New BMW's getting stolen using blank BMW keys

[youngsyr]

r999 said:

youngsyr said:

It is advertised as Thatcham I, but couldn't see a mention of "approved", in the 1 series brochure. Interesting choice of wording as it reads to me that BMW could be responsible and not Thatcham, as BMW are the ones making the claim that it meets Thatcham's standards.

Of course, Thatcham will in all liklihood have approved the system, but I imagine that would have no impact on BMW's liability to the (original) car owner, because BMW seem to claim that the system meets the criteria (which clearly it cannot), not that Thatcham has approved the system.

But as I understand it BMW cannot make the claim that it is Thatcham-approved, or (same thing) meets their criteria, until Thatcham has tested it. If you look at the Thatcham site you find a list of such systems. Moreoever, from time to time they issue a 'delete list' of systems they approved in the past but no longer approve. We've discussed this (like so much else) somewhere way back in the thread.

That's an issue for BMW (possible misuse of Thatcham trademark) and Thatcham (system testing not up to standard) rather than for us.

What is important for us is that BMW claim in their brochure that their alarm meets Thatcham standards, when clearly they do not (I'm assuming Thatcham standards require the alarm to be triggered when a window is broken).

As BMW seem to be making a false claim in their marketing material, then logically it follows that they have missold their cars to the original owner. This, to my mind, would open up the route to litigation.

[r999]

youngsyr said:

What is important for us is that BMW claim in their brochure that their alarm meets Thatcham standards, when clearly they do not (I'm assuming Thatcham standards require the alarm to be triggered when a window is broken).

With respect, I think you have got the wrong end of the stick. BMW's claim that their alarm meets Thatcham standards is true, because it passed Thatcham's test at the time, Thatcham issued certification to say so, and Thatcham has not subsequently withdrawn that approval. As of now, Thatcham approval stands. The sad fact is, that approval is pretty worthless in this case.

[youngsyr]

r999 said:

youngsyr said:

What is important for us is that BMW claim in their brochure that their alarm meets Thatcham standards, when clearly they do not (I'm assuming Thatcham standards require the alarm to be triggered when a window is broken).

With respect, I think you have got the wrong end of the stick. BMW's claim that their alarm meets Thatcham standards is true, because it passed Thatcham's test at the time, Thatcham issued certification to say so, and Thatcham has not subsequently withdrawn that approval. As of now, Thatcham approval stands. The sad fact is, that approval is pretty worthless in this case.

I see your point, but I would argue that BMW has a responsibility to ensure its current marketing literature is correct, regardless of when it was originally drafted and, as I understand it, it cannot defer this responsibility to a third party.

Therefore, if BMW claim that their alarms meet Thatcham I and they don't, the original buyer can rightfully pursue BMW.

If it turns out that Thatcham botched their certification process on the BMWs, then that is between BMW and Thatcham. The buyer of the BMW has no relationship with Thatcham and Thatcham hasn't made any claims in the BMW marketing literature, so the owner cannot claim against them.

If however the BMW marketing literate stated that the alarms were "Thatcham approved", that is a different story as it may well be that they are approved by Thatcham, despite having the black spot. To be clear: BMW stating that their alarms are "Thatcham Approved" is very different to them claiming that the alarms meet Thatcham I standards.

[r999]

youngsyr said:

To be clear: BMW stating that their alarms are "Thatcham Approved" is very different to them claiming that the alarms meet Thatcham I standards.

No, I'm afraid you are wrong. If you look at Thatcham publications you'll see that their term 'Approved devices' is the term applied to those systems that in testing have met their standard (in this case, Thatcham Category I).

So approved devices are those that have met their standard, and devices that have met their standard are approved. The terms are synonymous, and this is turning into a non-argument.

[youngsyr]

r999 said:

youngsyr said:

To be clear: BMW stating that their alarms are "Thatcham Approved" is very different to them claiming that the alarms meet Thatcham I standards.

No, I'm afraid you are wrong. If you look at Thatcham publications you'll see that their term 'Approved devices' is the term applied to those systems that in testing have met their standard (in this case, Thatcham Category I).

So approved devices are those that have met their standard, and devices that have met their standard are approved. The terms are synonymous, and this is turning into a non-argument.

The Thatcham publications are irrelevant, we are buying BMWs, not Thatcham products.

I'm sorry that you feel this is a non-argument, but the wording is key and very clear: "Thatcham Approved" is a trademark (or similar), to use it in a brochure you would need Thatcham's approval and all BMW would need to do is provide proof that the alarms had Thatcham's approval and the marketing claim would be bulletproof.

However, For BMW to put in their brochure that their alarms "meet Thatcham I standards" (which is a claim BMW do make in their brochure) is an entirely different issue - BMW are making a marketing claim about the quality of their alarms that is potentially not true, regardless of whether Thatcham tell them it's true.

It's akin to BMW claiming in their brochure that their cars are the same colour as the Coca-Cola red and it turning out that they aren't. Even if Coca-cola had certified to BMW that they were using the correct colour, it doesn't negate the fact that BMW had included incorrect information in their marketing literature and, to my mind, would leave them open to litigation from buyers who had taken that claim on good faith.

It may be a tedious point, but that is my experience of legal matters and why lawyers spend hours upon hours arguing over the meaning of particular words that are to be used in publications.

[r999]

youngsyr said:

However, For BMW to put in their brochure that their alarms "meet Thatcham I standards" (which is a claim BMW do make in their brochure) is an entirely different issue - BMW are making a marketing claim about the quality of their alarms that is potentially not true, regardless of whether Thatcham tell them it's true.

Can't you see the contradiction there? Thatcham has devised terminology, including 'Thatcham I standard' and 'Thatcham approved', and the meanings of those terms are what Thatcham defines them to be, not what you or I or a marketing person thinks they might mean or ought to mean. A claim about Thatcham approval cannot in logic be 'potentially not true, regardless of whether Thatcham tell them it's true', becasue Thatcham and nobody else are the arbiters of what they approve and what they do not. It is true that the alarm is 'Thatcham approved' because Thatcham approved it and haven't revoked it, and they are the sole authority in this case.

Semanticists and logicians make a distinction between constative and performative statements, and I assure you this is a performative statement by Thatcham and a constative one by BMW. It's the difference between saying 'They got married today' (a constative statement which depends for its truth on whether an external event did or did not take place) and 'I pronounce you man and wife' (a performative statement that brings about an event). In this case Thatcham brings about the fact of approval by declaring it to be so (performatively); BMW refers to that fact declaratively. BMW's statement cannot be false unless Thatcham did not in fact approve the alarm system.

If Thatcham was to test this alarm again now, it might not be so approved. That is irrelevant to the truth of BMW's claim. Since you have offered an analogy, let me offer another. Someone who took A-Level Maths in recent years took an exam that is far easier than it was a couple of decades ago. If (and I'm not holding my breath) exam boards were to decide in the coming year or two to make A-Level Maths as demanding as it was 20 years ago, someone who has an easy pass from recent years would not be stripped of it; they would be fully entitled to claim for the rest of their days that they have A-Level Maths. You might find them keeping quiet about the fact that their qualification is a feeble one compared with the more rigorous exam of other times. But you could not accuse them of having lied about possessing the pass. That is the position BMW are in. They passed the test as it was at the time; they are entitled to continue to claim that. All of us here know how little it is worth. But there is nothing 'potentially not true' about their claim.

[youngsyr]

r999 said:

BMW's statement cannot be false unless Thatcham did not in fact approve the alarm system.

I don't follow your argument and the crux of it is that the above, to my mind, cannot be correct.

Thatcham I is a list of requirements that Thatcham has devised, but an alarm can meet Thatcham I standards without Thatcham approving it.

That is the key difference.

Whatever words you want to use, BMW are making a claim of fact (our alarms meet Thatcham I standards) in their marketing literature. If this is then proven not to be the case, it is BMW's responsibility and no-one else's.

To take it one step further, I could claim that a rusty knackered old padlock meets Thatcham I standards in marketing literature and sell it commercially.

I would then have two separate issues - liability to Thatcham for misusing their trademarks (etc) and liability to my customers for selling something that isn't as described (does not meet Thatcham I).

However, if I could show that the padlock does in fact meet Thatcham I standards (even without Thatcham's approval), I believe I would have a bulletproof defence against my customers' claims.

Edited by youngsyr on Tuesday 28th August 22:44

[r999]

youngsyr said:

However, if I could show that the padlock does in fact meet Thatcham I standards (even without Thatcham's approval), I believe I would have a bulletproof defence against my customers' claims.

But it is axiomatic that you could never show that your padlock meets their standards. Only they have the power to decide and declare what meets their standards. That is an inevitable consequence of the two facts that (a) a decision on whether something meets their standards must contain an element of judgment, and that means their judgment, not someone else's; and (b) their standards are given concrete embodiment in a series of tests - effectively are a series of tests - and they do not tell you in detail how those tests are carried out, for the obvious reason that bad people will be listening.

[mrmr96]

youngsyr said:

It's akin to BMW claiming in their brochure that their cars are the same colour as the Coca-Cola red and it turning out that they aren't. Even if Coca-cola had certified to BMW that they were using the correct colour, it doesn't negate the fact that BMW had included incorrect information in their marketing literature and, to my mind, would leave them open to litigation from buyers who had taken that claim on good faith.

No, it's not 'akin' at all.

Reason being that if Thatcham approve something then, by definition, it meets their standards.

The simile would be if Coca Cola had a lot of different shades of red, then if it approved the BMW shade then by definition that shade becomes a Coca Cola colour. The key difference between what I wrote, and what you wrote, is that the act of approval means that, by definition, it meets their criteria.

I do see what you're getting at, by basically suggesting that maybe the BMW system wouldn't meet the criteria in the Thatcham folder under the heading "Generic Class 1 alarm requirements". However the fact that Thatcham has tested and approved the system means that the definition of what meets those Class 1 requirements is defined to an extent by what they approved. i.e. even if it's not explicitly written into the main folder under the definition of "Generic Class 1 alarm requirements" the fact that Thatcham has approved it means that the definition is implicitly altered/widened slightly. This is true, IMO, because Thatcham is responsible for both setting the standards and performing the tests.

[youngsyr]

r999 said:

youngsyr said:

However, if I could show that the padlock does in fact meet Thatcham I standards (even without Thatcham's approval), I believe I would have a bulletproof defence against my customers' claims.

But it is axiomatic that you could never show that your padlock meets their standards. Only they have the power to decide and declare what meets their standards. That is an inevitable consequence of the two facts that (a) a decision on whether something meets their standards must contain an element of judgment, and that means their judgment, not someone else's; and (b) their standards are given concrete embodiment in a series of tests - effectively are a series of tests - and they do not tell you in detail how those tests are carried out, for the obvious reason that bad people will be listening.

You may well be right in that I might not be able to show that my theoretical padlock meets all of the category I requirements, but in this case we aren't trying to prove that BMWs alarm meets the requirements, we are trying to prove that BMWs alarms do not.

That is a much simpler propostion - even without knowing what the requirements are. A simple question to Thatcham would do it: "Would a Thatcham Category I alarm be set off by the breaking of the driver's side front window?".

If Thatcham's answer to that is yes, then you've just proven that BMW's alarm is not up to their standard.

[Belliio]

youngsyr said:

r999 said:

youngsyr said:

However, if I could show that the padlock does in fact meet Thatcham I standards (even without Thatcham's approval), I believe I would have a bulletproof defence against my customers' claims.

But it is axiomatic that you could never show that your padlock meets their standards. Only they have the power to decide and declare what meets their standards. That is an inevitable consequence of the two facts that (a) a decision on whether something meets their standards must contain an element of judgment, and that means their judgment, not someone else's; and (b) their standards are given concrete embodiment in a series of tests - effectively are a series of tests - and they do not tell you in detail how those tests are carried out, for the obvious reason that bad people will be listening.

You may well be right in that I might not be able to show that my theoretical padlock meets all of the category I requirements, but in this case we aren't trying to prove that BMWs alarm meets the requirements, we are trying to prove that BMWs alarms do not.

That is a much simpler propostion - even without knowing what the requirements are. A simple question to Thatcham would do it: "Would a Thatcham Category I alarm be set off by the breaking of the driver's side front window?".

If Thatcham's answer to that is yes, then you've just proven that BMW's alarm is not up to their standard.

Your argument is based on the fact that the alarm should go off if the window is smashed. Have you checked what Thatchams actual test comprises of, because if it isn't that basic then you haven't got an argument at all.

[youngsyr]

Belliio said:

youngsyr said:

r999 said:

youngsyr said:

However, if I could show that the padlock does in fact meet Thatcham I standards (even without Thatcham's approval), I believe I would have a bulletproof defence against my customers' claims.

But it is axiomatic that you could never show that your padlock meets their standards. Only they have the power to decide and declare what meets their standards. That is an inevitable consequence of the two facts that (a) a decision on whether something meets their standards must contain an element of judgment, and that means their judgment, not someone else's; and (b) their standards are given concrete embodiment in a series of tests - effectively are a series of tests - and they do not tell you in detail how those tests are carried out, for the obvious reason that bad people will be listening.

You may well be right in that I might not be able to show that my theoretical padlock meets all of the category I requirements, but in this case we aren't trying to prove that BMWs alarm meets the requirements, we are trying to prove that BMWs alarms do not.

That is a much simpler propostion - even without knowing what the requirements are. A simple question to Thatcham would do it: "Would a Thatcham Category I alarm be set off by the breaking of the driver's side front window?".

If Thatcham's answer to that is yes, then you've just proven that BMW's alarm is not up to their standard.

Your argument is based on the fact that the alarm should go off if the window is smashed. Have you checked what Thatchams actual test comprises of, because if it isn't that basic then you haven't got an argument at all.

I completely agree. I'm assuming that Thatcham Cat I alarms should be set off by a breaking window.

I don't think this is an unreasonable assumption.

[mrmr96]

youngsyr said:

I completely agree. I'm assuming that Thatcham Cat I alarms should be set off by a breaking window.

I don't think this is an unreasonable assumption.

Well if it's possible to do that to a BMW, then how did it pass Thatchams test?

[mrmr96]

youngsyr said:

I completely agree. I'm assuming that Thatcham Cat I alarms should be set off by a breaking window.

I don't think this is an unreasonable assumption.

Well if that assumption is true, AND it's possible to do that to a BMW, THEN how did it pass Thatchams test?

[jeremyc]

mrmr96 said:

youngsyr said:

I completely agree. I'm assuming that Thatcham Cat I alarms should be set off by a breaking window.

I don't think this is an unreasonable assumption.

Well if that assumption is true, AND it's possible to do that to a BMW, THEN how did it pass Thatchams test?

They only tested breaking the left hand window? And/or BMW supplied a LHD car and they tested the drivers side window?

[youngsyr]

mrmr96 said:

youngsyr said:

I completely agree. I'm assuming that Thatcham Cat I alarms should be set off by a breaking window.

I don't think this is an unreasonable assumption.

Well if that assumption is true, AND it's possible to do that to a BMW, THEN how did it pass Thatchams test?

Who knows, Thatcham states that Category I involves testing the following:

Thatcham Website said:

The Thatcham Vehicle Security Categories
Category 1
Passenger Cars, LCV, HGV, Plant, Motorcycles

ELECTRONIC ALARM AND IMMOBILISER

Alarm
Perimeter detection
Ignition detection
Passenger compartment movement detection
Inclination detection (Motorcycle only)
Audible warning with battery back-up power supply

Immobiliser
Passively set
Isolates a minimum of two operating circuits or systems, or a minimum of one operationally relevant vehicle control unit with coded intervention

Source: http://www.thatcham.org/security/index.jsp?page=75...

"Perimeter detection" is a bit vague, but Passenger compartment movement detection isn't. If someone is cloning keys via the OBD II port, clearly there must be movement within the passenger compartment.

Seems pretty straight forward to me - the BMW alarms we're talking about do not meet Thatcham I. This should be no surprise to anyone given the ease with which they're being stolen.

[Digger]

Well i have been perusing this list and there is no mention of any bmw-specific alarms falling under Thatcham's certification!

http://www.thatcham.org/standards/index.jsp?page=9...

Edit - yep linked to youngsyr's post above.

Would be interesting to get an insurance quote with a Cobra alarm 'installed' to see if a Thatcham Cat 1 device carries any weight with Insurance companies.

Edited by Digger on Wednesday 29th August 15:20

[youngsyr]

Try here for BMW car alarm Thatcham ratings:

http://www.thatcham.org/nvsr/index.jsp?page=202&am...

[bodhi]

youngsyr said:

Source: http://www.thatcham.org/security/index.jsp?page=75...

"Perimeter detection" is a bit vague, but Passenger compartment movement detection isn't. If someone is cloning keys via the OBD II port, clearly there must be movement within the passenger compartment.

Seems pretty straight forward to me - the BMW alarms we're talking about do not meet Thatcham I. This should be no surprise to anyone given the ease with which they're being stolen.

Yet Thatcham saw fit to give the entire 3-Series range from 2005 - 2009 5 out of 5 for theft protection, so clearly they must. If these standards aren't up to scratch I'd say there was a few more people than just BMW with egg on their faces, and it does indeed begin to point to an industry wide problem.

[youngsyr]

bodhi said:

Yet Thatcham saw fit to give the entire 3-Series range from 2005 - 2009 5 out of 5 for theft protection, so clearly they must. If these standards aren't up to scratch I'd say there was a few more people than just BMW with egg on their faces, and it does indeed begin to point to an industry wide problem.

Perhaps, but we need to focus on the issue at hand - BMW have claimed that their alarms meet Thatcham I in their brochures. If the alarms do not meet this standard, then I would suspect that BMW could be held liable for any damages/rectification costs that their customers incur as a result.