Petrol Pete
Hardcore MB Enthusiast
We are out of the EU now. can MB now not legally re instate the function ? 
. Probably not that simple , nothing with MB is ever simple.
. Probably not that simple , nothing with MB is ever simple.
Park Assists Disabled on all new Mercedes help!
- Thread starter frostjr100
- Start date
Not that simple, I am sure. The regulation being cited is an EU regulation but only implements a UN regulation, which is an international standard. Despite all the misleading Brexit huffing and puffing, I am fairly sure the UK is not going it alone on product standards and, if they did, not many manufacturers would be interested. The unanswered question is what, specifically, in the regulation has caused MB to disable the feature in some, but not all, of their models and why other manufacturers have not had the same problem.We are out of the EU now. can MB now not legally re instate the function ?
Petrol Pete
Hardcore MB Enthusiast
No idea , but not looking good for Tesla (and all other 'self driving' cars) if cancelling a function like this is going to be the norm. MB obviously have their reasons and you have unfortunately got mixed up in it all.
Whether some see the function is a 'gimmick' or not , you paid for it and expect it to be working. I hope you get it sorted. The 'Starlight' roof lining in a Rolls Royce is a gimmick , but I bet RR owners would be properly pi$$ed off if RR saw fit to disable it !!
Just to be clear, the complaints in this thread are about features which were expected to be available on newly delivered cars but were not. There have not been any reported instances (yet) of them being removed from earlier vehicles.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2008
- Messages
- 47,734
- Location
- London
- Car
- 2022 Hyundai IONIQ 5 RWD / 2016 Suzuki Vitara AWD
- Firstly, MB UK cited the UN regulation as the reason why they have chosen to disable this feature. But they did not actually say if not disabling this feature would have rendered the car illegal in the UK or not. So the question whether the regulation is mandatory in the UK isn't directly relevant to the OP's issue - yet.
- In the past, MB UK have cited UK regulations as the reason for having UK instrument clusters with permanent KmH display. This isn't true though. The reason is simply that some features on the instrument cluster menu cannot be accessed on a European car when the KmH display is on. So it's in fact a convenience issue, not a legal issue.
In conclusion, MB has decided to disable this feature. The legality of this feature is a red herring, IMO.
- In the past, MB UK have cited UK regulations as the reason for having UK instrument clusters with permanent KmH display. This isn't true though. The reason is simply that some features on the instrument cluster menu cannot be accessed on a European car when the KmH display is on. So it's in fact a convenience issue, not a legal issue.
In conclusion, MB has decided to disable this feature. The legality of this feature is a red herring, IMO.
TommyTroot
Member
Hi Markjay, my complaint is not about the reasoning behind the removal of this function, it is that the car was sold to me with no mention of it having been removed and as I have said before my dealer seemed to have no idea that it had been removed, so to my mind Mercedes have mis-sold me the car. which is why I have went the Motor Ombudsman, nothing back from them yet.
chic0821
MB Enthusiast
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2016
- Messages
- 1,119
- Location
- Scotland
- Car
- S63 AMG Coupe, Range Rover Sport, 992 Porsche Carrera 4S
They are saying they are not offering this function in several of their vehicles. Does that mean it is still active in some models. Why do they not say its no longer available. Also you have paid for this function so why were you not contacted before delivery. I am sure if your choice of paint was being discontinued they would contact you or will they just choose another colour for you.
Hey,
I have followed your debate the last couple of weeks from Denmark, since I have the same issue of disabled Park Assist with my new danish version C-Class, which I picked up 4 weeks ago. I contacted the dealer, who didn’t know this issue. However, he went back to me with a kind of explanation after being in contact with MB Denmark.
It seems this brand-new regulation (UN-R-79) was implemented late 2020 and effects C-Class and even the new E-Class (GLC/GLE) but not the new S-Class, since the censors on C/E-Class don’t comply with the new standard of UN-R-79. The accuracy of the sensors is too weak, since they don’t pick up smaller items – like a cat and likewise. Even the automatic lane changing assist is disabled for the same reason. Older cars are not affected – only cars produced in the second half of 2020. I was told new Volkswagens in Denmark have the same issue.
Like you guys in the UK I didn’t receive any compensation or pre-explanation prior to delivery, but I looked in the 2021 MB material and found that the Part Assist has been removed compared to the 2020 material.
And finally – it is not a gimmick…..if you live in a larger city like Copenhagen the Park Assist makes you daily life much easier.
TommyTroot
Member
Hi Mercedes fans , another wee update, The Motor Ombudsman UK has taken on my complaint as per below, I have removed some personal details but it shows you that they believe I have a case, still not hopeful of any compensation from Mercedes but I hope that they are forced in future to inform potential customers of issues like this. Still loving my GLC it ticks all my boxes.
|
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2008
- Messages
- 47,734
- Location
- London
- Car
- 2022 Hyundai IONIQ 5 RWD / 2016 Suzuki Vitara AWD
Is it binding on the car manufacturer/retailer?
From the Motor Ombudsman FAQ:
"Whatever happens, it’s up to you, the consumer, to decide if you’d like to accept the ombudsman’s decision or not. If you accept it, it will be binding on both you and the business. If you disagree with the final decision, which is the last stage of our ADR process, you have the right to pursue your case in a court of law. In this scenario, the judge may take into account the decision(s) delivered by The Motor Ombudsman when coming to their judgment."
"Whatever happens, it’s up to you, the consumer, to decide if you’d like to accept the ombudsman’s decision or not. If you accept it, it will be binding on both you and the business. If you disagree with the final decision, which is the last stage of our ADR process, you have the right to pursue your case in a court of law. In this scenario, the judge may take into account the decision(s) delivered by The Motor Ombudsman when coming to their judgment."
Good evening from a relative newbie.
I am seriously considering purchasing a B Class around mid-2021 and have been reading this thread with great interest. I make no apology for liking technology in cars, so I have been looking at the AMG Premium Plus model, ideally with Driving Assistance Package. I would be quite happy with a one year old used car, of which there are many for sale at main dealers in the £23 to £25k range, although despite several months searching on Autotrader, I have never seen one available with the Driving Assistance Package option. I am a fan of active/adaptive cruise control, so buying new would be the only way to get this feature, but at a price of £36k+, I am thinking again. Reading this thread and learning that a new car is likely to come without Active Park Assist (another gadget I have enjoyed on previous cars) and maybe other "Active" features, I am even less keen.
I checked on the MB UK website and the online configurator offers "Active Parking Assist with PARKTRONIC" and the E-Brochure states "Parking – Parking package" and "Parking – reversing camera with dynamic guidelines on media display, 180° view". Very confusing. I will try to speak to my local Mercedes main dealer in Edinburgh, but I am not hopeful of receiving a clear answer.
I will probably opt for a good used model and forego the adaptive cruise control and other Driving Assistance Package features, but will be most unhappy if features like Active Parking Assist were to be disabled at a service or over-the-air software updates.
I will keep following this thread with interest and hope those affected get a fair result.
David
I am seriously considering purchasing a B Class around mid-2021 and have been reading this thread with great interest. I make no apology for liking technology in cars, so I have been looking at the AMG Premium Plus model, ideally with Driving Assistance Package. I would be quite happy with a one year old used car, of which there are many for sale at main dealers in the £23 to £25k range, although despite several months searching on Autotrader, I have never seen one available with the Driving Assistance Package option. I am a fan of active/adaptive cruise control, so buying new would be the only way to get this feature, but at a price of £36k+, I am thinking again. Reading this thread and learning that a new car is likely to come without Active Park Assist (another gadget I have enjoyed on previous cars) and maybe other "Active" features, I am even less keen.
I checked on the MB UK website and the online configurator offers "Active Parking Assist with PARKTRONIC" and the E-Brochure states "Parking – Parking package" and "Parking – reversing camera with dynamic guidelines on media display, 180° view". Very confusing. I will try to speak to my local Mercedes main dealer in Edinburgh, but I am not hopeful of receiving a clear answer.
I will probably opt for a good used model and forego the adaptive cruise control and other Driving Assistance Package features, but will be most unhappy if features like Active Parking Assist were to be disabled at a service or over-the-air software updates.
I will keep following this thread with interest and hope those affected get a fair result.
David
TommyTroot
Member
Update: I got an E Mail from the Motor Ombudsman saying that they now have my evidence and they have a reply from my Mercedes dealer, they are making a decision but it can take months for this to be decided. No expectations but hey I tried.
wongl
MB Enthusiast
I am watching this thread with great interest - as I understand it, no (western) court will enforce a contract that breaks the law. So as it stands, MB and its customer strike a contract that is perfectly legal at the point of sale. However, between the striking of the contract and the delivery of the product, the law changed making one of the feature of the product illegal. MB's course of action is to render the product legal by disabling offending feature prior to delivering said product to customer.
Now I am not a lawyer, nor do I have a copy of the sales agreement/contract. But it would seems to me that MB has taken the correct actions to make the product legal (and one might even argue that it could even possibly charge the customer additional fee to render the product legal).
I know this line of thought may come across as controversial, but let's take a look at the current palaver with the illegal cladding. Said cladding was deemed legal at the 'point of sale' but subsequently made illegal by the UK government. Leaseholder have been advised that they will need to take up the cost to remedial said cladding! Not the manufacturers, the builders nor the freeholders! Although the government has made funds available to cover some buildings, the point of law here (if left unchanged) is that the current leaseholders, as 'owners' of the properties are liable for the corrective actions regardless of whether they can rely on the funds made available by the government.
NB. The UK may have left the EU, but the UK passed a law to 'adopt' all current EU legislations. This means that most (if not all) EU regulations apply equally in the UK until the UK government passes laws that superweed the legislations adopted, or the EU passes new legislations. It will be sometime before the UK legislations differs materially from the EU legislations.
Now I am not a lawyer, nor do I have a copy of the sales agreement/contract. But it would seems to me that MB has taken the correct actions to make the product legal (and one might even argue that it could even possibly charge the customer additional fee to render the product legal).
I know this line of thought may come across as controversial, but let's take a look at the current palaver with the illegal cladding. Said cladding was deemed legal at the 'point of sale' but subsequently made illegal by the UK government. Leaseholder have been advised that they will need to take up the cost to remedial said cladding! Not the manufacturers, the builders nor the freeholders! Although the government has made funds available to cover some buildings, the point of law here (if left unchanged) is that the current leaseholders, as 'owners' of the properties are liable for the corrective actions regardless of whether they can rely on the funds made available by the government.
NB. The UK may have left the EU, but the UK passed a law to 'adopt' all current EU legislations. This means that most (if not all) EU regulations apply equally in the UK until the UK government passes laws that superweed the legislations adopted, or the EU passes new legislations. It will be sometime before the UK legislations differs materially from the EU legislations.
TommyTroot
Member
Hi wongl, No argument with any of your points but the way I see it is that even if the Motor Ombudsman finds in Mercedes favour, at least I have highlighted the issue at least for readers of this forum, also my alternative was just to swallow it which just did not feel right especially considering the dealer had no idea the feature had been removed, so is their ignorance of the facts at point of sale my fault. It will be interesting to see what the Motor Ombudsman decides, I would be surprised if they would have taken the case on if there was no hope of a fair outcome.
Some interesting points. As you say, you are not a lawyer and neither am I. But I am sure you are correct in stating that a contract to perform an illegal act is unenforceable. However, you make an assumption that I believe is incorrect. It is not the case that systems offering the functionality of the MB system are illegal. Other manufacturers are continuing to provide them (my wife will be collecting a BMW with one on Saturday) and it has not been removed from all MB models. All MB are actually saying (I believe) is that their system does not meet the current requirements, which can only be a consequence of their particular design implementation. If you read the regulation (which I have) I think you will see that they do not outlaw active parking systems. They do require a safety case to be made, and this is where I suspect MB have run in to difficulty. One poster on here has suggested that the problem relates to the sensitivity of a particular sensor, which I find entirely plausible.
It may well be the case that MB have not the time (or inclination) to overcome the deficiency. As a non-lawyer, I believe that in that case they would be expected to notify the customer that they were not meeting the agreed specification. Depending on the circumstances, the customer would either be entitled to cancel the contract (unlikely in this case) or to some redress. What happened here is that the first the OP knew of the problem was when he pressed the appropriate button and nothing happened. He is understandably annoyed.
If I may say so, your building cladding analogy is flawed. The cladding was asserted to meet the building regulations, but seemingly did not. The legislation changes are aimed at better ensuring compliance with existing requirements, and detecting past failures.
wongl
MB Enthusiast
Hi Tommy.
I did not say that MB did not slip up by not informing you and other customers of the 'corrective' action they took. I am interested to see what recommendations the Ombudsman will make/decide once they have reviewed the case from both sides.
I was merely pointing out that a court of law would not impose a contract that is illegal. But it does not means that a court of law would not find wrong doings that warrants compensation or other redress. Hence it would be interesting to see what decision the Ombudsman will take and what factors they took into consideration in making such decisions.
Chances are there is a clause in the sales contract with words to the effect that 'if a clause/wording is deemed illegal by a court, then the offending clause/wording would be strikeout leaving the rest of the contract intact'. This means that a court of law will have to consider the acts of MB within the context of the T&C agreed between seller and buyer to come to a decision based on the actual T&C together with the points of law presented for argument from both sides.
wongl
MB Enthusiast
Flawed or not MB cannot be forced to deliver a feature that is deemed illegal to a customer. Whether this means that MB will have to compensate or even refund the car would be depend on the arguments presented by both sides.
With out all the facts, personally I think the right thing would be for MB to at least refund the cost of the features disabled. Unless of course MB is working on a solution to address this (like they did with the skid control for the W168 A-Class when it was discovered that it failed the Elk Test after launch).
If the feature itself is not illegal, MB (the dealer) is bound to provide it if it sold a car with it
if the underlying technology of that feature is illegal, MB is still in breach of contract for failing to provide that feature. this would not be enforcing an illegal contract, it would be MB failing to provide a legal feature which compiles with applicable law
if the underlying technology of that feature is illegal, MB is still in breach of contract for failing to provide that feature. this would not be enforcing an illegal contract, it would be MB failing to provide a legal feature which compiles with applicable law
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2008
- Messages
- 47,734
- Location
- London
- Car
- 2022 Hyundai IONIQ 5 RWD / 2016 Suzuki Vitara AWD
The only caveat is that MB say that it would have been illegal for them to supply the customer with a car that had active park assist - but do we know that it's true? Perhaps they have misinterpreted the UN directive, for example (as has happened with the UK instrument cluster - MB UK erroneously said it was due to 'legal reasons' - but this is not true, car with the 'delete UK' mod are in fact still perfectly legal to drive in the UK)?
What adds to the confusion is that cars that already have this feature have not been recalled to disable it (illegal is illegal, right?), and apparently some models are stil sold with this feature active?
So setting aside the obvious commercial element of this dispute, it will be interesting to see if MB's 'legal' arguments actually stand up to scrutiny.
