[Chetan_Rao]

So the owner is willing to absolve MG because some stuff installed at dealership 'probably' caused the incident?

Even if presumed true, does that mean the owner is now suing the dealer for 'probably' creating this mess instead?

That note for me holds as much weight as the BS ones we wrote up at school for not finishing homework or wanting to skip classes. Whoever suggested the content of that letter, if it was MG PR or counsel, needs to be fired because that letter couldn't be more atrociously worded if it was indeed drafted by a professional.

The media blackout alone is enough to raise eyebrows and negate any claimed transparency and responsiveness. MG have been super-responsive alright, but not in the direction they should've been.

Note to MG: Look up Streisand Effect, and get a new PR team.

[padmrajravi]

As someone watching the car scene keenly, below are the perceptions that are forming in my mind about MG.

1) They are super responsive. Any problem that I have with the car, if I can generate even the smallest internet traffic, MG will come out with all guns blazing to help me.
2) They will do anything to hush up the news. So my intention of generating even the faintest of interest noise may not be feasible.
3) They appear to be strong-arming everyone, including the customer. Not sure I want to be in a position where I get into their bad books and they will use all their power reserves against my measly monthly salary.

I think I am better off sticking to the less-aggressive manufacturers even at the cost of slightly less responsive customer service and slightly smaller touch screens.

[Sunny_ST3]

I hope, MG will not come up with reason that vehicle was retrofitted with non-approved electronic device and they have found the evidence of tempering in burned car.

[ashutoshb]

Seems like Financial Express' legal team got a call from their counterparts at MG.

Editorial desk removing an article on advice of the legal team, basically means they were told that "We can be sued for this, better remove it."

[varman742]

The fire may be due to some accessories fitment and MG may have been super quick and responsive to this whole issue. However, the way it has been handled seems ambiguous. For instance, the letter states that the incident happened on 20th and the letter date is 21st. So I am wondering that for a brand new car that caught fire (and not just mild smoke), within one day:
- MG did the investigation, concluded that it was due to accessories
- The owner accepted this without challenging the investigation
- The owner (its a company not an individual) issued a formal letter giving clean chit to MG.

[AZT]

Originally Posted by ashutoshb

But, yes, if MG had approached me with a suitable settlement or a new car, I might have swallowed my pride and done what this owner did.

I think we can safely assume this is definitely the case.

Also, why would the 'Authorised Signatory' of Turner Logistics sign on behalf of the customer?

The car is owned by Turner Logistics.

Off topic but there would probably be 100's of cars running around with these same after market accessories. If the problem is with the accessories MG should put out the exact brand used and other specific details. We can give MG the benefit of doubt till we get more clarity.

[CarJunki]

I am glad MG (SAIC) in this case has taken such a transparent route to customer care.
This may come in handy for other perspective customers to have a look and remote feel of what awaits them.

Behind the scene settlements are never good for brand image.

Thanks to team-bhp community, I am better educated now to not even consider MG products.

[libranof1987]

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

So the owner is willing to absolve MG because some stuff installed at dealership 'probably' caused the incident?

This is the version they're telling us; the actual truth must be far graver. Either

1) MG found a serious issue and asked the owner to put out this statement in exchange for a lot more compensation - or -
2) The owner/accessories installer messed up terribly and MG and the owner agreed to use mild language

Effectively, the owner can't claim insurance on this, right? So, the circumstances must have been pretty strong for such a statement.

I'm surprised at the discrepancy though: the owner said the accessories were fitted at the dealership while the SAs are saying third-party fitment. Which is true? Does dealership not mean MG-authorized/approved? Or was the dealership unprofessional in fitting third-party accessories (non-MG-approved) for the owner.

[XRoader_001]

This is going around in various auto enthusiast groups seems MG has a robust PR & communications team. It relates to the NCR incident.

[vharihar]

Originally Posted by XRoader_001

This is going around in various auto enthusiast groups seems MG has a robust PR & communications team. It relates to the NCR incident.

Reads like a letter written under duress, like with a gun pointed at his head!

[indiaashish]

Originally Posted by ashutoshb

Seems like Financial Express' legal team got a call from their counterparts at MG.

Editorial desk removing an article on advice of the legal team, basically means they were told that "We can be sued for this, better remove it."

This is strange. One of the basic functions of the press is to report facts. That the MG was seen ablaze remains a fact, which cannot be disputed (what is contestable though is the reason for the fire). There is no legal basis for the company suing FE. A more valid reason (and to which I would not myself agree given that Express is one of the more independent groups) perhaps could be MG committing more ads for the Indian Express group. That said, there is a clear case for the company to initiate a transparent investigation, and not employ the apparently dirty ways of showing money power!

[coolkurt]

The letter is so pathetically worded that I don't doubt for a fact that the buyer got a good deal, probably a replacement and monetary compensation.

The MG folks I know said that it was due to accessories installed by the dealership. A dealer is also allowed to deal in third party accessories and not just MG authorized accessories.

But my point is, doesn't the blame for shoddy workmanship fall on the dealer and the company? The dealer messed up pretty badly and MG took action to save face and deliberately sideline bad press.

As a Hector owner, I have always been full of praise for their customer service but these are definitely not tactics I approve of.

They've got a great platform with the Hector. And another fairytale launch in the ZS EV, which is a fantastic car btw. They'll be the losers if they don't address issues and negative criticism in the proper manner.

[reihem]

This was published 30 mins ago. Cant wait to see how long before its taken down.

https://www.indiatimes.com/auto/curr...th-504834.html

[Skorp_Knight]

Like other BHPians, I too feel some shenanigans at work here. Well, as long as customer got good refund for the loss, it's fine and dandy.

[wheelguy]

Originally Posted by reihem

This was published 30 mins ago. Cant wait to see how long before its taken down.

https://www.indiatimes.com/auto/curr...th-504834.html

Now they may/might let it stay to disprove the belief that they are censoring the media, and instead they may/might team up with media to paint a completely new picture which absolves them of any wrong doings. They got deep pockets, and a PR team which can prove a cat as a tiger.