Software Updates ZS EV 2023 under Warranty?

[Data]

To be fair hmadsen, bi-annual brake fluid changes are the industry norm for all makes. Citroen require one after the first 3yrs then bi-annually. All my German cars require it every two years as does Ford. But I completely take your points about everything else.

 

[Rutsy]

Rutsy, I think you've misunderstood the situation by quite some way. Where did it say the cars were Tesla charging compatible? Answer: no where. No one has been mis-sold their car. The cars of course were sold as CCS compatible because they were & are. Are you not sure what CCS charging is?

Yes, most manufacturers are charging for the enhancement & the installation too. At least the enhancement is free with MG & the install too if done with a service. Any dealer not doing it for free is to be avoided.

I was just making what I assumed to be a non-controversial point that if an item is misdescribed at sale then the seller should meet the full cost of fixing it. You obviously don't believe it is reasonable take at face value that when a car is described as CCS compatible it is, in fact, compatible with all CCS chargers. I disagree. But don't confuse that with me misunderstanding the situation.

 

[Data]

I was just making what I assumed to be a non-controversial point that if an item is misdescribed at sale then the seller should meet the full cost of fixing it. You obviously don't believe it is reasonable take at face value that when a car is described as CCS compatible it is, in fact, compatible with all CCS chargers. I disagree. But don't confuse that with me misunderstanding the situation.

Well with huge respect, you've just admitted again you don't really understand the situation, particularly CCS & Tesla. Tesla was always a closed network of chargers, not useable by us MG owners or others. Saying a car is CCS compatible doesn't mean it can charge at all charging networks. If MG said the car is compatible with all charging networks including Tesla, that at the time would have constituted a breach of the laws relating to trades description. They have never said that. I say that with my lawyers hat on. It was a network issue, nothing to do with CCS. MG & others were compliant with the UK trades description act & remain so. You can however blame the government for introducing some legislation at the time that caused Tesla chargers to be brought into the mix in an unclear way. This caused some delays. Tesla were given in effect, special status to allow them to comply with the legislation. They faced some technical challenges to overcome that other charge operators didn't have. So is everything rosey? Not quite! Some Tesla sites are still not open to the public due to those challengers & I suspect cost. But that is really a side issue to what you are talking about, but has led some to think it's the car makers at fault. If that were true almost every car seller in the UK would have been sued. Just saying!

 

[Rutsy]

Well with huge respect, you've just admitted again you don't really understand the situation, particularly CCS & Tesla. Tesla was always a closed network of chargers, not useable by us MG owners or others. Saying a car is CCS compatible doesn't mean it can charge at all charging networks. If MG said the car is compatible with all charging networks including Tesla, that at the time would have constituted a breach of the laws relating to trades description. They have never said that. I say that with my lawyers hat on. It was a network issue, nothing to do with CCS. MG & others were compliant with the UK trades description act & remain so. You can however blame the government for introducing some legislation at the time that caused Tesla chargers to be brought into the mix in an unclear way. This caused some delays. Tesla were given in effect, special status to allow them to comply with the legislation. They faced some technical challenges to overcome that other charge operators didn't have. So is everything rosey? Not quite! Some Tesla sites are still not open to the public due to those challengers & I suspect cost. But that is really a side issue to what you are talking about, but has led some to think it's the car makers at fault. If that were true almost every car seller in the UK would have been sued. Just saying!

Thanks for your respect. I've clearly aggravated you by pointing out your initial post wasn't entirely correct.

Is it common ground between us that that only cars bought before May 2022 were in fact sold before Tesla superchargers became available to other makes in the UK?

Unsurprisingly MG also seem to believe that CCS means all available CCS chargers to it's customers.Why else would it have modified it's software to accommodate Tesla chargers on its newer models and on later production of its existing models? So, would you mind putting your lawyers hat on again and explain what difference there is between these vehicles and those unmodified vehicles sold after May 2022?On the face of it both of these categories of vehicles had the same range of chargers potentially available to them.

My guess is that MG recognised the contradiction, updated it's software and then MG UK decided to penny pinch by passing the installation costs to its dealers, who unsurprisingly have passed this on to customers.

Me? I've had my ZSEV updated and It works a treat. It was done for free after I made a complaint to the motor ombudsman.

 

[Data]

Hello Rutsy, no you haven't annoyed me at all. Always nice to chat.

Please carry on as before. It's clear you are confused & I don't want to stand in the way of your truths, however different they are to the reality of the situation. Have a great day!

 

[Gadget Geek]

Hello Rutsy, no you haven't annoyed me at all. Always nice to chat.

Please carry on as before. It's clear you are confused & I don't want to stand in the way of your truths, however different they are to the reality of the situation. Have a great day!

That reply seems a bit condescending in my opinion.

If the ombudsman upheld the complaint, then @Rutsy was obviously correct in their opinion.

 

[Chris Law]

That reply seems a bit condescending in my opinion.

If the ombudsman upheld the complaint, then @Rutsy was obviously correct in their opinion.

Agree.

 

[Data]

Ok guys, thanks for the comments. My comments were little different to Rutsy's slightly 'off' remarks in his posts & were designed to finish my involvement in this thread. But let's take this a bit further then.

The introduction of the ombudsman into the conversation is interesting. But what was the claim being investigated? We don't actually know. Rutsy hasn't said or provided any proof! While the ombudsman has powers it can be a bit different to a court decision. I've dealt with the ombudsman frequently in a number of cases, motor related and otherwise. I know the system very well. It's a good system. It was my second career.

However, I suspect Rutsy asked for a judgement on the fairness of paying for the free update to be installed to allow charging at a Tesla super hub. But we obviously don't know that until proof is provided, but it seems logical. It's very unlikely it could be anything else especially with regard to Rutsy's claim about CCS compatibility being misleading. Did he ask MG to be investigated? Or the dealer? What exactly was that investigation about? What was the exact judgement? Which bits were accepted & which bits rejected? What was the total claim outcome? We may never know so conclusions are ill placed just now. Just because the ombudsman got him a free upgrade doesn't actually mean MG had mislead anyone.

I will add that anyone with legal training & understanding of English consumer law will see why I've said what I did in earlier posts. MG did not at anytime break consumer law by deliberately misleading car buyers. That's pretty obvious to legal eagles. For Rutsy to claim that they did based upon the things he has said so far is frankly far fetched.

Anyway, I'm not trying to offend anyone or be rude. I'm a stickler for detail which comes from my engineering days & legal training. Have to say I'm no longer too interested at this stage but trying to just keep the conversation grounded. So I'm out & thanks to all for an interesting chat.

 

[hmadsen]

The CCS standard is probably very specific with a lot of stuff, i bet there is some "corner" of that standard that Tesla uses, but everyone else does not.

The MG might conform to all CCS standards used by everyone else, but Tesla, in that case they are CCS compatible .... Just not with Tesla.


Or Maybe Tesla is not 100% CCS compliant....Maybe they want some specific answer for a command they send to the OBC and the MG did not have this answer enabled and since Tesla opened up, everyone found out Tesla needs "special treatment".

This might also be why they call it a "comfort update" because Tesla actually broke the standard and they adapted their software to this.

 

[Catsailor]

I have a 25 plate MG ZS EV long range. Sold to me as "pre-registered". Before buying I asked if the car had received all the updates and was told "yes". On checking the VIN it appears the car was actually manufactured in 2023. So I asked again if the car had received all updates. Dealership eventually had it in for a day to "apply" the updates including specifically the Tesla update and the V2L. So I took it to a Tesla charger. The charger refused to recognise the car. I took it to 5 Tesla chargers at 2 different locations and had the assistance of Tesla staff at one. It doesn't work. The dealership want it back for a week

My contract is with the dealership not MG so I will press ahead with them. My point here is that Dealerships know, and have the technology to find out, what Software has been applied to the car. When they sell a car it should be "as described". So I was sold a car described as a "pre registered 2025 plate car with all updates applied". The dealership should not try to wriggle out of their responsibility to comply with the express and implied terms of the contract of sale. But wriggle they do. It's really bad customer relations.

 

[Catsailor]

But the press release for the facelifted ZS promised OTA updates. Not "some" or "occasional" or "limited" updates. The press release says:

The New ZS EV also sees the first over the air (OTA) software updates from MG. Owners will receive any new software updates, including new features and improvements, through iSMART at the touch of a button, rather than visiting their local dealership.

Whether a Press Release constitutes a legally binding commitment is a question that I refer to my learned friend.

 

[Steve Kaye]

My local dealer in New Zealand reckons they dont even know what software updates they are loading into the car
I did say to them maybe they need to find out.. so that we know if the updates they installed actually do what they are meant to
They couldnt grasp the concept..

 

[Chris H]

At my first service the dealer said software updates are free, but 'none came up as being required' so none were done. I did ask if that meant only updates flagged as essential or any updated software but it was just receptionist and didn't really know.

 

[Data]

Yes, looks like the deskr

I have a 25 plate MG ZS EV long range. Sold to me as "pre-registered". Before buying I asked if the car had received all the updates and was told "yes". On checking the VIN it appears the car was actually manufactured in 2023. So I asked again if the car had received all updates. Dealership eventually had it in for a day to "apply" the updates including specifically the Tesla update and the V2L. So I took it to a Tesla charger. The charger refused to recognise the car. I took it to 5 Tesla chargers at 2 different locations and had the assistance of Tesla staff at one. It doesn't work. The dealership want it back for a week

My contract is with the dealership not MG so I will press ahead with them. My point here is that Dealerships know, and have the technology to find out, what Software has been applied to the car. When they sell a car it should be "as described". So I was sold a car described as a "pre registered 2025 plate car with all updates applied". The dealership should not try to wriggle out of their responsibility to comply with the express and implied terms of the contract of sale. But wriggle they do. It's really bad customer relations.

Looks like your dealer really messed up there Catsailor. Looks like is was an honest mistake though. It's a good reason as a customer to be vigilant. Not sure why you think your dealer is trying to wriggle out of their responsibilities though. You've just said they are correcting the issue.

 

[Catsailor]

Yes, looks like the deskr

Looks like your dealer really messed up there Catsailor. Looks like is was an honest mistake though. It's a good reason as a customer to be vigilant. Not sure why you think your dealer is trying to wriggle out of their responsibilities though. You've just said they are correcting the issue.

Because it's been a real struggle to get them to investigate let alone carry out the work.

 

[Data]

Because it's been a real struggle to get them to investigate let alone carry out the work.

Oh I see. Good job you were persistent.