MG Charged Me for a Warranty Repair Based on Disputed Liquid Damage
On July 17, 2026, my **MG HS (license plate 06 ) suddenly became inoperable because it could no longer recognize the key. I contacted MG Roadside Assistance, and my vehicle was towed to the MG Authorized Service Center in Ankara for diagnosis and repair.
After inspecting the vehicle, the service advisor informed me that the problem was caused by liquid damage to the BCM (Body Control Module). Based on this conclusion, I was told that the repair would not be covered under warranty, even though my vehicle remains under warranty until March 29, 2030. I strongly object to the decision to deny warranty coverage solely on the basis of an alleged liquid intrusion into the BCM module.
My vehicle remained at the service center from July 17 through July 21, 2026. At the end of the repair, I was informed that the BCM module had been replaced. During the process, the service center sent me photographs of what they claimed was the damaged BCM, showing severe corrosion and damage allegedly caused by liquid exposure. However, the BCM module that was later returned to me as the removed part does not show the same level of liquid damage or corrosion visible in the photographs provided by the service center. In other words, the appearance of the module I received does not match the photographs that were used to justify rejecting my warranty claim. Despite this obvious inconsistency, the service center has never provided any explanation and simply handed me the replaced module.
As a result of these repairs, I was billed approximately $792. I cannot accept being charged such a substantial amount for repairs on a vehicle that is still under warranty, particularly when the warranty denial is based on disputed evidence of liquid damage. I was also informed that one of the two keys sent from Istanbul was defective and could not be programmed, and I was asked to pay an additional fee because of that issue. I believe it is unreasonable to deny warranty coverage for the BCM repair while also requesting extra payment for a key-related problem on a vehicle that remains within its warranty period.
I request that MG honor the vehicle's valid warranty by covering all repairs related to the BCM module and the key programming issue. I also request that the $792 charged for these repairs be canceled or refunded, that any additional charges related to the key be withdrawn, and that MG provide a clear explanation for the discrepancy between the photographs of the allegedly damaged BCM module and the module that was actually returned to me. I expect this matter to be investigated promptly and resolved in a fair and transparent manner.