tonygo

been watching this with some interest for a while,i think the way you have been treated is well out of order and should never have happened, good luck to you if you take further action, also get in touch with the local press as they are ripping people off quoting for work that isnt required,

i think most people reading this would think twice about using this lexus approved dealer?

I agree this is an issue for the local press...... they have still not replied within their own timescale of 1 week.

The opinion expressed by an independent, third party MOT tester is just that, an opinion. If you take the same vehicle to a number of different garages, then you will get a range of opinions as the MOT is quite subjective.

Lexus Bradford tried told me to get a third party opinion, and tried to hold my car to ransom to prevent me getting one. I have got one, and it does not help their position.

Turning specifically to your contention about the differential fitted to your car - whether it be new or reconditioned - has to meet certain QA standards before it can be re-issued. Take water pumps for example. You hand your old unit in and 'buy' a reconditioned unit from your dealer. Same goes for drive shafts and many other major components. The unit you buy isn't 'spanking factory fresh new' it is reconditioned and you accept that this part is 'as new'. Thats perfectly normal and I guess this is how the diff. is in your RX. Not quite possible to get a factory never used brand new virgin diff. - it is impracticable - so you get the next best thing, a reconditioned unit fully stripped down and rebuilt by Lexus. if Lexus warrant it, they warrant. As has been posted before, no-one would want to put their name to something if they thought it'd be risky.

As I have said before - I take no issue with reconditioned parts that have gone through a proper QA process and are fully warranted. Had I been offered that in the first place, that would not have been an issue. However, that has not happened here. Lexus GB claim to have provided a brand new part to Leeds. The Bradford (ex-Leeds) mechanic has alleged Leeds provided them a unit recovered from a vehicle in a serious accident. So what has happened to the brand new unit? What, if any, QA process has the recovered differential gone though? And why the need to cover it all up?

Several developments over the last couple of days

1) Went to Lexus Bradford on Saturday. I asked the Group Service Manager why they had not repaired the rear discs and pads as they had agreed, in writing. They said it was not possible to do the rear discs and pads without doing the other (over £2000 of quoted) work. When asked further about this, which seemed inexplicable to me (but I am not technical), they couldn't explain how this was so. I explained that they were in breach of contract and they replied that they didn't want do the rear discs and pads at the price they had quoted in writing, which had been accepted and agreed in writing, as this was a goodwill gesture (though this had not been indicated anywhere) and they didn't want to do it.

2) I explained I wanted my car to have an independent assesment. They refused for this be done on their premises, and said I before I was allowed to remove the vehicle I would have to pay a £380 diagnostic charge plus storage. I pointed out that I had asked them to quote on repairs and had not authorised any paid work. They had quoted £2,436.68 for the work with no mention of any "diagnostic charge" for the quotation. It was only after Lexus GB had offered the parts as goodwill (which was already after they had undertaken their so-called diagnostics) that they produced a second "quotation" identical to the first but with an additional £380 diagnostic bill. I explained that they were in effect holding my car to ransom; that it was dishonest to have produced the second higher invoice; and that in any event I had not authorised any charged work on my vehicle. They agreed to waive this charge and the storage charge. I agreed to sign a form that in the opinion of Lexus Bradford the car was not roadworthy.

3) I asked for a written response to each of the points in my correspondence to Mr. Kaye dated 12th November 2008. Mr. Kaye responded that he would respond to a letter, but not an email. I pointed out to him that he was holding a printed out and annonated copy of that very email. I said I would be happy to sign his annotated email and he agreed that he, or a Director of Lexus (as he was away for 1 week) would respond to me within a week.

4) The car was transported to an independent garage. I chose a public sector (ambulance service) as they are a (I think) not for profit operation and had no connection to Lexus. I asked them to perform an MOT on the vehicle (though non was required, but I needed some written proof that the car was indeed roadworthy) and to offer an opinion on whether the rear differential fitted in July 2008 was a new unit, a reconditioned unit or it was impossible to tell either way. I asked them to provide a written quotation on the other work that Lexus Bradford had quoted on. I also asked them to comment on the rear discs and pads (which Lexus Leeds and the AA had said needed urgent replacement and Lexus Bradford had said in July [<3000 miles ago] were OK and would last another 10,000 miles).

The independent garage (I have no connection with them other than we are both public sector employees & I have never met nor spoken with the mechanic before he undertook the inspection / work) stated:

- In their written opinion "diff seems to be a unit that has been recon not a brand new unit"

- The rear discs and pads needed urgent replacement [plus an advisory on the front tyres]

- None of the other quoted work (£2,500) needed doing.

[incidentally the fee for all of this work, including the rear discs and pads, was just over £200]

Maybe this is this fallout of the credit crunch on luxury car dealers - when cars aren't selling, fleece customers that were loyal to the brand with work that (apparently) doesn't need doing at ridiculous rates? And what do I now do with my car which in all likelihood has a recon diff, as the Bradford employee (who had previously been sacked from Leeds) had told my wife and I, which the Bradford Lexus management have gone to great efforts to, apparently, cover up?

I don't know what this is doing for your own health, god knows I'd be almost having a nervous breakdown after all this if I was in your position.

With a huge dose of 'in my humble opinion', I would draw a line underneath everything that's happened - fight the £370 bill if you have a price of £130 in writing and then just leave it at that. Take your car in its current state and either get it fixed elsewhere, or, as I suspect you'll never be happy with the car ever again, just go and trade it in for something else and never go near Lexus again.

I dread to think how something like this going on would affect ones state of mind or that of their families - you'll never be satisfied with what Lexus do for you (and I'm not saying you should be either) but it seems like they're not going to move - cut your losses and get out of the situation before it stops just being an irritation and it starts consuming every minute of your waking life.

Hi Wylie,

The 370 bill was for "diagnostics" and has already been dropped (yesterday) by Lexus Bradford. The 130 bill was for the rear discs and pads which have not yet been replaced (as had been agreed in writing). Anyway, thanks for your concern, but any losses will be fully compensated.

Cleary my expectations from Lexus are too high..... actually paying for work done rather than fabricating an invoice to disguise that nearly HALF the amount of labour (2.59) was WORKED than ESTIMATED (5 hours)......

Everything has been in writing which is why it is going to be relatively easy to issue proceedings if Lexus Bradford don't start acting sensibly.

Letter to Lexus GB 12th November 2008

Dear Mr. Kay,

Thank you for your email of today's date. We would be grateful if you could respond to each numbered point in turn, by return.

1) There are no contemporaneous notes that support that a new differential was either collected from Leeds nor fitted to my vehicle to counter your employee's allegation that a "part recovered from a vehicle involved in a serious accident" was fitted. Both Mr. Fagan & yourself have claimed that documents (which you refused to provide to me) prove that "a copy of the job card to say the new differential was fitted to your Vehicle". Please can you state exactly where the job card, or any other documentation, states that a NEW differential was fitted.

2) Please not that you not have responded to the allegation that you estimated that 5 hours would be required to replace the differential; it took only 2.59 hours; you charged for the full 5 hours knowing that it only took 2.59 hours; and that Lexus Bradford falsified the invoice to make up the the 60,000 mile service to the full amount, deliberately withholding the 5 hours labour (that never occured) charged for the fitting of differential.

3) We had never had any symptoms with our handbrake cables until such time as we attempted to pick our vehicle from Lexus Bradford after the alleged full service and alleged fitting of the rear differential in July 2008. Upon picking up the vehicle you had obviously caused a problem with the handbrake cable. You misled us that after consultation with Lexus GB these parts were replaced (there is no evidence that you spoke with Lexus CR), and asked us to wait 2 hours while you replaced these. Mr. Fagan has suggested in the alternative, the fault you created may have been dealt with by a repair, which in any event, you failed to document. In any event we expect that you fully correct the fault which you created, and you alleged you had already corrected.

4) I had neither authorized nor approved any charges for providing a quotation to repair my vehicle. A quotation was provided by Lexus Bradford, in writing, on Monday 27th October at 14:01 (copied below) and makes no reference to any "diagnostic" work. To imply that such a charge exists, in my view, may be deliberately misleading.

5) We note from the partial records provided by Lexus GB an entry dated 30th October 2008 "you cannot tell by looking at diff if it is new but providing the diff is working which it is obviously is then it must be a new part - this is a complete unit so the centre must have fitted it - it is not something that can be overhauled and it solved the noise so must have been replacement part". For the avoidance of doubt there was a never a noise that we complained about. The alleged "fault" with the differential was picked up at a routine service by Lexus Leeds. There were no symptoms and there was no noise. We were told (by an independent mechanic) that we should have seen oil leaking form the car. We therefore chose an to observe the car for a period to see if there was any leaking oil - none was observed. It is simply untrue to suggest there was a symptom (noise) and this went with the alleged repair.

6) You informed Lexus GB (30th October 10:20) that you (Lexus Bradford) "has done work for him (me) in the past and not charged for labour". This is entirely untrue and we would be grateful if you could clarify exactly what work has been done by you in the past and not charged.

7) You informed Lexus GB ((4th November 16:23) that "car was booked in for yesterday with loan car for 1 day to have brakes done but booking was cancelled because car had been recovered to them". This is entirely untrue and misleading an no such booking has been canceled.

You will be aware that I previously expressed concern about the discs issue to you in writing on 10th July 2008:

"I have spoken to Lexus Head Office about the rear discs and pads

because I was very concerned that Lexus Leeds could have said that

they needed replacing urgently (i.e. within 1000-2000 miles), whereas

Lexus Bradford said they will in fact go to my next service / another

10,000 miles. Because of the other concerns I had already expressed

about Lexus Leeds, these two opinions did not seem compatible.

It is now likely because of the differing views I will have to get a

third opinion.

Please can you confirm the price without the rear discs and pads (i.e.

front discs and pads, and 60,000 service) including parts, labour and

VAT. Please also confirm that you will subsequently honour the price

quoted for rear discs and pads"

You responded:

"Hi A,

Just to confirm that after independant [sic] consultation if the rear brakes require changing i will honour the rice [sic] of 130.00

Thanks

Nigel"

Following an independent (AA) opinion that rear discs and pads needed urgent replacement we asked that your honored your written agreement that this was done for 130 pounds as agreed. You responded:

"Ok I can book this for you and the price is detailed below.

Labour £129.60

Discs £118.12

Pads £30.56

Total inc vat fitted £326.98"

You subsequently confirmed that you will undertake the repair of the rear discs and pads at the agreed price, and not the greatly elevated price you quoted. We confirm will not be picking up the vehicle until you confirm in writing that this has been completed, as agreed. We had been promised and had expected that this would be completed by 3rd November.

8) We remain unable to drive our vehicle as you have not:

a) Fitted the rear discs and pads as you have agreed in writing

B) Replaced the hand brake cables which you damaged in the alleged repair of the rear differential as, you had stated

c) We still have grave concerns about the allegations made by your employee that the our car has been fitted with a potentially dangerous part recovered from a part involved in a serious accident. We have not seen any credible evidence to counter this allegation.

We will be seeking to recover all our costs from Lexus in this regard.

9) Your response is, unfortunately, an absolute disgrace. For the avoidance of doubt I will not be be paying any storage charges until all these matters have been resolved and urge you to act more responsibly in seeking an amicable settlement to the outstanding issues.

Yours sincerely,

Dr. & Mrs. A

On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 at 14:01PM Amanda Bradley <amanda.bradley@lexus-bradford.lexus.co.uk> wrote:

Dear Mr A

We have now had an opportunity to inspect your vehicle for the fault =

that it was recovered in for. It appears that the Diff replaced in July =

is in perfect working order as it should be however the following items =

have been reported.

The N/S outer CV joint is worn £673.39

OSR & NSR bottom bushes knocking £1220.87 (pair hubs required as =

bushes do not come separate)

Both rear handbrake cables seized £412.42

Total cost of repair £2306.67

Plus rear brakes as agreed £130.00

TOTAL COST OF ALL REPAIRS £2436.68

I have the handbrake cables in stock but the other items I would have to =

order and could possibly get them for tomorrow if I order them now

Please let me know what action you require me to take at this point.

Kind Regards

Amanda

Letter from Lexus Bradford 12th November 2008

Dear Dr G.

Paul Fagan is away at meetings for a couple of days. I have spoken to Paul and also spoken to Gill Want today about this case.

I have also read the correspondence you have sent to Lexus UK staff, and also West Yorkshire Trading Standards.

I also have had a conversation with you and your wife about the allegations you say have been said to you, regarding the Differential box fitted to your vehicle.

Let me put on email to you my findings and then answer your email to Amanda dtd 12/11/2008.

You have had several conversations with staff here at Lexus Bradford including Paul Fagan our Dealer Principal, Paul and I have discussed the issues you have raised and he has requested that I respond to you with the following:-

1. The differential fitted to your vehicle was the new one supplied by Lexus UK to The Dealer in Leeds In Nov of last year. You were told Bradford went to collect it in July of this year. The first part we picked up, on opening the box was a Transfer box removed from a vehicle, to be sent back to Lexus UK has a warranty item,

When the mistake was found Bradford reported to Lexus UK customer relations of the situation, and then Bradford returned the transfer box to Leeds, and collected the new differential.. This has been recorded on notes, that this happened, and you have been sent the records of the telephone conversations to Lexus UK.Both Bradford's and the conversation with the Leeds Service Manager. I have had west Yorkshire Trading Standards down to see myself and Paul Fagan, they have a copy of the job card to say the new differential was fitted to your Vehicle. They can advise you of any actions you may wish to take, We has a company have, and will continue to co-operate with Trading Standards.That said Dr G. I am calling this to a halt now of further explanation on this subject. I and my staff have explained to you, and in your words you do not trust anything that we as a dealer have said or done when working on your vehicle. Also for your information the technician who replaced your differential box was not the technician you spoke to and not the technician who used to work at the Leeds dealership.

2. You say in your email that you have hired a vehicle until this is resolved, and you expect my company to pay for the hire. At no stage has any of my staff, or Paul Fagan, agreed to pay for any car hire for either yourself or your wife, We will not pay for car hire.

3. You obviously have no faith or trust ( your words ) in the Bradford Dealership. We have decided therefore Dr G. that we have diagnosed the problem on your vehicle, given you the repair costings and the parts required. Lexus UK have agreed as a goodwill gesture to supply the parts free of charge to yourself. You can and may wish take them up on that, and the repairs can be done at any Lexus Dealership you wish to use.

Your vehicle is at present on our premises, I have informed you in my opinion your vehicle is unsafe to drive. You now have to decide who you want to work on your vehicle as I will no longer want, or am prepared to carry out any further work on this vehicle. This decision as been agreed by our dealer principal Paul Fagan and myself.

You have been given a repair cost for diagnosis work carried out on your vehicle namely £ 380.70p inc Vat.

I would ask you to settle this invoice and remove your vehicle from our premises by 17.00 hours on Friday 14th November 2008

I will have no option but to start charging storage charges for this vehicle at £30 per day, after that time and date stated, this will be chargeable to yourself on recovery of your vehicle.

I have copied in Gill Want at Lexus Customer Relations, West Yorkshire Trading Standards, and all Staff at Lexus Bradford.

I am contactable on tel [telephone number] for you to arrange collection or recovery of your vehicle.

Yours Sincerely

Geoff Kay

Group After Sales Manager

WRMG Toyota Lexus

With regard to labour times, I can confirm that book times are set for certain repairs as part of our warranty system, and we would therefore expect Centres to use such times when estimating. With regard to actual invoices, this would need to be discussed with the appropriate Lexus Centre.

Well I think few would question that it is reasonable to ESTIMATE on the basis of book times. However when paying by the hour (and few would dispute that the hourly rates charged to loyal Lexus customers by Lexus dealers charge are very expensive) one expects to pay for the WORK DONE. I mean fair enough, round 2.59 up to 2.75.... what the hell charge 3 hours and put in on the invoice. But to charge 5 hours and conceal this altogether from the invoice by completely fabricating the cost of the service ????? Daylight robbery

Letter from Lexus GB 11th November 2008

Dear Dr. G

I am writing with reference to your e mails dated 7 and 10 November respectively, and our subsequent telephone conversation of today's date. I was sorry to hear that you appear to have reached an impasse with regard to your discussions with Lexus Bradford.

I can confirm that I did discuss your case with the Regional Manager responsible for After Sales Development for your area, to find out if there was any benefit in him inspecting your car to see if he was able to determine if the differential was a new part or not. However he felt that it would be very difficult to establish if this was the case just by looking at the part.

With regard to financial penalties, I can confirm that this is an internal arrangement based on general customer feedback and does not relate to any particular case.

As I explained during our conversation this morning, I have sent by post the case notes and correspondence that we have on file for you. Please bear in mind that the notes are taken during phone conversations so may be subject to spelling errors etc.

With regard to labour times, I can confirm that book times are set for certain repairs as part of our warranty system, and we would therefore expect Centres to use such times when estimating. With regard to actual invoices, this would need to be discussed with the appropriate Lexus Centre.

I note you have mentioned that you have incurred loan car expenses, but must reiterate that we are not able to reimburse you for such costs.

In closing, I do hope that you are able to reach an amicable conclusion with Lexus Bradford so that we may release the parts to them as soon as possible.

Yours sincerely

Gill Want

Lexus Customer Relations Team Manager

I think you already know that Lexus GB, if they do reply, will just put it back to the dealer as they have already told you.

Steve they have a legal obligation to respond and provide the data requested. One would hope they have an interest in their Lexus Authorised Dealers charging for work not done. Hardly good for the brand.

Letter to Lexus / Dealership 10th November 2008

Dear Ms. Want

Dear Ms. Want (Lexus Head Office)

c.c. Dennis Ager, Trading Standard Officer, West Yorkshire Trading Standards

Mr. Paul Fagan, Dealer Principal, Lexus Bradford (via email to Amanda Bradley)

Monday 10th November 2008

We await the response to our earlier correspondence dated 7th November.

Following a conversation with the Bradford Dealer Principal on the evening of the 7th November I was informed that Customer Relations hold records from July 2008 that offer support that a new differential was fitted contrary to the Bradford employee's allegation that a part sourced from a car involved in a serious accident was used. If Lexus (GB) do hold such records, it is extremely disappointing that these were not disclosed at the outset. In the interest of trying to resolve this issue in a speedy manner, and keeping costs to a minimum, we would be grateful if you could disclose by return all the the computer records / emails / notes and other data you hold in regards to me and my car. Clearly you a legal obligation under the Data Protection Act to release such data in any event, but one hopes in the interest of preventing escalation of this matter and bringing it to an amicable solution, you will disclose this information forthwith. If you require a fee under the Data Protection Act, please also let me know by return. Please note that I have hired a car until 15:30 today. If we have not heard back from you by 14:00 we will have no choice but to continue the car rental, as we are unwilling and unable to drive a car that may be fitted with a potentially dangerous part.

I understand that Trading Standards have yet to interview other employees both at Bradford and Leeds, and that will not occur for another week. In the interim, Trading Standards have provided to me the paperwork that Lexus Bradford refused to disclose to me. I have to say, I was extremely concerned by the contents.

Firstly, the paperwork did not, as the Dealer Principal suggested to me, provide any evidence that a new differential had been fitted. Secondly I was extremely concerned that we had been given an estimate of 5 hours labour for the fitting of the differential. In fact this work took only 2.59 hours, and whats more this has been concealed on the provided invoice which can only be described as a complete fabrication (the fitting of the differential has been omitted altogether). We have however been charged the full 5 hours labour.

Is it standard to Lexus Dealership practice to charge loyal Lexus customers for work not done? Is is standard Lexus Dealership practice to conceal this by fabricating invoices? This is made especially disappointing as I had expected to not pay for any labour for a fault that in Lexus's own words "shouldn't have happened" - but to find out we have paid out for work not done has added insult to injury. Not only is this, in my view, extremely dishonest and poor practice, but it may well fall foul of the law.

We await your urgent response to all of these matters.

Yours sincerely,

Dr. & Mrs A

[please see post above for the document]

Can't see a review for Lexus Bradford...

Please see my extensive post about Lexus Leeds & Bradford at

LINK..

Please see my extensive post about Lexus Lees & Bradford at

http://www.lexusownersclub.co.uk/forum/ind...=54646&st=0

I still can't understand why you think a differential from a crashed car ( even if it has been fitted to your car ) is potentially dangerous.

Do you understand car mechanics ( not trying to be funny )? But tyres, steering, brakes and suspension and the things that are normally classed as dangerous unless of course your car had been in an accidient or was old enough to have corrosion. Check what a dealer ( any dealer not just Lexus ) do on a safety check.

Steve, I'm no mechanic. I have already answered this point (see post yesterday 12:38 PM). Had Lexus GB, for example, offered me a refurbished part that was warranted that would have not been a problem at all. That presumably would have gone through whatever checks these things go through to be able to warrant a part as being safe. But that did not happen. Lexus claim to have provided a brand new part to Leeds. The allegation by Lexus Bradford was that this part was not supplied to them. That raises a very serious issue as to what happened to the part Lexus supplied to Leeds, and exactly where the part involved in a serious accident came from (and who owned that). If it is was done, to be blunt, in an underhand way - that may not have gone through the same rigourous checks that should have happened. In any event, I should have been informed at the time, and not 3 months later, that was the case.

One further issue... and perhaps those with more technical knowledge than me can be of assistance.... when Lexus Leeds and Bradford were bickering about releasing the part from Leeds to Bradford, I offered to the dealers and to Lexus CR to pick up the part myself and deliver it to Bradford (I work in both). I was told that the parts are dirty, and said that was not a problem as I could put newspaper down in the boot. I didn't think twice, at the time, about the part being "dirty". This may be a complete non-issue - but would a brand new and boxed differential be oily / dirty?

Well the documentation (which Lexus Bradford were witholding) provided by Lexus Bradford to Trading Standards (and kindly scanned in by them - attached to this post) does not support that a new differential had been fitted.

This is contrary to the claims by the Dealer Principal that the documentation, that "I had no right to see", clearly supported that a new differential had been fitted - it clearly does nothing of the sort. It simply shows a differential was fitte.

Further it should be somewhat embarrassing to Lexus that they quote and charged for 4.8 hours work to fit the differential, when in fact it took 2.59 hours...... maybe this is why the fitting of the differential was concealed from the bill altogether (they had made up the cost of the 60,000 service to include it).

Anyway Trading Standards needs to speak with Lexus Leeds and the Bradford mechanic who made the allegation, which they cannot do until the week after next.

Following a further conversation with the Bradford Dealer Principal there are, apparently, further records held by Lexus GB CR that support the fact that a new differential was fitted. If there are, why these were no made immediately is baffling. I remain carless as I cannot and will not drive a car that may be fitted with a potentially dangerous part.

DOC071108.pdf

Wylie - appology accepted too.

Well just had a brief conversation with Trading Standards and awaiting the paperwork from them. They have been provided with no evidence that a new differential was fitted and Lexus Bradford deny the conversation took place. Conveniently for lexus Bradford, the mechanic was not there for questioning.

More to follow....

Mike, appology accepted. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

Again an entirely plausible set of events.... in which case Lexus Bradford should have (i) simply apologised rather than made efforts to cover up the whole issue (ii) bent over backwards to show this was the case (rather than be obstructive about whatever paperwork they do hold).

But I have seen so much that concerns me about the set up, I don't know I can take the risk.

Would you want to drive your children around in a £38,000 car with state of the art safety, with a part that may have recovered from a vehicle that has been written off?

With respect, Tony, you have been doing just that since July 2007, you just didn't know it. And you've been known for some time now, and you're still doing it. If you genuinely believed the differential was in an unsafe condition you wouldn't be driving it at all.

I can't help but get the feeling that no matter what happens next you would still be unhappy with the vehicle...

The diff was fitted in July 2008 - I think there was a typo in one of the letters. The car has not left the grounds of Lexus Bradford since I was informed about the issue with the differential and I am currently driving a hire car.

Wylie - Not sure if you have missed the point, or sorry if it was not explained properly.

Lexus GB offered, and claim to have supplied a brand new and boxed part. They supplied that to Lexus Leeds, as confirmed by them in today's correspondence. Lexus Leeds refused to release the part to Lexus Bradford which required intervention from Lexus GB. A part was subsequently fitted by Lexus Bradford in July. The allegation now from the Bradford employee (a former Lexus Leeds employee, who was allegedly sacked by them) is that Lexus Leeds provided Lexus Bradford with a part recovered from a write off vehicle (i.e not the brand new part that had been supplied by Lexus GB to Lexus Bradford).

I fully appreciate what the definition of an insurance write off is, and furthermore, appreciate that in some circumstances a part may be recovered from such a vehicle and be warranted as safe (though this raises entirely different legal questions about the ownership of parts of a written off vehicle, and moreover it raises the question what exactly happened to the part that Lexus GB provided).

The serious issue here that I only found out about this some 3 months after it was fitted. If this is the case, I am informed by Trading Standards that this would be a very serious matter indeed, which is precisely why two Trading Standards officers are at Lexus Bradford this morning.

So to clarify I have not refused a part they are giving me for free. I accepted a brand new part, was informed one was fitted, and paid for its fitting.

Hope this clarifies, and once again, sorry if you missunderstood.

Ah, 'Data Protection'. That old chestnut - and the last resort of someone with something incriminating on paper...

Data Protection is intended to protect people from having details released to third parties. Can't see why they would particularly refuse to let you see it if they have nothing to hide. Quite what it might show is a different matter, chances are it will show 'differential fitted on date xxxxx' and maybe make a reference to the fact it was shipped in from Lexus Leeds. Not exactly anything worth protecting in there!

From what I can see in your posts, and they are certainly very lengthy and aren't especially easy to follow, is that you have had it hinted to you that the diff wasn't new. But that doesn't actually mean it wasn't new, it could very easily have been a mistake by the person who said it. These guys do work like that day in, day out - don't you think that it's entirely possible that he thought your car was a different one, and one to which he had fitted a second-hand diff with the full approval of that car's owner? Or, indeed, he had been refitting a diff which had been repaired (hence looks second-hand) and just added two and two together and ended up with five?

All entirely possible hypotheses. But I'm pretty sure the gentleman involved knew exactly what car it was (they can't have that many RX300 rear differentials that are FOC from Lexus and shipped via Leeds). But then why did the controller who witnessed the conversation and had two 10 minute conversations about the same, then deny the conversations ever took place 2 days later? Furthermore why the complete lack of documentation of the differential on my paperwork, why make efforts to cover up what has been said, and why make efforts to not release any paperwork they have that may prove (or otherwise) their case.

Would you want to drive your children around in a £38,000 car with state of the art safety, with a part that may have recovered from a vehicle that has been written off?

Letter to Lexus GB cc dealer 7/11/08

Dear Ms. Want (Lexus Head Office)

c.c. Dennis Ager, Trading Standard Officer, West Yorkshire Trading Standards

Mr. Paul Fagan, Dealer Principal, Lexus Bradford (via email to Amanda Bradley)

Friday 7th November

Thank you for your email dated 7th November.

I would be most grateful if you could further clarify the role of

Lexus GB in dealing with complaints involving Lexus Authorised

Dealerships. When we last spoke you said that an Area Manager (a Lexus

GB employee, independent of the dealership) would be visiting the

dealership involved to investigate the concerns. Moreover, you went on

to explain that Lexus GB may impose financial penalties on dealerships

if complaints are upheld. Did I misunderstand this? Please can you

confirm when the Area Manager has visited or will be visiting the

dealership and if I will have the opportunity to make representations

to them.

Further to my email of 4th November the Dealer Principal of Bradford

was contacted by Mr. Ager (Trading Standards Officer, West Yorkshire

Trading Standards). You will recall the the dealer principal told me

that in relation to the documents concerning my vehicle repairs

(which, apparently, show that the new differential was fitted contrary

to the allegations that a write-off part may have been fitted) that I

was told "I'm not going to send you no documents. I'm not going to

send you anything" "None of the documents are yours. And the right of

having it is none. Nil".

I was informed by Mr. Ager that the Dealer Principal informed Trading

Standards that they are not in a position to release this paperwork

without the consent of Lexus GB due to "Data Protection", which is of

course quite different to his previous stance on the matter. I

remained quite baffled while Lexus Bradford and Lexus GB are not

falling over themselves to fully disclose this paperwork to put an end

to this issue? In the interests of a rapid resolution, and in order to

keep potential costs to a minimum, I would be grateful if Lexus GB

would kindly confirm by return that they have no objection to the

release of all the records concerning my repairs and subsequent

complaint.

Yours sincerely,

Dr & Mrs G

Letter from Lexus GB Dated 7th November

Dear Dr. A

Thank you for your e mail dated 4 November 2008.

I would like to explain that it is our policy to refer contacts of this nature to the Lexus Centre concerned for investigation and resolution. This is not a case of us absolving ourselves of our responsibilities, but is in fact quite the reverse.

Our decision to ask the Centre to look further into this matter was taken with your best interests in mind and because they are fully aware of any conversations and actions that have taken place previously. As a third party it is difficult and unfair for us to speak on their behalf.

I am aware you have requested that we pursue this matter further, however, I am sure you will understand that as Lexus Bradford are an independent business from Lexus (GB) Ltd. we are unable to instruct or accept responsibility for their business decisions.

What I can confirm is that we ordered and delivered a new differential to Lexus Leeds following your acceptance of our goodwill offer back in November 2007. We have no reason to believe this is not the part that was eventually fitted.

It is always regrettable when an impasse such as this has been reached and it appears this is the case in this instance. In closing, I am sorry for any disappointment this matter has caused and thank you for bringing your concerns to our attention.

Yours sincerely

Gill Want

Lexus (GB) Ltd.

Errr... can the franchise not be taken away though?

I would have thought Lexus have a vicarious liability through their dealers!! - Check with a lawyer!!

The Ed

The repairer would be responsible for ensuring that correct serviceable parts are fitted as described on relevant paperwork.

One of the problems is that they have conveniently left off the paperwork any mention of the replacement of the differential nor the handbrake cable. There is, however, email correspondence between me and dealer in regards to the costing of the same.

(*) Brake Pads - The advice you were given is an opinion of that particular technician. Like an MOT - one Assessor may pass the same vehicle while another may fail. My concern would be not with the dealership that suggested you needed your brakes changing urgently, but rather with the one that said you had another 10K till they needed changing. In any event, your brakes were changed for a very good price.

With all that has now transpired, one has to wonder whether the opinion that they did not need replacing for 10k was influenced by the fact that (in their own words) the "incompetant" person who had quoted for this (110 including parts and labour) was costed with the other work at less than the cost of the parts alone. If that is the case, they allowed an unsafe car on the road to not make a loss on their own error.

Anyway, Trading Standards Officers are paying Lexus Bradford a visit later this week.

Letter to Lexus CR (cc Bradford dealership) 4th November 2008

Dear Ms. Want (Lexus Head Office)

c.c. Dennis Ager, Trading Standard Officer, West Yorkshire Trading Standards

Mr. Paul Fagan, Dealer Principal, Lexus Bradford (via email to Amanda Bradley)

Tuesday 4th November

Thank you for your email dated October 31st 2008. If you are not able to respond to any of the points I would be grateful if you could seek clarification from your authorized dealers.

I have spoken at length with the Dealer Principal at Bradford. He claims to have paperwork that supports that a new differential was fitted, contrary to the allegation made by his employee that a recovered second hand part may have been used, and contrary to the paper work that had been supplied to me after I had paid for the fitting of the differential (which makes no mention at all of the rear differential and instead falsely marked up the bill for the 60,000 service to include this amount.).

I asked Mr. Fagan for a copy of this paperwork so we can try and move forward on this point, and I was extremely disappointed to be told "I'm not going to send you no documents. I'm not going to send you anything" "None of the documents are yours. And the right of having it is none. Nil"

I have therefore re-raised this issue with West Yorkshire Trading Standards. The officer I have spoken with is quite clear that I have a right to the paperwork. It is Lexus Bradford that have made the allegation about a second hand part being supplied by Leeds, and the burden is now on Lexus GB and their dealerships to prove to me beyond any doubt whatsoever that I am not driving a potential deathtrap. Mr. Ager from Trading Standards is going to contact the Dealership directly. I would once again, urge Lexus GB to get involved to bring this to a swift resolution.

I have no choice now but to hire a car so that my wife and I can stay mobile. Lexus Bradford were yesterday meant to replace the rear discs and pads as had been agreed and provide a hire car, neither of which they did.

The way I have been treated by Lexus and your dealerships is staggeringly poor. If I do not receive a rapid resolution to these problems, not only will I be passing on the costs I have incurred whilst I am not on the road, I will have no hesitation but to expose this whole sorry saga fully in the press.

I re-iterate once again that I will not drive a car that may have been fitted with a part recovered from a vehicle involved in a serious accident.

Yours sincerely,