|
It is not only this Mitsi that suffers from water ingress when the tailgate is opened. This has been a problem on some estates and hatchbacks over the years. When I became aware of it I made sure there were no goods where the water fell, only an old towel. Not the best, but the only solution.
My friend bought his wife one of these Mitsi's, she is a midwife and gets called at any time and in all weathers, so the vehicle offers good protection. He coated all the windows, windscreen etc and drainage channels in 'Rain Racer' which prevents water from adhering to the surface and pooling. It worked so well he could drive in the rain without the wipers on! Worth a try at least. My friend did also receive the benefit of tax relief by putting the vehicle through his business. But so would I. He did actually use the Mitsi quite often for site work too. I do begrudge giving the treasury not only car tax but vat on the tax and vehicle, for the privilege of spending my own money!
Pareto, don't take every comment as a personal insult. Treat the forum like a pub discussion. People go 'off topic' without realising but there is no maliciousness intended. If this was in the pub you wouldn't react badly or your mates would think you had lost it. A thin skin is not conducive to a happy life!
Cheers Concrete
|
|
Thanks for your comments Concrete
I would be careful admitting that a midwife and a woman has bought an L200 - doesnt go down very well in these forums.
I am not the only person to buy an L200 for the taxation benifits it offers and I would say that Mitsubihi actively look to market the L200 as an alternative as a SUV.
I came to the forum looking for help and advice and instead received a load of rubbish off topic garabage. I contacted the admin (in private mind) and they explained (in public) how they run their forum and the rules. I dont take every comment as a personal insult but I am not going to nod and smile when people post rubbish. I will use my own freedom of speech and call them out on it.
|
|
Fair enough Pareto. But sometimes discretion is the better part of valour. If a comment is clearly rubbish or bordering on offensive then it pays to ignore it and stick to the topic. That way you don't get sucked into petty off topic arguments. That is my advice for what it's worth. I have also found that amongst some of the 'rocks' there are 'pearls' to be found. I have received some excellent advice on the forum. As I said it's like a pub discussion where the opinions vary greatly, just sort the wheat from the chaff.
I hope you sort the water problem. It may be you just manage it and enjoy the Mitsi as a fine vehicle.
Cheers Concrete
|
|
'I would be careful admitting that a midwife and a woman has bought an L200 - doesnt go down very well in these forums.'
I am a simple person : don't know why that should. Could someone explain to me please ?
|
'I would be careful admitting that a midwife and a woman has bought an L200 - doesnt go down very well in these forums.'
I am a simple person : don't know why that should. Could someone explain to me please ?
It was a bit tongue in cheek. If you read up there are some in this forum who would like to suggest the only people who should buy L200 are big, burly blokes who use it to carry around manly stuff. There have been lots of off topic rubbish about an accountant buying a L200. Complete garbage I am sure you would agree?
There is also one sexist poster who things woman shouldnt drive L200 nor any big cars since they cannot get them through gaps outside the school gates. Again an absurd generalisation but nobody else has the sense to point out how silly comments like this are.
|
|
Not so silly. The chosen truck has a big drawback. It's crap for the job.
|
|
|
|
It's not that we don't want to be helpful, Pareto, but we can't be as optimistic about your chances of success as you'd like us to be.
I think that the root of the problem is that the leak is the result of poor design rather than a manufacturing fault - meaning that you aren't protected by consumer law in the same way as if it had been a defect.
I suggest that you either try to get the dealer to fit an alternative hardtop on to the pickup (maybe something like the one you had on your previous L200), or change the L200 for something else.
Of course I appreciate the tax advantages of a pickup, but a car that cost less in the first place would compensate for higher taxation. If as I suspect your wife needs a 4x4 because some of her clients are farmers, a Suzuki Vitara or S-Cross could suit.
Where did I say I was optimistic? I came looking for help and advice. At no point have I said anything about my chances of sucess??
I am confused about the difference bewteen a design fault and a manufacturing fault. To my mind the design fault is that the manufactuerer has design a product and sold it that is not suitable? If I am right then why is it okay for them to do that? Do I not have a right to ask them to make it right?
One piece of useful piece of advice (amongst the garbage) has been the suggestion about concentrating on the back itself instead of the entire vehicle.
I am not going to get into the tax advantages of buying an L200. I am no expert but my wife, the accountant is and I am happy with it.
|
|
From Mitsubishi website:
Mitsubishi offer three different types of hardtop for the L200 and three different 'tonneau covers' for the flatbed.
It therefore appears that the fault is in the flatbed cover, which is described on the Mitsubishi site as an accessory, as are the hardtops,
So the vehicle itself is not unsatisfactory, it is the accessory cover which perhaps could be rejected as not fit for purpose as they are described as 'giving protection from the elements' (but doesn't say 100% protection)
|
From Mitsubishi website:
Mitsubishi offer three different types of hardtop for the L200 and three different 'tonneau covers' for the flatbed.
It therefore appears that the fault is in the flatbed cover, which is described on the Mitsubishi site as an accessory, as are the hardtops,
So the vehicle itself is not unsatisfactory, it is the accessory cover which perhaps could be rejected as not fit for purpose as they are described as 'giving protection from the elements' (but doesn't say 100% protection)
Thank you that is useful.
It’s interesting that the websites mentions giving protection from the elements. I am definitely leaning towards concentrating more on the hardtop being unsuitable rather than the entire vehicle.
The dealer is saying that the water ingress is a characteristic of the cover and therefore not unsuitable. I can not think for one minute that a reasonable person will accept that a boot that lets in water after it rains is a feature.
|
|
Why not put the papers in a plastic bag or other waterproof container?
A plastic box would be useful to carry them in as well.
|
Why not put the papers in a plastic bag or other waterproof container?
A plastic box would be useful to carry them in as well.
He's already said putting them in a plastic box with a lid is a silly idea.
|
|
I'll try to sum it up, as I see it :
You can't reject the vehicle under CRA, because CRA doesn't apply to company (rether than private) purchases. Your company is not a 'consumer' in the 'Consumer Rights Act' definition, which is a critically important point.
You tried to be smart and purchase a vehicle that carried less tax liability / car tax. As such, YOU bought an unsuitable vehicle, rather than spending on a 'proper' SUV, which would have carried considerably more in tax penalties.
You are now thrashing about, trying to blame everyone apart from yourself.
As I see it : all your own fault for trying to be a cheapskate.
Oh, and you're so offended by all the replies on here because they cut to the bone. Because they are completely accurate.
But it's OK. Keep on blaming Mitsubishi for your own acts and omissions.
|
I'll try to sum it up, as I see it :
You can't reject the vehicle under CRA, because CRA doesn't apply to company (rether than private) purchases. Your company is not a 'consumer' in the 'Consumer Rights Act' definition, which is a critically important point.
You tried to be smart and purchase a vehicle that carried less tax liability / car tax. As such, YOU bought an unsuitable vehicle, rather than spending on a 'proper' SUV, which would have carried considerably more in tax penalties.
You are now thrashing about, trying to blame everyone apart from yourself.
As I see it : all your own fault for trying to be a cheapskate.
Oh, and you're so offended by all the replies on here because they cut to the bone. Because they are completely accurate.
But it's OK. Keep on blaming Mitsubishi for your own acts and omissions.
Wrong, wrong and double wrong. How about I sum it up as you haven’t a clue what you are talking about and your posts are stupid? Your posts have been very amusing but completely inaccurate. You are just upset because I am calling you out on your nonsense.
Cheapskate? Do you know how much a new L200 cost? And everybody who buys a car for tax liabilities is not smart? Does that include everybody who buys a car for its fuel and road tax? That’s a lot of people!!
What is proper SUV? What if I spend less on the proper SUV than I did on the L200 does that still mean I am cheapskate? Is there a list somewhere? Are accountants allowed to buy them?
Everybody has a right to a stupid opinion but I fear you are abusing that privilege. If you haven’t got anything constructive to add why do you keep replying?
Edited by Pareto on 27/04/2016 at 10:44
|
|
So I am "wrong, wrong, and double wrong".
I hope your wife is better at sums than you are, as that's three (triple) wrongs.
You do not qualify under CRA for rejecting. Because your COMPANY bought the vehicle, and a COMPANY is not a CONSUMER under the CRA. So the CRA does not apply.
Please tell me in what way that is (as you claim) inaccurate, wrong, or nonsense ?
|
So I am "wrong, wrong, and double wrong".
I hope your wife is better at sums than you are, as that's three (triple) wrongs.
You do not qualify under CRA for rejecting. Because your COMPANY bought the vehicle, and a COMPANY is not a CONSUMER under the CRA. So the CRA does not apply.
Please tell me in what way that is (as you claim) inaccurate, wrong, or nonsense ?
The ramblings of a mad man - give it a rest.
It has been established by someone else earlier in the thread - (way back on 6th Apr) that consumer rights act is for consumers and not business. That is one single piece of legislation. It has taken you all this time to catch up.
Well done - you deserve a pat on the head and a biscuit. You have finally seen someone posting helpful advice and you have copied it. It’s the rest of your posts that are completely mistaken, inappropriate and nonsense.
Here let me give you an example - your original reply was
If it was bought specifically (i.e. you told the salesman) for carrying paperwork, and IF they have tried and failed to fix, then yes, you've got a good argument for rejection.
This is an example - backed up with evidence that your posts and opinions are worthless. At least I try and address your foolish gibberish, you just ignore the truth and carry on showing yourself up, Since you cannot help yourself replying then are doing a fine job as the thread fool - please carry on.
|
|
Here let me give you an example - your original reply was
If it was bought specifically (i.e. you told the salesman) for carrying paperwork, and IF they have tried and failed to fix, then yes, you've got a good argument for rejection.
I think Rob was saying that if this was discussed before ordering it could be considered an implied term of the contract.
|
|
Why not put the papers in a plastic bag or other waterproof container?
A plastic box would be useful to carry them in as well.
He's already said putting them in a plastic box with a lid is a silly idea.
I do think thats a silly idea. I bought a vehicle that has a back that keeps things perfectly dry under normal circumstances. The problem is when it has been raining and I lift the lid. I have two reports saying its a design fault.
Covering the contents in a plastic box does not fix the problem. It is a akin a car breaking down and suggesting walking as an answer. (ok a bit extreme but hopefully you can see the point I am trying to make)
|
|
As I understand it, because the consumer rights do not apply, in a business to business deal you have to show breach of contract by the supplier. A design fault means that you were supplied with what you ordered whereas a manufacturing fault would mean you were not supplied with what you contracutally agreed to buy, hence you could have a claim. A solicitor would be able to explain all this.
I can't see what is wrong with the plastic box solution - it would look professional, keep the papers in order and together and keep them dry.
|
As I understand it, because the consumer rights do not apply, in a business to business deal you have to show breach of contract by the supplier. A design fault means that you were supplied with what you ordered whereas a manufacturing fault would mean you were not supplied with what you contracutally agreed to buy, hence you could have a claim. A solicitor would be able to explain all this.
I can't see what is wrong with the plastic box solution - it would look professional, keep the papers in order and together and keep them dry.
It's as if Pareto's wife has all that paperwork scattered randomly in the back section of the pickup, and has to rummage to find anything required. Any reasonably intelligent person would surely have it all in boxes anyway - and boxes with lids would ensure that when the paperwork was being moved to inside buildings for meetings or to be worked on, the paperwork would not get wet or blown away in strong winds.
I'm personally coming (slowly) to the opinion that Pareto is just a troll. He's been told, repeatedly and by a number of people, that he's in the wrong, and yet his denials get more and more strident.
Maybe he should just take the dealership to court, if he's so certain he's in the right. I look forward to hearing the end result (though I suspect Pareto wouldn't be so keen to come back on here and tell us how he was laughed at by a judge / magistrate).
|
As I understand it, because the consumer rights do not apply, in a business to business deal you have to show breach of contract by the supplier. A design fault means that you were supplied with what you ordered whereas a manufacturing fault would mean you were not supplied with what you contracutally agreed to buy, hence you could have a claim. A solicitor would be able to explain all this.
I can't see what is wrong with the plastic box solution - it would look professional, keep the papers in order and together and keep them dry.
It's as if Pareto's wife has all that paperwork scattered randomly in the back section of the pickup, and has to rummage to find anything required. Any reasonably intelligent person would surely have it all in boxes anyway - and boxes with lids would ensure that when the paperwork was being moved to inside buildings for meetings or to be worked on, the paperwork would not get wet or blown away in strong winds.
I'm personally coming (slowly) to the opinion that Pareto is just a troll. He's been told, repeatedly and by a number of people, that he's in the wrong, and yet his denials get more and more strident.
Maybe he should just take the dealership to court, if he's so certain he's in the right. I look forward to hearing the end result (though I suspect Pareto wouldn't be so keen to come back on here and tell us how he was laughed at by a judge / magistrate).
You are just making stuff up. There is no value or fact in any of the above yet you just keep posting garbage.
|
|
Why not put the papers in a plastic bag or other waterproof container?
A plastic box would be useful to carry them in as well.
He's already said putting them in a plastic box with a lid is a silly idea.
I do think thats a silly idea. I bought a vehicle that has a back that keeps things perfectly dry under normal circumstances. The problem is when it has been raining and I lift the lid. I have two reports saying its a design fault.
Covering the contents in a plastic box does not fix the problem. It is a akin a car breaking down and suggesting walking as an answer. (ok a bit extreme but hopefully you can see the point I am trying to make)
It doesn't solve the problem of water coming when the boot is lifted but it does keep the contents dry and protected so is a solution.
What exactly have Mitsubishi told you when you've asked to reject the car?
|
|
Whilst I admit it is a solution I would not class it is either a) good one or b) one that I would accept. I could put everything in the back seat or wrap the boot area in plastic.
Let me ask you this - would you accept the contents of whatever you put into the back getting soaked for the next 3 years? Bearing in mind this is a new vehicle.
|
|
As pointed out above, there are three accessory hardtops and three types of tonneau for the L200, was it explained that 100% rainproof was a key requirement? If so, a different accessory may have been recommended.
|
As pointed out above, there are three accessory hardtops and three types of tonneau for the L200, was it explained that 100% rainproof was a key requirement? If so, a different accessory may have been recommended.
This is the second L200 bought from the dealer and it was clear requirement that I would suggest the dealer knew and understood. The problem I will have is proving this.
I would suggest that the hardtop keeping the contents safe and undamged is a basic feature (I do not think this is an unreasonable assumption?). The previous L200 I owned did not let water in - why would I expect this one to?
Edited by Pareto on 27/04/2016 at 14:35
|
|
Children! Children! Play nicely now or Santa Claus won't come. Concrete
|
|
If there's nothing useful left to be said on this thread (and I suspect there isn't), I'll close it down in a day or so.
The best advice to Pareto is, instead of spending time posting angrily on here when he reads something he doesn't wamt to hear, to spend the time at the dealer negotiating to get a different type of cover for the pickup.
End of story, I would think.
|
If there's nothing useful left to be said on this thread (and I suspect there isn't), I'll close it down in a day or so.
The best advice to Pareto is, instead of spending time posting angrily on here when he reads something he doesn't wamt to hear, to spend the time at the dealer negotiating to get a different type of cover for the pickup.
End of story, I would think.
In hindsight don’t you think it may of been a better idea to close the thread down when I asked three weeks ago? I do not feel there has been much of benefit posted since.
For the record, I don’t react angrily when I read something I don’t want to hear. This thread has had its more than fair share of nonsense posted and my wife and I have been called all sorts of unpleasant stuff. If it’s okay for other posters to do this than surely the same rules apply to me?
My original post was polite and I made it clear I was unsure how to proceed. When any poster replied with helpful advice or on topic questions then I have responded in kind.
There are some posters on this forum that need to reflect on their actions and words and perhaps ask what they did to contribute to this thread turning out like this?
Thread closed?
|
|
Really, Pareto ?
Go back to the top, and read your original question, and the first few replies (down to where you wanted the thread closed).
Then feel free to tell us all exactly what was so insulting and unpleasant in those first few replies - feel free to quote exactly.
So that's the original question, and the first replies by myself, 'EXA35owner', 'Palcouk', 'galileo', 'nortones2', and 'focussed', up until your next post which was made on 7th April at 15:47.
The only bit that is at all rude in there is yours, in the posting where you wanted the thread closing. I did not ask nor do I care what your views are...
If you don't want people's views, then don't post in a public forum.
|
Really, Pareto ?
Go back to the top, and read your original question, and the first few replies (down to where you wanted the thread closed).
Then feel free to tell us all exactly what was so insulting and unpleasant in those first few replies - feel free to quote exactly.
So that's the original question, and the first replies by myself, 'EXA35owner', 'Palcouk', 'galileo', 'nortones2', and 'focussed', up until your next post which was made on 7th April at 15:47.
The only bit that is at all rude in there is yours, in the posting where you wanted the thread closing. I did not ask nor do I care what your views are...
If you don't want people's views, then don't post in a public forum.
I knew that you are so very petty that you could help yourself.. ha ha
I haven’t the time or the inclination to work my way through each post and explain why I found it to be unhelpful. The first few posts were littered with off topic replies about how suitable the vehicle was for an accountant to carry paperwork around. I do not recall asking for advice about this?
Your original nugget of wisdom on the subject was
In my opinion, a pickup is designed as a commercial working vehicle. Not a mobile paperwork storage facility, with all the climatic variations in the boot section, it is completely unsuited to that task.
A perfect example of the nonsense that you insist on peddling. Climatic variations - what on earth?? You set the tone of for the rest of the debate with your opening post.
I have given up caring what you think a long time ago. You have been rude and arrogant and if you any shred of decency then you would be ashamed of the way you have replied.
|
|
And that just proves my point. Here you go again, insults, as always. Calling people petty. the first few posts were 'littered with off topic replies'. 'Rude'. 'Arrogant'.
I'll add another adjective, which is far more painful to you than anything else : correct.
You bought an unsuitable vehicle for the job required. The only person to blame is yourself. But you are so arrogant and self-centred that you simply cannot see that you could be anything other than perfect. So it MUST all be Mitsubishi's fault.
Then, when other people say that actually, no, it's your own fault, you attack them. Then you tried to get the thread closed. When Avant refused, you indulged in loads of personal attacks, on myself and plenty of others.
Some of the things YOU posted :
Let me have a go. Your wife is certainally ugly but looking at you its the best she could probably get. And with all that cheating she does you are probably glad just to have someone to darn your socks.
Ego? Like posting stupid replies on internet forums
Extensive experience of accounting - you mean you fill out a tax return? Why only 99.99% certain - sounds like you are hedging your bets or perhaps have no idea. I suspect the later.
You call me not clever but you really do take being stupid to a whole new level.
Ande those are only SOME of the insulting comments that you've thrown at other people on here.
And yet YOU think I should be ashamed ? Could you please point out a single personal insult - to you OR to your wife, that I have made ?
I suspect I'll get another wildly erratic reply with no detail, as usual.
Edited by RobJP on 28/04/2016 at 21:23
|
I have come to the conclusion that there really is no point continuing with this.
You have made insults towards both me and my wife (who you have never had any contact with) and they are plain to see in your posts. I don't need to quote them - any reasonable person can see them. The problem is you are just to blind to see it.
If you are happy with the way you have conducted yourself then who am I to say otherwise.
Hopefully Avant will be along shortly and close the thread off.
|
Hopefully Avant will be along shortly and close the thread off.
You could always just stop posting yourself you know...you don't have to keep posting.
|
I have come to the conclusion that there really is no point continuing with this. You have made insults towards both me and my wife (who you have never had any contact with) and they are plain to see in your posts. I don't need to quote them - any reasonable person can see them. The problem is you are just to blind to see it. If you are happy with the way you have conducted yourself then who am I to say otherwise. Hopefully Avant will be along shortly and close the thread off.
And I have asked you to point out exactly what insults I have made to you or your wife.
I've pointed out your insults to others. Attacking someone's wife (who you called 'ugly'), describing another person as 'taking stupid to a whole new level', etc, etc.
I will finish by quoting from my own previous post :
Could you please point out a single personal insult - to you OR to your wife, that I have made ?
I suspect I'll get another wildly erratic reply with no detail, as usual.
It came as no surprise to me that I was correct. Wildly erratic, and lacking in detail. It's you all along.
|
It's as if Pareto's wife has all that paperwork scattered randomly in the back section of the pickup, and has to rummage to find anything required. Any reasonably intelligent person would surely have it all in boxes anyway - and boxes with lids would ensure that when the paperwork was being moved to inside buildings for meetings or to be worked on, the paperwork would not get wet or blown away in strong winds.
There you go - does that make you feel better??
|
|
Congratulations. My apologies if that was felt to be insulting.
I'd have thought keeping paperwork, files, etc in boxes - especially in a vehicle that goes places (so cornering forces, etc) was basic common sense.
Exactly the same as using the same boxes to carry said paperwork into buildings for meetings, etc. It surely makes basic common sense for it to be kept in boxes to make life easier.
Not exactly rocket science.
Now, about YOUR insults to other posters (and wives) : anything further to say from you ?
An apology, perhaps ?
|
When is this ever going to end?
You do realise it has gone way, way beyond stupid?
Avant - for the love of everything good in the world - please I beg you - put us all out of the misery!
|
When is this ever going to end? You do realise it has gone way, way beyond stupid? Avant - for the love of everything good in the world - please I beg you - put us all out of the misery!
Interesting - yet again.
I apologised. For what, I'm not entirely sure.
I invited you to apologise for your gratuitously rude and ignorant insults that you made to other posters - note, I didn't ask for, nor expect, you to apologise to me.
You failed to do so.
You leave me with little doubt that you are crass, ignorant, rude, ill-mannered, and lacking in any semblance of good grace.
You came on here asking if you could reject a car under the CRA. We all told you no, you couldn't, for the various reasons detailed. You didn't like the answers, so you proceeded to engage in juvenile attacks on the people who posted the replies.
I wonder if you've shown Mrs. Pareto this thread. I doubt it. And I wonder what she really thinks of the ill-mannered lout that she had the misfortune to marry.
|
|
This saga reminds me of Vic Reeves' Big Night Out, Bob Mortimer and Vic had a catchphrase "He wouldn't let it lie".
The OP's pseudonym reminds me of the hypothesis that 20% of the poulation have 80% of the intelligence, guess who in this is in which section.
|
When is this ever going to end? You do realise it has gone way, way beyond stupid? Avant - for the love of everything good in the world - please I beg you - put us all out of the misery!
Interesting - yet again.
I apologised. For what, I'm not entirely sure.
I invited you to apologise for your gratuitously rude and ignorant insults that you made to other posters - note, I didn't ask for, nor expect, you to apologise to me.
You failed to do so.
You leave me with little doubt that you are crass, ignorant, rude, ill-mannered, and lacking in any semblance of good grace.
You came on here asking if you could reject a car under the CRA. We all told you no, you couldn't, for the various reasons detailed. You didn't like the answers, so you proceeded to engage in juvenile attacks on the people who posted the replies.
I wonder if you've shown Mrs. Pareto this thread. I doubt it. And I wonder what she really thinks of the ill-mannered lout that she had the misfortune to marry.
Showing your true colours there - you have managed to double the insult count in one post.
I didn't think you could make yourself look any more ridiculous but I underestimated the stupidly of people on the Internet
You would not let it lie
|
|
And yet still waiting for you to apologise to those people who you gratuitously insulted a few weeks back ...
In spite of various invitations to do so, nothing, nada.
Disappointing. But not surprising.
|
You leave me with little doubt that you are crass, ignorant, rude, ill-mannered, and lacking in any semblance of good grace.
You showed your true colours there. You serious expect me to apologies after that?
All my replies have been in response to comments I have received. The only person who is frothing at the mouth for an apology is you. I do not accept your insincere apology and I stand by 100% everything I have posted to you.
The way you have conducted yourself is appalling. I came here looking for help. Your comments are there for everybody to see – your reputation within this forum is in tatters.
I have showed my wife this thread and she is very disappointed at the things that have been posted about her. However she agrees with me that you are stupid.
This thread reminds me of the saying “Never agree with an idiot, they just make you come down to their level and then beat you with experience”
The defence rests – nothing further to add.
|
|
"... your reputation within this forum is in tatters."
Says who?
Like Scot, I despair at the tone of this thread, nearly all of it originating from the OP. Unfortunately he has been given ammunition by a few unguarded comments from others.
It's one of the most unpleasant threads we have had in recent times.
No point in saying anything more.
Edited by FP on 29/04/2016 at 19:52
|
Avant - for the love of everything good in the world - please I beg you - put us all out of the misery!
As I said further up you don't need to keep posting. If you have nothing further to add then stop adding.
|
|
I have read many posts from Rob which have invariably been helpful, polite and well informed. I will continue to hold his contributions in high esteem.
Please do not make your declarations about what people on the forum will think as if your statements are infallible. We make our own minds up and I'm not aware of your grounds.
This is my only post on this thread. I will not return to its futile unpleasantness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
