jamesbroadley
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2011
- Messages
- 13
- Car
- CLK 320 Cab
A few months ago I was giving the car a good clean and noticed a little bubbleing up inside the wheel arches, my initial thought was oh well this is why I've kept it within the MB dealer network (to preserve the 30yr corrosion warranty).
Oh how wrong I was....
Letter to MB after numerous phone calls discussions with independant bodyshops etc...
I purchased the above vehicle four years ago from Vikings Canterbury; it has almost always been covered or garaged when parked and always repaired by Mercedes-Benz approved workshops during my ownership. Generally I have been very happy with the vehicle but was alarmed to find rust in one of the wheel arches whilst cleaning it recently. Unfortunately the response I have received from Mercedes-Benz in relation to this issue has been inadequate and I write to claim for the repair under the MobiloLife warranty.
Soon after discovering the rust I took the vehicle to my local Mercedes-Benz workshop (Vikings Canterbury) in order to make a claim under MobiloLife for the repair of the wheel arch. They advised me that in fact all the arches are beginning to rust to a certain degree.
Vikings then proceeded to measure the paint depth on the vehicle and found that the outer face of the passenger side rear wing had been previously repaired. This must have been prior to my ownership and was not obvious at the point of purchase. Vikings advised me to contact Mercedes directly to proceed with a claim.
Therefore earlier this month I telephoned your customer services department. A member of staff dealt with my call and made reference to a “goodwill” programme. He informed me (quite rudely I might add) that under no circumstances would Mercedes-Benz repair corrosion on a vehicle that had had any body work repair. At no point did he make mention of the 30-year warranty that came with the vehicle and covers corrosion.
This response is incorrect and fails to take account of the MobiloLife warranty on the vehicle. As to the “goodwill repair”, this is irrelevant as the vehicle is covered by MobiloLife, and has the pre-requisite full Mercedes-Benz service history. The warranty states (at p8 of the MobiloLife service booklet):
“We provide a warranty against bodywork corrosion. In the unlikely event that the vehicle rusts through from the inside anywhere on the bodywork or the underbody, it will be repaired by your Merecedes-Benz Service point…the warranty is valid for 30 years”.
The only condition is that maintenance services be carried out regularly and by Mercedes-Benz. This is the case for this vehicle.
As to the previous repair to one wing, this is irrelevant as no paint would have been applied to the inside of the arch during the repair, as confirmed by an independent body shop. In any event the repair was to the face of the wing and the corrosion is not in the repaired area. In addition to this the corrosion on the other 3 wings would indicate that this previous repair is not the cause of the rust, as it is reasonable to assume that the corrosion on all four wings is caused by the same factor, namely insufficient rust proofing (including but not exclusively paint thickness) at the point of manufacture.
It should also be noted that neither Vikings nor the customer services department have been able to confirm that the previous repair was not undertaken by “DaimlerChrysler AG for repairs, bodywork and paintwork” as required at page 13 of the warranty.
In any event, no bodywork has been undertaken to the other 3 arches. The warranty states that “MobiloLife cannot assist you if the damage was caused by…improper repairs” (p13, emphasis added). It cannot be argued (and has not been suggested) that the rust to the other 3 wings has in any way been caused by the repair to the fourth wing. To fail to repair the other 3 wings is a breach of the warranty.
For the avoidance of doubt, it cannot be argued that any of the other exceptions at page 13 apply as there has been no “deliberate or gross negligence”, no modifications to the vehicle, no participation in exempted activities and no delay in reporting the fault. The rust was noticed on a Sunday and the vehicle booked into Vikings within a week.
Further the rust cannot be put down to lack of maintenance or environmental influences. The rear wings are corroding where water has penetrated the spot welded inner and outer panels, the corrosion being visible by blistering paint along the length of the join between the two panels. The front wings are also rusting from the inside of the arch outwards as a result of inadequate rust proofing within the arch, the corrosion being visible in the same manner. The above symptoms clearly suggest the rust coming from the inside out, and this has also been confirmed by an independent body shop.
Even if this weren’t the case, the vehicle should not be corroding at all after less than 8 years in use, particularly an expensive, luxury vehicle as it is, as this would constitute the vehicle not being of “satisfactory quality” under section 14 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979.
In light of the above I expect the 4 wings to be repaired under the MobiloLife warranty. I look forward to a prompt and helpful response to this issue as I have thus far been disheartened by the way I have been dealt with by Mercedes-Benz customer services. This follows four years of very high levels of service from Vikings, and am rapidly losing my faith in what I thought was the best brand as far as vehicles were concerned.
I therefore expect a response to this letter within 14 days after which time I will have no option but to take the matter further.
Oh how wrong I was....
Letter to MB after numerous phone calls discussions with independant bodyshops etc...
I purchased the above vehicle four years ago from Vikings Canterbury; it has almost always been covered or garaged when parked and always repaired by Mercedes-Benz approved workshops during my ownership. Generally I have been very happy with the vehicle but was alarmed to find rust in one of the wheel arches whilst cleaning it recently. Unfortunately the response I have received from Mercedes-Benz in relation to this issue has been inadequate and I write to claim for the repair under the MobiloLife warranty.
Soon after discovering the rust I took the vehicle to my local Mercedes-Benz workshop (Vikings Canterbury) in order to make a claim under MobiloLife for the repair of the wheel arch. They advised me that in fact all the arches are beginning to rust to a certain degree.
Vikings then proceeded to measure the paint depth on the vehicle and found that the outer face of the passenger side rear wing had been previously repaired. This must have been prior to my ownership and was not obvious at the point of purchase. Vikings advised me to contact Mercedes directly to proceed with a claim.
Therefore earlier this month I telephoned your customer services department. A member of staff dealt with my call and made reference to a “goodwill” programme. He informed me (quite rudely I might add) that under no circumstances would Mercedes-Benz repair corrosion on a vehicle that had had any body work repair. At no point did he make mention of the 30-year warranty that came with the vehicle and covers corrosion.
This response is incorrect and fails to take account of the MobiloLife warranty on the vehicle. As to the “goodwill repair”, this is irrelevant as the vehicle is covered by MobiloLife, and has the pre-requisite full Mercedes-Benz service history. The warranty states (at p8 of the MobiloLife service booklet):
“We provide a warranty against bodywork corrosion. In the unlikely event that the vehicle rusts through from the inside anywhere on the bodywork or the underbody, it will be repaired by your Merecedes-Benz Service point…the warranty is valid for 30 years”.
The only condition is that maintenance services be carried out regularly and by Mercedes-Benz. This is the case for this vehicle.
As to the previous repair to one wing, this is irrelevant as no paint would have been applied to the inside of the arch during the repair, as confirmed by an independent body shop. In any event the repair was to the face of the wing and the corrosion is not in the repaired area. In addition to this the corrosion on the other 3 wings would indicate that this previous repair is not the cause of the rust, as it is reasonable to assume that the corrosion on all four wings is caused by the same factor, namely insufficient rust proofing (including but not exclusively paint thickness) at the point of manufacture.
It should also be noted that neither Vikings nor the customer services department have been able to confirm that the previous repair was not undertaken by “DaimlerChrysler AG for repairs, bodywork and paintwork” as required at page 13 of the warranty.
In any event, no bodywork has been undertaken to the other 3 arches. The warranty states that “MobiloLife cannot assist you if the damage was caused by…improper repairs” (p13, emphasis added). It cannot be argued (and has not been suggested) that the rust to the other 3 wings has in any way been caused by the repair to the fourth wing. To fail to repair the other 3 wings is a breach of the warranty.
For the avoidance of doubt, it cannot be argued that any of the other exceptions at page 13 apply as there has been no “deliberate or gross negligence”, no modifications to the vehicle, no participation in exempted activities and no delay in reporting the fault. The rust was noticed on a Sunday and the vehicle booked into Vikings within a week.
Further the rust cannot be put down to lack of maintenance or environmental influences. The rear wings are corroding where water has penetrated the spot welded inner and outer panels, the corrosion being visible by blistering paint along the length of the join between the two panels. The front wings are also rusting from the inside of the arch outwards as a result of inadequate rust proofing within the arch, the corrosion being visible in the same manner. The above symptoms clearly suggest the rust coming from the inside out, and this has also been confirmed by an independent body shop.
Even if this weren’t the case, the vehicle should not be corroding at all after less than 8 years in use, particularly an expensive, luxury vehicle as it is, as this would constitute the vehicle not being of “satisfactory quality” under section 14 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979.
In light of the above I expect the 4 wings to be repaired under the MobiloLife warranty. I look forward to a prompt and helpful response to this issue as I have thus far been disheartened by the way I have been dealt with by Mercedes-Benz customer services. This follows four years of very high levels of service from Vikings, and am rapidly losing my faith in what I thought was the best brand as far as vehicles were concerned.
I therefore expect a response to this letter within 14 days after which time I will have no option but to take the matter further.
