|
That's fantastic!! I wonder if I could challenge Honda for the 20% shortfall my car has suffered from new?
|
|
|
I don't think this will be the end of this particular case.
If Mercedes are guilty then EVERY car manufacturer who sells in Europe will be in the same position. The official figures from Mercedes will be the ones obtained by carrying out the tests as directed by the EU.
How often do we see buyers of Euro4 diesels complaining the figures are in some cases 20% out ?
|
I've no idea how a German court works but I see the indivdual was awarded 2,500? off the 62,000? list price and 2,400? legal costs.
Oberlandsgericht is a higher regional court so doesn't sound like small claims but as I said no experience of the legal system in Germany so could be how they handle small disputes.
|
Aren't the CO2 emissions calculated from the fuel consumption figures? This could potentially promote an upwards revision of VED and company car tax bands....
|
I'm going to keep very quiet - my VAG 1.9 PD engine (AWX) fitted to my Skoda Superb uses less fuel that stated in their sales literature.
VAG are not having any more of my money...
659.
|
|
|
|
Indeed, the OLG is the equivalent of an appeal court, the only higher court being the BGH or Federal Court of Justice, equivalent to the House of Lords. M-B accepted the complaint in order to avoid a negative, precedent-making decision against them. The information box about the EU test procedure indicates you should expect a fuel consumption figure 20% worse than the official figure.
BIG
|
All it realy shows is that the courts no nothing of real life. If the officcial figure for acr A is 40 mpg and I get 30 mpg in my normal driveing I would ecpect to get about 3/4 of the official figure in brand B, not the official figure. The official figureare, at best, only good for comparision not actual figures that one can expect to achieve.
|
|
|
|
|
|
What a miserable, small-minded so-and-so who must have nothing better to do in life.
He is sufficiently well off to pay over £50,000 for a car then complains because it uses 9.1% more fuel than published figures suggest (how anal is that, not 10% but 9.1%).
Meanwhile, the sensible folk in this world know and accept that these figures are unattainable and accept up to 20% additional fuel consumption as being the norm.
|
What a miserable small-minded so-and-so
You could say that about MB though too - if this was a higher court then they must have been prepared to go through a lower court (wonder who lost) and only gave in as it would have set a precedent.
Honda Accord is the car I see a lot of complaints about - many ex-company car drivers get them thinking it'll do the advertised 50MPG as thier A4's and 320d's did and are then considerably out of pocket as it will only do 40MPG.
|
|
|
In comparison to this decision:
tinyurl.com/5ayket
9.1 % could have been considered large. Here, Chrysler were being sued for the car being 3.3% less economical than the stated figure! The court concluded that although there could be considered to be a discrepancy, it was not significant and so the complaint was rejected. I guess the E-Klasse driver thought his chances were better.
BIG
|
|
|
|
