Traders

[LouiseM]

Some previous winners were:

2002 - Birmingham Morris Minor Centre
2005 - Minor Developments
2006 - Minor Parts Oxford
2007 - Bull Motif

Don't know who won last year as I can't find the appropriate copy of Minor Matters.

Not sure how the winner is selected but no doubt someone on here will know.

[jonathon]

Hmmn, would be interested too, never even knew such an accolade existed.

[Judge]

Some previous winners were:

2002 - Birmingham Morris Minor Centre
2005 - Minor Developments
2006 - Minor Parts Oxford
2007 - Bull Motif

Don't know who won last year as I can't find the appropriate copy of Minor Matters.

Not sure how the winner is selected but no doubt someone on here will know.

This has been ongoing from some time now, and therefore the club must already have benchmarks in place if this accolade is to have any meaning. Therefore the scheme operated by the MG Owners Club could in theory be equally adopted by the MMOC.
It works for the MGOC Jonathon, so why not the MMOC? Remember, consumer programmes are continually emphasising the importance of complaining if a service or product is not up to scratch, and providing any complaints can be fully supported, and are reported to the correct authorities, I personally am all in favour. Particularly if this action results in better service and products.

However I am definitely not in favour of posting any complaints on this forum.

[angrydicky]

Just to say I totally agree with you Arthur. I see absolutely no reason why people can't post negative comments, after all, it's the personal opinion of the poster, nothing to do with the MMOC. I am extremely disappointed with the lack of free speech on this forum - with posts being edited, moved and locked left, right and centre. As a great supporter of free speech I don't like this at all. Which is the main reason I don't use this forum very much.

[jonathon]

Do you know how th system with the MMOC traders works Bill ? We were not made aware of any such benchmarks or means of judging traders when we were runnig the traders group.
Cannot say if MGOC system works or not, are members and traders both happy with it ?
I'm all for trying to improve services and parts quality Bill as you well know, but statistics can mean many things to many people.
For example if Bully service 1000 customers a month and we service 100. Bully receives 100 complaints ,we receive 10, who is the least complained against and does this mean that they are worse.
So long as parts and services are treated completely seperately and all complaints and praise are fully supported I have no problem with a 'recommended' list.

[Blaketon]

I'll register my complaint with the OC

I wish you luck; I'm still waiting for a response. I'll just have to wait and see whether I get one by the time my subs are due.

Moving on, one thing to remember about defamation is that it is only a tort where the statement made is found to be false or simply malitious and damaging to the plaintiff's reputation. A charge of libel or slander can be defended by a defence of justified comment. Ofcourse it is not so simple as that and law and justice are not always the same thing.

There are bound to be issues arising on a classic car forum, which will involve criticisms of traders or (As in the case of my complaint) the government. Provided these comments are related to the issue and not made because of a personal bias (eg I think anyone in the ***** party is a >*&<%), I see nothing wrong in reasoned criticism. Talking about eating cream teas in a field is very nice but if legislation is put forward to prevent us travelling there in a classic car or a trader is so bad, as to make travelling there, in a vehicle they had worked on, hazardous, then we can't sweep it under the carpet and pretend it doesn't exist.

I suppose all traders have the right of reply and I don't doubt that not all complaints against traders are justified. I recently stayed at a guest house (My third visit and hopefully not my last). It is run by a husband and wife and the lady of the house told me about a complaint they had seen on one of these "Write a review" type sites, that they serve a "1980s English Breakfast". I didn't know that such a breakfast exists (If they were implying that the food was from the 1980s and therefore stale, I would have to disagree) but if theirs is an example, I don't see anything wrong with this. We have a customer, who is a trading standards officer and he is certainly aware that there are bandits on both sides of the metaphorical counter.

Perhaps the moderators should judge each comment on its own merits rather than try to fit them into little boxes for classification.

[charlie_morris_minor]

The problem with slander and liable is the cost of going through the court system not what has actually been said / written.

If you say something i dislike and I have more money than you I can take you to court, knowing full well that I may / will lose but you will run out of money before me and the case will never complete.. we both walk away poorer.. me a little bit .. but you completely bankrupt.. just read a few copies of private eye to see what the costs are.

Mcdonalds tried it on with London Greenpeace..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's ... is_&_Steel

London Greenpeace defended themselves over several years, if they had paid lawyers the money would have run out very quickly and mcdonalds would have won.. obviously what macdonalds thought would have happened.

your final comment is that the moderators should review the comments... are they all fully qualified lawyers? what if they miss a single comment they could be found legally responsible for the comment and the costs.

The club has to be sensible and paying a lawyer, due to a comment on this site is a waste of the clubs money. It is called being sensible and airing on the side of caution.

[Blaketon]

My final comment was not that the "Moderators should review the comments". It is accepted that this is their purpose, as it is mine on the site on which I am a moderator. What I am saying is that you can't for example, categorise a comment as "Political", simply because it criticises a government policy, which has a negative impact on classic cars.

The T&Cs do state

There is no guarantee of the factual correctness of any posting

You are totally responsible for any information that you post

.

Whether the legal position on this has yet been decided I know not (I suspect that legal precedents may yet have to be set) but I cannot believe, in view of the above, that the MMOC could be held liable for defamatory comments made by a poster - unless they were outrageously OTT and the moderators had allowed them. To be fair, I don't think any of our number have posted anything that OTT. There is another general classic car forum that I use and some of the posts on there should, in my view, be moderated. What I am saying is that, in my view, the happy medium lies somewhere between the two (And to be fair nearer the MMOC forum than the other one I mentioned).

[new_adventures_of_arthur]

However I am definitely not in favour of posting any complaints on this forum.

I agree in the most part, as it just takes the odd person to have a grudge against a supplier and this could generate a disproportionate amount of complaints and gripes, which could be an unfair representation of the service they provide.

Like someone already said on this forum, "some people will just never be happy" and if these type of people use the forum to repeatedly rant about certain suppliers it's not fair to that supplier (they could have just had a bad day) and it brings the validity of any "voting" system (or whatever) into doubt if angry people just use it for getting something of their chest.

Personally, I'm not sure I believe all of it the reasons why we can't say who is good or discuss experiences with traders. There are thousands of sites that empower consumers to give their feedback on products and services. Ebay, Amazon, mothercare, Wh?ch. Even the BBC allow fans to post their opinions on players and clubs. If a fan complains about a referee's decision are the FA going to take legal action against the BBC for allowing them to voice their opinion? Or is a holiday company going to take legal actual against a website just because Betty from Blackpool complained about the hotel room on a forum?

Anyway, despite this, I dont think the forum is the best place to canvas the general opinion of owners on traders etc (despite my poll!!), as I just dont think the results would be fair or accurate (which is the whole point). Like Louise M hinted at, a small garage could offer the best service, but just because only one person voted for it, it might look like the worst! Votes should be based upon something slightly different, like a balance between the positive and negative, with perhaps less regard for the number of votes.

Though, if the MMOC already have a voting system in place (though I've only been a member for a few months so I dunno), maybe the problem is solved?

What do people think?

[jonathon]

Though, if the MMOC already have a voting system in place (though I've only been a member for a few months so I dunno), maybe the problem is solved?

Not to my knowledge. Infact complaints about traders are very few in number , as a said before only 6 in 2007 of which 2 were actually about bad service the others were parts in general.

[Kevin]

Unfortunately this board is only used by a few active posters and only a tiny percentage of the owners of our beloved moggies so I don't see how an on line voting system would ever work properly. If new posters ask for recomendations they are normally given them as most of the regulars are happy say where they have got good service.
And please remember some of the issues have been down to parts as Jonathon has mentioned and a lot of that has been caused by owners buying cheap pattern parts instead of quality ones and then complaining at why they didn't last as long.

but I cannot believe, in view of the above, that the MMOC could be held liable for defamatory comments made by a poster

Well that doesn't hold water at all, as around 3 years ago the MMOC were going to close the board down because of what had been said about some traders who were threating legal action and to be honest they had a valid case and an urgent moderators meeting was called after the AGM to ensure we tightened up on things because if it things had carried on as before none of us would be posting here today .

Also I accept that some just like to light the blue touch paper and stand back and see what happens but that is human nature this is not aimed at anyone in particular and just my personal opinion although I bet I get a few complaints.

[Judge]

As I have said before on a number of ocassions, this forum is not the place to complain. If anyone wishes to complain, they should approach the body concerned, not air their views on here.

As for a recommended repairer/supplier list provided by the Club, I am very much in favour of this. In fact I seem to remember it being raised at a committee meeting.

[Judge]

Also I accept that some just like to light the blue touch paper and stand back and see what happens but that is human nature this is not aimed at anyone in particular and just my personal opinion although I bet I get a few complaints.

Agreed, and some like to complain for the same reason. However if this happens, and the complaint is not properly investigated, it can result in the wrong conclusions being drawn.

[Blaketon]

unless they were outrageously OTT and the moderators had allowed them

is what I actually said and by the sounds of it (Not having heard of this incident before), the comments were OTT. Whether the club would have been held liable would have been decided in court and perhaps set a precident.

Lots of people threaten legal action and some big companies seem to think that the law is made by their legal departments. I was threatened by one such company, who were pressing me for payment under a contract, which they themselves had breached and therefore rendered null and void (Thus no payment was due). Unfortunately for them, I called their bluff and they backed down.

However, I can appreciate that even the threat of legal action can be intimidating and with this memory still quite raw, this explains the caution. So long as we learn from these experiences but aren't constrained by them indefinately, no harm is done.

So far as recommendations are concerned (Or otherwise), the MG Car Club produce a booklet of recommended suppliers. Before the days of forums, there was no way of making other interested parties aware of problems with suppliers. I seem to remember that if a supplier had too many complaints, which they could not explain to the MGCC, they ceased to be recommended suppliers. I must say that in 25 years, I've got to know who I will and won't use and I don't know if I even have the current booklet.

One of the biggest corruptors, so far as recommendations by magazines and their publishers is concerned (Don't worry I'll mention no names - and it isn't just a car thing) is advertising. Big adverts bring in revenue, so a plug in an editorial isn't always what it seems. In one case recently, a tool was offered by retailer A at £4.70 and by retailer B at £7.99. Retailer A had a 1/8 page advert, retailer B a three page spread. Someone had written in asking where they could buy said tool. The suggested retailer was retailer B (Perhaps B had to charge £7.99 in order to pay for the adverts ). When this was brought to the publisher's attention, they ignored it. Money talks!!

[Chris Morley]

Tried what? If you wish to try to indemnify the MMOC against expensive legal action taken by a disgruntled trader by pledging a huge sum of your money to the club for legal expenses then perhaps the policy will change? If not, ask yourself why you would expect a group of people, running the club in their own time (for no payment) to face that kind of threat on your behalf?

Whoa whoa, relax. For a moderator you're tone is a little, umm, angry?

I wasn't angry, just slightly exasperated shall we say! I agree the tone is a bit harsh, but I'm not one to sugar-coat the reality - I'm sorry if it seemed like an angry reply.

The reality is that the messageboard has had this threat hanging over it for several years, as Kevin has already explained. New posters may be surprised to know that we've seen this topic come up many times over the years. The broad thrust of the T&Cs came about 6/7 years ago as a result of a number of problem posters who seemed intent on wrecking the messageboard. Believe you me, they came about for good reasons after a lot of careful thought by people who wanted to ensure that the board remained free to use and would continue as a valuable resource for all Minor owners.

I find that the majority of posters who argue for 'freedom of speech' tend not to realise the financial implications to the existance of the club and messageboard. Personally I would love to have a club that could threaten to sue the rear end off any dodgy trader who crossed me, but I suspect that I wouldn't love the huge increase in the membership fee that would be necessary to pay for it. Every member of the MMOC gets a yearly set of accounts - whenever I look at them I don't see huge piles of money sitting around, just waiting to pay exorbitant legal fees.

Again, people need to ask themselves: Would I be happy to fight a legal action on behalf of other Minor owners, knowing that it would be my free time wasted, with lots of stress, and with no personal reward for my efforts? I know that I wouldn't....

[new_adventures_of_arthur]

I wasn't angry, just slightly exasperated shall we say!

Ok, point taken. I actually think sometimes it's easy to misinterpret written text, so I'm to blame too.

Not to my knowledge. Infact complaints about traders are very few in number , as a said before only 6 in 2007 of which 2 were actually about bad service the others were parts in general.

The parts issue was one of the reasons for stirring up this old hornets nest (though I didnt realise the history of the issue), though another was because on another thread, a member had bought a car from one of the large specialists (that I presumed to be one of the best) but was having a lot of problems that were not covered by the "warranty". Together with another member hinting that this was common from that specialist, it got me thinking that "biggest advertising budget" might not mean best service.

Anyway, for whatever reasons, like I said earlier I dont think the forum is the best place to canvas opinion on traders. It just wouldnt be effective, accurate, or represent the broad spectrum of owners.

Apparently the club already have a "trader of the year" but does anyone know how this is chosen?

[jonathon]

I have contacted John Frye (MMOC Chairman) with regards to the 'Trader of the Year ' accolade. here is the reply.

Hi Jonathon

Have looked through a few records. As far as I can see, the award is given on the basis of a trader who makes a significant contribution to the preservation of the Minor.

It's given to a different trader every year. It's done at one of the committee meetings, and by consensus.

No written criteria for award - relies more on current awareness by the committee members who have some knowledge of the traders.

Regards

john

[new_adventures_of_arthur]

hmmm, not exactly "power to the people"

[ASL642]

The Committee are voted into position at the AGM by the members who attend the AGM. Every MMOC member has a vote. If they don't attend the AGM, they really cannot complain about the decisions taken by the Committee elected in their absence can they?

[bmcecosse]

Oooh - I thought the Committee voted for themselves ? Did that not come out about this time last year ?