Chrishazle
MB Enthusiast
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2008
- Messages
- 5,699
- Location
- Nr Ashford, Kent
- Car
- 2008 S204 C220CDI Elegance Estate Auto, 2008 R171 facelift SLK280 Auto.
Done, hope it helps you.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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.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'.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
Cheers! Mercedes UK Fire Opal/Mars Red 590 Paint FaultDone, hope it helps you.
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 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?
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 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.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.
Sounds like you’re all over it. Wishing you the best with the 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.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.