MG4 Restricted speed - weird

[bowfer]

That's interesting. Didn't you get turtle mode below 5% SoC?

Spooky, just replied to the same effect.
I’m sure turtle mode in the leaf kicked in at around 8-9%.

 

[Rolfe]

Odd that your car still allowed those speeds at such a low SOC.
Maybe a fault in itself.

It asked me if I wanted to go into economy mode, and I said no I didn't. At that point I was about 20 miles from home with about 28 miles showing on the GOM. I was perfectly confident of getting there. The car obviously believed me and acted accordingly.

Spooky, just replied to the same effect.
I’m sure turtle mode in the leaf kicked in at around 8-9%.

I can't imagine anything more annoying than having your car go into turtle mode with 15 miles worth of normal driving still in the tank, when you're only eight or ten miles from home, or a reliable charger.

I didn't see a turtle. I'm not sure exactly when the display flipped from 5% to 4%, but the final mile or so was mostly in a 20 mph zone so I wasn't in any position to see if the car would take off. I didn't notice any power reduction - for what it's worth at that speed. What did happen was that at 4% the dashboard started to get very lively indeed with low battery warnings and a drop-down warning saying low battery please charge immediately. The SoC bar on the central screen also changed to amber (which is presumably where the amber comes from when it shows up amber at higher SoC values - a glitch).

I imagine the car is set to believe the driver's assessment that a charge can be accessed within the remaining range, without unduly restricting power output. However I also imagine that the turtle will appear at some point. I just don't think I quite got there. I still had eight miles on the GOM when I pulled in beside the rapid charger.

ETA: I was watching a couple of these videos where they deliberately drove various EVs until they completely died. The MG4 wasn't one of the ones tested, but what came out of the test was that even when the SoC is showing as zero all the cars had around eight to ten miles crawling along in turtle mode. Some of them came up with a message that only manoeuvering was possible (presumably to get the car positioned at the charger) but one guy said that he had managed to crawl about five miles even with this warning showing.

I think it's entirely reasonable to let the driver control whether or not the car goes into super-economy mode until very close to empty. The driver knows where they're heading and how far the next charger is - the car doesn't, unless it has Tesla-style software. In my case I was heading for a charger I had already been assured was working, and even if it hadn't been, its own granny charger was only 400 yards further on.

 

[Rolfe]

As an extra bonus, I discovered that I do have the facility to get the car to 100% by the morning if I return in the evening very low. I connected to the rapid charger at 9.22 pm (careful note made because of the overstay fine). By 10.16 it had gone up from 4% to 67%. I took it home and connected it to the granny charger, and the app promptly informed me that it would be done by 7.30 am. So half an hour to balance and it would have been finished by eight.

 

[bowfer]

anyway….
@richlove how is the rejection going?

 

[richlove]

anyway….
@richlove how is the rejection going?

Hmm, it's not, yet. I've been in contact with my HR department as the car is though work via Tusker. They're due to speak with Tusker today to find out what the options are before I call MG Beaconsfield.

Sooo, another update...

Just spoke with Tusker, who don't seem to be particularly helpful. The vibe I get is that they're out to protect their own interests, thinly veiled as trying to support the customer. Perhaps they're compatible and complementary goals, but it feels as though there is potential conflict on the horizon.

They seemed particularly aggrieved that I had been dealing directly with MG to try to get this issue resolved, without them being involved and making the decision at each step of the way. I thought I was doing the 'right' thing, though clearly not, in Tusker's eyes.

They've made it abundantly clear that they have no intention to, and never have (!), returned any car for a rejection. They say they need at least an opportunity to speak with MG and initiate a further investigation, even though it's now had three and they initiated the first. I was also told previously, by a different Tusker employee, that they would try for one resolution before considering rejection.

The guy told me that it is completely out of my hands as to what they will decide as it's their car and the Consumer Rights Act 2015 is largely irrelevant to me, as they call the shots. However, reading The BVRLA Guide to Consumer Rights, it seems that 'the consumer' has this right, though I'm not 100% clear who the consumer is at this point.

They also said that even though it may be 2-3 months of being without my car and still paying for it, the courtesy car supplied may not be of equal value/quality/size. I told him there are certain things I may not be able to do with a smaller car (e.g. transport my bike inside) and that wouldn't be fair for such a long period, and he simply said that that is what the T&Cs of the contract state.

I'm still not actually sure what I want as an outcome, I can't afford much else and all prices have gone up since I ordered this, so part of me would like to get it resolved, though I can't be arsed with a long, drawn-out 'let's try this', 'let's try that', @bowfer -style ordeal. However, it seems like my hands may be tied.

 

[Rolfe]

Oh no!

 

[bowfer]

You say it’s through work, presumably a lease (salary sacrifice maybe)?
If it were me I’d be all over your HR department citing the stress this is causing, for starters.
Your employer absolutely has to take an interest in this as it’s their chosen supplier, not yours.
I’d say ‘play the mental health card’ but that’s trivialising the actual effect it will be having in your mental health.

 

[richlove]

You say it’s through work, presumably a lease (salary sacrifice maybe)?
If it were me I’d be all over your HR department citing the stress this is causing, for starters.
Your employer absolutely has to take an interest in this as it’s their chosen supplier, not yours.
I’d say ‘play the mental health card’ but that’s trivialising the actual effect it will be having in your mental health.

Yeah, salary sacrifice. I have involved my HR department, they're being quite supportive. I'll speak with them on Monday.

Tusker called this morning, they're authorising the repair and forcing me into a not-necessarily like-for-like vehicle for the duration. They are particularly difficult to deal with and ended up going around in circles.

I'm trying to figure out my rights, legally. If anybody has a couple of spare minutes and could skim-read the first page or two of the BVRLA Guide to Consumer Rights PDF, I'm trying to understand if 'the consumer' is me, or the lease company (who technically owns the car) ?

It feels as though it's me from reading that document and that I should therefore have a right to reject etc, though Tusker is telling me I don't.

 

[Rolfe]

Commiserations. I really feel for you.

 

[WonkoTheSaneUK]

I'm trying to figure out my rights, legally. If anybody has a couple of spare minutes and could skim-read the first page or two of the BVRLA Guide to Consumer Rights PDF, I'm trying to understand if 'the consumer' is me, or the lease company (who technically owns the car) ?

It feels as though it's me from reading that document and that I should therefore have a right to reject etc, though Tusker is telling me I don't.

I'm in no way a legalologist, but it looks to me like you are the "consumer" (end user), and Tusker are the "member" (of BVRLA)

 

[richlove]

I'm in no way a legalologist, but it looks to me like you are the "consumer" (end user), and Tusker are the "member" (of BVRLA)

Thanks, I've re-read it several times, and that's how it reads to me also. Cheers.

 

[Rolfe]

Spooky, just replied to the same effect.
I’m sure turtle mode in the leaf kicked in at around 8-9%.

I was watching Bjorn Nyland's video where he drove a Trophy to a standstill. Now we're talking the SR on this thread (I think - or have LR cars also been affected?) but it's still probably relevant. He was surprised by the way the car remained responsive and not restricted until battery level was very low indeed. He finally got signs about restricted power, but I think it might have already been showing 0% at that point. I think the turtle only appeared after the nominal 0% had been reached - I should maybe watch it again.

What I didn't pick up was how he responded when he got the question about should the car go into economy mode, which appears at about 10% SoC. My feeling is that your response to this dictates what happens afterwards, in that I believe a NO response is taken to indicate that the driver knows that a charger will be reached within the indicated remaining range, even at normal driving speeds. I suspect (but don't know) that power restriction might cut in a lot earlier if you answered YES.

Bjorn was even running the HVAC, and the car didn't switch it off.

He got an extra 15 miles out of that Trophy after the displayed range was shown as zero.

To me this makes this weird fault all the more anomalous. If the SR is set up in the same way as the Trophy (and the way my car behaved down to 4% would suggest that it is, though I have no intention of trying Bjorn's experiment to see what happens after that), then it's normally pretty hard to get it into a state where it's limiting speed or power to conserve battery.

It's also weird that MG seem to have cured a couple of cars, and yet Bowfer's and Richlove's cars remain obdurate and frankly not of merchantable quality.

 

[Mars6394]

Yeah, salary sacrifice. I have involved my HR department, they're being quite supportive. I'll speak with them on Monday.

Tusker called this morning, they're authorising the repair and forcing me into a not-necessarily like-for-like vehicle for the duration. They are particularly difficult to deal with and ended up going around in circles.

I'm trying to figure out my rights, legally. If anybody has a couple of spare minutes and could skim-read the first page or two of the BVRLA Guide to Consumer Rights PDF, I'm trying to understand if 'the consumer' is me, or the lease company (who technically owns the car) ?

It feels as though it's me from reading that document and that I should therefore have a right to reject etc, though Tusker is telling me I don't.

Stick with rejecting you are just the registered keeper but you have a right to reject.mine has been going on 11 weeks now no end in sight.the car is on finance so technically is not my vehicle until paid.they ie garage n dealer are fighting each other over liability trying to get out saying it wasn’t sold to me like that ie loss power oil leaks locked in etc I am now progressing to court proceedings in 21days time don’t let them tell u what u can or can’t do they don’t want your car back as it will cost them lots

 

[richlove]

Thanks for the feedback, guys, much appreciated.

So, another update. Having spent the morning sifting through the BVRLA guide to consumer rights and making various notes, I ended up calling the BVRLA to clarify I am the consumer. It turns out that I'm not the consumer and that it's been time wasted. Because the contract is between Tusker and my employer it's a 'Master Hire Agreement' and the Consumer Rights Act 2015 doesn't apply. This means I have no right to rejection and, apparently, any decision on rejection would come from the manufacturer! (which I guess is going to be very unlikely).

They also said I have no recourse to being put in a small relief car for 2-3 months (which could be much smaller than the MG4) because it's in my contract, even though this situation is somewhat unusual.

I have no idea where this leaves me now.

 

[Rolfe]

Jeez that's awful. I have no help to offer, but my sympathy.

 

[ianwlk]

Thanks for the feedback, guys, much appreciated.

So, another update. Having spent the morning sifting through the BVRLA guide to consumer rights and making various notes, I ended up calling the BVRLA to clarify I am the consumer. It turns out that I'm not the consumer and that it's been time wasted. Because the contract is between Tusker and my employer it's a 'Master Hire Agreement' and the Consumer Rights Act 2015 doesn't apply. This means I have no right to rejection and, apparently, any decision on rejection would come from the manufacturer! (which I guess is going to be very unlikely).

They also said I have no recourse to being put in a small relief car for 2-3 months (which could be much smaller than the MG4) because it's in my contract, even though this situation is somewhat unusual.

I have no idea where this leaves me now.

I think you have rather clearly described where you are. Let's face it, there will likely be a downside when you enter into a contract which saves you a shed load of money.

 

[Eber]

I have no idea where this leaves me now.

From now on document everything with date and time. Always set deadlines in writing.

I don't know about the UK, but in Germany the first consultation with an attorney is free. Maybe this might help you to set up a scheme?

 

[bowfer]

You need to take this further.
Frankly, I think the BVRLA person is mistaken, it makes no sense that just because you’re on a salary sacrifice deal through your company you’re devoid of any legal recourse against a crap car.
I can see why ‘you’ taking Tusker on is possibly an issue though, as they don’t see ‘you’ as the customer.
So your HR department has to assume the role of fighting on your behalf.

 

[Ian Key]

You need to take this further.
Frankly, I think the BVRLA person is mistaken, it makes no sense that just because you’re on a salary sacrifice deal through your company you’re devoid of any legal recourse against a crap car.
I can see why ‘you’ taking Tusker on is possibly an issue though, as they don’t see ‘you’ as the customer.
So your HR department has to assume the role of fighting on your behalf.

I agree. As I see it you are paying your company not Tusker for the hire of a company car until you either buy it from them at the end of the agreement or hand it back so they are responsible for supplying you with a working vehicle.

 

[bowfer]

Glad I didn’t go down the salary sacrifice route, seeing this.
Rejection is a tough fight as it is, a disinterested HR department is just another obstacle.
It’s not as if you can withhold the payments either, when it’s removed at source!