My first Porsche

[Petez]

New to the site, 

Hello all, I have had a very interesting start to Porsche ownership. I think this story needs told, I was sold with full knowledge an unroadworthy 2011 Porsche Panamera Turbo about 6 months ago. Initially they tried selling it to a Melbourne Porsche dealer who rejected purchasing the car. A full report of that vehicle from the Porsche dealer shows major faults. It appears none of those faults were rectified prior to actually selling the Porsche to me. I foolishly believed lies about the car from the salesman. Also having very briefly driven the vehicle and that it passed a roadworthy certificate I had faith it was a safe and mechanically sound prestige vehicle.

Soon after delivery the car had some issues which he took to the local Porsche dealer, upon inspecting they gave me some bad news that it is unroadworthy. Brakes, tyres and suspension had to be replaced, this is when the dealer stopped being customer focused. Denying any liability and saying it was my treatment of the vehicle that caused these issues. Some much for the statutory 3 month warranty.  I spent a lot of money to get his car back on the road, not to mention all the factory warranty claims. In all it has been in various Porsche workshops for over a month since purchasing the vehicle. I must say that the Porsche dealers, in South Sydney, Canberra and Brighton have been outstanding resolving issues with the car and gives me confidence going forward.

After complaining to Vic Roads I have been advised the roadworthy certificate without a doubt was fraudulent from ...... in South Melbourne and they are under a very serious investigation from VIC Roads. I hope for all the motoring public that they get made an example of and lose there roadworthy certification licence. The dealer I understand have a close relationship with them and is where their Roadworthy Certificates are done for their cars. I believe knew it was never roadworthy from the very detailed pre purchase report from the Melbourne Porsche dealer. The salesman lied to my face about several aspects of the vehicles condition. The dealers website states that all there vehicles are inspected and tested if so how can a defective vehicle be put up for sale let alone knowingly sold.

Now the dealer and I are off to the magistrates court as its the only way I can reclaim the costs of repairing an unroadworthy car to get it roadworthy. This is a very clear case of a company who acted dishonestly with intent to gain financial advantage. The Dealers warranty department and management treated the me with contempt. I am innocent victim of this company and was told by the the owner to never contact him again after complaining of his companies conduct. The conversations or rather his rants and raves I had with him lead me to believe he is a nutter. They threatened millions of dollars in defamation and sent legal letters to what end. They have changed lawyers, their are only two reason to change lawyers, either you didn't pay them or don't like there advice. (Which would be to settle) The truth is all I wanted was I paid for, a roadworthy car. I expect and now demand the dealer pay for the lawyers bills and repairs to fix what they knew was an unsafe and mechanically flawed vehicle.

The dealer deserve condemnation from the motoring public and industry. Certainly deserve no respect as business owners. The Motor vehicle licensing authority and police need to take a long hard look at this company and it's operations.

 

Edited 14January, 2017 by Petez
Advice from members

[LeeM]

Wow mate, no good at all!

I swear I've heard this near exact same story elsewhere about them

Hope it all works out ok in your favour

[scashin]

Ouch.  I too have heard rumours of Lorbek. Hope you get a win and some satisfaction

[sandy468]

Wow helluva intro! Public forum here so i guess it's ok to tear a company/person to shreds but I'm not sure how hard ya should go coz obviously if you have proof (and not doubting it's true) the proof wont be aired here, Anyways, there was another sequences of posts maybe mid last year really similar to yours about Lorbek and they were ripped a new one in that .... sounds like a place to stay away from - always overpriced anyway! Anyone chime in with a good Lorbek story??

[Peter M]

Hope you find satisfaction with Lorbek's Peter.

 

Posting about the state of the current relationship reminds me of the famous Performance Forum's "Wayne Brasko is a C_ _ T" thread which got noticed by Jalopnik on the other side of the world:

http://jalopnik.com/5713816/how-an-aussie-forum-war-ended-in-a-police-visit

 

 

 

Now where is that spare buggered gearbox......

 

 

Edited 14January, 2017 by Peter M

[GUT]

Welcome - but I'd suggest go through the legal motions you have in train before going onto a public forum with details - may harm your case.

If I were you, I'd edit/delete your original post and come back when all is resolved. Then tell us all about it coz I also believe this sort of thing should be public knowledge.

Edited 14January, 2017 by GUT

[LeeM]

I'm far from a legal expert, though isn't it ok to defame a company but not an individual?

Regardless, I'd probably delete or edit out the names as Gut mentions. Forums have a loud voice!

[sandy468]

Hope you find satisfaction with Lorbek's Peter.

 

Posting about the state of the current relationship reminds me of the famous Performance Forum's "Wayne Brasko is a C_ _ T" thread which got noticed by Jalopnik on the other side of the world:

http://jalopnik.com/5713816/how-an-aussie-forum-war-ended-in-a-police-visit

 

 

 

Now where is that buggered gearbox......

 

 

Was gonna say that entire fiasco was so funny if it wasn't so tragic - but I'll just stick with that is such a joke! Stupid F#$%kn idiots the whole lot of them pushing along and letting a situation like that get so outta hand. Dick swingin' contest all 'round! ... 85 pages of posts in 7 days on that "dude is a #@$%T", thread - people must have nothing to do....

Edited 14January, 2017 by sandy468
add on

[Spectre]

Golly a used car dealer not honoring their warranty

[Rai]

Truth is a defence to defamation, whether an individual or a company!

[Daz7]

Sorry about your situation.

However, wouldn't brakes and tyres be wear and tear items and therefore not covered by warranty?

If the tyres weren't right down to the wear marks, I couldn't see any of this affecting a roadworthy.

Edited 14January, 2017 by Daz7

[wilburforce]

Sorry about your situation.

However, wouldn't brakes and tyres be wear and tear items and therefore not covered by warranty?

If the tyres weren't right down to the wear marks, I couldn't see any of this affecting a roadworthy.

From what I read from the above brakes and tyres were unroadworthy - so I'm guessing nothing to do with stat warranty on those issues. 

I guess tyres can be unroadworthy without reaching wear indicators (if they weren't there anyway) - tread damage, sidewall damage, perished (unlikely on a newer car), etc

 

I've heard some bad stories from Lorbek as well which are well along the lines of the above.

Having said that I think it's good advice (above) for the OP to keep potential defamation (whether true or arguable) out of the public forum until case is settled.

 

good luck with it all

Edited 14January, 2017 by wilburforce

[Philbee]

Geezus, what an awful story.... All the best Petez, good luck.

[Petez]

Hello again,

I should clarify some very good points listed above. The brake rotors on all 4 wheels were undersized so where unroadworthy before my purchase. The pads were roadworthy so no sensors picked up a problem. I know this because the vehicle condition report from the Porsche Dealer that Lorbek tried to sell to before I bought it. Thats why Vic Roads are giving the roadworthy certifiers a very hard time.

The car was purchased with optional 22in wheels and tires for and extra $3500. These were fitted to the car when viewed, on the test drive and shown in the photos. I live out in the country so demanded the original 20in Turbo 2 wheels which I didn't inspect as the were not at the dealer but was assured all four wheels had 40-50% tread on them and in good condition.These were wrapped and stored in the car on delivery so I just stored the in the garage. I hit a pothole (actually a crater) and broke the front wheel destroyed the tyre so had to put on the original wheel and tyres which transformed the car and ride. I asked our local tyre shop to do a wheel alignment which they couldn't do as all four wheels where way out making it impossible. Only the left side of the car was affected by the pothole. The car was already booked into Gulson Porsche for a warranty issue with the door about a week later. It was then I was told about the unroadworthy state of the brake rotors, tyres and suspension. I bought the car with the original 20in wheels and tyres and as the wheel and tyre package was an extra which I paid on top of the purchase price I have every expectation that the original wheels and tyres should be roadworthy. Now having experienced both the 20in and 22in wheels, other that looks the 22in in my opinion are terrible in comparison.

It was me who put the advert up on carsales until they took it down last year. I wouldn't have put this post up if I didn't have 100% proof my case would stand up in court, however I have taken members advice. I have nothing to hide but think it is also an obligation to share unfortunate stories to the wider public. I can tell you if I had of known a story like this I would never have had any dealings with them. I accept I should have in hindsight done a PPI but that doesn't stop me or anyone else from being protected by our countries consumer laws. 

[Peter M]

Pete,

How many km's on the car and what was wrong with the suspension?

[LeeM]

The brass tax is that NO licensed vehicle dealer should have treated you this way, regardless of you getting a PPI or not

Asshats

 

[Petez]

Hi Peter M,

The car had 50000km on it, I talked to the original owner in Brisbane who was happy to help with is history along with the Brisbane dealer.  As far as the suspension all four wheels have had all the bushes, sway bars, upper and lower control arms and few other minor things replaced I can't recall. Also wheel alignment finally done. I believe it was a known problem with the Panamera's and was relieved it was still under factory warranty. Wear and tear is one thing but all this on a car originally costing over $400k that is only just over 4 years old isn't good either.

[Petez]

LAW & ORDER

Luxury used car salesmen claim bad Google reviews damaged their reputations

PETER MICKELBUROUGH, Herald Sun

December 21, 2017 7:54am

LUXURY car dealer Srecko Lorbek — who counts Foreign Minister Julie Bishop among his friends — is suing his own customer for claiming on social media he was sold a lemon.

Peter King purchased a 2011 model Porsche Panamera Turbo from Port Melbourne’s Lorbek Luxury Cars in July last year, according to a writ lodged in the Supreme Court by the company’s owner Srecko Lorbek, and his brother and salesman, David Lorbek.

The Lorbeks accuse Mr King of waging a campaign against them to have them prosecuted as frauds and banned from selling cars.

MORE:
BRIDE FORCED TO MARRY UNCLE

MUM’S LUXURY LIFESTYLE BID REJECTED BY FAMILY COURT

Car dealer Srecko Lorbek, pictured here with Dr Chantel Thornton in 2012, claims a customer defamed him on social media by claiming he was sold a “lemon” Porsche.

Their writ claims the first of four allegedly defamatory posts by Mr King appeared shortly after Magistrates’ Court proceedings between them were settled.

Mr King’s posts claim that settlement in March saw Lorbek agree to pay for the cost of repairing the luxury station wagon.

Copies of his posts attached to the Lorbeks’ writ show Mr King claimed he took the car — worth around $140,000 second-hand — to a Porsche dealer when problems occurred soon after he took delivery.

Mr King claims that dealer told him the car was not roadworthy, with brakes, tyres and suspension all needing to be replaced, but Lorbek denied liability, allegedly claiming it was his treatment of the car that caused the problems.

Srecko Lorbek with Dr Chantel Thornton at the unveiling of the Ferrari 430 Scuderia in 2007.

Mr King’s posts claim that prior to his purchasing the car, a Porsche dealer had declined to purchase it from Lorbek after discovering major faults.

Mr King’s posts claim Lorbek did nothing to fix these faults before selling the car to him, and that the “prestige auto repairer” which provided the roadworthy certificate and regularly worked for Lorbek, had been the subject of a VicRoads investigation.

VicRoads said this company had been stripped of its roadworthy tester license in 2010 but had since moved, regained its licence and was not currently under investigation.

The Lorbeks allege the three “reviews” by Mr King on Google and one on Law Answers defamed them by suggesting they knowingly and criminally sold a car with a fraudulent roadworthy and were dishonest and untrustworthy.

Srecko Lorbek with Foreign Minister Julie Bishop and MONA owner David Walsh at his wedding to Dr Chantel Thornton at MONA in March 2017.

LAMBO TEST RUN ENDS IN $200K SMASH

As a result, the Lorbeks claim they have been brought into “hatred, contempt and ridicule”.

Srecko Lorbek, whose wedding to Dr Chantel Thornton at Tasmania’s celebrated Mona art gallery in March was attended by Ms Bishop, claims his reputation as a licensed car trader and businessman has been injured, while Peter Lorbek alleges his reputation as a car salesman has been damaged.

They claim Mr King has refused to apologise or retract his allegations, which they allege were sensationalised to the sacrifice of their reputations and written for the express purpose of damaging their reputations with reckless indifference to their truth.

They are seeking unspecified aggravated damages, interest and costs, and an injunction to have the offending items removed from publication.

peter.mickelburough@news.com.au

 

[Troubleshooter]

Nice comb over, should've kept the roof on the Spyder mate

[Neun 11]

On 12/21/2017 at 6:48 PM, Troubleshooter said:

Nice comb over, should've kept the roof on the Spyder mate

Thanks Troubleshooter.....i was going to mention, but now...pressures off me !

[MARTY]

On 21 December 2017 at 7:48 PM, Troubleshooter said:

Nice comb over, should've kept the roof on the Spyder mate

On him or the Mrs?

[Pokiou]

i've heard a few things about this dealer... from people who worked and the quality of cars they kept.... seems all is true about them. 

[Sandro]

Petz, the story seems to vary and get more complex as it goes along.. not to mention your continual warranty claims on Porsche.

I am aware the dealer in question sells 100's of prestige cars per month and doesn't do the RWC's, as most dealers don't for all the reasons you are making very obvious. 

So I guess if you are selling over 1,000 cars per year you are going to have a few issues... especially if buyers are looking for them with a microscope after the event and bringing in others who benefit from this process.. not exactly impartial?

I personally had a factory Porsche dealership say I needed a suspension part at 60,000k on my 911, but didnt have it in stock so we left it until next service... Four services later I haven't mentioned it, nor have four more mechanics... these are the ones that are finding fault with others work long after your car has changed hands and it seems has been fairly seriously damaged by the new owner... you. 

I would have not published any of this as I am sure the poorest of barristers will make your life difficult at best as a result. 

Bought my car privately with 25,000k and now done 100,000k with nothing but normal service... although I am not looking for issues nor have hit things either. 

Another slant on what I see is a fair bit of slander around potentially an issue that was at least part your fault... maybe ?? 

I feel if you really had issues with RWC you should have taken on the business who performed the RWC as they don't want to lose their license as its their livelihood...if you have other issues known to Porsche just let them fix it and get on with life. 

[Troubleshooter]

[Petez]

Sandro makes some valid points, but it isn't complex at all. In fact it's so simple, yes they may sell a few cars but when the director of the company fails to replace the brake rotors after being made aware of them being undersized. Then knowingly sells the car, isn't that a major safety concern or surprising even to him that it passed its roadworthy by their good friends down the road. Then eventually concedes and pays me the costs to get them replaced, a 100% admission of guilt. 

Its of grave concern to me that deliberately selling a vehicle with potentially dangerous faults is ok. I was lucky the door strut broke and I found out about the brakes etc and got them fixed. There was no microscope after the event, just the realisation that the marketing and image of the dealer is really in my experience smoke and mirrors to the unconscionable conduct of the director and salesman.

I have well and truly got on with my life, it just saddens me to think of the poor schmucks who choose to deal with them as employees or get sucked in as customers as I did. What is of particular interest to me is why all relevant Victorian authorities are doing nothing to help protect fellow road users from calculated malicious car dealers who know the ambivalent attitude and toothless laws aid their unlawful conduct.

Unfortunately the Victorian Police at this stage have no interest as they deem this a civil matter. Maybe the The Hon Luke Donnellan MP who is the Minister for Roads and Road Safety may do something. A bit of political influence in the name of road safety to officially reprimand them on the public record. The relevant body who administers Licenced Motor Vehicle Traders seem reluctant to act against its own. Much like what we are witnessing at the Royal Commission into the Banks at the moment. So I am just enjoying the car, the Queensland sunshine and prospect of Lorbek being finally held accountable for their actions in the Victorian Supreme Court. 

Edited 26April, 2018 by Petez
Spelling mistake