Is common sense dead Arghhh!

[Harrythedog]

Just had my car in the main dealers for some warranty work, it was in on Tuesday and Wednesday ( should have been 1 day but they ordered the wrong part). This morning I received a recall letter so now I have to arrange another appointment, a 1/2 day lost as well as a £4 toll charge. Surely they would have known about the recall on Wednesday ?

 

[W1ghty]

That was someone’s job on another desk buddy

 

[Deleted member 159894]

I imagine that the recall notice was administered centrally.

 

[SpikyMikey]

It is shoulder slumping; surely the dealership must have known ?
BTW, I think you'll find that they are actually offering you a Technical Enhancement. That word "recall" has connotations of failure about it and we all know that would never happen in MB World

 

[Harrythedog]

I imagine that the recall notice was administered centrally.

Agreed but they’d have known about it on Wednesday and it would probably have been flagged when they put the VIN in their systems

 

[Bellow]

Time - it's what stops everything happening at once.

 

[Harrythedog]

It is shoulder slumping; surely the dealership must have known ?
BTW, I think you'll find that they are actually offering you a Technical Enhancement. That word "recall" has connotations of failure about it and we all know that would never happen in MB World

 

[whitenemesis]

Interesting that the DVSA have no record of a safety recall on this vehicle?

 

[Deleted member 159894]

Agreed but they’d have known about it on Wednesday and it would probably have been flagged when they put the VIN in their systems

Who knows?

 

[alexanderfoti]

Yes, unfortunately.

 

[Harrythedog]

UPDATE:
I rang the Mercedes central booking line to book the car in for the recall. I asked why it wasn't done last week when they had the car for 2 days. The lady checked the system and confirmed it had actually been done then.
So well done MB Sunderland for doing the job but they should have told me to ignore the recall letter I would have received

 

[whitenemesis]

And presumably why there was no outstanding recall notice on the DVSA website?

 

[Harrythedog]

And presumably why there was no outstanding recall notice on the DVSA website?

When I first gave the car details she said the recall would be done directly to the car on-line. It was only when I mentioned the nature of the recall that she agreed "that one needs a workshop visit" !
Not a fan of this central booking system.
The letter actually quotes the DVSA as source of reference.

For anyone interested the recall code is SRPC2107

 

[m80]

We know that MB cite that although we pay for a car they still own the software, so choose what to do to it w/o reference to us.
And while it suits you to have had them do this recall I feel that they should have consulted you and sought permission before doing unauthorised works to your property.

I find the arrogance disgusting.

 

[markjay]

We know that MB cite that although we pay for a car they still own the software, so choose what to do to it w/o reference to us.
And while it suits you to have had them do this recall I feel that they should have consulted you and sought permission before doing unauthorised works to your property.

I find the arrogance disgusting.

With regards the Dieselgate software update, JBD confirmed that dealers were instructed to seek owners' permission, so clearly on that particular issue you make a valid point.

But on a more general note, and to be fair to the dealers, up to the recent Dieselgate software update, owners had no reason to object to recall work being carried-out on their cars, subsequently dealers had no real reason to request owners' permission, and recalls were often done as a matter of course during servicing. I suspect that carrying-out any outstanding recall work during servicing was even listed in the marketing material, as an advantage to the customer, which is sort of consent as it's part of what they said they'll do during the service.

As for software ownership, you are correct in that MB do not sell you the software, only a license to use, so it remains their property which you can use under the term of the licence (EULA).

But - from the legal perspective, they own something that is physically located on your premises (your car). So they do not automatically have the right to access it freely, unless the terms of the license specifically permit them to do so.

 

[m80]

With regards the Dieselgate software update, JBD confirmed that dealers were instructed to seek owners' permission, so clearly on that particular issue you make a valid point.

But on a more general note, and to be fair to the dealers, up to the recent Dieselgate software update, owners had no reason to object to recall work being carried-out on their cars, subsequently dealers had no real reason to request owners' permission, and recalls were often done as a matter of course during servicing. I suspect that carrying-out any outstanding recall work during servicing was even listed in the marketing material, as an advantage to the customer, which is sort of consent as it's part of what they said they'll do during the service.

As for software ownership, you are correct in that MB do not sell you the software, only a license to use, so it remains their property which you can use under the term of the licence (EULA).

But - from the legal perspective, they own something that is physically located on your premises (your car). So they do not automatically have the right to access it freely, unless the terms of the license specifically permit them to do so.

Here we read of owners having had the software adapted to cover the ass of MB w/o consent.
Car goes in for a service and is returned running with increased consumption.
Remaps have been overwritten, clearly w/o consent as who would give such consent.
Gearboxes that will only go into top at around 70mph.
While reading of owners frustrations the answer is more often tough that's the way it is.

MB would argue that giving them the keys approves access to their property within your property. The issue there is that if they carry out works on and within the property w/o 1st informing the owner it is demonstrating an arrogance. Challenging MB and their legal department just isn't realistic.
So they abuse the trust and then are likely to bully an owner into submission.

Giving a tradesman the keys doesn't give consent to do as they please, works should be within defined limits.
A service for example is a service, nowt else.

Btw no terms and conditions automatically allow another to automatically have right of access, it wouldn't be considered a fair term.