Rust - Legal Action

[markz]

I have a 2001 Rusty E220CDI, which Mercedes attempted to repair a couple of years ago, rust is re-appearing both in the area's previously treated and in new areas. As an example the rear cross member is so corroded it is forcing the tailgate chrome trim off of the plastic retainers and at the business end a new sub frame had to be welded in to make it safe and to pass the MOT this year.

I have had considerable dialogue with no success with Mercedes including several letters to the managing director the last of which was ignored.

Mercedes have not made any effort to inspect the car other than the usual photograph process via the dealer which I feel only illustrates "The Tip Of The Iceberg" and not the full magnitude of the problem.

I feel I have taken as much of Mercedes customer service as I can stand, has anybody any experience of pursuing this matter through the UK legal system. I am advised that this is the only avenue left.

Best Regards

Mark Z

 

[BTB 500]

On what basis would you be taking legal action?

 

[ddentrec]

Legal action is a function of time and money.

You may need to spend £££'s to prove the case, and £££ to get it through the UK court system.

However, I took MB to court and won: I proved that their own marketing blurb did not meet the 'quality' of my new C-Class. As part of the settlement I cannot discuss anymore!

But legal action is tricky stuff with no guarantees. And MB are getting sued every week - they have a very slick legal department. They are probably reading this...

 

[markz]

On what basis would you be taking legal action?

I bought a premium car for a premium price with an expected life. My car has failed to live up to expectations and Mercedes in my opinion have been neglectful in the repair they originally carried out plus dealing with my subsequent claim. I believe the term is breach of contract.

I do not enjoy being taken for a fool by a company who I had the utmost respect for, their attitude has been un helpful from the outset.

A normal company would seek to understand the facts and find a solution not quote the rules and regulations of warranty, it’s obvious a five year old car should not go rusty, and if the rust returns within three years then there is both a problem with the original repair and the fact it was not thorough enough in the first place.

 

[markz]

If they have a slick legal department they might like to contact their MD for the correspondence and answer my last letter. I don't think they have acted either properly or professionally in dealing with my case. I have offered to let them inspect the car - they decline, they are not even interested in understanding why a loyal appreciative customer who has over the years probably done in excess of 500,000 miles in various C class / E class has lost patience with both the company and the brand.

I am sure they read all the forums, they make very interesting reading although If I worked for Mercedes I would be ashamed of many of the posts.

 

[219]

Difficult one to decide .

Whilst it is true that consumer law does give the customer the right to expect something to be of 'merchantable quality' and to last for a 'reasonable' period of time , it is difficult to say exactly what is 'reasonable' .

With electrical goods like fridges , washing machines , television sets etc it has been established in law that a 'reasonable' lifespan would be somewhere in the region of six years , give or take - so if your new TV set failed at one or two years old you might have a fair chance of success with a claim under consumer law , but not if it went wrong at 5 years old .

With a car , it is different because cars more than household goods are subject to wear and tear dependant on the type and manner of useage , operating conditions in different environments , accident damage , maintenance or the lack of it etc etc etc ...........

With a 2001 car , now around 9 years old it may be argued that you have had a 'reasonable' lifespan out of it and that the onset of corrosion is to be expected at that age due to the use of road salts during winter in the UK . MB could equally ask whether the car has had rustproofing carried out every year in accordance with their specifications ( something not widely publicised , but they reccomend annual checks on underbody protection , removal and reapplication of underseal to maintain corrosion protection - something hardly ever carried out ) there have been a series of articles in the Mercedes-Benz Club Gazette on this subject along with the 'protection plans' for different models published in a series of editions .

A bit like the Forth Bridge , which lasted well for over 100 years until they started cost cutting on maintenance and messing with the paint formulation to save money - in recent years bits have since started falling off all over the place .

 

[markz]

Perhaps the mistake is mine, I had previously had five C Class company cars and when I needed a larger estate, I thought the E Class enjoyed an equally good reputation. Now researching the problems I find my case is not isolated and further more as an engineer I would believe the amount of corrosion present on my car is not a normal occurrence.

The design, production process or materials used must have been deficient in some respect during the manufacturing of the car in 2001.

Mercedes don’t seem to acknowledge any responsibility now, however the first time I presented the car they replaced the Bonnet and re-sprayed wheel-arches and around rear number plate and high level light and this year they replaced the front sub frame free of charge.

It’s the same car with the same problems – what’s the difference today, Mercedes had an opportunity two years ago to put right all the corrosion, they attempted but unfortunately they failed. I can’t see how this is my responsibility which is what they indicate.

Incidentally our second car cost 1/4 of the price of the Mercedes, is nearly 13years old, has been maintained (as the Mercedes) in line with manufactures recommendations and has only a fraction of the rust present as the Mercedes.

 

[paulrstaylor]

I think you would have to bring action against the original retailer and/or the repairer, I doubt that either of those are actually Mercedes?

 

[markz]

Car was bought from a Mercedes main dealer, main dealer serviced for the full warranty period, thereafter serviced by local specialist company by Mercedes trained technicians, paintwork repair was by respected Mercedes approved spray shop. I've always looked after the car and regularly cleaned inside and outside particularly during the winter months.

I feel the issue is that the quality of my car was lacking from the start, Mercedes initially seemed to agree and repaired the car, then they started "smoke and mirrors" with warranty, goodwill, dealer service etc, when in fact its irrelevant, they made the car its rusting unacceptably.

I have found one similar case on the internet which the owner successfully pursued through the small claims court and received a full payment for the repair, I’m assuming due to the level of complaints there must be other cases which are not reported where settlement is dependent upon non disclosure.

 

[BTB 500]

Now researching the problems I find my case is not isolated and further more as an engineer I would believe the amount of corrosion present on my car is not a normal occurrence.

The design, production process or materials used must have been deficient in some respect during the manufacturing of the car in 2001.

Indeed, hence the W210 (and even early W211) E Class is renowned for rust problems. Galvanised body panels were introduced on the W211 between Q4 2002 and Q1 2003.

If you go the small claims court route you have little to lose, so give it a shot. I wish you luck, but I would personally doubt that after 9 years' use M-B have any legal requirement to fix your car.

 

[crockers]

Have you had an estimate for the repairs? If your car was in good condition for it's age what would be it's value? What is it's value as it is? If you're going to the small claims courts you will have to claiming for an amount, so would it be the cost of the repairs or the loss in value? If the cost of repairs is more than the value of the car the it could be argued the car isn't economically viable to repair then you would have to claim for loss of value.

All IMHO of course. Good luck.

 

[Benzowner]

Car was bought from a Mercedes main dealer, main dealer serviced for the full warranty period, thereafter serviced by local specialist company by Mercedes trained technicians, paintwork repair was by respected Mercedes approved spray shop. I've always looked after the car and regularly cleaned inside and outside particularly during the winter months.

That, I am afraid is where your claim will fail. The rust "warranty" on MB's clearly states that it has to be serviced by a main dealer at least once in two years. You have failed to carry this out. My E Clkass estate claim was kicked out for that reason, and at the time my car was only eight years old.

 

[markz]

Was your claim with Mercedes or the Court?

I know of one case where this argument was not accepted by the court.

If the corrosion on my car was just superficial and due to "normal wear and tear" then that's one matter however a sub frame going and a rear cross member so corroded that its pushing the trim off - no matter what the warranty states no preventative maintenance would stop this - as it happens my service garage spotted all these items as they occurred and advised me to contact Mercedes immediately so its not as if any time was lost in reporting the problem.

My experience is that Mercedes believe they hold the high ground, however seeing that the court (in at least one case) decided the matter was due to an inherent underlying problem and the warranty / servicing was irrelevant is interesting.

 

[BTB 500]

however seeing that the court (in at least one case) decided the matter was due to an inherent underlying problem and the warranty / servicing was irrelevant is interesting.

How old was the car in question at the time of that case?

 

[ddentrec]

If they have a slick legal department they might like to contact their MD for the correspondence and answer my last letter. I don't think they have acted either properly or professionally in dealing with my case. I have offered to let them inspect the car - they decline, they are not even interested in understanding why a loyal appreciative customer who has over the years probably done in excess of 500,000 miles in various C class / E class has lost patience with both the company and the brand.

Precisely my point. 'Slick' means they are adept at not paying out. And the MB legal team could not give a monkey's about 'customer service'. As for the loyal customer bit MB couldn't give a stuff either: the power of the MB brand is so strong that for every customer they lose there is anothe new sucker to take their place. Even if the customer service/car quality is pants.

 

[Olivier]

Look what a MB look after 12 years...
And of couse MB said its out of waranty. But this didn't happen quickly, it took awhile to get to that point...

 

[Druk]

This model, the W210, is infamous for rusting, sometimes in quite dangerous places. A little research on the web should turn up plenty evidence to help any case you have. The fact that Merc are (still) repairing a fair few of these cars under 'warranty' (ie. 'goodwill') doesn't hurt your argument.
iirc the introduction of waterbased paints and/or primers has a lot to do with the problem. Someone on here will know more about that point..............

 

[horsesuitedfool]

Get everyone together on the forum in the same position with rusty E Classes and have a class action case!

 

[Olivier]

Is there anyone who like to do a join action?
As I told MB I don't mind doing the car "normal" maintenance's, but this is out of this world. Look at the rot. This is no external factors. It look like is startet from the inside out, therefore no maintenance at the MB dealer would do anything. This need to be chopped and re-welded.
I definitely put my name in, and if we are a good number backed up by a good lawyer all together we can have a lot of weight. I can easily imagine 100s of owners of a rotting rusty E class, this is a lot of people to be fitting in a court room for the same complaint...

1: OLIVIER

 

[dougal74]

The key is though why didn't Mercedes spot the structural stuff on your cars. Did you service it with them during the period that the structural rust was becoming evident? If not you have failed to give them opportunity to mitigate the rust issue (one which they, you and everybody else acknowledge exists).

What they will say is not that the rust is not their fault, merely that in your case they are no longer liable since you took the car away from their network and the appropriate preventative/remedial steps have not been taken to monitor and keep the problem in check.

Discovery 2s rust from the middle back, people recommend getting them regularly undersealed. Mine has been and is a '99 with only a little rust. My dad's is an '02 and in a much worse state underneath. If you don't want a rusty car don't buy a Merc of this era (or a Discovery 2 for that matter)!