Lookers Park Royal wrote:

I think the key word here is permission!!

A dealer should not do ANYTHING with a clients personal property unless they have proper permission from the client, and that a senior member of staff within the dealership has also authorised such action. To put it in to perspective, at LPR our General Manager would need to expressly authorise such action, and would want a detailed justification of why is was beneficial and necessary.

Very rarely (perhaps once or twice a month - based on us seeing 30+ cars a day through our Aftersales Dept), we may suggest that a vehicle is driven on an extended road test. This is usually if there is an intermitant problem that is not evident whilst the car is with us, or an issue that only manifests itself after a prelonged journey. Even then the vehicle would only be driven by a senior member of the team, directly home and back, and under the dealerships insurance cover.

There is just far too much at stake should the vehicle become damages, and not only that it is disrespectful.

So, yes it is perfectly normal, acceptable and beneficial providing it is in full and proper agreement with the owner of the vehicle.

James

It's good that LPR have offered their opinion, but maybe the dealership in question have a different way of doing things.

Whenever I drop off my RR to the dealer (very rarely it must be said - last time was for the diff rework) I sign a piece of paper, mainly to say I'll pay any bills which may be forthcoming. I don't know the full content of it as I've never read it. Who's to say there isn't a statement to say the vehicle might be taken off site when necessary? Quite probably the chap in this tale signs a similar bit of paper.

Bear in mind there has been no accusation of this car going on a jolly, purely that it wasn't where the owner parked it earlier. No doing doughnuts outside McDonalds, no 100mph jaunts through the town centre, no trips to the seaside. The bloke just took it home, most likely to give it an extended road test in an attempt to track down a recurring fault. That's all.
The only naïveity being shown here is the assumption that every person involved in the motor trade has some desire to abuse customer's cars. That simply isn't true and there's been no evidence offered by the chap to the contrary. Not sure you should be reading this bit.

GKP wrote:

It's good that LPR have offered their opinion, but maybe the dealership in question have a different way of doing things.

Whenever I drop off my RR to the dealer (very rarely it must be said - last time was for the diff rework) I sign a piece of paper, mainly to say I'll pay any bills which may be forthcoming. I don't know the full content of it as I've never read it. Who's to say there isn't a statement to say the vehicle might be taken off site when necessary? Quite probably the chap in this tale signs a similar bit of paper.

Bear in mind there has been no accusation of this car going on a jolly, purely that it wasn't where the owner parked it earlier. No doing doughnuts outside McDonalds, no 100mph jaunts through the town centre, no trips to the seaside. The bloke just took it home, most likely to give it an extended road test in an attempt to track down a recurring fault. That's all.
The only naïveity being shown here is the assumption that every person involved in the motor trade has some desire to abuse customer's cars. That simply isn't true and there's been no evidence offered by the chap to the contrary.

I'm sure you are a really nice chap GKP, and I applaud your determination to see the best in people, but you seem to conveniently ignore the bit where the MD of the dealership lies to deny the vehicle was taken offsite. Oh, sorry, he just didn't know, so he stated that it hadn't.

By any chance do you also think that Col Gaddafi is probably just much misunderstood?

Please relax, nobody thinks that everybody in the motor trade is out to rip people off, that is precisely why we are so disturbed when they betray the trust of a customer, then lie about it. 90% of people in the trade are not like this (now I am showing my naivety ). Thats why we like to complain when it happens! Range Rover-less at the moment - Pining!

We only have the original poster's view of that conversation, who, incidentally now doesn't seem too bothered about the whole affair, preferring instead to get on with the far more busy issue of life. Perhaps the situation wasn't quite how everyone's imagination portrayed it? Maybe it was a storm in a teacup afterall?
Maybe if we heard from the dealership in question we'd get a differing account of the events? Who's to know what the real story is here.

But some seem to want to grab their burning torches and pitchforks at the merest hint of a fellow RR owner being wronged. Whether he was wronged or not we'll never know, but the kneejerk outpouring of internet indignation is a cliched and typical reaction of Forums and their members. Quite frankly, it's exasperatingly childish. Not sure you should be reading this bit.

IMHO it's all about managing client expectations no matter which trade you are in.

If the dealership had said this may happen then it would have given the OP the option to discuss & agree.

I wonder if GKP would take offence if his car went past with a staff member from his local NCP driving it because That may not be too different 'cos as far as the OP knew there was no OOH testing being done garage or not?

GKP wrote:

We only have the original poster's view of that conversation, who, incidentally now doesn't seem too bothered about the whole affair, preferring instead to get on with the far more busy issue of life. Perhaps the situation wasn't quite how everyone's imagination portrayed it? Maybe it was a storm in a teacup afterall?
Maybe if we heard from the dealership in question we'd get a differing account of the events? Who's to know what the real story is here.

But some seem to want to grab their burning torches and pitchforks at the merest hint of a fellow RR owner being wronged. Whether he was wronged or not we'll never know, but the kneejerk outpouring of internet indignation is a cliched and typical reaction of Forums and their members. Quite frankly, it's exasperatingly childish.

Maybe the Md didn't know, perhaps the OP made the whole thing up, maybe the dealership would say something different (little doubt about that, dealerships being of course notorious for admitting whenever they do anything wrong).

On the other hand, perhaps people log into forums at their leisure, and give their opinions on the topics under discussion. I guess if somebody really objected to such a practice, they could even not log into such forums!  Range Rover-less at the moment - Pining!

An NCP would have no reason to move my car. The parking services at Gatwick would. I imagine a workshop looking for a recurring braking fault would have some reason to roadtest a vehicle, too. Don't you?

But do carry on with you line of argument, despite its irrelevance to the conversation, as the palpable indignation you're exhibiting on behalf of a one-sided story posted on the internet is becoming amusing. Not sure you should be reading this bit.

GKP wrote:

An NCP would have no reason to move my car. The parking services at Gatwick would. I imagine a workshop looking for a recurring braking fault would have some reason to roadtest a vehicle, too. Don't you?

But do carry on with you line of argument, despite its irrelevance to the conversation, as the palpable indignation you're exhibiting on behalf of a one-sided story posted on the internet is becoming amusing.

I was just trying to explain that IMHO the owners permission should have been sought.

Perhaps it was? Not sure you should be reading this bit.

GKP wrote:

Perhaps it was?

 Range Rover-less at the moment - Pining!

Were you there? Do you know what the chap may or may not have signed when he gave his keys over? Or what the Service Manager may or msy not have said when accepting them?

I'm honestly puzzled as to why there is such a furore over an unproven non-event such as this. Not sure you should be reading this bit.

RRUK wrote:

Out of work hours would that not qualify as theft?

Is TWOC a criminal offence?

Theft would be impossible to prove unless the vehicle was driven with intent to permanately deprive the owner of it. Current MY2020
Gone: 1 x L405 and 2 x L322's

Yes TWOC is a criminal offence. Yes they could be arrested in England and Wales (don't know about scottish law). Would the CPS prosecute.. unlikely...(public interest --- unless the car was trashed for example) could you prosecute them yourself via the criminal court yes. Could you presecute through the civil courts. Yes, and have more probability of winning your case.

The owner is also legally obliged to say who was driving the vehicle in instances such as setting off a speed camera, accidents etc etc.. Which is why buisnesses / services (eg the POLICE) with multi user vehicles keep log books. So the garage also fail in this respect. They should legally be able to tell the authorites who was driving vehicles in for repair and when. Its the MD / CEO's ass on the line when he/she can't. 2010 Disco XS TDV6, 2009 Freelander 2 GS

Previous Landrover products -1990 110 TDI CSW, 2003 TD6 Vogue - RRC TD Vogue, RRC v8 Fleetline, Disco ES V8 LPG, 101 Ambulance "Morph", 1964 SIIa Auto Powered by Jag 4.2 Lump - "Percy".