Recently, female car owners in Xi'an, Shaanxi Province, have become a hotspot on the Internet for crying and defending their rights on the roof of Mercedes-Benz. The owner said on April 13 that he had submitted information to the joint investigation team of the Xian Municipal Market Regulatory Bureau to cooperate with the investigation and continue to safeguard his rights. Mercedes-Benz said that it has sent a special working group to Xi'an, and will make an appointment with customers as soon as possible to communicate directly, so as to reach a satisfactory solution on a reasonable basis.
As far as the objectivity of news is concerned, only the short video of the owner crying about the bridge section of safeguarding rights is indeed a "family word", and it does not fulfill the responsibility of balancing the right of speech and verifying the facts. However, judging from the owner's words, the reaction of 4S stores involved, the "high-standard response" of the joint investigation team set up by the Xi'an Market Supervision and Administration High-tech Branch, and even the "official declaration" of Beijing Mercedes-Benz Sales Service Co., Ltd., the truth is only nailed down in nine out of ten. Of course, we have no intention of speculating or guilty of the original crime before the emergence of the authoritative conclusion, but why does the owner of the car "crying for rights" make the public feel distressed? This problem is awesome.
The truth of the owner's statement is roughly like this: after graduating from graduate school, she paid more than 200,000 down payments at the 4S Mercedes-Benz shop of Xi'an Lixing, backed about 400,000 car loans and bought the Mercedes-Benz car with a total price of more than 600,000. However, a few minutes after signing the bill of lading, the engine leaked. Yes, the door didn't come out. The engine leaked oil. After 15 days of "protracted war" negotiations, the 4S shop's solution is from refund, car change and so on. Finally, it is suspected that it only recognizes "engine change according to the state's"three packages"regulations". The owner is in a hurry. Please pay attention to a few strange "points". First, how did the promise of "refund and change" change into "change engine"? Secondly, a new car suspected of leaking oil and not driving out of the door, the "three packages" policy can only support the "engine change"? Second, how dare 4S stores let consumers fight 12315 when they are reasonably suspected to be powerless?
The answer to these questions may have been "free hearts".
Is the car owner a "car disturbance"? Sitting on the hood and reasoning, relying on high decibel rights, and bluntly saying "don't face it", there is indeed a form of "noise"; however, she must say "you" and "big brother". She talks about things and is very reasonable. When it comes to the tear of the weak in the sour place, is this still a "noise"? As the owner questioned: Where on earth did such a "new car" come from? Even if not sold to her, who is the next "catcher" after the oil leak and the replacement of the "new car" with the engine? If these problems are not clear, reconciliation is only "partial comfort".
It can be imagined that, because the spectators of the video shooting, the wave of public opinion appeared, there was a "joint investigation team" of market supervision, and the brand headquarters jumped out of the "statement". What if not? How long will it take for owners to protect their rights?
Wang Xiaobo said this in The Silent Majority: "I think that the strength of intellectuals is only to persuade people with reason, if not, he has no advantage." A society ruled by law is naturally a society in which rational intellectuals and law-abiding citizens go straight ahead. If rights and freedoms are "distributed according to trouble", to a certain extent, it fables omissions and problems at the level of public governance. The owner of "crying for rights" makes everyone have a deep sense of "substitution", because in many cases, we hope to defend our rights by reason, but the problem is that "15 days passed", facing the 4S stores which are too strong to be poured into the oil, if even the final right to explain the "three packages" policy falls into the hands of "big stores", what can knowledge and reasonable consumers do?
Although the brand side should do its best to corporate social responsibility and investigate the sales behavior of 4S stores, the functional supervision department may not be able to point to the "special investigation group". At present, two more things should be done: first, to check which departments the owner has complained about, and whether there is no "no effort, no action" in these departments? The second is to sort out the channels of consumer complaints along the event of "crying and defending rights", protect the legitimate rights and interests of consumers like solving business environment problems, and seriously rectify the latent rules of self-talk in 4S stores.
The owner's optimism must be right, "I don't believe there is no reasonable place in the world." However, for those who have not yet reached the point of "open-mindedness" with eloquence and courage, it may be a practical problem to face in 364 days after "315" to find a sensible, trustworthy and amiable "reasoning place". In this regard, in 2019, when "strong domestic market" becomes the key word, functional departments should also take the initiative to care for and innovate, so that such suspected "no trouble, no solution series" incidents in the consumer market are less and less!
The above content is translated by the customer service staff of Beijing Translation Company. I hope it will be helpful to you all.