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