Isuzu 'Don't Buy' Part 2: Responding to your feedback & comments

When a brand refuses to help its customers, word spreads. Here’s your response to recent news that Isuzu Ute Australia declined to fix a failed D-Max fuel pump under Consumer Law...

Download the PODCAST for this report

---

This mad experiment in dialogue between consumers and a car brand continues, only this time it involves your considered feedback and comments regarding the Isuzu D-MAX & MU-X: DON'T BUY in 2023 report>>

Essentially, Daryll Imray owns a 2016 Isuzu D-Max which has a failed diesel injector pump which the dealership has quoted to repair to the tune of $5000 - which Isuzu Australia has declined to offer him any assistance with.

Pro Tip: When you only sell essentially model your customer service should be exemplary.

Apparently, you - the audience - didn’t like what’s happened to Daryll. But first, we need to discuss possible options available to consumers like you if this happens to you. (You can avoid this issue altogether by checking out my 2022 Lemon List: Brands to avoid >> )

This is a pretty important topic for car makers and car owners alike and it concerns the real operations culture in play here in Australia. So let’s clear up now what you should do if the carmaker stands their ground. If they do stand their ground and you're unwilling to go to court over an issue like this, definitely investigate the possibility of having it repaired independently. I think you'd be able to turn a $5000 repair into $2500 pretty easily.

Dealership repairs are extremely expensive.

Also, if you want to change the culture in a situation like this, especially at a carmaker, you need to engage with the machine no matter how unpalatable that seems at the outset. And by ‘engage’ I mean engage with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.

There's an email address media@accc.gov.au which is a simple way to record what’s happened. So if you've been given the same dismissive treatment by a car company which you think it is manifestly unfair - and if you're not just bullshitting; you're legitimate - then this is the first thing you should do to put this culture changing machine into motion. Start a written record with the regulator.

This is providing you didn't damage or abuse the car, or you don't have buyer's remorse; you are a victim and you are not getting assisted.

At the ACCC website you’ll find a complaint letter writing tool which can help you get started. Hopefully, the new chair appointed in March will help awaken the ACCC and assist their bid to change the culture in Australia among car retailers and car importer brands.

Let's talk about the burden of proof.

Anything could have happened to this car. It could have been misfueled, somebody could have emptied, a kilo of sugar down into the tank and that could be causing chaos in the fuel system. But there's no evidence for that.

In fact, I'd suggest that the burden of proof rests with the dealership and Isuzu Australia, if they want to deny a consumer law remedy.

Instead, what's Happening Here is they're basically saying we are unable to help you because your vehicle is out of warranty they're not saying because you abused it because you misfueled it because you didn't get it serviced on time. Why? Because he did get it serviced on time.

This is a vehicle where the fuel pump has, apparently according to the dealer, just shat itself at six years of age and 120,000 kilometres and if you are going to leverage your business Isuzu's business off concepts like reliability and advanced engineering and durability and can take anything that Australia can throw at it - then you do have to stump up when your vehicle fails unreasonably prematurely.

The worst thing about owning a modern car: bad customer service >>

My AutoExpert AFFORDABLE ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE PACKAGE

If you’re sick of paying through the neck for roadside assistance I’ve teamed up with 24/7 to offer AutoExpert readers nationwide roadside assistance from just $69 annually, plus there’s NO JOINING FEE
Full details here >>

AutoExpert DISCOUNT OLIGHT TORCHES

These flashlights are awesome. I carry the Olight Warrior Mini 2 every day - it’s tiny, robust, and super useful in the field or in the workshop. Olight is a terrific supporter of AutoExpert.

Use the code AEJC to get a 12% discount >>

Generators suck! Go off-grid with AutoExpert BLUETTI PORTABLE POWER STATIONS

Need mobile, reliable power? If you’re camping, boating, caravanning or building a dirty big shed in the back paddock, and you need to run a refrigerator, lights, air conditioner, cooking, and/or a bunch of tools - Bluetti has a clean, tidy, robust solution…

Get your AutoExpert free shipping discount here: https://bit.ly/3n62heK

MORE RESPONSES FROM YOU

Here’s what someone within the Isuzu dealer fraternity had to say about the brand’s conduct:

As a foreman/senior tech who works in a dealership, I find it surprising and disappointing that the brand won't support this customer, especially in this instance when yes, it is out of warranty on a time basis, however it is still under the kilometre threshold.

I would state with utmost certainty that the brands I work for would goodwill that warranty, provided no abuse was present, i.e. perfect service history - as in this case - and no sign of farm-sourced fuel.

If the customer is urban and never be near a farm tank, I see no problems with a goodwill warranty claim. Unfortunately, I have seen a lot of issues with farm fuel and would understand the rejection on that basis, however that would be at the dealer's recommendation which does not seem to be the case here.

-Cameron Taylor

Firstly, the notion of ‘goodwill’ on a vehicle outside of its warranty period is a legacy from pre-Consumer Law days, prior to 2011. Back when it was at the dealership’s discretion whether you got treated like a respected consumer or a cashcow.

It’s been more than a decade now and it's time we just lost that concept. See, manufacturers and dealers are required to provide warranty-like ‘remedies’, I think the ACCC calls them, if the vehicle fails prematurely. That means if it fails to meet the durability expectations of a reasonable customer, when you take into account things like how much it cost, what it's intended to do, and what the seller says about it.

Secondly, if you do get contaminated fuel, there's evidence, which surely would have been cited by the dealer and used in Isuzu's rejection of Daryl's claim. But the problem for Isuzu here is that contaminated fuel is a foreseeable thing; vehicles are expected to operate in an environment where the fuel is lightly contaminated from time to time. This is, of course, why they have filters in the vehicle, and it’s why those filters are subject to a service interval.

This is one of the key reasons why you must get your car serviced on time, so they can check the fuel filter and see if there's water trapped in it, or any other rubbish - or simply replace it on the time or distance basis.

You always rabbit on about consumer law exceeding warranty but good luck getting a court to rule a six-year 160km part.

A 160KM part is within the reasonable durability requirement seriously where is the line drawn if not the warranty period.

The only reason the complaint exists is because the price of the repair.

If you think consumer law Will trump Isuzu post warranty decision then how about you fund the legal proceedings for Dazza?

-Corey

it might surprise you to learn that I'm unmotivated to front the legal proceedings for Daryll, because that's not my role here.

I'm a communicator; I'm a journalist reporting this story which needs to be told to the public not just for Daryll’s sake, but because it paints some light into the very dark corner of how some car companies roll in Australia to this day.

When it comes to owners with seemingly legitimate complaints not getting looked after in the first instance, which I'd suggest is what should have happened here, it needs to be exposed publicly. There’s more than one way to peel a banana, Corey.

I'm advocating for regulatory reform and I don't think we need new legislation on this. What we need is a new culture. We need new enforcement of existing laws so that some companies, whom I would categorize as the ‘bad actors’ in the market, are a little bit more scared than they are now.

Doing the wrong thing must equal facing penalties that make doing that wrong thing unpalatable. Many car companies are prepared to act like abject sociopaths to you, the owner of a vehicle, just because that means a better bottom line when they get on the conference call back to head office once a week.

I'd suggest that not all carmakers are like this. In no particular order good brands include Subaru, Mitsubishi, Hyundai, Kia, Lexus, and BMW - they all act pretty well when an owner presents with a legitimate complaint. And Mazda is actually okay, especially since the ACCC pulled them into line>>

Perhaps those two factors are related.

Have your say