An interesting predicament is now facing Kwik Fit, following the issuing of misleading statements – and indeed, outright lies – to a national newspaper journalist covering a piece on them for the Times Money supplement this weekend.

It raises a number of questions concerning contemporary corporate comms practices, of course, and relates to an ongoing story.

An ongoing story which I found myself creating back in October 2009, following life-threatening work carried out on my car by mechanics at the Whiteladies Road branch of Kwik Fit’s franchise operation in Bristol.

The full initial story was covered in this blog post.

In the Times Money piece, written by reporter Leah Milner and published on Saturday, Kwik Fit had made the following statements to her in their Right to Reply PR comments back:

* Mr Street had been very happy with the resolved work completed on his rear brakes.

First Kwik Fit PR lie: At no point had I stated that I was happy with the service delivered, and had made this clear to the Whiteladies Road branch manager Robert Sandow at the time. The work was life-threatening. I wasn’t happy. At all.

This led to a meeting with the Kwik Fit regional manager at the time Dave Rees, who – interestingly enough – refused my request to record our meeting for the sake of accuracy. Mr Sandow, an ex-McDonalds manager, was also rapidly moved to another Kwik Fit franchise branch in Bristol at this time, too, after signing off the life-threatening work of his mechanic. Steer clear of Kwik Fit Filton, folks.

* After resolving the problem with his brakes…

Second Kwik Fit PR lie: the issue was never resolved. That is the entire reason the blog post was published, following my attempts to resolve it privately and through the Kwik Fit complaints procedure. I had requested at my meeting with Mr Rees a few things to be resolved – including the two days’ consultancy time lost my Kwik Fit mis-management, and wasting of my time.

* Mr Street returned to the branch to buy new tyres.

Third Kwik Fit PR lie: at no point did I return to the Whiteladies Road Kwik Fit branch. Why would I, after that kind of treatment? A mechanic in the branch (who’d inspected the work previously carried out on the rear brakes, and called it a ‘deathtrap’ at the time) had recommended another Kwik Fit branch for new front tyres. He’d even contacted the branch manager to make sure I got decent service. In the spirit of objective journalistic thinking, I was happy to try another garage.

After all, as a franchise company, each branch is, in effect, a different business.

And, to be fair and balanced, at the time I was confident of at least getting two front tyres replaced competently by another branch. It was an adequate job completed here.

The fact that the Kwik Fit PR team mislead and lied about these three key facts to a national newspaper points, for me, to a far more worrying dilemma.

The fact that countless unhappy customers have posted comments on the blog and Facebook – all dealt with in Kwik Fit’s trademark strategy of silence. Their reactive PR policies are archaic, founded in a structure of denial and complicity.

The fact that they have not resolved the issues brought before them back in 2009. I received a letter from Kwik Fit HQ following the meeting with Mr Rees stating they had investigated the matter, found they were not at fault, and that it was now closed.

The fact that the multitude of other ex-Kwik Fit customers are still being mislead as their individual cases drag on.

And – from a journalistic perspective – I’d have been much more inclined to view the Kwik Fit PR responses to the Times Money positively from a third-party angle if Leah Milner had at least reported the full facts of my case, rather than omitting details concerning the front tyre replacements at a different garage.

The Kwik Fit quote was, at best, misleading. At worst, blatant lies.

I understand the process of putting together a newspaper article, the balance needed, the reasons why objectivity is needed.

What I don’t get is how key facts can be missed out, further enabling Kwik Fit to further pursue a PR policy based on lies?

My final question – who is the biggest culprit here.

Kwik Fit management, or the PR team who delivered lies to the Press?