McLaren Servicing - What a shambles....
Discussion
Hi all, nice to see the video being discussed here.
I think what's going on is a very classic case of many points of failure, but nobody willing to admit they're *all* to blame.
McLaren are not building cars to the correct standard, the dealers are not prepping them to the correct standard, and when they're breaking they aren't being looked after in the correct way either.
A further development to the video is that yesterday the 720 developed an ESC fault, which will not go away, thus rendering the car pretty much useless. So, it seems unlikely that car will even be available for the next couple of weeks.
I think what's going on is a very classic case of many points of failure, but nobody willing to admit they're *all* to blame.
McLaren are not building cars to the correct standard, the dealers are not prepping them to the correct standard, and when they're breaking they aren't being looked after in the correct way either.
A further development to the video is that yesterday the 720 developed an ESC fault, which will not go away, thus rendering the car pretty much useless. So, it seems unlikely that car will even be available for the next couple of weeks.
jayemm89 said:
Hi all, nice to see the video being discussed here.
I think what's going on is a very classic case of many points of failure, but nobody willing to admit they're *all* to blame.
McLaren are not building cars to the correct standard, the dealers are not prepping them to the correct standard, and when they're breaking they aren't being looked after in the correct way either.
A further development to the video is that yesterday the 720 developed an ESC fault, which will not go away, thus rendering the car pretty much useless. So, it seems unlikely that car will even be available for the next couple of weeks.
Did the buyer ask for the car’s software to be updated to the latest versions? Or is it already at the latest release? I think what's going on is a very classic case of many points of failure, but nobody willing to admit they're *all* to blame.
McLaren are not building cars to the correct standard, the dealers are not prepping them to the correct standard, and when they're breaking they aren't being looked after in the correct way either.
A further development to the video is that yesterday the 720 developed an ESC fault, which will not go away, thus rendering the car pretty much useless. So, it seems unlikely that car will even be available for the next couple of weeks.
PompeyReece said:
Did the buyer ask for the car’s software to be updated to the latest versions? Or is it already at the latest release?
Should the buyer need to ask?I went out earlier this week fully intending to buy a new McLaren and have to agree that the buying experience needs work: not the absolute worst I've ever experienced but sufficiently lacklustre as to make me decide not to put my hand in my pocket.
I've suffered minor but annoying post-purchase service issues with both Aston and Bentley but the pre-sales was great and after-sales issues have generally been forgiven due to how well we get on with the cars. McLaren on the other hand fell (avoidably) at an early hurdle.
The dealers would do well to remember that nobody actually needs these cars and their business relies in no small measure on making their customers feel good throughout the purchase/ownership experience.
PMarioR said:
Interesting video about the absolute pain one can have with McLaren "Service"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7qpUqwLS9o
Are you one of the owners referred to in the video?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7qpUqwLS9o
Putting aside the typo's and poor grammar within the two documents, it appears that the intent of the documents is an attempt by the dealership to avoid their legal responsibility under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. If a potential fault(s) and quality issue is disclosed by the seller to the customer prior to sale, but the customer still proceeds with the purchase, the customer waives their right to reject the car / claim compensation / repair / refund against any fault and/or quality issues they were made aware of prior to purchase.
In effect, both documents are making the purchaser aware of potential issues, and the signature is proof of that. There is no other credible reason for the dealership to demand it. It is a get-out-of-jail-free card.
Highly unlikely McLaren Automotive condone this type of behaviour. The dealer is probably breaking McLaren’s own dealer standards. Someone high up at McLaren HQ will be raging over this.
In effect, both documents are making the purchaser aware of potential issues, and the signature is proof of that. There is no other credible reason for the dealership to demand it. It is a get-out-of-jail-free card.
Highly unlikely McLaren Automotive condone this type of behaviour. The dealer is probably breaking McLaren’s own dealer standards. Someone high up at McLaren HQ will be raging over this.
It's simply a s
t dealer, and by the sounds of it the worst one in the McLaren network.
My own experience at Hatfield has been exceptional. And my 720S has been 100% trouble/glitch/problem free. Woking have been fantastic to deal with too.
I do feel for the two Manchester customers. Horrible experience.
t dealer, and by the sounds of it the worst one in the McLaren network.My own experience at Hatfield has been exceptional. And my 720S has been 100% trouble/glitch/problem free. Woking have been fantastic to deal with too.
I do feel for the two Manchester customers. Horrible experience.
MAC 720S said:
Putting aside the typo's and poor grammar within the two documents, it appears that the intent of the documents is an attempt by the dealership to avoid their legal responsibility under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. If a potential fault(s) and quality issue is disclosed by the seller to the customer prior to sale, but the customer still proceeds with the purchase, the customer waives their right to reject the car / claim compensation / repair / refund against any fault and/or quality issues they were made aware of prior to purchase.
In effect, both documents are making the purchaser aware of potential issues, and the signature is proof of that. There is no other credible reason for the dealership to demand it. It is a get-out-of-jail-free card.
Highly unlikely McLaren Automotive condone this type of behaviour. The dealer is probably breaking McLaren’s own dealer standards. Someone high up at McLaren HQ will be raging over this.
I’d be interested to know how successful that document would be in court (if there are any lawyers in the house). Flagging up that a new car might be generically badly built (the clause about panel gaps, loose panels on the 720S) feels like the dealer is on shaky ground.In effect, both documents are making the purchaser aware of potential issues, and the signature is proof of that. There is no other credible reason for the dealership to demand it. It is a get-out-of-jail-free card.
Highly unlikely McLaren Automotive condone this type of behaviour. The dealer is probably breaking McLaren’s own dealer standards. Someone high up at McLaren HQ will be raging over this.
I could see the tactic being more successful if selling a used car you mentioned something specific (the stereo is broken)
jayemm89 said:
Hi all, nice to see the video being discussed here.
I think what's going on is a very classic case of many points of failure, but nobody willing to admit they're *all* to blame.
McLaren are not building cars to the correct standard, the dealers are not prepping them to the correct standard, and when they're breaking they aren't being looked after in the correct way either.
A further development to the video is that yesterday the 720 developed an ESC fault, which will not go away, thus rendering the car pretty much useless. So, it seems unlikely that car will even be available for the next couple of weeks.
Can you explain how the pre-sale signed documents listing numerous potential issues have been "dealt with" please? You have lit the blue-touch-paper with the video so it would be good to understand any progress made. Most of the build issues covered are well reported, but for me, and probably most of us watching the video, we are disgusted with how the dealership may have behaved.I think what's going on is a very classic case of many points of failure, but nobody willing to admit they're *all* to blame.
McLaren are not building cars to the correct standard, the dealers are not prepping them to the correct standard, and when they're breaking they aren't being looked after in the correct way either.
A further development to the video is that yesterday the 720 developed an ESC fault, which will not go away, thus rendering the car pretty much useless. So, it seems unlikely that car will even be available for the next couple of weeks.
The signed documents are a major element of your video, but you fail to explain how they have been “dealt with”.
RobDown said:
I’d be interested to know how successful that document would be in court (if there are any lawyers in the house). Flagging up that a new car might be generically badly built (the clause about panel gaps, loose panels on the 720S) feels like the dealer is on shaky ground.
I could see the tactic being more successful if selling a used car you mentioned something specific (the stereo is broken)
Presumably though, if a brand new car, then the manufacturer of the product, in this the manufacturer is McLaren and the product is their car, would be held accountable for quality and fitness for purpose under the Consumer Rights Act and consequently accountability rests with McLaren not the Dealer in any event?I could see the tactic being more successful if selling a used car you mentioned something specific (the stereo is broken)
Superleg48 said:
Presumably though, if a brand new car, then the manufacturer of the product, in this the manufacturer is McLaren and the product is their car, would be held accountable for quality and fitness for purpose under the Consumer Rights Act and consequently accountability rests with McLaren not the Dealer in any event?
The CRA2015 only holds the dealer liable. In the US they have the "Lemon Law" which holds the manufacturer liable. tyrrell said:
I would never ever buy a car from Sytner group, my local Porsche dealer Bournemouth was taken over several years ago by them, the staff turnover is horrendous, awful dealer group.
OPC Bournemouth are owned by Inchape.....good rant though !Edited by tyrrell on Friday 20th December 20:26
I have had many dealings with Hatfield, lovely people there, no complaints. Same goes for Bristol thus far.
As for the document being "dealt with", Woking are well aware of it and I believe have already had words with Manchester about it. They were very coy about what exactly happened, but I suspect somebody went nuclear with them- it doesnt exactly look good for McLaren does it?
I thought long and hard about whether to mention it, or even to make the video at all. In the end, I just thought that any dealer who would come up with that kind of document would just keep on acting in a substandard and poor way unless their behaviour was called out. I've probably wrecked my own chances of ever having a relationship with Woking as a result of the video, but I genuinely believe creating it and starting the discussion is the only way they might ever improve. I've been a Lotus owner and I dont want to see McLaren wind up in the same boat as them. It is very hard to undo a bad reputation.
As for the document being "dealt with", Woking are well aware of it and I believe have already had words with Manchester about it. They were very coy about what exactly happened, but I suspect somebody went nuclear with them- it doesnt exactly look good for McLaren does it?
I thought long and hard about whether to mention it, or even to make the video at all. In the end, I just thought that any dealer who would come up with that kind of document would just keep on acting in a substandard and poor way unless their behaviour was called out. I've probably wrecked my own chances of ever having a relationship with Woking as a result of the video, but I genuinely believe creating it and starting the discussion is the only way they might ever improve. I've been a Lotus owner and I dont want to see McLaren wind up in the same boat as them. It is very hard to undo a bad reputation.
RobDown said:
MAC 720S said:
Putting aside the typo's and poor grammar within the two documents, it appears that the intent of the documents is an attempt by the dealership to avoid their legal responsibility under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. If a potential fault(s) and quality issue is disclosed by the seller to the customer prior to sale, but the customer still proceeds with the purchase, the customer waives their right to reject the car / claim compensation / repair / refund against any fault and/or quality issues they were made aware of prior to purchase.
In effect, both documents are making the purchaser aware of potential issues, and the signature is proof of that. There is no other credible reason for the dealership to demand it. It is a get-out-of-jail-free card.
Highly unlikely McLaren Automotive condone this type of behaviour. The dealer is probably breaking McLaren’s own dealer standards. Someone high up at McLaren HQ will be raging over this.
I’d be interested to know how successful that document would be in court (if there are any lawyers in the house). Flagging up that a new car might be generically badly built (the clause about panel gaps, loose panels on the 720S) feels like the dealer is on shaky ground.In effect, both documents are making the purchaser aware of potential issues, and the signature is proof of that. There is no other credible reason for the dealership to demand it. It is a get-out-of-jail-free card.
Highly unlikely McLaren Automotive condone this type of behaviour. The dealer is probably breaking McLaren’s own dealer standards. Someone high up at McLaren HQ will be raging over this.
I could see the tactic being more successful if selling a used car you mentioned something specific (the stereo is broken)
Why someone would sign that document is beyond me.
[quote=jayemm89]I have had many dealings with Hatfield, lovely people there, no complaints. Same goes for Bristol thus far.
As for the document being "dealt with", Woking are well aware of it and I believe have already had words with Manchester about it. They were very coy about what exactly happened, but I suspect somebody went nuclear with them- it doesnt exactly look good for McLaren does it?
I thought long and hard about whether to mention it, or even to make the video at all. In the end, I just thought that any dealer who would come up with that kind of document would just keep on acting in a substandard and poor way unless their behaviour was called out. I've probably wrecked my own chances of ever having a relationship with Woking as a result of the video, but I genuinely believe creating it and starting the discussion is the only way they might ever improve. I've been a Lotus owner and I dont want to see McLaren wind up in the same boat as them. It is very hard to undo a bad reputation.[/quote
As it's not actually your experience - do you not consider it rather a tad risky to post this video?
As for the document being "dealt with", Woking are well aware of it and I believe have already had words with Manchester about it. They were very coy about what exactly happened, but I suspect somebody went nuclear with them- it doesnt exactly look good for McLaren does it?
I thought long and hard about whether to mention it, or even to make the video at all. In the end, I just thought that any dealer who would come up with that kind of document would just keep on acting in a substandard and poor way unless their behaviour was called out. I've probably wrecked my own chances of ever having a relationship with Woking as a result of the video, but I genuinely believe creating it and starting the discussion is the only way they might ever improve. I've been a Lotus owner and I dont want to see McLaren wind up in the same boat as them. It is very hard to undo a bad reputation.[/quote
As it's not actually your experience - do you not consider it rather a tad risky to post this video?
Cheib said:
I don’t think you can sign away your rights as an individual without taking appropriate advice. For example companies have to pay for an employee’s legal advice before they sign a Compromise Agreement when they are being “exited”.
Why someone would sign that document is beyond me.
It's straightforward as far as the CRA 2015 goes. If there is a pre-existing fault, and the purchaser is aware of it prior to purchase, they would be unable to seek remedy for that fault after purchase, unless it was pre-agreed with the dealer that it would be fixed. It would be very difficult to reject the vehicle based on a disclosed and pre-known fault. Why someone would sign that document is beyond me.
If you read "the letters", they are descriptive (too descriptive), almost to the point that they smell of legality. Just being asked to sign a document like that should make the alarm bells ring.
Read this > https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/buying-...
It truly is a poor show. I think it will do the dealership some harm. I certainly won’t buy from them if that’s the low level of tactics they employ. Hopefully McLaren has given them a kick up the arse.
MAC 720S said:
It truly is a poor show. I think it will do the dealership some harm. I certainly won’t buy from them if that’s the low level of tactics they employ. Hopefully McLaren has given them a kick up the arse.
+1And why buy from this terrible dealer anyway, when there are a number of great ones around to buy from? Just read the actual owner reports here, and the same good (and bad) names come up again and again.
McLaren cars are the best out there for the money, and nothing drives like them. But there are a few with problems, as with any supercar marque.
jayemm89 said:
I have had many dealings with Hatfield, lovely people there, no complaints. Same goes for Bristol thus far.
As for the document being "dealt with", Woking are well aware of it and I believe have already had words with Manchester about it. They were very coy about what exactly happened, but I suspect somebody went nuclear with them- it doesnt exactly look good for McLaren does it?
I thought long and hard about whether to mention it, or even to make the video at all. In the end, I just thought that any dealer who would come up with that kind of document would just keep on acting in a substandard and poor way unless their behaviour was called out. I've probably wrecked my own chances of ever having a relationship with Woking as a result of the video, but I genuinely believe creating it and starting the discussion is the only way they might ever improve. I've been a Lotus owner and I dont want to see McLaren wind up in the same boat as them. It is very hard to undo a bad reputation.
Hopefully you've saved many others from the same poor experience of buying from McLaren Manchester. As for the document being "dealt with", Woking are well aware of it and I believe have already had words with Manchester about it. They were very coy about what exactly happened, but I suspect somebody went nuclear with them- it doesnt exactly look good for McLaren does it?
I thought long and hard about whether to mention it, or even to make the video at all. In the end, I just thought that any dealer who would come up with that kind of document would just keep on acting in a substandard and poor way unless their behaviour was called out. I've probably wrecked my own chances of ever having a relationship with Woking as a result of the video, but I genuinely believe creating it and starting the discussion is the only way they might ever improve. I've been a Lotus owner and I dont want to see McLaren wind up in the same boat as them. It is very hard to undo a bad reputation.
Gassing Station | McLaren | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff