Back to Forum

Post a Response

New Motor Industry Code for Garages # Posted by Chris Mason on October 22, 2008, 4:11 pm Message modified by board administrator January 19, 2009, 8:42 am As you may be aware, the industry was challenged to develop a new code of practice for garages or face a 'super complaint' - the outcome of which is generally thought to be enforced legislative measures to provide consumer protection. This threat was made in 2005 by the National Consumer Council and still remains, unless we make this new code, which has been developed by the industry, a success. The Code is intended to be easily accommodated by reputable garage businesses, and comes with RAC Compliance Checks and Consumer Advice and Dispute Resolution - so this scheme sets consistent standards and has already gained the first stage in the OFT approval process. For most subscribing garages, it is not intrusive, more an excellent marketing tool, we encourage subscribers to promote their subscription to a Code with teeth. For others it is helping them improve by identifying where problems exist and helping them address them. Whether confirmation of what you already do or an aspiration of what you'd like to be doing, this Code is the one chance we have as an industry to demonstrate to all we are able to do the right thing. Consumers are already using the search facility to find local subscribing garages, they seem to like the fact that a garage has signed up to being honest, transparent and accountable! It would be appreciated if you would have a look with an open mind, it's no more than you'll be doing already if you're a responsible business operator. Your time and support is much appreciated, please don't treat this as spam, it is not, it is an indutry initiative that we need to support and prove that we are able to provide consistent and fair customer service within our sector. Hopefully we can start a good discussion on this forum, I’ll be happy to provide answers to any questions you may have. www.motorindustrycodes.co.uk Many thanks Chris  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: new motor industry code for garages Posted by Graham Bullock on October 22, 2008, 4:39 pm, in reply to "new motor industry code for garages" Graham Bullock So what is the difference between your code and the RMIF code or the MVRA code I already comply with? Who are you? Are you regulated by anybody? What guarantee is there that you will still be here next year after collecting all the fees? Why do you feel that we need another code when there are already quite a few, eventually every garage will be linked to one or the other and the public will be no nearer knowing which garage is better than the other unless they know which code is run better than the other. I gather you can guess I am not convinced. Graham  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: new motor industry code for garages Posted by Dave Harney on October 22, 2008, 5:17 pm, in reply to "new motor industry code for garages" Dave Harney Looks like another money making scheme... Dave  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: new motor industry code for garages Posted by Peter Warman on October 22, 2008, 5:33 pm, in reply to "new motor industry code for garages" Peter Warman - Administrator | Message modified by user Peter Warman October 22, 2008, 5:54 pm Hi Chis I would like to raise a couple of points and maybe follow on from Grahams post 1) We have seen so many schemes come and go down the years but for some reason they never seem to make it to the top of the pile ie: become a recognized scheme with the OFT (industry standard) and most importantly the General Public Bosch Car Service Unipart Car Care Centres Forte Good Garage Schemes Kite Mark One of the reasons that many Independents join these schemes is because they give them a bit of credibility with the motoring public as they do recognize the names and logos. Also some schemes such as the Forte Good Garage Scheme have cracked it as far as marketing goes with newspaper ads, radio, high visibility signs for workshops plus a slick website that potential customers can view feedback from other customers How does the Motor Industry Codes intend to get the message across to OUR CUSTOMERS, for us this is the most important factor, if the motoring public is not fully aware (become a household name such as "Corgi" ) then we may as well stick with our current schemes 2) I notice on your list of garages that there is nearly every dealership in the country plus a few Independents (at the moment). How does the Motor Industry Codes stand on "the Right to Repair campaign". If Block Exemption if phased out in 2010 this will give the Franchise Dealers an unfair advantage. Independents will not be able to carryout tasks without adequate technical information. Will this not compromise your schemes "RAC Inspections" if we do not have access to information to complete a repair (end up sending to dealer) such as safety and security systems, which according to Bosch will proliferate over the next 10 years Peter  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: new motor industry code for garages Posted by simon dean on October 23, 2008, 9:09 am, in reply to "Re: new motor industry code for garages" Simon Dean Dave Didnt realise it was so unfair on the MEMBER for arbitration. Isn't arbitration about both parties having an opinion/view on the situation/complaint. Costs should be equal for any arbitration. Also as independents we are disadvantged by technical information being lets face it very poor and the holding back of security issues STOPS us from offering a service to our customers. Also the complexity of modern vehicles leaves us open to all sorts of complaints from customers about issues with their vehicles which in many instances are nothing to do with your service or repair you have done(we have all been there). A scheme has to have our interests at heart and should actively be involved with the right to repair campaign. simon  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: new motor industry code for garages Posted by Peter Warman on October 23, 2008, 10:15 am, in reply to "Re: new motor industry code for garages" Peter Warman - Administrator Hi Chris Just one further point If you read further down this forum there is a thread about a Mercedes dealer that contacted a customer after an Independent garage gave over a registration number to purchase parts, the dealer in my opinion was trying to undermine the Independent garage and get the customer back to the dealer. Will your new code stamp out this unfair practice?.....will they get a written warning? Will the Motor Industry Codes produce leaflets for Independents that they can hand out to customers stating that they can have their vehicle serviced by Independent garages without affecting warranties I know this new code is to protect customers interests, but it must also protect the Independents interest as well.......level playing field so to speak Peter  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: new motor industry code for garages Posted by Dave Harney on October 23, 2008, 11:49 am, in reply to "Re: new motor industry code for garages" Dave Harney Customer complaint scenario... Lets say you are a member of this scheme and you have a customer who is unhappy with there £300 bill for whatever reason ! and we all know there are some people out there that no matter how hard you try you will never please. So, the customer asks for it to go through the Conciliation process - £175 + vat, it still doesn't get sorted so they ask for it to go to Arbitration £440 + vat So far it has cost "us" the subscriber £615 + vat where potentially we don't have a say in whether it goes to conciliation or arbitration apart from giving in, in the first place which would obviously be cheaper !!! And thats after paying paying £355 for the first 24 months membership. Don't think I'll be rushing to sign up, ta very much. Regards Dave  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: new motor industry code for garages Posted by Keith Simpson on October 23, 2008, 11:56 am, in reply to "Re: new motor industry code for garages" Keith Simpson This in my opinion is just another money making scheme that adds to customer confusion. But this one seems very unfair on the independent and dealer garages also. We all know how some customers tend to try it on, saying that dent in my car wasn't there when I brought it in etc etc. If went to arbitration an £800 body repair bill would cost the customer £60 and the garage paint & materials labour and £440 on top of that, sounds like a bomb waiting to go off if you ask me. Keith  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: new motor industry code for garages Posted by Paul Foster on October 23, 2008, 2:05 pm, in reply to "Re: new motor industry code for garages" Paul Foster | Message modified by user UKAT2680 October 23, 2008, 2:09 pm I wonder if this organisation works from the same bulding as the Performing Rights Secret Police! While I agree that the motor repair industry is crying out for regulation (similar to CORGI for plumbers; FENCA for builders, etc) I'm afraid that I too have my doubts: It seems to me that it's another excuse to charge more money for not very much. The whole set-up seems to be geared towards giving customers (genuine or not) a big stick with which to beat us. If an independant garage disagrees with a customer's claim and gives their reasons, will the representative of this organisation even understand the explanation? With the additional fees involved it would be in their interests NOT to understand so the complaint goes to the next level. Why can't this new organisation affilliate with the MVRA or even the Guild of Master Craftsmen and use a code of practice already in existance? I feel that this is yet another department staffed by people with, at best, a vague idea of the real world of motor vehicle repairs. I continue to wach with interest. Paul.  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: new motor industry code for garages Posted by Mark Carter on October 23, 2008, 7:44 pm, in reply to "Re: new motor industry code for garages" Mark Carter | Message modified by user UKAT1428 October 23, 2008, 7:45 pm Hi all, I could not agree more, I already belong to various bodies/organisations in connection with the motor trade IE; IMI, IIM, ETC, I am a "ATA" registered tech and I run a BCS(which I believe is the only "scheme" to gain stage TWO approval with the OFT!!) All of the above cost me money in one way or another which comes off the bottom line of my business each year, how many more schemes do I have to join to prove that I know what I am doing and that I do it to a good standard??? Regards Mark.  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: new motor industry code for garages Posted by Tom Williams on October 23, 2008, 7:59 pm, in reply to "Re: new motor industry code for garages" Tom Williams Hi, Like many others my garage has been a member of the RMI (which was the MAA when we joined)and the MVRA. I've just clocked up my 33rd year as an IMI member. I'm ATA registered and as a Bosch car service garage we are OFT approved. I firmly believe almost none of our customers care much one way or another whether we have memberships of trade bodies or any other form of accreditation. They care most about cost,job completion when promised and quality of work, more or less in that order. We cancelled memberships of the RMI and the MVRA when they became prohibitively expensive for what we received in return, much as our customers will if we don't offer value for money.  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: new motor industry code for garages Posted by Chris Mason on October 24, 2008, 9:36 am, in reply to "new motor industry code for garages" Chris Mason - Motor Ind Codes Thanks all for your replies. I thought I'd let a few come back and provide one response, which I will do over the weekend. Thanks again for your feedback and taking the time to offer your views - much appreciated.  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: new motor industry code for garages Posted by Mark Lamont on October 24, 2008, 10:11 pm, in reply to "Re: new motor industry code for garages" Mark Lamont I agree with you Tom, I have been in the motor trade for 26 years and would love to see some sort of regulation, but government intervention is the only way ahead. Not sure yet if this is good or bad. I thought ATA may be the way forward with backing from the IMI and promised myself I would become accredited when one of my customers mentioned ATA. I am still waiting  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: new motor industry code for garages Posted by Chris Mason on October 25, 2008, 7:47 pm, in reply to "new motor industry code for garages" Chris Mason - Motor Ind Codes Hi all, and again thanks for taking time to feedback your comments regarding the new code. I'll try and answer your points as follows, but please be assured that this code is genuine and has been developed with the interests of the entire sector and its consumers. There were a couple of 'who are you' and 'what qualifies you' type comments. I'm a Jaguar and Toyota trained technician, beginning my career within the industry in 1985, also ran my own small garage business for 8 years before moving into this role in 2000. So I am not someone who claims to know the industry, i do because i've worked in most parts of it! I am now a director of Motor Codes Ltd, a subsidiary of SMMT, i wrote and implemented the new car code in 2002 and that's the reason we were asked to head up the development of the service and repair code. your points: Dave - we need this code as it has been alleged that others haven't delivered consistently. Some are very good but have a restricted coverage, others aren't so good but have a large coverage. Ultimately, we as an industry need to acknowledge that we need to get ourselves aligned and organised in providing garages with a consistent set of minimum standards, applied for their best interests and those of their customers. Least because the NCC threatened supercomplaint is still there. There also has to be a single complaint mechanism attached to this to enable a standard and consistent approach to dealing with: 1. Genuine disputes and enquiries 2. The ever increasing over expectation of some customers As we know, and has been demonstrated through the feedback on this forum, we all have a view on this matter - we don't need it, bring on legislation, not your business, already doing it, can't be bothered, money making scam etc etc I think the goal is to finally have a centralised approach to setting minimum standards for garages and having a route through which customers can gain advice and progress a genuine complaint. Once we pass this initial stage and accept this very accommodating method of setting a single standard, you can all get on with what you actually go to work for every day and for most to minimal disruption to their operation. Dave - Money making scheme. As you will know if you have been involved in other similar schemes this is actually very cost effective. One of the must haves when we began creating it was that cost must not be a barrier to entry, and that's what i believe we have delivered. An annual subscription scheme that costs less than £100 to join. The rest of the costs are in line with the requirements of self regulation. We have to send inspectors out within an agreed timescale to make sure subscribers are who they claim to be, doing what they claim to be able to and to an acceptable standard. In addition to this we have to have conciliation and arbitration, and these have to be operated appropriately to maintain the integrity of the scheme and its subscribers. Basic principles apply here, the less complaint a subscriber is the more they will pay in terms of conciliation and arbitration, equally those that are operating responsibly, don't incur additional costs. Not a money making exercise, believe me, if it were i'd be out on my ear for being very bad at it! Simon - costs unfair, specifically arbitration. We have retained the best arbitration service we could find to ensure that if a complaint gets to that stage it will be conducted in a fair and responsible fashion. Remember arbitration is the last stage in the dispute resolution process and the outcome is legally binding on all parties. In comparison to small claims court costs and legal fees etc, arbitration is a very cost effective method of closing a complaint off. It isn't something that will actually be used very often, remember there are various steps along the way. First step, consumer advice line - a call will only escalate beyond advice if there is cause to suspect a breach of the code, therefore managing the vexatious customers to which you have all referred. Currently only 1 in every 12 calls to the advice line is escalated to conciliation, our team of advisors are selected through previous industry connections, jobs etc and undergo ongoing training - so we do know what the problems are about and are well placed to deal with them. If a call goes to conciliation then a resolution will be sought, generally speaking the complaints are addressed at this stage and we all learn from it and move on. Only as a last resort will the case go beyond conciliation, to date we haven't had any go to arbitration as the issues have all been dealt with through the advisory service and conciliation. I realise it's a change to the way things have always been, but that's what we need to do, as that's why the responsible businesses always get dragged down with the dis-honest - because there is no one identified method of differentiation. Again, if we don't do it, legislation will come -i know some say bring it on, but my feeling is if it does come all these things will be much more costly, much less accommodating and definitely more burdensome. At which point those that were saying 'bring it on' will be saying 'why didn't you do something about this sooner'. Our chance will then be gone. R2RC isn't something i want to try and cover here, the code can't promote individual initiatives and the relinquishing of the service tie is already covered specifically in the new car code. Peter - marketing. We're promoting through the advisory services at the moment to generate awareness to customers where they need it most to begin, so trading standards, CAB, consumer direct, which? and so on. Similarly we are pushing awareness through the key consumer, motoring and lifestyle magazines and their online equivalents. We are also working on various methods of direct marketing that will become more prevalent as we progress, can't say too much for obvious reasons but be assured the promotion of the code to the public and specifically motorists when they most need to know about it is the priority. The large part of the 4,000plus subscribers today are from the franchised sector. They have been engaged in this process for a long time as they were made to commit to it early on by government when the supercomplaint was first threatened, along with some of the high street chains. Now our focus is on the, what 20,000?, independent operators. A long term process for sure and that's what we're doing here, looking to engage and discuss to raise awareness and change perceptions. Peter - level playing field. A level playing field is where we are at in establishing a minimum standard for garages, independent or franchised. So again r2rc isn't for this discussion as if we were to promote it through the code i'd be accused of preferentially treating the independent sector! consistent approach is what we need to concentrate on in implementing the code. Dave/Keith - complaint scenarios. I hope i've explained the process above but again i take the point and can only reiterate that we do have many years experience dealing with these types of disputes and we do know what we are talking about and what to expect and how to deal with it. It isn't an opportunity to make money, the OFT monitoring our performance wouldn't allow that even if it were our plan! The intentions are good, we are doing this because we've been asked to, because we want to demonstrate that as an industry we can. We aren't doing this because we saw a commercial opportunity to exploit. This is an industry initiative and we will prove over the months and years that we have developed a scheme on solid foundations that will actually be of benefit to all. Paul - same points as above really. We do know what we're doing, we have years of industry experience as we are industry people just like you - and we're not looking at a cash generating exercise - far from it, we've been involved in the development of this for over 3 years now, at no cost to anyone, as part of our commitment to doing the right thing. Mark We are looking to provide this 'one industry standard' to address this very point, we do need volume and coverage to do this though. Tom/Mark I take both your points and we do need to provide clarity for business operators like you who will always involve yourselves and do the right thing. We continue to work with industry, government, consumer lobby etc etc in achieving this goal. Sorry some points are a little brief, but i hope i've managed to provide you with some relevant feedback. I wish i had more time to commit to these forums! I'll happily continue the dialogue and hope i can begin to gain your trust in as much as what we are looking to achieve is genuine and we are looking to get it right in delivering something that is acceptable to the industry, government, oft, ncc, and anyone else who may care to have an opinion. But as we know the motor industry is just like football - everyone has an opinion and could always do better than their team!! all the best chris  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: new motor industry code for garages Posted by Mark Carter on October 25, 2008, 9:12 pm, in reply to "Re: new motor industry code for garages" Mark Carter | Message modified by user UKAT1428 October 25, 2008, 9:14 pm Hi Chris, you answer to my post was the following; "We are looking to provide this 'one industry standard' to address this very point, we do need volume and coverage to do this though." I understand where you are coming from but the problem for me is that all the other schemes were also sold from the same soap box. You state that you need "volume & coverage" for it to work, is this why you gave all the big networks and main dealers a discount? If we become the "UKAT network" will we get the same deal? If you are trying to get it "right" why not use some the system that is already out there? The "ATA" scheme looks good for technical competence and the Bosch scheme already has "stage two" OFT approval does yours? Your post talks of one standard for all does this mean that if I join your club that I can cancel all the others? Regards Mark. PS thanks for replying  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: new motor industry code for garages Posted by Graham Bullock on October 25, 2008, 9:36 pm, in reply to "new motor industry code for garages" Graham Bullock Thanks for your reply Chris. FSA = "The Financial Services Authority is the main City regulator whose job is to protect investor's' interests." We are having the largest financial scandal in history because the FSA did not stand up, keep its finger on the pulse and regulate as it should have done. I would suggest that if you stood up and properly regulated the motor trade then over half of the garages in the country would not comply and would cease trading (that's IF legislation was brought in). Now to be honest, this is what should happen, but I very much doubt that you will loose the chance of income and you will be just like the RMIF and MVRA etc etc and want increasing membership. Can you please tell us exactly what is the criteria for being accepted or indeed being refused entry to the code? As I see it, if the Trading Standards Officials had got off their backsides and done something about the rouges out there in the first place then I doubt there would be the threat of a super complaint and hence no need for codes of any description. The same could be said regarding planning departments who turn a blind eye to fred in his shed, who then undercuts others due to his lower overheads, and has not registered with the environment agency for waste disposal - but they don't police that either. It just goes on and on and on. Nobody appears to do anything unless there is a fine or fee involved. I am told I can't play a radio without paying a fee. On TV the other night was a bloke who had been fined £300 for taking his empty sandwich bags home with him as it was classed as trade waste. So you have to ask yourself "Why in this country can anybody become a motor mechanic overnight and get away with it". If all motor factors and trade associations put their money where their mouth is and refused to supply anybody who has not been vetted and proved to be legitimate this would stop an awful lot of the problems, but again - what makes them legitimate? Is it Skills - past or present, equipment - old or modern, fancy glass premises or what? Graham  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: new motor industry code for garages Posted by simon dean on October 25, 2008, 10:28 pm, in reply to "Re: new motor industry code for garages" Simon Dean Thanks for the reply chris My reply was specific to daves post and i havent really looked at your code.However as a responsible garage business i do wish to promote my business to the general public and have thought about joining an organisation that also promotes my views on standards of service/customer perceptions/quality of repairs both in workmanship and products used etc. My problem is I AM CONFUSED by how many organisations are promoting the industry standard etc so it makes me wonder how are the general public going to fathom it out?? Do you vet my business before i join?? Do you look at my investment in training and equipment purchased before i join? Or can i just join with no survey of how competent my business is? After all if anyone can join and you vet them after then there are in my opinion some fundamental flaws in that from a long term point of view. I am at this very moment expanding my business to new premises so we have the correct image which i believe we need for our future.Our training and equipment purchases are constantly on the go throughout each year.We are computerised for invoicing with full description of charges and parts and we are transparent to our customers at all times. The jobs hard due to modern technologies and the limits put on us in terms of tech info and software for our diag equipment yet we are succesful based on the service we offer. My point is will joining any organisation improve my position and ultimatly bring more business?My thoughts are i dont know i am not sure! You have picked this site to generate interest which has responsible operators so you need to continue dialogue and create more confidence. Regards Simon  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: new motor industry code for garages Posted by Shaun Dale on October 26, 2008, 10:02 pm, in reply to "Re: new motor industry code for garages" Shaun Dale I have over 30 years experience in electronics (it's my only career). I chose to move from industrial electronics to auto-electrical repairs and diagnostics 5 years ago (God only knows why). Although I have only been fulltime in the industry for 5 years I am a lifelong petrol-head and have done part time auto-electrical work for my whole career. I try to maintain the highest standards in my business both technically and ethically. My point is this, how many people would be qualified to judge my work if they came to inspect me, I would probably have to give most of them a technical dictionary so they knew what I was talking about. I do feel we need some sort of accreditation body but we seem to be getting a plethora of organisations fighting to be top dog, it's not exactly the way to present a united front to the general public in my opinion. Shaun  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: new motor industry code for garages Posted by chris mason on October 27, 2008, 9:52 pm, in reply to "new motor industry code for garages" Chris Mason - Motor Ind Codes Evening all, thanks for the posts - once again I'll cover them one by one: Mark - no soap box, we do need coverage but I don't know why you think any discounts have been given. Not true, one subscription price for all, £75. I'll happily set up a subscription for UKAT network if you wish but you'll pay the same as a large VM network or a single sole trader. The regulators, consumer lobby and government required us to produce a new code 'for the entire sector' which is something that doesn't currently exist. ATA is excellent for the individual and the Bosch code is excellent for the Bosch network etc. We continue to work on these difficult matters with the associations and the sector but there is no definitive answer at this stage. Graham - many relevant points but I must clarify again that this is not a revenue generating exercise. The business needs to sustain and as we go forward we will review and reinvest as we see fit but believe me it is no a cashcow. Subscriptions are set and there is no intention to increase them or any other associated fee. Remember that this is self regulation, we take the subscriber on a self certification basis; who are you, what are you, what do you do and what do you have. This covers the basics, business premises, insurance, planning permission etc. We then check that is correct through the welcome visit (which is free of charge) and the ongoing compliance checks. Also, with the advice line (freephone) and the conciliation service and customer surveys (freepost) we get to find out pretty quickly who is able and who isn't. Then those that can't or won't raise their game are expelled creating a separation of those that can and will and those that can't or won't. Trading Standards are already involved in the process as will be the OFT, so ultimately, and this is my coverage point - we create an environment that you are talking about in your second para. Good guys in business and the bad out of business, as the customer will drive this once we get the coverage. I agree with you, it's been going on for too long - so lets get it sorted out by doing the right thing. Where it's not right, we'll work on it as we progress and get it right. That's the beauty of self regulation - we get to work it out and are monitored in operatin by the OFT who set the rules and approve it. Simon - I think your points are similar to Grahams above. You need to consider this as a different approach, self regulation is about inclusion for those that can and will and exclusion for those that can't or won't. Sounds to me like if you look at the Code requirements, for you it will be a case of confirmation of what you are already doing, but within that reassuring your customers and potential customers that you are bound by a code and should anything go wrong (infrequently as that may be), you have made provision for them to get advice and a swift resolution should it get that far. And you can't say fairer than that. Additionally the code will gain full oft approval status during 2009 (we currently have the first stage and are now going through the process of providing the OFT with operational evidence as is the requirement of their approval process), at which point all subscribers will be able to use the OFT approved code logo and refer to such in their marketing etc. I think it will provide you with value from the start, and as we build the brand and the various other initiatives it will only become more so. Shaun - in brief, the RAC Inspection Services are well qualified for the purposes of the code evaluation. Agree with point about united front, thats why I'm here! Cheers again, good to have the discussion and I hope this feedback is of some use. Apologies for brevity, none other than usual reasons i'm afraid... All the best Chris  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: new motor industry code for garages Posted by Peter Warman on November 17, 2008, 4:29 pm, in reply to "Re: new motor industry code for garages" Peter Warman - Administrator Hi Chris Reading in the November 14th AM magazine there is an article "OFT praise for Bosch Car Service Bosch car service has been praised by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) on the success of its approved code of practice In its annual review of the code, the OFT said that it was satisfied that the Bosch Car Service programme was continuing to deliver consumer benefits and meet the obligations of an approved code sponsor The programme is clearly working hard to promote high standards and it was noted that Bosch is unwilling to compromise on standards" With such high praise for BCS by the OFT and already a household name, i would not understand why any BCS would want to sign up to an Additional Scheme with more expence when they already meet every criteria BCS met full approval on July 2007 Peter  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: new motor industry code for garages Posted by Mark Carter on November 17, 2008, 5:39 pm, in reply to "Re: new motor industry code for garages" Mark Carter Hi Peter. My point totally. Please see my post of the 23th October. Since the Bosch scheme works why not approach them and buy into it apposed to setting up another one yet again. Regards Mark.  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: new motor industry code for garages Posted by chris on November 26, 2008, 4:27 pm, in reply to "Re: new motor industry code for garages" Chris Mason - Motor Ind Codes Peter/Mark Sorry for lack of response no time to check your posts of late. Bosch scheme is very good and has been OFT approved for some time, it's restricted to the Bosch network though and therefore has a limited coverage and access. Again, I come back to the requirement of the NCC when threatening the super complaint 'creation of a new, industry wide scheme'. That's what they need in order to address the consumer detriment matter and provide minimum standards of operation and a consistent approach to customer service. It's one of those questions I'm afraid, but I hope that helps. Chris  Post a Response ( * ) Required

New code consumer video Posted by Peter Warman on November 30, 2008, 2:18 pm, in reply to "Re: new motor industry code for garages" Peter Warman - Administrator New Motor Industry Code of Practice consumer video Play consumer video Motor Industry Code of Practice Blog  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: New code consumer video Posted by Tony Sefton on November 30, 2008, 5:06 pm, in reply to "New code consumer video" Tony Sefton How can they Regulate Main Dealers that take vehicles in, Charge the customer £600 to fit parts that may or may not have been required, Then tell the customer that they have 2 choices, Pay the £600 and tow the vehicle away or fit more parts at a further £1000 which may or may not cure the Vehicle. ?? ( on a vehicle that is worth about £1500 ) Fair enough, A lot of this Problem has been brought on by the Car Manufacturers themselves, by them making components one time programmable, ( Which is ridiculous and purely a profit making scam ) BUT:- The Situation has got so bad that The Manufacturers themselves ( i,e a certain French Company ) Will not pay for Diagnostic time on vehicles that are still under warranty, ( As they don't like it when the boot is on the other foot and they get the bill for fixing the crap that they turn out ) The Customer has to pay the Diagnostic time to find out if the fault is covered and still has to pay even if it is. Who Says what parts can or cannot be tested fully without substitution. ?? And if the Dealer cannot test the component, should the resposibility be put onto the customer to make the decission to fit the parts or not. ?? It's OK paying Top Whack Prices to get the So Called Professionals to look at your vehicle, but when they then charge Ridiculous amounts of money to NOT Diagnose the problem, what can the customer do then. ?? I cannot see how Any Person sat behind a desk can know what problems the Garage has come across when working on a vehicle, or how much the job could or should have cost. I had a Customer ring me last week with An S Type Jag with an ABS fault and he wanted me to diagnose the fault as the Dealers said that they couldn't. And they wanted to fit an ABS ecu at around £800 to see if it cured the problem, ( But couldn't remove it if it didn't ) I said if the Dealers cannot diagnose the Fault or substitute a new or used part to prove whether it does actually cure the job then what chance have i got. ?? ( i was thinking the worst with CAN faults etc and not having something to plug in ). I think theres more to this Regulation job than just being part of a body, Something needs to be done to protect the customer And the garages, But No one is yet big enough to stand up the the Manufacturers and tell them what they should or shouldn't do. We know that the Dealers would condemn 3 or 4 parts rather than spending time checking the vehicle out properly as they cannot afford to waste time in their type of enviroment. But this usually ends up with the customer footing a £1500 + bill. Is this practice Good enough. ?? I have had Customers in that have taken Vehicles to the Main Dealers, Left them there for 3 weeks and had Estimates for £1800 upwards to fix an immobiliser fault that turned out to be a 15 minute job locating and repairing a broken wire that was easily found. ?? Will the OFT or whoever the body is look into these sort of problems. ?? I Doubt it very much. I dont ask any customer to bring their cars to me, I just try my best to fix them at a reasonable price if they do, I have very few complaints other than the odd airbag light that keeps popping back on etc, and Traders wanting everything fixing for £20.00 or less, So should I be forced into spending money joining a scheme that will end up being another cost that will be passed onto the customer. ? Like the P.R.S. and any other idiot schemes that some Brainstorm comes up with. ?? Tony.  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: New code consumer video Posted by john weddup on November 30, 2008, 5:17 pm, in reply to "Re: New code consumer video" John Weddup Well said Tony Agree 100% Regards John  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: New code consumer video Posted by ROGER JORDAN on November 30, 2008, 8:07 pm, in reply to "Re: New code consumer video" Roger Jordan As always Tony, another excellent post hitting the nail firmly on the head. I do think the dealership gin palaces image often makes the customer assume they really are the experts rather than a highly skilled independent working out of more modest permises, a real case of style over substance, an all too regular occurance today in all walks of life. But who pays for the gin palaces ? There is another single word for style over substance but I will leave that to others. Best regards Roger.  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: New code consumer video Posted by Paul Foster on December 2, 2008, 11:28 am, in reply to "Re: New code consumer video" Paul Foster | Message modified by user UKAT2680 December 2, 2008, 11:31 am Well done Tony for putting so eloquently the feelings of probably every independant technician/garage in the country! We all know about this practice of the dealers to fit any part associated with the suspect system, not fix the fault and then tell the poor, unsuspecting customer that the replaced parts were faulty anyway! The customer is not generally qualified to argue the point so has to pay up. Perhaps this is the kind of situation that has led to the threat of the 'super complaint' by the OFT in the first place. A survey by Which Magazine found that people got better and more ethical service from independants so maybe the dealers are the ones who need a decent code of practice, rather than us! I'm still of the opinion that this new code of practice is no more effective than many of the other volutary schemes on offer. I suspect that the government will still end up instituting some kind of legislation for the motor trade. Maybe that would be a good thing! Just my thoughts.  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: New code consumer video Posted by Tom Williams on December 2, 2008, 1:25 pm, in reply to "Re: New code consumer video" Tom Williams The problem is the customer. A large proportion of the population seem to have their brains hard-wired to prefer style to substance. Whether this personality trait is actually with us when we are born, or gradually assimilated as we grow up, I don't know. tw  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: New code consumer video Posted by Peter Warman on December 2, 2008, 1:51 pm, in reply to "Re: New code consumer video" Peter Warman - Administrator | Message modified by user Peter Warman December 2, 2008, 1:57 pm Good post Tony I think the next few years will be very interesting, how things can change in just a few years A short while ago there was panic in the Motor Trade as there was going to be a shortage of Technicians to fill the dealers requirements, now many dealers are shutting and qualified technicians joining the Dole queue Is this the end of the glass palaces for dealers, car sales and workshops lumped together and costing a fortune for overheads, more reliable cars and longer service intervals forcing up labour rates to generate extra revenue, no wonder we here the rip off stories you describe.....they are desperate to make a profit and stay viable, it will be their undoing in the end We may see smaller dealerships possibly owned by the manufacturers and repair workshops moved to Industrial sites to units that are not so expensive (less overheads) to help reduce labour costs, this may also lead to more manufacturer approved Independents as OE diagnostic equipment becomes cheaper and more available We may also see the manufacturers open seperate parts outlets such as TPS (VW), seperating the parts supply and distribution from the sales and workshops....Motor Factors watch out Interesting times ahead.....about time the Independents got the upper hand Peter PS: How many manufacturer brand names will not be around by the end of 2009?........dont bother updating your Chrysler, Volvo and Saab pods just yet  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: New code consumer video Posted by chris mason on December 8, 2008, 3:38 pm, in reply to "Re: New code consumer video" Chris Mason - Motor Ind Codes Hi all Again thanks for taking the time. My message and advice is simple. Things have to change, we have been told this by the Government - the only decision to make is how do you want your change? Through the new code, where we retain the ability to create, shape and be a part of what it becomes. Or Ignore what we are being told, say we don't need it, and wait for the government to take away our ability to self regulate? I reckon, those that are saying bring on the mandatory licensing regime now, will be the first to ask why we didn't do anything about this sooner if it becomes a reality. Clearly this is an emotive subject and everyone has an opinion - i really welcome the debate, but at some point we have to take the required action. This isn't about franchised, independent, need it, don't need it. It's about acknowledging that you can be a part of creating a lasting change - yes you've seen it all before, but this time it is the last time. That's why it is so important you sign up, you can then continue to have an opinion and an input into how it works - you won't get that if the Government decide to legislate for a mandatory licensing regime. All the best Chris  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: New code consumer video Posted by Dave Harney on December 8, 2008, 4:12 pm, in reply to "Re: New code consumer video" Dave Harney Hi Chris, If it's so important that we all sign up, why not start it off with a £10 joining fee (or no fee at all !), I reckon you will get a lot more members far more quickly. We can then judge for ourselves from the "inside" whether our voices are being heard or if we are just gonna be dictated to and bent over and have our pockets rifled, as there's far too much of that in this trade already. Regards Dave  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: New code consumer video Posted by chris mason on December 10, 2008, 5:11 pm, in reply to "Re: New code consumer video" Chris Mason - Motor Ind Codes Hi Dave Nice idea, but we have made this operation as lean as possible to get costs as cheap as possible. There is no intention to dictate or increase on costs - just provide what is required to address a problem that the government have given us one last chance to resolve. Again, this is no hard sell, here's a solution that is acceptable to the government, regulators, consumer lobby and increasingly the sector itself. It's now up to the garage operators that haven't yet signed up. Over to you Cheers Chris  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: New code consumer video Posted by Graham Bullock on December 10, 2008, 5:31 pm, in reply to "Re: New code consumer video" Graham Bullock Quote "Again, this is no hard sell, here's a solution that is acceptable to the government, regulators, consumer lobby and increasingly the sector itself. It's now up to the garage operators that haven't yet signed up". What exactly has been agreed as acceptable to the government? Will 50% of garages signing up do? or does every garage have to sign up or face enforced legislation? What if 90% sign up, will the other 10% be forced to sign up or stop work? I am sorry but I just can't see you getting everybody to put there hand in their pocket at times like these and I do not think government will be in a position to force yet more people onto the unemployment list because they wont sign up. Graham  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: New code consumer video Posted by Phil Dunmore on December 10, 2008, 7:57 pm, in reply to "Re: New code consumer video" Philip Dunmore Well said Graham. Whatever threats the government may have made, they will take a very long time to carry them out. A compulsary scheme is the only one that eveyone will join. Any scheme will have a long slow introduction and be full of holes. How will the electorate respond if a government prevents them having their vehicle repaired. No scheme will eliminate cowboys from any trade, at he end of the day they just don't care. Bad garages will just close and reopen under a new name when they are eventually policed out. Shouldn't the consumers take some of the responsibility for using business that have a poor image, usually a cost based desicion. Consumers who use one independant garage regularly and have their cars well maintained rarely have cause for complaint. Consumer confidence is provided by professional attitude, tidy premises and most of all good reputation. Not a sign over the door that has been bought.  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: New code consumer video Posted by john white on December 11, 2008, 3:43 pm, in reply to "Re: New code consumer video" Tony White great post phil! totally agree,expecially last 2 comments. i'dont belong to any organisations,i've been trading 18 yrs,usually booked up 1 week in advance.still picking up new customers,by word of mouth or people feed up with main dealers. i believe having a sign above my door saying "i'm in some authorised body" would not make any difference.they prob' wouldn't even notice it!! john.  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: New code consumer video Posted by Paul Foster on December 12, 2008, 5:35 pm, in reply to "Re: New code consumer video" Paul Foster | Message modified by user UKAT2680 December 12, 2008, 5:36 pm Well this is the problem isn't it? As mentioned in previous posts and many times before on this and many other furums - Just because a garage has a multi-million pound (i.e. a dealership) workshop/reception doesn't mean it's reputable or treats it's customer with fairness and integrity. On the other hand - A'Fred the Shed' back street workshop can give excellent, honest service and value for money without pretty tiled workshop floors, coffee vending machines and a failed hairdresser doing her nails in reception. As I posted before - I suspect a lot of the complaints recieved are generated by disgruntled dealership customers and those that have been the victims of 'over eager' fast-fit outlets ("Can I just point this out sir?"). Other consumer research shows that customers of independant garages are broadly satisfied with the treatment they recieve. The same cannot be said for the Main Dealers. Just my two pennies worth. Paul.  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: New code consumer video Posted by Colin Calder on December 17, 2008, 10:06 pm, in reply to "Re: New code consumer video" Colin Calder | Message modified by user UKAT5444 December 18, 2008, 6:05 pm I agree with Paul Foster and also with many of the other posters. I have been in the trade all my working life in one form or another. I was a marine engineer for seven years or so and since then have worked on all types of vehicles from plant and trucks to motorcycles and cars etc: and have been running my own small independant repair shop for the last twenty five years, where, I often take on jobs that other garages can't do even though their techs: have ATA etc: or they are members of one federation or another. Also some of the cars that I see that have been 'serviced' by main dealers are in a terrible state and yet the service books have been stamped and the customer has been well and truly charged for the privelege. Don't get me wrong I'm all for good training and for constant improvement within the industry (which incidently is probably one of the most important industries in the WORLD, just think what would happen if ALL the mechanics stayed home. No trains or planes or cars or trucks or buses etc: etc . In all the years that I have been in the industry there have nearly always been these problems and discussions as to qualification and regulation and kerbside repairs etc: but you will NEVER stop it until it becomes illegal for any 'non qualified' person to carry out repairs for anybody except themselves and they will have to realise that even if they carry out repairs to their 'own vehicle' that they would be liable in the event of any accident etc: that might result. A good analogy here would be a gas engineer or a plumber who maybe very competent but not CORGI registered, he could fit a new boiler in his house and it may work perfectly and be perfectly safe but if he works on a boiler in somebodys house then he is actually breaking the law. This also seems to be the case in most other professions, doctors, dentists, nurses, lawyers etc: etc: Most of these people will have had to have trained and reached a set standard which is regulated by their governing bodies and controlled within the law and RECOGNISED BY THE PUBLIC. I would bet that the woman in the video who did'nt know what was under the bonnet also does'nt know what's inside her body bits or inside her gas boiler or even inside her washing machine but she will go to her doctor or call her corgi engineer or her domestic appliance engineer without a second thought and will she expect or get a transparent transaction or a fixed quote beforehand, I don't think so, do you? So, what is the way forward? I think that there must be a set structure within the whole industry as there is within the aviation industry ( if you want to fly that jumbo jet then you first have to learn to fly and how the plane is constructed and your training and progress will be mapped out for you right through from when you start until you finally sit at those controls inside that jumbo ), that there must be one main governing body and that any seperate industry associations or institutes etc: will be under the umbrella of that body and not have different agendas. Previous good qualifications like City and Guilds etc: should be recognised which at present does not seem to be the case as I notice that employers are demanding that prospective employees have to have an NVQ and do not seem to recognise previously high level qualifications. One of the other most important things that has to happen is that our status has to be recognised, as it is in Germany ( no more dirty handrag syndrome ). We are engineers just like 'heating engineers' or 'domestic appliance engineers' or 'heating and ventilation engineers' or 'building maintenance engineers' etc: etc: etc: Thinking back we were almost there years ago when we had apprentiships and the good old C&G parts one and two and three and the option to then diversify towards ones chosen field be it bodywork or electrical or mechanical or insurance claims or plant or heavy vehicles and to then go on to gain IMI or IRTE or IPLANTE etc. The thing was that everybody had to learn the basics before they could move on so that even if their career changed direction completely they could still tighten a wheel nut and understood how a vehicle is constructed and how all the bits were relevant to each other and how they work. A couple of classic examples of the problems in our industry are that some, (not all) MOT testers only know how to test the vehicle but don't really understand how it works ( should this wheel bearing have this much play (excess movement) in it? Should this handbrake lever pull up this far (insufficient reserve travel) on this vehicle? I could go on but I won't and when I was teaching and all the colleges were being closed down twenty odd years ago and I stood on the stage at some seminar or other and stated that we would lose our way and that our industry would suffer, everybody slated me and said that in the future all the vehicles would be computerised and that you would only need a computer engineer in a suit to plug in and diagnose the problems and that we would no longer need 'mechanics' only fitters! I was dismayed. To a certain extent they were right as we can now see with the increasing use of computer controls, but it's not the man in the suit (he's probably a transport manager that can't change a wheel and who spends all day routing vehicles) that's having to deal with the computer systems or the seized up power steering or the electronic dashboard that's causing the problem it's the mechanics (VEHICLE ENGINEERS). At a school careers evening years ago I actually heard a schools careers teacher say " if you can't get into any of the decent jobs you want, you could always be a mechanic" and therein lies the problem. Perception ( dirty handrag syndrome again). Hope this is not seen by anybody as sour grapes but I do often wish that I had chosen to be a bricklayer, at least I could have chucked ALL of my tools into a bucket and earned a grand a week and would not need premises. Oh, why is it that if you work in an office that you don't have to supply all your own tools? desk, computer, printer, copier, stapler etc: and yet VEHICLE ENGINEERS are expected to supply their own? Anyway have to go now as somebody is SCREAMING about their car( what is it about the car and screaming?) Colin Calder. (Now your local friendly taxi driver) MIMI AMSOE AMIRTE LCGI and probably more City and Guilds and other qualifications than you can shake a stick at. Now, where's that bucket and trowel?  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: New code consumer video Posted by Matt Elliott on December 17, 2008, 10:31 pm, in reply to "Re: New code consumer video" Mattew Elliott Hi colin can split that up into paragraph's with some nice big spaces please I want to read it but it's all a bit of a bluh. cheers Matt  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: New code consumer video Posted by Colin Calder on December 17, 2008, 10:51 pm, in reply to "Re: New code consumer video" Colin Calder Right, yes, sorry about that. Can't get back into it now. Perhaps the webmaster could do it. How about it it editor. Can you sort it into paragraphs for me or tell me how to get back into the message so that I can do it. Colin.  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: New code consumer video Posted by Graham Bullock on December 17, 2008, 11:39 pm, in reply to "Re: New code consumer video" Graham Bullock Hi Colin, You should be able to click on your message and in the lower left corner there should be an EDIT MESSAGE option. I agree with what you say about the aviation industry, If you are trained to work on Cessna then you can't work on Piper until you have completed training on the differences. I gather that once you are qualified to work on say a Cessna you will receive all relevant documentation and recall data etc in order to complete your job properly and safely. I was only legally allowed to check tyre pressures, check levels and to clean spark plugs on the Chipmunk I used to own a share in. I, like you have LCGI, AAE, EngTech, MIMI and MIDiagE but it doesn't appear to be worth as much as having a code sign above the door according to some. Graham  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: New code consumer video Posted by Steve Nicholas on December 18, 2008, 8:22 am, in reply to "Re: New code consumer video" Stephen Nicholas Hi Colin I really wanted to read your item so I cut and pasted it in to notepad and added a few paragraph spaces. What you say just about covers it all I think and you are obviously FAR too educated and articulate to be a mechanic (well, according to popular perception!) I can't see myself wanting to lay bricks all day long and there is more to life than money (although it helps a bit). I have convinced myself that I turned down a potentially lucrative career in I.T. because I was fed-up with the computer industry. I am almost in the same business now, except that the money is nowhere near as good and I can actually look like an oily rag at times! Regards, Steve  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: New code consumer video Posted by Sean Mc Gettigan on December 18, 2008, 8:38 am, in reply to "Re: New code consumer video" Sean McGettigan | Message modified by user UKAT5291 December 18, 2008, 8:39 am You've got to sign into the board to bring the 'edit' option live Colin. Sean  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: New code consumer video Posted by Colin Calder on December 18, 2008, 5:52 pm, in reply to "Re: New code consumer video" Colin Calder OK. Thanks lads. I'd had a few beers, you know how it is.  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: New code consumer video Posted by chris mason on December 20, 2008, 6:52 pm, in reply to "Re: New code consumer video" Chris Mason - Motor Ind Codes Looks like we've generated more opinion and discussion, mainly around punctuation I see! Let's keep the dialogue up, I see there have been subscriptions to the code from this site already, so thanks for that and I'll be back in a week or two to provide any further info I can. Meanwhile have a look at the website www.motorindustrycodes.co.uk There's even a direct link from the homepage of UKAT now, thanks Peter. Also, I try and keep a blog updated, it's a little more informal way of reporting matters of interest, check it out www.blog.motorindustrycodes.co.uk See the post I made on this site on December 8th, the message remains the same - the intention really is to operate this code through the community of subscribing garages we're building - it has to be for the benefit of the sector, not just another scheme etc etc etc All the best Chris  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: New code consumer video Posted by Dave Harney on December 20, 2008, 10:23 pm, in reply to "Re: New code consumer video" Dave Harney Hi Chris, I haven't read anything that makes me think I "need" to sign up to your scheme at this point in time ! Why should I not just wait and see if you do eventually get "Approval by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) under their Consumer Codes Approval Scheme" and then decide if we want to join ? Or will you not get approval if you haven't got the members ? Regards Dave  Post a Response ( * ) Required

D H Hits the nail on the head !!!! Posted by pete greenow on December 21, 2008, 8:26 am, in reply to "Re: New code consumer video" Peter Greenow Hi Very well pu Mr Harney! I suspect as well that in order to get OFT approval this moeny making scheme will have to show a fairly high subscription rate. If however you were to take a look at their brochure - you may , as a recent customer of mine did , assume that they already are approved by OFT . Infact the conversation I had with my customer & his friend was quite interesting , as said friend was told by Main Dealer customer relations rep that the scheme is backed by all those listed on back of brochure! I am fairly certain that Mr Mason may tell us that these contacts are for info only! hic hic yours with a fair degree of scepticism Pete  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: D H Hits the nail on the head !!!! Posted by Tony Sefton on December 21, 2008, 10:01 am, in reply to "D H Hits the nail on the head !!!!" Tony Sefton At the End of the Day. There is "Trading Standards". If anyone or any business is Ripping prople off or doing Bodge Jobs then they should be reported and sorted out by them, All this is, is another way of Duplicating every system thats already in place, I Agree with training, and some sort of Regulation But not when the first points that get made are it is going to cost you £xxxxx and £xxxxx and if you get an inspection its going to cost you £xxxx and if you get a complaint its going to cost you£xxxx. But the Customer only has to pay £x. I have Very Rarely had any complaints or unhappy customers but there will always be the odd ones that take the Pi?? and try taking us for a ride, But if there was an easy way for them to try and make a claim, THEY WOULD TRY IT. And the worst thing is these types of people are the ones that would make such a noise that someone would listen to and make us into Criminals. Also the point about this being a Non Profit Organisation, Any Company can be Non Profit if all the Management and staff are Taking all the Profit in Fancy cars, Big houses, Bonuses etc. Can we see the books and who gets what in this NON PROFIT Company. ?? Tony.  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: D H Hits the nail on the head !!!! Posted by charles scatchard on December 21, 2008, 8:05 pm, in reply to "D H Hits the nail on the head !!!!" Just read Colin’s post. You are so right. Particularly about the old C&G I have thought for a long time now that the modern NVQ is not as good as the Motor Vehicle Craft of 30 years ago. I have 37years in this job now. All the bits of paper IMI etc. Continue to learn as best I can. Have loads of regular customers. Just keep doing the job I used to love. By the way Colin why don’t you go into politics they could do with someone like you in Downing Street.  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: D H Hits the nail on the head !!!! Posted by chris mason on December 22, 2008, 7:54 pm, in reply to "Re: D H Hits the nail on the head !!!!" Chris Mason - Motor Ind Codes Hi all - thanks again for taking the time.. I see Pete sings off with 'scepticism' - which is completely understandable, I'm sceptical about most new things! All I ask is you apply your scepticism with an open mind and ask your self questions about the positives this initiative brings, as well as potential negatives. I would also like to clarify a couple of other points as follows: 1. You can wait until we gain OFT approval if you like, may be that makes it more appealing for you. But if that is the case why not just get on with it and assist with the success of the code and deliver the OFT approval sooner? Yes of course we need the subscriber numbers, but we're doing better than anticipated already with around 5,000 to date - so it's more a case of building it than any concerns regarding the OFT's criteria, that side of things is progressing very well. 2. Non-for profit. Not sure where this comes from... stable and sustainable business is the initial goal and then any operating surplus will be used to further develop MCL and it's operations, so please let's get beyond this silly point that we are either just trying to generate profit or financing fancy motors and fat cigars - not true. If you sign up and become part of what we are developing, you will actually get the opportunity to assist develop what we deliver. 3. The point about the first thing we cover is cost of this and that. We have tried extremely hard to be transparent about costs, as it is important for everyone to understand and to appreciate how cost effective it actually is. So sorry if you think it is brought up too early but if we didn't we'd be accused of trying to hide the costs. 4. Pete - not sure what the point is about OFT approval, we don't have it yet and make no reference to it. Can't work out what you mean but if you want to spell it out for me I'll try my best to explain - apologies, I am a little slow... I do understand that there will be a certain amount of scepticism, but we're in this together as a sector. I know, I know - you've heard it all before but let's start to talk/think about about how the code actually helps - I also know most of you don't generate any complaints, so therefore there's nothing to think about is there? But you will be doing your bit to keep government and legislation away - and that's worth 75 quid of anyone's money. Happy Christmas all Chris  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: D H Hits the nail on the head !!!! Posted by pete greenow on December 22, 2008, 8:33 pm, in reply to "Re: D H Hits the nail on the head !!!!" Peter Greenow Hi Chris Darn right I am sceptical my hard earned cash is staying where it is. The point about OFT approval quite simply is this the guy I was talking to felt as I am sure a lot of the general public would, that looking at the back of your brochure you already have it. Now I realise that you have never said that - But that was the clear impression he got from your brochure. So I suppose your design team will feel as though theirs is a job well done. If it were your intention just to give the OFT & CAB details then surely this should have been made more clear on the back of your brochure. Regards Pete  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: D H Hits the nail on the head !!!! Posted by Dave Harney on December 22, 2008, 9:57 pm, in reply to "Re: D H Hits the nail on the head !!!!" Dave Harney Hi Chris, I don't understand how getting in early will allow me to "assist with the success of the code" apart from increasing your numbers. My understanding is that you only need 3000 members to be able to apply for OFT Approval, if thats true and you say you already have 5000 members then why haven't you already applied ? What is the OFT's criteria and which bits are causing "concerns" ? If, you have 5000 members, the Good Garage Scheme has 2700 members, Unipart Kite - rough guess 2 Bosch (dont know) and any other schemes out there - then why shouldn't be that sufficient for the government to see that good garages ARE making an effort, why do they all have to join your scheme to thwart the "Super complaint" The problem I have with yours is the "complaint" costs are weighted against the garage - so, if someone does complain it will be in our interests to "settle" with the customer whether we are in the right or not before it goes to conciliation and arbitration - and it doesn't matter whether we consider ourselves to be good garages or not, because "bad customers" will always take advantage of these rules and YOU will make money !! 4.Refer to the Independent Compliance Assessment Panel (ICAP), who will decide on a range of actions to include expulsion, at which point the OFT will be informed - just what are these actions ? just out of interest ! Regards Dave  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: D H Hits the nail on the head !!!! Posted by Kelly Clarke on December 23, 2008, 6:49 pm, in reply to "Re: D H Hits the nail on the head !!!!" Kelly Clarke I don't see where the numbers of members matter as Bosch achieved the OFT approval with just 300 garages it has to be about the way the scheme is administered. Most of the people on the list of members at the moment are main dealers and the scary stories that are coming out about the way main dealers are treating their customers i would not want to get into bed with them on any scheme. Having been and still am a member of the RMIF ofr some 15 years i have worked to their code of conduct and never had a problem, the only reason i joined the bcs scheme was for the back up and expertise of Bosch as a company.  Post a Response ( * ) Required

What a waste of time !! Posted by tony bickers on January 6, 2009, 10:44 pm, in reply to "Re: D H Hits the nail on the head !!!!" Tony Bickers I am fed up with this thread and all of Chris's nonsence that goes with it, I have never advertised and am still working now rebuilding a Clio engine at 2230 on a tuesday evening, I am a one man band and can count on the fingers of one hand customers that have had a beef with me, usually customers on referall from another customer. Chris sets out his stall as though the whole of the motor repair industry are sharks, that is not the case and as far as I can see this 'super complaint' as has been brought to the fore on numerous occaisions on these forums is a load of wasted hot breath, Chris has his agenda but I will not subscribe to it, in this climate it is every man for himself without the busybodding overseer trying to extract even more cash for nowt in return. You have not got me Chris, waste of time and effort, I will continue to be rushed off my feet and working late nights !!  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: What a waste of time !! Posted by Mark Mcgrath on January 9, 2009, 6:14 pm, in reply to "What a waste of time !!" Mark McGrath This may be of interest http://snipurl.com/9ohv6  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: What a waste of time Posted by Tom Yates on January 9, 2009, 9:22 pm, in reply to "Re: New code consumer video" Tom Yates | Message modified by user UKAT2826 January 9, 2009, 9:26 pm Hi all This situation will go on for years maybe even tens of years, I fully agree with Phil Dunmore as the garages around me have joined all manor of schemes and have had a multitude of coloured signs at the front of their premises, I just have my name above the door and that has worked for me for more than twenty odd years, each week I gain a new customer some times more, from the local traders repairing cars, and each day I turn people away with work i don't need to do because my book is full with the work i wont to do, so what would be the point of me and others like me joining any such scheme, whether introduced by the government or not, do you really think it would stop my customers coming to me, if i didn't put some silly little sign next to my name !! Tom  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: What a waste of time Posted by Dave Harney on January 10, 2009, 10:20 am, in reply to "Re: What a waste of time" Dave Harney Maybe what we will end up with eventually is the requirement for a "Licence to operate" which will no doubt be "Priced" at a level to weed out the cowboys, but end up being a burden to all. Like Tom says, the government can't run the country, what chance they got with us. Regards Dave  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: What a waste of time Posted by Paul Foster on January 12, 2009, 9:58 am, in reply to "Re: What a waste of time" Paul Foster I wonder how many of these 'mystery shopper' reports were about our (insert name/manufacturer here)Main Dealers! I.E: the people who are already members of this new scheme!!  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: new motor industry code for garages Posted by Ian Gray on January 16, 2009, 3:20 pm, in reply to "new motor industry code for garages" Ian Gray I've been following this thread with a great deal of interest & like most of you, am unsure how this scheme will work any better than whats already out there. We've been members of the GGS since last January and while it provides any new customers with some assurance that we work to a certain standard, my existing customers already know what we do. As for the savings on insurance, overalls, legal protection etc. Its not worth a carrot. Back to this thread, I've just received my copy of MOT testing matters and it would appear that VOSA are promoting this new code.  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: new motor industry code for garages Posted by Graham Bullock on January 17, 2009, 7:09 pm, in reply to "Re: new motor industry code for garages" Graham Bullock If VOSA promote this code and it does succeed, would this mean all the people that have joined other codes have wasted their money? If the code does not succeed then all the people that have paid to join this code will have then wasted their money. Which way is it going to go? What a mess !!! Why the hell can't all the associations already out there talk to each other and agree something to our benefit? As a lot (it would be interesting to know a true figure) of the motor trade are already members of one association or another, who all appear to have their own code of conduct to adhere to, why don't the government just get off their backsides and force all the remaining garages to register with an association of their own choice. The next step would be for a common code of conduct to be enforced across the board. And finally, get the associations to start weeding out those that are not fit to be members or to issue advice on how to comply. All these different associations could still be identified as united by displaying a common logo issued by the trading standards as well as their own. If I am a member of the MVRA why can't this new CODE talk to the MVRA and enlist the MVRA members by the back door, I am sure the MVRA code will be very similar to this new code, why should I have to pay twice? If the new Code becomes stage one approved (or whatever it is) could it become linked with the MVRA which in turn would save the MVRA getting approval? Chris - Have any negotiations taken place between you and other trade associations? Graham  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: new motor industry code for garages Posted by Paul Foster on January 19, 2009, 10:43 am, in reply to "Re: new motor industry code for garages" Paul Foster I doubt it! At the end of the day this new 'Motor Industry Code' is a business. So why should they feel obliged to liase with other organisations who are, in effect, their competitors? This is the fundamental problem with with this latest code - It's a profit making business with it's own objectives, not an organisation for helping the motor industry, and certainly not for supporting the independant sector! They've seen a gap in the market and tried to fill it - using the threat of the 'super complaint' both as a stick and a carrot! No wonder all the dealerships have signed up - When they heard about this 'super complaint' a lot of them would have started thinking about some of their past conduct and soiled shemselves! I say - "Bring it on!" Again - just my thoughts. Paul.  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: new motor industry code for garages Posted by Graham Bullock on January 22, 2009, 4:57 pm, in reply to "Re: new motor industry code for garages" Graham Bullock A little news story on AM Today - see link. AM Online News Graham  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: new motor industry code for garages Posted by tony bickers on January 22, 2009, 11:03 pm, in reply to "Re: new motor industry code for garages" Tony Bickers Quote from Chris from above article, "Mason said the code’s grievance procedure has been in action since its launch. Most consumer contact has been for advice, but around one in 11 calls has led to the conciliation phase. No members have yet been thrown out, but that is the code’s ultimate sanction – ejection done publicly." I deal with a lot of other garages and traders, funnily enough, none of those seem to be in grievance with customers??, yes , we all get the odd one trying it on but this seems so weighted against the Trade, not customers trying it on so they don't have to pay the bill. This quote gives the wrong opinion that all us independants are doing is ripping off the public,don't see dealers mentioned here with their practice of fit parts until fault cured at 2000 quid !, and giving Chris more money in his coffers for nowt, why would I pay this lot money for something I could sort with a bit of dialogue.Customers appreciate honesty and a fair price for a job done, this is getting harder in todays climate as everyone wants their car fixed for nowt, cars nowadays are hugely complex, I think Chris misses the point,I cannot see this scheme coming to fruition in the near future as all Brown is worried about is unemployment figures. I remain a sceptic.  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: new motor industry code for garages Posted by Keith Simpson on January 23, 2009, 11:05 am, in reply to "Re: new motor industry code for garages" Keith Simpson Parts of the motor trade have a very poor reputation, on the whole ( Independent Garages )some justified, some not but regular media coverage of 'rip-off garage's' and a general lack of trust between garages and customers helps to generate many horror stories. This new code of practice, supposed to have been developed by the industry itself, was launched to encourage garages to raise their standards and the general image of the trade, and to rebuild customer confidence by helping consumers identify the better garages. The initial idea for the code of practice followed a damning report by the National Consumer Council claiming that 'shoddy repair work was costing the consumer £4billion a year' and calling for the industry to obtain full Office of Fair Trading (OFT) approval or be subject to legislation by the government. The new code is run by Motor Codes Limited, ( A Money Making, Profit Making Business ) which is a subsidiary of the SMMT. The Purpose of the code of practice is designed to help car owners identify good garages which will deal with their car properly and provide a better service than that of the garages that have not subscribed. Garages which sign up to the scheme agree to provide an honest and fair service, clear pricing, repairs/service as agreed with the customer, repair costs which match the initial quote, staff who are well trained and keen to do a good job properly. A scheme that most independent garages are weary of, and many see this scheme as just another money making excersise, which in my oppinion is open to abuse by some very skilfull customers. At the moment Motor Codes Limited has over 5,000 members which the vast majority are main dealers. Heres a guy that came to us yesterday with his Audi A2 that went into his local dealer a ( Motor Codes Subscribed Member ) for a rattle on his engine, after parting with £103.42 for there checks he was told that he needed a complete new exhaust cost £900. He came away and ended up at ours. We checked his exhaust, the problem was a loose heatshield, after fitting a jubilee clip to secure the rattling heatshield he went away with a bill for under a fiver. What can I say, the scheme doesn't mean a thing to me. The customer is going to complain to Motor Codes. But I would like to bet that nothing will ever come of it. Watch this space. Keith  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: new motor industry code for garages Posted by Peter Lomas on January 23, 2009, 7:21 pm, in reply to "Re: new motor industry code for garages" Peter Lomas Hi Kieth I would suspect your customer now has a low oppinion of this scheme after his visits to dealers , problem is a few more & word soon gets round that you cannot trust this code or its members (tarred with one brush springs to mind ) Regards Peter  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: new motor industry code for garages Posted by Tony Sefton on January 23, 2009, 7:55 pm, in reply to "Re: new motor industry code for garages" Tony Sefton SO Chris. What do you think of the show so far. ??? Do You think that Most garages are Sceptical. ?? Do you wonder Why. ?? IF You got a Complainant. --------- How will you Decide whats a fair price and Whats a rip off. ?? ( £20 Per hour or £100 per hour ) Or How long should the job have taken ?? :- 4 hours to do a job or 6 hours to do a job. ?? (Taking into account that every job is easy until you actually do it and it turns to sxit when a bolt shears off or something doesn't program up as it should. ?? How would you decide :- Did it Really need that part that was fitted or not. ?? ( not obvious items like brake discs, pads, tyres etc that can be inspected, but Ecu's, instrument clusters, Body control modules etc. ?? If A Main Dealer fits 3 Expensive parts to cure a Problem on a car due to the Complexity of the System and its easier for them to replace all 3 items, and charge the customer rather than Spend Time testing and proving which part was required. Is that OK. ??? ( Taking into account that at £100 per hour they cannot spend too long on a job testing, otherwise its cheaper to replace everything ) If An Independent garage did the same thing, is that OK ??? And On the Other hand, If an independent or Main Dealer only fitted one part and the job went wrong again soon afterwards, Should the Customer expect to pay for the other parts fitting. ?? ( As Once they have had an invoice, no matter how little, They expect everything else doing for free as "YOU" didn't fix it correctly the first time. ?? ) I Think the Main Thing is To Explain to the customer what problems Could Occur afterwards and hope he understands, But They Soon forget that you mentioned it Might cost him more money in a few weeks or months time if anything else went wrong. How would you Decide who was responsible for further repairs if a customer complained about something going wrong a few weeks or months after a repair. ?? If You can Seriously answer these questions then you are onto a good thing. At the moment, I would prefer things as they are, No Extra Expense, no extra paperwork, no grief from someone that thinks we should do something their way. And If a Customer wants to take us to court, They have to take the chance that if We are Proved right, then it won't cost us anything, And if we get proved to be in the wrong, they can throw the book at us. The Person then in the wrong could end up with the court costs. ?? Isn't that the Fair thing to do. ?? Not that I have ever had to go that far with any customer, but it could easily happen. I am not Trying to be Awakward, but I would like to know how anyone could sort out the above questions if the need arose. Thanks Tony.  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: new motor industry code for garages Posted by Keith Simpson on January 23, 2009, 10:56 pm, in reply to "Re: new motor industry code for garages" Keith Simpson The last thing we want though is for the government to step in with legislation that is doomed at the start. I used to think the ATA Accreditation Scheme was the best way foreword for the UK's Motor Industry to prove at least a standard of some competence but sadly this scheme is on a down hill slide, especially joining forces with the Good Garage Scheme. And lets face it the majority of independent garages are doing a very good job and sees it's customers return year after year, this does not happen at the dealers for obvious reasons. The Motor Industry Codes will never get full OFT approval unless they go back to the drawing board and make the terms fairer for all it's members. I think Chris's hearts in the right place but he needs to come back down to earth and stop thinking about the numbers and revenue and offer a service that we all could take part in and maybe flush out the cowboys. On the subject of cowboys, I passed and Asian garage yesterday on the out side of the building it said "Have you had it with cowboys, why not give the Indians a try" good one I thought. Keith  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: new motor industry code for garages Posted by chris mason on January 24, 2009, 2:31 pm, in reply to "Re: new motor industry code for garages" Chris Mason - Motor Ind Codes Hi all Clearly been provoking some interesting debate... I must apologise for not having been chipping in my thoughts for a couple of weeks - but it's been a busy time. just wanted to clarify a few points, in no particular order: This is not a franchised v independent issue or biased in any way, we've been asked to create an operable minimum standard for the entire sector. Which I believe is what we have done. An independent garage can subscribe in the exact same manner as a franchised - exact same requirements, exact same cost, exact same everything, it's a base minimum standard that then you use to your advantage within marketing and adverts - 'as good as the best and better than the rest' is one strapline i've seen and heard... The dispute resolution service is working very well, but it's not weighted against the garage as some have assumed. We dealt with over 1,000 calls to the end of 08 and opened 10 conciliation cases - the rest of the time we have been helping to resolve misunderstandings and largely helping customers who thought they had a 'complaint' in understanding their position. It's doing a very good job in managing expectations and identifying where something has actually gone wrong. Rest of the time we're just helping people and guess what - next year we'll be able to report from evidence based data that the number of actual complaints against our sector is much, much lower than is normally suggested by other advisory services. There has been a couple of fairly direct accusations regarding the scheme being nothing more than a money making exercise. I can assure you that nothing is further from the truth - this operation has been developed to run in as streamlined manner as possible and in doing so making it as low cost to subscribers as possible. The basic principle being it must be affordable for all, cost must not be a barrier to entry - so it's a very well balanced operation that ensures costs out are as low as we can get them. Further, there are no plans to alter costs or change the principle business plan, which is to develop a sustainable operation for the good of the sector. We are in some very well progressed discussions with various independent garage operators, chains/groups and their representative associations. I am confident that over the next few weeks and months we'll be bringing on more and more independents. Someone asked where the RMI are with the code. Fully supportive is the answer - watch the film we made to see them talking about it http://service.motorindustrycodes.co.uk/garages/home.html You all know what you think and are going to say what you want to, fair enough - but let's please not fall into the trap of making up minds through hearsay, or at worst misinformation. All the information you need about the code is available on the website, and increasingly the trade press are covering it and providing the background and current progress in what we are actually doing, which believe it or not is enabling responsible business operators like you to continue to conduct their business in the manner they do today. That's why I asked to get talking with you on this website - because it is populated by the people who look to do the right thing by their customers every day. You wouldn't want an enforced regime, trust me, but that's what'll happen if the consumer lobby and government decide to go with the super complaint. Think FSA ten fold... Also - we are all part of the same team. My best intentions are guaranteed at all times. Yes we need to make some changes and yes we all dislike change, but the changes required today are being made to retain the ability for you to carry on being booked up two weeks in advance and not having to deal with intrusive and costly regulation written by people who don't know the sector or the people within it like we do (remember i am now in my 24th year within the industry, qualified city and guilds, Jaguar and Toyota trained and 8 years running my own small independent workshop). We have a job to do and my aim is to do it with as little pain and intrusion into your ability to operate your business as possible. I'll keep up to speed with your comments and chip in where i can, but let's try and move it on and get the job done so you can carry on getting your jobs done. All the best Chris  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: new motor industry code for garages Posted by simon dean on January 26, 2009, 6:51 pm, in reply to "Re: new motor industry code for garages" Simon Dean Has anyone joined or thinking of joining. We all know about the general public and motor vehicles and its problems.The jobs more and more complex and like tony says how do you decide if a vehicle took x amount of time to fix or diag etc. But would the 'code' help or hinder your business dont know yet Simon(on the fence)  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: new motor industry code for garages Posted by Steve Nicholas on January 26, 2009, 8:09 pm, in reply to "Re: new motor industry code for garages" Stephen Nicholas Steve-on-the-fence here too. I am not exactly fighting-off customers as Mr Bickers appears to be but I am not short of work. I talk to my customers about this accreditation issue and they a) have not much clue about it and/or b) don't seem to care as they say that they know and trust me. I will see where the wind blows at the moment. I have already dipped a toe in the water and found the temperature not to my liking. Regards, Steve  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: new motor industry code for garages Posted by Keith Simpson on January 26, 2009, 9:32 pm, in reply to "Re: new motor industry code for garages" Keith Simpson I think it's a very good Idea. It's a shame all the odds are stacked in the customers favour. I for one will past at the Mo. Keith  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: new motor industry code for garages Posted by chris mason on January 27, 2009, 1:06 pm, in reply to "Re: new motor industry code for garages" Chris Mason - Motor Ind Codes Hi all As we began the process of rolling out the code last year I knew we would be facing the usual round of claims against the sector early in 2009. Regular as clockwork Consumer Direct are the first to release their 'complaint' statistics. CD claim to have received 16,176 complaints regarding servicing and repairs from independent garages, this represents a 6% increase on the 2007 figure of 15,253. http://www.consumerdirect.gov.uk/news/press_releases/national/2009/toptencomplaints2008 Whilst I continue to question how these figures are calculated, it is my firm belief that many of these calls are not complaints but enquiries from consumers that require some general assistance, we can not hide from the issue. This figure is being reported widely and questions will be asked about the independent sector. Rightly or wrongly there is a perception issue here and currently we have no position from which to defend ourselves. We can start to defend our reputation via monitoring the operation of the Code and its subscribers. My current example being, from September to year end 2008 the Code Consumer Advice Line received 1,116 calls regarding service and repair, from this we escalated 32 calls to the Fast Track Service and resolved the consumers concern via a quick call to the subscribing garage - no real problems here just communication issues or misunderstandings, the important fact is we helped 32 consumers to resolve what they felt was an issue amicably, and in all cases the customer said they'd use the garage again. Additionally we escalated 10 calls to full conciliation, this is where a clear breach of the Code had been identified that required formal redress via the services we have in place, in line with the Office of Fair Trading requirements. Nine out of the ten conciliation cases were resolved to the satisfaction of the consumer and subscribing garage, again making a positive out of a potential negative. This in my view means that we can report the following: Consumer enquiries received 1,116 Fast Track assistance 32 Conciliation cases 10 0.9% of all calls to the service were qualified complaints 99.1% of calls to the service were from consumers requiring our advice or assistance It is early days for the Code, but we aim to report actual figures that promote the correct mix of calls. A call isn't a complaint, unless we qualify it as such. It is important that we are helping people to understand the nature of their individual situation and then we reflect this - this to me is as important as reporting correctly complaints statistics as a means by which we can benchmark and improve. If you want to be part of the industry initiative that has a long term goal that really is about the interests of the sector, you need to sign up and prove that you are one of the good guys, so that you can distance your operational from an evidence based position when the sector comes under attack from external advisory services, mystery shop exercises and government. Otherwise I'm afraid, rightly or wrongly, you're one of the garages within the sector that these claims are targeted at. All the best  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: new motor industry code for garages Posted by Graham Bullock on January 27, 2009, 2:42 pm, in reply to "Re: new motor industry code for garages" Graham Bullock Quote Post on October 25th "The large part of the 4,000plus subscribers today are from the franchised sector". Quotes from Today "from September to year end 2008 the Code Consumer Advice Line received 1,116 calls regarding service and repair" "CD claim to have received 16,176 complaints regarding servicing and repairs from independent garages" "A call isn't a complaint, unless we qualify it as such" Irrespective of the outcome of the calls, Does this really mean you had over 1100 calls about repairs or service regarding your existing 4000 members which are franchised dealers? How many of the 16,176 calls nationally to the CD service would have been qualified complaints if they had used the same criteria as you have? I bet the 6% increase in calls are all to do with cost, most of which is being brought about by the manufactures such as GM with vehicles only being able to be programmed via an MDI. Again I am sorry, but I think you are just another conciliation service which is duplicating what I can already receive through other trade associations. Graham PS - I would like to see an answer to Tony Sefton's Post.  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: new motor industry code for garages Posted by Steve Nicholas on January 27, 2009, 4:01 pm, in reply to "Re: new motor industry code for garages" Stephen Nicholas | Message modified by user UKAT5547 January 27, 2009, 4:02 pm How can a general complaint about the independent sector be addressed to any/all independent(s)? I am directly concerned if one of my customers complains but they need to make the complaint to me direct. I have had few in my time and always dealt with them fairly or to the customer's advantage - so, not necessarily fair to me then, but by my choice. I can see the point about a general standard and would be pleased to join an organisation that was able to promote that. But why is the emphasis always on the negative aspects? A lot of us (members of UKAT) are fair and hard-working blokes (and girls) or we would not bother to be members or even discuss this issue. Some of us regularly turn work away because we cannot cope with what we have (and do it properly). Regards, Steve  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: new motor industry code for garages Posted by Tom Yates on January 27, 2009, 7:43 pm, in reply to "Re: new motor industry code for garages" Tom Yates Well said Graham and Steve, it seems to me this is just another group trying to get their hands on our hard earned cash, with no power to help or do anything for most of us, this is going to continue for many years to come, as said earlier the government have got more important things to deal with in the next five or so years, so its save your money time. Tom  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: new motor industry code for garages Posted by martin stackemann on January 28, 2009, 1:05 am, in reply to "Re: new motor industry code for garages" Martin Stackemann I like that Keith Jan 23rd I took over my new premises in 1994 formally run by some friends of mine "Patels" I thought at the time you've tried the indian's but I thought Cowboy's wouldnt attract a lot of work.On a more serious note standards and prices,VOSA cant control MOT prices and there're quite a powerful body,and they've took a lot of year's to get some sort standard and there're not perfect. What happened to the MAA? Also who control's prices of part's? needed an o/s/r electric window regulator for"V reg" Astra £375-00 complete had to be with motor, how do you justify that,found a Valeo one £49-00 minus motor.I think sometimes we're our own worst enemy?  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Poor quality of some Aftermarket parts Posted by Peter Warman on January 28, 2009, 1:11 pm, in reply to "New Motor Industry Code for Garages #" Peter Warman - Administrator | Message modified by user Peter Warman January 28, 2009, 2:32 pm Hi Chris It would be interesting to know how many of the complaints about honest Independent Garages relates to what the customer perceives as "unnecessary parts" being fitted Today i had a loyal customer back in for service and MOT, i telephoned him to inform him that it needed a new NS lower suspension arm as one of the bushes had become detached. I had previously fitted the same arm on 07/02/2007 and the vehicle has covered 2,951 miles since the fitting (only uses it for short journey to work) He was not happy that after covering less that 3,000 miles he was having to pay over again. I did explain that parts and labour are only warrantied for 12 months or 12,000 miles, but this did put me in an embarrassing situation with a loyal customer Should the Consumer Council not do some further investigation into the QUALITY of parts being manufactured by Aftermarket companies before making Independent Garages scape goats for inferior quality parts being sold by Motor Factors and customers thinking we are "trying it on" by fitting parts that are not needed as it was only fitted 2 years ago. This is not the first suspension arm supplied to me that has fallen apart within 5,000 miles This was manufactured by a leading aftermarket name, clearly a manufacturing issue that is passed on to us. The Motor Factors hide behind the "12 months or 12,000 miles" so it just leaves the Independent garage with an unhappy customer and out of pocket Perhaps you Motor Industry Codes should be extended to Parts Manufacturers Peter  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: Poor quality of some Aftermarket parts Posted by Tom Yates on January 28, 2009, 2:17 pm, in reply to "Poor quality of some Aftermarket parts" Tom Yates Hi Peter Its not only Aftermarket parts, I had exactly the same fault as you on a two year old repair, the car had only a low mileage on it from the repair date, that was a Gen/Vauxhall part. Tom  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: Poor quality of some Aftermarket parts Posted by Steve Nicholas on January 28, 2009, 5:01 pm, in reply to "Re: Poor quality of some Aftermarket parts" Stephen Nicholas That's a good point Peter. If the industry is regulated it has to be in every aspect. How can we be liable for poor quality parts when we make every effort to ensure that we obtain, supply and fit what we percieve to be parts of good quality? Anyone who sets out to regulate the industry thoroughly and fairly will have their work cut out! Any regulatory measures will have to be done in detailed consultation with all of us. The end result could take some time to arrive at. Regards, Steve  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: Poor quality of some Aftermarket parts Posted by Phil Dunmore on January 28, 2009, 9:48 pm, in reply to "Re: Poor quality of some Aftermarket parts" Philip Dunmore And to take this line of discussion to it's conclusion the VM's themselves would need to come under scrutiny. I'll bet good money that a large proportion of the 16,000 "complaints" were triggered by expesive repairs due to poor vehicle design or build quality.  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: Poor quality of some Aftermarket parts Posted by Tom Williams on February 1, 2009, 3:46 pm, in reply to "Re: Poor quality of some Aftermarket parts" Tom Williams Hi, Many of the aftermarket suppliers appear to sell parts that are nowhere near OE quality. That goes for the aftermarket makers that also have OE contracts. Years ago we used to say, never buy gaskets or anything with rubber from a motor factor. Over the past few months we have replaced several balljoints and bushes that we had only replaced one or two years previously. The original items having lasted sometimes up to 10yrs/over 100,000 miles. Many non OE exhausts and catalysts are junk, even from the well known brands I get annoyed when the independent parts distribution organisations bang on about how their parts are equivalent to OE quality. I wish they were. We are certainly using more dealer parts.I don't like to, but I can't stand the hassle of parts not being spot-on out of the box. Even companies like Robert Bosch for example, in many cases their ign lead sets aren't remotely as good as OE. I know that the there is a price issue, that many old cars aren't worth repairing unless more cost-effective spares are available. However, we are seeing more and more quite late model vehicles, especially given the labour rates of franchised dealers. One well known factor in the Thames Valley is advertising water pumps of 'certified OE quality' Last Dec. I asked their sales rep. for a copy of the 'certificate', nix so far. tw  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: Poor quality of some Aftermarket parts Posted by chris mason on February 3, 2009, 9:02 pm, in reply to "Poor quality of some Aftermarket parts" Chris Mason - Motor Ind Codes Peter/all It's a very 'today' issue isn't it - OE or not OE.. As you know - the ultimate 'supplier' of the part to the customer is liable for it's quality, guarantees are a goodwill application to augment the legal status for customer retention purposes (although the original supplier of the part to you will be required to fulfill same requirement). It's an obvious thing to say but as Tom summarises, you have to go with what's best to do the job. A vote with your feet and taking business else where is the only way you're going to provide your customers with the quality they expect from you, but this may come at an increased cost. Equally customer financial constraints also dictate which parts are used - tricky when they then expect them to last forever.. As we all know there's regulations that cover the quality and supply of parts, but as we all also know - 12,000 miles/12 months is sometimes a cover all. Give me a steer on what could be proposed, in an ideal world, in terms of an industry approach to purchasing parts, based on sensible suggestions and fair competition you never know what might stick. Clearly I can't make any promises but if the seed is planted now, it'll always be something we can chip away at - for example is a 2 or 3 year/24,000 or 36,000 mile guarantee completely unheard of? All the best Chris  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: Poor quality of some Aftermarket parts Posted by Neil Webb on February 3, 2009, 10:35 pm, in reply to "Re: Poor quality of some Aftermarket parts" Neil Webb Chris, if a seed is planted now, what tools do you have to chip away with for the future, I would suggest you have none, with the greatest respect, I believe you have no teeth. I also checked which Garages in my area have joined "your code" and note that they are all franchised dealers who in the past seldom appeared to remove wheels for servicing, Maybe now they are code members we will notice a marked improvement in attention to detail, bonus permitting! Yours sceptically, Neil.  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: Poor quality of some Aftermarket parts Posted by Graham Bullock on February 4, 2009, 12:13 am, in reply to "Re: Poor quality of some Aftermarket parts" Graham Bullock I don't think we need to discuss who the ultimate 'supplier' of the part is or who is liable for it's quality. What I personally would like is for you to find out what percentage of all complaints are being caused when these crap parts are supplied and fitted. It would also be interesting to know actual figures for all the different categories of complaint. Do you already know these? If not - why not? How can you defend the trade against a super complaint if you do not know facts like these. If you have these facts why aren't they published? (I haven't found them) As to what could be proposed, I would say this is very simple and just as easy to apply - Ask yourself what warranty comes with new vehicles - some are 3yrs/60,000 miles, some 5yrs/100,000 miles, some I hear are now 7 years. If OE parts for a particular new vehicle can last 5 years and have a 5 year warranty then "OE Quality parts" for that same vehicle should have the same warranty, otherwise how can they be of the same quality? I appreciate that some "genuine" parts don't have warranty for as long as that, why not? Are they OE? If this was applied I would think most replacement or aftermarket parts would have to be clearly shown to be a "cheaper alternative" with a limited warranty, minimum of 12,000 miles/12 months and this should cover all including labour without question. Otherwise label it as it is - crap! As Neil said, All we need in this trade is someone with teeth. Who is it going to be? Graham  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: Poor quality of some Aftermarket parts Posted by Graham Bullock on February 12, 2009, 5:54 pm, in reply to "Re: Poor quality of some Aftermarket parts" Graham Bullock I wouldn't mind knowing the facts regarding this case ! Who was in the wrong and for what? Graham Expelled from Motor Codes' code of practice  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: Poor quality of some Aftermarket parts Posted by Steve Nicholas on February 12, 2009, 6:08 pm, in reply to "Re: Poor quality of some Aftermarket parts" Stephen Nicholas Hear hear, Graham. It seems as if the member concerned has taken the decision against them with a pinch of salt. So where are the teeth? If no teeth then what is the point? I await a reply from Chris Mason with interest, Steve  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: Poor quality of some Aftermarket parts Posted by Tony Sefton on February 12, 2009, 7:13 pm, in reply to "Re: Poor quality of some Aftermarket parts" Tony Sefton So What good has the scheme done Anybody. ??? The Company now appear to be in the same place as they were before they joined the scheme.?? ( Basically on their own ) So the Company wouldn't pay for a concilation process that may or may not have convicted them of doing something wrong.?? ( I wonder why ??) What benefit could they possibly achieve either way, apart from ending up with a non refundable bill. ?? Seeing as the company is no longer part of the Codes Scheme, will they get bad reports to warn the public that they may be a bad garage and if they don't book their idea's up, May eventually get closed down . ?? ( If they are a bad garage, and are doing things wrongly then if not, Why not. ?? ) I cannot possibly see how any Scheme set up to do this job can ever work if the people that are going to get penalised are going to have to pay for the priveledge. ??? And if only 1 out of 5000 garages have been booted out of the scheme, does that means that the other 4999 are doing things correctly. ?? If so, Why would anyone want a Scheme set up to monitor 0.0002% of the garages that they are taking money off.?? Still Not Convinced. Tony.  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: Poor quality of some Aftermarket parts Posted by Keith Simpson on February 12, 2009, 10:53 pm, in reply to "Re: Poor quality of some Aftermarket parts" Keith Simpson Well nothing ever came of my customers complaint regarding the Audi A2. He rang them and they promised to return his call but he his still waiting. Like Graham says, I would like to here the ins and outs. Keith  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: Independent Compliance Assessment Panel Report Posted by Graham Bullock on February 13, 2009, 11:56 am, in reply to "Re: Poor quality of some Aftermarket parts" Graham Bullock Interesting notes from the first meeting. As of January 09 Total Subscribers = 4245 Total calls to advice line = 1116 Fast track escalations = 32 Conciliation escalations = 10 Consumer surveys = 81 Completed Welcome visits = 1225 Completed Compliance checks = 69 Subscribers in receipt of penalty points = 4 (all for non payment of fees!) Don't really know how good it is to only have had compliance checks carried out on less than 0.2 percent of your subscribers yet you publicly announce that if you don't use a subscriber for your repairs you could be risking being ripped-off. For this to work there has got to be some serious questions answered instead of just advertising blurb. Are we going to get an answer to Tony Sefton's post? What happend at Wilson's? Graham [url=http://service.motorindustrycodes.co.uk/images/stories/documents/icap%20report%20january%202009%20%20final%20(website).pdf]Independent Compliance Assessment Panel Report  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: Independent Compliance Assessment Panel Report Posted by chris mason on February 13, 2009, 1:39 pm, in reply to "Re: Independent Compliance Assessment Panel Report" Chris Mason - Motor Ind Codes Hello all Of course I have the stats, as you say I wouldn’t be much cop if I didn’t know my business would I? The process we are going through at the moment with the service and repair code works. We’ve done it with the new car sector since becoming the first code to gain OFT Approval status back in 2004. Since this time the work we have carried out with the sector, the government and the OFT has seen ‘complaints’ drop significantly. Because we’re dealing with them our way. We are repeating that with the service and repair sector, an excellent start I’d say when over 1,200 calls to our advice line in the initial monitoring period only generated 10 conciliation cases. Does that not tell you what you need to know? I’ve been saying for years the reporting of ‘complaint’ stats against the car industry is wrong and now we’re getting the opportunity to produce our own stats and guess what, given time the stats that other organisations produce will reduce as a consequence of us looking after our own. We know our industry best, how it works and the complexities involved, not the civil service – that’s why we develop codes for our own purposes. We (the industry) are the experts and we are best placed to provide this service. But to reiterate, if we hadn’t they will do it for us and no matter what you say, that is best avoided. I’m not getting into the detail of the case specifics, you can see the report. But we are engaged in a self regulatory process. Sign up on a self certification basis then get on with running your business your way. If you are a poor operator or fail to comply with the terms of subscription then you will be found out and face the consequences. But for the majority the fact that poor performers or those that flout the terms are dealt with in such a way just means that they are put in a stronger position as a ‘compliant subscriber’ – one of the good guys. What about the ones that are expelled, I don't mind - they can come back in whenever they want, so long as they demonstrate they have changed their ways. I'd rather commit to looking after the interests of the subscribers that are doing the right thing. There’s no hidden agenda, it’s a code that provides for minimum standards of operation and a dispute resolution service. You sort your own problems out on the rare occasion that they occur, I understand, but not all are like you are they? So don’t worry about them, that’s our job. Then, given time, we’ll have created a separation - those that can and will, and those that can’t or won’t, I would assume you’re in the former group and now’s your chance to demonstrate that. We do have an excellent subscriber base and it’s increasing all the time. It seems that people like this approach and it fits the requirements of the government, the regulators, the consumer lobby, and increasingly garage owners as the penny drops. This is a great opportunity to prove to all that you are what you say you are – one of the good guys, and by collectively doing so we can change the perception of the garage sector. For me it’s about the ability to demonstrate that the majority of garage business operators are responsible. Just what you are telling me, and I already know. Why not concentrate on the positives. Ultimately it’s up to you guys and while I encourage the debate you’re going to have to make your minds up and do what you need to do – over to you.  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: Independent Compliance Assessment Panel Report Posted by Mark Murphy on May 20, 2009, 11:00 pm, in reply to "Re: Independent Compliance Assessment Panel Report" Mark Murphy | Message modified by user UKAT1035 May 20, 2009, 11:29 pm I had an interesting conversation with a man from the simi today, indicating that there are talks of introducing licensing in Ireland for independent garages. While i am against the government sticking there ore in as they could not organise a p#@s up in a brewery. I would like to see some regulation as there are garages springing up like mushrooms, Run by people who have very little training, and some times none what so ever. My question is, how is this code going down now that a few months have passed? Mark  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: Independent Compliance Assessment Panel Report Posted by Steve Nicholas on May 21, 2009, 12:06 pm, in reply to "Re: Independent Compliance Assessment Panel Report" Stephen Nicholas Hi Mark. Things have gone awfully quiet regarding this as far as I am concerned. I am waiting to see where the wind blows. Still we can see the occasional new scheme popping up continuing to dilute the argument. Regards, Steve  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: Independent Compliance Assessment Panel Report Posted by Michael Whitworth on May 30, 2009, 7:31 am, in reply to "Re: Independent Compliance Assessment Panel Report" Mike Whitworth - Administrator On BBC this morning..... "Everbody knows someone who has been ripped off by a garage" "independants are just lazy and need to get their acts together" "you are in the lap of the gods if when you take your car to a garage" " Independant garages rely too much on word of mouth, joining codes will bring you more business" To listen to that lot makes you think that all garages are ripping everybody off what a load of old twaddle, I hope Chis watched that and insists on putting the record straight. In my experience Most independants are trying to do a good job for a fair price, We all want to see the cowboys and conmen eliminated from the trade AND we want the public educating about the fact that it is often their insistance on a cheap job that drives down quality. It is their ignorance that leads to misunderstandings and complaints of poor or unnecessary work. Infact come to think of it Chris, how about a "consumers code of practice" hmmmmmm, now theres a good Idea.  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: Independent Compliance Assessment Panel Report Posted by John White on May 31, 2009, 7:14 pm, in reply to "Re: Independent Compliance Assessment Panel Report" Tony White "Consumers Code of Practice" - I like the idea of that. All this about garages ripping people off, what about people ripping off garages. Had a cheque returned unpaid, phoned customer and left messages. He eventually returned my call apologising, didn't understand why it was returned and saying he would be in with cash in the next two days - surprise he didn't turn up. The phone is now disconnected and when I visited his house it was vacant and up for sale. Agents advise it's been repossessed and have no forwarding address. He clearly set out to rip me off from the start. I wonder how one of these Motor Code Compliance Companies would deal with these problems. I run a good honest business and wouldn't dream of writing a cheque if I thought it would be returned. John  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: Independent Compliance Assessment Panel Report Posted by James Dillon on June 1, 2009, 1:20 pm, in reply to "Re: Independent Compliance Assessment Panel Report" James Dillon Hi Mike You hope he watched it - he was on it. Check out the link. I was amazed that there was nobody sticking up for reputable technicians. There was no mention of Technician Accreditation, but the Good Garage Scheme did get a mention (little green tick). I have spoken to the IMI this morning in an attempt to get them to put the industries side of the story across. Regards James. Link: Motor Industry Rip Off  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: Independent Compliance Assessment Panel Report Posted by Graham Bullock on June 1, 2009, 6:23 pm, in reply to "Re: Independent Compliance Assessment Panel Report" Graham Bullock | Message modified by user UKAT2744 June 1, 2009, 6:25 pm I also contacted the IMI recently and did receive a phone call from Sarah Sillars to discuss what I had said. I was disgusted that a Government minister (Gareth Thomas)can say "When you book your car in, it can be a lottery whether you get a good deal or are taken for a ride, this tough scheme will drive out the cowboy garages that charge for unnecessary work or miss major faults through incompetence". As a member of the MVRA which has it's own code and also as a member of the IMI with it's own code, I questioned the value of both these establishments that charge for membership and asked why they both are not being involved with MISRC. The MVRA have not answered yet and Mrs Sillars basically stressed how their scheme is for the person and not the business. I would have suggested that MISRC should have included the IMI, RMIF, VBRA and MVRA etc as associate members to gain numbers initially. MISRC could eventually be the policing body that these associations pay to run their own schemes. The MISRC logo is a tick, why not allow everybody that is a member of any association with a sign to display MISRC and one tick and then progress from there, if you also have ATA staff you get two ticks, if you have BSI Kitemark you have say five ticks and work it as the hotel trade does (which most consumers understand). I hear Chris Mason saying that these other garages are not checked, well very few of his members are, so that does not mean much. The top and bottom of this discussion is - it is down right wrong for Gareth Thomas or Chris Mason to imply that members of other associations that are not members of MISRC could be ripping people off and missing major faults and I for one will resist joining this scheme for as long as I can if it is going to cost me another fee. Graham  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: Independent Compliance Assessment Panel Report Posted by Michael Whitworth on June 1, 2009, 8:24 pm, in reply to "Re: Independent Compliance Assessment Panel Report" Mike Whitworth - Administrator Hi James, >>>You hope he watched it - he was on it.<<< I know he was in it, I watched it! But did he see the whole report? Some of the things being said in that report suggest we are ALL cowboys and rip off merchants just because we are not signed up to this code. I am wondering whether this year or sometime in the near future I should subscribe to this, or ATA or whatever next? But that reports is just a joke. GET RID OF THE COWBOYS but don't punish the whole industry and how about some consumer education!! Mike  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: Independent Compliance Assessment Panel Report Posted by James Dillon on June 3, 2009, 9:26 am, in reply to "Re: Independent Compliance Assessment Panel Report" James Dillon Hi Mike My view on this is that it is responsible technicians who perform quality repairs. Business can sign up to one of the schemes, all fine and well. However, a garage business is made up of one or more technicians. It is at the technician level where the focus on a quality repair and professionalisim must come from. I dont believe you can regulate either garage business or technicians in isolation. The quality must come from both the individual and the business. The process of repair and invoicing are inextricably linked. When the customer is 'ripped off', which part of the process caused it, and who is responsible? Was the repair technically good, but the invoice inflated, or was the repair shoddy and the invoice reasonable? In the worst cases perhaps both the job and the invoice were bad. Some cases lack of info provided to the customer leads to a feeling of ripped off, when actually they wern't. No doubt many of us will have been in a situation where a customer (be it trade or retail) just wants a 'make do' repair. The technician who is asked to do the job knows if the request is in safe/robust/reliable/in line with best practice. Technicians should repair vehicles in a safe/robust/reliable way in line with best practice. If he is being asked to perform shoddy work, he should have the confidence (which may be supported by a professional code of conduct and support from a trade body arbitrator) to refuse, and should recommend the correct course of action. Many of the worst jobs I have had to sort were carried out by less-than-professional technicians working in 'shady' garages. A code which the garage volunteers for is unlikely to affect this type of business. In fact, I suggest that it is these types of businesses where the majority of rogue jobs come from. They will be the last/never join such a voluntary scheme - which makes the voluntary scheme a bit of a farce. My view is that anyone carrying out repairs to motor vehicles should be assessesed on their aptitude to do so. Once the assessment has been passed they should gain a permit/licence to repair. The methods used in the ATA are broadly correct. Each job the accredited technician carries out should be signed off by the technician and he/she be held responsible for its quality. Punative action should befall them if jobs are bad/dangerous or consistently poor quality, ultimately leading to losing their permit/licence to repair until retraining and reassessment is carried out. The garage should also have a permit/licence to run a repair business. The permit/licence could be awarded only to business who employ assessed technicians and who operate ethically. The business permit/licence could be revoked in the same manner as the technicians licence if they are found to operating poorly. All this seems easy on 'paper', but no one has the will to do it. The IMI have got the ball rolling with the technician assessment, but again it is voluntary. There is no scheme defined, no legislation in place, and no process for the management of permits (either business or technician). These are just my own brief thoughts on the matter. I believe licencing is critical. What ever type of scheme is decided should be done so through consultation with garages and technicians, and with the trade organisations. We need a joined up solution which sets out the responsibilities and the roles of the customer, the repair, the garage and the technician. The scheme needs to be mandatory and managed. There seems to be much made by some of the current 'schemes' stakeholders that 'the worst thing' that could happen is the government become involved. Yes, if the government are left to decide and implement their own ideas. But, we shouldn't shy away from the legslative and mandatory route, and let this be a reason to press ahead with yet another flawed voluntary scheme. I feel the best solution is that the trade decides on a scheme, through consultation, and once agreed asks the government implement it in law. Kind regards James.  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: Independent Compliance Assessment Panel Report Posted by Mark Tranter on June 3, 2009, 10:12 am, in reply to "Re: Independent Compliance Assessment Panel Report" Mark Tranter Spot on James  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: Independent Compliance Assessment Panel Report Posted by Mark Murphy on June 3, 2009, 9:20 pm, in reply to "Re: Independent Compliance Assessment Panel Report" Mark Murphy Excellent post James. I agree 100% with your comments and hope something similar can be done over here, sooner rather than later (usually 4-5 years after uk) The time to prove ourselves is now and rid ourselves of the stigma of shoddy garages.We do all get tared with the one brush (apparently) Mark  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: Independent Compliance Assessment Panel Report Posted by James Dillon on June 3, 2009, 9:51 pm, in reply to "Re: Independent Compliance Assessment Panel Report" James Dillon Hi Mike and all It was interesting that Chris Mason was interviewed both in the report and live during the morning as part of the feature report. When questioned Mr Mason said 'we've got 1 in 5 (garages) signing up at the moment' When asked why he though garages we not signing up, he replied 'It's something that the industry and the government have been working hard on. We can't change things overnight. People have to learn that this scheme is the scheme to take things forward. There have been somewhere in the region of a dozen failed attempts in the last thirty years..' The interviewer then said 'For the consumer to have full confidence in the scheme, surely, what needs to happen is all garages need to commit to it. If only a few do, and yet you know that there are not just 5000 good garages in the country, what is the incentive for the consumer to use one with a green tick and not another one which they know is perfectly good, and has done them a good job up until now?' He replied ' Um, erm, I I take your point on, and confidence and reassurance is is is is the point that I make make back to you. People er can have confidence in a Motor Codes Garage because voluntarily they have signed up to do the right thing in the first instance. And in in the rare event er event that something that should go wrong they know that they've got the backup er of a dispute resolution services should they need them. The interviewer asked ' Is this the thing that distinguishes it (the scheme), the dispute resolution service? Mr Mason replied 'Absolutely, absolutely.' Later the interviewer asks 'If a garage which regularly overcharges signs up to the scheme, how does the motorist know that's not a dodgy garage?' Mr Mason said ' well we'd find them out. It won't take long for us to find out people who are er operating irresponsibly. She then asked ' Do you vet them beforehand, or do you just wait for the complaints to come in afterwards?' Mr Mason said 'Em, well we have an er er er process by which we're continually monitoring the garages which is er er er approved by the Office of Fair Trading. So it's a robust system by which we monitor the garages performance. We've already expelled one garage for er non-compliance issues. So er they they don't escape our attention for long. And just to clear up one point of fact on there, the er annual subscription is £75 so not £150 er anyone can afford to join.' I felt he was very defensive of his businesses scheme. What were your thoughts on how he came across in the interview? Do you think that he convinced the interviewer, the motoring public or the garage industry? James.  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: Independent Compliance Assessment Panel Report Posted by martin young on June 4, 2009, 6:30 am, in reply to "Re: Independent Compliance Assessment Panel Report" Martin Young nope  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: Independent Compliance Assessment Panel Report Posted by pete greenow on June 4, 2009, 7:10 am, in reply to "Re: Independent Compliance Assessment Panel Report" Peter Greenow Hi All Not very convincing Mr Mason. Its a great idea, get 35,000 garages to part with £75.00 each and overnight you have a business turnover of £2.6M. What concerns me is the Minister giving wholehearted support to an independant business with an unconvincing plan. What Mr Gareth Thomas should be doing is to ensure that all people working on motors are properly qualified & regulated, and that not to maintain your vehicle in a proper manner is an offence. Any kerbside repairs would thus need to be checked & signed off by a properly qualified & regulated technician / garage. Regards Pete  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: Independent Compliance Assessment Panel Report Posted by Paul Foster on June 4, 2009, 10:04 am, in reply to "Re: Independent Compliance Assessment Panel Report" Paul Foster I don't think anyone was convinced by Chris' performance - least of all Chris himself! As has been said many times before - the problem here is that this is another private, profit making business. It is totally wrong for a publically elected official to give backing this scheme and not another. He insinuates that a garage not affilliated to Chris's company is a rip off, substandard operation. What does this guy know about the motor trade except what Chris has told him? Yet another one sided attack on the motor trade by the media. It would've been nice to see some defence of the true independant sector from someone (MVRA, IMI, etc) but they wouldn't want to undermine their own 'damning' report would they? I read some of the feedback on the link where Chris's interview was shown. It seems that most comments are complaining about rip off MAIN DEALERS! Now... who is it that forms the bulk of Chris's subscribers?!  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Motor Codes - the link to the main dealers. Posted by James Dillon on June 4, 2009, 11:09 pm, in reply to "Re: Independent Compliance Assessment Panel Report" James Dillon Hi All Is it just me? Tonight, I am a little concerned that the Motor Codes Ltd business is described as a subsidiary of the SMMT (the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders). The SMMT are the body behind the motor manufacturers/franchised dealers. Chris Mason has worked for the SMMT since the year 2000. Perhaps this explains why so many of the franchised dealers, and the bulk of Motor Codes membership to date, have joined. As an independent workshop does this affect your view of the code of practice, Motor Codes Ltd, or where their real interest behind their scheme lies? Are any independent garages here members of the SMMT? What are your experiences of membership? I'd love to hear your views. Cheers for now. James.  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: Motor Codes - the link to the main dealers. Posted by Steve Nicholas on June 5, 2009, 8:28 am, in reply to "Motor Codes - the link to the main dealers." Stephen Nicholas ...and meanwhile, the silence from Chris Mason is deafening... James - spot on as usual. Regards, Steve  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: Motor Codes - the link to the main dealers. Posted by Paul Foster on June 5, 2009, 6:12 pm, in reply to "Re: Motor Codes - the link to the main dealers." Paul Foster | Message modified by user UKAT2680 June 5, 2009, 6:20 pm I was just going to mention the absence of any comments from Mr Mason. The more I find out about his affiliations and his 'codes' scheme the less I like the look of it! There is a very clear defining line between Franchised Dealers and the 'Independant' sector. How can he claim to represent both? The Manufacturers and many of their Dealers have been using every underhand trick in the book to undermine the Independant's ability to repair their cars in recent years. Why would someone inextricably linked to the Franchised Dealers Association want to 'support' the independants? The answer - £2.6 million turnover! I personally don't want to be associated with an organisation populated almost entirely by franchised dealers - I value my reputation too highly!  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: Motor Codes - the link to the main dealers. Posted by Phil Dunmore on June 7, 2009, 9:46 pm, in reply to "Re: Motor Codes - the link to the main dealers." Philip Dunmore Most of us seem to have similar views on this scheme. How about a truly indepdant scheme for truly independant garages only? No Franchises or chains accepted.  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: Motor Codes - the link to the main dealers. Posted by Steve Nicholas on June 7, 2009, 10:02 pm, in reply to "Re: Motor Codes - the link to the main dealers." Stephen Nicholas Yes, and can we do it ourselves by some means? I said this before a few years ago. We have a body of interest here with the motives, if not currently the means. We are a body of people interested enough in our customers and our businesses to take this all seriously. Let's have some ideas about how we might achieve it! Regards, Steve  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: 2nd Independent Compliance Assessment Panel Report Posted by Graham Bullock on June 24, 2009, 6:07 pm, in reply to "Poor quality of some Aftermarket parts" Graham Bullock | Message modified by user UKAT2744 June 24, 2009, 6:09 pm Latest report can be downloaded here http://www.am-online.com/news/story/?nID=42900203Latest Report Graham Edit due to link failure  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: 2nd Independent Compliance Assessment Panel Report Posted by Dave Harney on June 24, 2009, 11:06 pm, in reply to "Re: 2nd Independent Compliance Assessment Panel Report " Dave Harney Guess how many Directors you will be "supporting" with your subscription ?? Answer is between 1 - 10 ( + 1 company secretary) Dave  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Motor Codes - a political 'game' - ACT NOW to stop it. Posted by James Dillon on June 25, 2009, 11:57 pm, in reply to "Re: 2nd Independent Compliance Assessment Panel Report " James Dillon Dear All, There are a number of questions to be answered about the legitimacy Mr Mason and this 'code'. Do you, as a business with an interest in an indepent garage, feel secure that the SMMT (the body which represents the vehicle manufacturers and franchised dealer business) is self appointedly trying to represent OUR industry with the government? Given who their paymasters are, do you feel you will be dealt with fairly and equitably, especially if your opponent stems from a franchised background? Are you happy that during a BBC interview the representative of 'the' code didn't challenge the report that 'most' garages were ripping customers off? Are you happy putting your efforts into a 'code' which ,during a BBC interview, stated that the main thing which differentiated this 'code' apart from the previous 11 failed attempts was that this code had arbitration? Nothing about standards, entrance criteria, training, assessments, mystery shopping, quality control, etc. Fact is that this code is purposly designed to make it easy to join. By 'suggesting' to their existing 'members' (the franchised dealers) that they join the code, with, I quote "just a few phone calls" it begins to gain legitimacy. Reason being, that they get the required bulk of members which makes it credible in the eyes of the government, they feel that 'their' scheme will prevail. There have been almost a dozen voluntary codes during the last 30 years which have failed because they have been voluntary. Are you happy to join another voluntary code, which appears to have dubious origins, aims and objectives, and which is run by an interested, and perhaps, biased party? Or would you prefer a truly independent code? In my opinion, the IMI, RMI or a collaboration of industry bodies should come up with, run and manage (in conjunction with the industry) a proper (non-voluntary) scheme. Face to face (at the recent top tech day with over 100 indepedent observers) Motor Codes didn't stand up to this type of scrutiny. Task your independent association body to do something in about a proper industry code which is in your interest and that of your customers. Act TODAY and don't let Motor Codes 'sneak' in by the back door. James.  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: Motor Codes - a political 'game' - ACT NOW to stop it. Posted by pete greenow on June 26, 2009, 7:34 am, in reply to "Motor Codes - a political 'game' - ACT NOW to stop it." Peter Greenow In the words of that place "Hear Hear" Well said James I was at the aftermarket seminar day & was unimpressed by Mr Masons responce to my questions regarding his paymasters. How an independant can even consider handing money over to an organisation set up to try to improve the industry image by those who it could be argued do more to harm it than others, amazes me. The SMMT I am sure would prefer it if their memmbers wishes were followed through & independants were forced out of business, they try to starve our businesses of Information on all systems not just security. One memory of the day at Watford was Mr Masons bluster & non answer when I asked him to define "the good guys & bad guys". enough said. Well put James - you obviously either have more time on your hands or had a better eduacation than me Regards Pete  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Motor Codes - What is the point ? Posted by John Ritchie on July 2, 2009, 9:19 pm, in reply to "Re: Motor Codes - a political 'game' - ACT NOW to stop it." John Ritchie I recently had a customer who went to local Vaux main stealer to get egr valve switched off due to recurring problem .I get a call from him saying he got the car fixed £92 for diag test , they fitted a new valve even though they switched the fecker off they kindly decided to replace his front pads , wiper blades and a bulb then decided to order a £120 exhaust rear silencer .Total cost around £350 exl exhaust and probably excluding vat .Now this dealer in question didn't give the customer the price of the repair , they didn't phone the customer to advise on any other condition/ fault they picked up in their "healthy wallet" check .When customers son phoned and questioned them they (the dealer) said they had done nothing wrong as his dad had signed for authorisation of work to be done ... all customer had signed was the so called health check sheet ( no documentation for authorisation of work). My point is this dealer is in the motor industry code , they carried out work that hadn't been authorised priced or needed . Customer phoned motor industry code for help and was told " we have no power to do anything to them but we can talk to them to try to achieve an outcome . Honestly whats the point if you have no power . I would like to hear a response from Chris who is selling this code as a must have? .I don't want sales talk i want a straight out answer : can you take this dealer to task yes or no ? Sorry techs for the rant but this gets up my nose Regards John  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: Motor Codes - What is the point ? Posted by pete greenow on July 3, 2009, 7:21 am, in reply to " Motor Codes - What is the point ?" Peter Greenow Hi John Thats it you hit the nail on the head ---- Whats the point its all talk -- end of. The sad bit is Mr Mason will probably count that as a case sucessfully dealt with on first phone call. Regards Pete  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: New Motor Industry Code for Garages # Posted by Mark Mcgrath on July 3, 2009, 6:26 pm, in reply to "New Motor Industry Code for Garages #" Mark McGrath Seems like VOSA have thrown their cap in the ring ? http://www.aftermarketnetwork.com/News/Industry+News/item24474/  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: New Motor Industry Code for Garages # Posted by Paul Foster on July 3, 2009, 6:46 pm, in reply to "Re: New Motor Industry Code for Garages #" Paul Foster I think whichever Muppet from VOSA released that statement should have his attention drawn to this thread - it is an open forum after all! The same goes for any government minister thinking of sticking their unqualified oar in. This can't be the only forum whose members veiw Chris Mason's motives with concern. You've got to hand it to Chris though - He's obviously an accomplished lobbyist to wring this kind of unofficial support from government agencies. What we need is someone to set up a 'Motor Codes' organisation for the INDEPENDANT repairer's sector with these skills.  Post a Response ( * ) Required

Re: New Motor Industry Code for Garages # Posted by John Ritchie on July 30, 2009, 7:47 pm, in reply to "Re: New Motor Industry Code for Garages #" John Ritchie Hi all , just an update on my last post . Customer complained to the motor industry codes of practice and to date hasn't had any phone call back from them or the dealer . Having talked to the customer yesterday he felt he wasn't being treated fairly by the code of practice outfit so you could say he has a complaint against them which brings me to my point ." Who regulates the code of practice"? , who decides when the so called code of practice is acting in everyones interest and can take them to task where they have not conforming to a basic code to maintain a basic standard we all expect? Regards John  Post a Response ( * ) Required

     «Back to thread

Copyright © uk autotalk
terms & conditions please read