

euroserv - 2010-03-11 2:15 PMWhat I said was that the customer has returned the goods, and the vendor has agreed that the customer has not caused the problem therefore the goods are faulty.The customer then asked for a refund and was not given one. That is wrong.No amount of pontificating will change that fact, and other than sending the customer some sort of explaination of the fault at a later date in order to restore their confidence the transaction should have been concluded with a full refund.If that had happened the customer would not have come on here to air his grievance because he would have been satisfied with the outcome.The customer raised the issue because he was not happy and wanted to know if this was a wider problem with the vendor. I don't think that he sought an essay on morals or being British, but I could be wrong.Good customer service is about dealing swiftly and efficiently with customer complaints, not faffing about with tests and suppliers. When you buy an item you are not entering into a lifelong relationship with the vendor, you are just buying a product and you have a right to expect it to perform properly or get a replacement or your money back.You did make this personal by regaling us with your theory of social breakdown and bully tactics in modern society when actually all 'we' want are good products or refunds and the freedom to tell others of our concerns without being made to feel churlish.Nick

Where has Taylor Made accepted that there is no chance that the customer may not be responsible and that the product is faulty? Taylor Made could not find any cuts or holes, that is all that was said.

I've no doubt that in this case the client is honest but what if someone puts one in the washing machine for instance or it's been blown into water and got a good soaking?

The main thrust of my argument is the overly aggressive stance taken by many people who jump to conclusions, seem unwilling to give and take and automatically brand someone as dishonest if agreement isn't reached in the client's favour immediately. As for making it personal you named me and accused me of defending, once again, the indefensible.

Go back to the Hartley's thread and see the lynch mob mentality that emerged there. Fortunately, Poppy knows better than some that the best way to get results when a problem develops is not to go at it like a bull in a china shop but to be reasonable and to give the other party a chance to put things right.

I repeat that there seems to be a growing trend in which people seem to think that by proving how tough and macho they are when dealing with a trader, they will get results. In practice, this is often not the best way to deal with disputes and can result in entrenched stances that benefit no one.

Taylor Made may have sold hundreds of these screens without any problem of water ingress. All of a sudden, someone comes along and claims that theirs lets in water. If it were me I'd want to examine it a little further to see exactly what the problem is.

This isn't as simple as an obvious fault or where something just stops working and, in a situation such as this, any trader has a moral and legal right to make sure that the product really does have a fault. I personally would have no objection if it were me, to him conducting a thorough examination of it, but perhaps I'm just more reasonable than the average person?

[GypsyTom]

flicka - 2010-03-11 3:21 PM GypsyTom - 2010-03-11 9:54 AMWhen did the British become so unreasonable and demanding that they won't allow a dealer a few days to ascertain what this obviously unusual fault is?

Dealers are expected to be flexible in their application of contracts, so why not customers as well? Sorry Tom, BUT a contract is a Contract and flexibility is NOT an option. Taylormade (in this case) have accepted the product is faulty, not of the customers making. Therefore they have no legal reason to refuse the customer a full refund when failure is in such a short time. It is therefore Taylormade who are being unreasonable, which is what is potentially damaging to their reputation. When they have accepted fault, giving a refund potentially enhances their standing as a reputable Company.They should comply with the the Sales of Goods Act, which overrides any Clause in their specific Terms & Conditions.The actual cause of the fault is irrelevant, as it was NOT caused by the customer, although may be of interest & in Taylormade's own interest to reassure the customer(s) regarding future supplies.

Taylor Made has not accepted that the product is faulty. All they have said is that they cannot find any cuts or holes. See my reply above for more about this.

What I find amusing is that, when it's the customer 'flexibility is not an option'. But as I said above, if you buy a car with a three year warranty and it goes wrong six months after the warranty expires you will no doubt, be looking for some flexibility in the contract!

[GypsyTom]

Tracker - 2010-03-10 7:47 PMSurely having accepted that it is faulty and not damaged by your possible careless use or storage they are duty bound to replace or refund it for you?Why not phone them and ask firmly but politely to speak to the company CEO and ask for an immediate replacement or refund? If he/they refuse refer them to this thread and the potential for lost sales through bad publicity as that might just focus their minds?You could even email them a link to this thread?

Please show me where, in this thread, Taylor Made has accepted responsibility and has said that it cannot have been caused by the client. All that they have said is that they have not found any cuts or holes. How have you arrived at this conclusion?

[Guest Tracker]

graementl - 2010-03-10 6:57 PM

Taylormade asked for it back and also found it damp inside and have sent it away for testing. Meanwhile they refuse a refund until they can establish why it is faulty.

!

 

I believe that the above establishes that Taylor Made accept that there is a fault?

 

 

Posted: 10 March 2010 7:39 PM

Subject: RE: Taylormade Ducato Screen

New User

 

Posts: 2

 

Bought in November. Taylormade can't find any cuts/holes and can't explain the water ingress hence they are sending it away to some research premises to find out if porous. Explained that I am not concerned about them finding out the reason why and only want a refund - refused until they find the reason why!

 

And that appears to establish that the fault is not of the customer's making?

[GypsyTom]

Tracker - 2010-03-11 5:15 PM

graementl - 2010-03-10 6:57 PM Taylormade asked for it back and also found it damp inside and have sent it away for testing. Meanwhile they refuse a refund until they can establish why it is faulty. !

I believe that the above establishes that Taylor Made accept that there is a fault? Posted: 10 March 2010 7:39 PMSubject: RE: Taylormade Ducato Screen New UserPosts: 2 Bought in November. Taylormade can't find any cuts/holes and can't explain the water ingress hence they are sending it away to some research premises to find out if porous. Explained that I am not concerned about them finding out the reason why and only want a refund - refused until they find the reason why!And that appears to establish that the fault is not of the customer's making?

I'm sorry but it doesn't! Taylor Made has never accepted (yet) that there is a fault. Why do you think that they've sent it for testing?

There are other reasons as I state above as to why it could have become damp. You and others have simply assumed that TM has accepted that it is faulty and there is no such evidence.

Once again, I state that there may be a fault, TM may very soon admit that the material has become porous but I'd like to wait and see.

Also once again I state the obvious - you're a maker of silver screens and you've sold hundreds. No one has complained that they are not waterproof (as far as we know). Suddenly, someone pops up claiming that theirs isn't. It's an odd person who wouldn't want to find out if this is really the case.

Let's give them a day or two please! The time to start getting heavy is when you've given a dealer a chance to put things right and he hasn't. Be reasonable and give them that chance.

[mike 202]

At the moment Taylormade is getting lots of bad publicity and could be losing lots of business, by people reading this forum and telling friends by word of mouth and may well not be interested in reading the final conclusion. A doubt has been put into their minds and therefore go to Silverscreens.

 

Surely it would be better for Taylormade to make the refund which is probably in the region of £100. and their only real loss is the material cost, their labour and profit are not actual expenditure costs but rather loss of income. Weigh that against potential loss of business+profit and you have a no brainer. They could always make a post to the effect that they have now made the refund, then advise us all of their investigation outcome. Even if it is finally proved to be the customer at fault then just think of the goodwill that would achieve and potential new business.

Finally - maybee the damage to their reputation has already been done.

[Brian Kirby]

Thomas, you do seem to be wildly over reacting to something you perceive to be present, but in all honesty I can't find.  Do have a scroll back to the beginning of the string, and then read down all the posts.

You will find: a) that the blinds were found to be leaking, b) they were returned to the maker - by implication at his request, c) that the maker agreed there was a fault, d) that he has sent the blinds for testing, e) that he agreed there were no visible signs of cuts etc, and f) that he is apparently refusing to replace the blinds or reimburse the purchaser.

In response, just two people, I think, suggested legal type notices, while a larger number spoke favourably of the firm.  In neither of the proposed legal notifications is anything actually wrong, or inaccurate, though under present circumstances they could be judged somewhat precipitate.  However, it must be presumed they do not come from lawyers, so should be treated accordingly.

You replied with a wildly generalised attack on contributors in general, in the course of which, in my opinion, you greatly exaggerated the import of what had been said.

Please consider how much your contributions may have helped the original poster. 

Then consider this.  First, the maker of these screens does, actually, make them: they are not bought in.  Second, good though they are, they are made by machining together layers of various fabrics in much the same way that clothing is made: their production does not involve any kind of advanced technology beyond an industrial sewing machine or two.  Such technology as there is resides in the fabrics, and it is presumably these that would need testing. 

Should such tests reveal faulty material, new screens would have to be made from a new batch of material, and only then could satisfactory replacement screens be provided.

So, might it not have been wiser for the maker to explain that this is what he wished to propose, while accepting that his customer has a perfect right to have his money back instead?

On the other hand, if the fabric tests reveal no fault, it would have to be assumed the problem lay in workmanship.  The customer still has to have replacement screens, or his money back.

The point is that in either case the options for the maker are identical: money back, or replacement screens.  Instead, it seems to me, the maker has been the author of his own misfortune, by refusing to accept the virtual inevitability that he will have to either replace the item, or reimburse its cost.  Had he done this at the outset with an apology and with good grace his customer - who has already given him more that a few days grace - would have been satisfied, sympathetic, and doubtless impressed.  Instead, it seems he opted for a different path.  His choice; his business; but not very good customer relations - and not strictly legal, either.

In the final analysis, what entitles any businessman to special consideration is how he conducts his business, not which county he was born in.  More fool anyone who thinks otherwise!

[GypsyTom]

I would have thought it obvious that my 'attack' was on those who are not willing to give this firm a short time to find out if this complaint is justified and was not on those who simply said that they've had happy dealings with Taylor Made.

I would also have thought it obvious that the county reference was a bit of fun!

As you may gather I find myself appalled by a number of people whose main aim is to show how tough they are with any business deemed to offend and who never seem willing to compromise or be reasonable. Some of the comments in the Hartley's thread were disgraceful and are a perfect example of what I mean.

[Guest Tracker]

You just don't seem to be able to accept anyone elses point of view do you Tom, and yet you vociferously expect everyone else to bow to your point of view? You can't have it both ways.

 

It is simply unacceptable for any supplier to with hold refund or replacement on faulty goods without giving a reason and if I were treated in this way then I too would be most unhappy.

 

Even if Taylor Made does consider that the user was at fault he could be considered foolish in the extreme to use that as a reason to with hold satisfaction and risk losing other sales which might - or might not - be worth even more to him?

 

I too have been in business and I too have been asked for refunds for faulty goods. Sometimes the goods were faulty and sometimes they were not and sometimes the user was at fault. Nevertheless I always gave refunds or replacelments with a smile safe in the knowledge that it was probably the cheapest advert that I was ever likely to get! Where the user was at fault I would sometimes explain why I thought that but only after satisfaction had been given, and certainly not conditionally, and only then to try and prevent a recurrence.

 

Ironically your persistence in repeatedly emphasising your own point of view is helping to keep this bad publicity at the top of the page and in full view of everyone else who comes on the forum so maybe if you want to help Taylor Made you might wish to consider letting it drop?

[rolandrat]

I have had experience of a defective Taylormade screen which I bought at a show, I tried it on my motorhome and noticed it was faulty so I took it back and had my money refunded straight away, which is how it should be. I have always bought Silverscreens in the past and of course went back to them, their quality is unquestionable.

[GypsyTom]

Tracker - 2010-03-11 7:15 PMYou just don't seem to be able to accept anyone elses point of view do you Tom, and yet you vociferously expect everyone else to bow to your point of view? You can't have it both ways.It is simply unacceptable for any supplier to with hold refund or replacement on faulty goods without giving a reason and if I were treated in this way then I too would be most unhappy. Even if Taylor Made does consider that the user was at fault he could be considered foolish in the extreme to use that as a reason to with hold satisfaction and risk losing other sales which might - or might not - be worth even more to him? I too have been in business and I too have been asked for refunds for faulty goods. Sometimes the goods were faulty and sometimes they were not and sometimes the user was at fault. Nevertheless I always gave refunds or replacelments with a smile safe in the knowledge that it was probably the cheapest advert that I was ever likely to get! Where the user was at fault I would sometimes explain why I thought that but only after satisfaction had been given, and certainly not conditionally, and only then to try and prevent a recurrence.Ironically your persistence in repeatedly emphasising your own point of view is helping to keep this bad publicity at the top of the page and in full view of everyone else who comes on the forum so maybe if you want to help Taylor Made you might wish to consider letting it drop?

I'm no longer going to discuss this issue with you or anyone, it's been done to death but I will say

Of course I accept that other people have opinions! Why would you say that if not just to cause even more aggro?

If I disagree with someone, I'll say so as will you and you often do. Not long ago you were telling us all that fixed beds are a waste of time!

I always thought that a forum was a place where people could debate their various viewpoints and that's what I do.

Yes, of course I sometimes think that people are wrong and I'm right and they will often think I'm wrong and they are right.

Your problem is that when you do make a mistake and accuse people of saying things that they haven't, which you did just yesterday when you accused me of saying that only old people cause accidents, you point blank refuse to own up or apologise and simply start attacking and diverting. And you have the gall to accuse me of not accepting other people's views!

[graementl]

Can I thank you all for your views and draw a line under this before its pistols at dawn!

By way of an update my profile is a middle aged(sensible-ish) keen motorhomer who would not have the time or inclination to 'inject water' to prove a point or otherwise. The screens were brand new when put on the screen and used for 3 nights. I am not going to shout louder at Taylormade but appreciate the obvious genuine concerns of all of you who have responded. I have passed my complaint onto Mastercard who will be challenging them under The Sale of Goods Act. I am hoping that the CEO will eventually see reason and the sad fact is I was very impressed with the screens initially as they looked excellent quality. Looks were obviously deceiving. Lets leave Taylormade to carry on as they deem fit to run their business and whilst this may have cost me £105 it may be that the adverse publicity will have cost them a lot more.

Once again every comment was appreciated and I am pleased to be a member of an interesting forum.

[Mel B]

For pity's sake!!!!!!!!

 

Tom, I think I probably speak for a few on here who wish you would please, please, please stop regurgitating things from other postings - you've got to let people have their say, just as you do, and then move on. What Fred said about Harry, Joe said about Norman etc, etc, etc ad nauseum is getting totally out of hand!!!!! Why do you constantly have to keep dredging up things that have been said, and done with, elsewhere.

 

To give you an example of what you are doing: on the Hartley's thread you had your opinion, others had theirs, of what should or should not be done by Poppy. That thread was started and pretty much finished ages ago but you keep on bringing it up again, and again, and again - even though you keep going on about how unfair it was to them ... but it is YOU who keeps it in the 'spotlight'! Do you think that your doing this actually gives any 'help' to Hartley's? I would suggest it's does not.

 

Why do you feel the need to constantly dredge up stuff from other threads - is it just to try to keep scoring points? If not, they why please, I'd really like to try to understand what your intention is as it is not clear.

 

One final request before you reply - I have asked you questions, not insulted you, or belittled you, so I would request that you please reply in similar vein - thank you.

[flicka]

GypsyTom - 2010-03-11 3:38 PM

flicka - 2010-03-11 3:21 PM GypsyTom - 2010-03-11 9:54 AMWhen did the British become so unreasonable and demanding that they won't allow a dealer a few days to ascertain what this obviously unusual fault is?

Dealers are expected to be flexible in their application of contracts, so why not customers as well? Sorry Tom, BUT a contract is a Contract and flexibility is NOT an option. Taylormade (in this case) have accepted the product is faulty, not of the customers making. Therefore they have no legal reason to refuse the customer a full refund when failure is in such a short time. It is therefore Taylormade who are being unreasonable, which is what is potentially damaging to their reputation. When they have accepted fault, giving a refund potentially enhances their standing as a reputable Company.They should comply with the the Sales of Goods Act, which overrides any Clause in their specific Terms & Conditions.The actual cause of the fault is irrelevant, as it was NOT caused by the customer, although may be of interest & in Taylormade's own interest to reassure the customer(s) regarding future supplies.

Taylor Made has not accepted that the product is faulty. All they have said is that they cannot find any cuts or holes. See my reply above for more about this.

What I find amusing is that, when it's the customer 'flexibility is not an option'. But as I said above, if you buy a car with a three year warranty and it goes wrong six months after the warranty expires you will no doubt, be looking for some flexibility in the contract!

TomAs a professional Industrial Buyer for 40 years before retirement, I always read the Terms & Conditions PRIOR to entering a Contract, especially Warranty / Guarantee Clauses.As I previously stated a Contract is a Contract. A standard contract can be amended prior to signature with agreement by BOTH parties - no flexibility, except if it were to breach legal obligations. It may be considered as unfair (by either party) if something goes wrong, but in Law it stands.It pays to ALWAYS read the small print and be aware of your rights under the legislation. If not satisfied don't sign up .

[Mel B]

I wonder if there has been a 'wicking' issue, rather than a 'seepage' issue? The edges of the screens, be they Taylormade, Silver Screens or whoevers, are all stitched and by default stitching anything leaves minute holes, plus the screens are not like waterproof clothing where the seems are taped over to prevent water getting into them.

 

In normal use, ie in the rain, any water would drain off the screen and not sit on them, however, snow is different as that it sits on the screens. It appears from the original poster that the snow was left on them for a few days, it is therefore possible that with it sitting there, it has been able to wick up through these stitching holes and into the inner material. This would be a similar effect to you putting them in a puddle of water for a few days.

 

Whether this is a 'fault' or not is open to interpretation as I don't think they are guaranteed to be watertight/waterproof are they? Not saying that this should happen, just a possible explanation.

 

http://www.taylormade-window-covers.co.uk/acatalog/Internal_Screen_Covers.html

[rolyk]

This is what Taylormade say on their website about their external screen -

 

Construction

We make our covers by sandwiching 2 layers of waterproof material with a layer of thermal wadding in the middle. Which complies with the furnature and furnishings Fire Safety Regulations 1988.

 

The layers are double stitched all the way round for strength. The seams are then taped to ensure that the cover is completely waterproof.

 

 

 

[RogP]

I've worked in the motoring industry virtually all my working life, and I was under the impression that if something (i.e a car or its sum total of components) was faulty then , if under warranty , the 'guarentor' (i.e manufacturer) had the right to repiar if it was timely , cost effective and appropriate.

 

A refund or replacement is deemed a last resort.

 

I'm also fairly sure that the right to return faulty goods for refund was only for a short period of time (for argument sakes 28days) after purchase.

 

So in my mind Taylor Made are within their rights to firstly establish why this item has failed and then to either repair or replace with a suitable item fit for purpose , only if they fail to achieve this within reasonable time or at reasonable costs should they offer a refund or should you take more formal proceedings.

 

I can fully understand that you've paid good money for something and want either the goods or a refund but what harm is there in giving this company reasonible time to rectify? After all a silver screen is not exactly life threatening nor really going to prevent you using your motorhome is it?

 

I'm all for getting things sorted quickly and amicably and from what I can see of this post those having a bad experience with Taylormade are few.

 

Be good to know how long this episode has gone on for as I'm not clear when this started and how long you have actually given them to resolve.

 

I'd also like to know how it gets resolved as , being in the market for a screen , I want to be sure I get a product thats fit for the job. I really dont care if the guy on the phone is surly or not as long as the goods work.

[Brian Kirby]

I hope, in the nicest possible way, Roger, that you retired from the motor industry a very long time ago! 

I'm afraid your perception of the legal position of retailer vis a vis customer is gravely out of date.  There is also a misunderstanding of the legal position of a guarantee.  Have a look at the Trading Standards, or Citizens Advice, websites for the present position.

The seller's liability, in principle, extends for six years from sale, but with diminishing scope, and if a fault is discovered in a good within six months from purchase, there is an automatic assumption it was faulty at the point of sale.  Faulty goods must be replaced, or the buyer's money returned, without undue delay, unless a satisfactory (to the buyer) repair can be made and is agreeable.

[RogP]

Brian - err didn't I actually give that impression?

 

as you clearly said they have a legal obligation to either replace or refund within reason.

 

So within reason why cant they look at the replace option first to ensure they can truely replace with a non faulty item or one of better quality? if that is their legal right to do so.

 

What I dont think is clear from this post is how long Graeme owned the item before he then contacted TM to advise faulty and then how long they have since taken to resolve his dissatisfation. That may be useful for us to help his cause.

[RogP]

slight appologies just seen that Graeme purchased in november.

 

So stand corrected before I get slaughtered

[Brian Kirby]

RogP - 2010-03-12 2:26 PM Brian - err didn't I actually give that impression? .........

Not really important, but I'm afraid it was not the impression I gained, mostly as a result of the reference to 28 days. 

However, I'd still recommend consulting the Trading Standards or Citizen's Advice websites, which have an excellent range of downloadable fact sheets on the current legal position.

I say this mainly because they are extensive, detailed, factual, accurate, and do not reflect personal opinions.  Not something we on here always quite manage to emulate!  :-D

[tonyishuk]

 

1) Contact the Credit Card company and see what there policy is as regards faulty goods. Some purchases are insured for a period after purchase.

 

2) It would have done no harm if the manufacture had just replaced the screen as a matter of courtesy, and sent the original for testing.

 

"Thinks" (as Neddy Seagoon said ((shows my age !) I will not be going there as a customer. *-)

 

Rgds

[RogP]

Brian , appologies for not getting my facts right. Have dutifully checked out the CB Website. I'm no legal boffin and just went with my personal experiences which clearly isn't the right thing to do here

 

I truely hope graeme gets this sorted and appologies for detracting from his dilema.

[Brian Kirby]

tonyishuk - 2010-03-12 4:01 PM ......."Thinks" (as Neddy Seagoon said ((shows my age !) I will not be going there as a customer. *-) Rgds

That was Little "he's fallen in the water" Jim, that was!  :-)