High horse? Doesn't impact on the car's driveability? I have to disagree. If the vehicle would fail an MOT then it is not considered roadworthy.....so whether it cost 1k or 100k it doesn't matter....customers have a right to expect to receive a roadworthy car from a manufacturer/dealer that complies with current legislation....and for 60k of hard earned cash I think it is the least I should expect.
And has been mentioned in an earlier separate post: if you knowingly drive a vehicle that you believe to be faulty on the road it will invalidate your insurance.
No it doesnt impact on the cars driveability unless you are fond of handbrake turns
and the MoT is not needed for three years. Nobody is suggesting that the car should be delivered with a faulty handbrake but IMO the issue of snow blowing into the car ( or rain blowing onto a drivers lap)is a much more serious safety issue and one that wouldnt come up in an MoT. How distracting is it likely to be to have a snowstorm inside the car?
I doubt the insurance argument. The question would only come up if the handbrake quality lead to an accident. Despite people's prejudices, you dont get insurance companies hunting all over a crashed vehicle to find some irrelevant fault on which to refuse a claim.
Let's hope that the insurance side of life is never tested then.....and clearly your experience in this area is different to mine.....sad to say that in my (albeit limited, compared to some) experience the first thing insurers do nowadays is 'reserve liability'.....and if there is any hint that a fault was present - whether or not it materially effected the incident - they will decline to pay out faster than you can say 'is that ARP4 slowly slipping down the hill'. Even more so if an owner has attempted a homegrown fix.
In my wildest and most colourful dreams I can imagine a situation where a thief steals an ARP4 (heaven forbid of course) has an accident because he can't do a hill start (probably in the rain or snow to add to his woes) without a handbrake....injures him/herself in the process and then sues the car owner for failing to maintain a car in a legally roadworthy state......
If burglars can do it, why not car thieves?
Still, it sounds like MMC are now on the case and I hope that the fault is rectified quickly and painlessly for the owners - and maybe MMC will address the snow and rain issue at the same time? Assuming that the wet lap is a result of snow or rain and not something altogether more sinister....
Not sure about the rationale of living with the fault/having time to find a solution as an MOT is not required for three years though.....maybe we could apply the same to the emissions argument.....or put our hands over our eyes and say 'you can't see me!'
