Name and shame rules

[ikarl]

Inspired by this thread http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

Half way down the thread the op has been warned re naming the dealer that wants £1000 so he can test drive a car as it would violate the name and shame rules. Fair enough.

However, recently there have been threads naming; Amazon, AA, RAC, Yodel, Kwik Fit and numerous insurance companies etc....which would fall into the same category of name/shame and I'm wondering where the line is drawn?

I appreciate the admin make the final decision but how are the 'rules' followed by some but not others?

[Cyder]

108 months here and you haven't worked out how inconsistent and random our PH overlords rulings are yet?

I think the name and shame rule depends on the wind direction, what Haymarket/Mod's had for dinner last night and which Chinese year it is. It's calculated by a hamster powered algorithm I believe.

[Chuck328]

Or is seems large corporations seem fair game but small independent dealers/garages are not?

[Bill]

We tend to err on the side of caution, but it's much less of an issue with large companies because one or two complaints aren't going to trash their business.

[uk66fastback]

It used to be all down to which TVR garage was flavour of the month and who they were trying to get to advertise.

It's a lot more corporate now of course, but some of the name and shame 'rules' are from the Ark. If it's the truth it's the truth and not libellous, however I know that is a simplistic answer.

[marshalla]

The official position : http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

[uk66fastback]

5. If it's a big company who we all despise of course it's fine.

[MitchT]

Bill said:

We tend to err on the side of caution, but it's much less of an issue with large companies because one or two complaints aren't going to trash their business.

The approach seems to be one of avoiding ruining unscrupulous businesses while not worrying about individuals being ruined by a dodgy car and a dealer that won't take responsibility for it because 'name and shame' rules meant they couldn't be warned.

[PorkInsider]

Bill said:

We tend to err on the side of caution, but it's much less of an issue with large companies because one or two complaints aren't going to trash their business.

So to be clear, you are protecting companies from the effects of unhappy/ripped-off customers complaining about them.

Just wanted to make sure I'm not getting this wrong and that you really do favour anyone running an unscrupulous business, over forum members who might unwittingly deal with them.

[Big Al.]

We've found from experience that most of the larger companies treat theses types of forum thread as customer feedback.

So a PH'er having a grumble about a multi national company will have no effect on their bottom line figures, on the otherhand a PH'er having a grumble at a local garage could well effect their bottom line figures.

As we've said before there are ALWAYS TWO sides to every story, and usually only one side is seen on a post.

We also don't allow a right to reply service on the forums, as they normally turn nasty and we'd rather not have the fallout on the forums.

If you have a problem with a service or company, please don't post on PH take it up with that company/service.

HTH explain.

[Bill]

No, sorry I wasn't clear. They won't sue us because they're big enough not to care. In every case there are two sides to the story and we can't examine every case in depth to decide we can let it run.

Hence my err on the side of caution comment, meaning protecting PH. Fending off cases can (and has) cost thousands.

[Monkeylegend]

How is this case any different to saying, for example, ABC motors charged me £250 for a service which presumably wouldn't be classed as naming and shaming.

It's just a cost applied by a company for a service provided, in this case it is £1000 deposit to make a car available for a test drive. They clearly make no secret of it.

Are we no longer able to mention a company or individuals name in these circumstances?

[FourWheelDrift]

If you post anything online the website becomes the publisher and as the publisher they are the ones responsible for what's view-able online and it is the publisher (Haymarket) who get sued, unless you would like to post your full name and address under every post you make, in which case you can share the legal expenses and costs when you lose in court. The owners of the site have been sued in the past for something that was posted and not removed and they don't want to be sued any more so removal of everything involving small company disputes. Large companies like BT are ok because they already know they are a shower of st and they can't disprove it.

[Monkeylegend]

This is not a small company dispute, just somebody reporting a cost for test driving a car which clearly the company concerned make no secret of.

[poing]

Monkeylegend said:

How is this case any different to saying, for example, ABC motors charged me £250 for a service which presumably wouldn't be classed as naming and shaming.

It's just a cost applied by a company for a service provided, in this case it is £1000 deposit to make a car available for a test drive. They clearly make no secret of it.

Are we no longer able to mention a company or individuals name in these circumstances?

Indeed. I felt that in this case the warning was not needed and in fact counter productive. With the name of the company some people might have been able to explain why they charge the deposit.

I'm not sure how it's different to a company charging a delivery cost, an admin fee or any other service cost. The OP wasn't saying the company ripped him off he was just having a typically British moan like we all do.