Tightening the Screws !

The car manufacturing industry is proposing to withhold both technical information and the vital software that allows independent motor mechanics to "talk "to the onboard computers in cars and follow the makers servicing tolerances. The aim seems to be to restrict car servicing to the workshops operated by their licensed dealers and force the use of only the "genuine spare parts " provided by the car manufacturers.  Now they are going after the huge smash repair industry.

Six in every seven smash repair shops are independents.  As each new model reaches the market they need vital servicing information to understand the changes that have been made from the past model and they are reliant on the brand dealer network for "reinitialisation " codes to complete the repair. It seems that this new policy is intended to force the industry to only use the highly priced branded parts carrying the car manufacturers logo - in exchange for the information that allows them to repair that brand of car.

It seems to be a new profit strategy with car manufacturers trying to back away from just the initial profit when a new car is sold to a customer.  Now they are trying to lock in the profit flow by dictating the repair and servicing of their product - for the entire life of the vehicle.  They are seeking to restrict the numbers who can repair and service their brand of vehicle - and ensure that the vast array of generic parts are blocked and only their own branded products have a monopoly in the car service industry.

The sticking point for car owners - is increased cost.  If the numbers offering car services are reduced that usually means that prices rise because of decreased competition.  The car insurance industry will certainly be very interested in the outcome because it will affect the premiums they must charge, and any big price hike will inevitably means more uninsured vehicles on this nation's roads.

Then there is the safety factor.  The car manufacturers claim that their spare parts are manufactured to exactly the same tolerance as those used when the car came down the assembly line.  In many cases, an independent supplier sells an identical component to several car manufacturers - and yet when these appear in the parts shop under individual logos - the prices vary widely.  It all depends on the markup each manufacturer decides to apply.

The Australian generic industry is a big employer of labour and it produces items of high standards.  Usually negotiations in a repair shop include this generic question, and the job is priced accordingly. It seems that the intent is to remove that option under the guise of maintaining safety standards - and to preserve the manufacturers profits over whatever period of years the car remains in service.

Obviously, if this proposal comes into force it will not immediately reduce the number of mechanics servicing cars, nor the number of smash repair shops doing repairs.  It will simply block them from the new models coming onto the market, and restrict their work to existing models.  As the years progress, their share of the market will steadily decline.

This certainly raises the question of what ownership rights are conferred to an owner when it applies to the purchase of a new vehicle.  It seems that manufacturers are now claiming a residual right to  control those who work on that vehicle by way of licensing agreements and determine the nature of replacement parts that may be needed to maintain vehicle serviceability.   This seems to break new ground, and diverge sharply from the terms that apply to all other areas of consumer goods.

The legality of imposing after sale control is a journey into ambiguity !