British Leyland's reply

Browse pages
Current page

1

Current page

2

Current page

3

Current page

4

Current page

5

Current page

6

Current page

7

Current page

8

Current page

9

Current page

10

Current page

11

Current page

12

Current page

13

Current page

14

Current page

15

Current page

16

Current page

17

Current page

18

Current page

19

Current page

20

Current page

21

Current page

22

Current page

23

Current page

24

Current page

25

Current page

26

Current page

27

Current page

28

Current page

29

Current page

30

Current page

31

Current page

32

Current page

33

Current page

34

Current page

35

Current page

36

Current page

37

Current page

38

Current page

39

Current page

40

Current page

41

Current page

42

Current page

43

Current page

44

Current page

45

Current page

46

Current page

47

Current page

48

Current page

49

Current page

50

Current page

51

Current page

52

Current page

53

Current page

54

Current page

55

Current page

56

Current page

57

Current page

58

Current page

59

Current page

60

Current page

61

Current page

62

Current page

63

Current page

64

Current page

65

Current page

66

Current page

67

Current page

68

Current page

69

Current page

70

Current page

71

Current page

72

Current page

73

Current page

74

Current page

75

Current page

76

Current page

77

Current page

78

Current page

79

Current page

80

Current page

81

Current page

82

Current page

83

Current page

84

Current page

85

Current page

86

Current page

87

Current page

88

Current page

89

Current page

90

Current page

91

Current page

92

Current page

93

Current page

94

Current page

95

Current page

96

Current page

97

Current page

98

Current page

99

Current page

100

Current page

101

Current page

102

Current page

103

Current page

104

Current page

105

Current page

106

Current page

107

Current page

108

Current page

109

Current page

110

Current page

111

Current page

112

Current page

113

Current page

114

Current page

115

Current page

116

Current page

117

Current page

118

Current page

119

Current page

120

Current page

121

Current page

122

Current page

123

Current page

124

Current page

125

Current page

126

Current page

127

Current page

128

Current page

129

Current page

130

Current page

131

Current page

132

Sir,
I feel that your correspondent, Mr. D. J. Anderson (letter “Quality” January 1972) is being less than fair to British Leyland in general and Triumph in particular.

It would appear that through no fault of the Corporation Mr. Anderson was wrongly informed that its headquarters were at Longbridge but it is not true to say that a letter addressed there went unanswered. Mr. Anderson wrote his letter on November 9th and the Austin Morris Division by whom it was received quite properly redirected it to the Triumph Motor Company as it referred in the main to one of their products.

This letter was replied to on November 18th. At that time Mr. Anderson had been in continuous correspondence with Triumph since September 3rd and all his letters had been dealt with promptly. The normal action was taken to deal with Mr. Anderson’s complaints concerning his GT6 and arrangements made for the Distributor and Dealer concerned to rectify mechanical and paintwork complaints in accordance with the report of one of Triumph’s Area Service Representatives who inspected the car at the Distributor’s premises on November 1st.

Mr. Anderson was asked by the dealer by letter dated November 3rd to arrange for his car to be made available for the work to be carried out and that this should be done within 28 days. He was not told at any time that if he did not comply with this request his guarantee would become “null and void”. This request was repeated in Triumph’s letter of November 18th.

In another letter dated November 20th, Mr. Anderson made it clear that he was not prepared to accept this offer and required nothing less than “a new body and interior trim and probably a new engine and gearbox”.

By letter of December 2nd, Triumph repeated their offer pointing out that the 28-day period was in the customer’s own interests (to prevent any worsening of any of the conditions to be rectified) and reiterating that the 12 months warranty still applied.

In a further letter of December 6th, Mr. Anderson failed to indicate whether or not he was prepared to allow the Distributor/Dealer to carry out the necessary work.

There the matter stands between the company and Mr. Anderson.

Triumph have done everything in their power to have Mr. Anderson’s complaints dealt with but it would appear from the correspondence that Mr. Anderson is not prepared to accept this offer or the Company’s assurance that the work will be done to the high standards expected by both Triumph and the customer.

I fail to see what more we can do and can only hope that Mr. Anderson will allow our distributor or dealer to carry out the work recommended by our service representative.

K. B. Hopkins.
Director of Public Relations
British Leyland Motor Corporation Ltd.,
London, W.1

Related articles

Related products