Substandard Response

<p>Good Day,</p> <p>I have had such poor feedback from Kis**** Dukanti at RMI’s Customer Relations Team with regard to poor service, feedback and workmanship from SELZ Auto Care, that it seems like the RMI (Customer Relations) are unable to address complaints that are lodged against member or perform a proper investigation within reason of course.</p> <p>You have to pay R285-00 to lodge a complaint only to find that you have someone who does not verify any information rather goes on hearsay off two emails, this is absolutely disgusting and would like to know why RMI should be seen as a trusted body. Why should I pay for someone to read an email and then make a decision based on that what have you investigated? To make things worse all that is done is you being referred to the Motor Industry Ombudsman, are you serious when you have not even done a proper investigation???</p> <p>Motorists/Consumers should have no faith in the RMI as an organisation as it is evident with my engagement that they are not an impartial body or able to conduct a decent enquiry.</p> <p>This is the RMI code of conduct for members:-</p> <p>CODE OF CONDUCT</p> <p>Accredited members are party to the RMI Consumer Code of Conduct in terms of which the consumer is assured that an accredited member undertakes to:</p> <p>· Sell his quality products and services at a fair and reasonable price; Agreed.</p> <p>· Honour both in letter and in spirit any guarantees applicable to products and services sold by them; Sure</p> <p>· Acknowledges that, should there be a dispute between a consumer/customer and our member which could not be amicably settled at Management level, the consumer/customer has the right to refer such dispute to the RMI for investigation. Acknowledged, but not investigated (***)???</p> <p>· RMI’s Consumer Services divisions are deployed countrywide. Okay</p> <p>· Professional intervention ensures a proud record of high success rate in dispute resolution. Still waiting for that to happen?!</p> <p> </p> <p>Complaint procedure as per RMI</p> <p>The RMI remains committed towards the amicable resolution of all consumer complaints and disputes and as such, attempts to reach amicable mediated solutions to disputes in a manner that is cost effective for both parties concerned. The RMI process is non-legal and therefore no legal representation is allowed. Should you feel dissatisfied with a product or service supp**** to you by an accredited RMI member establishment or non-member establishment, we recommend the following procedure. Please ensure that you read the complete instructions hereunder before registering your complaint.</p> <p>1. Talk to Senior Management: Insist on speaking to a member of senior management before you take any other course of action. “Counter level” problems are more often than not satisfactorily resolved, when a member of senior management becomes involved. The mechanic/owner played ********!</p> <p>2. The Dispute Remains Despite the Involvement of Senior Management: Should this be the case, use the download button below to send us a brief fax. Please do not forward supporting documentation unless you are requested to do so by an RMI official. Complaints in respect of disputes older than six months are not encouraged by the RMI, for obvious reasons. Your complaint will be routed to the appropriate RMI regional office closest to you. Sure, however it has been an ongoing argument and looked for an amicable solution with the mechanic for a while, hence the numerous back and forth! Conveniently acknowledges there is something wrong after 6 months.</p> <p>3. Important: Reference Number: Once your complaint has been registered the computer will allocate you a reference number. Please make note of this number as you will be required to use this number in all future correspondence between yourself, the dealer and the RMI. Did not get one?</p> <p>4. The Dispute Remains Despite the Involvement of the RMI: Please refer to the Motor Industry Ombudsman for assistance in a legal process that will resolve your dispute. Without acceptable feedback from the RMI?</p> <p> </p> <p>Please refer to below feedback on the basis of two emails nothing more, should you wish to obtain full information refer to the above mentioned individual the CAPS is my response to the feedback:</p> <p>Ø It is very clear that the scope of work was indeed completed as per invoice number 305 d/d 23/03/2016 and paid on 28/05/2016. YES THIS IS CORRECT.</p> <p>Ø The shudder/judder/Vibration was addressed after you picked up the vehicle. NO IT WAS NOT, THE CAR WAS TAKEN TO THE MECHANIC FOUR TIMES THE FIRST TIME WITHIN A WEEK OF FITMENT</p> <p>Ø It must be also noted that the parts were supp**** by yourself, the repairer does not warranty any parts supp**** by the consumer. I DO KNOW THIS AND MENTIONED THIS PREVIOULY IN MY MAILS.</p> <p>Ø Your vehicle was tested by the Luk rep and no fault was found with the clutch replacement .PLEASE CONFIRM HOW YOU VERIFIED THIS, DID YOU CONTACT LUK?</p> <p>Ø You were advised to changed mountings first. THIS WAS DONE AS MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY</p> <p>Ø Mileage on vehicle at repair stage was 193764kms, and fair wear and tear will apply. BY ALL MEANS, THE SHUDDER WAS BROUGHT TO THE MECHANICS ATTENTION AT 193764kms</p> <p>Ø I believe that the mounting repair was conducted at a third party, rather than Selz Auto Care. YES THIS IS DUE TO HIM AVOIDING ME, I HAVE WHATSAPP MESSAGES AND CALLS NOT ANSWERED TO PROVE THIS.</p> <p>Ø After mounting replacement, did you contact Luk to re-address this issue. YES I DID, THE PART HAS ALREADY BEEN SENT BACK TO THE SUPPLIER AND I HAVE HAD TO PURCHASE A NEW CLUCTH (refer to my mail yesterday).</p> <p>Ø The warranty on workmanship has also expired.NOT SURE IF YOU HAVE BEEN READING (the issue is that I have been given the run around from week one of fitment).</p> <p>Ø To prove bad workmanship, Kabir you need to engage with an Auto Forensic expert at you cost to prove same. SEEMS LIKE RMI COLLUDE WITH MECHANICS, what does the RMI stand for?</p> <p>Ø As per the consumer protection act No 68, 2008, the consumer cannot unduly benefit on the scope of repairs conducted. PLEASE ELABORATE </p> <p>Ø At present we do not know that actual problem associated with repair. CLEARY YOU HAVE NOT BEEN READING.</p> <p>Ø You dispute is outside the warranty period, and not within specification with the CPA.I HAVE TAKEN MY CAR TO THE SAID MECHANIC A FEW TIMES WITHIN THIS PERIOD.</p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p>The question asked which I reiterate again and again and yet again, “What is the proper process when an issue is brought to a mechanics attention within the first week of fitment and the numerous times after? “</p> <p>Secondly I did not ask about a guarantee on parts as I am aware of the return process as this was done anyway as of recently.</p> <p> </p> <p>I brought the car the mechanic a few times. Who has avoided answering calls and has not assisted in rectifying.</p> <p>I need proper feedback from someone with some cognitive ability, these are the names of members of the RMI that should be able to shed some light on the issue at hand and I expect decent feedback.</p> <p>RMI BOARD OF DIRECTORS<br /> <br />RMI BOARD: 8 MEMBERS<br /> <br /> <br />Jeanne Esterhuizen (Director and President)<br /> Barry Canning (Director and Vice-President)<br /> Ferose Oaten (Non Exec. Director) <br /> Jakkie Olivier (Director)<br />Bruce Allen (Director)<br /> Lindsay Bouchier (Director)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />RMI EXCO<br /> <br />Jakkie Olivier<br />Vishal Premlall<br />Jan Schoeman<br />Jeffrey Molefe<br />Gary McCraw<br /> <br />Renee Coetsee<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> </p> <p>RMI AUDIT COMMITTEE<br /> <br />Vernon Beck<br />Lindsay Bouchier<br />Derik Scorer<br /> </p>