Lorbek Luxury Cars claims online ‘lemon’ review work of bitter and twisted customer
MELBOURNE luxury car dealer Srecko Lorbek has put the legal squeeze on a second customer in six months for claiming on social media that he sold them a “lemon”.
Law & Order
Don't miss out on the headlines from Law & Order. Followed categories will be added to My News.
MELBOURNE luxury car dealer Srecko Lorbek is suing another of his own customers for claiming on social media he sold them a “lemon”.
Lorbek Luxury Cars claims Joanne Painter’s “false” and “malicious” statements posted on LawAnswers has cost it $1 million a month in lost sales.
Last November, the Herald Sun revealed Srecko and David Lorbek were pursuing Peter King, whose social media reviews they said defamed them by suggesting they knowingly and criminally sold a car with a fraudulent roadworthy and were dishonest and untrustworthy.
LORBEK LUXURY CAR DEALERS SUE CUSTOMER FOR ONLINE ‘LEMON’ CLAIM
MAN STUNNED TO BE SUED OVER HIS ‘LEMON’ PORSCHE GOOGLE REVIEWS
According to Lorbek’s latest writ, filed in the County Court, Ms Painter was dissatisfied with the 2006 Mercedes four wheel drive she and her husband purchased from Lorbek for $39,900 in December 2014.
Ms Painter brought proceedings in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, where she was awarded $1230 in compensation.
Online Ms Painter said she sold the car — a gold 5.5l GL 500 164 wagon — for $19,000 as they couldn’t keep “paying out for the problems that just kept going on”.
Lorbek’s writ claims Ms Painter was wrong to claim the car had been worth only $19,000 even after she claimed to have had spent $8000 on it.
Lorbek will lead evidence showing the market price for that model was more than $100,000, (when new) according to the writ.
Lorbek alleges Ms Painter’s online claim that the vehicle was a “lemon” was false, as were her suggestions the car had faulty shock absorbers, defective control arms, and a faulty reversing camera screen.
The writ also claims Ms Painter failed to mention that VCAT found the company had not tampered with the on-board computer or that an independent entity had declared the car roadworthy.
The company also claims the posts were misleading and deceptive for also failing to mention that as the car was too old to be covered by a statutory warranty, the company was not legally obliged to do anything and had provided a 5 year comprehensive extended warranty, replaced the rear sunroof roller blind and helped meet the cost of replacing a faulty airconditioner.
The writ also alleges Ms Painter’s second posts falsely claims Srecko Lorbek was repeatedly reprimanded for rude, arrogant behaviour during the VCAT proceeding.
Instead, Lorbek alleges the VCAT registrar expressed disappointment that Ms Painter would seek $18,000 for a vehicle that was 10 years old, had travelled 170,000km and was not covered by a statutory warranty, with Lorbek not legally obliged to do anything.
Lorbek claims Ms Painter knew her posts were false and wrote them out of malevolence or spite to cause maximum damage to the company’s reputation.
Lorbek also claims Ms Painter ignored demands to remove them.
Lorbek is also suing Lawtap Pty Ltd which operates the website and published the reviews.
The writ says Ms Painter’s comments remain visible under the title “lemon” to anyone searching the name Lorbek on Google.
Lorbek is seeking unspecified aggravated damages and an injunction to prevent Ms Painter or Lawtap from continuing to publish the reviews or publishing similar disparaging comments.
MORE HERALD SUN:
JUDGE QUESTIONS PLANE BOMB SCARE DELAY
FORD’S RECORD $10 MILLION FINE
HOW NEW YORK-STYLE PARK WOULD TRASNFORM MELBOURNE CBD
peter.mickelburough@news.com.au