Contact Us
19-07-2006, 10:02pm
Had a long conversation with an ex-Consumer Affairs operative today (on an unrelated issue).
She suggested that what could make Consumer Affairs more 'interested' in our warranty winges is proof that Suzuki Australia has a corporate policy to avoid its warranty responsibilities. Otherwise, all they see is a one-off complaint and it carries one-off weight.
As is very evident from reading this and other topics, they routinely delay, deny and ignore clients legitimate warranty claims. They've learned to dig their heels in until some form of legal action is threatened - I guess they figure that enough of the 'problem customers' just go away because they cant afford to sue and they don't know what their options are. They play the odds. If they feel enough legal pressure they cave in, but you get hit with an unexpected bill. Meanwhile, you've been waiting months without a bike.
Seems theres a font of good information here - on various pages the same story over and over again. Different issues maybe, but Suzuki's prescription for all of them is the same.
Next time someone has a problem with Suzuki, try informing them that you have enough documented evidence to prove to Consumer Affairs that Suzuki routinely ignores legitimate warranty claims.
If that don't work, when you file your complaint add references to all the other Consumer Affairs actions mentioned on these pages (hang on to your Reference Numbers people !!). If everyone does it every time, that list of references is going to get very very long and Consumer Affairs may see fit to issue a writ against them.
The writ forces them to submit every rejected or disputed warranty claim to Consumer Affairs within 7 days for review. They only get 7 days to assess the damage and make a decision. Then they have to submit the rejections or disputes to Consumer Affairs within 7 more days. Hey, beats months eh ?
So, for all you people who have already been through the mill, go find your CA complaint reference numbers - they're worth gold to other members.
Just my 2 cents worth.
The older I get, the better I was. Regards.... Rob
She suggested that what could make Consumer Affairs more 'interested' in our warranty winges is proof that Suzuki Australia has a corporate policy to avoid its warranty responsibilities. Otherwise, all they see is a one-off complaint and it carries one-off weight.
As is very evident from reading this and other topics, they routinely delay, deny and ignore clients legitimate warranty claims. They've learned to dig their heels in until some form of legal action is threatened - I guess they figure that enough of the 'problem customers' just go away because they cant afford to sue and they don't know what their options are. They play the odds. If they feel enough legal pressure they cave in, but you get hit with an unexpected bill. Meanwhile, you've been waiting months without a bike.
Seems theres a font of good information here - on various pages the same story over and over again. Different issues maybe, but Suzuki's prescription for all of them is the same.
Next time someone has a problem with Suzuki, try informing them that you have enough documented evidence to prove to Consumer Affairs that Suzuki routinely ignores legitimate warranty claims.
If that don't work, when you file your complaint add references to all the other Consumer Affairs actions mentioned on these pages (hang on to your Reference Numbers people !!). If everyone does it every time, that list of references is going to get very very long and Consumer Affairs may see fit to issue a writ against them.
The writ forces them to submit every rejected or disputed warranty claim to Consumer Affairs within 7 days for review. They only get 7 days to assess the damage and make a decision. Then they have to submit the rejections or disputes to Consumer Affairs within 7 more days. Hey, beats months eh ?
So, for all you people who have already been through the mill, go find your CA complaint reference numbers - they're worth gold to other members.
Just my 2 cents worth.
The older I get, the better I was. Regards.... Rob