From the Rolls-Royce experimental archive: a quarter of a million communications from Rolls-Royce, 1906 to 1960's. Documents from the Sir Henry Royce Memorial Foundation (SHRMF).
Customer complaint regarding a faulty Peto & Radford battery and the subsequent investigation.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 46\3\ Scan155 | |
| Date | 1st January 1926 | |
| X4117 EFC. D/BP4/CW18. 1. 26. Re : Chassis 40-LK.{L. King} W. Wilson Esq. (Peto & Radford Battery) We received a complaint from this customer early in November concerning the Peto & Radford Battery on his car which, on this occasion, would not hold its charge, and the customer alleged that there was a defective cell at the negative end. The customer had another battery supplied to him, and P & R have agreed to take back into their stock the repaired battery, charging the customer for the cost of the repairs. The amount charged for the repairs is 55/- plus carriage charges. P & R.{Sir Henry Royce} state that on examination of the battery they find that the positive plates are entirely worn out and require replacing. New separators were also necessary to put the battery in a serviceable condition. P & R.{Sir Henry Royce} report as follows:- "We consider that the fitting of a new set of positive plates, after the battery has been in use two years, necessary, in most cases. This is the useful life of the positives, but the negative plates invariably outlast two sets of positives. There is nothing unusual about the battery in question, the plates being merely worn out, and we are afraid that this cannot be obviated, whatever careful treatment the battery has received". In this instance, the customer has had the battery in use 26 months. Do you agree that the attitude taken by P & R in this matter is in order, and is the charge reasonable after 26 months service? We shall be pleased to have your comments before we finally confirm with the owner. D/BP. | ||