Morris Minor Owners Club

Who edited my posts ??

frosty wrote:Who edited my posts ??

Frosty - all quotes and photos personally provided by moggiefan have been removed at his request (see further down this thread). Your own comments have remained unedited.

NZJLY wrote: don't you think there is a theme emerging?

Well yes, in that there are a small number of non-members who are using other peoples posts in which to criticise the club and it's officials. Thank you for offering an explanation for the reasons for this though:

And it is not even about poor trademanship. It is about how the MMOC responds to complaints of poor work, how they report back to the members, and the removal of the offending organizations adverts from the magazine, as it implies to some degree MMOC support.

Whilst not wishing to prolong this thread unnecessarily, moderators often find themselves at the receiving end of criticisms against the club so I'm interested in the reasons you give for the criticism John, and what has caused you to form those views. Within this particular thread a post from a member asking for advice about their car resulted in comments from a number of individuals who stated that the club does not respond to members complaints, and demands were made for adverts to be removed from the club magazine. I have to say that as a club member for many years I haven’t personally formed such an opinion about how the club deals with complaints so I would be genuinely interested to know why you feel the way that you do John. Are your views based on facts eg from your own personal experience (as a former club member) of forwarding a complaint about a trader to the club or have they been formed purely from what someone else has told you? It seems to me that there are more people complaining about how the club responds to members complaints about traders than members who have actually made complaints about traders to the club

It seems interesting that on the website we agree that we are responsible for our own posts, and the MMOC is not liable for anything said. Even with this disclaimer, the posts are moderated because of the "risk" to the organization. However, adverts from poor traders are still in the magazine as the magazine has a disclaimer just like the website. The two approaches seem to be quite different.

As has already been pointed out, and as previous cases have shown, a disclaimer on a website does not necessarily absolve the website owner or administrators from responsibility in relation to comments made on that website. As for your statement that "adverts from poor traders are still in the magazine", what is your definition of a "poor trader" John? (no names please!) I expect that any trader, regardless of their business, would have received complaints from customers at some point. So is a "poor trader" a trader who has had negative comments made against them on the internet, is it a trader who has had unsubstantiated and unproven complaints made against them or is it a trader who has been legally proven to have poor working practices or to provide a bad service? Or do you consider a “poor trader” to be something else entirely? And what, in your opinion, would be reasonable grounds for considering the removal of an advert John?

We have lost Judge

Well he posted here last Sunday and is the chairman of the Oxon & Berks MMOC branch so I'm not sure that he is "lost"

I bet it wont be long before someone buys a car advertized in Minor Matters, finds out it is a piece of rubbish and then expects the Club to give him a refund.

LouiseM wrote:

And it is not even about poor trademanship. It is about how the MMOC responds to complaints of poor work, how they report back to the members, and the removal of the offending organizations adverts from the magazine, as it implies to some degree MMOC support.

Whilst not wishing to prolong this thread unnecessarily, moderators often find themselves at the receiving end of criticisms against the club so I'm interested in the reasons you give for the criticism John, and what has caused you to form those views. Within this particular thread a post from a member asking for advice about their car resulted in comments from a number of individuals who stated that the club does not respond to members complaints, and demands were made for adverts to be removed from the club magazine. I have to say that as a club member for many years I haven't personally formed such an opinion about how the club deals with complaints so I would be genuinely interested to know why you feel the way that you do John. Are your views based on facts eg from your own personal experience (as a former club member) of forwarding a complaint about a trader to the club or have they been formed purely from what someone else has told you? It seems to me that there are more people complaining about how the club responds to members complaints about traders than members who have actually made complaints about traders to the club

I think your final sentence sums it up. At the moment we have a system of Chinese whispers, and I have heard about poor practice from a number of individuals, enough that I would not give one firm my business. Although I trust the individuals I have received this information from, they too may not have the full information. This is where we turn to the club to be open with the members with information where the MMOC has assisted with claims, what the resolution was, and if court action has succeeded against any restorers. For example if there were a couple of small issues with a company that had good resolution, then myself as a Morris Owner could look and think, "this company fixes its mistakes, I will give them my business", not "I have been warned about this company, there is nothing on the website, I will stay away" The MMOC needs to have a system where we as Owners can see info on different companies, for example I asked about a good supplier and was directed to ESM. Living on the other side of the World I wanted (and got) advice of where to go, and have been very happy with the service I get. Once the MMOC have such a system, then the hijacks will (mostly) stop, as the issue will be dealt with, but the hijacks I feel, are attempts from forum members to help and protect other members.

LouiseM wrote:

It seems interesting that on the website we agree that we are responsible for our own posts, and the MMOC is not liable for anything said. Even with this disclaimer, the posts are moderated because of the "risk" to the organization. However, adverts from poor traders are still in the magazine as the magazine has a disclaimer just like the website. The two approaches seem to be quite different.

As has already been pointed out, and as previous cases have shown, a disclaimer on a website does not necessarily absolve the website owner or administrators from responsibility in relation to comments made on that website. As for your statement that "adverts from poor traders are still in the magazine", what is your definition of a "poor trader" John? (no names please!) I expect that any trader, regardless of their business, would have received complaints from customers at some point. So is a "poor trader" a trader who has had negative comments made against them on the internet, is it a trader who has had unsubstantiated and unproven complaints made against them or is it a trader who has been legally proven to have poor working practices or to provide a bad service? Or do you consider a “poor trader” to be something else entirely? And what, in your opinion, would be reasonable grounds for considering the removal of an advert John?

Most of this is covered above, but to me a poor trader for the MMOC is where the committee look at a company and if they would not recommend the practices and results of the company for their friends and family.
The next step is for the MMOC to approach the company and say we would like to work with you to ensure our members are getting the services they pay for. Until them, we must regretfully withdraw your advertisement.

Louise, I know this is not an easy topic, and I do not envy the position you or the other moderators have in moderating this forum, but when this issue is addressed, then the MMOC will be a better and stronger club than it was, and I will be signing up as a member. I also thank you for our ability to have this conversation.

John

Many apologies to those peeps who feel somewhat aggrieved by me removing all of my posts, and asking quotes to be taken down. Ironically, I did this as it was all getting increasingly personal/heated and I didn't mean to incite the discord that has been expressed.

I support my fellow MMOC members/forum users in their comments that the current situation needs to change, so that the membership (even 'casual' but committed Moggie owners such as us or would-be-owners) can freely and easily access honest opinions regarding a trader.

To explain our experience:

First, we researched and noted the possible problem areas when buying a Moggie, using the MMOC club forum and magazine advice.

Secondly, as the MMOC magazine and forum contained no mentions of any negative issue regarding the trader in question, we saw them as reputable and so toured their site and test drove a Minor, although their prices were out of our range.

Thirdly, when we saw what looked like a suitable Minor advertised by a private seller, we looked closely at the usual body/mechanical issues (looking for rot, bubbling paint, checking for filler with a magnet, any play in steering, good gear change, even braking, no 'white stuff' in the radiator), then my wife gave it a good test drive. We noted the correct paperwork and copious service/repair documentation from the trader we'd visited, who'd sold it to the owner four years previously, plus all of the service history prior to that time, and decided to buy the car.

Sadly, although all of these common sense tests came up A-OK, we still got stung (but not as badly as the previous owner had been)! As the previous owner had done, we continued to think that the car was safe and solid, and kept having it serviced/repaired by the same trader. During the past year, we noticed some small issues (little paint bubbles, touches of surface rust, etc) and we asked the trader about them, thinking that keeping on top of them would aid the car's longevity, but were told 'don't worry about it'.

If you are a first time classic car owner who has done a decent amount of research, joined the owners' club, checked over a car as thoroughly as you can, noted that it's from a 'reputable' trader and that the servicing and repairs have almost exclusively (bar some very small jobs) been carried out there, then the situation we found ourselves in would be very surprising, indeed! If I hadn't thought 'hang on a minute' when this surprise rot had appeared and posted on the forum, only to receive some real advice about the trader in question, we'd still be driving round in a death trap.

We do not have a lot of time or technical knowledge, but we did undertake a 'normal' amount of research about what to look for when buying a Minor and feel that, while the advice given in the mag about buying/engaging traders is very sound, our experience bears out that this is not enough to help stop the situation we experienced occurring.

All legal issues aside, if after discovering that the car was unsafe, my wife and I hadn't thought that we owe it the right to remain on the road and dug deep (£1,000 and counting!) to get it fixed, then we'd probably have thought 'sod it, this is all more trouble than it's worth' and not only sold our Minor for scrap and vowed never to own another but also totally discounted the idea of owning a classic car. I should say that, faced with the same type of experience as we've had, many people would have thrown in the towel. Needless to say, there's no way to quantify the number of people who go through this type of experience and do give up, but every instance means one less Minor on the roads, one (or more) completely turned off owning a classic car, and fewer MMOC members. And that would seem to be a very valid reason for coming up with workable ideas to improve this situation. I am sure that, if everyone works together, the club can come up with some solutions to try and ensure that the type of situation we have experienced will very seldom occur.

Well, it's nearly five in the morning, this post has taken far longer than I'd anticipated and we've got to be up early, so I'll bid you all a very warm goodnight.

Well said moggiefan! For any others in doubt - when considering buying a car - it's worth posting a question on the Forum and answers will be provided by PM where necessary. Quite a few have done so - and been warned of the possible pitfalls.

NZJLY wrote:At the moment we have a system of Chinese whispers. Once the MMOC have such a system, then the hijacks will (mostly) stop, as the issue will be dealt with, but the hijacks I feel, are attempts from forum members to help and protect other members.

Well I agree that some people are acting with good intentions, even if they are not actually aware of the full facts. The problem is of course when comments are posted as statements of fact - despite the person who has posted such comments not actually being in possession of all of the facts - and someone else simply assuming that what they are reading is true. But it doesn't seem to me that giving new club members the impression that the club has received numerous complaints about a company but ignored them, and that people have been banned for simply mentioning a particular traders name, is actually an attempt to help and protect other members. Comments such as these seem to be more of an attempt to damage the reputation of the club and could actually have the effect of deterring members from contacting the club with their complaints, which isn't helpful to anyone.

This is where we turn to the club to be open with the members with information where the MMOC has assisted with claims, what the resolution was, and if court action has succeeded against any restorers.

Without wanting to keep going over the same old ground, the club can only consider complaints that it is aware of and if members have a complaint about a trader they need to be pro-active themselves.

The first thing that anyone with a complaint should do is to contact the company concerned to attempt to resolve the problem. If the matter can not be resolved satisfactorily the next course of action available is legal action. So legal advice should be sought and somebody independent will be able to look at all of the facts to determine whether legal action is likely to be successful. During any subsequent legal action it will again be the decision of someone completely independent (the Judge) as to whether the complaint is proved. Until that point a complaint remains unproven as the legal system in this country works on the assumption of “innocent until proven guilty”.

The fact that independent legal advice will be required in order to persue a complaint means that the club is very limited with regards to the assistance it can provide prior to a case going to court. Obviously if a case is proved at court then the member still has to be pro-active and forward the full details and judgement to the club.

The MMOC needs to have a system where we as Owners can see info on different companies, for example I asked about a good supplier and was directed to ESM.

I think the problem with any ‘rating’system is firstly it would require a lot of resources in order to set up and monitor and secondly that it will not necessarily provide an accurate basis from which club members would be able to make an informed decision as to which traders are ‘good’ and which are ‘not so good’ as such a system will only ever as good as the information it is based on. Although the resource issue might be able to be addressed if such a system was of little real benefit to members would it actually be worth having? The club has around 13,000 members and for a ratings system to be accessible to all members it would need to be a paper based (magazine) rather than internet based (forum) system.

Whilst there are a number of large Morris Minor suppliers / traders there are also many smaller companies who provide excellent service but deal with only a fraction of customers that the larger companies do. The larger companies are therefore guaranteed to receive more recommendations than the smaller companies.

It is human nature to complain rather than praise so there is a real possibility that under a ratings system complaints made by just a small number of customers might give an inaccurate impression of a company and result in loss of customers or future business. And unless you knew how many customers a company had served in a year the figures would be pretty meaningless. There is also the problem of how to know whether a complaint is justified or not without knowing all of the facts.

For example, company A has served 1,000 customers during the year but company B, which is a much smaller company, has only served 250 customers during a year.

Company A has 950 happy customers and 50 unhappy customers. 50 customers contact the club to praise the company and 25 customers contact the club to complain. On the basis of the information provided to the club, any ‘rating’ would show just a 50% customer satisfaction rate whereas the reality is that the company actually has a 95% customer satisfaction rate.

Company B has 100 happy customers but 150 unhappy ones. 25 customers contact the club to praise the company but only 5 contact the club to complain. On the basis of the information provided to the club, any ‘rating’ would show an 80% customer satisfaction rate whereas the reality is that the company actually has just a 40% customer satisfaction rate.

Mrs X joins the MMOC, needs some restoration work done on her car and decides to choose a trader on the basis of the ‘rating’ system provided by the club. She thinks that this will help her to avoid any problems. She sees that 25 people have complained to the club about company A but only 5 people have complained about company B. She also sees that only 50% are happy with the service they got from company A but 80% are pleased with the service they got from company B so decides to take her car to company B. She doesn’t visit company B whilst they are carrying out the work to see what they are actually doing and subsequently discovers that a ‘bodge’ job has been carried out. She is very upset and blames the MMOC because the clubs ‘rating’ system showed that this was a "good" trader and she would have never have chosen them if it wasn’t for what she had read in the club magazine.

but to me a poor trader for the MMOC is where the committee look at a company and if they would not recommend the practices and results of the company for their friends and family. The next step is for the MMOC to approach the company and say we would like to work with you to ensure our members are getting the services they pay for. Until them, we must regretfully withdraw your advertisement.

But this isn't very practical is it? Traders, like Committee members, are based all over the country. There are many different traders but only a small number of Committee members. For a Committee member to “look at a company, their practices and their results” - and to reach an informed decision as to whether the company was ‘poor’ or not - would firstly require the Committee members to be suitably experienced and qualified with regards to, for example, professional structural, welding, spraying techniques and repairs. Secondly, a large number of unannounced ‘inspections’ each year would need to be carried out, with all aspects of the company’s business being looked at, in order to ensure consistency. A company may for example perform well for a number of years then change hands, or start to sub-contract work out so the quality of work carried out at one time may differ from the quality of work carried out at another. And how many companies would welcome their business being inspected and disrupted for hours, or possibly days, on end whilst a member of the Committee, wearing overalls and carrying a clipboard, sat in their workshop to look at how they carried out their welding? Realistically, is a company going to be happy if a completely unqualified person tells them that, in their opinion, they are a poor trader and consequently 13,000 club members, many of whom are existing or future customers of the company, are going to be informed of that fact. I expect the club funds would last for all of two weeks before being completely exhausted by the resultant legal fees. And what if a trader that has been recommended by the Club and endorsed by the Committee subsequently carried out a 'bodge' job on a members car? No doubt the member concerned would blame the club and the committee for recommending the company in the first place!

Apologies for this very lengthy post (which will hopefully not be considered a rant!) but the subject of how to know who are the ‘good’ traders and who are the ‘not so good’ traders, and if known, how such information could be communicated to club members, is a really difficult issue to resolve. Any system would need to be beneficial to members as well as being fair to traders and there would also be a number of legal issues that would have to be considered. I don’t think that having a ‘rating’ or recommendation system in place would have prevented moggiefan’s particular problems.

Finding a solution to the issue is not going to be easy but I think that as a start it would be a good idea to clearly set out in the magazine and on this site what members should do if they have a complaint about a trader. And also clearly spell out the reasons why “naming & shaming” on a website is inappropriate and perhaps post the useful information contained in the magazine relating to restoration work here. Maybe also publish some guidance both here and in the magazine with regards to 'choosing a trader'? I'll have a further think about it later when I have a bit more time

pskipper wrote: p.s. If there really is an IM Dodgy trading can the Mods please change the name

shocker:P

(this is purely for comedy and not an implication of anything discussed in this thread)

ROTFL

Moggiefan I am glad to see you are still posting on the forum. I can understand your feeling the need to remove previous postings. Your problems with your lovely Minor must be taking quite a toll (physically and mentally) and I am sure you never dreamed your initial requests for help would cause such a strong and protracted thread. I sincerely hope you will continue to post and not be put off, your 'story' is not alone as I am one of those who have had shelled out hard earned savings for what turned out to be poor service. Hope that you will soon be able to put this sorry saga behind you and enjoy Minor ownership and motoring.

Oh dear - why not start a new thread and tell us your tale of woe Plin - so we can all learn what to look out for?

Plin wrote:Moggiefan I am glad to see you are still posting on the forum. I can understand your feeling the need to remove previous postings. Your problems with your lovely Minor must be taking quite a toll (physically and mentally) and I am sure you never dreamed your initial requests for help would cause such a strong and protracted thread. I sincerely hope you will continue to post and not be put off, your 'story' is not alone as I am one of those who have had shelled out hard earned savings for what turned out to be poor service. Hope that you will soon be able to put this sorry saga behind you and enjoy Minor ownership and motoring.

Thanks Plin, sorry to hear you've been through a similar experience! Yes, we're both very stressed. And to make matter worse, my guitar amp blew up this afternoon! It doesn't rain, it pours!

definately need a rogue traders list

Just a quick update on how Mrs Wilberforce is getting on. Went down and visited her last nite, and she's looking very sorry for herself. RTG have now stripped off all of the wings/front, and are in the laborious process of cutting out all of the rot and using replacement/fabricating new panels, and welding them in...

One of the inner rear 'humps' from the donor car has already been welded in and shaped correctly, and the front driver side inner wing was half sorted with a new panel fabricated by RTG. Amazingly, and this goes for both front inner wings, the rotten panels that RTG cut out had three layers of metal!

The issues being tackled by RTG are:
- Rear 'humps' rot cut out, panels replaced.
– Front inner wing rrot cut out, panels replaced.
– Rear inner wing rot cut out, panels replaced.
– Boot area rot cut out, panels replaced.
– Sill rot cut out, panels replaced.
– Replacing the radiator.
– Replacing the timing chain.
– Tappet adjustment.
– Rubbing down the roof 'gutters', oxiding and repainting.
- Other numerous patches of surface rust removed/killed, oxided and repainted.
– Oxide coating on replaced panels and Waxoyling the whole car, including all box sections.
– Electronic ignition fitting.
– Wiring loom repair.
- Replacing fuel pipe.
– Full service, including all oil changes and full greasing.

Literally 90% of the bill is labour, from cutting out rot/fabricating/welding/oxidising/painting/Waxoyling, etc. The new parts involved are minimal.RTG have been incredibly good, taking time to patiently explain what the problems are and the implications of same, how it can be fixed and showing how things should look using other cars as examples.

I wholeheartedly recommend that anyone in the South West who needs stuff done on their Minor use RTG. Credit where credit is due, and none where it's bl**dy well not!

"RTG SERVICES

MORRIS MINOR SPECIALIST

MOBILE SERVICING, WELDING AND MECHANICAL REPAIRS

All work undertaken from a full rebuild to a service.

All work carried at £25 per hour.

Full service including Engine oil and filter, gearbox oil, axle oil spark plug points condenser air filter,suspension greased and ignition timing £140.

Also available is a vehicle inspection service. Morris minors can hide a multitude of sins! You can save yourself a lot of money and time with a thorough inspection. And dont be caught out by unscrupulous sellers. I can also inspect engines and gearboxes that have allegedly been rebuilt For more details on this service call or email.

TEL. 07981 002991 between 8am and 8pm 7 days a week for more info."

Good to see some progress being made. I have the same story, the same firm welded patches over the rear wheel arches, not cutting out the old rotten metal first. Obviously the old metal just carries on rusting until it spreads to the new.

I had it repaired by a chap in Dorset. Had RTG Services been in business then, they would have done it. The small job I had done recently was done very well, efficiently & quickly. They are definitely recommended.

Hello Neil, thanks for the kind words - there's still a ways to go yet, but thanks to RTG we're getting there and it's all being done PROPERLY!

Considering that those who we do not name quoted £1,000 just to replace the rear 'humps' and sort the little bits of surface rust, never mind all the dangerous stuff that neither us or the previous owner who bought it from them were party to, and considering the huge amount of work involved, RTG's total bill is a bl**dy bargain. As just one example, those who we don't name would charge around three times what it's costing us to have RTG purchase and fit electronic ignition. How do the 'unmentionables' fix their prices - a lucky dip or possibly some sort of Snow-esque swing-o-meter?

I'spose that we shouldn't complain that these 'extra' panels were found on our respective cars. After all, we paid for them and the originals.

I like your style 'moggiefan' - keep the reports coming!

ptitterington wrote:This all seems a but surreal. You cant name and shame a Trader, but you can paste up his rates and contact details like its an advert.

I used to visit a Landrover Forum where they kicked a bloke off who kept bigging up the services that a particular Trader offered, turned out it was the Trader pretending to be a satisfied customer. Would you credit it!

Have to say, I have heard good things about RTG.

Dear sir,

Well, yes, it IS a little surreal, but as things stand, I see no problem with actually recommending a trader. Although some folks have enjoyed good experiences with the 'unmentionables', we decidedly have not. RTG's contact details were provided in a post by another forum user waaay back at the beginning of this, unfortunately very lengthy and controversial, thread so I see no issue with copying'n'pasting them into a later reply. As I said a coupla posts back, credit where it's due. And in this case, it's due to the members of this forum kind enough to direct us to a reliable trader, and to RTG, the firm they recommended.

If you still wanna argue the toss and insinuate that we're scammers, please feel free to do so. I do think that nothing less than us coming round people's houses to drop off sets of notarised photos and receipts will convince some people that we're bona fide. The situation is that we're going to be completely flat broke for the forseeable future (what a great way to spend the Summer, eh? It's like being a teenager again, such shame that I hated the 1980s), and the only reason I keep posting updates on this forum is to try and ensure that no-one else is forced to deal with the same rotten situation as we've found ourselves in.

Next Summer, when we actually manage to do what we'd planned this year, and take Mrs Wilberforce out to some MMOC/classic car events, please do come up and say hello. We can have a cup of tea together and I'll try and convince you that we're on the level. How about that?

Oh, and BTW, the passive-aggressive stance of your posts may find some people concluding that you are not exactly bona fide.

As you said 'credit where it is due'.
Rich Legg is currently restoring my Pickup his work is also very good.
Good luck with your car, next year when the sun comes out you will be pleased that you bit the bullet.

Did I suggest that you were a scammer? I never saw you post anything like this
MESSAGE FROM THE EMBASSY:

WE ARE DIRECTED TO INFORM YOU BY THE EMBASSY OF DETAILS OF YOUR FAMILY INHERITANCE FUND IN OUR BANK [FIRST CITY MONUMENT BANK (FCMB) PLC.]

THE FUND WAS LEFT BEHIND IN A FIXED DEPOSIT ACCOUNT IN OUR BANK BY YOUR LATE RELATIVE ENGINEER ANTHONY.
PLEASE CONTACT THE ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT OF THE FCMB PLC FOR MORE DETAILS, VERIFICATION AND PROCEDURES FOR CLAIM AS THE LEGITIMATE NEXT OF KIN / RELATIVE TO HANDLE THE IMMEDIATE WIRE TRANSFER OF THE FUND TO YOUR FAMILY.

GET BACK TO US IMMEDIATELY, CONTACT THE ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT VIA EMAIL FOR MORE INFO.

ACCEPT OUR WARM REGARDS.
SIGNED,
MANAGEMENT

Thanks moggiefan and Neil for the good coments.

Regards
Russell