720S Rejection

[Rocketreid]

rmaGL said:

Here is the actual timeline

13 December accident
16 December car at body shop
9 jan insurance approved
21 jan wrong part delivered
2nd feb wrong part delivered
21st feb wrong part delivered
23 March lockdown
10th May body shop reopened
10th July part supplied correctly
6th Aug car back to me

In this period mclaren/dealer/body shop haven’t supplied a courtesy car had to get one via third party insurer.

Had to escalate mid June to Higher ups in McLaren in order to get the correct part Delivered.

This isn’t a McLaren bashing post, as stated I love the 720s. But the way the above chain of events has happened is shocking for a 10k car let alone a car costing 225.

Through this period there has been no proactive contact from McLaren, they supplied a loan 570 after I escalated towards the beginning of July.

The coolant hose as an isolated incident is ofcourse not a reason to kick off, but combined with all the above, I don’t believe this is remotely acceptable.

Am I understanding this properly!!

Someone ran into the back of your McLaren and they were presumably liable?

If so then what’s this got to do with McLaren. Surely the third party is fully responsible he caused the accident and assuming he is insured it is upto them to repair your car to the correct standard.

It is the TP’s insurers who should provide the correct hire car, nothing to do with McLaren. I would have insisted they provided me with an equivalent car as their legal responsibility. The dealer, the body shop or McLaren should not be involved.

Any delays with McLaren parts may be down to the manufacturer and this is an issue but the fault in all this lies with the person who hit you and his insurers.

Edited by Rocketreid on Thursday 3rd September 16:07

[Petrus1983]

MAC 720S said:

I pretty much use mine on a daily basis. Covered 7.5K miles since February this year.

We both know you’re not normal - as evidenced by that paint job

[rmaGL]

Petrus1983 said:

Are you suggesting the 720S is your daily car and you needed a supercar being replaced during a time when no one was meant to travel for anything other than essential journeys?

yes the 720s is something i use as a daily, however i think you are mistaking the period it was unavailable to me for was much longer than the government advised "if you can work from home, you must" period.

[Petrus1983]

rmaGL said:

yes the 720s is something i use as a daily, however i think you are mistaking the period it was unavailable to me for was much longer than the government advised "if you can work from home, you must" period.

My post came across as overly agressive and it wasn’t my intention! Of course if you’re paying for a car you want to see a car!

[rmaGL]

Rocketreid said:

Am I understanding this properly!!

Someone ran into the back of your McLaren and they were presumably liable?

If so then what’s this got to do with McLaren. Surely the third party is fully responsible he caused the accident and assuming he is insured it is upto them to repair your car to the correct standard.

It is the TP’s insurers who should provide the correct hire car, nothing to do with McLaren. I would have insisted they provided me with an equivalent car as their legal responsibility. The dealer, the body shop or McLaren should not be involved.

Any delays with McLaren parts may be down to the manufacturer and this is an issue but the fault in all this lies with the person who hit you and his insurers.

Edited by Rocketreid on Thursday 3rd September 16:07

Apologies i should have quoted the part of this post regarding the hire car was a response to some one's question.

The TP insurers did provide a similar car (not a McLaren) for a period, however the 720s should have been back with me end Feb.

i didnt have an expectation from Mclaren to provide a courtesy car until it became clear to me that these delays were caused by their own inability to correctly supply parts. i dont believe that incorrectly supplying parts on multiple occasions can be blamed on Covid.

In all the my (super)car ownership, i have yet to come across a situation where the manufacturer is unable to provide replacement parts.

[anonymous-user]

Rocketreid said:

Am I understanding this properly!!

Someone ran into the back of your McLaren and they were presumably liable?

If so then what’s this got to do with McLaren. Surely the third party is fully responsible he caused the accident and assuming he is insured it is upto them to repair your car to the correct standard.

It is the TP’s insurers who should provide the correct hire car, nothing to do with McLaren. I would have insisted they provided me with an equivalent car as their legal responsibility. The dealer, the body shop or McLaren should not be involved.

Any delays with McLaren parts may be down to the manufacturer and this is an issue but the fault in all this lies with the person who hit you and his insurers.

Edited by Rocketreid on Thursday 3rd September 16:07

There was a high profile legal case a few years ago. A wealthy chap was rear ended in his Aston. He had several other cars in his collection but insisted he was give a like-for-like replacement. The insurance company told him to ps off and gave him a bog standard car, so he hired an Aston at his expense and rejected the car supplied by the insurer. He took the insurance company to court. They argued that he had the use of his other luxury cars and that the car they supplied him with was reasonable. The insurance company lost and had to cough up because the judge said that the chap was entitled to maintain the same standard of living he was accustomed to.

The case set a legal precedent for like-for-like, or alternatively the insurer may offer a financial settlement instead of expensive car hire.

[Driver101]

It's not been a great experience, but I can't see how you can reject a car on the basis of you don't like the handling of the accident repair.

The first month was waiting for the claim to be approved. Lockdown has been a factor for the rest. Are you sure the excuses about the wrong part being delivered weren't excuses stalling for time?

It's not McLaren's job to offer you a courtesy car.

[rmaGL]

The part was genuinely supplied incorrectly. Apparently their manufacturer of the part had mislabelled the part numbers on the crash cans.

As stated I did not have an expectation of them providing a courtesy car, however when it became clear that this was going to drag on I pushed them for it.

In my experience with Lamborghini, Ferrari etc if they end up being unable to rectify their faults in a timely manner the least they would do is be proactive in managing the customer, whether it’s communication or courtesy cars or whatever.

[Casper74]

MAC 720S said:

There was a high profile legal case a few years ago. A wealthy chap was rear ended in his Aston. He had several other cars in his collection but insisted he was give a like-for-like replacement. The insurance company told him to ps off and gave him a bog standard car, so he hired an Aston at his expense and rejected the car supplied by the insurer. He took the insurance company to court. They argued that he had the use of his other luxury cars and that the car they supplied him with was reasonable. The insurance company lost and had to cough up because the judge said that the chap was entitled to maintain the same standard of living he was accustomed to.

The case set a legal precedent for like-for-like, or alternatively the insurer may offer a financial settlement instead of expensive car hire.

I read of a similar story where as a guy was abroad in his sl 63amg and the insurers gave him a fiat he wouldn’t use it hired a a similar sl from a performance hire care provider in the uk got them to deliver it in Italy somewhere used it for 5-6 weeks then got his car back from Mercedes and handed them a bill for 30 odd thousand for the hire car obviously His insurance laughed at him he took them to court won and they covered all costs and then some.

[Driver101]

rmaGL said:

The part was genuinely supplied incorrectly. Apparently their manufacturer of the part had mislabelled the part numbers on the crash cans.

As stated I did not have an expectation of them providing a courtesy car, however when it became clear that this was going to drag on I pushed them for it.

In my experience with Lamborghini, Ferrari etc if they end up being unable to rectify their faults in a timely manner the least they would do is be proactive in managing the customer, whether it’s communication or courtesy cars or whatever.

I think there is a big difference between a faulty car and a crashed car.

Most of the time you have lost is out of McLaren's hands.

[anonymous-user]

Casper74 said:

I read of a similar story where as a guy was abroad in his sl 63amg and the insurers gave him a fiat he wouldn’t use it hired a a similar sl from a performance hire care provider in the uk got them to deliver it in Italy somewhere used it for 5-6 weeks then got his car back from Mercedes and handed them a bill for 30 odd thousand for the hire car obviously His insurance laughed at him he took them to court won and they covered all costs and then some.

My understanding is that to claim for the cost of the hire car from the at fault party, you would have to demonstrate; (i) that you need a replacement car and (ii) that the cost/type of the replacement car was reasonable; and (iii) If you are hiring via a credit hire agreement, and could have afforded to hire a car without using credit, you are only entitled to claim the basic cost of the vehicle hire and not any interest due as part of the agreement.

Contrary to what I said earlier, I think a like for like vehicle would typically be accepted as reasonable under (ii).

Considering the high costs of credit hire, particularly with prestige cars, and the likelihood someone running a prestige car could in fact afford to hire one without needing credit, you need to be careful that the recoverable amount is not considerably lower than that demanded by the credit hire company.

[mk1coopers]

It all looks simple (from the outside) what happened is done, the car can't be rejected as its not a manufacturing issues it's delays relating to an accident, if you have the car on finance you may be able to approach McLaren with details of the delay / the reasons why and ask that they offer a refund of part of what you have paid out whilst not being able to use the car for the time period that it was unavailable due to the incorrect parts being supplied, if it's not on a deal where you hand it back then personally if I was keeping it I would ask McLaren to offer compensation in the form of an extended warranty rather than having to pay out for that when its due.

You are fortunate to be able to own one of these cars, I'm sure once it's back and the throttle is pinned you will be able to put this behind you

[Penrhyn]

mk1coopers said:

I would ask McLaren to offer compensation in the form of an extended warranty rather than having to pay out

Agree, the OT needs to lay out his case as shown to us , with an end result as outlined by mk1coopers.

I think they are likely to agree to that as its a no cost item.

When you get your car back use it every day, enjoy.

[rmaGL]

So update on this car, it’s not just a loose hose, apparently there are 2 hose pipes that have rubbed together and ruptured... looks to be an engine out job. Another few weeks gone by the looks of it

Edit: I have 0 technical knowledge on cars - passing on what I’ve been told

Edited by rmaGL on Friday 4th September 18:37

[Ferruccio]

rmaGL said:

So update on this car, it’s not just a loose hose, apparently there are 2 hose pipes that have rubbed together and ruptured... looks to be an engine out job. Another few weeks gone by the looks of it

Edit: I have 0 technical knowledge on cars - passing on what I’ve been told

Edited by rmaGL on Friday 4th September 18:37

Why would it take “another few weeks” to replace a couple of hosepipes - even if they have to take the engine out??

[rmaGL]

Ferruccio said:

rmaGL said:

So update on this car, it’s not just a loose hose, apparently there are 2 hose pipes that have rubbed together and ruptured... looks to be an engine out job. Another few weeks gone by the looks of it

Edit: I have 0 technical knowledge on cars - passing on what I’ve been told

Edited by rmaGL on Friday 4th September 18:37

Why would it take “another few weeks” to replace a couple of hosepipes - even if they have to take the engine out??

Well considering the SM said it’s a weeks job to remove and reseat the engine, it’s already been in for 4 days, the fact that this is the first time the SM has seen this happen and that McLaren technical were also surprised, the SM has also not received any instructions etc etc so I don’t think this is going to be any shorter or specific than a few weeks.

[sjc]

Irrespective of the accident, the wrong part was supplied three times resulting in the car getting caught up in the Covid saga, and it taking months.Anyone with a brain at Mclaren could have thought “ This isn’t our customers fault, let’s nip this in the bud and give him a courtesy car, next couple of services FOC or extend his warranty to keep him happy. It’s not rocket science.
But no, they didn’t, and another few potential buyers are put off.

[anonymous-user]

sjc said:

Irrespective of the accident, the wrong part was supplied three times resulting in the car getting caught up in the Covid saga, and it taking months.Anyone with a brain at Mclaren could have thought “ This isn’t our customers fault, let’s nip this in the bud and give him a courtesy car, next couple of services FOC or extend his warranty to keep him happy. It’s not rocket science.
But no, they didn’t, and another few potential buyers are put off.

This.

Wrong parts ordered, twice was it? Then lockdown, remember that lockdown in the east started in late January, so supply chains were starting to grind to a halt by mid end of Feb. By March no chance unless in stock already.

Your last comment has struck a cord, just been browsing AT looking at a 650s spider, thought I would come on here and ask about a specific car, and read this thread and thinking what a bad idea that might be.

[carspath]

I think that the fact that this car has been involved in a prior accident will make it difficult to make the casef or rejecting it in court .
I dont believe that McLaren should be held responsible for providing a courtesy car either ... that's something for the Third party's Insurer to pay for .



But there are 2 equally important points that I am surprised that McLaren have not responded to instantly .


--I have direct experience of 2 highly trained , very keen , very dedicated Ferrari technicians taking 2 weeks to identify an electrical / electronic fault .
The Ferrari SD diagnostic system couldn't detect a fault , but just by starting the car it was obvious to all that there was a genuine problem .
As in Medicine , the diagnosis is the difficult part ,and can take time , and no one begrudges people who try hard .


--I have also experienced Lamborghini having only one remaining critical spare part in their inventory .
But that was for a car that had ceased production 11 years previously , and to their credit they couriered it from Sant' Agata to the UK within 48 hours .
As Ferruccio has intimated , Lamborghini can and do move quickly .


--Lamborghini have demonstrated in the UK that they can act very decisively against a dealership that doesn't conform to their corporate standards .



So problems happen with all marques , and potentially with all mechanical objects.



1) The problem here is that the same '' wrong delivery '' problem happened more than once .
We are discussing a brand new car here , so spares should not be a problem , and correcting the wrong delivery should not have taken the length of time that it has taken here.
There have been no time delaying diagnostic problems here either ... the problems were obvious from the start .
Non-McLaren owners have a perception that McLaren service is inadequate , and within this episode McLaren could , and arguably should , have responded much more quickly and decisively .... if only to preserve their reputation .



2) Much more worryingly , this is not a simple case of a loose clip ,as was postulated earlier on in the thread .
And I dont think that a significant coolant leak is something to be shrugged off as something common that should just be accepted , again as suggested earlier on in this thread .
Chaffing pipes suggest a design issue , and were this to be repeated with the fuel lines for instance , the end result might be more significant than merely a stranded car .
For this reason alone , I would have thought that McLaren HQ would want to send their most experienced technician to examine the car , or have the car transported back to Woking pronto , so that it can be examined very thoroughly .
A lackadaisical attitude to an important issue in a current production car does not come across well to an outside observer , and must come across even less so to an interested and concerned owner .


It really doesn't matter how wonderfully a car drives .... if it has significant design issues ( and I dont know if the 720S does or not , but the OP's latest posting suggests this to my mind --- why else would coolant hoses chaff against each other to the point that they rupture ? ) , then I and many others would simply choose not to get involved .

I dont subscribe to that band that question the 720S looks ... I think that it is glorious to look at , and by all accounts its performance is in a league above its price point , but McLaren really need to respond urgently to cases such as this one , which sow seeds of doubt ( whether valid or otherwise ) in owners and potential owners minds .

Edited by carspath on Saturday 5th September 00:18

[McLarenGuru]

Just a few other things to note RE the McLaren Parts delay -

- You should bear in mind that Unipart are the distributor of McLaren Parts, this could've been a mistake on Uniparts count?
- Have you actually asked your dealer for the proof of orders? It may have been a mistake in the dealer, in the case of ordering the wrong parts?