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.
