ZippyLane

I know you're just hoping for someone to bite.. so I will..



YOU ****.

Thank you.

ed_209

Just thinking, if IM only want to warranty UK Cars or personal imports that have reams and reams of paperwork then I think someone may class that as running a cartel, in which case they are in way over their heads, the md's and anyone involved in any type of cartel ( Mr Pyke ) face large fines or even jail. Mr Pyke should remember it's his name of these letters and if faced with jail who will the bosses feed to the baying wolfs.

Just for some light reading. Anyone from subaru so read this.

http://www.which.net/campaigns/other...s_briefing.pdf

Ed.

tim's wrx

Looks like Motorpoint are going into battle with Subaru UK - they've now got 43 "new" MY06 Imprezas listed on their site !

firewire

Think you've got your wires crossed here mate. A cartel is way a group of business, lets say all the dealers in Yorkshire for example, get together and decide between them that no one is going to sell a certain product under a certain price. That is a cartel. You may feel that IM are guilty of many things but price fixing with a group of other businesses ain't one of them. What they do (like every other car manufacturer or distributor) is set a price at which they sell to the dealer, which is probably set in stone, and they list a retail price which isn't set in stone, some dealers give you a discount some don't, You can't call that a cartel, because it isn't. On the other hand accusing somebody of operating a cartel could be classed as libelous.
Just a thought!!

DonnieDarko

http://www.sfo.gov.uk/cases/guidance.asp#ReportingFraud

oh dear someone's just got reported to the serious fraud office. sorry IM

gubby

I did at first think, why is it that this pathetic individual is so resentful that others have got a lot better deal when buying their car than they did.

I was just thinking myself what a ****. Then Zippy points out that this unfortunate actually works for Subaru.

If he is a representative of Subaru workforce god help them. This is a good enough reason why I will never darken a Subaru dealers forecourt with my business if this retard is anything to go by.

I mean if deciphering his last post he seems to be actually glad when his (UK) car breaks down.

ed_209

At least it got someone talking/typing.

In its simplest terms, a cartel is an agreement between businesses. not to compete with each other setting Recommend Retail Prices. The agreement is usually secret, verbal and often informal.

Typically, cartel members may agree on:

prices - Recommend Retail Prices
output levels - Less of one type of car to boost prices.
discounts - offering discounts to certain dealers
which areas they will supply - One dealer per area

Each of the above types of agreement is prohibited by the Competition Act and Article 81 of the EC Treaty. In addition, the Enterprise Act makes it a criminal offence for individuals to dishonestly take part in certain specified cartels, essentially those that involve price fixing, market sharing, limitation of production or supply or bid rigging.

Cartels can occur in almost any industry and can involve goods or services at the manufacturing, distribution or retail level.

Some sectors are more susceptible to cartels than others because of the structure or the way in which they operate. For example, where:

there are few competitors.
the products have similar characteristics, leaving little scope for competition on quality or service
communication channels between competitors are already established.

The above information is extracted from the OFT website.

Cartels can be a single company, group of companies or even individuals within a company trying to stop competition.

This could be seen as IM saying to it's dealer network. don't work on these cars , they may be thinking by doing this motorpoint and the other competition will stop selling they vehicles.

To say something may be a cartel is not libelous hence the word "may".

That is called free speech.

Just a little more fuel for the fire.

Ed

ed_209

More fuel please

This also taken from the OFT Website.

Inquiry ordered into new car market

PN 08/99 17 March 1999

A major inquiry into car manufacturers and their exclusive relationship with dealers has been ordered by John Bridgeman, Director General of Fair Trading.

He has referred the £24 billion-a-year new car market to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission (MMC) following evidence that practices employed by manufacturers and dealers are distorting competition.

The OFT has questioned 17 leading manufacturers and more than 400 dealers following concerns that UK car prices are higher than elsewhere in Europe and frequently do not vary very much from dealer to dealer. During an extensive seven-month inquiry the Office also examined details of more than 12,500 dealer transactions.

John Bridgeman said today:

'It is clear that the market isn't working properly and that there is an imbalance of power between manufacturers and dealers which is distorting competition. This is characterised by suppliers' continued refusal to give volume discounts to dealers which could be passed on to the consumer as lower prices and by other practices designed to exert a strong influence over selling prices. In its 1992 report on the industry the MMC tried to redress the imbalance of power but its recommendations have not had the desired effect.

'In addition, recommended resale prices (RRP) are being used to mask the true selling prices of vehicles. There is evidence that manufacturers and dealers try to reinforce the consumer's belief that the RRP represents the value of a car. The MMC decided in the case of electrical goods, that RRPs reduced price competition and they were subsequently outlawed in that sector. It will be for the MMC to assess whether a similar remedy is required in the car market.

'RRPs are also employed by manufacturers to set the price at which they sell vehicles to dealers. I believe that this, coupled with a general reduction in basic dealer margins and a greater emphasis on discretionary bonuses, is limiting the ability of dealers to offer consumers lower prices. RRPs and trade prices seem to be set at a level which allows even the most inefficient dealership to make adequate returns.

'Most dealers appear to be far from independent and seem to be under the strong influence of the manufacturers, not least because of the extensive information that manufacturers gather on dealers' businesses.

'It is worth noting though that they are rather more reluctant to reveal information about themselves. Our inquiry met with a dilatory and uncooperative response from some manufacturers and dealers and has taken far longer than it should have done because of that. New powers available to me from 1 April should ensure that we are able to obtain the information we need. Firms will become liable to prosecution if they obstruct an OFT inquiry.

'Overall the distribution of new cars appears to be as inefficient now as it was eight years ago and there is a strong case for re-examination by the MMC - particularly in view of the European Commission's forthcoming review of the motor vehicle block exemption.'

The OFT inquiry found that:

Recommended Resale Price

In the absence of strong competitive pressure there is little incentive for the dealers to sell at prices other than the RRP. Furthermore the industry had adopted a standard practice for calculating trade prices as a discount from the RRP. This top down approach encourages adherence to RRPs.

Volume discounts

The lack of volume discounts for dealers is a major market distortion not least because dealers who purchase the same volumes as fleet purchasers are unable to negotiate similar deals and pass on the benefits to consumers. In some cases recommended consumer discount levels further reduce intra-brand price competition.

Bonuses

Bonuses have become more important because they make a bigger contribution to a dealer's overall margin. The trend for reducing trade discounts and supplementing them with discretionary bonuses has now become universal. Some bonus structures appear to be specifically designed to discourage dealers from selling vehicles outside their allocated areas. They also seem to deter dealers from parallel importing.

Collection of information

The collection of information on the business activities of dealers by manufacturers enables them to monitor consumer discounts and dealer profit margins and thereby influence both.

Cartels

The OFT's separate inquiry into allegations of cartel activity in the car industry continues.

The MMC has 9 months to complete the monopoly inquiry and report to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Any person wishing to offer evidence should write to: The Secretary, Monopolies and Mergers Commission, New Court, Carey Street, London WC2A 2JT

NOTES

A public interest reference of the industry was made by Lord Borrie, then Director General of Fair Trading, in 1990.The MMC concluded that restrictions on dealers' promoting sales outside their designated territories and limits on the number and location of other suppliers' dealerships held by a dealer weakened competition and restrained the emergence of larger and more efficient dealers who would be in a position to offer lower prices to their private customers. These recommendations were taken into account by the European Commission in its 1995 review of the block exemption and were incorporated in the current regulations.
The three main players in the market are: Ford (including Jaguar) with 19%, Vauxhall with around 14% and BMW (including Rover) with around 13% (1997 figures). All manufacturers operate a network of exclusive dealerships each with their own territory. There are well over 5000 retail outlets in the UK. The 17 manufacturers questioned by the Office were: Audi, BMW, Citroen, Fiat, Ford, Honda, Mazda, Mercedes, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Peugeot, Renault, Rover, Toyota, Vauxhall, Volvo and VW.
The European block exemption Commission Regulation (EC) 1475/95 ends in 2002 and is being reviewed next year.
Terms of reference: The Director General of Fair Trading in exercise of his powers under sections 47(1), 49(1) and 50 (1) of the Fair Trading Act 1973 hereby refers to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission the matter of the existence or possible existence of a monopoly situation in relation to the supply of new motor cars within the United Kingdom by manufacturers and importers of such motor cars.
The Commission shall investigate and report on the questions whether a monopoly situation exists and, if so:
(a) by virtue of which of the provisions of sections 6 to 8 of the said Act that monopoly situation is to be taken to exist;

(b) in favour of what person or persons that monopoly situation exists;

(c) whether any steps (by way of uncompetitive practices or otherwise) are being taken by that person or persons for the purpose of exploiting or maintaining the monopoly situation and, if so, by what uncompetitive practices or in what other way;

(d) whether any action or omission on the part of that person or persons is attributable to the existence of that monopoly situation and, if so, what action or omission and in what way it is so attributable; and,

(e) whether any facts found by the Commission in pursuance of their investigations under the preceding provisions of this paragraph operate or may be expected to operate against the public interest.


Does it start to remind you of anyone Yet.


Ed

Silver Knight

Old news,already been dealt with under block exemption rules and nothing to do with this situation.
IM are not saying You can't buy a car abroad (that would be illegal).
They are saying you can't buy a new car from any tom,dick or harry that brings that brings them into the country on a wholesale basis.
You have to buy (in this country) new from a Subaru dealer.
You can personally import a car with no problem.
All motorpoint have to do is pretend they are a clearing agent and charge you a fee for handling the importation of your car from whichever country they want(so you pay Malta direct for the car and Motorpoint all other charges, included in their fee will be their profit margin).
The problem for Motorpoint/alliance and the others is that you will then know how much profit they make and you wont buy cars from them either.

chiark

I've been following this thread with interest, and aside from the sniping from the UK owners it's very helpful.

Back in 2000, there were problems getting warranty work for cars from Cyprus or Malta as they were outside of the EU, or EEC, or something - I can't remember the exact reason why, but the cars were treated as grey imports even though they came with certificates of conformity (CoC).

[quote]IM only want to warranty UK Cars or personal imports that have reams and reams of paperwork [quote]

Aaah, the old "reams of paperwork" myth.

i bought my MY00 from Holland direct from a dealer who could not have been more helpful - a lovely guy (Subaru van der Velde, Zuid Beijerland). The "reams of paperwork" involved filling in a two page form with information from the invoice and CoC, and giving that to the local VRO, along with a cheque for 25 quid and for a year's tax. A letter to IM Warranty department with a copy of my invoice was all I needed to get my car on the register for warranty work.

It seems that, like it or not, Subaru are within their rights to withhold warranty work to cars bought from supermarkets because they're not personal imports. It sucks, but that's the ruling and to be honest it looks like legally they've probably got a leg to stand on: I would not want to be the test case.

Warranty was and still is an emotive subject: when I bought my Dutch car, the garage told me that if there were any problems, they'd process the claim on my behalf and ensure that I got sorted properly.

If I had a motorpoint car, or a car from any supermarket, I'd be getting something in writing saying that the supermarket will provide the 3 year warranty as agreed at time of sale, or suing for breach of contract (or something). I'd also check out the consumer credit act, as if something's misdescribed then the finance company can be liable for the mistake. Worst comes to the worst, I'd assume that you might have to pay for work needed and get Malta to refund you, but of course before you do this you'd need authorisation from Malta to proceed...

Incidentally, I wouldn't worry about having any troubles selling your car on: my MY00 sold very quickly on scoobynet, and price-wise both the buyer and I were happy

I really do hope this gets sorted, but I think Subaru UK are very unlikely to change their approach. They've been hurt by the supermarkets for years now, and it seems they've finally found a legal approach to making things difficult.

wrxseeker

iTrader: (1)

It was me not zippy who pointed it out, but I will let you off !!

gubby

Oops!

well it was late

Scooby.Newbie

Sent an email off first thing this morning to the dealer that I purchased my car from becuase my brakes totally failed last night.

Before I bought the car the official quote that I received said;
'Subaru Factory Warranty for 3 years'

I then questioned this in writing and the response that I got was;
I would have a '3 year Pan European Factory Warranty' that was 'identical, the car is identical' refering to the one that I could have bought from the local Subaru main dealer.

I have had problems with the dealer, am obviously not IM registered, and until very recently the local Subaru dealer has even refused to work on or service the car.

I appreciate the comments on here that you get what you pay for, but for me I was made a promise by the dealer not IM or Subaru, i've had the car for a year, my first Subaru, and was not aware of any problems or issues with the warranty at the time and had no reason to not beleive what I was being told and what was written on the official quotation.

I'm sure that the dealer must have been aware of the problem, as I have spoken to IM and he never even tried to register the car with them, although I totally agree that IM are exploiting a loophole in the law for their own benefit (and they are in business to make money) and this is wrong, I feel that I was mis-sold goods and that it is the primary responsibility of the dealer to face the charges put forward

Have any of you concidered the possibility of bringing a claim against the dealers if the goods for sale are maybe being mis-described, this is something that I may have to look in to depending on the reply that I have not received to my email yet.

DonnieDarko

Serious fraud office email, now forwarded onto the OFT

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your email.

The Serious Fraud Office is a government authority that prosecutes serious and complex fraud. There must generally be a minimum loss of £1 million in the case, a significant international dimension and sufficient public interest to merit an investigation using public funds. This case appears to be primarily a competition matter as opposed to a case of serious or complex fraud.

Although you have raised a number of concerning issues, in my understanding this matter would be best suited to the Office of Fair Trading (http://www.oft.gov.uk/default.htm), as the regulatory body that enforces competition within UK markets under the Competition Act 1998 and the EC Treaty. The OFT have powers to take direct action against firms or traders that are engaging in anti-competitive behaviour.

Yours faithfully

The Serious Fraud Office

How much money is involved : £18million (rough estimate)

How has the fraud been perpetrated : A price fixing cartel and anti-competitive behaviour by International Motors (the importers and parent company to Subaru (UK), Daihatsu (UK) and Isuzu (UK)Car companies in the UK)

They have begun refusing to honour the 3 year Pan-European Warranties offered on cars imported from the EU, through Car Supermarkets.

Car Supermarkets Sell a Subaru Impreza (such as the one i bought) for £15,500 subaru UK sell a virtually identical model (both right hand drive) for just under £21,000.

The cars should be equivalent, but they are now refusing to allow their dealer networks to get involved in warranty work for cars from the EU market.

It seems that they are using a potential loophole in the EU revised Block Exemption law whereby they cannot refuse this if the car was imported personally, or if an agent was instructed in advance to import the car, but are just picking on people who have bought from a car supermarket.

My estimate comes from the fact that their cars are over priced by around £4500 per car and subaru sell in total somewhere around 20,000 cars a year. assuming 20% of people would buy an import if not for this scam, then the fraud value is in the region of £18m

I am certain that the UK car supermarkets will sell several thousand Subaru, Daihatsu & Isuzu cars every year, and many buyers will be completely unaware that this fraud is going on, until they are unlucky enough to need warranty work on their car, which they believed to be under warranty.

Apparently Subaru UK have only started doing this in the last month, and I asked them the exact question about what would happen if i bought an EU import from a car supermarket over a month before i bought my car. I was told that "To be honest you shouldn't notice any real difference to a UK car"!

Kind Regards

ME

scoobyboy

ffs you lot are sad buy uk and then theres no hassle is there it's that easy. is it worth all this hassle for a couple of grand? it could cost you that in solicitors fees trying to get a warranty when if you brought through the proper channels in the first place it would all be in place. you brought cheap through another country don't expect to get the same quality and service as someone who actually understands the benefits of buying a uk car.

chiark

Scoobyboy, with respect you might be a tad biased as you work for a dealership . People bought the cars and were told that a warranty was in place - it's hardly their fault that the supermarkets weren't properly informed of EU legislation which allows IM to legitimately say "sod off" to warranty work.

Dealers are hardly crying over the extra servicing work, I'd imagine. You're not going to say that dealers lose money on servicing, are you?

It seems that there's no point berating the dealers or IM. It seems that IM are acting legally, and the dealers have to do what IM says for fear of losing their franchise...

The car supermarkets, to my eyes, appear to be at fault and it's up to them to sort it out. They've sold cars with 3 year warranty as part of the deal so they have to give that, or are in breach of contract. If the supermarkets are trying to sort it out and manage to get you a 3 year warranty where work is done at a subaru garage without you paying, that's good. If they don't manage that, I'd say that they're on dubious legal ground (but I am not a lawyer) and are probably in breach of something.

I'd give up attacking IM as they seem to be in the right and not about to budge - after all, why would they? -, but carry on with complaints against the supermarkets, preferably amicably, but if that goes wrong check your invoice/advert/other stuff that you have from the purchase and see if they're in breach of contract by not being able to supply your 3 year manufacturer's warranty.

wrxseeker

iTrader: (1)

Another guy who works at a main dealer !!!

Edited to say Damm beaten to it by Chiark !!

gubby

I can fully understand where IM are coming from and also understand they are trying to protect their profit margin. I said before that I am sure that they have taken legal advice before implementing this.

What I do object to is the underhand way they have gone about it. There are now hundreds of owners that this is now affecting through no fault of their own.

If IM had made an announcement, that as from whatever date, they would no longer be honouring warranty work for cars sourced through a Supermarket, then we all could have taken a view on whether we would go ahead with the purchase from a Supermarket on that basis or buy from a Subaru dealer. Maybe some then would have gone the dealer route or tracked down a nearly new model.

So, I do blame IM for this particular situation. As for servicing etc. they don't get a penny of my money, not now nor in the future.

There are hundeds affected, not a great number perhaps but I bet a large proportion will never deal with Subaru UK ever again after this.

DonnieDarko

FFS, IM told both me and gubby around a month before we bought our cars from supermarkets that that was ok, and that "to us there should be no difference between a UK and EU car's warranty"

For that i continue to blame them, hence i will be PMing people who i know to be genuine with a phone number from the guy from WhatCar? who has just phoned me and is investigating the IM/Supermarket Problems.

I believe IM has a right to protect their interests, assuming they are being illegally infringed, but the correct way is to sue the supermarkets.

Do the police spend their time trying to catch people who unknowingly bought stolen goods, or are they more interested in the people that stole them in the first place?

I don't see why it is us that are losing out, for doing nothing wrong. I see absolutely no difference whether i imported a car myself, got an agent to do it, or bought it from an agent's stock.

Vipa

Donnie...have left a message for the guy at what car to call me, thanks for that.

I was very careful when I bought my Subaru, I did a lot of groundwork before I parted with the cash to make sure it was ok and above board to buy an import and that included speaking to warranty dept. at IM who informed me that there was no prob with cross border warranties on imports apart from it could take a tad longer to get authorisation for work as IM had to seek authorisation from Cyprus or Malta or wherever.

At no point did anyone tell me that I had to buy an import in a certain manner or sign a specific document prior to my car being sourced.

The point is why should I suffer when I made all reasonable checks prior to buying my vehicle.

Someone MUST take responsibility for this or else the law will make them take responsibility. Assuming that IM are acting quite lawfully (and from my research and growing expertise in EU block exemption rules I would say that they are) the buck stops firmly with the dealer I bought the car from (with "subaru 3 year pan european warranty")

I am promised that there will be a resolution to this shortly, apparently from the top down, I hope this is true.

I have sat down with a solicitor now. The outcome of the meeting I would prefer not to air publicly, suffice to say that it is not I who will suffer financially.

V

DonnieDarko

^^ PM PM!

Scooby.Newbie

Donnie, tried to PM you but your mailbox is full.

Just to clarify my personal situation, my STi is a company car, I did not primarily choose to buy an import over a UK model from a Subaru UK main dealer on price alone. I still pay the same amout of tax on the list price of the car no matter where in the world it originated or what pound note value was actually handed over for it.

The 'importer' had the model of car in the colour that I wanted on the forecourt but the Subaru dealer did not, the Subaru dealer tried hard to get my business but not even they pointed out a problem with IM (who I never even knew existed at the time) or any prolonged warranty issues that I may experience, but did helpfully point out that the car would be set up for a hot European climate and probably wouldn't work over here !

Yes the purchase price was cheaper than a true UK spec, but I did not personally benefit from this, I even got the warranty issue in writing in addition to it being on the original quote, my only failing was wanting the car now! and not wanting to wait the two months quoted by the Subaru dealer to get the exact car that I wanted.

And ScoobyBoy, to be honest I think your attitude on this matter pretty much sums up my experience with Subaru UK thus far, ill informed, immature and down right dis-respectfull to all concerned, and seeing as it is only a couple of grand, maybe you would be prepared to help out those that are obviously not as well off and insightfull as youself.

scoobyboy

ah well thats tough really if thats what you think then so be it, no skin off my nose you made your bed now you got to lie in it you obviously didnt do your home work properly and was more motivated by colour rather than the long term benefits you would have got if you had brought a uk spec car (must bat for the other side!)
once again your showing yourself to be the typical import owner wanting me to now help you out, bit like asking i.m to give you a warranty when they didn't have anything to do with the sale of the car really, anyone else get the feeling this thread just goes around and around.

changing the subject

chiark dealers do do ok out of normal servicing but the 3yr offer that subaru do is a killer for profits theres no extras like screenwash or brakecleaner included and they don't pay normal labour rates either, the profit is cut right back.

Rabid

Thanks scoobyboy for making my mind up that I'll be going to Litchfield Imports for my new Impreza and will be using non IM franchised dealers for servicing, parts etc. Let's see how much more business you can lose for IM.

wrxseeker

iTrader: (1)

With regard to employees at subaru dealers slagging of imports and this situation, try this one for size:

Unless the employee is a salesman (who lost out in his big fat commission) any other dealer employee is likely to gain from an EU import with a warranty.

The dealer will more than likely get the servicing (which is not free for 3 yrs like on UK cars) and get the full profit, get paid for any warranty work, and get the profit on any accessories bought etc etc.

Now if the warranties arent valid the EU car owner may as well take their business elsewhere as they have nothing to lose especially for the servicing and anything that would have been done under warranty.

Imagine how it would be if a dealer (I know its very unlikely to happen) found that the profits from servicing/warranty/accessories had been hit by the problem with the warranties on EU imports.

Maybe they would be forced to even get rid some staff !! - preferably the ones who had been LOL at other peoples problem or calling people sad on here.

Just an idea.

wrxseeker

iTrader: (1)

Just for the record no one is asking IM for a warranty, as you would know (working for a main dealer), all IM have ever done is act as an intermediary between the EU car owner and the supplying country.

tim's wrx

Yeah - this is a good point. My warranty is with Liaco Malta - so if I needed warranty work done and Subaru UK refused to do it for free, then I could get a local dealer to do it and get Motorpoint to pay - Motorpoint would have to get reimbursed by Liaco Malta.

If the very worst happened and Motorpoint refused to pay, then I might have to pay myself and then recover from Liaco Malta !

chiark

Ah, sorry for not picking up/remembering that. I can see why you're a "tad annoyed" with IM. Given that you've not paid them anything, I doubt there's much you can do about 'em all the same.

DonnieDarko

well screw all you UK haters- motorpoint are paying for a top notch aftermarket warranty for me, i will just have to take it to subaru, they phone warranty company for authorisation, job gets done, and its transferrable.

i may even get a bit of compensation on top if i push 'em

comic cuts

Glad to hear your good news DonnieDarko. Motorpoint obviously realise they've got it wrong now.......hope you and everyone else gets some compo too!

CC