HORSELESS CARRIAGE or should I say USELESS CARRIAGE

Sound advice!

 

The door was changed in Texas. I am on the East Coast - about 1,000 miles away. The dealer obviously have a record of the damage. I have provided names and location so anyone who wishes to call them up is welcome to do so.

 

I did not take my cell phone either - wish I did. We just jumped into my wife's car to go and collect the new one. We were not expecting to call anyone or were we thinking of taking cameras for evidence as we expected all to be fine. I do not know if the Land Rover dealer took photos - and there would be no point at this stage introducing them if there was as there would be no way to establish it is the actual photo of the car and the picture is authentic. If you wish to inquire, call Land Rover in San Antonio and speak with Rick. Importantly, the owner of UC has admitted to the damage in his post. It is posted on this site so the question of whether there is damage or not is not unresolved. There was damage! And UC caused the damage! The more important question is why they have not offered to pay the labor costs for the damage, or apologized for the damage? Instead, they have spent their time (much more time than it would have taken to do the right thing) in self promoting posts with their friends.

 

The evidence is that the door was exchanged. The evidence is that the owner of UC in his post admits to the damage. It is there in plain English for you to read. Instead of insults, and I shall not give you the pleasure of responding in kind, spend some time thinking through the issues and reviewing the threads.

 

I also own a 458 Italia...so I qualify easily as a Ferrari Owner. I shall be trying a different transporter - and the few I have spoken with seem to have excellent customer service. I am sure others on this site will research their options thoroughly

 

Look Kole, nobody is disputing that something happened to the door. How much damage was done is an issue. The bigger issue is how the carrier and their driver responded.

You have shown no credible evidence of any kind. Nobody has insulted you. Just want evidence. If you have none, shut up. That is not an insult.

By the way, you just posted a bunch of responses to this thread. I missed the one with evidence of the change of ownership of the carrier. If you have it, it would really help your case.

Jack

 

I'm not on either side. This thread is ridiculous.

But why are you not holding HC to the same standard? It's one man's word against another's. Neither side produced any "evidence" either way. Why doesn't HC have to provide pictures showing a surface scratch? Of course if Kole is not lying what HC would have done is fix it en route back to HC ... put a surface scratch on it so it would appear damaged by minor, then send it back to Land rover. I'm not saying that's what happened, Im just saying that for some reason you stand behind one unsubstantiated claim but not another.

And Kole did provide an easy way to verify the situation. Call his Land Rover dealer.

 

Here are the responses to your questions:

1. Damage was done by UC - fact!
2. Damage was admitted by UC - fact!
3. The owner of UC has never contacted me - fact!
4. The owner of UC has never contacted Land Rover San Antonio - fact! Verifiable by calling to confirm if you wish!
5. No dealer would replace a door that was not damaged - no matter what an owner requests - fact!
6. The owner of UC has NOT paid for the exchange of the door - fact!
7. Not calling an owner who you damaged his or her car - just to say "sorry" and we will fix it is plain wrong! Fact!
8. UC not paying for the damage they caused is plain wrong- fact!

Information on change of ownership was provided by a third party who asked to remain anonymous and I am respecting that request as I promised to do so and because he complained that he had been intimidated - I am sure if you are an attorney you can request to see all the letters of incorporation for the company.

I think that by responding to questions in a coherent and clear manner is clear demonstration of good faith. Far more than UC is prepared to do...

So, if you believe you have a balanced view, then ask the owner of UC to respond directly to items no 2 - 5 - as you say - This is the BIGGER ISSUE - so why don't you investigate that? Or should I say, a "softball" to you.

 

Oh yes, Kole. You saw right through me! Or not. Oy...

I'm a secret undercover agent for Horseless Carriage that lurks in the FerrariChat shadows for the last 4 years waiting for pernicious comments to be said about the company. Just like you saw right through the "facts" that you thought you knew about HC and its owner/employees??

Get a grip, man.

I have no involvement of any kind with any of the aforementioned companies. I merely smell crap when it's there. Nice evasion of any of my raised questions. I guess they were too laughable to address, huh? Try that in a real court, my friend. "Your Honor, (laughing out loud) ha-ha-ha, whew, hoo, let me catch my breath. No, but seriously the prosecutor's questions are just too funny to actually answer." Mm-hmm...
So you didn't document or photograph any evidence of heavy damage to your high-dollar, limited edition SUV? Cool, cool. Smart, too.
Surely, there would be a nice thick file on it. AND, said thick file would include some copied documentation for your records showing (as service departments affiliated with authorized dealers do) customer's complaints of a foot-long gash to the door. Think you could find that for us? Or do you want to direct us to some Land Rover # again?
It's merely that, you know, the whole innocent until proven guilty thing in the FC court of public opinion too. And you were the one that came saying "useless carriage" this and "useless carriage" that. "Strongly-worded letter to Ferrari about this" and waah, waah, waah.

But again, you seem to be pleading the 5th on the valid queries that have been made about your version of things: documentation, evidence of severe damage, not slight scratch. Land Rover admitted no such damage as you had, only that there was damage of "some kind" to the door. Competitor vigorously defending its competition. Owner of the accused company comes on to refute your statements and present a very different version of events.

(crickets, my friend) People want to know.

And please understand -- this, for my part, is no personal attack against you. Just merely I think we are requesting some genuine verification of the personal attack that you have made against another. That's all.

 

Kole,

I don't have to investigate anything. You brought this up. With no evidence. You have none.

You have run down a vendor with a good reputation. No evidence.

Change of ownership?? A third party as a source. Anonymous. Please. Why don't you man up and apologize?

Kole, you don't want to be insulted. You deserve it.

Jack

 

Are you kidding me??? So it's up to the accused to defend himself against Kole's allegation, not up to Kole to prove his claim?? Really? Ok, Mousecatcher...what if I started a thread claiming while I was in a parking lot in San Mateo, CA last week you hit my car damaging the entire side of the car. I have since had it fixed, but can't believe you never called me to apologize and never offered to pay for the damages. That's it...that's my claim. No proof needed...now it's up to you to prove you didn't damage my car. Really? That's how it should be?

I have said a couple times, I am not taking sides...but it's up to the accusor to prove his claim. In criminal court, it's up to the prosecution to prove it's case beyond a reasonable doubt; in civil court, it's up to the plaintiff to prove it's case based on preponderance of the evidence; but on FChat and in your mind, it's up to the accused to prove it's case against the accusor.

Maybe Kole is 100% correct, but he just sucks at presenting a case. I don't know, but his claim doesn't sit right...and add his alleged conversation with the driver...doesn't make sense. And to make a claim and then expect someone on FChat to corroborate it for him by calling the dealer...huh? And your scenario that maybe HC fixed the door, then re-damaged it? C'mon!! Even Kole made sense when he said Range Rover wouldn't replace the door for minor damage.

Bottom line, nowhere but here have I ever heard that the accused has to prove his case against his accusor. Even OJ didn't HAVE to try the glove on . HC admitted to damage, but 2" is much different than 12"...just ask my ex-wife.

If Kole is misrepresenting what happened...shame on him. If HC is misrepresenting what happened, shame on them. But, I still think it's up to Kole to prove his own case, not up to HC to defend theirs. Maybe I will call Rick at Range Rover...but, perhaps he is in on the conspiracy against HC...someone in TX, please go talk to the GM and get to the bottom of this. For a fee, I will fly out there myself and conduct a thorough investigation

 

This whole story is just insane. What person in their right mind would tell a customer a story about damaging vehicles and having them repaired behind the Jiffy Lube and expect to keep their job. It would be like the pizza man saying, "Yeah I put dog crap on your pizza, where's my tip??"

So far all the evidence is hearsay. I could claim to have called the LR dealer and the general manager told me this is all BS and that Kole likes burning hobos alive with kerosene. That wouldn't make it true. This is Internet court. If you wanna win you better have pictures. Either Kole or HC need to post a pic of this killer LR. Even a scan of the work order for the repair from the LR dealer would do.

From Kole's previous posts I have learned that he has a Scud, 16M, 458, and some sort of Land Rover that they only build for the Queen. Line them b@stards up and take a picture. Not because I don't believe him, just because that would be totally sweet.

 

Just one question, who is "UC" that you keep referencing.....another carrier other than "HC"?

 

It's his snarky little acronym for "useless carriage". What he still is referring to HC as without presenting us any evidence in as yet.

Fun fact for the day: The dictionary defines "slander" as "a malicious, false, or defamatory statement or report".

Something anyone should consider when considering a deficit in proof.

 

C'mon Gary, isn't that a bit of an overstatement!

I'm sure you know kole but with all due respect, you don't believe his condemnations against HC are a bit over the top? I've used them, and I'm sure you have too. We've both been around for a long time and have had many cars transported. My experience with HC has always been positive.

Don't condemn anyone or any business because 1 person said they had a bad experience.

Sprinkles

 

um, no.

I don't believe either of them. If HC wants to come on here and defend themselves, they need to provide proof. Until then, they are just as unworthy of my trust as Kole. My point was that you believe HC without further question.

You say that, then I say it was actually you that backed into me. Now who has to provide proof? Why is my claim suddenly more believable?

In this situation, I'm sure SOMETHING must have happened. No normal person would complain about a barely visible scratch that can be treated by a detail shop.

 

Exactly, and that's why the demand to 'replace' the door by the OP has come into question.

 

Apparently I must be typing in a different language...I'll try English. I am not taking sides. I did not say I believed HC's account. But I also don't think it's up to them to prove their accusor is lying. It's up to Kole to prove his claim. That's how "the system" works. But again, FChat and you seem to be working on a different system from what I am used to.

In my scenario about you hitting me, your claim is absolutely NOT more believable. But it is still up to ME to prove my original case...not up to you to prove your side. That's the premise behind innocent until proven guilty. It's just like in a criminal case. If Kole accused you of murder, I would come to you and ask you questions (i.e. where were you the night of...). BUT, you don't have to answer me...If I think you did it, I have to prove it.

Like you said, something happened and HC admitted to perhaps only a portion of it...but Kole's story just doesn't add up. And for the record...if a transported caused a barely visible scratch to my 308, I would absolutely complain as I didn't cause it so I shouldn't have to pay to have it buffed out. If it was my Jeep, I would likely let it slide...but not my Ferrari.

You are under the impression that I believe HC. It's irrelevant as it's not up to them to prove their case...it's up Kole to prove his allegations...at least in the real world. Here on FChat, the rules must be different.

Like I said, though, for a fee I will be willing to conduct a full investigation -- just need someone to pay my way back and forth to TX and NJ -- I'll take witness statements and PICTURES!!!!! Then I will present all the information here on FChat and let all the "Judges" here decide. Would you like to contribute mousecatcher? I can set up a PayPal account

 

FINE!!! If nobody else is curious enough...Kole, please PM me your first and last name, your Range Rover's VIN, Rick's last name and telephone number, and any other information that would help Rick identify you and your vehicle (Although I am sure if I reference the Rover with the replacement door, that should suffice, right?).

When I get a spare moment, I will call the Rover dealer and inquire about this matter. That will hopefully put this matter to rest...or at least lead in that direction. But for doing this, I would like special FChat Police credentials ... what say you Rob?

 

OK OK - I'm curious enough...

How about this....

Kole, you say in your first post - "Did any of you know this company changed hands over a year ago?".

In post 77 Frank Malatesta says - "My Name is Frank Malatesta and I’m the sole owner of Horseless Carriage Carriers, Inc." "I continue to be the sole owner for over 40 years and I am proud of my business and the reputation that I have earned due to the degree of care that my drivers and I use in successfully transporting millions of dollars worth of cars."

Sounds like somebody is full of crap.

Kole, since you are the accuser and should come up with a shred or two of evidence, please answer the following simple multiple choice question...

Which of the following is true?

1. Frank Malatesta has owned Horseless Carriage for the last year or so.

2. Frank Malatesta has owned Horseless Carriage for over 40 years.

3. Frank Malatesta owned Horseless Carriage but sold it about a year ago.

4. Frank Malatesta has never owned Horseless Carriage.

5. None of the above.

Answer this and I will follow up.

Thanks Kole,

Jack

 

This thread turned into a witch trial it seems. I have known Kole for years and have worked on many of his vehicles. He is very well respected reasonable man and he should have no reason to defend his credibility. He has taken delivery of new vehicles that I personally would have been pissed at the condition on arrival from damage or overall paint condition (heavy buffer swirls from the factory or dealer). Usually from the above I was able to correct those defects. Most of the time I will point out defects to Kole, as I have a very keen eye to details. When I point out defects he never over reacts or seems outraged. He simply asks me what should be done about it. He has absolutely no reason to make up stories or over exaggerate his recent experience.

He is not the only one...I have detailed many new vehicles and frankly exotics tend to have the most defects/issues created either from the factory or dealer. I have worked in the car buying and selling industry for the past 8 years. As a buyer for a large automotive retailer Im trained to look for paintwork or indications of repairs.

As for the comments about why would a door be replaced versus painted? Paintwork on vehicles has a negative impact especially for more expensive cars. I worked on his new Range Rover after everything was done. It seems they have replaced the door with a "factory" painted one. There is absolutely no indications of paintwork. The only thing you could possibly see is the bolts were turned. No common person would notice this door was replaced. Now lets say the door was resprayed instead, you deal with many more factors of overspray, fish-eyes, shade/color differences, etc etc. and now more people would notice.

You will not believe how many cars are damaged at dealerships or from transporters and the buyer of the car is never aware of repairs. It varies state to state but some states allow up to 30 percent or more of the value car to be repaired before they have to legally disclose repairs to the consumer. So that means you buy a $100k car, the dealer or transporter fix $20k of damages to that car and not legally have to tell you.

Bottom line, Kole has no reason to fabricate or exaggerate his story. I personally see his stated issues all the time. As for comments about "Why would the driver say that to Kole?" People say stupid things, simply put. I just find it amazing, Kole posts about his experience and then has to defend himself. If many of you were in his situation Im sure you would posted a negative review of this transporter as well.

 

Detail guy, I appreciate your input. Since you have worked on many of his vehicles you have a reason to be biased. I suppose Kole pays you to work on his cars.

If you make an accusation about somebody or their business you have an obligation to provide evidence. You can really hurt people and their business by saying things. Look at some of the early posts in this thread. People who ship their cars saying they will look elsewhere the next time they need this service.

Kole feels injured by Horseless Carriage and has elected to make accusations here. In a forum where people use their services. Very damaging. He has not provided any meaningful evidence of anything even though he has been asked numerous times. That is suspicious.

Detail Guy, if you have any real evidence about this issue we are all ears.

Jack

 

DetailGuy, Kole didn't just post his experience. He continued to refer to Horseless Carriage as Useless Carriage and disparaged the company, which on a forum like FChat can be very damaging. He also suggested that someone corroborate his claims by calling Range Rover...which I am happy to do. He also claimed that he heard through an anonymous third party that HC changed ownership a year ago and has since gone down hill. The owner of HC came on and stated he has been the owner of HC for 40 years.

So, you may know Kole through your business and he has been great with you...wonderful. But it doesn't change the fact that Kole's story doesn't make complete sense. There seem to be inconsistencies. Perhaps Kole started this thread because he was pissed off at HC for whatever reason...maybe HC did cause the damage Kole claimed. But I think maybe Kole exaggerated a bit in an effort to relay his frustration...so now it's all this.

I think it's wrong to blast a company who's business can be greatly affected by Kole's posts. If Kole is right, then the company should suffer the consequences. If Kole is wrong, inaccurate, or made exaggerated claims, it's only fair that it be brought up.

Many people post their experiences with companies...some prefer not to mention names, some do. In this case, Kole did. And like I said, he didn't simply tell us his story...he continually called HC, UC. If I were HC and I was in the right, I would not have posted here...I would have contacted Kole directly...actually, if it was me, I would have hired an attorney. Again, that's assuming HC has been wronged by Kole's claims. If Kole is right, he perhaps sucks at presenting his claim to the forum...and shame on HC.

So, hopefully Kole will PM me and I will make some calls...which was his suggestion. Perhaps then Kole will be vindicated from all the negative posts he has had to endure. But if it turns out he was exaggerating, it's only fair that HC receive the same benefit.

 

What system? This isn't a court of law. Just because you beat me to the punch and posted I hit you BEFORE I posted you hit me, determines who has to provide proof? I know, slightly different in this case, but that's my point.

Anyway I thought you were unfairly taking HC's side. His defense wasn't all that believable to me. However I do agree, what idiot doesn't have a camera on his cell phone and can't take a picture.

 

Mousecatcher, not to put too fine point on it, but in your analogy the second party posts that the first party hit him. In this case the second party is Horseless Carriage. I read his post. He never said Kole "hit him". He never accused Kole. He is just trying to defend himself.

That is hard to do on a forum like this where people can and do say darn near anything without much fear. How would Kole's detailer who posted earlier today like it if I got on here and said he detailed my car. Then I say he damaged my car. Put a swirl mark in it - damaged the paint bad. Then I say I had to take to another detailer to fix the damage he caused. I say it cost an lot of money. And I make up some nasty name to call him. And I forgot to take a picture of anything. But hey, my word is good, right. I bet the detailer wouldn't like it. I bet he would really be hacked if after he asked me for evidence of my claim I simply said, "hey, prove it didn't happen."

Jack