Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the 02/01/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the 19/05/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, 02/06/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
    • Monika the first four pages of the Private parking section have at least 12 of our members who have also been caught out on this scam site. That's around one quarter of all our current complaints. Usually we might expect two current complaints for the same park within 4 pages.  So you are in good company and have done well in appealing to McDonalds in an effort to resolve the matter without having  paid such a bunch of rogues. Most people blindly pay up. Met . Starbucks and McDonalds  are well aware of the situation and seem unwilling to make it easier for motorists to avoid getting caught. For instance, instead of photographing you, if they were honest and wanted you  to continue using their services again, they would have said "Excuse me but if you are going to go to Mc donalds from here, it will cost you £100." But no they kett quiet and are now pursuing you for probably a lot more than £100 now. They also know thst  they cannot charge anything over the amount stated on the car park signs. Their claims for £160 or £170 are unlawful yet so many pay that to avoid going to Court. When the truth is that Met are unlikely to take them to Court since they know they will lose. The PCNs are issued on airport land which is covered by Byelaws so only the driver can be pursued, not the keeper. But they keep writing to you as they do not know who was driving unless you gave it away when you appealed. Even if they know you were driving they should still lose in Court for several reasons. The reason we ask you to fill out our questionnaire is to help you if MET do decide to take you to Court in the end. Each member who visited the park may well have different experiences while there which can help when filling out a Witness statement [we will help you with that if it comes to it.] if you have thrown away the original PCN  and other paperwork you obviously haven't got a jerbil or a guinea pig as their paper makes great litter boxes for them.🙂 You can send an SAR to them to get all the information Met have on you to date. Though if you have been to several sites already, you may have done that by now. In the meantime, you will be being bombarded by illiterate debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors all threatening you with ever increasing amounts as well as being hung drawn and quartered. Their letters can all be safely ignored. On the odd chance that you may get a Letter of Claim from them just come back to us and we will get you to send a snotty letter back to them so that they know you are not happy, don't care a fig for their threats and will see them off in Court if they finally have the guts to carry on. If you do have the original PCN could you please post it up, carefully removing your name. address and car registration number but including dates and times. If not just click on the SAR to take you to the form to send to Met.
    • In order for us to help you we require the following information:- [if there are more than one defendant listed - tell us] 1 defendant   Which Court have you received the claim from ? County Court Business Centre, Northampton   Name of the Claimant ? LC Asset 2 S.A R.L   Date of issue – . 28/04/23   Particulars of Claim   What is the claim for –    (1) The Claimant ('C') claims the whole of the outstanding balance due and payable under an agreement referenced xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and opened effective from xx/xx/2017. The agreement is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ('CCA'), was signed by the Defendant ('D') and from which credit was extended to D.   (2) D failed to comply with a Default Notice served pursuant to s87 (1) CCA and by xx/xx/2022 a default was recorded.   (3) As at xx/xx/2022 the Defendant owed MBNA LTD the sum of 12,xxx.xx. By an agreement in writing the benefit of the debt has been legally assigned to C effective xx/xx/2022 and made regular upon C serving a Notice of Assignment upon D shortly thereafter.   (4) And C claims- 1. 12,xxx.xx 2. Interest pursuant to Section 69 County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from xx/01/2023 to xx/04/2023 of 2xx.xx and thereafter at a daily rate of 2.52 to date of judgement or sooner payment. Date xx/xx/2023   What is the total value of the claim? 12k   Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? Yes   Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No   Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? N/A Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Credit Card   When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? After   Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? Online   Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Yes, but amount differs slightly   Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. DP issued claim   Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? Not that I recall...   Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Not that I recall...   Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? Yes   Why did you cease payments? Loss of employment main cause   What was the date of your last payment? Early 2021   Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No   Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? No   -----------------------------------
    • Hello CAG Team, I'm adding the contents of the claim to this thread, but wanted to open the thread with an urgent question: Do I have to supply a WS for a claim with a court date that states " at the hearing the court will consider allocation and, time permitting, give an early neutral evaluation of the case" ? letter is an N24 General Form of Judgement or Order, if so, then I've messed up again. Court date 25 May 2024 The letter from court does not state (like the other claims I have) that I must provide WS within 28 days.. BUT I have recently received a WS from Link for it! making me think I do need to!??
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

New Jaguar E-Pace - Major incident, Jaguar response No fault found.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2106 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Took delivery of a brand new E-Pace and initially all was good until 6th June was drive on a dual carriage way and the front collision detection system triggered incorrectly.

 

The car was bought to a stand still, the hand brake applied, and engine switched off, no vehicles or obstruction in front of car.

Luckily the lorry and car behind our realised there was a fault and avoided a collision, wife and daughter very shaken.

 

Reported to dealership who were very concerned and asked to bring it into dealership,

they inspected the car found errors or logs relating to the time of the incident.

 

Dealership said we could not have our car back it was too dangerous hire car was provided.

were hoping there was an identifiable fault that would be quickly fix but after a week still investigations were ongoing

we therefore rejected the car as ‘no fit for purchase’

 

Initially dealership were onboard and told us to report the issue to Jaguar Finance stating we were going to reject the car.

Dealership the found a replacement car but delays started to happen

Main issues were the replacement car was £600 which I wasn’t prepared to pay but also I’d used Jaguar Privilege staff discount which caused problems

 

I continued to chase and was told ‘we have to follow process’.

By this stage I’d already escalated the issue to the Jaguar Executive team.

 

2nd June still no updates

chased and was told still waiting for report from engineers at which point I expressed concern and threated legal action.

Magically a few hours later I received a call from dealership, no Jaguar stating that no fault had been found and as a result they could not replace my car and I’d have to have my original car back.

 

I have stressed that no fault found does not mean the incident did not happen, in theory it is now more serious as Jaguar are aware of an issue and have been unable to identify the cause.

 

Weekly summary of the events below, I have a very detailed breakdown of events

 

Is there anything I can do, my wife now does not want to drive the car, she did feel happier knowing the car was going to be replaced. Now she will be concerned if it happens again.

 

25/05/2018 1 Delivery and handover of E-Pace

 

01/06/2018 2 Identified faults, rear fog light wiring, alarm triggered, 3G Issues

 

06/06/2018. Collision detection system triggered incorrectly

 

08/06/2018 3 Car returned to Marshalls due to serious fault, refused to return car as logs found, too dangerous

 

15/06/2018 4 "Asked to call Finance company and inform them car is not fit for purpose and is being rejected.

All ad-min good and complete and everyone had approved the replacement.

Christian had identifed a suitable vehicle but due to additional cost it needed approval but shouldn't be an issue."

 

22/06/2018 5 Replacement vehicle hadn't been approved, must follow process.

 

29/06/2018 6 "Issue relating to Privilege voucher resolved

Christian working to locate suitable replacement car.

Additional £600 reguired for new car, unwilling to pay extra, Marshalls unable to cover costs.

Potential issues with Q3 pricing in comparison to Q2, need to wait until next week."

 

06/07/2018 7 Q3 SE Specification changed, Drive Pack now an additional £700 cost option.

Edited by honeybee13
Reg no removed.
Link to post
Share on other sites

So dealership found faults and said they couldn't return car as it was dangerous but jaguar say its ok?

 

Id be sitting in the dealerships managers office rejecting car for full refund and taking my business elsewhere

Link to post
Share on other sites

UPDATE : I still have access to our car using the Jaguar app and I've discovered that the journey history is available. This confirms that something clearly happened, there's two entries, so my challenge is why did our stop & start for 1 minute on a dual carriage way?

 

  • Start time 13:27 left our home address, and then ended at 13:34 on the A1
  • Start time 13:35 from A1 to Biggleswade Retail Park at 13:40

 

I've sent these details along with detailed map images from the Jaguar application asking Jaguar to explain the break if there's 'No fault found'

 

So dealership found faults and said they couldn't return car as it was dangerous but jaguar say its ok?

 

Id be sitting in the dealerships managers office rejecting car for full refund and taking my business elsewhere

 

Refund is more challenging and complicates this situation, the purchase of the car is a combination of finance, trade-in & privileged employee discount.

 

  • Trade in money can be refunded, easy.
  • Finance, in theory this could be cancelled but I've now made one payment and will I get this back. Finance company own car and dealership will have buy the car back from finance company.
  • Privilege, this is the difficult one, it equates to 20% but is assigned to a car and not a customer, I'm only allowed one Privilege voucher per year.

 

Privilege will issue a replacement voucher as long as there's a confirmed fault, so my current situation is that another car & dealership will result in an extra £8k cost as 'No fault found'.

 

To be fair to the dealership they cannot do anything until a fault is found, the issue has been Jaguar Cars, I've already escalated to their Executive Team. Initially they were returning calls and emails, then it started to become a problem and Jaguar ignored calls and emails from both me and the dealership for over a week. As a result I contacted customers services and they informed me that they had changed the person dealing with the case but hand't had the curtsy to inform either of us.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of interest, do you have any record/evidence (email perhaps) of the dealership refusing to return the car to you as there were "errors" found and the car was too dangerous to drive?

 

 

Those last few words "too dangerous to drive" scream FAULT to me, not "error" :|

 

An 'error' to me would be things like a minor CANbus error/fault. Things like bulb failure etc, not a complete shut down of the vehicle on a dual carriageway.

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately not, I returned the car to the dealership and after about 1.5hrs I was told the issue was very strange, initially they couldn't find any logs but after restarting the car the logs / errors appeared that were linked the to incident. It was at this point I was told that I couldn't have my car back as it was too dangerous and didn't want to put me at risk, unfortunately this was all verbal.

 

The fact that a hire car has been provided would imply there was an issue, another verbal conversation I had with the Jaguar Executive Team was that they had instructed the dealership not move the car to preserve any logs and faults.

 

I did contact the dealership on Wednesday 4th regarding the return of our car and yesterday evening regarding the new evidence that there was a 1 minute break in the journey, the incident!, and asking for this to be explained.

 

I'm struggling to believe that two people from the dealership and one Jaguar person are all out of the office as I've now not had any replies or updates for three days now. Maybe they are in a darkened room trying to work out how they plan to resolve this issue?

Edited by jaguarNoGood
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been having a bit of a Google, and I did manage to find a Jaguar Technical Bulletin regarding the AEB sensor(s)/controllers.

 

In case it's any use to you, it's SSM73019, Dated: 19/10/2016 and/or NHTSA ID: 10127112 - TSB ID: JTB00576NAS1, Dated 16/01/2018.

 

It looks like the XF and F-Pace also have issues with the sensor/camera/control module. It may or may not be related, but should be worth the dealer investigating.

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don’t we just love people who wander into Service Reception clutching a Google printout.

44 years at the pointy end of the motor trade. :eek:

GARUDALINUX.ORG

Garuda Linux comes with a variety of desktop environments like KDE, GNOME, Cinnamon, XFCE, LXQt-kwin, Wayfire, Qtile, i3wm and Sway to choose from.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been having a bit of a Google, and I did manage to find a Jaguar Technical Bulletin regarding the AEB sensor(s)/controllers.

 

In case it's any use to you, it's SSM73019, Dated: 19/10/2016 and/or NHTSA ID: 10127112 - TSB ID: JTB00576NAS1, Dated 16/01/2018.

 

It looks like the XF and F-Pace also have issues with the sensor/camera/control module. It may or may not be related, but should be worth the dealer investigating.

 

I think were I am and hasn’t changed since the first week, I was hoping that a recognised fault would be identified quck and then we’d continue

. After a week it was clear this was a unique issue and there would be no guarantee that it had been fixed and the reason for then rejecting the car as not fit for purpose.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But then, even Google is more useful than someone saying...

 

Don’t we just love people who wander into Service Reception clutching a Google printout.

 

:lol:

 

However, I wasn't suggesting that the OP go in to the dealer having printed ½ the internet :wink:. But the OP could've gone in armed with the information that they have been reading technical bulletins, and go down the lines of 'have you thought of x, y or z'. Just trying to cover all bases for the OP really.

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably hasn't read the owners manual or understands the how the system works. These systems need to be kept clean all the times so if the OP hasn't washed the car it will flag up errors. Then the car goes into a dealer who does a courtesy wash and all is then well so the dealer can't find out what's wrong. Seen this so many times on BMW and Mercs!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably hasn't read the owners manual or understands the how the system works. These systems need to be kept clean all the times so if the OP hasn't washed the car it will flag up errors. Then the car goes into a dealer who does a courtesy wash and all is then well so the dealer can't find out what's wrong. Seen this so many times on BMW and Mercs!!!

 

Just checking, is this a suggestion that the fault with our car maybe dirt related, it was only 12 days old still nice and clean and I'm sure the dealership would have said 'dirty car not good'!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they mean collision detection sensors dirty, causing this problem.

 

If the sensors had just had some temporary debris thrown up, could this have caused the problem ?

 

Due to you remember if the road was dusty or there was litter or other debris on the road ?

 

Could it be that sensors were set at a level that was too sensitive and therefore caused this error ?

 

The garage could have changed the programming for the sensors, so now no problem is showing up ? and if so if you asked for a complete data dump, you see if the program settings have been changed.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't aware that the sensors levels could be adjusted, and to be honest getting any data from Jaguar relating to our car is impossible which makes me think there's something they are trying to hide.

 

The issue could be sensor related, where this happened is just after joining a dual carriage way from a slip road and immediately go under a bridge, I've always wondered and questioned if the bridge may have contributed to the issue?

 

Screen Shot 2018-07-07 at 10.08.09.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

no the sensors aren't adjustable, they're calibrated during original manufacture.

It's a radar based system.

dirt on the sensors can cause a problem.

 

I think JLR cars follow the same procedure as its German rivals for a service calibration but it's not an easy process.

 

Personally when I'm using cars equipped with this I turn it off as

1. I think the technology is not mature enough and

2. I'd rather rely on my driving ability plus

3 if you're in a situation to use it you've probably done something to get you in that situation!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The three points you make Heliosuk rather hit the nail on the head, especially point 1.

 

This situation rather reminds me of what you told me several years ago on a different issue---"Beyond normal service capability".

 

The real question here is really Why are manufacturers allowed to sell cars with equipment so fikie that a bit of dirt can bring them to an unauthorised halt.?

 

The E-Pace is not a budget car, so they and their likes should be thoroughly tested prior to sale to Joe public.

 

It doesn't bear thinking about the consequenses if I had been thundering down that road in my Scania and the OP came to an abrupt halt in front of me.

 

I doubt clean underwear would have resolved the situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't bear thinking about the consequenses if I had been thundering down that road in my Scania and the OP came to an abrupt halt in front of me..

 

Like if a child ran into the road and they did an emergency stop?

Link to post
Share on other sites

no the sensors aren't adjustable, they're calibrated during original manufacture.

It's a radar based system.

dirt on the sensors can cause a problem.

 

I think JLR cars follow the same procedure as its German rivals for a service calibration but it's not an easy process.

 

Personally when I'm using cars equipped with this I turn it off as

1. I think the technology is not mature enough and

2. I'd rather rely on my driving ability plus

3 if you're in a situation to use it you've probably done something to get you in that situation!

 

I agree with all three points and regardless of what happens next I'm unlike to enable the collision detection again, possibly explains why its disabled by default.

 

But in principle why are customers buying products that are potentially unsafe and are then not using or disabling them?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No Bazza, not like if a child ran into the road.

 

In that scenario the following driver would/should be aware of the incursion and respond far more quickly than if for no related reason the vehicle in front comes to a sudden halt!

My time as a Police Officer and subsequently time working within the Motor Trade gives me certain insights into the problems that consumers may encounter.

I have no legal qualifications.

If you have found my post helpful, please enhance my reputation by clicking on the Heart. Thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ford have similar technology in their Active City Stop.

 

It's saved my furry ass several times.

 

H

44 years at the pointy end of the motor trade. :eek:

GARUDALINUX.ORG

Garuda Linux comes with a variety of desktop environments like KDE, GNOME, Cinnamon, XFCE, LXQt-kwin, Wayfire, Qtile, i3wm and Sway to choose from.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

No Bazza, not like if a child ran into the road.

 

In that scenario the following driver would/should be aware of the incursion and respond far more quickly than if for no related reason the vehicle in front comes to a sudden halt!

 

 

Would, or should .... if they had the same vision of the child as the driver in the front car ...... which isn't a given (even with the presumed advantage of being in a cab, higher up.....).

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the driver behind (no matter if they're in a G-Wiz or a 40ton truck) is driving correctly, the gap to the vehicle in front should be sufficient that they can bring their vehicle to a complete halt no matter what the vehicle in front does.

 

As BazzaS has said, you cannot assume that the driver of the vehicle behind would have the same, or even a clear (or indeed any) view of the road ahead, so they should be ready and able to react no matter what happens in front of them. Standard defensive driving.

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And the response by the driver in front would be slower than the vehicle's supposed better technology, (otherwise why have it?) including steering away from the incursion, which was a selling point of ABS brakes. It was after all on a dual carriageway.

My time as a Police Officer and subsequently time working within the Motor Trade gives me certain insights into the problems that consumers may encounter.

I have no legal qualifications.

If you have found my post helpful, please enhance my reputation by clicking on the Heart. Thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with all three points and regardless of what happens next I'm unlike to enable the collision detection again, possibly explains why its disabled by default.

 

But in principle why are customers buying products that are potentially unsafe and are then not using or disabling them?

 

I really don't know, some of these systems are brilliant such as lane departure, parking aid sensors but AEB I just don't get like I don't get auto dip. Frequently calibrated incorrectly and for the wrong markets. It's not enhancing the driving experience but taking control of human intervention. Good technology introductions such as Sat Nav, ABS, EBS Adaptive dampers, SOS are all good features along with many others but those which take away driver interaction cannot be good for anyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...