Tag Archives: OFT

garage services

Is the garage Motor Code good enough?

Believe it or not, FOXY is a supporter of the Motor Codes (service and repair) garage code within the trade but we do not think it is ready to promote to the general public even after 15 months.

Certainly we would like more independent garages to sign up to this (also known as the Motor Industry Service and Repair Code – MISRC), if only to highlight the slippery dodgy businesses that aren’t honest, fair, open or transparent in the way they do business.

As things stand, we are told that some 5000 businesses have signed up to this of which c90% are dealerships. Yet these dealerships are required by manufacturers like Ford and Peugeot to operate to minimum aftersales performance standards which already exceed MISRC standards. So why do they need MISRC?

Not just that but motorists who choose a MISRC dealership (where there isn’t an independent listed) will pay something like 30-50% more than they would in an independent garage.

This means that manufacturers like Ford and Peugeot are effectively funding the Motor Codes public advertising campaign which is encouraging men and women drivers to choose a franchised dealership (ie them) and the outcome is that the motorist will then pay more than he or  she needs to (because they don’t know they have a choice…).

The greatest irony is that if FOXY Lady Drivers Club wanted to complain that the Motor Code is an unfair sales and marketing practice which could deceive motorists (ie encourage them to pay over the odds without giving them a choice), we’d expect a fair hearing within the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR).

But there is a conflict of interest here because BERR is part of the same governmental family as the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) which is the financial beneficiary of the Motor Codes scheme. The scheme pays OFT so it is unlikely to welcome any complaints that will decrease its coffers here.

In fact, it’s only when the Motor Code’s monitoring Compliance Check happens (at an extra cost of £175 and to take place within 24 months of registration) that the OFT can know if the scheme is working (ie if subscribing garages and dealerships are up to scratch) before awarding it full Stage 2 OFT code approval. As the scheme started in August 2008 it’s too soon to know this – and I haven’t seen much mention of this in Motor Codes sales recruitment publicity in the trade recently…

All in all I think the female motorist runs the risk of being mislead if she takes the Motor Codes publicity material as follows, knowing that any business can sign up to this for so little money…

The Motor Industry Code of Practice for Service and Repair aims to promote and safeguard consumers’ interests by helping consumers identify better businesses and to encourage subscribers to raise their standards of customer service. You should have the confidence that Code Subscribers:

  • are committed to treating consumers fairly

  • will guarantee good customer service

  • give consumers clear information about the goods or services they are selling

  • have user-friendly, straightforward and quick procedures for dealing with customer complaints

  • will use clear and fair contracts

On the other hand, if I were an independent and middle of the road garage I’d get in there now and pay my £75 sub for one year to take advantage of the scheme’s generous publicity, knowing that I need do nothing more and I could opt out before any compliance check bill.

FOXY

PS: Final thought – the Motor Codes scheme sponsor is the Society of Motor Manufacturers (SMMT) whose franchised dealer members are among the 90% of businesses being promoted within the scheme (see above).  If this was you, and you were funded by major manufacturers, would you be inclined to actively court independent garage competitors that might be more popular?

car dealerships, garage services, marketing to women, women drivers

Does the Motor Codes garage scheme encourage women drivers to pay over the odds in car dealerships?

Does the Motor Industry Service and Repair Code/garage market itself to women and encourage them to pay over the odds in car dealerships? Yes I think it does.

For starters the Motor Codes website,  blog and recent press releases state….

“Don’t risk a rip-off, you can trust a Motor Codes garage.”

“Consumers, why go anywhere else? Don’t risk a rip off, look for the logo and have confidence in your choice of garage by using the Garage Finder facility on the Motor Codes website.”

[Click here to find out] ‘How the Service and Repair Code solves your cowboy garage concerns….’

“Franchised and independent garages who subscribe to the Code surely have the edge over those that don’t – or won’t.”

“Businesses that commit to the Code are demonstrating their willingness to provide consistent levels of customer satisfaction and the more that subscribe, the easier it is for consumers to find the good guys.”

Yet these marketing statements, intended to influence men and women drivers alike are misleading because…

1   the likes of the ATA, BSI Kitemark and OFT approved Stage Two schemes operated by Bosch Car Service and VBRA are higher standards than the Motor Industry Service and Repair Code

2   the majority of manufacturers expect higher service and repair standards of workmanship from their franchised dealers than the Motor Industry Service and Repair Code states

3   only a small percentage of subscribers to the Motor Industry Service and Repair Code have been inspected (142 compliance checks in Q1 2009 gives you an idea of how many of the 5500 subscribers have been vetted during the full year…) so this is an EXTREMELY CHEAP promotion at just £75 a year for any business to get on the quality bandwagon and claim to be better than others without having to prove anything…

4   most of the businesses listed (iro 80% I estimate, probably more) are franchised car dealerships. Check out your nearest town via the Motor Codes website for starters. Is it a coincidence that this scheme is run by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders who exist to represent the best interests of the main manufacturers? How can they put the best interests of motorists first (but someone must)…

5   female motorists on a budget (ie most of us in a recession) choosing a Motor Codes subscriber are likely to feel tricked into paying more than we need to because the website suggests Motor Code subscribers are better…

For example and as at today…

If you wanted to choose a Motor Codes subscriber in Glasgow only 2 out of 50 are independent garages…

If you wanted to choose a Motor Codes subscriber in Newcastle upon Tyne only 1 out of 42 businesses is an independent garage

If you wanted to choose a Motor Codes subscriber in Manchester only 3 out of 33 are independents

If you wanted to choose a Motor Codes subscriber in Birmingham only 3 out of 35 are independents

If you wanted to choose a Motor Codes subscriber in London only 6 out of 46 are independents

If you wanted to choose a Motor Codes subscriber in Shoreham-by-Sea (my nearest town in Sussex) only 3 out of 33 are independents

If you wanted to choose a Motor Codes subscriber in Exeter only 2 out of 23 are independents

and so on…it’s the same skew across the UK. Draw your own conclusions.

As I see it, this means that many men and women drivers, choosing a Motor Codes subscriber (as a result of lavish marketing budgets) could end up paying over the odds in car dealerships without realising they could have had an informed choice of a good independent garage…

AND that the majority of Motor Codes subscribers have neither had a welcome visit or a Compliance Check yet. The fact is that these subscribers don’t have to be good garages, they just have to say they are.

If it was me and I found this out, I’d feel cheated by the very industry and OFT- backed code that is promising me and other women drivers like me better car servicing, MOT and repair value for money services.

And isn’t this the very reputation that the motor industry wishes to change – for overcharging motorists?

Undoubtedly manufacturers jumped on board because Ford signed up first and told its dealers to subscribe a year ago… but I remain amazed that so many manufacturers ever thought that their authorised dealers needed to subscribe to such a basic Motor Code… have they read it?  Their dealers MUST have been doing more than this in the aftersales department…

Of course I support attempts to raise standards in the motor industry, but this code is not the salve to all garage problems yet. It isn’t ready for consumer marketing and it could mislead and increase industry complaints not reduce them as it set out to do.

And many, many garages and dealerships are offering much higher and female friendly standards  – let’s set the quality bar much higher in future.

FOXY

female friendly, garage services, women drivers

Female friendly garage choices for consumers

I heard on the radio this am that Consumer Direct is back campaigning for regulation in the UK garage services industry.

It would appear that the latest car ‘service and repair’ code has yet to hit the spot for independent garages. Out of an impressive c5000 subscribers since last August, some 4000 are thought to be franchised dealerships who were always to be the financial backbone of the scheme and were told to sign up by their manufacturer bosses – Ford, Mazda and Peugeot among others.

This imbalance is important because motorists need choices to suit their car, their motoring budget and where they live… and franchised dealerships are usually a good bit more expensive than independents.

Taken to its conclusion if the new Motor Code were to start to promote itself in a big way to consumers (which they certainly have the money to do) they could, in effect, create more complaints than ever because motorists will be paying higher rates to franchised dealers in areas where there is no choice of an independent garage. I’d complain if I felt I habe been encouraged to pay over the odds, unnecessarily.

However FOXY doesn’t take sides in this debate because it knows only too well that women drivers come in all shapes and sizes and usually know very well what they want…

But women who want low cost motoring bills to keep a cherished older family car (not a banger…) on the road want low cost garage bills otherwise they mightn’t bother getting their car serviced regularly.

Tell them that they need a Motor Code dealership to repair their car and they might think that they are to expect to pay extra for quality.

Whereas the real foxy choice, clearly available to all motorists, should be to identify one of the best local garages or dealerships in their area, based on measurable qualifications, an investment in quality and a commitment to customer service to suit their needs.

I agree with Consumer Direct that the motorist continues to fail to find her and his best local choices to date. It’s interesting that this organisation is a part of the Government’s BERR department and sits alongside the OFT which is supporting the industry’s Motor Code intentions (for automotive services and repairs).

I also suspect that few earlybird subscribers (such as car dealerships that well exceed the minimum motor code industry standards of honest and fair services, open and transparent pricing and work to be completed as agreed) spotted that they are to pay a hefty fee £’00s every two years or so to be inspected.

Assuming that the complaints Consumer Direct pick up on are  similar to the ones members of FOXY Lady Drivers Club tell us of, these will be about shoddy workmanship, overcharging and patronising customer service.Hence my belief that the female friendly FOXY Promise is a better benchmark of standards and that the garage services  industry is long overdue a female friendly image makeover.

Needless to say, it’ll be a real shame for the consumer if industry prices (already much higher than in France, for example) need to rise because of regulation fees, but this may be what is needed for UK motorists to get a fair deal and for older cars to be safer on our roads in future. And for the industry to identify and promote higher standards in future.

Bring it on guys.

FOXY

“Four words sum up what lifted successful individuals above the crowd – a little bit more. They did what was expected, and a little bit more.”

A. Lou Vickery.

buying a new car, women drivers

Welcome OFT study into used car market

It’s no surprise to me that women drivers are more apprehensive than men in garages and car dealers.  It’s not just that we feel unwelcome in many of them but it’s also because we are so often the butt of the joke, the topless pin-up insulted in the workshop, patronised even when we know what we want and, worst of all perhaps, overcharged or sold things we don’t need and wouldn’t have wanted had we known that, or been given a choice.

What the recession has done is increase the number of motorists actively planning to buy used rather than  new cars in the near future, so there is no avoiding the Arthur Daley’s and Swiss Tonis that do exist out there. With almost 50% of used cars bought by female motorists I am always surprised to find that so few get a proper used car check before buying – especially when from a private seller where they have no rights in law otherwise. Recent research carried out for FOXY Lady Drivers Club confirmed that only 20% had got the likes of an HPI check before buying used.

They then join FOXY to help them sort out the problems they inherit…  so we mustn’t grumble of course ;-).

Now we hear that the Government’s Office of Fair Trading (OFT) is to identify the unacceptable  number of motorists who complain about used car sales to them (c68,000 cases to Consumer Direct  in 2008). This will take the form of a study into this £35bn market to see how its processes fare in terms of robustness, confidence and clarity.

I will be interested to see how this research develops.  The industry can certainly be improved but the solution isn’t easy. Think how the recommended service periods have been stretched and stretched  for new cars, so that cars get less attention in their early stages but operating costs are reduced and therefore more attractive to fleet buyers. In turn these business cars are then hammered up and down motorways (by and large good for engines…) but with the minimum of maintenance and servicing during the first three years or 60,000m. They are then dumped on the used car market at prices which reflect their future saleability.  And if the price is low enough, there’ll always be a market to turn a quick buck and pass it on regardless…

I believe the used car market needs an agreed minimum standard of  ‘approved’ used car status where we know that the car comes with a minimum  ‘quibble free’ 6 month warranty, ideally a 1 year warranty. There must be a way to do this that takes into account the selling price, auction situations, the (authentic?) mileage and whether the car has been looked after regularly (and that the service history stamps are authentic of course…).

Very few women seem to look at the service record before falling in love with a car and yet who of us can deny that a well maintained car (by a genuinely good garage) will be more economic to run in future and an all round better buy that the cheap car that has been flogged to death with minimum tlc in between.

And I hope the OFT study covers used car warranties too because they don’t all cover as much as you’d think.

I’d also like more motorists to know that a well maintained used car can be as green if not greener than a new car when you factor in the true CO2 costs of its production and delivery to the showroom. Those that can’t afford to buy new shouldn’t be made to feel inferior or to hear their cherished family car described as a ‘banger’ simply because they one that’s 10 years+, eligible for a £2000 backhander if they sign up to the ‘scrappage’ scheme and have it destroyed in exchange for a new car.

After all, we are encouraged to recycle and re-use rather than throw away and buy new. And fleet car buyers will continue to buy new of course which represents at least half  of the new car market.

Something for everyone there, to suit our needs and budgets.

FOXY

“It is our responsibilities, not ourselves, that we should take seriously.”
Peter Ustinov