[RESOLVED] Why was the 'Horrible Superchips experience' t
Discussion
Seems like you have your answer, but in case you're still unsure have a look at the rules of posting that you agreed to when you signed up to PistonHeads - Rule 6 covers this!
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/rules.htm
Best wishes
JD
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/rules.htm
Best wishes
JD
James Drake said:
Seems like you have your answer, but in case you're still unsure have a look at the rules of posting that you agreed to when you signed up to PistonHeads - Rule 6 covers this!
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/rules.htm
Best wishes
JD
"Do not name and shame any company with content that could cause reputational damage or that could be deemed as libellous or defamatory."http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/rules.htm
Best wishes
JD
The intention of my thread was to warn others that should they use this product and something goes wrong then the company won't stand over any damage caused, even if it's caused by one of the company's recommended dealers.
I wouldn't never in a million years have used the garage if the company hadn't recommended them. And if you live where I live, you'll have no other choice but to use this garage if you want to use this product.
Most people who purchase this product would do so, because the company selling it has an excellent reputation, I thought they'd benefit knowing that if something does go wrong they'll be expected to pay for the damage themselves.
I simply retold me experience... Nobody's more sorry then me that I had to learn the hard way.
PMAUDI said:
James Drake said:
Please read this for a more thorough explanation. And as an aside, this is not a new rule - it has been this way for a very long time.
I think it explains itself, the owners of the site don't want to upset potential advertisers.http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
Johnnytheboy said:
The above pretty much covers it. The law (and I disagree with this) holds PH liable for what posters say.
So if a poster says something libellous about a company, it's PH's fault.
That can't be correct; how many stories have you read / heard about regarding people posting stuff on Facebook / Twitter etc; those companies haven't been responsible for their content and it's been the responsibility of the poster; they're the ones that have ended up in court not the companies who host the site.So if a poster says something libellous about a company, it's PH's fault.
Personally I like to hear both negatives and positives of companies - especially if it involves customer service for problems - exactly what the original OP was posting about. The companies have the right to respond with their side of the story so everyone gets the full picture; funnily enough exactly what happens on company Facebook/Twitter accounts day in day out without anyone getting all cloak and dagger about it like Haymarket.
crmcatee said:
That can't be correct; how many stories have you read / heard about regarding people posting stuff on Facebook / Twitter etc; those companies haven't been responsible for their content and it's been the responsibility of the poster; they're the ones that have ended up in court not the companies who host the site.
Personally I like to hear both negatives and positives of companies - especially if it involves customer service for problems - exactly what the original OP was posting about. The companies have the right to respond with their side of the story so everyone gets the full picture; funnily enough exactly what happens on company Facebook/Twitter accounts day in day out without anyone getting all cloak and dagger about it like Haymarket.
I'm afraid I can only act based on the advice we receive from our legal team. It should also be noted that this is not a new rules - it has been around more or less for as long as PH has.Personally I like to hear both negatives and positives of companies - especially if it involves customer service for problems - exactly what the original OP was posting about. The companies have the right to respond with their side of the story so everyone gets the full picture; funnily enough exactly what happens on company Facebook/Twitter accounts day in day out without anyone getting all cloak and dagger about it like Haymarket.
As an aside, the difference between what you mention and people naming and shaming on PH is that when someone has an exchange on a company facebook account it within the control of the company being questioned (they both have visibility of the complaint and the ability to moderate / remove the comment).
Anyway, as I say - we are just following the guidelines put in place by people that are paid to know about this sort of thing.
JD
Thanks James,
Yes I know it's an old rule, and sadly I think it's one of the stupidest rules on here as it implies that HM are taking ownership of anything and everything posted on here even though having it in the public domain may be beneficial to other motorists who were thinking about using their service but as long as it doesn't affect revenue.
If you were to make your T&C's clear like they are on Facebook etc - where the poster is responsible for the content and not HM, life would be much better for the consumer/motorist as you'd be able to tell the complete story and name and shame. Funnily enough like you can do on Facebook etc on your own posts and not on the Company pages. Perhaps HMs Legal team advised it was best done like it is because they like to stay engaged and of course bill hours but that would be cynical of me.
Naming and shaming in the ops case meets the rules of the HM Terms; specifically - "4.1 The pages of the Website where you are capable of posting content are provided for your private, non-commercial exchange of lawful, relevant, fair and appropriate information, opinions and comment. Use of the Website that is inconsistent with those stated purposes is strictly prohibited."
The OP wasn't selling anything; he was asking for advice on where he stood by taking his car along to someone who it seemed had a good reputation (probably due to your lack of naming and shaming but that's a guess).
As you may have guessed I like an open playing field - companies provide bad service - they should be shamed.
In the OP's case; I too would have expected any damage done to my ECU whilst in the custody of someone who is working on the ECU to be covered but no-one else is going to know that now are they ? Great for the motorists.
Yes I know it's an old rule, and sadly I think it's one of the stupidest rules on here as it implies that HM are taking ownership of anything and everything posted on here even though having it in the public domain may be beneficial to other motorists who were thinking about using their service but as long as it doesn't affect revenue.
If you were to make your T&C's clear like they are on Facebook etc - where the poster is responsible for the content and not HM, life would be much better for the consumer/motorist as you'd be able to tell the complete story and name and shame. Funnily enough like you can do on Facebook etc on your own posts and not on the Company pages. Perhaps HMs Legal team advised it was best done like it is because they like to stay engaged and of course bill hours but that would be cynical of me.
Naming and shaming in the ops case meets the rules of the HM Terms; specifically - "4.1 The pages of the Website where you are capable of posting content are provided for your private, non-commercial exchange of lawful, relevant, fair and appropriate information, opinions and comment. Use of the Website that is inconsistent with those stated purposes is strictly prohibited."
The OP wasn't selling anything; he was asking for advice on where he stood by taking his car along to someone who it seemed had a good reputation (probably due to your lack of naming and shaming but that's a guess).
As you may have guessed I like an open playing field - companies provide bad service - they should be shamed.
In the OP's case; I too would have expected any damage done to my ECU whilst in the custody of someone who is working on the ECU to be covered but no-one else is going to know that now are they ? Great for the motorists.
I say again, all I can do is act upon the rules that the legal advisors supply, which - for better or worse - means that we don't allow naming and shaming and therefore will continue to enforce that rule.
In combination with this, all members agreed to this rule when they signed up, so it isn't like we've ever been secretive about it. Equally, as you've pointed out there are other options available to motorists that want to raise awareness for their negative experiences too.
Best wishes
James
In combination with this, all members agreed to this rule when they signed up, so it isn't like we've ever been secretive about it. Equally, as you've pointed out there are other options available to motorists that want to raise awareness for their negative experiences too.
Best wishes
James
crmcatee said:
In the OP's case; I too would have expected any damage done to my ECU whilst in the custody of someone who is working on the ECU to be covered but no-one else is going to know that now are they ? Great for the motorists.
I wouldn't mind but he deliberately didn't name the garage who did the work and didn't even give any clue as to who / where it might be. He named the ultimate supplier, but as I mentioned above if that's not allowed then PH better delete all the posts where people have an issue with VW where they haven't helped with some slightly out-of-warranty failure etc.
The reason for my original thread wasn't to 'shame' anyone...
I shared my experience to inform others if they purchase a product and are directed to a garage to have their ECU enabled then the company with the excellent reputation for customer service won't stand by them.
If I'd been lucky enough to read something similar, before purchasing I'd have talked with the company about the risks involved in the process.
There's nothing on their website to suggest there was any risk involved in this process.
I'd a choice of many products, as I said before, I used this particular company as they've a great reputation... Sadly, and nobody is more sorry than me, that wasn't my experience.
I wonder what the difference between the likes of Twitter and PH is when it comes to libel?
I shared my experience to inform others if they purchase a product and are directed to a garage to have their ECU enabled then the company with the excellent reputation for customer service won't stand by them.
If I'd been lucky enough to read something similar, before purchasing I'd have talked with the company about the risks involved in the process.
There's nothing on their website to suggest there was any risk involved in this process.
I'd a choice of many products, as I said before, I used this particular company as they've a great reputation... Sadly, and nobody is more sorry than me, that wasn't my experience.
I wonder what the difference between the likes of Twitter and PH is when it comes to libel?
Gassing Station | Website Feedback | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff