MG3 NCAP TEST CRITICAL SAFETY FAILURE.

[otherclive]

Over 10 years ago I bought a new Subaru SJ Forester, one reason being that it was specifically designed to cope with the new offset impact test. This test was introduced because safety authorities were questioning as to why there was there were more deaths or injuries during frontal impacts when the various makes of cars involved had good frontal impact scores under NCAP and other nation’s equivalent tests. It turned out that offset frontal impact performance was the cause. Hence the introduction of that test into NCAP. Nice to know in 2014 the Subaru topped the class by a substantial margin.

Now, three days ago an NCAP release shows the current MG3 had a critical failure of its drivers seat restraint. It happened on the NZ and Australian NCAP too. Yet because the car did well in other areas and its electronic safety aids are good it was still awarded 4 stars. The NCAP press release details that such a failure of seat restraint has never occurred in 28 years of testing, and furthermore they accept that their well established procedures for scoring cars doesn’t allow for a critical mechanical failure. They even strongly recommend that potential buyers of the MG3 look at other cars.

What is concerning is that MG are now modifying new build cars and in October will release a modification to the air bag which didn’t perform well. But MG have no plans to modify existing cars. NCAP have now passed the responsibility for deciding action on existing cars to national authorities IE DVSA in UK. So until a decision is made wrt any statutory recall existing owners are at a risk that these days should not exist, and the value of their cars will inevitably drop.

My daughter bought a new MG3 in February this year, so is affected by MGs intention to do nothing. She did not use dealer finance as she got cheaper finance elsewhere. I’m wondering where she might stand with respect to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 such that if MG continue to do nothing could she reject it to the dealership? I have submitted my “complaint “ to DVSA although by now they will be well aware of the issue, and contacted the BBC consumer affairs department suggesting they could air the issue. The Dealership and MG UK are next on my list. I have other thoughts in mind but plan to give it a few days, and with the motoring press alert to the problem, MG might see their planned inaction to be very bad for business.

MG 3 hatchback suffers 'critical safety failure' in Euro NCAP crash test | Autocar

Latching mechanism fails in frontal offset test, causing driver's seat to twist and increasing risk of injury

www.autocar.co.uk

 

[RogerL]

Over 10 years ago I bought a new Subaru SJ Forester, one reason being that it was specifically designed to cope with the new offset impact test. This test was introduced because safety authorities were questioning as to why there was there were more deaths or injuries during frontal impacts when the various makes of cars involved had good frontal impact scores under NCAP and other nation’s equivalent tests. It turned out that offset frontal impact performance was the cause. Hence the introduction of that test into NCAP. Nice to know in 2014 the Subaru topped the class by a substantial margin.

Now, three days ago an NCAP release shows the current MG3 had a critical failure of its drivers seat restraint. It happened on the NZ and Australian NCAP too. Yet because the car did well in other areas and its electronic safety aids are good it was still awarded 4 stars. The NCAP press release details that such a failure of seat restraint has never occurred in 28 years of testing, and furthermore they accept that their well established procedures for scoring cars doesn’t allow for a critical mechanical failure. They even strongly recommend that potential buyers of the MG3 look at other cars.

What is concerning is that MG are now modifying new build cars and in October will release a modification to the air bag which didn’t perform well. But MG have no plans to modify existing cars. NCAP have now passed the responsibility for deciding action on existing cars to national authorities IE DVSA in UK. So until a decision is made wrt any statutory recall existing owners are at a risk that these days should not exist, and the value of their cars will inevitably drop.

My daughter bought a new MG3 in February this year, so is affected by MGs intention to do nothing. She did not use dealer finance as she got cheaper finance elsewhere. I’m wondering where she might stand with respect to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 such that if MG continue to do nothing could she reject it to the dealership? I have submitted my “complaint “ to DVSA although by now they will be well aware of the issue, and contacted the BBC consumer affairs department suggesting they could air the issue. The Dealership and MG UK are next on my list. I have other thoughts in mind but plan to give it a few days, and with the motoring press alert to the problem, MG might see their planned inaction to be very bad for business.

MG 3 hatchback suffers 'critical safety failure' in Euro NCAP crash test | Autocar

Latching mechanism fails in frontal offset test, causing driver's seat to twist and increasing risk of injury

www.autocar.co.uk

It's a worrying situation for existing owners of MG3s - any normal manufacturer would arrange to modify all existing cars but this is a Chinese brand and failure to act responsibly will likely trigger nationalistic demonisation which will rub off on the other Chinese brands. The situation being made worse by the difficulty of selling such cars now the bad news is out.

It's nothing new for Chinese manufacturers to ignore Western safety standards to save money - I recall in the mid-1980s that soft toys imported by Mattel from China had to be disassembled and re-stuffed in the UK to meet UK safety regulations before going on sale.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Unfortunately, I believe the CRA would only have effect if the goods were rendered "not fit for purpose." From the description you have given, what has happened is the safety assessment has not scored as highly as others. This is not a functional failure, it's a difference in the level of protection the car might provide compared to others that have scored more than 4 NCAP stars.

I do agree the companies response of not retrofitting the improvement kit is a black mark. And it may affect residual values, But the CRA does not cover depreciation unless there is a full functional failure of the goods.

 

[Dustydog]

That’s a shocking story Clive.
You appear to have demonstrable evidence that MG recognise a safety issue and will be modifying at source all new builds.
The corollary to that imo is cars like your daughters were sold by the Dealer with an inherent latent defect.
CRA covers this aspect. Start with the Dealer making op it clear nothing but a full refund will do. The will be entitled to make a reduction for the use to date. How much will be open to discussion,
If they prove obstructive there are Consumer Gurus. Eg Which? legal and people’s Champions like Kate Morely of the Daily Telegraph .
I am sure the Dealer and MG would not want nationwide adverse publicity!

I’m sure with your knives Sharpened you will win.

I typed mine just after the Prof’s was posted.

A defect doesn’t have to be a total failure but an inherent defect which may be injurious to health requiring a future modification cannot be ignored. Give it a go

Keep us posted.

 

[otherclive]

I cannot agree with Profs view as whilst I accept that there will be variations in the test results for different cars from a range of manufacturers, to have a mechanical failure of the drivers seat restraint fixing is an unacceptable safety failure. NCAP have said as much, and in 29 years of testing hundreds of cars such a failure has never occurred.

In ANCAP the MG3 only gained three stars when first tested in 2024 and some changes were introduced which improved its result in 2025 testing. But these changes were to electronic safety response systems. But in its ANCAP 2025 test its seat fixing failed such that the driver is slewed sideways. The company’s response to ANCAP was that for a town car this wasn’t unacceptable. The test simulates two cars having an impact together at 50kph. Not a high speed for your seat fixtures to fail. Understandably the Oz and NZ authorities and media were scathing. That’s probably why MG now have a modification going in to newly produced cars there and in Europe and UK. . But MG have patently refused to retroactively fit a modification to existing cars.

Since the fiasco of Zafira fires the Government strengthened DVSAs powers such that they can enforce changes. DVSA can write to the maker giving 10 days to explain why the maker believes nothing needs to be done to rectify a safety issue. If a satisfactory response is not received DVSA can if required mandate a safety recall.

I will be watching how this develops and deciding on my actions. Our daughter isn’t aware of the issue yet, but will not be happy. I can but remind her of her first wheels when a babe.

 

[ProfJohnL]

I haven't seen the report so I can't be certain of the nature of the issue, but I have to presume the seat fixing must have failed during one of NCAPs tests, and as such the components would have experienced more stress than would normally arise during typical driving. Until the relevant components are put under stresses that exceed normal driving loads the seat would remain fully functional. Thus the product is still functioning normally.

It only displays as a defect when put under the stress of a NCAP test, so is it actually "defective" Arguably it could have been designed to be stronger, but unless that is a legal requirement that it must remain intact under the NCAP testing regime, its difficult to define it as defective.

I am not suggesting you should not fight the issue, but the CRA may be the wrong piece of legislation, as technically the CRA is against the seller not the manufacturer.

 

[Buckman]

It reads as if it is an inherent fault and has been there from day oen so C RA 2015 is your friend. Sadly as she does not have finance attached to the vehicle, (I as assuming she got a loan at a lower rate?, her contract is with the dealer and no one else, not even MG HQ.

You are aware of my issue with a brand new Yaris, but the issue with the MG is a serious fault with the car and if manifested, could result in the death of the driver. Definitely a CRA 2015 issue and I suggest approaching Which Legal Services for expert advice. However more to the point, it may be in her best interests to stop driving the vehicle as there may also be insurance implications in the event of a mishap.

 

[RogerL]

I haven't seen the report so I can't be certain of the nature of the issue, but I have to presume the seat fixing must have failed during one of NCAPs tests, and as such the components would have experienced more stress than would normally arise during typical driving. Until the relevant components are put under stresses that exceed normal driving loads the seat would remain fully functional. Thus the product is still functioning normally.

It only displays as a defect when put under the stress of a NCAP test, so is it actually "defective" Arguably it could have been designed to be stronger, but unless that is a legal requirement that it must remain intact under the NCAP testing regime, its difficult to define it as defective.

I am not suggesting you should not fight the issue, but the CRA may be the wrong piece of legislation, as technically the CRA is against the seller not the manufacturer.

I understood that vehicles are required to be crash-tested more comprehensively than the NCAP tests during development with any failures corrected and re-tested - at least that's what responsible manufacturers do.

In my opinion, those MG3s already sold don't comply with UK/EU safety regulations and should be bought back with a full refund.

 

[otherclive]

I haven't seen the report so I can't be certain of the nature of the issue, but I have to presume the seat fixing must have failed during one of NCAPs tests, and as such the components would have experienced more stress than would normally arise during typical driving. Until the relevant components are put under stresses that exceed normal driving loads the seat would remain fully functional. Thus the product is still functioning normally.

It only displays as a defect when put under the stress of a NCAP test, so is it actually "defective" Arguably it could have been designed to be stronger, but unless that is a legal requirement that it must remain intact under the NCAP testing regime, its difficult to define it as defective.

I am not suggesting you should not fight the issue, but the CRA may be the wrong piece of legislation, as technically the CRA is against the seller not the manufacturer.

The NCAP tests are designed by drawing on lots of national and international data to simulate specific accidents that lead to critical injuries or death. Of course the tests will impose higher loads than normal driving as we don’t go around having full, or offset frontal impacts during normal driving. NCAP, and other international testing authorities publish changes to the test regime some years in advance so that makers can design and test their products accordingly. Some cars will pass with high scores in all areas, others not such high scores. I recall when the Dacia Jogger was tested it achieved 1 star….shock and horror. But Dacia were upfront on its design. Its passive protection features were in a par with many mainstream rivals. But deliberately Dacia had decided not to load it with autonomous safety systems on account of cost and complexity, and their target market didn’t demand such features. It became a good selling car in Europe with long waiting lists. But when autonomous systems were mandated Dacia incorporated them, but again only to fit mandated systems.

I think MG are cynically using the test marking system to use high marks on other areas of the test such as autonomous systems to offset the mechanical failure of the drivers seat fastening in both Euro NCAP and ANCAP. For MG to state in Aus/NZ that it’s only a town car is unbelievable, as no other car tested by NCAP since 1997 has had such a mechanical failure. Doesn’t that say something? Of course none of us can ever know how close our own cars came to failure under test conditions but the fact is MG 3 has done so twice. If there’s a modification being fitted now to new cars and an airbag change due in October it’s purely financial for MG to say existing vehicles will not be modified as 4 stars were achieved. I would think their dealership chain will be concerned with NCAPs recommendation to look at other cars, as such potentially bad press could rub off on the marque as a whole. I have submitted my case to DVSA, who doubtless are aware of the issue as NCAP have put future decisions in the hands of national type approval and safety authorities.

 

[Dustydog]

This has echoes of the Kegworth air crash. The brand new Boeing 737 400 suffered catastrophic seat floor mounting failures in the crash. All earlier and future 737 models were then fitted with strengthened redesigned floor and seat mountings. The original failures allegedly contributed to the serious back and leg injuries.

The MG 3 NCAP results explain Clive’s points . There is no doubt in my mind CRA 2015 will cover Clive’s daughter’s claim against the dealer . It is an inherent defect.

 

[otherclive]

Here is DVSA’s approach to safety issues. A useful read. A decision by a national safety authority such as DVSA is valuable support in any claim against the dealer. I will certainly be talking to Which Legal Services as an opening gambit. Mainly because if any recall is issued it could still take months, wheras CRA2015 should not be influenced by long timescales to modify a product.

Vehicle safety defects and recalls: code of practice

www.gov.uk

 

[otherclive]

I will be talking to Which Legal Services tomorrow.

Watch: MG hatchback suffers critical safety failure in crash tests - Which?

Our exclusive video shows rare seat failure in the MG 3 small hatchback during Euro NCAP tests

www.which.co.uk

 

[Buckman]

I will be talking to Which Legal Services tomorrow.

Watch: MG hatchback suffers critical safety failure in crash tests - Which?

Our exclusive video shows rare seat failure in the MG 3 small hatchback during Euro NCAP tests

www.which.co.uk

Excellent as they are very good value for the £90 per annum for as much legal advice as possible. They are investigating our issue a bit more in depth than giving legal advice as numerous people are complaining to them about inadequate or incorrect Lane Departure and pre Collision systems.