Morris Minor Owners Club

I suppose my point is, what stops them thinking when laying in bed in the dark 'boy what sort of arsehole am I '

I don't think they have a concience I'm afraid.

It may be prudent to withdraw the advertising from the magazine at this stage.

My tuppence worth. All of this "legal action" talk is disingeneous - firstly the board should be running a clear "all postings are the opinions of individuals and not the MMOC" messages anyway. Secondly - go and look at some other sites - expedia, last minute, amazon, any other number of sites - and what do you see? that's right - customer reviews! Does lastminute.com get sued for every ropey review of the Travelodge in Torquay?

Are the MMOC really telling us that i can go and get really good service from a company and say that on the board, but not say if i THINK i had poor service? Is there no freedom of expression allowed? I notice in other threads that we are "allowed" to say that such and such a fuel pump is better than another for example, but this isn't appropriate about a restorer / garage? Kind of seems odd to me.

And i am relatively new to the game, and a year ago when Lillibeth needed work doing it would have been really helpful for me to come on here and look at customer reviews, like i can on any number of other sites, rather than go through all this cloak and dagger PM nonsense. All it needs is a nice "your experiences" section - with a disclaimer saying these are customer opinions and do not reflect the opinions of the MMOC, and we can all happily share our experience of good suppliers / garages / bits of kit without any comeback (as they are merely reviews) and see the good and bad and make up our own minds rather than dealing in code and innuendo.

I'm not saying anyone is limiting access to information, but why are we not allowed to share our experiences (good and bad) of services here? Surely that is exactly what a forum should be for - its clear from this thread that some people who are paid up members of the MMOC would have had the chance to make better informed decisions if reviews were available.

Or maybe those adverts are too well paid to lose?

markthe45king wrote:Or maybe those adverts are too well paid to lose?

Hammer - meet Mr Nail Head....

Mark I totally agree - I always search for reviews when purchasing any item. We had problems with our LCV refurb and it would have been great to get reviewers advice before going ahead with it. Your points are very valid and I hope the common sense of them makes sense with those who have to sort out the website/forum rules.

Well said markthe45king, a simple disclaimer works for almost any other site, why not for this one?

all this has been suggested and ignored in the past.. we all know the reasons why (as spelled out in the T&C's which will not change (in my lifetime anyway). Read revies on any other website (as you say) and get a straight answer but not here I'm afraid - you play by the rules or go play elsewhere - simples !!

bmcecosse wrote:I told you Russel would be good - just for my information - could you please PM me the name of the 'garage' ?? I see it has mysteriously been blanked out in the original post!

Having just had a small welding job done by RTGservices, I can recommend him from personal experience.......
cheers N

markthe45king wrote:I notice in other threads that we are "allowed" to say that such and such a fuel pump is better than another for example, but this isn't appropriate about a restorer / garage? Kind of seems odd to me.

In another thread which I read recently on this board, a major supplier was mentioned directly by name, not in a kind of "heartily recommended" way, yet that thread hasn't (yet) been removed.

Consistency please. Whether the rules are right or wrong they should be applied evenly and without bias..

markthe45king wrote:My tuppence worth. All of this "legal action" talk is disingeneous - firstly the board should be running a clear "all postings are the opinions of individuals and not the MMOC" messages anyway. Secondly - go and look at some other sites - expedia, last minute, amazon, any other number of sites - and what do you see? that's right - customer reviews! Does lastminute.com get sued for every ropey review of the Travelodge in Torquay?

The problem is that although a disclaimer can be helpful previous cases have shown that it does not fully absolve a website of responsibility. The administrator / owner of the site can still be considered as responsible for ensuring the accuracy of information posted on their website and can be deemed - as the ‘publisher’ - to be liable for any slanderous comments, exaggerated stories or unfounded allegations posted. A complainant may well consider that suing a company or organisation is preferable to trying to identify an 'anonymous' individual who may or may not be in a position to pay compensation.

Legally, ‘fair comment’ - where, for example, a customer posts an opinion or review and says “I didn’t like that book because ….”, “That product wasn’t very good because….”, “ I prefer this product to that product because…..” etc - will not (in most cases) give a complainant grounds to sue purely because they do not like what someone has said about them or their product. I'm sure that large companies with review sites don't get sued for every bad review posted but they are likely to have been threatened with legal action at some point. As it isn't the sort of thing that gets publicised though it's difficult to know how regularly this occurs although I know that review sites can, and do, remove messages due to their content if they are considered to be potentially slanderous.

'Fair comment' is entirely different from slander or defamation when, for example, a trader could show that false comments posted on a website have damaged their professional reputation / lost them business. So a post along the lines of “look what a bodge job trader x did on my car”, “trader x rips you off” or “trader x sells poor quality parts” may result in the website 'publishing' such comments becoming subject to legal action. The fact that such comments may be subsequently found to be true will not prevent costly legal fees being incurred in defending such action. The problem with such comments being posted here is that the moderators and club officials do not have access to all of the facts so therefore have no way of knowing if the comments are true or not and people can, and do, post malicious or untrue comments on the internet for a variety of motives. Therefore by leaving such potentially defamatory comments posted on the messageboard the club could leave itself open to legal action.This site is not unique in having T&C's designed to prevent slanderous comments. However sites that are run by individuals rather than clubs or organisations may be less concerned about potential legal action, even though the site owners could still be sued if slanderous comments are posted there, purely because they don't have a reserve of members funds which is at risk from such legal action.

On at least two previous occasions the MMOC has been threatened by legal action from Morris Minor traders as a direct result of comments posted on this messageboard. So although members may not agree with them, the T&c's are there for good reasons, and I’m sure most members would not want clubs funds to be used in expensive litigation if it can be avoided.

ndevans wrote: In another thread which I read recently on this board, a major supplier was mentioned directly by name, not in a kind of "heartily recommended" way, yet that thread hasn't (yet) been removed.

Consistency please. Whether the rules are right or wrong they should be applied evenly and without bias..

Some members complain that the T&C's are applied too rigidly without any flexibility, others complain that the T&C's are applied inconsistently, others complain that they aren't being applied consistently enough. When comments relating to traders or products are made consideration has to be given as to whether they are 'fair comment' or potentially defamatory and may result in the club being subject to legal action. As this is a Morris Minor site, frequented by Morris Minor owners, Morris Minor traders can, and do, look at what is being posted here about their businesses and products. Therefore the club is far more likely to be subject to legal action from Morris Minor traders than, for example, large multi-national manufacturers or companies. The moderators therefore have a difficult job to do in firstly deciding whether a message is 'fair comment' or potentially slanderous, and secondly determining the risk of legal action against the club. Obviously the type of comments that have resulted in previous legal action being threatened against the club are also a determining factor.

A number of individuals have suggested or implied that some Morris Minor traders are treated differently to others here but this is not the case. If potentially defamatory remarks are posted steps will be taken to ensure that the trader is not identifiable regardless of who they are and such comments may also be removed. However it is not always possible for the moderators to read every single message within a short time of it being posted so we do to some extent rely on members to bring to our attention any post which is considered to contravene the T&C's. That's what the "report this post" button is there for (the exclamation mark icon at the top of a message box). So Neil, if you could please report the post that you are referring using the "report this post" button it will be readily identifiable to the mods and will be looked at.

LouiseM wrote: Legally, ‘fair comment’ - where, for example, a customer posts an opinion or review and says “I didn’t like that book because ….”, “That product wasn’t very good because….”, “ I prefer this product to that product because…..” etc - will not (in most cases) give a complainant grounds to sue purely because they do not like what someone has said about them or their product. .

The following pics are fair comment on the standard of work by ******* ****

Now being discussed 'on the other side'

I think the question has now moved on from naming and shaming the Co involved - I'm sure we all know by now who they are - and is much more centred on why the MMOC continue to allow this Co to advertise in the Club Magazine! They surely owe it to their Members to gently shun any contact with that Company. Can't see any risk of being sued there! And yes - for any still in doubt - the name of the Company involved is in plain view on the other forum.

i think my real issue is one of paying membership of an organisation that then seems hell bent on it's members not being able to share their experiences as opposed to opinions of a company / service / piece of kit.

if i have bought a vintage car, i clearly have an interest in keeping that car on the road, keeping it safe and keeping it in good order. If i then join a membership organisation that purports to share that view, then i would hope that i could use the expertise and knowledge of that groups members to make sure i keep my car in the best condition i can. It genuinely seems incredible to me that someone saying "i have had a bad experience of x" isn't allowed, although conversely i suspect a glowing report for x would be. That seems to be weighing the benefit on the side of traders not members.

I manage a membership led organisation, and i would hope that we act in the interests of our members, by supporting them, giving them impartial advice and by allowing them to change the things that don't work for them. I am sure the MMOC really believe they are doing right by their members, but this issue seems to creating a lot of controversy, and maybe the MMOC should be seeking input from us about how we can create a forum for honest dialogue rather than insist on a happy clappy model where all their advertisers are good?

RobMoore wrote:Fair point Louise but then again If someone posts images of the shabby work on their minor that includes scrunched up paper being shoved in to pillars and filled over then the firm has absolutely no leg to stand on with regards to complaining about.

frosty wrote:The following pics are fair comment on the standard of work by ******* ****

But who - other than the person that has asked for the particular work to be done, and/or has documentation, invoices etc clearly detailing the work that was carried out - is in a position to know exactly what work was carried out on a car, when and by whom? I can't possibly tell from a photograph who is responsible for the work in question so I'm not sure how others here seem to be able to do so.

As has been said previously, members need to be proactive and forward full details of a complaint to the Club so that the matter can be looked into. Posting photos up on an internet site is not proof of the work that a trader has done but documents such as receipts, invoices, guarantees etc are. Complaining that the Club doesn't do anything, yet not providing the club with any material to do anything with, isn't going to help other members who may find themselves in a similar situation. Legal advice can also often be obtained freely so I don't personally understand why anyone who has maybe spent hundreds or thousands of pounds on allegedly sub standard workmanship wouldn't want to do anything about it. However at the end of the day people are entitled to do whatever they feel is the right thing to do for them.

Ratbag wrote:Now being discussed 'on the other side'

bmcecosse wrote:And yes - for any still in doubt - the name of the Company involved is in plain view on the other forum.

Yes, I see that my trying to explain to members the implications of potentially slanderous or defamatory comments has been described as a 'rant' At the end of the day, if other websites wish to allow potentially defamatory comments to be posted there that is entirely a matter for them. I've removed the link to the thread in question pending advice as whether allowing a link to such potentially defamatory comments is appropriate for this site.

What - not this one :


It took me ages to work out how to do that!

I don't think you 'rant' Louise! Your explanation was very detailed and to the point. I wouldn't have your job for a pension!

The problem is that there are far too many unanswered questions here for anyone to reach an informed opinion as to who is responsible for what. Without knowing exactly what was said by whom and when, what work was carried out by whom and when, and without seeing all of the relevant documents such as invoices, quotes, receipts, guarantees etc there is simply no way of obtaining the full picture. A photo might show that some sub-standard work has been carried out but it can't show who did the work, or when.

When a car is 40 years old or more it's always possible that a number of previous owners may have carried out 'bodges' themselves, or had work carried out on the cheap rather than pay for a proper job to be done. Alternatively all of the sub standard work may have been carried out by the trader concerned. However the problem is that no-one can really know for definate one way or the other purely on the basis of some limited information and photos that have been posted up on an internet forum. This is something that really needs to be resolved between the original poster and the company concerned so that they are given the opportunity to respond to the individual complaints and go through all of the relevant paperwork etc if necessary. It's not something that can be resolved via an internet messageboard.

It is not the first time this companies work has been called to question.

Like others here I've seen comments and insinuations on various internet websites but I can't tell for certain which of these have been made by people who have actually used the services of the company in question and have legitimate complaints and concerns, which have been made by people who have never even used the services of the company in question, which have been made by people who have the best intentions but don't actually know all of the facts, which have been made by people who are simply being malicious or wish to cause trouble etc etc. That's the problem with internet forum comments in situations like this - there is no real way of knowing what is true and what is false if you don't know all of the facts, haven't seen any documentary evidence to support or disprove what is being said and haven't heard both sides of the story.

i have seen a van that waqs restored and after 3 years had to be redone