Motorhub/Keighley Trade Centre thread (take two!)

[andymc]

or they couldn't give 2 fks and are happy to take their money

[14]

janesmith1950 said:

If Pistonheads is aware that MH have been fined for repeated breaches of consumer law, it would be sensible to distance themselves from them. By continuing a commercial relationship with them it tends to suggest they don't much care about the consumer.

PH is only one place where MotorHub advertise their cars. Do you think Autotader care if MotorHub breaks the law? I’m guessing not as MotorHub are still advertising on there. Is anyone prepared to email Autotrader to tell them they should stop letting MotorHub advertise on there?

I personally think PH should keep letting MotorHub advertise in the classifieds. They aren’t responsible for any of the vehicles that are being sold. MotorHub also sell cars that haven’t had their history changed.

Also MotorHub got into trouble 7 years ago for the same thing and I don’t remember anyone complaining that PH should stop MotorHub advertising in the classifieds back then. Ultimately no one really cares about MotorHub advertising in the classifieds, and why should they no harm comes to anyone.

[anonymous-user]

Harm *has* come to people, hence the prosecution and fines.

Businesses should take care to avoid supporting those who operate outside of the law and harm consumers.

[14]

PH aren’t supporting MotorHub though.

[FWIW]

14 said:

I personally think PH should keep letting MotorHub advertise in the classifieds. They aren’t responsible for any of the vehicles that are being sold.

That is massively disingenuous. Quelled surprise.
How many discussion threads about MH/KTC have Autotrader deleted?
What you seem to be suggesting is that PH are not bothered about being associated with a proven dodgy car trader, but they are bothered if anyone dares talk about a proven dodgy car dealer. Doesn’t stack up.

[MDMA .]

Unexpected Item In The Bagging Area said:

Still working on this one, Jack?

This didn't get the recognition it deserved

[14]

FWIW said:

That is massively disingenuous. Quelled surprise.
How many discussion threads about MH/KTC have Autotrader deleted?
What you seem to be suggesting is that PH are not bothered about being associated with a proven dodgy car trader, but they are bothered if anyone dares talk about a proven dodgy car dealer. Doesn’t stack up.

The threads will of been deleted because members overstated the facts, and that can get PH in to trouble. There is no association between PH and MotorHub just as much as there is no association between Autotader and MotorHub.

[FWIW]

14 said:

members overstated the facts, and that can get PH in to trouble.

No it can’t.

[DuraAce]

14 said:

The threads will of been deleted because members overstated the facts, and that can get PH in to trouble. There is no association between PH and MotorHub just as much as there is no association between Autotader and MotorHub.

How do other forums/platforms like Facebook, Reddit, Trip Advisor etc 'get away' with it then?

[14]

FWIW said:

No it can’t.

http://www.urban75.org/info/libel.html the author on that website would disagree with you.

I’ve also learnt whilst googling for the court case I’ve spoken of, that EU law also says websites can’t have defamations in them. The reason why Facebook, Reddit and Tripadviser is most likely that they can afford expensive solicitors.

[andymc]

14 said:

FWIW said:

That is massively disingenuous. Quelled surprise.
How many discussion threads about MH/KTC have Autotrader deleted?
What you seem to be suggesting is that PH are not bothered about being associated with a proven dodgy car trader, but they are bothered if anyone dares talk about a proven dodgy car dealer. Doesn’t stack up.

The threads will of been deleted because members overstated the facts, and that can get PH in to trouble. There is no association between PH and MotorHub just as much as there is no association between Autotader and MotorHub.

is that you Mr M hub?

[FWIW]

14 said:

http://www.urban75.org/info/libel.html the author on that website would disagree with you.

I’ve also learnt whilst googling for the court case I’ve spoken of, that EU law also says websites can’t have defamations in them. The reason why Facebook, Reddit and Tripadviser is most likely that they can afford expensive solicitors.

Is that the best you can do?

The internet forum world is jam packed with examples of naming and shaming - I can't find one single example of a successful (or an unsuccessful one for that matter) claim. Nor can you it would seem. Happy to be corrected.

[14]

I’ve tried to find the court case I mentioned but I can’t find it. The no naming and shaming rule existed before Haymarket bought PH in 2007, so make what you will of it.

[Durzel]

14 said:

I never said Haymarket went to court, though a publisher did get taken to court and lost about 20 years ago. I meant future court cases were PH to decide to defend itself. I know Petrol Ted and Haymarket had to pay out due to naming and shaming. The no naming and shaming rule has been in place since before Haymarket bought PH, so no it has nothing to do with upsetting advertisers.

Pretty sure you're referring to Godfrey vs Demon Internet (2001)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godfrey_v_Demon_In...

This case set a legal precedent for online defamation and hosting of said content. Short version - Haymarket are legally on the hook if they are informed of libelous content and do not respond to it.

[Unexpected Item In The Bagging Area]

On 7th of May Jack Mansfield said:

Hi again!

We're trying to establish the plan on this and will keep you updated.

Still trying, Jack?

[Monkeylegend]

Unexpected Item In The Bagging Area said:

On 7th of May Jack Mansfield said:

Hi again!

We're trying to establish the plan on this and will keep you updated.

Still trying, Jack?

Last year there were 140k cars being advertised at any one time in the classifieds, it is now down to under 87k so they are probably not trying to hard to reduce this further

[ChocolateFrog]

TBF is there a car person that doesn't know about MotorHub's sharp practices by now?

If it's cheap, it's cheap for a reason.

[14]

Durzel said:

14 said:

I never said Haymarket went to court, though a publisher did get taken to court and lost about 20 years ago. I meant future court cases were PH to decide to defend itself. I know Petrol Ted and Haymarket had to pay out due to naming and shaming. The no naming and shaming rule has been in place since before Haymarket bought PH, so no it has nothing to do with upsetting advertisers.

Pretty sure you're referring to Godfrey vs Demon Internet (2001)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godfrey_v_Demon_In...

This case set a legal precedent for online defamation and hosting of said content. Short version - Haymarket are legally on the hook if they are informed of libelous content and do not respond to it.

Thanks for the link.

[Countdown]

ChocolateFrog said:

TBF is there a car person that doesn't know about MotorHub's sharp practices by now?

If it's cheap, it's cheap for a reason.

Indeed, and I assumed that everybody googles the name of any Dealer before they buy a car rom them, just to see if there are any horror stories.

[FWIW]

14 said:

Thanks for the link.

So Haymarket have received a complaint from Motorhub about the thread? 🤔