Kent Cams

[VIPERONE]

Dear Sir (Gunner Gibson),

With reference to your recent e-mail concerning Kent Cams adjustable pullies.

‘Kent Cams’ value customer satisfaction and have a legal obligation with regard to the quality of our products, there can be many reasons for component failures within an engine and it would be inaccurate to assume that any given failure can be pinpointed via a few photos posted on a forum.

If yourself or any of your colleagues / friends have any problems with products purchased from Kent Performance Cams Ltd, we would request the return of the components and any ancillary components to allow for investigation into the failure.

With regard to the particular case of “2LIVE *name edited* I have twice requested he contact our office with his details to facilitate a collection of his supposedly faulty parts, unfortunately Mr Barrett prefers not to give us his address and the consequently the opportunity of investigating his failure.

I would suggest that you perhaps contact Mr Richard Northrop about our “poor service� rather than believe forum tittle tattle.

If you have any further questions regarding Kent Performance Cams Ltd please do not hesitate in contacting me.

A. D. J. Burns.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok for those who have sustained failiures can you please email me with your address.. i am going to send out official statement forms and a proforma guide which you can follow.
I have the consulted various legal professionals at work and over at the courts. I have all the legislation in place and can confirm that anyone that have sustained a failiure due to the pullies will stand a great chance in court.

I will naturally assist all concerned.

[Andyvalver]

:P Good work gunner, they seem a bit cocky so bring em down

:P

[J o n]

onto a loser here imo, can tell immediately by the guys email that he wont ever admit responsibility, his condescending tone towards forum users expertise makes me think this anyway.

"it would be inaccurate to assume that any given failure can be pinpointed via a few photos posted on a forum."

he has a point in a way... or he would if it was just one person, however they are ****ing up left right and center and now people that have them are not fitting them!

I'm sure 2 live will tell you himself, but iirc Kent wouldn't pay for the bits to be picked up leaving the onus on the end user, which is frankly shit for a company that says it prides itself on reputation. and it's not just their pulleys that fail as we well know... hany many instances of failure is this now? I can think of 4 off the top of my head within the last year alone!!!

[matty]

If they value customer satisfaction seems funny how I didn't even get a reply from them.......

[VIPERONE]

LOL Jesus....there is no loser here. I have spoke with people who take companies like this to court everyday.

I have NEVER lost a case...lol however im no civil law expert. My uncle is a corporate barrister and my aunt is a judge my grandad was a solicitor..

Anyway the legislation i have here is concrets, this is only a short piece ..

• Wherever goods are bought they must "conform to contract". This means they must be as described, fit for purpose and of satisfactory quality (i.e. not inherently faulty at the time of sale).

• Goods are of satisfactory quality if they reach the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking into account the price and any description.

• Aspects of quality include fitness for purpose, freedom from minor defects, appearance and finish, durability and safety.

• It is the seller, not the manufacturer, who is responsible if goods do not conform to contract.

• If goods do not conform to contract at the time of sale, purchasers can request their money back "within a reasonable time". (This is not defined and will depend on circumstances)

• For up to six years after purchase (five years from discovery in Scotland) purchasers can demand damages (which a court would equate to the cost of a repair or replacement).

• A purchaser who is a consumer, i.e. is not buying in the course of a business, can alternatively request a repair or replacement.

• If repair and replacement are not possible or too costly, then the consumer can seek a partial refund, if they have had some benefit from the good, or a full refund if the fault/s have meant they have enjoyed no benefit

• In general, the onus is on all purchasers to prove the goods did not conform to contract (e.g. was inherently faulty) and should have reasonably lasted until this point in time (i.e. perishable goods do not last for six years).

• If a consumer chooses to request a repair or replacement, then for the first six months after purchase it will be for the retailer to prove the goods did conform to contract (e.g. were not inherently faulty)

• After six months and until the end of the six years, it is for the consumer to prove the lack of conformity.


My partner successfully took a market trader to court and won. She also took a professional hairdresser to court and won.. all because of the sales of goods act.

The installers of the cams will provide a statement detailing their qualifications and experience in mechanics race engineering. they will provide details on how the cams were installed outlining the procedures put in place by Kent to fit them. The fitter will be able to write why in his opinion the cam/pully/lobes failed.

An independant tester would/could be called upon to view the cam pully and test its integrity.(independant garage uni technicians etc.

A metal expert can be called upon to verify the quality of the pulley metal.


5 similar failiures :-this a course of failiures which offer a pattern of evidence to suggest that the products in question are indeed faulty/inept.

The DTI and trading standards can be informed of the defect and support of Kent Cams.
AutoExpress have displayed in interest in the matter from an email i sent them.
Why should several members of the forum have to sit back and see their money go due to poor and inept quality products from a company that claims to offer customer satisfaction. Its a standing Joke.. and even though i have nothing to do with it.. Kents approach to the scenario has annoyed me.

[steveos_16valver]

Get in there gunner

I have NEVER lost a case...lol however im no civil law expert. My uncle is a corporate barrister and my aunt is a judge my grandad was a solicitor..

bit of back up then !!!!!!!

[Coops]

its gotta be done, get all the boys with failures on board and get kent beggin for mercy. what they a re trying to pull aint right, once can be seen as a freak accident, but 5 times is gettin silly.

[2 live]

iv asked that bloke wen hes picking my cams up about 3 times now.....think iv still got the emails somewhere actually..



he said i would have to pay postage for the head and cams to be sent there, which quite frankly, im not prepared to do, theyv already cost me enough money after buying em, then having to replace the top end of the engine after they fukt up....so i left my address with them, and phone no,., and told him to contact me with a time and date they were going to pick them up.





im still waiting.......this was a few months ago now.

[Mattie]

gd work gunner!

gd 2 see your helpin every1 out and hopefully every1 whos had there shit products **** up on them will get sum compo and there money back!

[McPikie]

Sale of Goods Act 1979, Section 14.