Morris Minor Owners Club

Whichever way, the goods should still be 'fit for purpose'.

bmcecosse wrote: Come on - fess up - who was the supplier, we need to know !

By PM please - see the T&Cs of the board

who was it

in the interest of all on here

As I said ;) Not my rules

so we leave it then , and then someone else in the club will buy the same item

Judge wrote:Whichever way, the goods should still be 'fit for purpose'.

Goes without saying Bill
What really annoys me is that suppliers accept no consequential loss due to either the quality of 'fit for purpose' aspect of the items purchased. The front panel fiasco is one instance, although to be fair we have been able to negotiate a solution.
We posed a question to ourselves the other day to try and determine what 'poor quality items' cost us as a bodyshop. We reckon on over £4K a year, either returning, making fit, or re building parts purchased. Now in my book the customer should not have to pay to have parts worked on (panels excepted to a degree of tinkering), the supplier/manufacturer will not pay for this to be done so its us who suffer and have to absorb the cost.
To be perfectly honest I'm pretty fed up now at the time and money wasted so with every return we make I claim for consequential loss. I suppose eventually our suppliers will either get the message or stop supplying us.

Surely not against the T&Cs to say - this part was supplied to me by XYZ Co ?? And then discuss the facts of the part ?

MortisMinor wrote:Send it back, if they get lots of parts sent back. Maybee eventually theyll get the message. Any body got any opinions on Bull Motif, i just bought a bunch of spares from them.

i have had qiute a lot of parts from bullmotif,, allseem ok so far,,grandad

The supplying company cannot always be held responsible for the quality of every part they sell. They can however ease the process of returns and complaints by making sure that the 'manufactures 'are made aware of any issues.
Most suppliers offer parts from the same manufacturers along side their own developments so if complaints about a particular item are taken on board then the manufacturer should hear back from the many points of sale.
BM, its not really fair to either supplier or manufacturer to name and shame them, as they are probably not going to read this forum, and therefore have no chance to reply, should they even want to.
The MMOC would also be held ultimately responsible for comments made on this forum which could lead to its closure, or legal action.
I have made comments on here regarding a 'copy' of our rear suspension design, but was advised to remove it as it had not been proven in court that this was the case. I knew the facts and the truth, but I suppose my comments were against the T and C's somehow.
I'd say better PM each other if you are concerned about a particular product that someone else has highlighted as problematic

" You agree not to negatively criticise any individual, organisation, product or service." So there you are - it's been 'discussed' on here a million times

I for one feel that this rule is justified.

so we leave it then , and then someone else in the club will buy the same item

Surely not against the T&Cs to say - this part was supplied to me by XYZ Co ?? And then discuss the facts of the part ?

I can understand the frustration we have all experienced with these sort of problems and as suggested the first port of call is the part supplier and in my experience the part has always been changed and I dont remember a moan from someone who had not been offered a replacement part.

What I do find frustrating are postings that offer no constructive advice and just try to stir thing up with the same remarks over & over again and also acting as though they dont know what are in the T & C`s.
Especially when they have been posters for some years and I feel they are just trying to be negative for the sake of posting for postings sake and amazingly its nearly always the same posters.
I am sorry to have got on my bandwaggon again but I assume the repeated negatives must be of use to the posters as I have no idea who they would be of use to unless its just to light the blue touchpaper and stand back, and I of course accept that some never like to mention good service.
This is of course my own view with no axe to grind.

Don't see anything wrong with stating FACTS. General statements such as 'abc co are rubbish' are of course not, and should not be allowed - but simple statement of facts re a part supplied - with pictures where appropriate can only do good and should be allowed.
No axe to grind here either Kevin! I always give praise where due.

I have recently had a few problems with parts, which after contacting the supplier directly, have been very well handled.

I am sure all reputable suppliers will be more than happy to do so - the idea is simply to warn others in advance of the goods they are likely to receive - and save them having to go through the same process with time and money wasted all round!
For my own part -I have never had any problems with any parts I have bought!

Don't see anything wrong with stating FACTS.

Facts judged to be 'true' in who's opinion??
People are people and some are prone to tell 'versions' of the truth to suit themselves.
It is highly unfair to allow a criticism of a supplier on an issue that in some cases the have not even been informed of!
It is equally unfair to expect others to have to decide what is fact (and therefore allowable) and what is fiction - when those responsible for vetting comments have absolutely no way of doing it.
The correct procedure is to handle problems directly with the supplier - if they fail to act reasonably that's a different issue, and complaints CAN be put on file with the club.

The fact is that in most cases the suppliers will act reasonably when parts are returned, and almost no complaints get on file with the club.

I have a lot of frustration about parts with poor quality and sometimes not fit for purpose, however this isn't the place to get it sorted.
The rules on how to handle complaints with parts or service predate my time on the forum, but the number of people who've raised an issue about the rules 'via the proper chanels' I can probably count on the fingers of one hand, but brought about the issue being raised at an AGM.
Thanks to those who did follow things up with the club, a working group was started but sadly that's apparently stalled due to lack of input from members.

Simple fact like - here is a picture of a part supplied to me today by abc co. Nothing more than that. Fact - not opinion.

Ray wrote:

Thanks to those who did follow things up with the club, a working group was started but sadly that's apparently stalled due to lack of input from members.

Can you please explain this comment Ray. I think that the club members who attended the meetings had plenty of input. The fact is that that was where it stopped. It was never acted upon nor after only 3 meetings did there seem to be any desire from the club to hold further meetings. Very disapointing for those who had 'committed both time and energy into establishing a body that might well have been able to make a difference in both parts quality and dealer service. I would very much like the MMOC to re establish this group and afford it the importance that it deserves.

It was never acted upon nor after only 3 meetings did there seem to be any desire from the club to hold further meetings. Very disapointing for those who had 'committed both time and energy into establishing a body that might well have been able to make a difference in both parts quality and dealer service. I would very much like the MMOC to re establish this group and afford it the importance that it deserves.

I presume that one of the members of the working group is responsible to organise the next meeting... That's all my comment was based on. I couldn't attend the first 2, never heard about the 3rd and any further meetings seem unforthcoming.

Andrew Stone was leading the working group, and the MMOC organised the meetings to which everyone in the MMOC was invited.
Unfortunately the advertising of the meetings might have been a little 'low key', or the membership simply uninspired by the challenges that the first two meetings raised.
There was never any doubt as to the level of input from those who attended. The MMOC should as I say , pick up the baton, and run with it again with a bit more vigour