Profess in trouble?

[classicswede]

Reading on another forum about someone that is suffering with problems with a profess conversion and this link came up

http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/9 ... ___charge/

[Tubbs]

Find out on september 20th eh !

[Gilbertd]

Interesting, and the case is being brought by a council too. I assume that would be the Trading Standards department and if my professional experience with council's is anything to go by, they won't even think of bringing a prosecution unless the evidence is 200% as it costs them money if they lose. If there's that much evidence, why is he going to trial? The case would initially have been heard at Magistrates court where he would have entered a not guilty plea. It would then go to Magistrates Court for an initial hearing and only then would it go to Crown Court if the Magistrates decided they didn't have sufficient sentencing powers or the defendant elected for trial by jury in the Crown Court (anyone know if he is a gambler?). The same offence tried in Crown Court will always carry a higher maximum sentence than if heard in Magistrates Court (the offences I deal with at work carry a maximum of 6 months and a £5k fine if heard in Magistrates Court but 2 years and an unlimited fine in Crown Court).

[classicswede]

It will be interesting to find out what it is all about. It does not good for them at all.

[Brian_H]

the linked story below from the same site looks related and seems to show there might be a bit more to the history of this
http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/1 ... an/?ref=ar

[carguy143]

the linked story below from the same site looks related and seems to show there might be a bit more to the history of this
http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/1 ... an/?ref=ar

Well I, for one, wish them luck with this. If it comes out they did something dangerous then sobeit, but until then, let's not try to jump to conclusions.

[Gilbertd]

The fact that the council are taking them to court a second time after losing the first case suggests that they aren't going to this time, they'll have made sure the case is watertight. It'll be interesting to hear the full details though. The dangerous product charge is going to be as a result of an unhappy customer who found something not right after having a conversion done but it's the misleading commercial practice charge that is more interesting

[sijones]

First story is from last year, june 2012... second one is the result that he was acquitted...

What's the betting the X5 conversion he did was shoddy, corners cut due to doing in a day and the owner is someone with contacts, maybe police or council and so it got taken further...

No way trading standards would prosecute off a single bad job, they would have to have had several complaints and been fobbed off from him, if you apologies to them and polite they usually leave you alone!... Seen it happen

[Gilbertd]

Simon has noticed what I have since, only one case and he was acquitted. Unfortunately, the court records for both Cardiff and Newport Crown Courts (as one article says Cardiff while the other says Newport) don't give details for acquittals only successful cases. Would have been interesting to read the transcripts and get the full story.

It's interesting that the second article says he's lost a lot of business when nobody seems to have known about the case anyway.......

[classicswede]

They have posted this on another forum

[QUOTE=Profess LPG LTD;1451322]A quote from our legal department.

“I find this entry quite interesting since the accusation is that Profess are quick to blame others for their errors, in this instance the car was presented with a very unusual failure, a piston ring which was broken in several places. This was discovered by a local BMW authorised specialist As a result of that advice Profess sent the car with the customers permission to the senior investigator, a chartered forensic engineer with over thirty years’ experience, who is a founder member of the Expert Witness Institute. The investigator is a key member of staff with Strange, Strange and Gardner, the world renowned forensic examiners of motor vehicles. This report clearly stated that it was a factory oriented fault and had nothing to do with the conversion. Such an outcome was disappointing to the customer since he had a car which would cost several thousands to remedy yet had no-one to bring to book for the damage. That is unfortunate but nothing to do with Profess either. It appears customers with high mileage vehicles blame gas conversions when the truth of the matter is that the gas system highlights failings which petrol can tolerate but which gas cannot. Profess offer a courtesy car replacement and five star life time guarantee against their goods and workmanship. They were prosecuted by Caerphilly council following an allegation by a fireman was investigated because his car’s suspension failed months after the conversion. The court found the owners version incredible, that he had ignored a warning light for three months before the conversion took place and further that the council used an unqualified expert who was embarrassed to have to retract his claims of expert status in front of the jury, despite this The Campaign (http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/1 ... an/?ref=ar) did print a short story confirming that £70,000 of public money had been wasted on prosecuting the firm, which has an unblemished history of providing first class, market leading service. This prosecution found no basis for the complaint and several criticisms they raised were discredited by professional evidence from qualified experts, unlike the criticism which flowed from a car owner desperate to recoup the costs of repairing defects which had nothing to do with the conversion. A jury determined that Profess worked both within the code of practice and did not do anything dangerous. There has only been one trial, no threat or prospect of a second and the facts stated by ‘Gilbertd’ are utterly false.”

Regards
Profess LPG LTD.[/QUOTE]

[Gilbertd]

So they read what is posted on here but don't reply on here, c'mon Profess, we won't bite and want to know the full story anyway. It'll be good for other installers that could find themselves in the same situation. Having read the two press reports in isolation, and without noticing that the first one was in fact earlier than the second, I then corrected what I had said.

I'd still like to know what was said about the misleading commercial practice charge though.....

[sijones]

I feel disappointed they haven't mentioned me...