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

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Done, hope it helps you.
 
It's a globally recognised problem.

Sure that may be the case (and there’s plenty of posts about red paint issues on the forums etc) but USA has different laws to the rest of the world. It doesn’t set precedent for what to expect in the UK. There are many examples of this relating to MB vehicles alone.

I’m not sure if you’ve already said, but did you buy this car new or used, and where was it purchased from?

Could you give an idea of the age/mileage of vehicle in question, length of ownership etc?

If you bought it new from MB for example I expect your argument may be stronger. If you bought it for a low price like this a few months ago from a private seller then perhaps less so.

I think you’ll have to appeal to MBs goodwill in this instance, as I suspect it would be hard to persue this matter if it is not covered by some form of transferable warranty.

I suspect MB will be aware of this, hence their stance to defend the matter.
 
Sure that may be the case (and there’s plenty of posts about red paint issues on the forums etc) but USA has different laws to the rest of the world. It doesn’t set precedent for what to expect in the UK. There are many examples of this relating to MB vehicles alone.

I’m not sure if you’ve already said, but did you buy this car new or used, and where was it purchased from?

Could you give an idea of the age/mileage of vehicle in question, length of ownership etc?

If you bought it new from MB for example I expect your argument may be stronger. If you bought it for a low price like this a few months ago from a private seller then perhaps less so.

I think you’ll have to appeal to MBs goodwill in this instance, as I suspect it would be hard to persue this matter if it is not covered by some form of transferable warranty.

I suspect MB will be aware of this, hence their stance to defend the matter.

Will be interesting to see how The Sales of Goods Act, Goods Fit For Purpose, fits in here because the paint so obviously is not fit for purpose. The USA may have different laws but they have proved beyond doubt it is a paint fault from manufacture, this does not change in any country. A paint fault has/ should have nothing to do with warranty. It should of/should be a call back. Perhaps MB should put a disclaimer on their cars saying 'we do not expect our car paint to last longer than 10 years'.
 
Will be interesting to see how The Sales of Goods Act, Goods Fit For Purpose, fits in here because the paint so obviously is not fit for purpose. The USA may have different laws but they have proved beyond doubt it is a paint fault from manufacture, this does not change in any country. A paint fault has/ should have nothing to do with warranty. It should of/should be a call back. Perhaps MB should put a disclaimer on their cars saying 'we do not expect our car paint to last longer than 10 years'.

Agreed in principle, however:

Firstly, MB could potentially claim that the paint finish for cars built to US spec is different to those built for delivery to other countries. I am not saying that this is actually the case (and most probably it isn't), just that unless you have a statement from MB to the opposite, this argument on its own isn't very strong because of the possibility of MB claiming that the paint process (and the environmental conditions) are different.

Then, when it comes to paintwork, 'not fit for purpose ' isn't straightforward because you could face a claim of improper handling e.g. use of harsh chemicals etc. You won't be able to positively prove in court that you have never used any car shampoo or detergents or other chemicals that might damage the paint, this will more likely be a case (if it goes that far) where the court will have to make a judgement call rather than one party proving their side of the story beyond a doubt.
 
OK, let's see if I can attach the documant I've referred to above. No, at 2611Kb the forum says It's too big, however it clearly says (about page 45, although the rest makes interesting reading) that the paint blistering is a manufacturing fault, and as the authors are well respected long established automotive paint folk it's entirely credible - although MB ignored it when I went after them about lacquer peel on my 2008 S204. The file name is TSG-Painter-Tips_ENG-INT_ES.pdf if you'd like to Google for it, if no joy and you'd like it PM me an email address as I have it on my HDD.
 
Will be interesting to see how The Sales of Goods Act, Goods Fit For Purpose, fits in here because the paint so obviously is not fit for purpose. The USA may have different laws but they have proved beyond doubt it is a paint fault from manufacture, this does not change in any country. A paint fault has/ should have nothing to do with warranty. It should of/should be a call back. Perhaps MB should put a disclaimer on their cars saying 'we do not expect our car paint to last longer than 10 years'.
You are not understanding how that ruling (Sale of Goods Act) works.....read it in full and you will see that it does not apply in this case. Fit for purpose does not really apply either. Its purpose is to be a car....and do the things a car can do...the paint quality or lack there of does not affect this. It's not like the engine constantly not starting or other qualifying categories (for example, you were told that a car is capable of towing when it is not). I hope you get somewhere.....but having been on the other side of the fence (car sales manager and now caravan sales manager) your case looks thin to me on a ten year old car. Goodwill from MB to protect themselves from bad publicity might be a possibility though.
 
Last edited:
You are not understanding how that ruling (Sale of Goods Act) works.....read it in full and you will see that it does not apply in this case. Fit for purpose does not really apply either. Its purpose is to be a car....and do the things a car can do...the paint quality or lack there of does not affect this. It's not like the engine constantly not starting or other qualifying categories (for example, you were told that a car is capable of towing when it is not). I hope you get somewhere.....but having been on the other side of the fence (car sales manager and now caravan sales manager) your case looks thin to me on a ten year old car. Goodwill from MB to protect themselves from bad publicity might be a possibility though.
If the case is thin why have so many owners had their cars repainted FOC? A while ago MB Manchester were saying that they had already done 20. Given that, op has a case, but no I wouldn't be chancing legal action against MB.
 
True.....but from what I've read most of those were with first owners.....most were for micro blistering rather than lacquer peel ...and rather sooner than ten years. Like everyone else I don't like being proven wrong.....but in this case I'd be more than happy!....so best of luck with your claim.
 
There appears little or no improvement with red paint, had this problem in late 1960s with a red BMW NK saloon.
Hot tropical sun probably did not help. Paint turned to powder could wipe off with my hand.
 
Same with Mars red on Mk1 Golf and (to a lesser degree) Tornado Red on Mk2 Golf.....not actual peeling.....just going powdery and you ended up with a Golf with the colour and texture of a red house brick!!. It could be mopped out but would come back. UV proof polish really slowed down the process though. Seem the same on Vauxhalls. The red on my 2009 170,000 mile, ALFA (ALFA Rosso) is good as new as far as lacquer and shine go......but its known for being a bit too hard/brittle......so has lots of tiny stone chips on the bonnet......but to be fair the Jasper Blue on my 140,000 mile CLK200K 209 was far worse and looked like it had been shot blasted!!!.....it had "only" done about 140,000m.
 
Last edited:
Agreed in principle, however:

Firstly, MB could potentially claim that the paint finish for cars built to US spec is different to those built for delivery to other countries. I am not saying that this is actually the case (and most probably it isn't), just that unless you have a statement from MB to the opposite, this argument on its own isn't very strong because of the possibility of MB claiming that the paint process (and the environmental conditions) are different.

Then, when it comes to paintwork, 'not fit for purpose ' isn't straightforward because you could face a claim of improper handling e.g. use of harsh chemicals etc. You won't be able to positively prove in court that you have never used any car shampoo or detergents or other chemicals that might damage the paint, this will more likely be a case (if it goes that far) where the court will have to make a judgement call rather than one party proving their side of the story beyond a doubt.

True.....but from what I've read most of those were with first owners.....most were for micro blistering rather than lacquer peel ...and rather sooner than ten years. Like everyone else I don't like being proven wrong.....but in this case I'd be more than happy!....so best of luck with your claim.

Micro/moisture blistering leads to sheeting.

I had no option, after trying/communicating with MB UK for over a year, to take this to the small claims court. It's called getting their attention. MB UK are awful to deal with. I had letters being ignored for months and always having to chase up, going around in circles and one letter contradicting another.

There is no argument here, though it's down to how the court views it. It has been demonstrated beyond doubt that the paint FAULT is a MANUFACTURING issue. The problem is there at the point of purchase. Chemicals, detergents etc have NOTHING to do with it.

One of the complaints leveled at all paint manufacturers and suppliers concerns moisture blistering. It is probably one of the hardest problems to explain to the repairer on the body shop floor. This article will hopefully explain the problem in more detail.

With inclement weather conditions, there are bound to be some cars developing moisture blistering, which is more often than not blamed on the paints used. The body shop or painter rarely realises that the blistering is due either to; application, conditions in which you have sprayed the vehicle, preparation or indeed the weather itself.

The cause of blistering is saturation of the film by exceptional levels of atmospheric humidity, together with the presence of water soluble materials (sometimes primer), either absorbed into the film or present on the surface before painting. Blisters are formed when moisture eventually escapes from the film as humidity decreases and temperature increases. The pressures formed in the film are enormous and often sufficient to deform the paint film into blisters. Where very low temperatures are involved, moisture freezes in the film. This leads to weaknesses in adhesion which makes subsequent blistering much more likely. When water vapour penetrates the paint film it may set up a force sufficient to weaken the adhesion between coats of paint or even the adhesion between the whole paint process and the metal.

Many cases of micro-blistering occur when you repair or paint the vehicles under adverse conditions. You can minimise the chances of blistering by ensuring your paint area is kept clean and dry. During paint application, you need to use the correct thinner with each and every coat of paint. The use of one manufacturer’s product with another manufacturer’s thinners’ is not recommended, however good either may be. It is even worse to use a cheap quality thinner where the moisture content is often above specified levels. You should apply sufficient primer and topcoat in even coats. Ensure a sufficient primer film is left after sanding followed by a similar film weight of topcoat. Low film build of either or both weakens the paint structure and can very easily lead to blistering. Spot or localised repairs are very noticeable as the feather edge part of the area would undoubtedly have a low film weight. Low film weight is one of the most common causes of blistering, combined with adverse environmental conditions.

During the process, you make sure the surface to be painted is completely clean, free of grease and dry. Flash off and drying times as laid down by paint manufacturers, should be strictly adhered to. Too many jobs are rushed – the user may think he is saving time but in the long run, the vehicle may need some further rectification.

Over coating too early, especially in cold or humid conditions, does not allow the evaporation of thinner – this entrapped thinner eventually forces its way through the topcoat causing micro-blistering. This may not occur until some time after painting. If spraying, water traps should always be used in the airline system – compressed air must be dry. Drain and free the compressor of water regularly, once or twice a day may not be enough. Thorough flatting between coats enhances adhesion and reduces the subsequent risk of blistering. If wet flatting is used, constant changes of water are needed and all sanding residue must be removed by thorough cleaning. The moisture from sanding must be allowed to fully evaporate.

Ideally a workshop temperature of 60-65 F (17-18C) is important and the atmosphere must be clean and dry. Lower temperatures may increase humidity levels which are detrimental to the final result. The higher the humidity level the greater the risk of condensation which is a major cause of micro-blistering. For example the use of paraffin or calor gas heaters should be avoided as these create water vapour. The use of waxes on fresh paint work should be avoided before the film is fully dry, again the thinner would be trapped, thus leading to a soft film and possible subsequent blistering.

Basically then, poor weather conditions coupled with contamination and incorrectly prepared surfaces are the major causes of micro-blistering.
 
I still haven’t seen any details about the age of the car, how long ago it was bought and from where?

OP - did you buy your car from Mercedes-Benz?
 
Your statement that "There is no argument here, though it's down to how the court views it" is key.

I can see where you're coming from on this, i.e. if you could demonstrate that there's a general issue with red paint on MB cars, then MB won't be able to claim that you may have damaged the paint yourself by improper use (too harsh detergents etc).

However, courts rely on facts supported by evidence, and in the case of Small Claims Court, it's also limited to evidence that can be presented within the limitations of the small claims process.

Unfortunately, what you know from reading hundreds of articles online isn't evidence in court. If you try and widen this claim to a 'class action' type claim, then you'll have a hard time bringing simple, clear and indisputable evidence that MB have a global issue with red paint.

You could try and get the court to order MB to provide their internal warranty statistics of red paint failures compared to other paint colours, but MB will likely argue that their warranty statistics constitute confidential commercial information and that the request is excessive and over-reaching.

Personally, I would concentrate on trying to convince the judge that in your particular case MB failed to provide your with paintwork that is fit for purpose, because the paint should last more than 10 years. To my mind, that's an easier task than proving in court that there's a global problem with MB red paint.

Disclaimer - this is my personal opinion. I am not a solicitor or otherwise qualified to provide legal advice. Follow it at your own risk... Best of Luck.
 
You could try and get the court to order MB to provide their internal warranty statistics of red paint failures compared to other paint colours, but MB will likely argue that their warranty statistics constitute confidential commercial information and that the request is excessive and over-reaching.
I’d bet a pint of blackcurrant cordial that there are no warranty claims associated with red paint - only goodwill gestures - which might actually hinder tye valudty of the claim.

As @markjay suggests, I personally would make the basis of you claim about your specific car. However I would also reference the fact that the number of reported cases would suggest that it may not be an isolated instance
 
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?
Thanks for making that clear @whitenemesis it is indeed rust. Visual inspection and checked tick boxes though will have little to do with a paint fault from manufacture as much as they try and pull the wool over our eyes.
 
I’d bet a pint of blackcurrant cordial that there are no warranty claims associated with red paint - only goodwill gestures - which might actually hinder tye valudty of the claim.

As @markjay suggests, I personally would make the basis of you claim about your specific car. However I would also reference the fact that the number of reported cases would suggest that it may not be an isolated instance

Its not an isolated case. As they have proved in the USA it is a paint/manufacturing fault. Whether that be application/adhesion/pigment or whatever so on and forth. Interesting though and I feel the teeth are being sharpened in the UK as well.
 
Its not an isolated case. As they have proved in the USA it is a paint/manufacturing fault. Whether that be application/adhesion/pigment or whatever so on and forth. Interesting though and I feel the teeth are being sharpened in the UK as well.
I know t’s not an isolated case, it’s been an issue for many years - there have been posts on MBClub about it for almost as long as MBClub has existed - so if “teeth are sharpening” then it’s taken a blooming long time for that too happen.

My point was that the basis of your claim is your car, not the others which may or may not have suffered with similar issues. I would mention them to suggest that it’s not an isolated incident but I would not major on them in your claim.
 
I know t’s not an isolated case, it’s been an issue for many years - there have been posts on MBClub about it for almost as long as MBClub has existed - so if “teeth are sharpening” then it’s taken a blooming long time for that too happen.

My point was that the basis of your claim is your car, not the others which may or may not have suffered with similar issues. I would mention them to suggest that it’s not an isolated incident but I would not major on them in your claim.

You have to major that in the claim. The fact that it's not an isolated problem is all part of the proof that it is a recognised and proved paint fault. The USA has done that for everyone. Just because it is the USA does not make the paint fault any different from any other country that is experiencing exactly the same problems. It's taking / has taken along time because the USA are hot on class/group action. The UK is always slow, years behind. I'm not saying for one moment it will be brought to the UK courts, that is up to the UK people to get the ball rolling. It just takes someone with the balls to roll up their sleeves and take some action. The UK to a certain degree have admitted the paint fault by repairing certain/selective vehicles by warranty or 'goodwill'. Believe me it will be both barrels by me with plenty of evidence, reference pictures and of cause the www.classaction.org/media/pinon-v-daimler-ag-et-al.pdf If it's settled by mediation in my case then hey ho! If I lose, so what.
 
You have to major that in the claim. The fact that it's not an isolated problem is all part of the proof that it is a recognised and proved paint fault. The USA has done that for everyone. Just because it is the USA does not make the paint fault any different from any other country that is experiencing exactly the same problems. It's taking / has taken along time because the USA are hot on class/group action. The UK is always slow, years behind. I'm not saying for one moment it will be brought to the UK courts, that is up to the UK people to get the ball rolling. It just takes someone with the balls to roll up their sleeves and take some action. The UK to a certain degree have admitted the paint fault by repairing certain/selective vehicles by warranty or 'goodwill'. Believe me it will be both barrels by me with plenty of evidence, reference pictures and of cause the www.classaction.org/media/pinon-v-daimler-ag-et-al.pdf If it's settled by mediation in my case then hey ho! If I lose, so what.
Sounds like you’re all over it. Wishing you the best with the claim.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom