Talk Morgan Forums Morgan Sports Cars Morgan Plus Four, Supersport & Plus Six (CX & CXV Generation Vehicles) Safety Recall - Brakes

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.

Agreed.

Everything else on this thread is mere speculation.

I wish you all would stop saying recall, it was a STOP DRIVING notice, for most CX owners their cars were off the road for at least three / four months.

MCC is not a small family owned car company anymore, it is majority owned by Italian investment company INVESTINDUSRIAL

In my case the three month warranty extension covers the months November to January, big deal.

Am I angry? Yes, would I join a group action? Yes.

If we had to count up everyone who had a problem with a Morgan they've owned, it would probably be...........everyone!
Anyone who buys a Morgan and expects it to be anything other than troublesome is deluded.
It shouldn't be part of the the ownership experience, but it is, always has been and more than likely always will be.
The new investment is probably going to help a bit, but I suppose the money is going to used to 'develop' new and more complex cars, so you'd have to assume that new and more complex problems will crop up.
I hope that any claims brought by ambulance chasing lawyers for 'loss of use whilst it's sunny' are laughed out of court.
Anyone who does have a genuine and legitimate claim for real loss must pursue it, if they've got nothing better to do........

Better get the company name right then: it's MMC and nothing to do with the Marylebone Cricket Club.

Julian, I agree 1000% with your perspective.

This thread is going nowhere, I'll not post further on the topic.

Under the terminology used by The DVLA in their Guidance notes in the Link given by Haytop a Stop Driving Notice is a category of recall that is more onerous than a Safety Recall.

Action Risk type
Safety Recall (stop drive) The definition of a safety defect is met, and there is an immediate threat to safety so the vehicle must not be driven
Safety Recall The definition of a safety defect is met, but the threat is not immediate or can be mitigated with ‘reasonable’ consumer action
Consumer / Garage Warning The definition of a safety defect is met, but can be adequately mitigated through vehicle maintenance or similar checks. May be used with a recall
Amendment to maintenance or servicing requirements Used where a ‘reasonable’ change to maintenance or servicing requirements can detect a potential problem and avoid the defect. Not usually used in isolation due to communication challenges

That was also my reading of the directive.
I was surprised to hear people still choosing to drive their vehicles putting themselves AND others at risk...

I think it is important to remember that the cause of the recall was not a problem caused by MMC but by part suppliers supplying badly made parts to the company. The design and spec from Morgan were fine but the outsourced parts were badly made.
IMHO this could happen to any company at any time so allowances should be made.
My car had been fixed at Morgan by the time I purchased it so thankfully I missed the carnage.

The Recall and Stop Drive were largely about keep me safe on the road, and the right course of action. I value my life more than a motor car!

We need to remember that MMC are principally coachbuilders and assemblers when it comes to building a Morgan. In the situation with the brakes and with the suspension units they have been badly let down by the suppliers of components, not by their own workmanship. Personally I’m happy with the bodywork and assembly of my Plus Six – it’s a great car!
Kerry