Next Working Party Meeting and minutes from last meeting
Forum rules
By using this site, you agree to our rules. Please see: Terms of Use
By using this site, you agree to our rules. Please see: Terms of Use
Next Working Party Meeting and minutes from last meeting
A Members/ Traders meeting will be held on the 6th July 7.30 pm at the National Rally in the Club Marquee
Last edited by bpr81a on Tue Jul 03, 2007 6:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Draft minutes of previous meeting
Draft to be agreed
Notes from the Meeting Held 14th April 2007
at the National Motorbike Museum
1. Present:
Andrew Stone (Chairman), Nigel Harrison, Simon Mitchell, Angela Mitchell, Julie Griffin, Lee Wells,
Apologies received
Jonathan Heap, David Powel, Martin O’Dowd (RetroAuto), Nigel Turner (Chertsey Minors), Maurice Stewart,
2. Aim of the Group: see Appendix 1 and 2
3. Notes from previous meeting: - These were accepted as a true and accurate record of the meeting, by those present.
4. Actions from the previous meeting
4.1.1 – JH sent his apologies item not discussed.
4.1.2 – Action - Nigel Harrison to contact smaller clubs which are run on a ‘volunteer basis ’ to gain an insight into their experiences and how they address the issues associated with Quality of Parts and Work.
Nigel reported that he had contacted the Riley RM Club and the Ford Side Valve club. Both clubs operate a spares service and they control the sourcing of various parts for club members. (The Side valve club will not sell parts unless you are a member!) Neither club offers an arbitrations service for restorations etc.
4.1.3 - Simon Mitchell to contact the MG Owners Club to gain an insight into their experiences regarding Quality of Parts and Work and how they address issues.
Action - SM presented his findings to the meeting the notes of his meeting with the MGOC are shown in appendix 3
Key points were:-
MGOC operate a “Recommended “scheme using a spanner rating system based on feedback from members.
Arbitration – MG Owners Club employs one person who can act as an arbitrator who seeks views in writing from both the member and the trader. The club then tries to reach an agreement with both parties to resolve the matter. Use of the Legal system is rare. Traders can be down rated or stropped from advertising in the MGOC Magazine if the complaint is upheld.
3.1.4 Andrew Stone to talk to Ray Newell regarding sending a letter to traders to give advance notice that these issues are under consideration and to seek their opinion.
Action - AS advised that the matter had been discussed at Committee and that once the group was in a position to circulate its findings, then the Traders would be consulted on the proposals.
4. Arbitration update
4.1 previous action- Nigel Harrison and Simon Mitchell to discuss with ‘volunteer run’ clubs and MG respectively, their experiences of arbitration, and feed back to the group by the next meeting. Action dealt with in section 3.
4.2 Previous action - Andrew Stone to discuss with Ray Newell about the club providing resources to fund an arbitration service, and inviting members and traders to discuss/vote at the AGM. Action carried forward.
4.3 Juliet agreed to advise the next meeting on how ‘Arbitration’ is handled in the marine industry, with likely costs and outline of process. Action JG
Andrew thanked Simon and Nigel for their investigations and reports.
5. 0 AOB
NH discussed the benefits of the e petition regarding extending the 25 year classic car limit.
An e-mail from Dennis (aupickup) regarding the quality of and description of parts was discussed.
6. 0 Next Steps.
It was felt that the section in the MMOC handbook on advice to members could be enhanced to include :-
o Professional Restorations guidance in to handbook,
o Stress the importance of keeping records and agreed prices for additional work etc.
Nigel to review existing wording in handbook and circulate to working group members.
Action – Juliet to consider the questions those members may want to ask when obtaining a quote for restoration work.
MGOC – Simon to obtain copy of MMOC questionnaire for evaluation at next meeting.
Andrew to arrange meeting at National with traders 19.00 on 7th June 2007.
7.0 Date of Next Meeting: 6th July 2007 at MMOC National Rally, Kelmarsh Hall 19.00hrs.
APPENDIX 1
AS outlined the remit of the group as agreed at the AGM in November 2006.
SET UP A WORKING PARTY TO INVESTIGATE PROS AND CONS OF SUCH A SCHEME.
PARAMETERS TO BE AGREED BY PARTICIPANTS IN CONJUNCTION WITH MMOC NATIONAL COMMITTEE REPRESENTATIVES
DETAILED OBJECTIVE REPORT TO BE COMPILED FOLLOWING EXTENSIVE INVESTIGATIONS OF COMPARABLE SCHEMES AND CONSULTATIONS WITH TRADERS.
FULL COSTINGS OF THE SCHEME TO BE INCLUDED IN REPORT.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO BE PRESENTED TO NATIONAL COMMITTEE WITHIN AN AGREED TIMEFRAME.
REPORT BACK TO A FUTURE AGM WITH OR WITHOUT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION.
Following a lengthy and interesting debate agreement was reach by those present that the group would review the following topics;
2.1) The perceived poor quality of spare parts and availability of good quality parts, and the consequential impact on members, traders and restorers
2.2) The possibility of an arbitration scheme to support members, traders and restorers in the event of any dispute, and the links with the quality of parts and workmanship
APPENDIX 2
ARBITRATION
The following were considered by the meeting to be necessary to achieve effective arbitration arrangements:-
Independence
Disputes could arise from issues caused by either the member or the trader. Noted that members and traders will both seek to defend their opinions, and the truth will be likely to lie somewhere between the two. Judgements should therefore not be made by members, but by independent and qualified persons. It was noted that there are very few people within the club who would have sufficient expert knowledge to make such judgements.
Independent companies could be invited to quote to act as assessors.
Contractual Arrangements
The club could arrange a contract (noting nationwide coverage, within a defined timescale, for a limited number of cases, and to provide a written report to the member and the MMOC), and recommend the process that members/traders follow in the event of any dispute. The club would require a report of their findings, and would act accordingly.
Agreement by members and Traders to Proceed to Arbitration
Traders should be consulted on the form of any arbitration scheme in advance.
Participation in an arbitration scheme should be voluntary. Agreement could be made at the start of contractual arrangements that both parties would accept arbitration in the event of any dispute.
Preventative Measures
Prevention is better than attempts to resolve after dispute has developed. The Club may review the advice provided to members and traders.
Members should note that there is guidance on Professional Restorations in the club handbook (pg 21)
It was also noted that club members may feel, due to coverage within Minor Matters, that particular conversion kits are promoted by the club, however this is without checks made by the club. Need to differentiate between individual experiences and recommendation by the club.
As identified in Appendix 1, a good survey will identify where disputes could be prevented through advice and guidance
Inspection of Work
A scheme could be introduced for inspections to be undertake
• if members are unhappy with the work undertaken
• when work has been completed to judge where the work meets agreed standards
In such circumstances the buyer would pay for the inspection.
Publication of Findings
Make available (in the public domain/Minor Matters) a summary report of the Assessors findings.
Appendix 3
Notes from a meeting with the MG Owners’ Club
Monday 19th March 2007, MGOC, Swavesey, 10:45 – 12:00
Present: Jonathon Timber, MGOC
Simon Mitchell, MMOC
Introduction
Following proposals at the MMOC AGM held in November 2006 a working party was formed to explore the implications of running schemes to improve the quality of parts, recommend traders, and provide dispute resolution services. It was known that the MGOC operated a scheme with similar aims, and at the first meeting of the working party Simon was asked to make contact with the MGOC to investigate their scheme. This document presents the results of that investigation.
Profile of the MGOC
The MGOC operates from modern purpose built offices in Swavesey. It is a pleasant working environment in a charming village just off the A14 in Cambridgeshire. The campus includes:
• Reception area with two staff and modern commercial telephone system;
• Large retail outlet for spares and accessories;
• Display area with three cars;
• Fully equipped with multi-bay workshop for mechanical and body work;
• Offices for club administration, magazine production, etc.
• Regalia and other club property storage;
• Mailing facilities;
• Large spares warehouse;
• Parking;
• Secure car compound;
• Considerable spare land for future development.
Fifty-one full time staff are employed on the site.
The club has around 40,000 members paying an annual subscription of £33. The club has a thriving commercial workshop and sources many spares which are sold to other traders as well as direct to members. A 92 page full colour glossy magazine is produced every month.
The MGOC Recommended Supplier Scheme
The Club produces a directory of around 300 recommended suppliers. The directory is a seventy six page A5 booklet. Entry to the directory in the form of a simple listing is free but traders can buy additional “advertorial” lineage or display adverts. The directory includes advice on how to avoid a dispute and how to try to resolve one if it does arise.
There is an emphasis that the traders are recommended by members but not approved. The scheme has been running for thirty plus years and has evolved over that time.
A new trader will be allowed a small amount of lineage advertising in the Club’s magazine in order to become known. Once per year the Club circulates a questionnaire to every member, via the magazine. This includes the opportunity to recommend a trader. Once a recommendation has been made the trader will be included in the directory. That inclusion is purely on the recommendation of members.
The questionnaire covers not only supplier recommendation, but also aspects of the Club’s services. Of the 40,000 distributed there are around 1,500 replies (3.75%). This number has been declining over the years. It is possible that this is because members are generally happy with both the Club and the traders, and also that there is a greater pressure on people’s time. Possibly if there were serious issues arising then it would become important enough for people to register their views.
There are effectively three grades of trader: Recommended, 5-star (rated for parts supply) and 5-spanner (rated for mechanical and / or body work. Traders can be both 5-star and 5-spanner. Once recommended, a trader will stay in the directory unless negative feedback is received.
When grading the top suppliers the Club may send officials to inspect the supplier. This may be announced as an official visit, or it may be in the form of a “mystery shopper” to assess the quality of work and prices charged.
The scheme is administered by Jonathon as part of his work for the MGOC. He coordinates questionnaires and responses and investigates complaints. Each complaint takes between 1 hour and several days to resolve, and the total time to administer the scheme is around 3 - 4 weeks per annum.
Around 5 complaints are received in a year. When a complaint against (or by) a trader is received the first step is to ask both the complainer and the other party for written statements. Complaints can be typically classified as:
• Communication – misunderstandings between trader and client;
• Price – the job has been overcharged;
• Finance
The MGOC will attempt to broker a solution between the parties. Mostly this is successful. Where a single complaint is received about a trader and this is then resolved in a satisfactory manner then the matter will be kept on file and reviewed after a year. If three complaints are received within a twelve month period then the trader may be removed from the directory. If complaints are not resolved in a satisfactory manner then the trader will not be allowed to advertise in the Club’s publications. Any complaint that results in a legal judgement against the trader will result in automatic removal from the directory and a ban on all advertising. If all else fails and legal action is inevitable then the Club is able to provide expert witnesses. At all times common sense prevails.
Quality of Parts
There is recognition that some spares are not of suitable quality. Rotor arms are a prime example where they might be discarded after as little as 200 miles. The MGOC is able to control the quality of some parts by being the principle link in the supply chain between manufacturer and end user. However, there is no scheme to monitor or control the quality of parts. This is due to the anticipated amount of time that would be required to administer such a scheme covering the thousands of parts that are required to maintain the different models of MG vehicle. As there are fewer variations in parts for Minors, it may be possible for the MMOC to take a different view on this subject.
Summary
The MGOC operates a very successful scheme for recommending suppliers and also for resolving disputes when they arise. The Club states: “Very few, if any, motor clubs offer to be involved in disputes between their members and suppliers recommended by the Club but the MGOC is pleased to provide this very worthwhile benefit.”.
There does not appear to be any major difficulty in administering the scheme. Traders raise no objections to the policy of how they are rated, and work actively to achieve high ratings. Simple arbitration benefits both traders and members. The scheme encourages a high standard of workmanship and customer service, and helps to ensure the survival of the cars.
Conclusions
The scheme used by the MGOC could provide the basis of a similar scheme to be offered by the MMOC. The working party must now decide whether to pursue such a scheme and whether to attempt to monitor the quality of parts – having rather fewer models with which to contend, this may be a possibility. It is the recommendation of the author that the MMOC Working Party should continue to actively pursue a Recommended Traders scheme complete with arbitration service, and also to consider further the possibility of rating the quality of parts.
Footnote
Simon would like to extend his sincere thanks to the MGOC for their hospitality and assistance. The Club created an exceptionally good impression.
Notes from the Meeting Held 14th April 2007
at the National Motorbike Museum
1. Present:
Andrew Stone (Chairman), Nigel Harrison, Simon Mitchell, Angela Mitchell, Julie Griffin, Lee Wells,
Apologies received
Jonathan Heap, David Powel, Martin O’Dowd (RetroAuto), Nigel Turner (Chertsey Minors), Maurice Stewart,
2. Aim of the Group: see Appendix 1 and 2
3. Notes from previous meeting: - These were accepted as a true and accurate record of the meeting, by those present.
4. Actions from the previous meeting
4.1.1 – JH sent his apologies item not discussed.
4.1.2 – Action - Nigel Harrison to contact smaller clubs which are run on a ‘volunteer basis ’ to gain an insight into their experiences and how they address the issues associated with Quality of Parts and Work.
Nigel reported that he had contacted the Riley RM Club and the Ford Side Valve club. Both clubs operate a spares service and they control the sourcing of various parts for club members. (The Side valve club will not sell parts unless you are a member!) Neither club offers an arbitrations service for restorations etc.
4.1.3 - Simon Mitchell to contact the MG Owners Club to gain an insight into their experiences regarding Quality of Parts and Work and how they address issues.
Action - SM presented his findings to the meeting the notes of his meeting with the MGOC are shown in appendix 3
Key points were:-
MGOC operate a “Recommended “scheme using a spanner rating system based on feedback from members.
Arbitration – MG Owners Club employs one person who can act as an arbitrator who seeks views in writing from both the member and the trader. The club then tries to reach an agreement with both parties to resolve the matter. Use of the Legal system is rare. Traders can be down rated or stropped from advertising in the MGOC Magazine if the complaint is upheld.
3.1.4 Andrew Stone to talk to Ray Newell regarding sending a letter to traders to give advance notice that these issues are under consideration and to seek their opinion.
Action - AS advised that the matter had been discussed at Committee and that once the group was in a position to circulate its findings, then the Traders would be consulted on the proposals.
4. Arbitration update
4.1 previous action- Nigel Harrison and Simon Mitchell to discuss with ‘volunteer run’ clubs and MG respectively, their experiences of arbitration, and feed back to the group by the next meeting. Action dealt with in section 3.
4.2 Previous action - Andrew Stone to discuss with Ray Newell about the club providing resources to fund an arbitration service, and inviting members and traders to discuss/vote at the AGM. Action carried forward.
4.3 Juliet agreed to advise the next meeting on how ‘Arbitration’ is handled in the marine industry, with likely costs and outline of process. Action JG
Andrew thanked Simon and Nigel for their investigations and reports.
5. 0 AOB
NH discussed the benefits of the e petition regarding extending the 25 year classic car limit.
An e-mail from Dennis (aupickup) regarding the quality of and description of parts was discussed.
6. 0 Next Steps.
It was felt that the section in the MMOC handbook on advice to members could be enhanced to include :-
o Professional Restorations guidance in to handbook,
o Stress the importance of keeping records and agreed prices for additional work etc.
Nigel to review existing wording in handbook and circulate to working group members.
Action – Juliet to consider the questions those members may want to ask when obtaining a quote for restoration work.
MGOC – Simon to obtain copy of MMOC questionnaire for evaluation at next meeting.
Andrew to arrange meeting at National with traders 19.00 on 7th June 2007.
7.0 Date of Next Meeting: 6th July 2007 at MMOC National Rally, Kelmarsh Hall 19.00hrs.
APPENDIX 1
AS outlined the remit of the group as agreed at the AGM in November 2006.
SET UP A WORKING PARTY TO INVESTIGATE PROS AND CONS OF SUCH A SCHEME.
PARAMETERS TO BE AGREED BY PARTICIPANTS IN CONJUNCTION WITH MMOC NATIONAL COMMITTEE REPRESENTATIVES
DETAILED OBJECTIVE REPORT TO BE COMPILED FOLLOWING EXTENSIVE INVESTIGATIONS OF COMPARABLE SCHEMES AND CONSULTATIONS WITH TRADERS.
FULL COSTINGS OF THE SCHEME TO BE INCLUDED IN REPORT.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO BE PRESENTED TO NATIONAL COMMITTEE WITHIN AN AGREED TIMEFRAME.
REPORT BACK TO A FUTURE AGM WITH OR WITHOUT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION.
Following a lengthy and interesting debate agreement was reach by those present that the group would review the following topics;
2.1) The perceived poor quality of spare parts and availability of good quality parts, and the consequential impact on members, traders and restorers
2.2) The possibility of an arbitration scheme to support members, traders and restorers in the event of any dispute, and the links with the quality of parts and workmanship
APPENDIX 2
ARBITRATION
The following were considered by the meeting to be necessary to achieve effective arbitration arrangements:-
Independence
Disputes could arise from issues caused by either the member or the trader. Noted that members and traders will both seek to defend their opinions, and the truth will be likely to lie somewhere between the two. Judgements should therefore not be made by members, but by independent and qualified persons. It was noted that there are very few people within the club who would have sufficient expert knowledge to make such judgements.
Independent companies could be invited to quote to act as assessors.
Contractual Arrangements
The club could arrange a contract (noting nationwide coverage, within a defined timescale, for a limited number of cases, and to provide a written report to the member and the MMOC), and recommend the process that members/traders follow in the event of any dispute. The club would require a report of their findings, and would act accordingly.
Agreement by members and Traders to Proceed to Arbitration
Traders should be consulted on the form of any arbitration scheme in advance.
Participation in an arbitration scheme should be voluntary. Agreement could be made at the start of contractual arrangements that both parties would accept arbitration in the event of any dispute.
Preventative Measures
Prevention is better than attempts to resolve after dispute has developed. The Club may review the advice provided to members and traders.
Members should note that there is guidance on Professional Restorations in the club handbook (pg 21)
It was also noted that club members may feel, due to coverage within Minor Matters, that particular conversion kits are promoted by the club, however this is without checks made by the club. Need to differentiate between individual experiences and recommendation by the club.
As identified in Appendix 1, a good survey will identify where disputes could be prevented through advice and guidance
Inspection of Work
A scheme could be introduced for inspections to be undertake
• if members are unhappy with the work undertaken
• when work has been completed to judge where the work meets agreed standards
In such circumstances the buyer would pay for the inspection.
Publication of Findings
Make available (in the public domain/Minor Matters) a summary report of the Assessors findings.
Appendix 3
Notes from a meeting with the MG Owners’ Club
Monday 19th March 2007, MGOC, Swavesey, 10:45 – 12:00
Present: Jonathon Timber, MGOC
Simon Mitchell, MMOC
Introduction
Following proposals at the MMOC AGM held in November 2006 a working party was formed to explore the implications of running schemes to improve the quality of parts, recommend traders, and provide dispute resolution services. It was known that the MGOC operated a scheme with similar aims, and at the first meeting of the working party Simon was asked to make contact with the MGOC to investigate their scheme. This document presents the results of that investigation.
Profile of the MGOC
The MGOC operates from modern purpose built offices in Swavesey. It is a pleasant working environment in a charming village just off the A14 in Cambridgeshire. The campus includes:
• Reception area with two staff and modern commercial telephone system;
• Large retail outlet for spares and accessories;
• Display area with three cars;
• Fully equipped with multi-bay workshop for mechanical and body work;
• Offices for club administration, magazine production, etc.
• Regalia and other club property storage;
• Mailing facilities;
• Large spares warehouse;
• Parking;
• Secure car compound;
• Considerable spare land for future development.
Fifty-one full time staff are employed on the site.
The club has around 40,000 members paying an annual subscription of £33. The club has a thriving commercial workshop and sources many spares which are sold to other traders as well as direct to members. A 92 page full colour glossy magazine is produced every month.
The MGOC Recommended Supplier Scheme
The Club produces a directory of around 300 recommended suppliers. The directory is a seventy six page A5 booklet. Entry to the directory in the form of a simple listing is free but traders can buy additional “advertorial” lineage or display adverts. The directory includes advice on how to avoid a dispute and how to try to resolve one if it does arise.
There is an emphasis that the traders are recommended by members but not approved. The scheme has been running for thirty plus years and has evolved over that time.
A new trader will be allowed a small amount of lineage advertising in the Club’s magazine in order to become known. Once per year the Club circulates a questionnaire to every member, via the magazine. This includes the opportunity to recommend a trader. Once a recommendation has been made the trader will be included in the directory. That inclusion is purely on the recommendation of members.
The questionnaire covers not only supplier recommendation, but also aspects of the Club’s services. Of the 40,000 distributed there are around 1,500 replies (3.75%). This number has been declining over the years. It is possible that this is because members are generally happy with both the Club and the traders, and also that there is a greater pressure on people’s time. Possibly if there were serious issues arising then it would become important enough for people to register their views.
There are effectively three grades of trader: Recommended, 5-star (rated for parts supply) and 5-spanner (rated for mechanical and / or body work. Traders can be both 5-star and 5-spanner. Once recommended, a trader will stay in the directory unless negative feedback is received.
When grading the top suppliers the Club may send officials to inspect the supplier. This may be announced as an official visit, or it may be in the form of a “mystery shopper” to assess the quality of work and prices charged.
The scheme is administered by Jonathon as part of his work for the MGOC. He coordinates questionnaires and responses and investigates complaints. Each complaint takes between 1 hour and several days to resolve, and the total time to administer the scheme is around 3 - 4 weeks per annum.
Around 5 complaints are received in a year. When a complaint against (or by) a trader is received the first step is to ask both the complainer and the other party for written statements. Complaints can be typically classified as:
• Communication – misunderstandings between trader and client;
• Price – the job has been overcharged;
• Finance
The MGOC will attempt to broker a solution between the parties. Mostly this is successful. Where a single complaint is received about a trader and this is then resolved in a satisfactory manner then the matter will be kept on file and reviewed after a year. If three complaints are received within a twelve month period then the trader may be removed from the directory. If complaints are not resolved in a satisfactory manner then the trader will not be allowed to advertise in the Club’s publications. Any complaint that results in a legal judgement against the trader will result in automatic removal from the directory and a ban on all advertising. If all else fails and legal action is inevitable then the Club is able to provide expert witnesses. At all times common sense prevails.
Quality of Parts
There is recognition that some spares are not of suitable quality. Rotor arms are a prime example where they might be discarded after as little as 200 miles. The MGOC is able to control the quality of some parts by being the principle link in the supply chain between manufacturer and end user. However, there is no scheme to monitor or control the quality of parts. This is due to the anticipated amount of time that would be required to administer such a scheme covering the thousands of parts that are required to maintain the different models of MG vehicle. As there are fewer variations in parts for Minors, it may be possible for the MMOC to take a different view on this subject.
Summary
The MGOC operates a very successful scheme for recommending suppliers and also for resolving disputes when they arise. The Club states: “Very few, if any, motor clubs offer to be involved in disputes between their members and suppliers recommended by the Club but the MGOC is pleased to provide this very worthwhile benefit.”.
There does not appear to be any major difficulty in administering the scheme. Traders raise no objections to the policy of how they are rated, and work actively to achieve high ratings. Simple arbitration benefits both traders and members. The scheme encourages a high standard of workmanship and customer service, and helps to ensure the survival of the cars.
Conclusions
The scheme used by the MGOC could provide the basis of a similar scheme to be offered by the MMOC. The working party must now decide whether to pursue such a scheme and whether to attempt to monitor the quality of parts – having rather fewer models with which to contend, this may be a possibility. It is the recommendation of the author that the MMOC Working Party should continue to actively pursue a Recommended Traders scheme complete with arbitration service, and also to consider further the possibility of rating the quality of parts.
Footnote
Simon would like to extend his sincere thanks to the MGOC for their hospitality and assistance. The Club created an exceptionally good impression.