UK Mars Red /Fire Opal Red [code 590] Micro Blistering Paint Manufacturing Fault

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

philld

New Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
18
I've recently made a claim through the county court for my Mars Red /Fire Opal Red [code 590] C220 cdi. Mercedes are going to defend the claim in full. I do not hold out much hope but at the end of the day the USA has set the ball rolling. A recognised [by Mercedes] paint fault is not a warranty issue, so whether the warranty of the car has ended should have little to do with it. It's caused by the manufacturers of the paint. Within reason the paint is supposed to last the life time of the car. Many modern cars have paint warranties exceeding 20 years these days.




Can anybody contact me please with perhaps an update on this issue of any action they have taken, with the Ombudsman or likewise, I have lodged a claim in the county court for up to £5000.

Can people get the word about as much as possible because this could lead to GROUP action in the fight against MB and mugging people off with regards to warranty. This is not a 'warranty' issue, Mars Red/Fire Opal Red especially, is a world wide paint defect that MB recognise and have admitted to. I'm baffled as to how they think they can defend it. As said, the car paint is within reason supposed to last the life of the car [wear and tear accepted]. So if you have a Merc with the micro blistering issue with cars approx from 2000 to present then DO NOT let them fob you off!

Are MB saying on one hand that their 'prestigious cars' have paint that can have a 30 year warranty but on the other hand say they expect their cars after and beyond [a lot earlier in some cases] 10 yrs to sheet [clear coat] from micro blistering, that is a very gradual process [years] in most cases and unknown to the owner?

They can not have it both ways. As a further note the UK Ombudsman are aware of this situation. Perhaps BBC Watchdog should be as well.

My car is ruined and I can not afford to have it put right.

Thanks.



[email protected]
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20230607_125323 (Phone).jpg
    IMG_20230607_125323 (Phone).jpg
    74.7 KB · Views: 32
  • IMG_20230607_125330 (Phone).jpg
    IMG_20230607_125330 (Phone).jpg
    61 KB · Views: 27
  • IMG_20230607_125337 (Phone).jpg
    IMG_20230607_125337 (Phone).jpg
    58.2 KB · Views: 28
  • IMG_20230607_125349 (Phone).jpg
    IMG_20230607_125349 (Phone).jpg
    53.6 KB · Views: 26
  • IMG_20230607_125356 (Phone).jpg
    IMG_20230607_125356 (Phone).jpg
    65.8 KB · Views: 26
  • IMG_20230607_125414 (Phone).jpg
    IMG_20230607_125414 (Phone).jpg
    68.6 KB · Views: 26
  • IMG_20230607_125419 (Phone).jpg
    IMG_20230607_125419 (Phone).jpg
    67.1 KB · Views: 27
  • IMG_20230607_125428 (Phone).jpg
    IMG_20230607_125428 (Phone).jpg
    52.3 KB · Views: 27
There are countless threads/posts on this and other MB pages.
Many have had MB cover costs of repainting.
 
Are MB saying on one hand that their 'prestigious cars' have paint that can have a 30 year warranty
I thought that was an ant-perforation (rust from the inside) warranty and even then it would only be honoured if the visual inspection check box was ticked at each service, basically requiring dealer service history?
 
It’s also useful to know some headline details here - age/mileage of the car, how long ownership wise etc.

I wouldn’t take too much from reading what goes on in the USA, they have a totally different set of laws to us.

Trade in for a different car might be the easiest and least painful option in this instance? Don’t spend good money after bad chancing the legal route would be my advice unless you bought this brand new or something?
 
There are countless threads/posts on this and other MB pages.
Many have had MB cover costs of repainting.
I thought everyone would have known about Fire Opal Red by now. Endless posts on the subject, and MB have agreed to bare metal resprays in virtually every case. Over 2500 cars are affected. It's ridiculous that MB are now trying to defend claims. Pointless in issuing proceedings (And I doubt that £5K would cover a bare metal paint job), I'd be taking screenshots of all the posts on forums where there have been successful outcomes and sending them to MB. Also I'd be contacting MB Manchester who have done many of these paint jobs on FOR cars.
 
The legal principle that a product should be of sufficient quantity transcends any manufacturer's warranty.

Obviously, it can become open to interpretation. But in essence there's nothing stopping you from (say) making a claim against MB because your 15 old car's engine blew up after 150,000 miles - you could certainly argue that the car has FMDSH and the engine should have lasted longer, the fact that it didn't means that it's the result of either a design fault or a manufacturing fault, in either case the argument would be that the car's engine was not of sufficient quality when the car was sold new.

I am not suggesting that such legal action will necessarily be successful, but it will not be thrown out if court in the first instance either.

In short, when manufacturers try and hide behind the wording of their warranties, it's important to make the point that you are not claiming on their warranty, thus rendering their defence useless.
 
Very interested to see the outcome of this. Anyone know if Mercedes have been being stringent on the age of cars? I read in a few posts that they'll only cover it up to 10 years, as OP stated, but my car is a 2009.
 
Is it me, but what I'm seeing is not the "normal" paint blistering but instead failure of the lacquer, which is a different animal altogether. Many have had success against MB for blistering, but my personal mexperience approaching them about lacquer failure - on my S204, documented on here (Carneaol Red Lacquer Peeling, Let Battle Commence | Bodywork) or t'other side - is completely different. MB offered me 10% of the cost of sorting at an MB approved body shop, instead I took the car to a well known and respected bodyshop and had the roof and bonnet re-sprayed at a cost of £600 - over £100 less than MB even with their 10%.
 
Hi , I would really think very carefully about taking on Mercedes Benz in any court.The ombudsman should be far safer route to your pocket.

You should really take legal advice to find out what you are exposing your self to court costs even in the small claims court.

I wish you the best of luck.
 
Thank you everyone for your replies and input.

The fundamental point that this case is built upon is that MB globally has admitted to this paint fault. MB UK has already been repairing/repainting owners cars under 'goodwill' or warranty.

One of the most valuable points I have picked up on is

"The legal principle that a product should be of sufficient quality transcends any manufacturer's warranty".

I have now received MB UK' defence. If anyone would like to read it please email me [email protected] and I will gladly fwd it.

I've read some nonsense in my time but this really takes the biscuit. It makes you wonder if the lawyer is not aware of what is going on around him let alone what the company he supposedly represents are up to.
 
Is it me, but what I'm seeing is not the "normal" paint blistering but instead failure of the lacquer, which is a different animal altogether. Many have had success against MB for blistering, but my personal mexperience approaching them about lacquer failure - on my S204, documented on here (Carneaol Red Lacquer Peeling, Let Battle Commence | Bodywork) or t'other side - is completely different. MB offered me 10% of the cost of sorting at an MB approved body shop, instead I took the car to a well known and respected bodyshop and had the roof and bonnet re-sprayed at a cost of £600 - over £100 less than MB even with their 10%.

August 9, 2018 — A Mercedes-Benz Mars Red
paint defect lawsuit alleges the clearcoat is prone
to peeling, bubbling and flaking in models built
between 2004 and 2017.
Mars Red, also known as Fire Opal, is a paint
manufactured by PPG Industries that identifies the
color by paint code 905264, while Mercedes
identifies the color by paint code 590.
Vehicles included in the proposed class-action lawsuit include any Mercedes-Benz vehicle
with a label on the driver-side door jamb that references Mars Red paint code 590.
The lawsuit alleges Mercedes knew the paint was prone to peel and bubble but continued
to paint vehicles with the PPG product.
The plaintiffs, Robert Ponzio, Karina Kloczko, Jessica Irene Miller, Thomas Hayes, Alex
Acuna, Brian Madsen, Vanessa M. Montgomery, Robert Mull, Hadiya Nelthrope and
Samuel Salgado, all claim they have lost money or a loss of vehicle value because of the
defective Mars Red paint.
Once the paint starts peeling, flaking and bubbling, the vehicles are exposed to rust and
corrosion that not only makes the vehicles look lousy, but require owners to spend great
sums of money for repairs. The plaintiffs claim they expected the red paint to last at least
10 years, but their hopes were dashed because Mercedes allegedly concealed the defects.
 
The legal principle that a product should be of sufficient quantity transcends any manufacturer's warranty.

Obviously, it can become open to interpretation. But in essence there's nothing stopping you from (say) making a claim against MB because your 15 old car's engine blew up after 150,000 miles - you could certainly argue that the car has FMDSH and the engine should have lasted longer, the fact that it didn't means that it's the result of either a design fault or a manufacturing fault, in either case the argument would be that the car's engine was not of sufficient quality when the car was sold new.

I am not suggesting that such legal action will necessarily be successful, but it will not be thrown out if court in the first instance either.

In short, when manufacturers try and hide behind the wording of their warranties, it's important to make the point that you are not claiming on their warranty, thus rendering their defence useless.


Thank you for your reply @markjay. Very informative and straight to the point. On the same hymn sheet.
 
I hope you win.....but based on the time I worked for VAG and a similar issue with early cars when Tornado red paint.....you won't. The micro blistering that Mercedes paid for in the past is very different to the lacquer coming off like that. Have you owned the car from new?....if you haven't, how do you know that the car has not had paint previously.....the biggest cause of lacquer peel is poor quality re work. Then you have to defend against the possibility of external influences.....like chemical damage or over caustic cleaners. As said above the 30 years warranty was only for rust....and even then you have to prove that it's gone right through the metal and and started from the inside. Personally I think your chances are slim......but obviously hope you get somewhere.
 
The legal principle that a product should be of sufficient quantity transcends any manufacturer's warranty.

Obviously, it can become open to interpretation. But in essence there's nothing stopping you from (say) making a claim against MB because your 15 old car's engine blew up after 150,000 miles - you could certainly argue that the car has FMDSH and the engine should have lasted longer, the fact that it didn't means that it's the result of either a design fault or a manufacturing fault, in either case the argument would be that the car's engine was not of sufficient quality when the car was sold new.

I am not suggesting that such legal action will necessarily be successful, but it will not be thrown out if court in the first instance either.

In short, when manufacturers try and hide behind the wording of their warranties, it's important to make the point that you are not claiming on their warranty, thus rendering their defence useless.
 
I hope you win.....but based on the time I worked for VAG and a similar issue with early cars when Tornado red paint.....you won't. The micro blistering that Mercedes paid for in the past is very different to the lacquer coming off like that. Have you owned the car from new?....if you haven't, how do you know that the car has not had paint previously.....the biggest cause of lacquer peel is poor quality re work. Then you have to defend against the possibility of external influences.....like chemical damage or over caustic cleaners. As said above the 30 years warranty was only for rust....and even then you have to prove that it's gone right through the metal and and started from the inside. Personally I think your chances are slim......but obviously hope you get somewhere.


Thanks for your input but sorry, it's not. The paint has been inspected by a MB approved repair shop. It's the classic Fire Opal Red paint fault and micro blistering. The sheeting you see is a gradual result of micro blistering. The car has been measured with a paint depth gauge. If your assumption is correct on chemical influence etc then why would MB be repairing them on goodwill and warranty? Appreciate your input though and yes, although chances may be slim I do hope I get somewhere for the sake of others who may be in the same situation.
 
Would be interested to hear what you would say in reply to the six points MB UK have made in their defense, would you like to read them? If so kindly reply to my email [email protected] and I will fwd them to you. Thanks. Best wishes. Phill.
 
Hi , have you taken advice from a paint specialist regarding ( expert witness ) the issues you have with your car.I don't mean a body repair shop.

In general terms red paint systems don't react well with UV light. As this is the case why do car manufactures still paint cars in red.


I thought that the idea of a small claims court was cheap justice !
 
In my post #8 on this thread is a link to my thread about lacquer peel on my S204, within which I give a link to a document by a long established well respected German vehicle paint manufacturer which shows without doubt that the lacquer peel is a manufacturing defect - which MB CS ignored in my claim. Any problem with the link, PM me an email address and I'll email the document from my HDD, this site will not allow me to attach it to this post as it's too big.
 
It’s also useful to know some headline details here - age/mileage of the car, how long ownership wise etc.

I wouldn’t take too much from reading what goes on in the USA, they have a totally different set of laws to us.

Trade in for a different car might be the easiest and least painful option in this instance? Don’t spend good money after bad chancing the legal route would be my advice unless you bought this brand new or something?
It's a globally recognised problem.
In my post #8 on this thread is a link to my thread about lacquer peel on my S204, within which I give a link to a document by a long established well respected German vehicle paint manufacturer which shows without doubt that the lacquer peel is a manufacturing defect - which MB CS ignored in my claim. Any problem with the link, PM me an email address and I'll email the document from my HDD, this site will not allow me to attach it to this post as it's too big.

Hello Chris, could you send me the document please? I'm in the process of replying to MB UK' defence in the county court against my claim so all the ammunition i have is a bonus. Thanks. Phill . [email protected]
 
In my post #8 on this thread is a link to my thread about lacquer peel on my S204, within which I give a link to a document by a long established well respected German vehicle paint manufacturer which shows without doubt that the lacquer peel is a manufacturing defect - which MB CS ignored in my claim. Any problem with the link, PM me an email address and I'll email the document from my HDD, this site will not allow me to attach it to this post as it's too big.

Hello Chris, could you send me the document please? I'm in the process of replying to MB UK' defence in the county court against my claim so all the ammunition i have is a bonus. Thanks. Phill . [email protected]
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom