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 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 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.