Newbie - Large repair bill as 1st time Mercedes customer

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Speak to a good solicitor.
1) Good luck finding a "good solicitor" these days, and,
2) If you thought the garage bill expensive you're definitely not going to like solicitor's bills.

The good news is that you can do this yourself, there is plenty of advice online on taking small claims actions and you certainly do have a valid claim. Neither does the fact that you have paid the bill already make any difference whatsoever, especially given that you took the vehicle to another Mercedes mainstealer. PM me if you need a steer on this....

Edit... That'll teach me to read to the end of a thread before replying, glad to see that you chased them up, let us know how you get on.
 
A formal Notice Before Action, drafted by a solicitor, might do the trick, though I wouldn't count on it. They're selling used cars, and by and large (though there are honourable exceptions; I met one, once...) it's a dishonest trade.
The "letter before action" is something you can easily do yourself, there are templates online you can adapt.
 
This is my understanding as well.

The problem with these things is that when there's a fault you have no way of knowing where this will lead to, and taking the car to the nearest dealer to have it looked at under warranty seems like the reasonable thing to do. You are then stuck with a broken down car in one garage and an argument with another.

In theory, once his request to have the supplying dealer cover the repair cost was denied, the OP should have taken the car on a transporter back to the supplying dealer and dump it there, threatening rejection if the fault is not fixed.

But the OP needed the car back so decided to pay-up and vent here.
No, the fault existed and that is the cause of the legal action, the reasonable costs in diagnosing and repairing the fault that should not have existed is what is being claimed for. The fact that another dealership undertook the work demonstrates that reasonable skill and diligence was employed in doing such, MB Loughton are hardly likely to claim that MB Solihull were dishonest in their dealings with this matter. Incidentally, did they supply pictures of the defective parts or return such to the OP?
 
No, the fault existed and that is the cause of the legal action, the reasonable costs in diagnosing and repairing the fault that should not have existed is what is being claimed for. The fact that another dealership undertook the work demonstrates that reasonable skill and diligence was employed in doing such, MB Loughton are hardly likely to claim that MB Solihull were dishonest in their dealings with this matter. Incidentally, did they supply pictures of the defective parts or return such to the OP?

Correct, but when the fault first became evident, the OP had no way of knowing if this was a new fault (and therefore covered by warranty, and can be sorted by any MB dealer), or it was an old fault that existed at the time of sale (and therefore needs to be sorted by the supplying dealer). The OP decided to take the car to the nearest dealer, which wasn't the supplying dealer. When the local dealer said that the fault wasn't covered by warranty, the OP should have contacted the supplying dealer immediately rather than allowing the local dealer to proceed with a paid repair. This does not mean that the OP won't get his money back, just that the process will be long winded and will require court action.
 
Correct, but when the fault first became evident, the OP had no way of knowing if this was a new fault (and therefore covered by warranty, and can be sorted by any MB dealer), or it was an old fault that existed at the time of sale (and therefore needs to be sorted by the supplying dealer). The OP decided to take the car to the nearest dealer, which wasn't the supplying dealer. When the local dealer said that the fault wasn't covered by warranty, the OP should have contacted the supplying dealer immediately rather than allowing the local dealer to proceed with a paid repair. This does not mean that the OP won't get his money back, just that the process will be long winded and will require court action.
I don't believe it made any difference at all, Loughton MB took the view from the very beginning that the OP was on his own with this, otherwise they would have recovered the vehicle at their cost and undertaken the repair themselves, Loughton is my local dealership, I personally use the dealer in Southend, make of that what you will....

And regardless of whether it was a "new" fault or existing, it occurred within 6 months of purchase....
 
An update on my ongoing case...so Mercedes Legal team in the UK have replied with the below today and refute the claim!, it has now been referred to the "County Court Business Centre"...what a wonderful way to treat 1st time mercedes customers...looking at next steps now based on the consumer rights act 2015

MERCEDES-BENZ RETAIL GROUP UK LIMITED

Defendant

_____________________________________________________

DEFENCE

_____________________________________________________

1. The Defendant was at all material times the retailer and repairer of Mercedes-Benz vehicles
(Company Number: 00419087).
2. It is not clear to the Defendant on what legal grounds the Claimant is bringing this claim. The
Claimant has not disclosed any contractual agreement, has not specified what contractual
provision has been breached, how it has been breached and how that breach caused the
Claimant’s loss. The Claimant has not identified any statute that may have been breached.
3. The Defendant submits that the Particulars of Claim (“PoC”) does not conform to the
requirement of CPR 16.2, for example, it does not contain a concise statement. The Claimant
has failed to provide details of the breaches and a breakdown of the losses.
4. Paragraph 3.1 of the PoC is admitted. The Defendant understands that the Mercedes-Benz S63
with registration number LVxx xxJ (the “Vehicle”) was purchased by the Claimant in November
2020 used car from Mercedes-Benz Loughton (“MB Loughton”), a dealership owned and
operated by the Defendant. The Vehicle was purchased under the ‘Mercedes-Benz Approved
Used Programme’ (the “Programme”) with a 12 month approved used car warranty. At the
time of purchase, the Vehicle was approximately 5 years and 11 months old.
5. The Defendant can neither admit nor deny paragraph 3.2 of the PoC, as the condition and
mileage of the Vehicle during the period specified and distance from MB Loughton to the
Claimant’s home, are not within the Defendant’s knowledge. Therefore, the Defendant puts the
Claimant to strict proof.

6. The Defendant can neither admit nor deny paragraph 3.3 of the PoC, as any noise allegedly
emanating from the Vehicle, at that time, is not within the Defendant’s knowledge. Therefore,
the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof.
7. Paragraph 3.4 of the PoC is admitted in so far as the Defendant understands, from its own
investigations, that that the Claimant contacted Mercedes-Benz of Solihull (the “Local Dealer”)
complaining of a noise emanating from the Vehicle and organised the Vehicle to be delivered
to the Local Dealer for inspection. The Local Dealer is owned and operated by a separate legal
entity to the Defendant. The reason for the delay in between the Claimant allegedly
experiencing the noise and the Vehicle being delivered to the Local Dealer is not within the
Defendant’s knowledge and therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof.
8. The Defendant understands from its own investigations that after inspecting the Vehicle, the
Local Dealer diagnosed the Vehicle as having corrosion of internal wiring. The Local Dealer
informed the Claimant that they could not repair this issue under the used car warranty. The
Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof of its alleged knowledge of the terms and
exemptions of the Vehicle’s car warranty.
9. Paragraph 3.5 of the PoC is admitted in so far as the Claimant provided MB Loughton with the
diagnostic report prepared by the Local Dealer and inquired as to whether MB Loughton would
reimburse the Claimant for the cost of the repairs. MB Loughton confirmed that it would not
reimburse the Claimant. The internal wiring of a Vehicle is not inspected as part of the Pre-Sale
Vehicle Health Check (“VHC”), as it is a perishable item. Only items considered as part of the
VHC are covered by used car warranty and as the internal wiring of a vehicle is not covered,
any repair or replacement of it is not covered under any warranty. The Claimant was informed
that although the repair or replacement of the internal wiring was not covered under any used
car warranty, MB Loughton would explore the possibility of a customer support goodwill
contribution.
10. The Defendant can neither admit nor deny paragraphs 3.6 and 3.7 of the PoC, as the alleged
payments made to the Local Dealer, the breakdown of such payments and the condition of the
Vehicle are not within the Defendant’s knowledge. Therefore, the Defendant puts the Claimant
to strict proof.

11. Paragraph 3.8 of the PoC is admitted in so far as the quote provided by the Claimant is from
the brochure of the Programme. The language used in the brochure is common in automotive
advertising (“meticulously”, “perfect working order”) to promote vehicles and services.

Therefore these representations are mere "sales puffs" which have no legal effect. When the
Claimant purchased the nearly 6 year old used Vehicle under the Programme, the VHC provided
the Defendant’s guarantee of the standard of the Vehicle. The internal wiring was not included
as a part of the VHC and therefore no guarantee was made in regards to the internal wiring.
12. Paragraph 3.9 of the PoC is admitted in so far as MB Loughton informed the Claimant that the
possible goodwill contribution could not be obtained as the repair or replacement of the internal
wiring was not carried out by the Defendant’s site, MB Loughton. The Claimant was informed
that he should contact the Local Dealer in relation to this matter as the Local Dealer
investigated and initiated the claim and repair. Although the condition and mileage of the
Vehicle is not within the Defendant’s knowledge and so the Claimant is put to strict proof, the
Defendant avers that a vehicle sold under the Programme should correspond to its VHC. The
Defendant avers that the Vehicle did correspond to the VHC, is of satisfactory quality and fit
for purpose. At the time of sale, the Vehicle was supplied with a valid MOT test.
13. The Defendant is unable to admit nor deny paragraph 3.10 of the PoC, it is a statement of the
Claimant’s opinion, and the Claimant is put to strict proof.
14. Paragraph 3.11 is admitted in so far as the Defendant has informed Claimant that it owes no
contribution or reimbursement to the Claimant as the internal wiring does not fall under the
used car warranty. Moreover, the Vehicle is a used car and at the point of repair, it was more
than 6 years old.
15. The Defendant denies any existence of or breach of statutory duty, contractual or tortious
liability as alleged or at all.
16. The Defendant denies liability for the losses and damages by the Claimant and the Claimant is
put to strict proof as to the losses alleged or at all or that, the Defendant is liable for such
alleged loss. For the reasons stated above it is further denied that the Claimant is entitled to
any damages, costs or at all from the Defendant.
17. Accordingly the Defendant invites the court to strike out the Claimant’s claim of its own
initiative in accordance with the Court’s Case Management powers under CPR 3.4(2).

Statement of Truth
I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of
court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a
document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

I am duly authorised by the Defendant to sign this statement.
 
I only read it very quickly but I think the claim is with regards to warranty. If the wiring is excluded from the warranty then it’s excluded. I think the MB solicitor is taking this angle as it gives the defendant the best chance of winning.

The fault was within 6 months of purchase so consumer goods act applies, the warranty is irrelevant. I don’t believe that the Consumer Goods Act excludes wiring so that’s the angle to pursue, as it gives the claimant the best chance of winning.


Two further thoughts:

Wiring is perishable?! 😳

Only items inspected in the Cehicle Health Check are covered under warranty? I’d be surprised if that was true.
 
"The language used in the brochure is common in automotive advertising (“meticulously”, “perfect working order”) to promote vehicles and services. Therefore these representations are mere "sales puffs" which have no legal effect. "

MB wrote this??? Wow.
 
"The internal wiring of a Vehicle is not inspected as part of the Pre-Sale Vehicle Health Check (“VHC”), as it is a perishable item."

The wiring on MB cars are perishable.....? Again, wow.
 
"The Defendant avers that the Vehicle did correspond to the VHC, is of satisfactory quality and fit for purpose. At the time of sale, the Vehicle was supplied with a valid MOT test."

So they are saying that the fault was NOT present at the time of sale. Fine.

"The internal wiring of a Vehicle is not inspected as part of the Pre-Sale Vehicle Health Check (“VHC”), as it is a perishable item. Only items considered as part of the VHC are covered by used car warranty and as the internal wiring of a vehicle is not covered"

Hmmmm... so they DON'T actually know that the fault wasn't present at the time of sale.

😕 🤔 😯 :crazy:
 
"The internal wiring of a Vehicle is not inspected as part of the Pre-Sale Vehicle Health Check (“VHC”), as it is a perishable item"

Hmmm... so they don't check batteries, tyres, brakes either...? Interest.
 
"Only items considered as part of the VHC are covered by used car warranty and as the internal wiring of a vehicle is not covered"

Does the VHC include a check of the condition of the valve seats? Piston crowns? Conrods? Oil pump? Fuel pump? No? So are these itmes not covered by the Approved Used car warranty?
 
On the premise that the car is privately owned (and the sale wasn't B2B), I can't see how MB's defense isn't thrown out of court. This is a very clear case of Kafakaic corporate bullying of an innocent consumer. Personal opinion....
 
Good luck with this, what a terrible way to be treated, i am sure people reading this will turn there back on MB Loughton and look elsewhere for there cars. I hope you have the best outcome and will look forward to you winning, keep us updated.
 
The fault was within 6 months of purchase so consumer goods act applies, the warranty is irrelevant. I don’t believe that the Consumer Goods Act excludes wiring so that’s the angle to pursue, as it gives the claimant the best chance of winning.

.
For me that’s what the CGA is about. The warranty aspect as said is irrelevant.
 
Wow, the money and time they must have put into this already, plus the bad press and the annoying of a customer. It's beyond belief that MB want to act in this way.

Maybe hoping you will 'go away'? Some must, which is why they probably try it on.
It looks to me like MB Loughton are trying to use technicalities to wriggle and extend this as long as possible by frustrating the process.
"Because you didn't spell out exactly in legalese that only lawyers can understand the X and Y of the exact complaint and the exact breaches under law of the consumer rights act, we couldn't possibly defend the claim because we couldn't possibly understand it"

I could see this going one of two ways, depending on the judge:

- Lord Snooty from Toffville might side with MB, sneering as to why some common scum (not a solicitor) has dared turned up in their Courtroom, and throw it out on a basis that is blatantly unfair; or,

- You might get a good judge (and they do exist) who sees right through MB's bluff, bluster and bullying, and says stop jerking around MB, you know the complaint and you know the law (or you blooming well should do). This is a simple case of not fit for purpose, so refund the gentleman's costs and move along.


OP, you might then need to get debt collectors involved when MB refuse to pay, but that bit is just for sport at that point and take it for the experience. They have plenty of liquid assets sat on the forecourt and enforcement would be easy.
 
The defence that MB put-up is odd and totally irrelevant - again, assuming it was a B2C sale (and not B2B).

The OP's complaint is brought under the Consumer Righrs Act 2015.

MB completely ignore the CRA, and provide a long song and verse regarding the T&Cs of their used car warranties.

But MB's T&C do not overide the OP's statutory rights under the CRA.

So in effect nothing that MB said is a valid defense.

The OP isn't questioning MB's T&Cs, he is making against them the same claim he would have made against any used car trader under the CRA. And MB's response does not address this at all.

(Again, if the OP purchased the car via a company, than the CRA does not apply)
 
Also, by disregarding the CRA, MB seem to have missed the only point that could potentially be a valid defence.

Under the CRA, the consumer must give the seller an opportunity to repair the car. The OP took the car to a different dealership, thinking it will be covered by warranty.

The OP did offer the seller to pay for the repair, but this is not the same as giving the seller an opportunity to repair the car.

MB could have therefore claimed that they would have been happy to repair the car FOC under the CRA, but they were never given the opportunity to do so.

What they are saying instead is that because the car wasn't presented to the supplying dealer, a goodwill offer wasn't considered.

But this is again irrelevant - the OP isn't asking for a goodwill gesture, instead he's asking for his statutory rights - a free repair for a car that was supplied less than 6 months ago.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom