MB 30 Year Anti Corrosion Warranty - A BIG ONE

Chillbrazl

New Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2016
Messages
9
Car
SLK, B Class, ML/ Porsche 993
Hi
Whilst I have have several MB's in the past I have been more of a Land Rover person in particular I left MB after a huge problem with an MB Dealer finally resolved after many months of correspondence by an excellent an honest Customer Service Director (no longer in that position now) however it just put a sour taste in my mouth.
I am however pleased in part to say we have an ML (excellent all rounder) a B Class (great, roomy) and an old but beautiful SLK with a new C Class on the way.
Where do I start?? I have pages and pages of email to several different so called service representatives :wallbash: which make very interesting reading given their constantly changing position, ignoring some facts and just generally cherry picking their response but newer answering a question that may prejudice themselves
It all started when we bought a B Class, we looked long and hard for a diesel auto will FMBSH a must we were advised not least for the RUST problem that they all suffer from which this one had. We were advised we needed to have owned for 6 months before being eligible to make a claim, we kept in contact with the dealer and decided to leave it until it became due for its next service. As the service approached I was taken ill and had numerous hospital visits culminating in a not very nice diagnosis. As a result we were a bit late in booking in however I checked and had it confirmed that 1000 miles over was not an issue. We booked the car in, no issues with the length of time since its previous service, over two years. Arranged then to book the car for an inspection by the dealer, photos were taken of all panels that were rusted (all doors and boot lid), paint measurements were taken of all panels and confirmed as all original paint work, quite rare for a 10 year old car however as the technician confirmed a valid claim. He submitted and on both occasions got a rejection. Both reasons were differing something I thought of as odd however the start of trend.
I wrote to MB and was advised the car did not have a compliant service history, no explanation, literally 'it just does'nt'. I kept reiterating, explaining that it is compliant, we have followed the ASSYSY System, this continued over many emails finally after no explanation (because they can do that) I was advised the interval was 12 months of 15k miles and as I had failed to service within these time frames no warranty. I wrote again and confirmed this car does not have fixed intervals and sent them their copies of how the ASSYST System works .....so do you now agree it has a MBFSH (still to this day they have not accepted or commented). Change of tack time now, they then came back with, 'the rust is not from the inside out' and must be subject of external influences (I kid you not). You must bear in mind I had the rust confirmed in person by their on site specialist however they said their 'remote' specialist looking at photos has determined it is not, really, can you look at photos and overturn the actual word of a first hand 'in the flesh' inspection?? Seems you can. I further advised them I had copies of their Topic Reports that accepted these car suffered from 'excessive separation of seam sealer and corrosion along the doors and flap due to poor cathodic immersion painting at the time of manufacture'
I requested confirmation that our car was indeed one of the affected cars and was advised 'they are not aware of any such problems' however I confirmed the below and advised I could send copies of these topics and was advised that they are unaware of such topics and any relating information is for internal use only however MB are relying on 'this internal information' and they will not disclose it to demonstrate why they are not honoring our claim. They would not even send of copy of the 'remote' paint report if indeed it actually existed.

Vehicles of model series 169 up to WDD169XXX 1J 333365 and model series 245 up to WDD245XXX 1J 101397.
Remedy: The following remedial action I restricted to vehicles of model series 169 and 245 up to VIN WDD169XXX 1J 333365 and WDD245XXX 1J 101397.
In the event of bodyshell complaints concerning the front doors, the affected doors must be replaced.
See G172 10-P-050237 'Replace 1st left/right door, transfer with parts, in the event of bodyshell complaints'
Ditto, rear doors and rear-end door see G172 10-P-050238 and G172 10-P-050240 respectively.
For reference however not limited to, is Topic Number G172-00-P-040777, titled, Corrosion in area of seam sealant on doors and flaps in model series 169/245. In addition, Topic Number G172-10-P-050237, titled, Replace 1st left/right door, transfer with parts, in the event of bodyshell complaints.

I have resubmitted their actual photos that were given to me by the Dealer that they took showing them paint bubbling from the inside out, the seam sealer showing rust all along its length and again requested their ‘remote’ report as clearly a car with paint that is as original as the day it left the factory could only be rusting like this as a result of (their internally accepted reason) of a deficiency at the time of painting, a (internally) documented fact. So although this Topic exists they still know nothing about it and still maintain the car has suffered rust due to ‘external influences’. MB seem to able to act with impunity and for some reason seem to consider themselves Judge and Jury without the need to be able to prove or demonstrate anything beyond reasonable doubt. In what other commercially accountable walk of life could you make and change your own rules and be accountable to no one other than yourself yet legally take money for a service part of which you would never honor and continue to refute yet were able to trade on the perception of a ’30 year warranty’ something you would never pay out much after 5-6 years and this is only if your wanted to.
I have copied in both MB CEO’s Garry Savage and Dieter Zetsch for UK and Germany and strangely enough they have remained ominously silent.

Having read a number of threads this seems a very common problem albeit I am unaware of any mention by others of the specific topic Numbers that MB claim do not exist and the information related or otherwise is for ‘internal use’ only however they continue to use this ‘internal’ information that they will not disclose to reject your claim:doh:

Am I missing something here!! If you are defending your position do you not need to provide a defense. Oh no I forget they are MB, they can do as they please still sell cars and still offer a service based on this big statement yet further down the line just not honor it as they had you money by then.
 

Rory

MB Enthusiast
SUPPORTER
Joined
Mar 12, 2005
Messages
7,349
Location
Cheshire, UK
Car
C270CDi Estate (late 2004 facelift model)
What a horrible organisation Mercedes is.
 

SPX

MB Club Veteran
SUPPORTER
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
16,427
Location
Yorkshire
Car
That one
What a horrible organisation Mercedes is.
You only have to look at their reaction to the crabbing issue on the GLC/C 4Matic to see how they deal with quality issues; stick their fingers in their ears and just hope you go away.
 

DSM10000

MB Enthusiast
SUPPORTER
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
7,093
Location
Near Salisbury
Car
E32O CDi Sport, MX5 1.8 Sport, RR 4.2 SC
I thought that the 30 year bodywork warranty was for rust perforation from the inside panels to the outside ?
 

Red C220

MB Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 30, 2011
Messages
4,196
Location
Surrey
Car
2015 SL400 : 2017 S6 Avant
Could you refer it to the motor ombudsman?
You only have to look at their reaction to the crabbing issue on the GLC/C 4Matic to see how they deal with quality issues; stick their fingers in their ears and just hope you go away.
MB have already been ruled against by the ombudsman in the crabbing issue and so far they have chosen to ignore the ruling.

Mercedes Dealer Refuses to Accept Ruling of Motor Ombudsman over GLC Crabbing Issue | Motoring News | Honest John

None of this is why I've ordered an Audi it just so happened I didn't really like the look of the new E43 AMG. With hindsight I'm glad I made the decision to change though.

The attitude is appalling, it's well known MB can have a hard nosed attitude but this seems to have taken it to another level.
 

rf065

MB Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
4,210
Location
Grossbritannien
Car
SLC300 - C250d Estate 4 Matic & Z900rs
I thought that the 30 year bodywork warranty was for rust perforation from the inside panels to the outside ?
It is, but most people see 30 year rust warranty and assume it covers all rust which it doesn't. Other rust issues have been fixed under Mercedes goodwill but only up to the car being 8 years old and then your on your own.

Russ
 

SPX

MB Club Veteran
SUPPORTER
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
16,427
Location
Yorkshire
Car
That one
Fixed that for you, Lee :thumb:
How they ever got away with that period between approximately 1995-2005 (up to 2012 with the commercials!) where everything rusted still amazes me.
 

rf065

MB Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 8, 2007
Messages
4,210
Location
Grossbritannien
Car
SLC300 - C250d Estate 4 Matic & Z900rs
How they ever got away with that period between approximately 1995-2005 (up to 2012 with the commercials!) where everything rusted still amazes me.
I've seen 2008/09 ML's with the bottom edge of the doors rusted along their full length, so not just the commercials after 2005.

Sure there was thread here with A & B Classes as late as 2012 with rusty doors too?

Russ
 

SPX

MB Club Veteran
SUPPORTER
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
16,427
Location
Yorkshire
Car
That one
I've seen 2008/09 ML's with the bottom edge of the doors rusted along their full length, so not just the commercials after 2005.

Sure there was thread here with A & B Classes as late as 2012 with rusty doors too?

Russ
There was, you're right, I was referring more to the sweet spot of the rusty era.
 

GLK

MB Enthusiast
SUPPORTER
Joined
Sep 20, 2014
Messages
2,715
Location
Bozeat, Northants
Car
A200 Sports Coupé C169
I have had the car (A200 C169 2006) examined by MB appointed bodyshop, and report submitted.

Claim was rejected by Mercedes (without explanation), despite the car only having under 30k at that time (autumn 2015), and a full MBSH.

Doors are rusted through from the inside, and I plan to purchase new ones from a facelift model with "smooth" seal ... at some point in the future. Can't rely on MB to sort it out, and can't waste my time trying.
 

davidjpowell

MB Enthusiast
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
4,899
Location
Doncaster
Car
Range Rover Vogue, Volvo XC60 and crappy Pug 307
Mercedes have form on the rust guarantee which it would seem has as many holes as their bodywork...

Going legal seem's to be the only way - but you have to be pretty confident of winning as they will stack the costs against you....
 

supermonkeyman

Active Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2014
Messages
207
Car
E250 coupe
MB have already been ruled against by the ombudsman in the crabbing issue and so far they have chosen to ignore the ruling.

Mercedes Dealer Refuses to Accept Ruling of Motor Ombudsman over GLC Crabbing Issue | Motoring News | Honest John

None of this is why I've ordered an Audi it just so happened I didn't really like the look of the new E43 AMG. With hindsight I'm glad I made the decision to change though.

The attitude is appalling, it's well known MB can have a hard nosed attitude but this seems to have taken it to another level.
Oh wow, I wasn't aware they could be ignored, assumed what they said was compulsory!
 

markjay

MB Master
SUPPORTER
Joined
Jun 24, 2008
Messages
27,068
Location
London
Car
W204 C180 Executive SE 2013 Automatic / COMAND NTG4.7 and Morel speakers fitted by www.comand.co.uk
I am of the opinion that the cars should not see a dealer again as soon as the new car warranty expires. Plenty of good honest indies out there. But more to the point, this way I know I am not going to claim on the 4th year Goodwill warranty or on the 30 Year 'anti-perforation' warranty and therefore I am saving myself a whole lot of grief. If it breaks, I'll fix it, if it rusts, I'll repair it, and I don't need to ask MB for any 'favours'.

On another note, when manufacturers do what they want because they can, sometimes starting a legal process (letter from solicitor accompanied by an AA inspector's report etc) is the only way forward. Hoping of course that the settlement will include paying your costs.
 

Rory

MB Enthusiast
SUPPORTER
Joined
Mar 12, 2005
Messages
7,349
Location
Cheshire, UK
Car
C270CDi Estate (late 2004 facelift model)
Oh wow, I wasn't aware they could be ignored, assumed what they said was compulsory!
Its decisions are supposed to be binding on its members. The dealer (of course with MB behind them) refusing to accept the decision means the whole scheme might as well be disbanded.
 
OP
OP
Chillbrazl

Chillbrazl

New Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2016
Messages
9
Car
SLK, B Class, ML/ Porsche 993
Did not realise they were ignoring a previous ruling, that explains why at the bottom of every response I get a generic:
If you wish to take this matter further I suggest you contact The Motor Ombudsman. The Motor Ombudsman is a government-backed, self-regulatory body which Mercedes-Benz is a member of. They can be contacted on Tel: 0345 2413 008 or via their website: www.themotorombudsman.org.
It really is unbelievable in this day and age they can just 'brush' aside the small man and get away with it. If they cannot honor their claim of a 30 Year Warranty it needs to be struck off. I requested details of all claims made and those paid for cars between 10 - 30 years in the last year in the UK and was told 'that is internal information only'. Gess that is because they paid '0'.
Why with a huge giant like MB making this claim and selling cars on the back of it are they not accountable??
Copied in their European Director Marcus Breitschwerdt yesterday with another response.

Extract:
1. Dealer confirms our car has an ASSYST Service System, you have for the most part maintained we had a fixed system which was the original basis for your rejection and stating we had not followed the service intervals. Having realised you can no longer rely on this stance you try another reason to reject namely the paint, which was never previously an issue.
2. Dealer confirms rust is from the inside out after a physical inspection and confirms the car has original paint (rust issue backed up by the ‘internal’ Topics that you will not publicly accept exists), your ‘remote’ assessor looking at a photo confirms it is not from the inside out and has been caused by external influences.
3. Dealers have confirmed in writing that 1000 miles over is not a problem to preserve the warranty, again not an issue before, however you suddenly attempt to find another reason and cite this as your reason to reject.

Despite all the protracted correspondence and your futile attempts to reject my claim the above 3 points summarise where we are.

We can and have demonstrated on all three counts we comply in full, yet you twist and try to manipulate the facts in a vain attempt to not honour your Warranty.
For me this is a matter of principle. We have bought a car and paid a little bit over the market value due to its comprehensive and FMBSH, we have paid MB service prices all in good faith on the understanding should there be a problem we can make a claim. Now when we have proven entitlement, as some of you know, you just get a 'NO' with no reason and are ignored, brushed aside and metaphorically told to go away. The problem is they are liable for big bill to carry out the repairs, their internal Topic which I have a copy of states:

Remedy: The following remedial action I restricted to vehicles of model series 169 and 245 up to VIN WDD169XXX 1J 333365 and WDD245XXX 1J 101397
In the event of bodyshell complaints concerning the front doors, the affected doors must be replaced.
See G172 10-P-050237 'Replace 1st left/right door, transfer with parts, in the event of bodyshell complaints'
Ditto, rear doors and rear-end door see G172 10-P-050238 and G172 10-P-050240 respectively.


I my case, as confirmed by the inspecting Dealer, this would be all doors and the boot lid.

Mercedes Benz needs to be brought to account, a bit like the Banks and the PPI scandal. MB should allocate funds to houour their 30 year warranty where the claimant has an entitlement instead of hiding behind spurious and unsubstantiated hearsay like some 'two bit' company.
 
OP
OP
Chillbrazl

Chillbrazl

New Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2016
Messages
9
Car
SLK, B Class, ML/ Porsche 993
Had a response:

Thank you for contacting Mercedes-Benz Customer Service, I write in response to your most recent email of 15th February 2017.

As previously advised this matter has been fully reviewed and I would refer you back to my previous emails which explain our position as a company. We have no further comment to make.

Yours sincerely

Alan Harpin
Customer Service UK


So yet again three simple points where I can demonstrate I comply with their Warranty and they ignore them:wallbash:
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top Bottom