Am I Jinxed Or What?!?!?

only 200 or so posts but over 2000 views on this thread so far, a lot of people are taking a lot of interest if you ask me.

Hope your taking note ARUK

Surely, if anyone high up in Alfa was looking at this, they'd come and take the car off Hunter and leave a nice new one for him, and the problem would then be solved, simply, and Hunter would be a customer retained, probably to purchase another one in 3 years time.

for God's sake Alfa, get with it, or you WILL go down the pan!

Guys,

When things are put into the public domain - where threats and actions are said to be happening.

Legally ARUK have to back off and wait to see what transpires...

It is only logical to not counter until you have the relevant legal argument to do so.

'there were 3 sides to every story – yours, mine and the truth.'

However I feel now that people are aware of what happened with the car - I am sure that if the problems are evident when the car goes back that ARUK will jump to help Hunter out on this.

I will e-mail AR chap with my thoughts on this later on and explain how AR could better manage such circumstances better.

Chris

Originally Posted by Pud237

and leave a nice new one for him,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood that Hunter's first car and the replacement were both used; neither was owned by Hunter from new?

To be fair I haven't recently threatened anyone with anything. Only been factual and posted the photos to see if I was the only one seeing things

Originally Posted by Fraser

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood that Hunter's first car and the replacement were both used; neither was owned by Hunter from new?

Correct Fraser.

No 1 was ex demo started with 5k miles.

No 2 had 6.9k miles.

Hope that clears things up.

Originally Posted by chrisd_b

Guys,

Legally ARUK have to back off and wait to see what transpires...

Chris...what do you mean by that?

As I see it Hunter originally got a car with a various serious brake issue - that Alfa would have direct liability for under their Warranty or possibly tort.

Liability, of some extent, appears to have been admitted by the fact an equivalent replacement car was found.

However, it transpires that replacement is not of satisfactory quality and/or may not be as described.

Hence ARUK may have failed to do what they agreed to do - i.e. provide a replacement car of satisfactory quality and Mango's have also possibly been in breach of an agreement.

From Hunters perspective that is bad enough but his dissatisfaction appears to be compounded by Mango's attitude in sorting out the car i.e. putting him to inconvenience whilst seeking to reduce their own. IMHO this is VERY poor customer service.

ARUK, even if they were totally blameless, could quite easily step in and try and mediate. Their failure to do so merely suggest they think this sh!t*y service is perfectly acceptable - which puts the lie to there endeavours to provide good customer service

Originally Posted by Hunter

No 1 was ex demo started with 5k miles.

No 2 had 6.9k miles.

"Ah well, I'm surprised either of them was still running!!"

"You're lucky more didn't go wrong!"

"What do you expect from a second-hand Alfa?"

"Were they serviced correctly?"


All these and other classic comments available from
the UK general public.








(I still think they should chuck you a new one. )

Chris_b you might be right, but the facts are that Hunter bought a car that turned out to be a lemon. This lemon was replaced with a car that now appears to have been a poorly repaired accident damaged one. To rub salt into his wounds it now appears that Hunter is expected to deliver and collect the car from the garage at his own expense.

One could forgive the problem with the first car (these things happen), but the problem with the second car should not have arisen, and to make Hunter bear the cost and inconvenience of returing the car for inspection is simply unforgivable.

As much as I love the brand, Alfa have really messed up - and to be honest do they really deserve to survive if this is how they treat loyal customers?

Originally Posted by Kevin Slegg

Chris...what do you mean by that?

As I see it Hunter originally got a car with a various serious brake issue - that Alfa would have direct liability for under their Warranty or possibly tort.

Liability, of some extent, appears to have been admitted by the fact an equivalent replacement car was found.

However, it transpires that replacement is not of satisfactory quality and/or may not be as described.

Hence ARUK may have failed to do what they agreed to do - i.e. provide a replacement car of satisfactory quality and Mango's have also possibly been in breach of an agreement.

From Hunters perspective that is bad enough but his dissatisfaction appears to be compounded by Mango's attitude in sorting out the car i.e. putting him to inconvenience whilst seeking to reduce their own. IMHO this is VERY poor customer service.

ARUK, even if they were totally blameless, could quite easily step in and try and mediate. Their failure to do so merely suggest they think this sh!t*y service is perfectly acceptable - which puts the lie to there endeavours to provide good customer service

Thank god someone understands!!!!

I couldn't have put it better myself Kevin

Originally Posted by Gary Slegg

Chris_b you might be right, but the facts are that Hunter bought a car that turned out to be a lemon. This lemon was replaced with a car that now appears to have been a poorly repaired accident damaged one. To rub salt into his wounds it now appears that Hunter is expected to deliver and collect the car from the garage at his own expense.

One could forgive the problem with the first car (these things happen), but the problem with the second car should not have arisen, and to make Hunter bear the cost and inconvenience of returing the car for inspection is simply unforgivable.

As much as I love the brand, Alfa have really messed up - and to be honest do they really deserve to survive if this is how they treat loyal customers?

...and again - exactly my point Gary!

BTW are you two related

Originally Posted by Kevin Slegg

Hence ARUK may have failed to do what they agreed to do - i.e. provide a replacement car of satisfactory quality and Mango's have also possibly been in breach of an agreement.

I think that's the key point though - until someone qualified has had a look at the car to check out the paint and the throttle surge then ARUK can't really move one way or the other, so I'm not sure I can blame them for that.

For me, the big disappointment is that after all Gordon's chat on the previous thread, Mangoletsi don't appear to have made much effort to at least start this process.

Originally Posted by Hunter

Correct Fraser.

No 1 was ex demo started with 5k miles.

No 2 had 6.9k miles.

Hope that clears things up.

In this case I think its perfectly acceptable and reasonable that his initial car was only replaced by another used vehicle - however it still should have been of satisfactory quality - and IMHO Mango's should be still arranging to collect and deliver the car.

Guys....

I am in agreement on this I feel that Hunter has had a raw deal, however having pointed this chap to the thread there is a lot of mud-slinging from other members, along the lines I spoke of...admittadly not by Hunter.

Which if I was in an ARUK position I would not be quick to jump in - especially if indeed what car have asked ARUK to comment if I read that thread bit right.

The fact that the AR chap is aware and commented on this and is aware of the issue - I feel is a good thing as it surley will be dealt with in a better manner I hope.

However a lot of good will has to come from the supplying dealer from the outset....AR uk should not have to be jumping in bailing out dealers all the time.

However if dealers are failing and causing grief for the brand I can only assume that ARUK are shrewd enough to jump on it - and steer the dealer in the right direction.


Chris

Originally Posted by jamieboy

I think that's the key point though - until someone qualified has had a look at the car to check out the paint and the throttle surge then ARUK can't really move one way or the other, so I'm not sure I can blame them for that.

For me, the big disappointment is that after all Gordon's chat on the previous thread, Mangoletsi don't appear to have made much effort to at least start this process.

But surely you can blame them for NOT saying "Mr Mango' it appears that you may have provided that nice Mr Hunter chap with another duff car shouldn't you give the benefit of the doubt to a loyal customer and go and collect it from him so you can have a look at it"

@ Chris - it seems to me that the reason there is so much mudslinging is because it has been allowed to fester for so long.

IMHO Alfa should has nipped all this in the bud at the beginning - but they did not.

Originally Posted by Kevin Slegg

But surely you can blame them for NOT saying "Mr Mango' it appears that you may have provided that nice Mr Hunter chap with another duff car shouldn't you give the benefit of the doubt to a loyal customer and go and collect it from him so you can have a look at it"

I don't disagree with that, I just feel that maybe Mangoletsi deserve a larger share of the blame, because (from what we know of it) they could quickly, easily, and cheaply send someone over with a loaner and take Hunter's car away to look at it. As soon as Hunter let them know there was something wrong with the replacement car, I think they'd have been well advised to drop everything and get it put right, and avoid this whole thread coming up.

You're right that there's a secondary argument as to why ARUK don't appear to be applying any pressure on Mangoletsi to do that.

This is one of the posts that Gordon C from Mango's posted on Hunter's other thread (regarding his rejected car being up for sale)

Originally Posted by Gordon.C

Sorry you think this way, but anyone who knows me and the company I have worked for during the last ten years, will know the sincere truth, unless you know something I don't, I am surprised at your inexperienced comments. please feel free to contact me at any point, and I assure you our intentions are sincere. Gordon.C

Gordon, perhaps in all sincerity you could explain why Hunter is expected to deliver the car to you at his cost and inconvenience?