Norton hit the BBC News central region last night about a customer Sueing them them for his dough back and winning, less £3000.00 legal fees.
Lets hope what they say,' theirs no such thing as bad publicity'..........................

Here's the item on BBC website. I don't think those outside UK will be able to view the video though.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-le ... e-15923229

Ian

Nortoniggy wrote:Here's the item on BBC website. I don't think those outside UK will be able to view the video though.Ian

Don't know about the rest of the US, but I viewed it in California. But then again, this IS the left coast

"...promised to tackle a backlog of 20 late orders..." (Garner's words)

Ummmmm, either they are well beyond the point of failure (only 20 orders not filled would mean they'd have to make about a quarter million pounds on each bike to break even), or he's just putting his foot in his mouth AGAIN.

I wonder how many others lost several thousand pounds each, just trying to get thier deposits back?

Not good.

Grandpaul,

can you please provide your credible source link from which you read that Norton' s suppliers have not been paid?

I am quite sure you would not make up such a claim, that would be irresponsible

thanks, looking forward to reading about this supplier not being paid issue

Here is what caused the delay. They hired this mechanic and Norton had to double the work force to fufill the orders.

Image link disabled - L.A.B. (complaint received)
http://i961.photobucket.com/albums/ae96 ... oster3.png

ludwig wrote:Maybe they need an expert mechanic like you to speed things up ?

Judging by the rate they have been moving since they delivered thier first bike, they'd need several expert mechanics, and a few years, to get caught up to just the bikes they have deposits for.

grandpaul wrote:"...promised to tackle a backlog of 20 late orders..." (Bloor's words)

Ummmmm, either they are well beyond the point of failure (only 20 orders not filled would mean they'd have to make about a quarter million pounds on each bike to break even), or he's just putting his foot in his mouth AGAIN.

I wonder how many others lost several thousand pounds each, just trying to get thier deposits back?

Not good.

Why would they be asking or quoting John Bloor???????

Seeley920 wrote:

grandpaul wrote:"...promised to tackle a backlog of 20 late orders..." (Garner's words)

Why would they be asking or quoting John Bloor???????

It was an on-camera interview at the Birmingham show just passed.

(fixed it)

Grandpaul,
The tired-looking man is Stuart Garner, not John Bloor. Get your facts right. I suspect John Bloor doesn't waste a minute of his time to reflect on this latest rebirth of Norton.

Ah, yes. I see I got that bolloxed.

Yes, I meant Garner.

My personal opinion is Garner and Norton won't make it on the finances available. This BBC report however doesn't really indicate one direction or the other. All the backlog orders on deposit won't mean a thing if product isn't going out the front creating cash flow. One returned deposit means nothing, but understandable from the individual that has lost patience and faith.

Do I understand then that this guy got his money back from Norton because they couldn't (or wouldn't) supply him the bike he'd paid for and couldn't (or wouldn't) give him his money back until he took legal action?
In the scale of things, one bike or $15,000 is peanuts, surely?

In the scale of things, one bike or $15,000 is peanuts, surely?

Not if the scale is such that $15,000 is a big portion of what Norton have. It appears to me that Stuart Garner and company are severely cash strapped. The company is currently being run like a Ponzi scheme.

I would assume that there was legaleese involved in the initial deposit. With that kind of money there must have been some sort of formal contractural obligations on the part of both parties. While common sense would dictate a simple refund to the one holding the deposit, it might have been more than that and perhaps the terms of the contract had things stated and accepted by both parties on the initial exhange of the monies. I doubt it was a simple, here's my check for your promise with a handshake. Without seeing the terms of the contract, one makes a lot of assumptions on who may be the bad guy in this scenario, and by passing judgment without this information is only speculating with their own bias without factual content.

JD