I note with some concern the responses to my request to Peter to amplify his views on the conduct of MMC by explaining his reasoning (with which I disagree). I trust it has been noted that in my request and previous postings I have been careful in my choice of words and not lacked respect for contrary views. I have also made it clear in my posts that I am not interested in bringing an action against MMC either personally or as part of a class action.
One of my principal concerns is that there are and have been posts on this thread which illustrate a misunderstanding of the law and may discourage owners of CX vehicles from bringing a genuine claim. The first such posts related to the Insurance position after notification of the recall notice and the failure to appreciate the statutory definition of the offence of dangerous driving.
Now the following additional matters cause concern.
Peter with respect you appear to overlook
1. The Consumer Protection legislation, the extensive powers of the DVSA and the code of practice
https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...ety-defects-and-recalls-code-of-practice

2. The report in the Sunday Telegraph last week and posts in relation to the accounts available from the Companies Registry.
3. The situation where the period of the guarantee has expired when the work is done.

TBM

The article to which you provide a link does not in fact say that compensation is not recoverable from the manufacturer or dealer in appropriate circumstances. Remember we are concerned with a safety recall mandating that the vehicle must not be driven. Obviously a spurious claim would be defeated

Hamwich

Measure of damages – compensation is regularly given for loss of enjoyment and disappointment in genuine cases for example cancelled holidays and changes to itinerary of holidays depending on the individual circumstances of the claimant.

Obviously If a CX owner considers he or she has a genuine claim he or she should seek proper competent advice from an experienced lawyer and not rely with respect on the views recently expressed in this thread in response to my request to Peter for details of his reasoning.