EJB Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 "Thank God for that.......I am doing something right!" What an evil comment by this person...this is my last post with characters like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JudgeMental Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 Brian Kirby - 2011-12-10 4:09 PM EJB - 2011-12-10 3:28 PM "JudgeMental"..........well, that says it all 8-) My apologies, EJB, but I'm afraid you are being a little hasty with that conclusion. The OP moves in strange ways, sometimes posting almost benign comments, sometimes throwing in hand-grenades. He (presumably, it is a widely recognised male trait) is never offensive, never directly rude, but picks at particular individuals in ways he has learnt will provoke trenchant reactions. By this means, he escapes the attention of the very laissez faire moderation of these forums, and avoids being banned for giving gratuitous offense. This string is typical. Just the right buttons pushed to launch a spat. However, once having provoked a response, he will "stalk" that individual across numerous posts, referring to the post that caused the strong reaction, in order to provoke further outbursts. He will employ smiley emoticons to try to disguise his barbed comments as jokes, and will plead injured innocence if challenged. He seems to be driven by a desire to provoke spats among others and, having lit a fire, just throws occasional fuel on the flames, from a more or less safe distance. Make of this caution what you will, but I believe a number of other "members" will share my conclusions, even if not all are prepared to risk saying so. The OP apart, you will find the rest of us generally helpful, congenial, and more or less sane, so welcome aboard! :-D I'm bumping this for those with hearing difficulties :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
postnote Posted December 10, 2011 Author Share Posted December 10, 2011 Brian Kirby - 2011-12-10 4:09 PM EJB - 2011-12-10 3:28 PM "JudgeMental"..........well, that says it all 8-) My apologies, EJB, but I'm afraid you are being a little hasty with that conclusion. The OP moves in strange ways, sometimes posting almost benign comments, sometimes throwing in hand-grenades. He (presumably, it is a widely recognised male trait) is never offensive, never directly rude, but picks at particular individuals in ways he has learnt will provoke trenchant reactions. By this means, he escapes the attention of the very laissez faire moderation of these forums, and avoids being banned for giving gratuitous offense. This string is typical. Just the right buttons pushed to launch a spat. However, once having provoked a response, he will "stalk" that individual across numerous posts, referring to the post that caused the strong reaction, in order to provoke further outbursts. He will employ smiley emoticons to try to disguise his barbed comments as jokes, and will plead injured innocence if challenged. He seems to be driven by a desire to provoke spats among others and, having lit a fire, just throws occasional fuel on the flames, from a more or less safe distance. Make of this caution what you will, but I believe a number of other "members" will share my conclusions, even if not all are prepared to risk saying so. The OP apart, you will find the rest of us generally helpful, congenial, and more or less sane, so welcome aboard! :-D Brian, further to our recent correspondence, you will see from this post I took onboard your words of wisdom. But look at the net result a couple of contributors with an axe to grind changing the topic of one of anarchy. It was tracker, who I don’t always agree who said “but I do try to take each posting as it comes without pre judging in advance by the name of the originator” That is a mark of a true gentleman. This is something we should adopt. I won’t reply to charter assassinations of those that have been written outwit the original question. But I am still interested to read comments about the original post. And as it has already been said if your not interested in the question don’t reply! Thanks again Tracker, solid man (that’s a compliment) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 tonyg3nwl - 2011-12-10 4:52 PM Hi . In response to the original question, and ingnoring the unnecessary comments from some individuals, As far as I am aware, it is the dealers responsibility to ensure that merchandise sold is "of mrechantable quality" and is "fit for the purpose"... If a customer has a problem , his recourse is to get it sorted via the dealer, and has no recourse to the manufacturer, There is no reason why he can't complain to the manufacturer, but the manufacturer doesn't HAVE to fix it, it is down to the supplying dealer. Any dealer who values his customer, will do his level best to satisfy the customer, and if he finds that manufacturer consistently provides rubbish, then surely he would sensibly drop the dealership or at least go and sort it out with his supplier. However, we have to remember that dealerships are paid (some say ,a pittance )to act on the part of manufacturer to carry out PDI and should (but admittedly don't always) rectify any faults found and refer them back as quality control reports to assist the manufacturer. Because the production runs on a "just in time" supply basis, spares are not always available "fromstock", so getting replacements for broken or damaged items inevitably takes time, and sadly the customer doesn't appreciate the delay having a nice shiny new van in the repair shop waiting for some small, almost trivial item which should never have broken in the first place. As a result, there is possibly a case that manufacturers should be more accountable, but how far back down the production process does accountability stretch..ultimately to the bod in the chinese sweatshop who made the busted or faulty bit in the first place. The customer can't reach that far back, so where does the "buck stop"?? tonyg3nwl The buck stops, legally, as you say Tony, with the dealer. However, the dealer is not responsible for any faults, only legally liable for them. Motorhomes, if we are talking new vehicles, are expensive items. Dealers, from what buyers say they have experienced, are a mixed bunch. Manufacturers choose their dealerships, just as they choose and specify the base chassis they build on, to some extent the components they install, and the market bracket they aim to satisfy. Dealers write their warranties, and they also have sole dominion over what they mean. There is no legal comeback from buyer to manufacturer: if the buyer finds the manufacturer's ruling that an item is not covered by warranty unreasonable, he has no redress against the manufacturer, only the dealer. This, IMO, is unfair, and places the dealer, especially the smaller dealer, in a somewhat invidious position. So, IMO, the manufacturer should legally be made jointly and severally responsible to the buyer for for what his dealer sells. Whether spares are available in reasonable time is really governed by two things, both of which are entirely within the control of the manufacturer. First, and most obvious, is the amount of spare stock they choose to hold. Second, and a bit less obvious, is the amount of model "churning" they indulge in, in order to give each years models a fresh look. So, last year's panels won't match this year's, or the year before last's vans. They may claim commercial expediency for creating this stock control nightmare, but it is their choice. In the process, the proper interests of the buyer are left to one side. I would conjecture that, if the manufacturer were made jointly and severally liable for what they make, the timely supply of critical spares would greatly improve, and the churning would be carried out in a slightly more intelligent way. I also suspect that the delivered condition of the van would improve. The legal position is fine if you buy a pair of shoes, or some other relatively low cost, fairly simple, item. You can, if necessary, seek redress through the courts, by using the small claims track. However, where a consumer buys an item that costs above the threshold for the small claims track, I think the law should be changed. I think that where the buyer is a private individual (possibly with some extension for small businesses), the small claims track should be the default route for redress, irrespective of the purchase price of the goods. To this should be added joint and several liability for manufacturer and retailer on all goods that cost more than the present small claims track maximum (about £5,000). This would put the manufacturer in the firing line if his dealer fails to deal effectively with manufacturing defects, but would also make the manufacturer liable for repairs, where the dealer becomes bankrupt or ceases trading. This would, in effect, render warranties pointless, leaving all defects to be dealt with under consumer legislation, with reasonably priced, relatively accessible, redress available to consumers when all else fails. I may well be naive about this ( but I don't really think it will ever happen, I'm not that naive! :-)), but I think these changes, inevitably followed by a few court cases, would bring about a huge, and highly beneficial, improvement in the delivered quality of such expensive items, and would also greatly improve the general experience of buyers vis-a-vis dealers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 postnote - 2011-12-10 6:46 PM........................Brian, further to our recent correspondence, ........................... For the record, there has been no "recent correspondence". Just one PM from postnote, which I deleted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
postnote Posted December 10, 2011 Author Share Posted December 10, 2011 Brian Kirby - 2011-12-10 7:15 PM postnote - 2011-12-10 6:46 PM........................Brian, further to our recent correspondence, ........................... For the record, there has been no "recent correspondence". Just one PM from postnote, which I deleted.But Brian, I listen to your advice. Some don't but I did. ;-) ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JudgeMental Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 EJB - 2011-12-10 6:18 PM "Thank God for that.......I am doing something right!" What an evil comment by this person...this is my last post with characters like this. EVIL is it...Dear Oh dear...Seems like we have another moron on board (no smiley this time) If you decide to quote someone, do so fully, dont be selective and leave out the "smiley" to justify your moronic diatribe... It was a humorous quip with no malice? hence the smiley Then again I am not surprised that you have little grasp of fori etiquette, many on here seem to share the same affliction Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
postnote Posted December 10, 2011 Author Share Posted December 10, 2011 Brian Kirby - 2011-12-10 7:11 PM tonyg3nwl - 2011-12-10 4:52 PM Hi . In response to the original question, and ingnoring the unnecessary comments from some individuals, As far as I am aware, it is the dealers responsibility to ensure that merchandise sold is "of mrechantable quality" and is "fit for the purpose"... If a customer has a problem , his recourse is to get it sorted via the dealer, and has no recourse to the manufacturer, There is no reason why he can't complain to the manufacturer, but the manufacturer doesn't HAVE to fix it, it is down to the supplying dealer. Any dealer who values his customer, will do his level best to satisfy the customer, and if he finds that manufacturer consistently provides rubbish, then surely he would sensibly drop the dealership or at least go and sort it out with his supplier. However, we have to remember that dealerships are paid (some say ,a pittance )to act on the part of manufacturer to carry out PDI and should (but admittedly don't always) rectify any faults found and refer them back as quality control reports to assist the manufacturer. Because the production runs on a "just in time" supply basis, spares are not always available "fromstock", so getting replacements for broken or damaged items inevitably takes time, and sadly the customer doesn't appreciate the delay having a nice shiny new van in the repair shop waiting for some small, almost trivial item which should never have broken in the first place. As a result, there is possibly a case that manufacturers should be more accountable, but how far back down the production process does accountability stretch..ultimately to the bod in the chinese sweatshop who made the busted or faulty bit in the first place. The customer can't reach that far back, so where does the "buck stop"?? tonyg3nwl The buck stops, legally, as you say Tony, with the dealer. However, the dealer is not responsible for any faults, only legally liable for them. Motorhomes, if we are talking new vehicles, are expensive items. Dealers, from what buyers say they have experienced, are a mixed bunch. Manufacturers choose their dealerships, just as they choose and specify the base chassis they build on, to some extent the components they install, and the market bracket they aim to satisfy. Dealers write their warranties, and they also have sole dominion over what they mean. There is no legal comeback from buyer to manufacturer: if the buyer finds the manufacturer's ruling that an item is not covered by warranty unreasonable, he has no redress against the manufacturer, only the dealer. This, IMO, is unfair, and places the dealer, especially the smaller dealer, in a somewhat invidious position. So, IMO, the manufacturer should legally be made jointly and severally responsible to the buyer for for what his dealer sells. Whether spares are available in reasonable time is really governed by two things, both of which are entirely within the control of the manufacturer. First, and most obvious, is the amount of spare stock they choose to hold. Second, and a bit less obvious, is the amount of model "churning" they indulge in, in order to give each years models a fresh look. So, last year's panels won't match this year's, or the year before last's vans. They may claim commercial expediency for creating this stock control nightmare, but it is their choice. In the process, the proper interests of the buyer are left to one side. I would conjecture that, if the manufacturer were made jointly and severally liable for what they make, the timely supply of critical spares would greatly improve, and the churning would be carried out in a slightly more intelligent way. I also suspect that the delivered condition of the van would improve. The legal position is fine if you buy a pair of shoes, or some other relatively low cost, fairly simple, item. You can, if necessary, seek redress through the courts, by using the small claims track. However, where a consumer buys an item that costs above the threshold for the small claims track, I think the law should be changed. I think that where the buyer is a private individual (possibly with some extension for small businesses), the small claims track should be the default route for redress, irrespective of the purchase price of the goods. To this should be added joint and several liability for manufacturer and retailer on all goods that cost more than the present small claims track maximum (about £5,000). This would put the manufacturer in the firing line if his dealer fails to deal effectively with manufacturing defects, but would also make the manufacturer liable for repairs, where the dealer becomes bankrupt or ceases trading. This would, in effect, render warranties pointless, leaving all defects to be dealt with under consumer legislation, with reasonably priced, relatively accessible, redress available to consumers when all else fails. I may well be naive about this ( but I don't really think it will ever happen, I'm not that naive! :-)), but I think these changes, inevitably followed by a few court cases, would bring about a huge, and highly beneficial, improvement in the delivered quality of such expensive items, and would also greatly improve the general experience of buyers vis-a-vis dealers.Brian had you read the context of the thread header I was asking “Should manufactures be more accountable for quality” I wasn’t asking what the law is but “Should manufactures be more accountable for quality”? It was asking people for their thoughts on the subject not what’s written in law. I’m sure people would value your thoughts instead of paraphrasing and quotes. :'( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith T Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 JudgeMental - 2011-12-10 6:15 PM At least 3 other far better qualified members then me have attempted to explain what is going on here, and you seem incapable of listening to reason. I started by saying I fully understood why you took the original post at face value, and at least 4 of us have tried to explain what is going on and how the forum is being manipulated by a Troll... I give up So now,as well as what he already has said , I am accused of being '.... incapable of listening to reason'. I don't see anything in his comments about 'reason'.....far from it, most of these are in my view totally unreasonable, and not even related to the matter in question. What is wrong with JudgeMental (perhaps the answer to that lies in his forum name!??). It sems to he is that the person doing the most 'manipulating' of the forum in this case. Can't he just simply accept what other contributors say in resonse to actual subject of the post? It would appear he always wants the last word, and he is the one who needs to consider what other peoples views are about the subject raised - I'm sorry, he simply shows himself to be a bully and I for one will not take anything he has to say seriously.! Like several others i believe - I was interested in the question and answers related to the question, not some history of the person posting it, or any acrimounious comments from a few individuals which have nothing whatsoever to do with the topic...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightrider Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 Derek Uzzell - 2011-12-10 8:16 AM Forum Members, Now is a golden opportunity to show whether you are happy to continue to tolerate Postnote's disruptive behaviour. Let's be perfectly clear, Arkroyd Pothelwait (Postnote's 'real name') behaves as he does primarily for personal gratification. This is another of of his provocative "Let's have your views" postings that will inevitably become a slanging-match if you let it progress. Two choices: 1. You do not reply to Postnote's posting - the Sent-to-Coventry gambit. 2. You reply to Postnote's posting, just encouraging him to persist in his trollish ways. I dont see anything wrong in postnote asking members views on the quality and standards of manufactures, he is asking a straight question that demands a straight answer, what the heck is wrong with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brambles Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 "demands a straight answer" This highlights the whole problem precisely. "Demands a straight answer". Think about it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 EJB - 2011-12-10 6:18 PM "Thank God for that.......I am doing something right!" What an evil comment by this person...this is my last post with characters like this. I hope that won't be your last post. I see you've been registered on the forum for a few years so you must have summed a few people up by now. The only risk you run by staying with us is that you could develop a superiority complex. (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
postnote Posted December 10, 2011 Author Share Posted December 10, 2011 JudgeMental - 2011-12-10 7:40 PM EJB - 2011-12-10 6:18 PM "Thank God for that.......I am doing something right!" What an evil comment by this person...this is my last post with characters like this. EVIL is it...Dear Oh dear...Seems like we have another moron on board (no smiley this time) If you decide to quote someone, do so fully, dont be selective and leave out the "smiley" to justify your moronic diatribe... It was a humorous quip with no malice? hence the smiley Then again I am not surprised that you have little grasp of fori etiquette, many on here seem to share the same affliction Look Judgy, I realise that your replies are that of a frustrated and angry individual who is try to come to terms with society. But can I suggest a New Years resolution that defiantly helped me last year and could do the same for you? Tolerance and understanding to others. I think you will be a better person next year and maybe at peace with yourself. Have a good Christmas, stay safe and hope 2012 is a prosperous New Year for you and your family Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest peter Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 Derek Uzzell - 2011-12-10 8:16 AM Forum Members, Now is a golden opportunity to show whether you are happy to continue to tolerate Postnote's disruptive behaviour. Let's be perfectly clear, Arkroyd Pothelwait (Postnote's 'real name') behaves as he does primarily for personal gratification. This is another of of his provocative "Let's have your views" postings that will inevitably become a slanging-match if you let it progress. Two choices: 1. You do not reply to Postnote's posting - the Sent-to-Coventry gambit. 2. You reply to Postnote's posting, just encouraging him to persist in his trollish ways. I think we're also getting a bit peed off with you telling us what to do. If you don't like his threads, just ignore them and don't be so bloody grumpy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest peter Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 JudgeMental - 2011-12-10 12:35 PM Well Derek a valiant effort......which has fallen on deaf ears! These egotistical personalities whose need to spout nonsense at EVERY opportunity, in the name of self gratification seems to know no bounds....You still here? someone said you had emigrated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
postnote Posted December 10, 2011 Author Share Posted December 10, 2011 peter - 2011-12-10 10:08 PM JudgeMental - 2011-12-10 12:35 PM Well Derek a valiant effort......which has fallen on deaf ears! These egotistical personalities whose need to spout nonsense at EVERY opportunity, in the name of self gratification seems to know no bounds....You still here? someone said you had emigrated.Oh Peter, wouldn’t that be a great Christmas present for us all. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mel B Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 IMV there was no indication that the starting this thread was done with the intention of causing disruption to the forum - asking about who should be responsible for the state of new vehilcles is a very relevant topic for motorhome matters. I have just one question for everyone on here ... if the thread had been started by anyone else would it have elicited the comments we have seen? 8-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightrider Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 Brambles - 2011-12-10 9:43 PM "demands a straight answer" This highlights the whole problem precisely. "Demands a straight answer". Think about it! Brambles, Dont be so searching? your getting as bad as FG (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightrider Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 Derek Uzzell - 2011-12-10 8:16 AM Forum Members, Now is a golden opportunity to show whether you are happy to continue to tolerate Postnote's disruptive behaviour. Let's be perfectly clear, Arkroyd Pothelwait (Postnote's 'real name') behaves as he does primarily for personal gratification. This is another of of his provocative "Let's have your views" postings that will inevitably become a slanging-match if you let it progress. Two choices: 1. You do not reply to Postnote's posting - the Sent-to-Coventry gambit. 2. You reply to Postnote's posting, just encouraging him to persist in his trollish ways. I had to read and reply to the above post again, what is your problem with postnotes question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 postnote - 2011-12-10 7:41 PM............................Brian had you read the context of the thread header I was asking “Should manufactures be more accountable for quality” I wasn’t asking what the law is but “Should manufactures be more accountable for quality”? It was asking people for their thoughts on the subject not what’s written in law. So, what kind of accountability have you in mind? How might a manufacturer be held to account, if not through legal process? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertandjean Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 As far as we can see the only person causing problems here is Derek Uzzel, with his very strange and inapproprite response to a very reasonable idea for a thread by Postnote. This should not come as a surprise however, given Uzzels' recent track record, as for example the man who could not even find enough generosity of spirit to share the name of an aire he claimed to have discovered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robinhood Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 Derek Uzzell - 2011-12-10 8:16 AM Forum Members, Now is a golden opportunity to show whether you are happy to continue to tolerate Postnote's disruptive behaviour. Let's be perfectly clear, Arkroyd Pothelwait (Postnote's 'real name') behaves as he does primarily for personal gratification. This is another of of his provocative "Let's have your views" postings that will inevitably become a slanging-match if you let it progress. .....but of course, and it has! :-S Derek Uzzell - 2011-12-10 8:16 AM Two choices: 1. You do not reply to Postnote's posting - the Sent-to-Coventry gambit. 2. You reply to Postnote's posting, just encouraging him to persist in his trollish ways. ....but it's like herding cats, Derek. ;-) Some people seem oblivious, and some people seem to actively enjoy it. Personally, I think it detracts from the forum, but isn't the only thing that does.....so I live with it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
postnote Posted December 11, 2011 Author Share Posted December 11, 2011 Brian Kirby - 2011-12-11 2:36 PM postnote - 2011-12-10 7:41 PM............................Brian had you read the context of the thread header I was asking “Should manufactures be more accountable for quality” I wasn’t asking what the law is but “Should manufactures be more accountable for quality”? It was asking people for their thoughts on the subject not what’s written in law. So, what kind of accountability have you in mind? How might a manufacturer be held to account, if not through legal process?No Brian, it was an open question, it was meant to imply that you air your thoughts. Now stop trying to be a Cleggy and if you have a view then your view would be interesting. Yes your thoughts Brian not those you have read. :-S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightrider Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 My way of thinking is that the manufacturer should be responsible for faults in the goods he sells, the dealer is the man that the customer deals with, perhaps the manufacturer has a deal with the dealer to handle small faults that are paid for by the manufacturer, I wouldnt buy a brand spanking new m/h much prefer to buy a one owner, late, low mileage vehicle that all problems have been sorted out by the first owner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith T Posted December 11, 2011 Share Posted December 11, 2011 Being on the receiving end of totally unecessary and cutting comments from one individual when all I was trying to do was simply post a comment on what was a very sensible topic,my initial re-action was as Art intends, to shut up and leave the forum., However, I do feel that there are many very worthwhile topics and worthwhile contibutors to this, and I shall just simply filter out those whose replies continue to be abusive. Certainly I agree with earlier postings that there should be more involvement from the moderators to restrain or even remove those whose remarks are continually abusive and rude. There really is no need, and indeed no room forthem on what after all is 95% a veyr good and useful forum. I shall stay,and hope Art can be persauded to also, as I am sure his contributions,like most of the rest of us,are always welcomed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.