Trouble at Mill

R

Richard Barks

Joined
Apr 14, 2006
Messages
146
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'..........................
 
Nortoniggy said:
Here's the item on BBC website. I don't think those outside UK will be able to view the video though.Ian
Click to expand...

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
 
ludwig said:
Maybe they need an expert mechanic like you to speed things up ?
Click to expand...

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 said:
"...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.
Click to expand...


Why would they be asking or quoting John Bloor???????
 
Seeley920 said:
grandpaul said:
"...promised to tackle a backlog of 20 late orders..." (Garner's words)
Click to expand...

Why would they be asking or quoting John Bloor???????
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
Click to expand...

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
 
Years ago, I made a deposit on a new Ford van, over the phone. I never saw the dealer. They were in another state. At the time I agreed to sale, verbally, I was told I'd get my new van in 6 weeks. 12 weeks later and no van. I called the dealer, told them to cancel the sale and they promptly refunded my deposit, in full.

Norton is acting as a dealer as well as a manufacture and they have NO MONEY!
 
Sounds like he had his initial deposit in for a year, then they took the full amount for another year, then he got it back but had to pay a significant chunk in legal fees.

I don't think the guy that had to pay legal fees is the bad guy in this scenario, no matter how you look at it.
 
this may sound a bit oxymoronic, but being a manufacturer once myself, it may not be a case of "money" but of liquidity and more importantly "cash flow" if one needs to come up with a ready sum of cash to pay out.
In manufacturing, monies are always in a dynamic state and rarely sits as a lump in the bank. Vendors, suppliers, employees, overhead etc.. all have immediate cash demands of their own and with the limited influx of cash, there is almost always cases of operating with an ongoing debt structure until a break even for the business model occurs. If there are hiccups and unexpected occurances in any aspect of a small manufacturing firm, then all the other pieces are effected. It is foolish to assume if someone made an "over the phone" deal on a car from a dealer, that the manufacturer would need to backup the dealers promise on a verbal contract. To pass ANY sort of judgment on this one specific Norton deposit refund, one would have to see ALL the facts, not just the spoken words from a public interview.

JD
 
If you're going to put a deposit down you may as well wait for the bike. As with anything custom made it takes time, and you get it when you get it. I'm not going to speculate what the hold up is. It was stupid of the buyer to ask for their money back, and it was stupid of norton not to refund after being asked.
 
It is foolish to assume if someone made an "over the phone" deal on a car from a dealer, that the manufacturer would need to backup the dealers promise on a verbal contract.
Click to expand...

As I stated before, Norton is both manufacture and dealer. It doesn't matter which hat they are wearing, they failed to deliver as promised. One need not be a lawyer or a manufacturer to understand this.
 

Similar threads

DogT
  • Locked
Trouble with mice?
2 3
Replies
54
Views
3,311
speedrattle
speedrattle
Back
Top