UPDATE: I have been threatened, bullied and prior to hearing given the alternative by GM Australia to withdraw my LS3 engine claim, Major Fault 1 in 7 days and for that ACL avoidance GM will replace what it agreed is a faulty MyLink Hardware unit, Major Fault 2 (electronics problems identified many times under warranty and in the offer agreed faulty by GM Australia). I refused this threat and attempt to divert justice under ACL. I raised my understanding that justice under ACL is not-negotiable to all parties and to QCAT in writing - QCAT remedy was that Fault 2 by GM Australia not considered though QCAT assessor recommended MyLink hardware replacement nor was it part of the decision. Appears, Australian Consumer Law ACL is a joke, and the big corporations regularly in the Tribunals know the system very well (suggest do your own research on their game play and hope for a good adjudicator at Hearing). Major Fault 1 was argued and identified (in writing and video) as not just piston slap - GM claimed (without providing any technical reports or real justification) there were no vehicle faults (GM held reports stating otherwise).
JUSTICE DENIED: QCAT 'Hearing' (if that is what you call it) claimed to act under Australian Consumer Law ACL (if that is what you call it); that process took over 12 months and was just recently completed at 'Hearing' (appalling abuses of power dominate) - I will not have more to say until after my complaint to QCAT President is responded to. When the ACCC were told of the 'Hearing' outcome and process it was shocked (they held all my evidence/submissions) and then out of the blue Q Office of Fair Trading contacted me asking for documents relating to the QCAT Hearing - all very quiet at the moment from all these parties. I am certain something is being looked at in the background (as a systemic issue) - hopefully that may benefit others in the future if they can afford the money and a year to waste seeking Dealers to honour Warranty obligations when the Manufacturer really by refusing to reimburse them can block those warranty repairs. The dealers won't take the Manufacturers to QCAT as ACL expects - nor risk upsetting the supplier/manufacturer - hence risking its business for a customer.
ACL under QCAT, as I understand it from the QCAT Member's words - if you can start your vehicle, travel on a nominated day between point A and point B without breaking down and then can stop the vehicle, under ACL there is no major fault with the vehicle.
In the Member controlled 'Hearing' the submission evidence and diagnosis confirming excessive abnormal engine noise by 2 Holden dealers and RACQ was not discussed (I have no idea if it was even read) - we the Applicants were not given the opportunity to question the Respondents (two of Australia's largest Corporations), yet they were given the opportunity to question us (wisely they abstained, as that would have opened disclosure discussion) - came down to Holden (knowing otherwise) claiming in submission that if there was an abnormal engine noise one of those parties and that includes Holden would have heard it. GM Australia have 3 of the four referred to Authorised representatives written confirmations of abnormal engine noise requiring major repair - and video evidence is held by all parties - it appears real evidence has little bearing in ACL decisions. The diagnosis by GM Australia carried out in/with the dealership totally contradicted the dealer's own diagnosis. The report like all GM such evidence was withheld from QCAT (proprietary information BS) - the GM Australia's less than 60 second diagnosis 'test' was from dash cam video shown to be both false and misleading sham (dealer diagnosis pre-GM overriding it, GM 'testing' video and report summary may be posted here at a later date). Instead of trying to understand technical issues, the colour of the car seemed more significant to the Tribunal Member adjudication on technical issues he had no apparent understanding of. It gets worse, but that will need to be for another day - FYI to appeal (self-review in same tribunal) in QCAT would cost around $2500 in costs (before a lawyer's costs). The moral of the story is to only buy a new vehicle from a manufacturer/dealership you believe can be trusted to honour their warranty. I have to decide at some future point if I seek criminal action against one or more party (details not disclosed here).
Conclusion - As ACL is a joke; I would never ever buy a GM product again as risk is too great - nor trust GM Australia or whatever it may call itself next. I believe GM have demonstrated it should not be allowed to sell vehicles in Australia. (Either direct to consumers (as likely in the future with EV's) or through subservient Dealers (that do whatever the manufacturer demands).
NEXT UPDATE: Please hang off on seeking more comment at this time as I need to wait for responses and then raise those responses further (necessary before I disclose key details publicly). My experience from reading transcripts is that Australian ACL in QCAT is nothing like the NZ Consumer Law equivalent Tribunal Hearing (re recent VF V8 piston slap documented successful case would from my experiences the outcome would not be likely to occur in QCAT).
When I applied to QCAT under ACL my vehicle had around 38,000km on it and was still under full factory Warranty. Shame on those involved in this denial of repair of identified faults under warranty - my Holden Manufacturer's Warranty under the current GM Australia was proven worthless - as is ACL Comsumer rights when even Full Warranty can be overridden by the manufacturer to prevent it repairing costly vehicle Dealer Warranty requests. There were no grey areas for GM to seek loopholes in this case - low km, only serviced by Holden Dealers - well identified and confirmed claims validated under warranty.
