New Parts

[dasadrew]

......

I would also fully agree with a 'do use' part list. Again, no one can complain or seek redress under the law if we say 'Part X works perfectly as a replacement for Part Y.'

Jeff

Na, other suppliers providing different sourced components could take the SOC to court for biased publicity damaging their equally good bits!!

Fully agree Jeff, living abroad I always got the impression that people in UK were against the "Nanny State" whereas the reality is that many want to propagate the concept. I've never heard of anyone being prosecuted for telling the truth and citing facts. In any case, I would think that giving any Supplier free Forum access to reply would sort the problem (if there really is any problem!). Just do a sthe rules say, keep it factual, keep it polite, don't offer opinions.

Drew

[thebadleys]

Sorry, as a lawyer I am a bit puzzled by the worry that a supplier could sue over the claim that a part does not work/fit. If such a list was created, it would not be to put a supplier out of business, it would be to alert them that the part(s) they are supplying need to be rectified to work. If I was a reputable supplier and the parts I was selling do not fit/work, then I would want to know so I could get them changed so I could actually sell them.

Take my heater valve for example. I ordered two from two different suppliers that both were 3-4 thou oversized and would not fit without major fettling. Personally I think it ridiculous to have to do that to a new part and there is no legal ground for the supplier to go after me or the club if I say 'Part X does not fit' as it should. Under the law, products must be fit for purpose. The supplier can't sue me or the SOC for his product being defective and me stating so. If it is defamation that is a concern, there are very high hurdles to overcome for any statement to be deemed defamatory. I can assure you that stating 'Part X does not fit as it should' in no way would ever clear any of the 5 requirements to ground a case in defamation..

I would also fully agree with a 'do use' part list. Again, no one can complain or seek redress under the law if we say 'Part X works perfectly as a replacement for Part Y.'

The reason I did my previous ranty post about poor replacement parts was to save others from the hassle. If a supplier wants to sue me - go for it. The case would be thrown out at the first hearing.

Jeff

Thank you Jeff for your post, this has been mentioned before but not by some like yourself who is qualified to explain so clearly, lets hope people take notice and act accordingly

Nigel

[richardthestag]

I think this is a fabulous idea

Would it not be possible for a number of clubs to join forces here and fund this kind of programme?

There are 15 clubs currently listed (in Practical Classics list of clubs) that contain the word "Triumph" but the scope could easily stretch beyond this.

[JeffW]

Thank you Jeff for your post, this has been mentioned before but not by some like yourself who is qualified to explain so clearly, lets hope people take notice and act accordingly

Nigel

My pleasure! I just want us all to get to a stage where we can be confident buying parts from all the suppliers that we know will fit and not cause so many headaches. This benefits us and of course benefits them - they will sell more parts and help us keep our beloved Stags on the road.

Jeff

[thebadleys]

This is something that I believe is the outcome of positive action, the majority of parts suppliers, I am sure, try to ensure that they supply parts fit for purpose but if we the consumer don't tell them the are poor quality they will continue supplying an inferior product.

Every retailer has a legal responsibility and we should not be frightened of returning goods for replacement or full credit if they fail to meet the "fit for purpose" criteria. They soon get the idea that they are supplying poor quality parts and will demand their suppliers/manufacturers improve the quality which should in turn provide the consumer with better quality.

Nigel

[dasadrew]

Hopefully it won't result in Suppliers saying "I've had enough of faffing about with reimbursements, I'm going to take this heater valve out of my stock" so we don't even have a bad article to fettle! (Don't take this comment too seriously!)

Drew

[Motorsport Micky]

To pick up on an earlier suggestion this is the process the TR Register has in place under their Parts Quality Initative.

https://www.tr-register.co.uk/pqi

Micky

[thebadleys]

During my short Stag life (4 years) I have returned various parts to suppliers, faulty pantograph wiper arm from Rimmer's immediate replacement sent out with apologies and request to "destroy" the faulty one, same result with a "speed" wiper blade from them. A battle with Paddocks regarding a N/S wiper arm with a spring retaining clip that broke immediately on fitting, blamed me for bad installation, didn't accept that, they sent a replacement which was the same finally sent a new clip taken from a different wiper arm (they finally admitted they were all like that and, I believe, withdrew them from sale. Rear subframe mounting again from Paddocks replaced without question plus, other items from various suppliers that some times you have to "discuss" with the supplier, but in general I haven't had a particular problem.

Nigel

[mike@thenook]

It is great that at long last (Thank you Jeff!) we have a valid legal opinion on this long standing and miss-understood matter -

Well done Nigel for raising it in the first place and to see we are now at the point legally we can subscribe to the practice of highlighting bad parts/suppliers/manufactures etc., without being told by our Club that we cannot or may be sued.

[Ian F]

Mike, Oh that it was so simple............

Jeff’s view is one (I assume ) lawyer or solicitor, or ex lawyer/solicitor, and I assume other lawyers/solicitors may take a different view - as obviously the SOC legal advisors appear to do? Until a specific case is brought to court and a judge rules on it, no-one can state for certain and it is this “fear” of litigation that is more of a risk - and surely the problem we face?

For what it’s worth, I agree with Jeff, and the Mods advice, if you have a faulty part/part not fit for purpose, post about it and keep it factual.

I would add - why not ask the supplier if you can post your concern and their response on the SOC Forum - if they agree to it, their responses may become more favourable. If they don’t, you can say so and Members can draw their own conclusions!

Even better if we were able to post only positive news because parts are correct and fit for purpose, but it always surprises me, the quality and fit/finish of parts and cars in the ‘70’s was diabolical and BLMC/Leyland were possibly the worst, but now we all hanker after OEM quality parts because the current repro/Chinese/ Far Eastern/Indian * parts are rubbish!
Hmmmm have standards slipped so far!

* delete as appropriate.

ian F

[Andy S]

Sorry, as a lawyer I am a bit puzzled by the worry that a supplier could sue over the claim that a part does not work/fit. If such a list was created, it would not be to put a supplier out of business, it would be to alert them that the part(s) they are supplying need to be rectified to work. If I was a reputable supplier and the parts I was selling do not fit/work, then I would want to know so I could get them changed so I could actually sell them.

Take my heater valve for example. I ordered two from two different suppliers that both were 3-4 thou oversized and would not fit without major fettling. Personally I think it ridiculous to have to do that to a new part and there is no legal ground for the supplier to go after me or the club if I say 'Part X does not fit' as it should. Under the law, products must be fit for purpose. The supplier can't sue me or the SOC for his product being defective and me stating so. If it is defamation that is a concern, there are very high hurdles to overcome for any statement to be deemed defamatory. I can assure you that stating 'Part X does not fit as it should' in no way would ever clear any of the 5 requirements to ground a case in defamation..

I would also fully agree with a 'do use' part list. Again, no one can complain or seek redress under the law if we say 'Part X works perfectly as a replacement for Part Y.'

The reason I did my previous ranty post about poor replacement parts was to save others from the hassle. If a supplier wants to sue me - go for it. The case would be thrown out at the first hearing.

Jeff

Hi Jeff,

Thanks for the clarification. The fear of litigation and the cost of fighting any case can influence many people’s decision.

To take your Heater Valve as an example. Let’s assume after your fettling the valve had failed and coolant had drained without your knowledge and the engine overheated causing significant damage.

The Heater Valve was the cause of the failure, but who is responsible for the engine damage. The defective part, or your modification? Would the support of the club help your case if they could confirm said part was defective?

Still no response from TR members. Surely it’s possible to own more than 1 Triumph and put food on the table.

Might start a new thread on ‘What other club memberships people have’ because I’m curious as to where all the Stag Owners have gone. Especially interested in hearing from members of other Triumph Clubs.


Andy S

[Andy S]

To pick up on an earlier suggestion this is the process the TR Register has in place under their Parts Quality Initative.

https://www.tr-register.co.uk/pqi

Micky

Sorry, didn’t see the post.

[Andy S]

To pick up on an earlier suggestion this is the process the TR Register has in place under their Parts Quality Initative.

https://www.tr-register.co.uk/pqi

Micky

I wonder if we can link up with them and get some feedback on how it’s going.

[JeffW]

Hi Jeff,

Thanks for the clarification. The fear of litigation and the cost of fighting any case can influence many people’s decision.

To take your Heater Valve as an example. Let’s assume after your fettling the valve had failed and coolant had drained without your knowledge and the engine overheated causing significant damage.

The Heater Valve was the cause of the failure, but who is responsible for the engine damage. The defective part, or your modification? Would the support of the club help your case if they could confirm said part was defective?

Still no response from TR members. Surely it’s possible to own more than 1 Triumph and put food on the table.

Might start a new thread on ‘What other club memberships people have’ because I’m curious as to where all the Stag Owners have gone. Especially interested in hearing from members of other Triumph Clubs.


Andy S

Hi Andy

Excellent point. From my point of view, and if I was acting for the supplier, I would argue the modifications done to the part would be judged to negate any claim for the original part being responsible for the initial damage (eg coolant damaging carpets) and consequential damage to the engine. Consequential damage claims are tricky as Courts struggle to decide where the consequences end -> my heater valve failed, causing coolant loss, causing engine damage, causing me to miss my flight to Lanzarote, causing me to miss my holiday, causing me stress as I had to go back to work, causing me to have a heart attack..etc.

From my experience I am confident that the claim for any damage would fail if the part was modified by the purchaser. A judge would say if the part did not fit from the supplier, you should have returned it for an exchange or refund. The minute you modify it, you are on your own for whatever happens. Conversely, If the part fit and then failed due to poor design/workmanship (the 'fit for purpose' claim), then the claim is strong and likely to succeed for engine damage. (maybe not for the trip to Lanzarote )

Just FYI, for my heater valve I fettled the new part, but it but it was too loose so I refit the original with a new O ring. I didn't want to risk my engine with my poor fettling skills.


Jeff

[Andy S]

Hi Andy

Excellent point. From my point of view, and if I was acting for the supplier, I would argue the modifications done to the part would be judged to negate any claim for the original part being responsible for the initial damage (eg coolant damaging carpets) and consequential damage to the engine. Consequential damage claims are tricky as Courts struggle to decide where the consequences end -> my heater valve failed, causing coolant loss, causing engine damage, causing me to miss my flight to Lanzarote, causing me to miss my holiday, causing me stress as I had to go back to work, causing me to have a heart attack..etc.

From my experience I am confident that the claim for any damage would fail if the part was modified by the purchaser. A judge would say if the part did not fit from the supplier, you should have returned it for an exchange or refund. The minute you modify it, you are on your own for whatever happens. Conversely, If the part fit and then failed due to poor design/workmanship (the 'fit for purpose' claim), then the claim is strong and likely to succeed for engine damage. (maybe not for the trip to Lanzarote )

Just FYI, for my heater valve I fettled the new part, but it but it was too loose so I refit the original with a new O ring. I didn't want to risk my engine with my poor fettling skills.


Jeff

Thanks Jeff,

I don’t mind admitting that I would have been pushing for the Supplier to take partial responsibility. I’m sure others would expect the Supplier to take full responsibility. It goes to show that in most cases the Law is no nonsense.

It’s also food for thought when considering whether you return that part or attemp to modify it yourself. Unfortunately, in most cases the choice will be to modify.

Thanks to Micky I now have something to reference when I try to find out more from the TR Register.

Andy S