What's Acceptable?

[Agent57]

Never understood why they can't just redact the name and address of previous owners from the paperwork.

Maybe a business opportunity out there for an independent company to set up a central database where any work done on a car can be centrally logged.

[woodsypedia]

01WE01 said:

This isn't correct. Legitimate interest is one lawful basis for processing personal data under GDPR/DPA2018. If there is no PII there is no legimate interest basis.

Actually yes - you're spot on. With redacted info there is no PII - also no GDPR case to answer. That kind of strengthens the argument as they can no longer use GDRP as the excuse.

[Big Ry]

There's no reason at all why a dealer cannot give you the full history of your car. Works have done so for me in the past, of course with all previous owner information redacted.

If anyone tries that card they're either very uninformed, lying, or have a specific reason for not wanting to share the data.

[SFO]

woodsypedia said:

01WE01 said:

This isn't correct. Legitimate interest is one lawful basis for processing personal data under GDPR/DPA2018. If there is no PII there is no legimate interest basis.

Actually yes - you're spot on. With redacted info there is no PII - also no GDPR case to answer. That kind of strengthens the argument as they can no longer use GDRP as the excuse.

trouble is, you can't force them to disclose

[Shnozz]

SFO said:

woodsypedia said:

01WE01 said:

This isn't correct. Legitimate interest is one lawful basis for processing personal data under GDPR/DPA2018. If there is no PII there is no legimate interest basis.

Actually yes - you're spot on. With redacted info there is no PII - also no GDPR case to answer. That kind of strengthens the argument as they can no longer use GDRP as the excuse.

trouble is, you can't force them to disclose

And they are a) not going to be arsed to spend hours doing that on a big file of documents b) take the risk that they might overlook something and be in breach and c) go above and beyond if any other dealers are doing the same thing.

[BiggaJ]

Shnozz said:

And they are a) not going to be arsed to spend hours doing that on a big file of documents b) take the risk that they might overlook something and be in breach and c) go above and beyond if any other dealers are doing the same thing.

And this is the problem I had .... they cant be bothered just in case they miss something.

[8Tech]

I would say, in reference to the original post/query, that a slight misting on a shock is really a way for the tester to cover himself if the shock fails soon after the test. It is also another classic way to punt for work, because whilst many will panic and have them done, as the history shows, these got no worse in 4 years, and the "misting" could be later explained away if a second opinion was sought, denying any wrongdoing/punting for work.

It is also common to advise this when the car is wet because it is almost impossible to distinguish between water "damp" and oil "damp".

If that was my only concern with the car, I would try and negotiate a discount and purchase an upgrade system at a fraction of the cost of AM parts.

[Shnozz]

8Tech said:

If that was my only concern with the car, I would try and negotiate a discount and purchase an upgrade system at a fraction of the cost of AM parts.

And which ones are they? Seems to me there isn't much in it cost wise between Aston OEM shocks and Nitrons etc, albeit you could argue the latter are an "upgrade". The issue for me is that for insurance purposes alone I like to keep the car OEM rather than have to go around specialist brokers at renewal.

[Whip2001]

If this is a MY12 car with the adaptive dampers is there a worthwhile non OEM upgrade?