Newbie - Large repair bill as 1st time Mercedes customer

[markjay]

"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.
....
Moreover, the Vehicle is a used car and at the point of repair, it was more than 6 years old."

So the wiring on MB cars isn't meant to last for more than 6 years.......?

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

"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.
....
Moreover, the Vehicle is a used car and at the point of repair, it was more than 6 years old."

So the wiring on MB cars isn't meant to last for more than 6 years.......?

As well as the point @markjay makes, this sentence is also helpful because the defendant has confirmed that they do not check the wiring before sale.

This means that they can’t prove that the fault was not present at the time of sale, and I believe that under the consumer rights act the burden of proof lies with them.

 

[st13phil]

First point I'll make is that I'm not legally trained, so this is the opinion of "some bloke on t'internet", but as I understand it:

1. The Used Car Warranty specifically excludes wiring faults. If the claim is brought on the basis that the fault should have been rectified under the terms of the warranty it is therefore doomed to fail
2. If the claim is brought on the basis of the protections of the CRA 2015 then it must state that, and be specific as to the nature of the breach that gives rise to the claim
3. As a general principle you can't bring a claim on one grounds and then switch horses to another grounds that wasn't mentioned in the original claim
4. The Defendant's response suggests that the claim is not clear as to the grounds on which it is brought, suggesting that it is inadequately formulated (I haven't read it and am not qualified to make that determination anyway)
5. Where the defendant has put the claimant "to strict proof" they will need to provide hard evidence to support their assertion(s). Is that evidence available?
6. It's true that the CRA 2015 puts the onus on the seller to prove that the fault complained of wasn’t present when the car was sold, but it also says that the car should be roadworthy, reliable and of a quality consistent with its age and the price paid. It also puts no onus on the seller to rectify any component that fails due to 'fair wear and tear', such as tyres or brake discs that wear out due to normal use
7. The Defendant's statement has introduced the concept that wiring is "perishable", i.e. that it is expected to deteriorate with age. We can all have a view on the veracity of that statement and whether it's reasonable or not in this context, but disputing it will likely require expert evidence

My gut feel is that the OP is going to have to either do a good deal of research themselves into how to properly formulate and progress their claim, or pay a professional to do so on their behalf. Bearing in mind that costs are not normally recoverable for a case on the Small Claims track, this could mean that the case becomes one where at best they will win a pyrrhic victory - which is far from justice, but is a very realistic prospect.

If the OP is a member of the AA, the RAC or the Consumer's Association then any could be a source of relevant advice without paying a significant sum to a solicitor. Alternatively, they could try contacting one of the magazines that sometimes takes up the cudgels on a reader's behalf, such as What Car?

One thing I would caution is that in cases such as this defendants will often trawl public forums in an effort to determine what advice a claimant may have received, and also to see if there is any hint of "relevant information" being deliberately left out or obfuscated. I'm not suggesting that there has been anything mentioned in this thread prejudicial to the OP's case, but everyone - especially the OP - needs to be cautious that nothing posted here can be used to undermine the OP's case.

 

[oldguy57]

I still find it astonishing that MB's legal advice is that describing a car they are selling as being "in perfect working order" has no legal effect. How can that possibly be. This really confirms what we already knew ie that "Approved Used" is totally meaningless garbage.

3 months of ownership and he gets a bill of £1600? I suspect any owner would expect the dealer to pay for this. The dealers legal bill will already exceed £1600. Makes no sense whatsoever. Agreed however that the claim needed formulating correctly.

I really feel for the OP - an abysmal experience.

 

[st13phil]

The dealers legal bill will already exceed £1600.

I'll wager that it doesn't.

It looks like a pretty standard response to claim / denial of liability, and bearing in mind the dealer is part of Mercedes-Benz Retail Group they will have an in-house employed legal function, so the marginal cost of that response will be pretty low.

 

[davymead]

I’ll be willing to bet this thread has cost them a few quid in lost image/reputation.
Why would a MB dealership be willing to suffer the probable consequence of a trial by a respected MB forum, and financial fallout.

 

[MercedesDriver]

I’ll be willing to bet this thread has cost them a few quid in lost image/reputation.
Why would a MB dealership be willing to suffer the probable consequence of a trial by a respected MB forum, and financial fallout.

Do they care? Not. As long as they are selling A-Class (the fastest and coolest hot hatch) in droves they will not give a dime about reputation or brand image.

 

[colinallcars]

I’ll be willing to bet this thread has cost them a few quid in lost image/reputation.
Why would a MB dealership be willing to suffer the probable consequence of a trial by a respected MB forum, and financial fallout.

I’ve got to ask - how many people read this forum?

 

[geoffus]

I’ve got to ask - how many people read this forum?

1 to 5% of all the UK Mercedes ownership ?

 

[sanjdhar]

Thanks for all the support and comments..I’ll be going ALL the way with this, need to figure out though what this county court business centre is though, the initial claim form didn’t really allow me to go down the CRA route, but certainly something I will be pursuing..I have every intention of publishing these docs on all social media platforms, mercedes forums, and continually contacting mercedes customer services, headquarters & the CEO, & will raise this further with any relevant ‘watchdog/consumer organisation’ whether I win or lose…

 

[Atavus]

You can expect some wiggle room as it’s Small Claims, but it would be worth getting some proper advice on how to proceed. Good luck. Their response is shameful, but unsurprising.

 

[oldguy57]

Thanks for all the support and comments..I’ll be going ALL the way with this, need to figure out though what this county court business centre is though, the initial claim form didn’t really allow me to go down the CRA route, but certainly something I will be pursuing..I have every intention of publishing these docs on all social media platforms, mercedes forums, and continually contacting mercedes customer services, headquarters & the CEO, & will raise this further with any relevant ‘watchdog/consumer organisation’ whether I win or lose…

You may get an offer of the small claims mediation service, and get the chance to provide further information anyway. I'd be making sure about the possible costs whichever way you go though. MB UK are not invulnerable, someone on another forum took them to court twice, representing himself and won on both occasions. The barristers acting for MB did everything they could to persuade him to drop the cases. MB are not always right, although someone on here did the same and it ended very badly indeed for him. Good luck.

 

[MrGreedy]

MB are not always right, although someone on here did the same and it ended very badly indeed for him. Good luck.

That sounds really scary (no joke). What does 'very badly indeed' mean do you know? (just asking for context)

Does that mean, they didn't win, or that they ended up with huge penalising costs? (which would only be the case if the claim from the OP was unreasonable).

A snippet from a random UK solicitor's site on the issue:

"In the Small Claims Track, the costs that a losing party will pay to the victor have been restricted by the Civil Procedure Rules to minimise financial risk to parties. Generally therefore, the court will allow the successful party to recover limited costs such as court fees and witness expenses.

Under Part 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules that govern civil disputes, the court will rarely make an order for the losing party to pay sums in respect of the winning party's 'costs, fees and expenses', e.g. legal fees.

There are exceptions to the general rule however which allow the court discretion to make an award for:

The fixed costs attributable to issuing the claim;
Court fees paid by the issuing party;
Travel and accommodation expenses which a witness reasonably incurs in attending a hearing;
Fees incurred in the instruction of an expert to attend the hearing (limited to £200).
To assist the judge in calculating awards of costs, Part 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules sets out a number of tables detailing what costs can be recovered by a successful party litigating on the Small Claims Track. These tables can be found on the justice.gov.uk website and vary according to the status, judgment and enforcement of the claim.

Costs orders for a losing party to pay the winning party's legal costs are therefore very unusual. On the Small Claims Track, parties are expected to bear their own costs, even if they pursue a successful claim.

As a caveat to the general rules on costs, it must be stated that if a party brings an unreasonable small claim that obviously fails, or defends a claim by acting unreasonably and subsequently loses, the court has discretion to make a punitive order for that party to pay the other side's costs."

 

[markjay]

That sounds really scary (no joke). What does 'very badly indeed' mean do you know? (just asking for context)

Does that mean, they didn't win, or that they ended up with huge penalising costs? (which would only be the case if the claim from the OP was unreasonable)...

Warranty problems | General Discussion

In November 2005 my W220, S500L, 2001, all the toys, was recovered to Mercedes-Benz Chelsea's Wandsworth workshop where, somebody, "fried" the electrics which resulted in a bill for £6,800. As the car was covered by the 12 month "fully comprehensive" Warranty I declined to pay. Well, here we...

forums.mbclub.co.uk

I suggest you read this from the initial 2009 post and all the way through to 2014.

 

[sanjdhar]

Hi All, I know it's been some time since I last posted on this thread, but thought I'd give you all an update and hopefully help others in the future as it was only this week my issue was finally drawn to a close!. The great news is that I received pretty much all of my repair bill back! (I received £1,360 of the £1,632) back from Mercedes Loughton. Whilst not the full amount, I didn't want to pursue any further as this has been dragging on for so long, but I still may push Mercedes to re-fund me more, but not sure yet.

To summarize, in July 21 (after issuing my case to the small claims court), I was given the opportunity to mediate with Mercedes, to which my surprise, Mercedes Legal agreed to. This was to be via a telephone call between myself, Mercedes and a "mediator", this was pencilled in for August 3rd 2021.

However 3 weeks ago, I received a surprising email from the Motor Ombudsman (who I contacted back in May 18th), who had finally looked at my case, and they felt I had a valid case & had contacted Mercedes Loughton to clarify the position. It was at this point Mercedes Loughton advised the Ombudsman that they would like to offer a goodwill gesture of £1,360!! As a result, I accepted the offer and cancelled the small claims mediation hearing!...I did have all my documentation lined up for the mediation and was particular eager to go down the consumer rights act 2015 and under section 23, where you are entitled to a free repair within 6 months of any goods (this includes used cars).

It still annoys me that they put 1st time customers through all of this, when this could have all been sorted out in the 1st place through basic common sense!!..I will still be writing to Mercedes UK outlining this whole debacle, but I hope other motorists who experience such issues as I have, persist and persevere, as it can pay off in the end. Really like to thank everyone on this forum for the great advice and guidance given throughout.

 

[markjay]

Well done. It's ustomers such as yourself who refuse to put-up with an injustice and let it go, that serve to put the dealer network in its place, and (hopefully) get the dealers to think twice before 'trying it on' with other customers in future.

 

[markjay]

...I did have all my documentation lined up for the mediation and was particular eager to go down the consumer rights act 2015 and under section 23, where you are entitled to a free repair within 6 months of any goods (this includes used cars)....

This is a repeating theme, and one which I find bizarre. You're not the first customer who had been cited the MB warranty T&C by the dealer with apprant ignorance of the Consumer Rights Act. I am not sure if the dealers are naive and ignorant of consumer rights legislation, or perhpas they are well aware of it but are using the warranty T&C as a smoke-screen intended to obfuscate the issue and serve as a distraction in order to divert the discussion away from the Consumer Rights Act.

 

[Atavus]

Good to see you made progress. Bit mean of them to knock off the VAT. I think their customer support is pretty poor. I sold my S63 Coupe after being messed about for ages.

 

[Rory]

The great news is that I received pretty much all of my repair bill back! (I received £1,360 of the £1,632) back from Mercedes Loughton. Whilst not the full amount, I didn't want to pursue any further as this has been dragging on for so long, but I still may push Mercedes to re-fund me more, but not sure yet.

Well done, and thanks for updating.

As Atavus pointed out, and maybe you already knew, £1360 + VAT is £1632.

Perhaps if you send them the original VAT invoice they'll refund the VAT? One of our cars was hit by a bus and they did the same thing - paid a cash settlement less VAT based on an engineers assessment but said it I got it fixed and sent the invoice they'd pay the VAT.

 

[markjay]

...One of our cars was hit by a bus and they did the same thing - paid a cash settlement less VAT based on an engineers assessment but said it I got it fixed and sent the invoice they'd pay the VAT.

Seems fair.