Trading Standards

[Simon J]

Do you know, I'd never worked out how to use the PM system before - thanks for the PM 101

[adieu]

Your more than welcome. Now maybe this thread can stay on Topic?

[Simon J]

Originally Posted by adieu

Now maybe this thread can stay on Topic?

Sorry, sir; yes, sir; no, sir; three bags full, sir!

[MissDMeanor]

OK, I've watched this thread and previous Rica threads for some time now. This is my take on it:

I can understand that people who have heard of/bought a Rica chip which was sold to them as X amount of bhp to be upset when they then found out that this figure highly unlikely.

Based on the X amount of bhp, I know that Rica customers one year/18 months ago worked out how much bhp per £ spent Rica would gain them, hence this particular chip the better value for money. They used this equation when recommending VT and although VT cannot be responsible for who/how previous customers recommend them, a degree of the onus must be taken.

I'm a book dealer and the nearest analogy I could think of would be for me to sell a customer a book promising them that it had 200 pages. It's a relatively old book and as such had a few pages missing which I knew about. The customer thoroughly enjoyed the book anyway. It's a great book, I've read it too.....that doesn't detract from the fact that I sold it to the customer under false pretences.

I believe/would hope that VT now inform customers of older vehicles that the stated X amount of bhp is optimal but unlikely. The disclaimer and elucidation about this does mean that this is all in the past so I can also understand how some people think particular responses to Hamish's original post as a chance to 'have a go'. I don't believe this to be true, I think what some people would like is an admission. If a spokesperson from VT were to say 'yes, we marketed this product without informing the customer of the full facts' I think people would be satisfied.

I would expect a street market trader to exaggerate about their products - it would almost be a given that the products they sell aren't up to spec. However, I would not expect this from a car tuning company. Once the full story about a product comes to light it makes it difficult to believe other claims from the same company. I'm not trying to diss VT but just say that I feel they mismanaged previous marketing strategies.

Incidentally, I did read in a previous Rica thread that VT stated they themselves developed some of the Rica software........so how can the figures for, let's say, a brand new 850 have been obtained?

Just my humble opinion

[Dan F]

Originally Posted by pyaap

Hi Ross,
It is such statements that lead to the heart of the matter at hand, namely the credibility and accuracy of information which is being publicised to Volvo owners in the wider community.

Hi.
Can I just ask, are all you people who want the facts that are published to be accurate for every car they are ever applied to, going to complain to trading standards about say, ANY official fuel consumption figures obtained by manufacturers not being reproducible in the real world due to them being obtained under absolutely ideal conditions, as well?
Or failing that, maybe complain about response times on new LCD screens perhaps? 10ms? really? That figure is invariably for black to white transition of the pixels, and not the true measure which is grey to grey, which can be anything up to a rather worse looking 25ms. However the fastest time obtained is always the one in the specs.
Oh, maybe try a pop at wireless networks. They purport to have speeds of 125Mbps+. And that is what you will read on the packaging, however that is only usually obtainable at about 5ft or less from the AP. Then it will drop off rapidly depending on distance and how many walls are in the way and even the size of file being moved.
etc.
etc.
etc.
Fact is anything that is being sold is usually sold on a 'best case sceario' set of figures, that have been obtained at one time or another. Whether your car (or whatever) achieves those numbers is of little concern as that advertised figure has been reached during development and is therefore valid.
What is this problem with the figures anyway?
This all just looks like a few individuals with axes to grind and nothing more.
I have had my RICA for years, and I am loving it!!!
My car is in great condition, and doesn't even consume oil. I love the way it goes regardless of what numbers a dyno spits out. (Even though they have always been on the high side whereever I have had it done! )
All I know is on the road (where it counts) I have some extremely lively in gear sprint times and that is where the real proof of the pudding is.
Give the RICA bashing a rest and stick to the love of tuning PLEASE; regardless of where you get it done.
Later all,
Dan.

[Simon J]

Originally Posted by Dan F

This all just looks like a few individuals with axes to grind and nothing more.

Where on earth did you get that idea from, Dan? ;-)

[MissDMeanor]

I beg to differ - I've given my impartial opinion based on my marketing/business knowledge. One of my previous jobs was copy-writing and there are some very clever marketing tricks out there.......I feel that VT's previous marketing overstepped the clever boundary into the area of false claims.

For me, this wouldn't inspire confidence with any business/company I deal with. That's just my opinion

[Rbphot]

Having followed the posts on this forum and others, regards VT/RICA, the fact they didn't have a disclaimer posted means they were guaranteeing that every customer would get the gains advertised, this has been proven not to be the case, depending on the condition/age of their cars, as seen on many forums post about this matter.
Therefore this is false advertising, this is the same as someone selling you a DVD recorder in somewhere like Currys, and doesn't tell you that it only takes their own brand disks, and that it doesn't record on normal ones.

By putting the claims in an advert or web page you are misleading the customer, that's why trading standards stepped in.

As for the complaints being made by non-customers, the fact that the product advertised doesn't live up to what is advertised is enough reason for potential customers to express their concerns to trading standards.

ray

[adieu]

Below are some quotes just to reinforce the issue.


Quotes from my post made: Oct 8th, 2005, 12:31
Adam,

When I first brought my car to you for it to be chipped you
stated verbally to me that I WOULD SEE 300bhp, no mention of
underlying problems with the car effecting this etc etc.


Quotes from Adams reply made: Oct 8th, 2005, 12:37
As with any service offered, we had to improve as it became apparent that knackered cars like yours were not able to produce such power. Therefore rather than ask people to spend money on getting the car into shape, we introduced a product which would give them more realistic gains for the condition of the car.

Quotes from my post made: Oct 8th, 2005, 12:31
I believe that I was misled by your website and verbal
comments made by you.


Quotes from Adams reply made: Oct 8th, 2005, 12:37
But you never offered us an opportunity to address this.

This just goes to support the fact that you did not disclose all facts to all customers!

Regards

Iain

[Ross9]

Originally Posted by pyaap

Hi Ross,

We are indeed all entitled to our personal opinions, but they need to be based on fact. For a statement about 100% certainty to be made, it insinuates that the identities of the complainants are known to the person writing the post, and by default that suggests that Trading Standards have disclosed that information; the question is would a professional body like Trading Standards actually disclose such information? In any case, we had a similar sweeping statement made right at the start of this post and even that has proven to be inaccurate, given that Trading Standards have gone on to institute further changes.

It is such statements that lead to the heart of the matter at hand, namely the credibility and accuracy of information which is being publicised to Volvo owners in the wider community.

Valid points, personally given no input one way or the other I would find more likely that an organisation such as Trading Standards would not disclose the information about the complainants. However I would also find it likely that they would just state that the were protecting confidentiality if VT had queried where the complaints had come from, not offered false information. So either they did tell VT who the complainants were as Hamish said, or he is lying through his teeth and made the details of his 100% certain statement up. Perhaps I am too trusting of people as there is every possibility that it was a false statement made by Hamish. Either way you are correct Ashok and I'll re-iterate my disclaimer lol, that I made the comments based on the assumption Hamish's statements were 100% truthful.

It is also true as was said by someone else that a potential customer may have found enoough concern over the claimed figs vs achieved figs to make a complaint and in hindsight they have a right do so so, Im sure Trading Standards would have informed them if they did not, personally though if it was not a complaint relating to work done on my car, or a complaitn regarding a matter that directly affected me, then I feel it is a bit over the line to bring to bear the attentions of Trading Standards on the company. If I looked into parts for the Rover and felt they were shoddy or made false claims I would just scoff, mutter, and choose to buy elsewhere.

I think I've said everything I have to on the subject now lol, I feel it's a topic best not to get too involved in as it seems to have the uncanny knack of causing upset and aggravation on the forum.

Ross