British Leyland's reply
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
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