COMPLAINTS CORNER: KIA CARNIVAL, LS, MANUFACTURER

KIA CARNIVAL LS 2002: LETTER TO THE ACCC URGENT!
10 JUN 2009	MANUFACTURER	*ADVICE*
I WISH I COULD SAY MORE OR TELL YOU MORE, BUT I AM AWARE KIA KEEPS AN EYE ON THIS WEBSITE
"I wish I could say more or tell you more, but I am aware KIA keeps an eye on this website to see what consumers are saying or doing so I don't want to tip them off. Most of you who have corresponded with me over the years have written to the ACCC however a significant number have not. When I speak to the ACCC & tell them there are thousands of engine failures they look into their files & only see a handful of complaints & are then reluctant to act as the problem appears to be small? But we know different we only need to look at our bank accounts. If you are happy for KIA to get away with this simply do nothing & that is exactly what will happen. If you want to make KIA pay now is the time to act. As I said I can't say much you have to trust me. Post of fax the letter below Now. Next month may be too late. Below is a copy of a letter a number of people have sent to the ACCC regarding complaints about the engine failures in KIA Carnivals over the years. If you have not already sent in a complaint to the ACCC it is Vital you do so now! Simply copy the letter below add your name & address, change the address to your states ACCC office & then post or fax it to your states ACCC office. Don't give up yet, KIA will pay in the end. The Australian consumer law is on our side. PS: Thanks for everyone's kind words & support (The address for your states ACCC office is at the bottom of this letter copy & paste it in removing the WA address if you’re not from WA) Mr. Suffering Consumer 2002 Your Street Sydney NSW 2000 Date: June 2009 Australian Competition & Consumer Commission PO Box: ** Perth Western Australia 6000 Dear Sir, I am writing to you to bring to your attention & seek your assistance regarding breaches of the Trade Practices Act 1974 by KIA Motors Australia & ATECO Automotive. I am aware that there have been numerous reports regarding this matter that have been lodged with various State Consumer Affair Departments. To date no action has been taken by State Consumer Affair Departments on behalf of their consumers against either KIA Motors or ATECO Automotive for breaching their own states consumer legislation. Instead these State Consumer Affair Departments has simply directed consumers effected to commence their own action as individuals against KIA & ATECO. The Trade Practices Act 1974 has provisions that all goods sold & distributed in Australia must be of “Merchantable Quality”. ATECO Automotive & KIA Motors imported & sold KIA Carnival vehicles between 1999 & 2002. These KIA Carnivals vehicles had engines installed in them that have an acknowledged manufacturing defect & design fault in all of these engines with failure rates in excess of 75%. This high failure rate is well above any automotive industry standard including any other KIA motor vehicle. I understand that all vehicles from time to time will develop unforeseen faults during their lifetime & failures from time to time in a handful of vehicles will occur. If this was the case with KIA Carnival vehicles imported into Australia between 1999 & 2002 it could have been be put down to a handful of unfortunate circumstances & no greater than acceptable industry standards. However KIA Carnival vehicles that were imported & distributed in Australia between 1999 & 2002 did have defective engines that both the ATECO & KIA were aware of & continued to distribute in breach of & the Trade Practices Act. Further in my letter I can demonstrate how thousands of Australian consumers would have been affected by these defective engines & why it is imperative the ACCC investigates & acts regarding this matter. KIA Motors Australia has already acknowledged that a problem exists with these engines, however they have managed to avoid repairing or replacing affected engines despite their obligation to do so under provisions of the Trade Practice Act 1974. I understand that both ATECO Automotive as the Australian importer of these vehicles & KIA Motors as the Manufacturer of these vehicles would be equally liable for importing & distributing goods that were not of merchantable quality & that when they did become aware that there was a problem with the Merchantable Quality of their vehicles engines they failed to bring them up to merchantable quality as required under the act. ATECO Automotive & KIA Motors have both managed to avoid their obligations to Australian consumers to rectify these defective engines because State Consumer Affair Departments have not properly investigated complaints they have received from Australian consumers that have been affected, nor have they sought redress on behalf of Australian consumers from either ATECO Automotive or KIA Motors. Instead State Consumer Affair Departments have chosen to take the easiest course of action available to them & are simply directing Australian consumers to seek redress through the Courts themselves. I find it difficult to understand why thousands of individual Australian consumers who are affected by KIA Motors & ATECO Automotive failure to supply engines that were of “Merchantable Quality” are having to commence their own individual action through State Courts & Consumer Tribunals when there are State Consumer Authorities & the ACCC who job it should be to ensure that manufactures & importers of goods sold in Australia comply with Australian consumer legislation. My understanding is that the Parliament of Australia has under the Trade Practice Act of 1974 empowered the ACCC to enforce the “Merchantable Quality” provisions of the Trade Practice Act 1974. I would like to call on the ACCC to investigate & review the case history regarding the engines fitted to all KIA Carnival vehicles sold between 1999 & 2002. I have outlined some background & details on the extent of these engine failures below & ask that the ACCC take into consideration the scope of the problem bearing in mind the thousands of consumers throughout Australia that have been affected in the past & likely to be affected in the future. This problem is bigger than me as an individual consumer with a defective engine, thousands of consumers have been let down by their State Consumer Affairs Departments lack of action regarding this matter & believe the time has come for the ACCC to act. ATECO Automotive & KIA Motors Australia are responsible for importing & distributing KIA Carnivals with these defective engines & should therefore be held responsible for the entire costs to repair these engines when they fail.. KIA Motors & ATECO Automotive were aware the defect existed, therefore when these engines do fail it is unreasonable for them to expect Australian consumers to incur the costs involved in repairing their defective engines. Under the Trade Practices Act 1974, Kia Motors Australia & ATECO were obliged to supply goods of a merchantable quality. I understand that ATECO & Kia Motors Australia were well aware of the defects in their engines used in Kia Carnivals manufactured from 1999 up to 2002. By 2000 defective engines were of sufficient concern to KIA’s Australian importer ATECO Automotive for them to recommend to KIA Motors in South Korea a recall of all vehicles to have the defective engine replaced. KIA Motors failed to do so and instead, continued to distribute vehicles with a known engine defect till the end of 2002 in clear indifference to the Merchantable Quality provisions of The Trade Practice Act of 1974. At the end of 2000 ATECO Automotive & KIA Motors would have been aware that the engine fitted their KIA Carnival vehicles were not of merchantable quality and therefore should not have been sold or released into the Australian market in breach of the Trade Practices Act of 1974. Yet both companies continued importing & selling these vehicles to Australian consumers till the end of 2002 for financial gain. Under the Trade Practice Act of 1974: • KIA Motors Australia & ATECO Automotive was obliged to hold the vehicle back from sale and rectify these known manufacturing defects. • KIA Motors & ATECO Automotive had an obligation to consumers to supply goods that are of merchantable quality, these obligations were never fulfilled. • KIA Motors & ATECO Automotive knowingly released defective goods into the Australian Market in contravention of the Trade Practices Act 1974 for their own commercial advantage. • KIA Motors & ATECO Automotive chose to accept the commercial risk involved in releasing vehicles with a known defective engine into the Australian market. There should be no reason why Australian consumers affected by these defective engines should be made to carry the costs involved in undertaking repairs. • Under the Trade Practices Act 1974 importers of goods are required to supply goods free of defects or faults. KIA Motors should have been well aware of the faulty nature of their engine, with Kia Carnivals suffering a failure rate of 50% many at extremely low mileage (20,000 – 25,000 KM) • These KIA Carnival vehicles were never of merchantable quality as required by the Trade Practice Act. I would also like to draw your attention to an article on the web in March 2006 by Neil McDonald: www1.autotrader.com.au/mellor/mellor.nsf/carshowroomstory?ReadForm&ID=CC54D05C5F69762DCA257139008252AD A simple analysis of the information Neil Mc Donald has provided in his article would show the following: KIA Australia sold 7800 vehicles during this period of time with 5200 engine failures plus 580 multiple failures (let’s assume 2 failures & not 3 or 4) = 5780 which works out to 74% or if you left the multiple failures out it still works out to approx 66%. Neil Mc Donald article was written in March 2006 & is very likely to have been compiled based on data from an earlier period, perhaps the end 2005 but let us assume his data is based on engine failures to the end of Feb 2006 we are now in January 2008. By December 2007 22 months would have passed since Neil Mc Donald wrote his article I have no doubt that the rate of engine failures in KIA Carnivals has not slowed. E.G.: Sept 1999 - Feb 2006 = 5 Years 3 Months = 63 months. 5200 engine failures divided by 63 months= 82 failures per month. March 2006 - December 2007= 22 Months x 82 failures per month= 1804 1804 + 5200 original failures = 7004 failures or 89.8% of the 7800 vehicles sold. (74% – 90% Failure rate merchantable quality?) Naturally the numbers above can only be confirmed by ATECO & KIA Motors if they had the courage to disclose them. Only a public authority like the ACCC has the power to compel KIA Motors & ATECO Automotive to disclose the correct figure. The failure rates of these engines outlined above are far in excess of any industry standard. (Even KIA’s own standards) I am not asking the ACCC to make a comparison of the Merchantable Quality of a BMW against a KIA motor vehicle from Korea. Failure rates this high are well outside even KIA’s own standards & clearly demonstrate that these engines were never of “Merchantable Quality” as required by Australian law. Kia Motors & ATECO Automotive were aware of the problems associated with engines fitted to their Carnivals model vehicles between 1999 -2002. Kia Motors & ATECO Automotive has avoided & continues to avoid their obligations under the Trade Practices Act to provide goods that were of “Merchantable Quality”. Their actions has caused & continues to cause severe financial hardship to thousands of innocent unsuspecting Australian consumers yet no public authority in Australia appears willing to accept responsibility to bring ATECO Automotive & KIA Motors to account. I’m imploring the ACCC to investigate the issues I have brought to attention & use your powers under the Trade Practice Act of 1974 compel both of these companies to fulfill their legal obligations to Australian consumers. Please contact me and let me know of the status of my complaint. You are welcome to call me on during business hours, or ** after hours, should you require any further information or clarifications. Thank you for giving my submission your consideration, I look forward to your response in the near future. Yours sincerely, Dale Morris ------------------------------------ Adelaide office Level 2 19 Grenfell Street Adelaide SA 5001 Postal address: GPO Box 922 Adelaide SA 5001 Phone and fax numbers: Ph: (08) 8213 3444 Fax: (08) 8410 4155 Brisbane office Level 3 500 Queen Street Brisbane Qld 4000 Postal address: PO Box 10048 Brisbane Qld 4000 Phone and fax numbers: Ph: (07) 3835 4666 Fax: (07) 3832 0372 Canberra office 23 Marcus Clarke Street Canberra ACT 2601 Postal address: GPO Box 3131 Canberra ACT 2601 Phone and fax numbers: Phone general: (02) 6243 1111 Fax: (02) 6243 1199 Darwin office Level 8 National Mutual Centre 9-11 Cavenagh St DARWIN NT 0800 Postal address: GPO Box 3056 DARWIN NT 0801 Phone and fax numbers: Ph - general: (08) 8946 9666 Fax: (08) 8946 9600 Hobart office 3rd Floor, AMP Building 86 Collins Street (Cnr Elizabeth & Collins Streets) Hobart Tas 7000 Postal address: GPO Box 1210 Hobart Tas 7001 Phone and fax numbers: Ph: (03) 6215 9333 Fax: (03) 6234 7796 Melbourne office Level 35, The Tower 360 Elizabeth Street Melbourne Central Melbourne Vic 3000 Postal address: GPO Box 520 Melbourne Vic 3001 Phone and fax numbers: Ph: (03) 9290 1800 Fax: (03) 9663 3699 Perth office Street address: 3rd floor, East Point Plaza 233 Adelaide Terrace Perth WA 6000 Postal address: PO Box 6381 East Perth WA 6892 Phone and fax numbers: Ph: (08) 9325 0600 Fax: (08) 9325 5976 Sydney office Level 7, Angel Place 123 Pitt Street (between Hunter Street and Martin Place) Sydney NSW 2000 Postal address: GPO Box 3648 Sydney NSW 2001 Phone and fax numbers: Ph: (02) 9230 9133 Fax: (02) 9223 1092"
POSTED BY: DALE MORRIS - WOODVALE - WA - AUS 10 JUN 2009 PROVIDE FEEDBACK
========== REPLY ========== Dale I have faxed letter to ACCC as advised. My KIA is sitting in my garage and has not been dismantled. KIA has advised me to take it to their local dealership so that it can be dismantled and they can send a report off to KIA Australia. Problem: Engine seized Sludge looking oil What do you advise? POSTED BY: LEONARD COOPER - SOLDIERS POINT, NSW - AUS 18 JUN 2009 ========== REPLY ========== Hi Dale, Only today we find ourselves in the same position. After several other small to minor repairs our Kia has "died" after showing the same symptoms you have described. I am determined to follow this through as high as possible to be compensated for the lemon we bought. I will at your request send your letter to the ACCC in Melbourne and also to current affair programmes, and newspapers. It astounds me that with this negative feedback Kia is not taking responsibility for the defects in these family cars. I would appreciate any documentation, letters etc to support my further case. Thanks Mairi-anne POSTED BY: MAIRI-ANNE MACARTNEY - MELBOURNE, VIC - AUS 18 JUN 2009 ========== REPLY ========== Dale, Could you please re send your "class action" solicitor details? I saved all other correspondence from you but that 1 link is missing from my file. Thanks POSTED BY: MAIRI-ANNE - MELBOURNE, VIC - AUS 13 JUL 2009 ========== REPLY ========== Hi Dale.Thank you in advance for all the work you have done to help all of us other poor fools that got **** by buying one of these lemons. In one of your posts you mentioned that you were able to get reimbursed in full, and had copies of your letters that you were willing to share. Could you please send to me. Is it too late to send the copy of the letter written to the ACCC trying to get action done? Also what was that link to the government department that you recommended reading as to the sale worthiness of goods? I think it was in your first post. You can read my post of this date (07/09/09) re our experience so far. I had given up any hope but feel much better now that I know I can possibly do something about it. I am going to go to The Department of Fair Trading in NSW. I will probably approach Kia first, but don't know if I need to hear any more of their comments as it would appear to me that they will only try to derail me. POSTED BY: KAI GOODMAN - GOULBURN, NSW - AUS 8 SEP 2009

LATEST POSTINGS		LOG IN
N.B. COMPLAINTS CORNER is not responsible nor endorse views expressed by contributors. READ TERMS & CONDITIONS