Friends Green Porsche - Bad Experience now Resolved, but...

[Alex]

see where this is going. We're already on page 3 of 911uk's current hottest threads. If it was my business being discussed openly on a forum like this, I know what I'd be doing.

Damage limitation.

As I see it, FG aren't out of pocket for this. Any exspense occured by them is having a duff car, not a bad customer. Why don't they just accept the customer changed his mind cos the car wasn't what he wanted and give him the deposit back.

Totally reminds me of Easternjets & the Yorkshire Classic Porsche thread.......and look how that ended up.

 

[911UK]

Please tell me you're not in customer service or damage limitation :grin:

no mate, just doing what you are supposed to do, seeing it from both sides,

i don't like this constant trial by media, i don't do it, if i have a problem with a company, i go man to man

its a generational thing i think, it just comes over all wrong in my book.

Having read what appears to be both sides on this thread, It seems as though FGP want to use part of the Op's deposit to get the car into a condition it should have been prior to the advert going live i.e. 'fit for purpose'. Which in my eyes seems totally unacceptable!!

As for going ' man to man'...... what happens when 'man' says jog on?

when mays says jog on, sleeves get rolled up.......lol

Palladium this is not Wild West where you decide sort things out at high noon, comments which are not in keeping with the sites Code of Conduct.

Consumer laws exist, owners have the opportunity to review services, you may have heard of sites like TripAdvisior, RatedPeople, etc. Reviews are a vital part of all of our Porsche ownership experiences, whether good, bad or ugly.

Another issue for FriendsGreenPorsche to respond to is the terms of limited warranty when they exclude IMS issues but they do make this clear in the price that the upgrade is available at a set cost to cover the IMS.

Intermediate shaft bearing
The intermediate shaft bearing is a known suspect part with this range of car and due to the unpredictability of failure, it cannot be warranted. However, for the range of cars that have the external type intermediate shaft bearing, such as the 996, 986, early 997 and early 987, we offer the choice of an upgraded part to be fitted with the purchase of the vehicle for a discounted price. Please visit the 'IMS bearing upgrade" page for details.

 

[Palladium]

I wrote lol after so people knew it was just a joke

Have a look, i dident add it after.

 

[jotaking]

How do you enter into a second agreement when the first one hasn't been met?

The car was advertised as mechanically sound?

It isn't?

Simple?

read paragraph 4 from friendsgreen's reply

Your getting ahead of yourself...

Page 1...

The car was advertised as mechanically sound?

It isn't?

Simple?

 

[997 Coast]

Please tell me you're not in customer service or damage limitation :grin:

no mate, just doing what you are supposed to do, seeing it from both sides,

i don't like this constant trial by media, i don't do it, if i have a problem with a company, i go man to man

its a generational thing i think, it just comes over all wrong in my book.

Tend to agree - The best way in most cases is for both parties to talk to resolve the issue

 

[911UK]

Please tell me you're not in customer service or damage limitation :grin:

no mate, just doing what you are supposed to do, seeing it from both sides,

i don't like this constant trial by media, i don't do it, if i have a problem with a company, i go man to man

its a generational thing i think, it just comes over all wrong in my book.

Tend to agree - The best way in most cases is for both parties to talk to resolve the issue

From what has been posted, they have already tried this approach

which is where FriendsGreenPorsche only offered half the refund buy only on a goodwill basis

which is why we are here today

 

[FriendsGreenPorsche]

The buyer has entered in to a legally binding agreement. He negotiated the terms of this agreement, which were; the issue found with the car would be remedied by the works suggested by two Porsche specialist mechanics. However, if this work did not remedy the issue, the deposit would be fully refundable.

This scenario has not been the case. Works on the car have not even began -
the buyer has simply changed his mind. We have not breached this agreement and would still happily fulfil it. It is the buyer that is breaching the agreement and he is therefore not legally entitled to the deposit back.

R.e. the suggestion that the car may not be fit for purpose: It may be arguable that upon finding the camshaft deviation issue the car was not fit for purpose, but this is why the buyer negotiated a new agreement whereby the issue would be fixed and thus the car fit for purpose. The term involving the deposit being refundable if this work did not remedy the issue safe guarded his position by securing that he would either have a car without fault, or his money returned.

We would never normally confront a customer like this and always try to achieve satisfaction, which is why our reputation is good, but at what point do you draw the line and determine that the customer is pushing the small business around and using the threat of damaging their reputation as ammunition.

I think that all the facts with this have now been detailed in this thread and I hope people can draw their own conclusions from this. I stand by that a goodwill offer of £250 was a fair and reasonable offer to make and would still have no problem in fulfilling this.

FGP.

 

[crash7]

I find it baffling that Friends Green Porsche value £500 over their reputation, particularly when they are not even out of pocket. :dont know:

The damage incidents like this do to a business are untold and Friends Green will suffer, maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but it will happen, the internet never forgets and this will deter future customers.

 

[911UK]

The buyer has entered in to a legally binding agreement. He negotiated the terms of this agreement, which were; the issue found with the car would be remedied by the works suggested by two Porsche specialist mechanics. However, if this work did not remedy the issue, the deposit would be fully refundable.

This scenario has not been the case. Works on the car have not even began -
the buyer has simply changed his mind. We have not breached this agreement and would still happily fulfil it. It is the buyer that is breaching the agreement and he is therefore not legally entitled to the deposit back.

R.e. the suggestion that the car may not be fit for purpose: It may be arguable that upon finding the camshaft deviation issue the car was not fit for purpose, but this is why the buyer negotiated a new agreement whereby the issue would be fixed and thus the car fit for purpose. The term involving the deposit being refundable if this work did not remedy the issue safe guarded his position by securing that he would either have a car without fault, or his money returned.

We would never normally confront a customer like this and always try to achieve satisfaction, which is why our reputation is good, but at what point do you draw the line and determine that the customer is pushing the small business around and using the threat of damaging their reputation as ammunition.

I think that all the facts with this have now been detailed in this thread and I hope people can draw their own conclusions from this. I stand by that a goodwill offer of £250 was a fair and reasonable offer to make and would still have no problem in fulfilling this.

FGP.

Why are you claiming that "that the customer is pushing the small business around and using the threat of damaging their reputation as ammunition" when you've confirmed his version of the events and there are no threats in any of his posts.

I will refer to you this thread "Dealing with Reviews, the good, the bad and the ugly"

 

[jotaking]

The buyer has entered in to a legally binding agreement. He negotiated the terms of this agreement, which were; the issue found with the car would be remedied by the works suggested by two Porsche specialist mechanics. However, if this work did not remedy the issue, the deposit would be fully refundable..

Why did he need to enter into a legally binding agreement to buy a car that you advertised as mechanically sound??

You need to re-write your advert...

Porsche with cam shaft alignment issue.

Will be resolved when we enter into a legally binding contract to purchase???

Get real!!

Just make sure your cars are in sellable condition before you advertise them? Or disclose the condition of the car?

You clearly don't PPI or check your stock to have offered a car with this problem?

Do a PPI yourselves, resolve the issues and sell?

I think that is called being in the motor trade??

 

[Alex]

Where do you draw the line? Most certainly when you're not even out of pocket.

As yet, this situation hasn't cost you anything, unlike the customer who's spent money on a ppi that's identified your advert for the car as an untruth and is misleading. He is out of pocket because you originally lied in your advert. After negotiating a deal, which I don't think was fair anway, he's got cold feet and changed his mind. You now want to put the customer even more out of pocket, when still it hasn't cost you a penny?

Well good luck with whatever you decide. It's your call, your business & your reputation........unlike this thread, which belongs to the forum owner and will stay here for everyone to read forever and a day.

 

[CarraraWhite]

So I would never normally reply to any thread on the internet relating to us, but I will on this occasion as an unfair account of events is being described.

Said buyer agreed to buy a car, but on the agreement that it didn't have any significant problems upon an independent inspection. If it showed any such problems, the deposit would then be refundable upon request.

The independent inspection showed a camshaft deviation. The buyer seeked advice from the independent inspection company as well as our designated Porsche specialist. Both advised it was likely to be worn timing chain between the camshafts, and worn tensioner pads.

Upon learning this, the buyer did not request the deposit back, but instead discussed and entered in to a new agreement to have this work done by our designated specialist. We agreed that if said works did not resolve the issue then the deposit would then become refundable. The specialist is busy for the next couple of weeks so we arranged for him to collect the car and then drop it with the specialist on the arranged date to be fixed. At no point did he raise issue with this arrangement.

After this agreement had been entered, parts had been ordered and arrangements with the garage had been made, the buyer rings to say he's changed his mind and wants his deposit back. I politely explained the above to which the buyer responded badly, threatening to write bad things on the internet if he did not get the refund. It is correct that I offered to refund half the amount out of goodwill, which I thought reasonable.

Lastly, r.e. the aero kit. Sometimes the factory aero kits fail to have the relative code on the option sticker. All the parts (spoiler, skirts, bumper) are genuine Porsche parts, so it is hard to distinguish whether it has been added later or not. The buyer knew about the lack of code upon first viewing of the car and said it wasn't an issue to him. He agreed to buy the car after discussing the aero kit.

We have never had an issue like this with a customer before and feel we have acted fairly in this instance.

FGP.

The op has given an account of the events and where has he written bad things when he has been fair in his account.

If there is an issue with the car that you are selling, I am not quite clear to why you are getting the buyer to pay for half of the repairs when the car is in need of these repairs in order to be traded in the 1st place.

From your 'Warranty' page https://www.friendsgreenporsche.com/warranty isn't this covered under the "If a 'niggle" arises during a sale then this will also be corrected."

But it should be noted that under the Consumer Rights Act of 2015 you have a responsibility for 6 months 'Warranty Period' not the 3 months you are selling.

Although I wouldn't think your service partner garage's would order the parts in advance if they are busy for a period of time.

The aerokit wasn't an issue with the buyer, since the point of dealer fitted kits was clarified.

Goodwill would be to refund the deposit.

Just to check "this work done by our designated specialist" who was paying for this ?

As it reads as the buyer was paying for this and only getting his deposit back if the repair didnt work :?:

That cant be right.

 

[spongebob squarepants]

Bemused.com

What is the role of a car dealer? Really? They dont make anything? They just sell a new product on behalf of a manufacturer or second hand one on behalf of well themselves!

The genuine ones however ensure the product they sell is A1 and then thrive on their reputation for doing so.

I can buy a second hand car from any old Tom Dick or Harry, why go to a dealer to buy one thats F ****ed! Then when I decide I dont want it (I dont want it repaierd get real!) 99.9% of us would change our minds..

Imagine this debate with the likes of 911v or Mark Pearce??

FGP good luck with your future business you really deserve it :thumb: :bye:

 

[Robertb]

I'm confused... did the OP decide to proceed despite the PPI on the condition that the works resolved the issues, but then decided to pull out beforehand?

Was the dealer or the OP funding the work? Its not clear from FGP's responses.

 

[997 Coast]

The buyer has entered in to a legally binding agreement. He negotiated the terms of this agreement, which were; the issue found with the car would be remedied by the works suggested by two Porsche specialist mechanics. However, if this work did not remedy the issue, the deposit would be fully refundable.

This scenario has not been the case. Works on the car have not even began -
the buyer has simply changed his mind. We have not breached this agreement and would still happily fulfil it. It is the buyer that is breaching the agreement and he is therefore not legally entitled to the deposit back.

R.e. the suggestion that the car may not be fit for purpose: It may be arguable that upon finding the camshaft deviation issue the car was not fit for purpose, but this is why the buyer negotiated a new agreement whereby the issue would be fixed and thus the car fit for purpose. The term involving the deposit being refundable if this work did not remedy the issue safe guarded his position by securing that he would either have a car without fault, or his money returned.

We would never normally confront a customer like this and always try to achieve satisfaction, which is why our reputation is good, but at what point do you draw the line and determine that the customer is pushing the small business around and using the threat of damaging their reputation as ammunition.

I think that all the facts with this have now been detailed in this thread and I hope people can draw their own conclusions from this. I stand by that a goodwill offer of £250 was a fair and reasonable offer to make and would still have no problem in fulfilling this.

FGP.

shake hands and both go forward :bandit: :judge: