MG UK Provide Courtesy Cars

[Gomev]

I guess some people have different moral standards to me. In my IT business we bend over backwards to help people and our reputation earned over the last 30 years is second to none. In my view a salesman only ever sells one item, the first one, any subsequent purchases result from service and support the customer received on that first purchase.


I totally accept that, of course I do BUT there is a legal duty to sell a product without faults. They have to be given one opportunity to repair it or you can legally reject the vehicle. Dont you think a manufacturer would rather give you a courtesy car than the customer going the legal route?


Yep, as I have said already, I wont be buying another MG product when this MG5 goes back.

I'm sure some people do have different moral attitudes but this is not about morals. It is about legal rights and customer service. You technically in your business are doing no more in fact than MG or Hyundai or many others are doing. That is going above and beyond what is required and providing customer service beyond legal requirements.

I'm sure nobody is arguing with your second point, but we also have to remember that the responsibility falls upon the retailer, not the manufacturer to provide a refund, repair, or replacement under the Consumer Rights Act. So once again if MG or Hyundai whoever are offering Assist then that is customer service above and beyond what is necessary.

As to your third point, you you may have noticed I went that route some while ago.

I am not contesting what you stand for, or disagreeing with your sentiments, but merely trying to observe it's context without emotion.

I'll leave the last word for you if you want it.

 

[tsedge]

This is an interesting discussion.

I think many of these kinds of problems are caused by the artificial separation of manufacturer and dealer into separate businesses, together with the impact of having a problem with one's car.

When I buy an appliance for the home, I do expect the manufacturer to take it back and fix it and I expect there to be a simple way to return it at no cost to me. But I don't expect to have a temporary replacement provided while they fix it - that is my problem to solve - even if I have a fault with something as essential as a refrigerator. And I would generally not expect to deal with the retailer, except as a convenient point for me to return the goods, although these days a pre-arranged collection from home would be far more convenient.

With a car, the impact is bigger for most people, so we expect the retailer to deal with it. We also bring a car back in for servicing and MOT each year to the retailer, so we have an ongoing relationship with them. The face of the manufacturer is the retailer and we expect them to provide a courtesy car. Our overall expectations are quite different.

I do think that car manufacturers should recognise this and stop persisting with the artificial separation of manufacturer and retailer - whether or not they legally have separate businesses isn't the issue so much as getting both to appear as one entity to the customer. I should only ever have to deal with one "MG" and should not need to care about how franchises are set up, run or how they make their money.

Perhaps this is only optimal through vertical integration into one business, but I do think some companies do this pretty well already by having strict standards with their dealers that wrap their arms around the customer and only present one face to the customer, with no "We'll have to talk to X to see if they agree / approve it".

 

[johnb80]

I'll leave the last word for you if you want it.

I dont need your permission to speak!