Park Assists Disabled on all new Mercedes help!

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
I just went through the Mercedes's (German site) configurator and e.g., for the GLC model I did not see the option for Active Parking Assist (PARKTRONIC). Whereas, for the new E-Class it is listed as an option , I guess that is because the new E-Class has upgraded steering wheel with touch sensors.
 
I just went through the Mercedes's (German site) configurator and e.g., for the GLC model I did not see the option for Active Parking Assist (PARKTRONIC). Whereas, for the new E-Class it is listed as an option , I guess that is because the new E-Class has upgraded steering wheel with touch sensors.
@iarsov correct
 
Hi , what a feasco so you order S6 petrol engine car and MB supply a 4 cylinder diesel and quote terms and conditions at you.

Looks as if purchasing a new car from MB could be a lottery in what you car receive.
 
A long thread and I've probably missed many details even if I have been following the discussion. Anyway wanted to add that I come from a (current) EU country (obviously a UN country too) and this parking assist feature appears to work on the wife's one week old W213.
 
Just bought my first mercedes c250 2016 two weeks ago. The car had active park assist and was working flawlessly. Went to mercedes to check the service history and was informed about 4 outstanding recalls. Sent the car, got it back today and the blue "P" is gone from the instrument cluster. Have they disabled the system without even informing me that the recall was about that? Is there a way to enable it?
 
...i cant believe this is still happening to people. Shame on you Mercedes!
 
Funny, that.... the Hyundai IONIQ 5 I just ordered has remote parking.... surely MB effed-up big time with this one.
 
Hi,

I have recently picked up my new GLC 300 de and after a few days noticed the park assist wasn't working, after returning the car to the service department they spent 3 days diagnosing the issue to then tell me it was disabled due to new EU rules. I am annoyed by this as it was listed in the advert and broacher as being included with the cars, so I contacted Mercedes Central and they confirmed as follows:-

I am contacting you in response to your recent enquiry in relation to Mercedes-Benz Park Assist in your car detailed above.

"Unfortunately the information is correct, at the moment this has been disabled on all vehicles which have it. The reason for this is due to a revision in EU Regulation UN R79 relating to automotive standards and safety which comes into place as of 2021.

Please see the link below, for further information:

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:42008X0527(01)"


Has any one else had this issue and is there a way of turning it back on.

Thank you for your help in advance.
Hi, I have a 2020 GLC300 premium plus and have the same problems, I did approach the Motor Ombudsman and the reply from Mercedes was that my car did not have the self parking option, I am still in dispute with them as it was sold to me as having the self parking facility, but I felt as if I was banging my head against a brick wall as my car obviously had this option but it had been disabled because of this eu directive and for no other reason, I have had the car for nearly a year now and its a good drive but I will never buy another Mercedes, its not as if they are the only show in town.
 
Hi, I have a 2020 GLC300 premium plus and have the same problems, I did approach the Motor Ombudsman and the reply from Mercedes was that my car did not have the self parking option, I am still in dispute with them as it was sold to me as having the self parking facility, but I felt as if I was banging my head against a brick wall as my car obviously had this option but it had been disabled because of this eu directive and for no other reason, I have had the car for nearly a year now and its a good drive but I will never buy another Mercedes, its not as if they are the only show in town.

Perfectly understandable...

Can you please elaborate on the Ombudsman decision?
 
Perfectly understandable...

Can you please elaborate on the Ombudsman decision?
Probably shouldn't post this but anyway this was the Motor Ombudsmans decision.

The Motor Ombudsman Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with registration number 06517394, whose registered office is at 71 Great Peter Street, London SW1P 2BN
Copyright 2016 The Motor Ombudsman Limited. All Rights reserved TMO and The Motor Ombudsman Logo are Trademarks of The Motor Ombudsman Limited
Page |
1
Outcome of Adjudication between Thomas Henderson Ross and Mercedes-Benz of Grimsby Case reference: 00112723 Date of decision: 09 April 2021 Case Outcome: not upheld
My understanding of the complaint Your main complaint points are:
• You purchased a Mercedes GLC from Mercedes-Benz of Grimsby (“the business”). The vehicle was delivered to you on 30 November 2020.
• Soon after purchase you discovered the assistance parking function did not seem to work. You contacted the business to understand the reason the function was inoperable. Another dealership explained Mercedes-Benz have removed the assisted parking due to EU UN Directive.
• You were eventually advised this function was removed with no prospect of it being reinstated.
• You have accepted the dealership that sold you the vehicle had no knowledge the feature had been removed- but you purchased the vehicle on the basis that it had the assisted parking feature- you believe the vehicle was mis-sold to you.
In order to put this matter right, you would like compensation for the mis-sale. Alleged Breach
The Motor Industry Code of Practice for Vehicle Sales –
Clause1.1-“Any advertisements, promotions or any other publications or communications, whether in writing or otherwise, will not contain any content which is likely to mislead you or be misunderstood.”
Clause 7.4 – “An accredited business will meet its obligations to you under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the Road Traffic Act 1988 and will ensure your vehicle is fit for the purpose intended, of satisfactory quality and as described. This will not include wear and tear items where applicable for second-hand purchases and/or any defects specifically brought to your attention or that could have been reasonably identified during any examination of the vehicle that you may have undertaken before the contract is agreed.”
Clause 8.5 – “In the event of a problem with your vehicle after purchase, the accredited business will observe its legal obligations to you in line with the Consumer Rights Act 2015 by ensuring the goods are fit for purpose, of satisfactory quality and as described. This will not include wear and tear items where applicable for second-hand purchases and/or any defects specifically brought to your attention or that would have been reasonably identified during any examination of the vehicle you have undertaken before the contract is agreed.”
The business’ response to us “Good Afternoon, Please find attached the vehicle specification sent to Mr Ross along with the transcript of conversations between him and the dealership.
The Motor Ombudsman Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with registration number 06517394, whose registered office is at 71 Great Peter Street, London SW1P 2BN
Copyright 2016 The Motor Ombudsman Limited. All Rights reserved TMO and The Motor Ombudsman Logo are Trademarks of The Motor Ombudsman Limited
Page |
2
The vehicle Mr Ross purchased does not have active park assist, you will see from the specification sent to Mr Ross that the vehicle has “Parktronic park assist”, this is correct and true to spec. If the vehicle had autonomous parking the specification would state “Active parking assist with Parktronic”. Please also note on the specification list it states “When purchasing a vehicle it is your responsibility to ensure that the specification and optional extras meet you requirements, as these may differ from the vehicle demonstrated or viewed” I am afraid that the vehicle Mr Ross selected and accepted delivery of does not have the “Active parking assist with Parktronic” function and unfortunately this is not a feature that can be added retrospectively. We would not support any goodwill to Mr Ross, please do not hesitate to contact me should you need any further information Kind regards Joanne Sharp, F&I Executive Assistant, Listers Group Ltd”
My findings
I appreciate this is not the outcome that you have been hoping for but based on the evidence sent to me by both sides I am unable to uphold the complaint. Please find the reason for my decision below.
As with any claim submitted to The Motor Ombudsman’s adjudication service, I must make my decision based on the balance of probabilities – this means that in order to uphold a complaint, I must be able to see that it is more likely than not that the Code of Practice has been breached.
Miss-selling
Any advertisements, promotions or any other publications or communications, whether in writing or otherwise, will not contain any content which is likely to mislead you or be misunderstood.
The file submission provided by the business has noted the vehicle does not have “Active parking assist with Parktronic.” But as per the vehicle specification order it does have “Parktronic park assist.”
I cannot see that you have submitted any evidence which shows the vehicle specification for the model you ordered had Active parking assist with Parktronic.
There is an onus on the customer to check whether the vehicle that has been ordered meets their specification. In addition, when the vehicle is delivered a customer is provided with an opportunity to inspect the vehicle to ensure it meets their requirement.
You have acknowledged the business did not mislead you- you have alleged the vehicle was delivered with a missing component that you expected would be present but the manufacturer without notifying you or the business chose to no longer provide.
Based on the evidence available to me-I cannot agree the business has acted in breach of the Code by providing you with misleading information or that the vehicle is missing a component which was ordered and paid by you.
Compensation
I thought I should remind you of the ‘Remedies – we can recommend” section of the Consumer Complaint Form you completed when referring your complaint to this service. This explains that to resolve a complaint we can recommend the following:
The Motor Ombudsman Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with registration number 06517394, whose registered office is at 71 Great Peter Street, London SW1P 2BN
Copyright 2016 The Motor Ombudsman Limited. All Rights reserved TMO and The Motor Ombudsman Logo are Trademarks of The Motor Ombudsman Limited
Page |
3
✓ “an apology; ✓ an explanation of what went wrong; ✓ a practical action to correct the problem; ✓ and/or a financial award… Please be aware that you will need to be able to provide evidence of any financial losses, such as receipts or invoices, and be able to demonstrate that you have kept your losses to a minimum.”
For avoidance of doubt, this means we are unable to recommend a financial award where there has been no financial loss (i.e. compensation for distress, inconvenience, trouble and upset).
What happens next
I would be grateful if both you and the business can complete the adjudication response form, within the next 10 working days, letting me know what they’d like to do. This will explain their options in more detail.
If either you or the business have any questions, or need further information from me, please don’t hesitate to get in touch.
Kind Regards,
Mala Darbar
Adjudicator The Motor Ombudsman Limited
Web: TheMotorOmbudsman.org
71 Great Peter St, London SW1P 2BN • E: [email protected]
TheMotorOmbudsman.org
 
Probably shouldn't post this but anyway this was the Motor Ombudsmans decision.

The Motor Ombudsman Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with registration number 06517394, whose registered office is at 71 Great Peter Street, London SW1P 2BN
Copyright 2016 The Motor Ombudsman Limited. All Rights reserved TMO and The Motor Ombudsman Logo are Trademarks of The Motor Ombudsman Limited
Page |
1
Outcome of Adjudication between xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and Mercedes-Benz of Grimsby Case reference: xxxxxxxxxx Date of decision: 09 April 2021 Case Outcome: not upheld
My understanding of the complaint Your main complaint points are:
• You purchased a Mercedes GLC from Mercedes-Benz of Grimsby (“the business”). The vehicle was delivered to you on 30 November 2020.
• Soon after purchase you discovered the assistance parking function did not seem to work. You contacted the business to understand the reason the function was inoperable. Another dealership explained Mercedes-Benz have removed the assisted parking due to EU UN Directive.
• You were eventually advised this function was removed with no prospect of it being reinstated.
• You have accepted the dealership that sold you the vehicle had no knowledge the feature had been removed- but you purchased the vehicle on the basis that it had the assisted parking feature- you believe the vehicle was mis-sold to you.
In order to put this matter right, you would like compensation for the mis-sale. Alleged Breach
The Motor Industry Code of Practice for Vehicle Sales –
Clause1.1-“Any advertisements, promotions or any other publications or communications, whether in writing or otherwise, will not contain any content which is likely to mislead you or be misunderstood.”
Clause 7.4 – “An accredited business will meet its obligations to you under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the Road Traffic Act 1988 and will ensure your vehicle is fit for the purpose intended, of satisfactory quality and as described. This will not include wear and tear items where applicable for second-hand purchases and/or any defects specifically brought to your attention or that could have been reasonably identified during any examination of the vehicle that you may have undertaken before the contract is agreed.”
Clause 8.5 – “In the event of a problem with your vehicle after purchase, the accredited business will observe its legal obligations to you in line with the Consumer Rights Act 2015 by ensuring the goods are fit for purpose, of satisfactory quality and as described. This will not include wear and tear items where applicable for second-hand purchases and/or any defects specifically brought to your attention or that would have been reasonably identified during any examination of the vehicle you have undertaken before the contract is agreed.”
The business’ response to us “Good Afternoon, Please find attached the vehicle specification sent to Mr xxxxxxxxxx along with the transcript of conversations between him and the dealership.
The Motor Ombudsman Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with registration number 06517394, whose registered office is at 71 Great Peter Street, London SW1P 2BN
Copyright 2016 The Motor Ombudsman Limited. All Rights reserved TMO and The Motor Ombudsman Logo are Trademarks of The Motor Ombudsman Limited
Page |
2
The vehicle Mr xxxxxxxxxx purchased does not have active park assist, you will see from the specification sent to Mr xxxxxxxxxx that the vehicle has “Parktronic park assist”, this is correct and true to spec. If the vehicle had autonomous parking the specification would state “Active parking assist with Parktronic”. Please also note on the specification list it states “When purchasing a vehicle it is your responsibility to ensure that the specification and optional extras meet you requirements, as these may differ from the vehicle demonstrated or viewed” I am afraid that the vehicle Mr xxxxxxxxxx selected and accepted delivery of does not have the “Active parking assist with Parktronic” function and unfortunately this is not a feature that can be added retrospectively. We would not support any goodwill to Mr xxxxxxxxxx, please do not hesitate to contact me should you need any further information Kind regards Joanne Sharp, F&I Executive Assistant, Listers Group Ltd”
My findings
I appreciate this is not the outcome that you have been hoping for but based on the evidence sent to me by both sides I am unable to uphold the complaint. Please find the reason for my decision below.
As with any claim submitted to The Motor Ombudsman’s adjudication service, I must make my decision based on the balance of probabilities – this means that in order to uphold a complaint, I must be able to see that it is more likely than not that the Code of Practice has been breached.
Miss-selling
Any advertisements, promotions or any other publications or communications, whether in writing or otherwise, will not contain any content which is likely to mislead you or be misunderstood.
The file submission provided by the business has noted the vehicle does not have “Active parking assist with Parktronic.” But as per the vehicle specification order it does have “Parktronic park assist.”
I cannot see that you have submitted any evidence which shows the vehicle specification for the model you ordered had Active parking assist with Parktronic.
There is an onus on the customer to check whether the vehicle that has been ordered meets their specification. In addition, when the vehicle is delivered a customer is provided with an opportunity to inspect the vehicle to ensure it meets their requirement.
You have acknowledged the business did not mislead you- you have alleged the vehicle was delivered with a missing component that you expected would be present but the manufacturer without notifying you or the business chose to no longer provide.
Based on the evidence available to me-I cannot agree the business has acted in breach of the Code by providing you with misleading information or that the vehicle is missing a component which was ordered and paid by you.
Compensation
I thought I should remind you of the ‘Remedies – we can recommend” section of the Consumer Complaint Form you completed when referring your complaint to this service. This explains that to resolve a complaint we can recommend the following:
The Motor Ombudsman Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with registration number 06517394, whose registered office is at 71 Great Peter Street, London SW1P 2BN
Copyright 2016 The Motor Ombudsman Limited. All Rights reserved TMO and The Motor Ombudsman Logo are Trademarks of The Motor Ombudsman Limited
Page |
3
✓ “an apology; ✓ an explanation of what went wrong; ✓ a practical action to correct the problem; ✓ and/or a financial award… Please be aware that you will need to be able to provide evidence of any financial losses, such as receipts or invoices, and be able to demonstrate that you have kept your losses to a minimum.”
For avoidance of doubt, this means we are unable to recommend a financial award where there has been no financial loss (i.e. compensation for distress, inconvenience, trouble and upset).
What happens next
I would be grateful if both you and the business can complete the adjudication response form, within the next 10 working days, letting me know what they’d like to do. This will explain their options in more detail.
If either you or the business have any questions, or need further information from me, please don’t hesitate to get in touch.
Kind Regards,
Mala Darbar
Adjudicator The Motor Ombudsman Limited
Web: TheMotorOmbudsman.org
71 Great Peter St, London SW1P 2BN • E: [email protected]
TheMotorOmbudsman.org

Sorry to hear that the outcome wasn't in your favour.

It seems that Lister are in effect saying that your car isn't one of those vehicles that were fitted with active park assist which was then disabled due to the UN directive, instead they are saying that your car was never specced with this feature in the first place.

And, presumably, you have no proof of your verbal conversation with the sales person who told you the car will have active park assist.

Again, sorry to hear the outcome.

EDIT: The spec list you posted earlier does have 'Active Park Assist Reduction (UN R79)', but there's no other mentioning of Park Assist that I can see? That should have been proof that the feature was indeed removed rather than never specified.
 
Last edited:
Is this the case if I go to M B for service they will deactivate my active park assist without consulting me .
 
But they did on mine! They never mentioned about park assist.

So you had active park assist working on your car, and the dealer then disabled it during a service? Once you left the dealer after the service, active park assist was no longer working? Is that what you are saying?
 
So you had active park assist working on your car, and the dealer then disabled it during a service? Once you left the dealer after the service, active park assist was no longer working? Is that what you are saying?
Yes. I even saw the message first time I went into a parking area something along the lines of "Park assist deactivated" and the blue P was gone.

Surprisingly though, yesterday the blue P came back after 48 hours or so and it has started to detect parking spaces again. But, it isn't working as expected. Won't give me gear shift instructions and steering calibration is all over the place.

Not sure what to make of this. It was working flawlessly before.
 
Yes. I even saw the message first time I went into a parking area something along the lines of "Park assist deactivated" and the blue P was gone.

Surprisingly though, yesterday the blue P came back after 48 hours or so and it has started to detect parking spaces again. But, it isn't working as expected. Won't give me gear shift instructions and steering calibration is all over the place.

Not sure what to make of this. It was working flawlessly before.

This does not sound right.... the 'reduction' of the Active Park Assist shouldn't have deactivated the Park Assist system altogether, I.e. the 'passive' Park Assist (and the blue P) should still be operational. I have a feeling that the issue with your Park Assist might be a different one to the UN Directive issue.
 
This does not sound right.... the 'reduction' of the Active Park Assist shouldn't have deactivated the Park Assist system altogether, I.e. the 'passive' Park Assist (and the blue P) should still be operational. I have a feeling that the issue with your Park Assist might be a different one to the UN Directive issue.
My two cents: I have nothing - neither Active nor "Passive" on my 2021 model, and my suspicion based on comments from various posters is that at any given time Mercedes Benz were unclear on precisely what level of deactivation to apply and have changed their boundaries over the past several months.

Can anyone with access to knowledge of the appropriate software clarify to us whether there is such granularity in the system configuration that distinguishes between these various degrees of parking assistance, and whether there is a configurable difference between parallel and perpendicular parking?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom