Mercedes GLC Clonking and juddering on near full steering lock

[Deleted member 6183]

I'm with you, I thought you could only record someone if you told them they were being recorded !
I'm no expert in these matters either

I thought that as well but suspect that individuals sit outside this (or all) aspect of the DPA.

Shame really.

 

[brucemillar]

You can record anybody (should you wish to do) and you do not need their permission to do so.

If? You then want to use that recording as evidence in a court of law.....and you you have NOT advised the person that they were being recorded for that purpose? A judge will most likely throw it out, unless, you can demonstrate that it is in the "public interest"

It is a two way street. There is nothing that stops MB recording your calls (and they possibly are doing just that ;^))

So if you wish to use telephone conversations as evidence at a later date in a court of law? Make sure that you record yourself telling the person that you are recording them for that purpose BEFORE the conversation starts!!!

Do not wait till you are about to hang up and then excitedly shout down the phone "ha ha I recorded this sucker"

 

[Deleted member 6183]

I think that as a business MB have to tell you if they are, or might, record your calls to/from them.

 

[Deleted128943]

Perhaps you can't use recordings in court but their presence can still influence situations outside court as happened in my case. Where's Judge Rinder when you want him......

 

[brucemillar]

I think that as a business MB have to tell you if they are, or might, record your calls to/from them.

This is true. But an individual within MB may not (for all sorts of logistical and perfectly viable reasons).

The good example given in the link is that of employees recording disciplinary hearings. It is legal and they can do it... UNLESS they have a contract that specifically states they cannot.

So I guess it comes down awareness of the fact that it 'could' be happening and it it is a two way street. It is not illegal top do it. But it is likely to serve no use if ever required in court as it would not be allowed.

Now if an individual wishes to use their recording as leverage with another individual or company? I see no issue with that (moral questions aside). But I would not expect that company to thank you for your diligence ;^)

 

[Deleted128943]

This is true. But an individual within MB may not (for all sorts of logistical and perfectly viable reasons).

The good example given in the link is that of employees recording disciplinary hearings. It is legal and they can do it... UNLESS they have a contract that specifically states they cannot.

So I guess it comes down awareness of the fact that it 'could' be happening and it it is a two way street. It is not illegal top do it. But it is likely to serve no use if ever required in court as it would not be allowed.

Now if an individual wishes to use their recording as leverage with another individual or company? I see no issue with that (moral questions aside). But I would not expect that company to thank you for your diligence ;^)

The question is do you want thank you's or action. We buy from the retailer not MB, where a recording has the potential to cause loss of face or integrity to a retailer it helps their decision making process. At the end of the day how many retailers would want to go to court. I must admit when my hard earned cash comes into it morality comes a poor second.....

 

[hallra]

You can record anybody (should you wish to do) and you do not need their permission to do so.

If? You then want to use that recording as evidence in a court of law.....and you you have NOT advised the person that they were being recorded for that purpose? A judge will most likely throw it out, unless, you can demonstrate that it is in the "public interest"

It is a two way street. There is nothing that stops MB recording your calls (and they possibly are doing just that ;^))

So if you wish to use telephone conversations as evidence at a later date in a court of law? Make sure that you record yourself telling the person that you are recording them for that purpose BEFORE the conversation starts!!!

Do not wait till you are about to hang up and then excitedly shout down the phone "ha ha I recorded this sucker"

Tell them you are recording for training and quality purposes, that is the code companies use these days for we are recording this so be on your toes.

 

[dejongj]

Thanks for the advise. I maybe recording or may not. One thing I do for certain and have been doing is to take meticulous notes and issue them following our meeetings. So far they've not been disputed and met with a confirmation of when the next action is due.

In my experience this is sufficient and I'm content with that approach. Quite standard practise and wholy admissible in some very complex commercial dispute cases I've been involved in.

 

[st13phil]

^ That's always my preferred approach. Contemporaneous notes, sent to the other party immediately after the meeting/discussion. No question about admissibility in any subsequent action, and if they don't dispute them at the time, very difficult for them to claim they were anything other than a satisfactory record.

 

[Deleted128943]

^ That's always my preferred approach. Contemporaneous notes, sent to the other party immediately after the meeting/discussion. No question about admissibility in any subsequent action, and if they don't dispute them at the time, very difficult for them to claim they were anything other than a satisfactory record.

I've often wondered how valid notes are other than to act as a reminder to the person who wrote them, how much value do they hold as evidence when claims are made that they aren't true, where do you go from there. Though recordings aren't admissible in court where the other party isn't made aware of the recording taking pace, my experience is things never get that far, purely the fact they exist tends to help significantly. Even in a case where you're told another person had been present as a witness at the other end during a phone call to confirm what was said, as an attempt to throw a spanner into the works, it's surprising how things change when you say fine listen to this....

 

[dejongj]

I've often wondered how valid notes are other than to act as a reminder to the person who wrote them, how much value do they hold as evidence when claims are made that they aren't true, where do you go from there. Though recordings aren't admissible in court where the other party isn't made aware of the recording taking pace, my experience is things never get that far, purely the fact they exist tends to help significantly. Even in a case where you're told another person had been present as a witness at the other end during a phone call to confirm what was said, as an attempt to throw a spanner into the works, it's surprising how things change when you say fine listen to this....

I've been a witness in cases that covered 100's of millions at stake. The meeting notes and records are absolutely essential. My advice to always read and dispute them. You can't just sneak in whatever you want and it becoming true when not disputed, that is just unreasonable. However if they reflect an unbiased true account of the discussion then one has nothing to be concerned about.

And to me this is what is essential with this dispute resolution, and any other, we need to remain factual and refrain from introducing emotions when dealing with it. I once lost my cool and did raise my voice, it didn't get me anywhere and it didn't get them in a position where they wanted to engage. At times it still feel like they are taunting me, but you just got to rise above it.

 

[grober]

Back on topic. The elegant and probably most effective engineering solution is to shift the entire forward 4 matic drive train to the other side of the car engine where it is not going to clash with the steering column/rack assembly. This does not involve an entirely new design from scratch as much of the engineering already exists in LHD form. However its no small undertaking as it means a new transfer box, front subframe, engine sump,steering, front differential and drive shafts and possibly modifications to bulkhead and transmission tunnel body pressings I'm sure the MB engineers would have advocated this approach but were overruled by the bean counters who looked at the potential market for RHD 4MATIC midrange vehicles and ruled it out on the grounds of cost. Instead they plumped for a compromise solution in an attempt to satisfy a customer demand but would appear to have come unstuck. It may be some clever engineering or simply better manufacturing tolerances may eventually provide a solution for all those folks experiencing problems , but for the engineeers I reckon its a bit like going into the boxing ring with one hand tied behind your back !

]

 

[Deleted128943]

Yes I agree the RHD GLC should have been designed as a RHD GLC not a LHD GLC with the steering wheel on the right.

 

[tangey]

It is interesting to remember that the model the GLC replaced (I can't remember it now), was never sold in in RHD form as they couldn't engineer it in RHD format. Which basically means they couldn't do it at the necessary cost.

 

[st13phil]

Back on topic. The elegant and probably most effective engineering solution is to shift the entire forward 4 matic drive train to the other side of the car engine where it is not going to clash with the steering column/rack assembly. This does not involve an entirely new design from scratch as much of the engineering already exists in LHD form. However its no small undertaking as it means a new transfer box, front subframe, engine sump,steering, front differential and drive shafts and possibly modifications to bulkhead and transmission tunnel body pressings

With that scale of change, a massive cost element that most people wouldn't think of would be associated with the resubmission of the vehicle for crash testing. Which is probably why it didn't happen / won't happen.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[grober]

It is interesting to remember that the model the GLC replaced (I can't remember it now), was never sold in in RHD form as they couldn't engineer it in RHD format. Which basically means they couldn't do it at the necessary cost.

The GLK? Despite only avaialabale in LHD also had early drivetrain problems.

 

[design4p]

Legal Situation

Are there any legal experts out there with a clonking GLC?

What is our legal status. I thought that any item must be of merchantable quality and fit for purpose.

I don't consider a £43,000 car clonking and juddering when turning a corner to be of merchantable quality or indeed fit for purpose.

I have put pen to paper to my dealer Llandudno requesting a conclusive solution not a set of tyres which will hide the design fault. If a negative is returned I shall contact The Motoring Ombudsman after the 8 week duration the dealer has to reply.

I would like any legal experts to comment on our predicament.

John

 

[grober]

With that scale of change, a massive cost element that most people wouldn't think of would be associated with the resubmission of the vehicle for crash testing. Which is probably why it didn't happen / won't happen. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quite possibly true - but I'm not sure about that one. E.g. don't think for example RHD and LHD versions are tested for separate crash test ratings and different engine /drivetrain combos may not be either e.g. Don't think V8 versions of the Cclass are required to be crash tested separately from a 1.5 diesel version . I believe low annual volume may offer exemption also- never seen a Euro Ncap crash test for the Jaguar XJ or any Ferrari/Maserati for example???

 

[grober]

It may sound as if I am being super critical of Mercedes -Benz on this issue but that''s not my intention. With the complex engineering that goes into modern car design problems are inevitably going to arise as wider experience of the model is gained in real world situations. Its how these problems are dealt with that matters.
In a way Mercedes are victims of their own publicity. If they constantly bang on about "Das beste oder nichts" in their advertising it should not come as a surprise that's what their customers demand.

 

[st13phil]

Quite possibly true - but I'm not sure about that one. E.g. don't think for example RHD and LHD versions are tested for separate crash test ratings and different engine /drivetrain combos may not be either

It's not the Euro NCAP testing I was thinking of, it's the Whole Vehicle Type Approval (WVTA). Whether or not a different configuration of a vehicle requires testing will depend upon whether or not it shares fundamental characteristics with another (tested and approved) example. LHD & RHD variants often have different fundamental characteristics due to the siting of various key components, and AIUI, therefore often have separate WVTA's.