Mitsubishi Air Bags.

Prospecting Australia

Help Support Prospecting Australia:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Yep, the onus is on the manufacture to fix, replace, offer a solution ie: buy back etc.. but they do not have the power to SEIZE a vehicle payed for and owned by a person.

I fully agree, for many people like Jaros it sucks balls. For some others who's vehicles are rust buckets approaching 26 years old with half a million klms on a smokey old oil slurping worn out motor, they'd probably welcome the buy back.

I also highly doubt it will ever or could ever become a compulsory buy back, but I do believe it will become a case of accept it cause you'll never be able register it again.
 
From Pajero forum........

'I am not saying I have a silver bullet and it may prove futile but the matter of the technical legalities of MMAL only offering a buy back resolution when there IS another solution available specifically for the NL (3 full pages of tech and legislation talk) is now in the hands of the ACCC.
It may be a little while.
I will post here when I have an answer from them.
I hope nobody rushes into anything. '

Some Have already... :argh:

'Just dropped the car off to Mitsubishi. Bloody no help at all.

Gave me a hire car and told them to reduce the excess to zero on them or else a $4k excess if I have an accident. Wanted me to pay the $30 a day reduction to zero. Told them to shove that and they can pay it.

Also said it would be wrapped up in 14 days and the market value is between $2k - $4k. Seeing as though I paid well well over that for a prestine example of mine I am sure this is going to be a full blown argument once the assessor calls me with the buy back value they are offering.

What an inconvenience. Also said I can only keep the hire car for 14 days which I responded with I will be keeping the car until I find a new car as its my only mode of transport and my wife is due for a baby in the next 2 weeks. Timing could not be any worse. '

That IS a Seizure IMO... And So is This One... Not MM tho... :argh:

"If it makes you feel any better this situation is happening with a number of different cars in OZ. I had a forum mate drive his beloved Audi TT into the dealer for a WOF only to have a phone call telling him car was no longer road worthy due to air bag replacement and he could not collect. Audi bought the car back off him at an 'agreed price' and his car was sent to the crusher.

There are generally several different solutions which could be implementated (ie replacement of steering wheel from newer model) but dealers are being instructed not to do. You as the owner can do this and possibly get approved but once brought into dealership they are in full control. Only way to collect vehicle is by signing disclaimer load onto flat bed truck only to have rejected on next Rego. "

LW...
 
From the ACCC website..."Mitsubishi have commenced voluntary recalls"

I think you're definition of seizure and mine obviously mean two different things.
I think I'll just agree to disagree.

Cheers! :D
 
Im not here to argue with you MT... I know What is happening as I and 'Others' on here Own NL's and follow the Pajero Forum very closely...

Im No Solicitor ... Perhaps someone can comment further Who Is ? There for I can only go on what IS happening out there...

LW...
 
Easiest solution by MM and other Manufactures on Earlier Models that Replacements are not available With Post ADR 67 there is no choice.. Pre ADR 67 you can remove the offending airbag and still be legal... ACCC is looking into this as a solution for some... Really what choice do they have other than a buy back... Although at a totally unfair amount...

All this must be approved By the ACCC and apparently IT HAS... I have been searching for it but I can't find it... Too much Government :poop: to go through..
Pages and pages of crap... To find one paragraph...

LW...
 
Seizure of anything can only be done by the govt with appropriate laws, cars or firearms, or lego.

ACCC does not have that Authority, or there would be a lot of business's out there with SERIOUS problems as they would not be in Court, but out of business !

The States were forced by the Feds to do the firearms buy back, funded by Fed $$$, States had to change their laws.
OR LOSE FEDERAL TAX $$$.
The Constitution says compensation must be fair, the Firearms Buyback was reasonable and could be negotiated if viewed not to be.
My $14.5K for 1x firearm was on the mark if not maybe $1K or so over.

The cars were legally purchased and your ownership is protected by law, as is proper compensation by Govt - every thing else is a negotiation to purchase it.

A car held by MM would be theft, they have no lawful right to hold any of your property be it car or box of tissues, even if unroadworthy,
unless you agree to it, that is a huge problem too as it could be seen that MM have misled owners.
If the car disappears while in their hands, they have to provide a replacement car.
I would NOT agree to any price they toss at me, particularly if it is a "Voluntary" recall.

I suspect 4 million Australian cars being pulled off of the roads, without a proper compensation will be

life changing for ANY govt and car seller

Just wave and smile boys, just wave and smile.....

If the Opposition force in a FAIR compensation fix for the airbag issue, I know where 4 million+ votes are going........
DONT think for a minute the Pollies are not wiggling around over this one, it effects more people than the Bushfire's do. ;)

4 million voters off of the road and no car because they cant afford to buy a new one, that will have doubled in retail price
just because they are forced to buy a new car - and the vast majority will not have the funds to do so, just to get to work everyday.

Will piss myself laughing if Pauline Hanson gets it done and sorted !! :lol: :lol: :lol:

1579668432_200.jpg
 
Really I give up. It has nothing to do with the Government... This is What MM are doing world wide. And CAN DO AND ARE DOING.. Read the Pajero Forum (for the 100th time I have said this).. This was intended for people caught up in this As SOME ARE...

I will not post any more as You All will find out if you are driving affected Cars soon enough... :lol: :lol: :lol: :p

1579670539_bang-head-against-brick-wall.jpg


LW..
 
Well said GH, LW the MM forum has information no doubt but I'll bet my left nut any MM repo man will cop 10 right hooks in his first hour on the first day if they try to go down the seizure route.
 
Greenhornet_au said:
A car held by MM would be theft, they have no lawful right to hold any of your property be it car or box of tissues, even if unroadworthy......
Click to expand...

Close, but not entirely correct.

They do have a lawful right to hold your vehicle in the event of outstanding monies owed for repairs - this is called a 'repairers lien'. In the event of a vehicle being deemed unsafe, they have no legal right to hold it, seize it, crush it or do anything else with it, but they do have an obligation to advise the customer that it has been deemed unsafe to drive and that is it.

The dealer can of course advise the relevant transport authority that the vehicle is deemed unsafe due to a faulty airbag and that would absolve the repairer/dealer of any responsibility, but it is very unlikely that the transport authority would act on the advise. If so, they would have already deregistered every vehicle in their jurisdiction that was listed with the Takata airbags. This has not happened anywhere in Oz.

Having spent a big slice of my working life in dealerships as a service manager (Mazda, Mitsubishi & Toyota), my advice to those who have an affected vehicle under the recall is to phone the dealership service dept and ask if they do indeed have a replacement airbag for your vehicle. If the answer is yes, go for it - if the answer is no, don't waste your time or theirs by rocking up with your pride & joy knowing that nothing can be done to remedy the problem. No service manager that I've ever known wants a heap of cars that are unrepairable cluttering his work area.
 
Correct me if wrong. But there are two government bodies responsible for the recall.
Mitsubishi did NOT act !
It was forced !
Mitsubishi Australia did NOT put their hand up for the recall.
The yanks are far ahead of this compared to us.
The higher ranking government body sat on it knowing of it well before acting as well!
 
Damn, it's a pity that everything turned out so badly for you. I do not understand what is wrong with continuing to ride a car, especially as I can understand you are a very experienced driver who is unlikely to get into bad situations once. But still, airbags are very important. I recently bought a Volkswagen Passat B6 2006 and I really like it. But I was in an accident the day before yesterday and my airbags flew out. I think that now I have to sell the car to the guys who take the broken old cars. It's good that they at least pay.)
 
Damn, it's a pity that everything turned out so badly for you. I do not understand what is wrong with continuing to ride a car, especially as I can understand you are a very experienced driver who is unlikely to get into bad situations once. But still, airbags are very important. I recently bought a Volkswagen Passat B6 2006 and I really like it. But I was in an accident the day before yesterday and my airbags flew out. I think that now I have to sell the car to the guys who take the broken old cars vehicle removal service. It's good that they at least pay.)
 
I have a mate with old older Pajero who has recently invested serious $ in suspension fixes, new tyres and some other work. He has been offered a buy back by Mitsubishi due to airbags and the offer is 'market value'. If he sccepts the offer, he loses all his recent investment.

Apparently the ACCC has signed off on this buy back 'offer 'but the key word seems to be 'offer'. All my business and legal training says a party does not have to accept an 'offer'...but in this case, their car will be be deregistered if thy do not accept a market value offer.

This seems to be 'coercive and unconscionable behaviour' and would be in breach of Trade Practices Act.... which is (you guessed it) administered by the ACCC.

The moral and ethical thing to do in cases like my mate would be for Mitsubishi to offer a buy back based on an independent valuation...)paid for by Mitsubishi, as they are the ones forcing this issue. That valuation should recognise owner investment, particularly where receipts for new tyres etc are available.
 
I had the principal of the local Mitsubishi dealer come out to our place to have a look and value our 99 Pajero Exceed on 24th January 2020. He took many photos and information as listed by the papers that he had received from Mitsubishi. It showed from memory 146,000 Kms, was 5 speed manual and was neat and in very good condition with no evident wear and tear in the interior. He stated that he had been instructed to get the information and a valuation was to be given by him and once the information was sent to Mitsubishi he was no longer involved in the recall process, that was between me and Mitsubishi.

In his opinion was a well cared for vehicle with low kms and in good order, but no one would want a manual gearbox. When I asked about value he stated that it was of an age and class of vehicle that not many people would be interested in except to tow a horse trailer on the weekends and the value would not be much, when pressed he gave a value which was way below what I considered was market value, but as he owns a number of Dealerships in the local area and is considered to be honest by people who know him. That was the figure that Mitsubishi would be working with, so it is up to the local dealer to assess any buy back figure, I suppose that it would have been possible to get another assessment, but it was not going to make a great deal of difference in the long run, it was not going to buy a good vehicle of similar age of any make.

After a lot of discussion with wife and checking of Pajero prices, which have now fallen flat as no one wants to buy something that is going to be subject to a buy back order, we decided to purchase another vehicle and then sold the Pajero to our son who was looking for a vehicle to use on his acreage, he has removed the air bag and is extremely happy with the vehicle. Rego has now been cancelled so it is no longer subject to the recall.

I first contacted Mitsubishi on their web site on the 20th December 2019 and was told they would be in contact very quickly, got a letter yesterday telling me not to drive the vehicle which they also told me on the 20th December, 2019. It has taken just short of 2 months to get their finger out, if the Pajero was the only vehicle we had we would have been in trouble and after reading some of the stories of the 'hire cars' that have been offered and the 'sign here and also here multiple time' and you will have to pay for insurance excess. As for answering Mitsubisi letter, may do so in a couple of months :zzz: if at all, now have changed over to 2017 Mazda BT50 Freestyle cab and life can continue as planned and the trips to GT are still a goer. :Y:

Graham
 
MikeB05 said:
I have a mate with old older Pajero who has recently invested serious $ in suspension fixes, new tyres and some other work. He has been offered a buy back by Mitsubishi due to airbags and the offer is 'market value'. If he sccepts the offer, he loses all his recent investment.

Apparently the ACCC has signed off on this buy back 'offer 'but the key word seems to be 'offer'. All my business and legal training says a party does not have to accept an 'offer'...but in this case, their car will be be deregistered if thy do not accept a market value offer.

This seems to be 'coercive and unconscionable behaviour' and would be in breach of Trade Practices Act.... which is (you guessed it) administered by the ACCC.

The moral and ethical thing to do in cases like my mate would be for Mitsubishi to offer a buy back based on an independent valuation...)paid for by Mitsubishi, as they are the ones forcing this issue. That valuation should recognise owner investment, particularly where receipts for new tyres etc are available.
Click to expand...

Hi Mike,
I have been involved with so much crap that I am now such a cynical fella that this situation doesn't surprise me at all and is only what I expect now.

I fully agree with you, but your mate has better odds in lotto of getting a win. Bureaucracy and big business combined are tough opponents.

My advice for what it is worth is to strip the vehicle and replace those parts with the same from a wrecker's model. Tyres could go on the next vehicle and sell the rest maybe.

:Y:
 

Similar threads

rustyhooks
Caravan off road modifications.
Replies
18
Views
4K
user 4485
U
U
  • Locked
Minelab GPX 4500 SOLD
Replies
7
Views
3K
user 14190
U
S
Detector research
Replies
6
Views
3K
TJH2620
T
rustyhooks
DPF PROBLEMS
2
Replies
26
Views
10K
user 12139
U
condor22
Tyres - Pros, Cons and experiences
Replies
12
Views
3K
Rockhunter62
R

Latest posts

Top