CUSTOMERS OPINION and LATEST NEWS

Hi

I sent this query to Mitsubishi SA on their website. See also below that the Mail Delivery System message.
There is no other way to lay a complaint! If their quota is exceeded, can you imagine the amount of complaints they must be receiving at the moment?

14 Feb 2012.

• I had my Colt serviced at Mitsubishi East Rand
• The vehicle had no engine oil when I stopped at home
• I bought a Colt from Mitsubishi East Rand and on taking delivery they put up the wrong number plates I never checked
• I was arrested on the highway for having wrong plates on the vehicle
• The then salesmen had to give an affidavit and a letter from the dealer just not tobe prosecuted.
• They offered to sell my 2nd Colt when I bought my 3rd the vehicle it  was parked for months in the back of the dealership nothing happened

-      The tyres was flat window was left open under mm’s of dirt

• The 1st batch of 2.5Did Triton was death traps on a dirt road. I did buy a second Triton and that problem was resolved
• On my Pajero Sport the brake pads just lasted 10000km same with a friend of mine
• They also don’t offer extended warranties from the factory (Toyota, Nissan, Ford offer these at minimal prices)

I now drive Toyota

Hansie Kemp <wjkemp@capricorn-it.co.za>

Query:
I am battling with parts on 3 Mitsubishi vehicles. On a 2011 Pajero SWB 3.2 DI-D, waiting for a part on a head light. On a 2010 Triton 3.2 DI-D 4x4 Clubcab, waiting for driver side window, and mechanism. Both warranty claims. On a 2008 Triton 2.5 DI-D 4x4 Double Cab, Waiting for a Tailgate Brake Light for 3 months now. On all the parts we were told there are none in the country, and it will take 6-8 weeks!!! The Clubcab's window is critical, we can't work with it for obvious reasons, now window. It is affecting my business tremendously. We also have various other Mitsubishi's in our fleet, but are seriously considering replacing them all with another brand on the market. This is terrible service!! What might the problem be? Please don't blame the tsunami. Toyota doesn't have this problem.
From: Mail Delivery System [mailto:MAILER-DAEMON@pop3.amhgroup.net]
Sent: 27 January 2012 11:11 AM
henkmabone@mweb.co.za

I stumbled onto your Mitsubishi Website and saw what a bad experience you had with your Mitsubishis so I just wanted to share my experience. I've been driving Pajero now for more than a decade now and have had excellent service from Mitsubishi. I use my Pajero (LWB Petrol V6) to travel all over Southern Africa and have been lucky enough to have only one breakdown in Namibia and they had the right part available in Walvis Bay. All the other services and maintenance has been done by Mitsubishi Midrand and they generally do an excellent job. They've had most spares in stock and those they didn't always arrived within days. I do think that part of your problems may have been due to the fact that Mitsubishi used to be part of Mercedes Benz as I've heard horror stories from Jeep owners about waiting months for spares. Since middle of last year Mitsubishi is part of the Imperial Holdings so maybe this will improve the situation a bit if they are serious about growing the brand. Imperial introdued a new model i.e. the Mitsubishi ASX (Crossover) which could become a volume seller for them and help widen the dealer network. Anyway I hope you have better luck with your current vehicle.

Regards
Andre <andre_spr@yahoo.com>

Henk this is just they way they operate. By the time that you receive your parts the vehicle will be out of gaurantee. They don't stock parts and are not prepared to take parts from a new vehicle. Their excisting customers are as important as drainage to them. Unfortunatly the secondhand value of Mitsubishi is nothing but I recommende you to count your losses and to change to Toyota. Nobody at Mitsubishi or Merceds are prepared to take responsibality. Andries Erwee

29 December 2011: The car is at Brooklyn Motors for its second day. Both Mercedes Benz and Mitsubishi Motors ingnored my urgent calls. I therefor decided to go ahead with the web site. It will be loaded by midnight tonight.

12 Jan 2012

Good Day Andries,

I was interested to stumble across your website and have to say I am rather distressed about my next purchase. I work in the automotive field and strangely despite all the “inside info” I have chosen a Mitsubishi Outlander 2.4 CVT 2007 model new shape. I certainly have a Triton 3.2 4x4 AT on my list for my next car along with Ford, Mazda & Navara’s, I don’t particularly like Toyota and a Amarok is just too weak when loaded.

You may not be aware but Mitsubishi is now handled by Imperial which happened only recently as Mercedes Benz SA let go of the light vehicle division of Mitsubishi. The logistics of parts is poor at the moment but I still have not had any issues. Imperial have a great service record and promise to turn the Mitsubishi name around with better part stocking and dealer input. Perhaps if you ever want to try better service, try Mitsubishi Sandton in Johannesburg, they have always gone the extra mile for me and I only have the Outlander currently. Also for advise and technical input Mitsubishi use the services of Jannie Rykhardt. If something is broken maybe he can drop a name to help you with them.

Also from a production point of view, the colt was pressed and assembled here with the drivetrain coming in from Asia. The Triton was for 2007 up until 2009 a CKD unit for Mercedes in East London and since 2009 it has been a completely built up import.

Hope you find this helpful.

Sean Fenwick <sean@metprotec.com>

17 Jan 2012

THanks for sharing mate. I actually was googling Mitsubishi website to look at their Pajero and see if they do a 7 seater version in diesel and didnt even get that far before reading your article. I own a Kia Sorento 2010 model and very very pleased with that. My kids Stepdad was looking to buy a Toyota Prado 7 seater and was I actually just checking on his behalf as I saw nice looking Pajero this morning. You just put me right off the brand though, I think his best bet is the Toyota in that case. Stuff these okes and their shitty service.

Hope you get your mess sorted out and keep your website up top of the Google search until they do.

Cheers,

Neil. Neil Roberts <neilninja@gmail.com>

11 jan 2012

Eventually they will probably fix the car (at your costs!!) with LOTS of explaining that it was not actually their problem and they did “all they could”. !  And they will deny any promises made by their salesmen and representatives.
Fact is – you did not purchase promises and excuses – you only wanted a vehicle that does what is is suppose to do – drive.  And expecting service or at least do what they were supposed to do in the first place.!  VW flew in parts to Africa  for an Amarok ! !

I will also point prospective mercedes and mitsubishi candidates to this webpage.  If you ever plan to venture out of the country’s borders  (or even is SA)  – stay away  from these products!!

Good luck !

James Matthee
Malmesbury

13 January 2012
Dear Mr McAllister
RE: COMPLAINT WITH THE UNSATISFACTORY SERVICE DELIVERY AT MITSUBISHI
        PAARDEN EILAND (SANDOWN MOTORS)

Introduction:

I address this letter directly to you as I suspect that the dealership has not made you aware of my situation and my reasons for saying this is because I am aware of your reputation for striving for excellent service and customer satisfaction.

It is for this reason that I am addressing this heartfelt letter to you so that you may become aware of what dealer principals like Moodly are doing to the reputation of Sandown Motors which has been built over years.

Background Facts:
On 13 October 2010 I attended at Sandown Motors in Paarden Eiland aka Mitsubishi Paarden Eiland (“the dealership”) and expressed an interest in purchasing a new motor vehicle.
I was shown a few vehicles and eventually, signed an offer to purchase for a brand new 2011 Mitsubishi Pajero Sport 3.2 (“Sport 3.2”) at the stipulated price of R406 000.00 with the dealership.
Delivery of the Sport 3.2 was arranged for 3 January 2011. However, I was allowed to test drive the dealership’s demo model over the weekend of 25 and 26 November 2010.
Whilst test driving this vehicle, I discovered alarming vibration noises in the vehicle which alarmed me some what. I later learned that this was standard in all such “Sports” models.
Due to the aforesaid I made contact with the Dealership on 27 and 29 November 2010, informing them that I was not satisfied with the Sport 3.2 model and no longer wished to entertain a future sale. On or about 7 December 2010 I met with the Dealer Principal, Mr Danny Moodly (“Moodly”), and advised him of my dissatisfaction with the Sport 3.2 and that I did not want to purchase that particular model any longer. I was informed that I would lose a percentage of my deposit being the amount R10 000.00 should I fail to purchase a motor vehicle from the dealership.
I informed them of my dissatisfaction at the possibility of losing R10 000.00. They then suggested another vehicle and showed me a more expensive Mitsubishi Pajero, namely the 3.8 GLS V6 (“GLS”). The GLS was priced at R482 000.00. I received their consent to test drive the GLS on 8 December 2010 for period of (1) one hour. I was satisfied with the GLS and thereafter agreed to purchase the GLS as opposed to the Sport 3.2.
Prior to signing the new offer to purchase, the Dealership warranted that the GLS was accident-free and that all their pre-owned vehicles always undergo an 80 point check in order to confirm the warranty. I was further advised that the GLS was previously driven by an ex-director of the dealership and that the dealership was the owner. I took delivery of the GLS on 14 December 2010 at 18H00.

On 18 December 2010, approximately (4) four days after I took delivery of the GLS, I noted some pertinent defects and immediately reported these to Moodly. The defects include the following:
1) That the GLS had been previously involved in a motor collision, alternatively it was repaired due to the defective workmanship not undertaken according to manufacturer’s specifications;

2) That there were highly visible paint over-runs on the petrol flap, as well as teardrop paint runs on the inside of the rear door, which indicates the following:
(a) firstly that spray painting was done; and
(b) secondly that such spray painting was not done according to paint manufacturing specifications;

3) The automatic gearshift was malfunctioning as it failed to allow the driver to engage the gear into the drive position, and further engages the parking gear by itself while in motion; 

            4) The electric windows were dysfunctional. This was subsequently repaired when  the driver panel was removed by the Dealership and resolved the electric  windows fault which now works as per manufacturer’s settings. However the driver’s door panel was incorrectly installed leaving additional damage to the
interior of the vehicle.

5) The windscreen had been replaced to a non-factory approved windscreen that   was not per the manufacturers’ specifications;

6) There is an apparent hard suspension affecting the overall wheel alignment. Such is causing excessive rattling noise of the interior dashboard, and rear occupancy  seating;

7) The multimedia settings are defective, as it fails to allow the listening settings to be centred as per manufacturer’s specifications. 

I appraised Moodly of all the above problems and defects and requested the vehicle be exchanged for another vehicle in light of the numerous problems and defects.
The Dealership responded as follows:
a] that they were not aware that the vehicle was involved in a motor vehicle collision or  repaired;
b] With respect to gearbox and electrical problems: they advised that they would book the GLS in under the maintenance plan, for a full check-up and in terms of which a complete  AA Report would be procured and that this would be done within a 48hour period.
I duly accepted this undertaking by the Dealership and left the GLS at the workshop. I received no response from the dealership or workshop within the 48 hour period as promised.

After the period of 48hours, instead of procuring a report based on the assessment of the GLS, the dealership mainly focussed on the immediate pursuance of the monies from Stannic. They pressurised Stannic to pay-out by submitting an incorrect AA report that disclosed no defects. I returned the vehicle after a period of (3) three days, and brought it to the Dealership attention as to the defects described aforesaid. At this stage they advised that a complete AA report would be procured.
They immediately sent the AA report to Stannic with neither my consent nor authorisation, and further failed to inform me of the findings stated in the report. I only received a copy by telefax on 17 January 2011. On the 7th day the bank advised me that have been requested to release monies. The vehicle was not in my possession at this point in time, to which the bank advised that I collect the vehicle as I am now the new registered owner. I was shocked, as I had not given any authorisation to Stannic, and they acted solely on the Dealerships instructions.  I attach a copy of the report that they provided marked “A”.
In the meantime, I procured my own report from independent assessors situated at different coachworks. Apart from the above independent assessment, on or about 28 January 2011,   I took the GLS for an expert visual paint inspection to BASF Coating Services (Pty) Ltd and they provided me with a report which I annex hereto marked “B”.
As will be noted the report discloses clearly that the specific panels of the vehicle were not sprayed according to paint manufacturer specifications.
I then further approached Dekra Automative (Pty) Ltd on 11 February 2011,to conduct a body and under-body check report assessment and provided me with a further AA report, which I annex hereto marked “C”. It will be noted that all the above experts made the same findings with regards to the defects on the GLS and agreed that the vehicle had indeed been repaired due to an accident.

Further, due my constant belief that the GLS is defective and problematic, I arranged for an Independent Valuation of the GLS with Rola Motors on 23 February 2011. The GLS received an appraisement value of R420 000.00, which considerably less than what I paid for the vehicle. I further annex proof thereof marked “D”.

Improper Conduct and misrepresentation:
In light of the above, it is clear that the dealership made representations about the GLS which were false and such representations were made with the intention of inducing me to enter into a contract of sale with the dealership in purchasing a defective and damaged GLS at an excessive price.
Further to the misrepresentations by the dealership, there were further compounding factors which include the following:

1. The Dealership agreed in writing to the trade-in value of my Polo 1.9 TDi in the amount of R75000.00 which would be reflected as deposit against the purchase price of the New Mitsubishi. They subsequently attempted to under pay me by R5000.00, but because I was in possession of their written offer of R75 000.00, the bank settled the dealership based on the R75 000.00 deposit and not the lesser amount;

b)  The agreed price of the GLS as per the offer to purchase was
R482 000.00. However this amount was altered to R484 000.00 without  my consent or permission. I informed the bank of the correct amount and the bank then paid out R482 000.00 less the R75 000.00 deposit; 

c)  Moodly assured me that I would be afforded the prestigious
“Diamond Service” but ONLY IF the vehicle was purchased from       his  dealership;

d) He further warranted I would be entitled to a complementary 4x4 Training  Course and the affixing of number plates which are inclusive in the  purchase price of the vehicle. To date, however, none of the above
promises have been fulfilled by the dealership. In fact I and I had to
pay additional costs for the affixing of the number plates as now required in terms of the amended Traffic Laws;

e) The Dealership did have another vehicle of the same type and model, but refused to exchange/ transfer the defective vehicle sold. I understand that Sandton Motors in Johannesburg were in possession of a GLS at that moment in time with similar mileage and same year model selling at  R10000.00 less than what I paid in favour of the dealership; Morne bennet to confirm this.

                         f) In the meantime, I requested my bank, Stannic not release any funds in  favour of the Dealership, and explained the reasons to the bank. The
dealership, however submitted an incorrect AA report to the bank   thereby compelling the bank to pay. Despite my numerous                              complaints about the defects on the vehicle since January 2011, no attempt was made by the dealership to even procure an AA report even                              though they promised to do so. It was only when I initiated my lawful right  cancel the agreement, that an AA report was finally procured. The  report was, however, procured by way of dubious and underhanded  means in that the GLS was never taken in for a proper inspection in order for   such report to be prepared. 

                        g) Further to the above, no “80 point check” ever took place on the vehicle,   prior to delivery and in terms of which  both the bank and I would have been satisfied that there had been compliance in terms of the Retail Motor Industry and general contractual law.

It is clear from the above that the dealership was only interested in being paid for the GLS but provided no after sales service. In fact, the conduct of the Dealership and specifically the customer service was appalling.
The Dealership clearly acted mala fides by misrepresenting the product/goods sold, without any justifiable recourse to my rights and willingness to accept a reasonable compromise.  
Steps taken by me subsequent to the above events
My experience with this particular Dealership has been most unfortunate, and this notwithstanding the fact that I have been a loyal client of Mercedes Benz and particularly Sandown Motors with a purchase history of four (4) previous Mercedes Benz motor vehicles,
I have openly expressed my disappointment to my family, associates and all my business colleagues who are current owners of the brand.
After hearing about my horrendous experience with the dealership in question, they have all expressed that they will in future never support the Mercedes Benz brand nor Dealer network of Sandown Motors.
Almost all of my family members, friends and business associates own vehicles which are due shortly for an upgrade, but you can be rest assured that after my experience, such upgrades on their vehicles will not be to the benefit of any Sandown Motors branch.
I further approached other Mitsubishi / Mercedes Benz Dealerships, requesting their feedback and possible aid to the matter at hand:
The sales manager from Chrysler Dodge Century City known as Regan was highly disturbed at my motor vehicle complaints, and expressed his embarrassment at the reluctance of the said Dealership to offer any resolve.
Lameez the sale manager, at Mercedes Benz Claremont, sympathised with me for my unfortunate defective purchase. She was appalled at Danny Moodley improper conduct that he neglected to do change of article nor meet my reasonable demands.
I further intimated my distress with Lodewyk van Heeren of Rola Motors and Nick Heinz of Cargo Motors. Roy, the Service Manger of BMW SMG replied: “If it were their customer, they would have been all over me like a rash”.
However, to date, I have received no communication from the said Dealership offering any assistance.
Moodly’s attitude was that he had no concern for my interests as the client and purchaser. He was not prepared to come to the party by making an effort to resolve this matter amicably, causing me gross hardship and stress.  
Your vision as the Entrepreneur of Sandown Motors

“Our customers’ pride and joy of ownership has always been one of the real Mitsubishi trademarks, which we at Mitsubishi Motors value immensely. Being a Mitsubishi customer means that you made a lifestyle choice to the Mitsubishi family of adventures”

“Mercedes Benz South Africa take great in the delivery of the finest products. Mercedes Benz and Mitsubishi have been at the forefront of the South African Motor industry in terms of product quality and after sales service for some time now. You as the customer shall be afforded the highest level of service delivery – our promise over-reaches to all customers creating a family of enthusiasts all appealing to the prestigious brand”. 

I quote the above for the simple reason that none of what either Mitsubishi or Mercedes proclaim was exercised in my case.

In fact, my experience is proof that everything you and your brand stand for including emphatically discussing integrity and moral codes of ethics is a farce and completely untrue and borders on blatant dishonesty.

Your dealership has failed to uphold your moral code in that they failed to provide the after sales service that Mercedes Benz prides itself on.

Way forward

Notwithstanding the aforesaid and despite my constant communication expressing all these concerns to the said dealership, the same was not forthcoming. The service which I received and the disdainful manner in which I was treated was shameful particularly in light of the fact that I did not purchase just any second hand vehicle but one that costs close to half a million rand.

There has been a long standing relationship of trust and integrity which has been diminished and doubtful whether any possible chance of reconciliation may take place.

However, the most frustrating for me in all of this is that the said dealership will not accept that they sold me a defective vehicle.

All I want is for them to accept that the GLS, which they essentially forced me to purchase in lieu of the 3.2 Sports model, is defective and to replace it with another vehicle.

As I mentioned earlier, this was not a R20 000.00 vehicle but rather R482 000.00 which is, by any reasonable account, a substantial sum of money.

Since the said dealership will not assist despite all effort from my side, I decided that my last resort would be to appeal to you to intervene and attempt to settle this matter amicably.
I am confident that once this letter reaches you, I will receive some joy on the basis that you are a man of integrity and you pride yourself on your brand. It is for that reason only that I will not make any threats of approaching the media or newspapers etc.

I appeal to you to kindly intervene in this matter in order to prevent the further defaming of your brand name and to alleviate my stresses and concerns as a bona fide purchaser of one of your most expensive products.

I look forward to a positive response.

Yours Faithfully,
R. Ismail – Managing director of: SHELL EPPING SERVICE STATION

No signature required – submitted electronically