W210 - Rust - 25% offer by MB

[PaulSmart]

My 2000 E - class has a spot of rust coming from the number plate bar rubbing the body work above the nuber plate.

Unfortuneately the car does not have a MB service history - but I still submitted a claim to MB for a warranty repair - after all service history would not have stopped the rust....

After 8 weeks I have been offered a 25% contribution, but would still need to pay £280 - which still seems a lot??

What does the forum think of this??? I was hopeful of a full warranty repair having followed some threads on this site. Should I persue this or give up and get it repaired locallly and cheaper??

Thanks

Paul

 

[DrNick]

If they are offering 25% then that implies admission of some responsibility, surely. In which case, its worth going back and saying that for rust, its all or nothing. Either its craply made and they are responsible for causing this rust, or its made OK and the rust is nothing to do with them (stone chip etc)

Worth a try, as presumably 25% off an inflated bill is no better than paying 100% of a reasonable bill!

Nick

My 2000 E - class has a spot of rust coming from the number plate bar rubbing the body work above the nuber plate.

Unfortuneately the car does not have a MB service history - but I still submitted a claim to MB for a warranty repair - after all service history would not have stopped the rust....

After 8 weeks I have been offered a 25% contribution, but would still need to pay £280 - which still seems a lot??

What does the forum think of this??? I was hopeful of a full warranty repair having followed some threads on this site. Should I persue this or give up and get it repaired locallly and cheaper??

Thanks

Paul

 

[C240Sport97]

never accept their first offer. go back and ask for 100%. Nick is right.

 

[glojo]

What does the forum think of this??? I was hopeful of a full warranty repair having followed some threads on this site. Should I persue this or give up and get it repaired locallly and cheaper??

Thanks

Paul

Hi Paul,
I am going to play Devil's Advocate here and throw in my contribution.

You have not disclosed the mileage of the vehicle nor where you bought it.

If you bought a high mileage vehicle that did not have a full service history then you should of paid less than one which had a reasonable mileage and a full service history.

When you bought the car you took a decision. Sometimes these go in your favour, sometimes they don't.

The Mobilo or Mobilolife warranty has been discussed in great detail on this forum as well as the problem with corrosion on the 210. Mercedes-Benz seem to have a problem with this model and it is going to cost them mega bucks in claims. The only way they can try to save money is to be strict with any warranty claims. Why should they be taken advantage of? You purchased a ‘cheap’ car (I mean this only in so far as the previous owner had chose not to pay to have it serviced by the main dealer) and hopefully you took advantage of this?

We are going to read more and more of owners that have breached the terms of the warranty and then shouting foul. Fuel additives spring to mind! “Nothing wrong with adding ***** I have done it for years!” Whereas the warranty makes it quite clear that claims will be ‘limited’. Likewise claims for corrosion, the warranty will be renewed after each service at a Mercedes-Benz dealers?

Sorry to be so ‘anti’ because I do understand your point about the bodywork being the same no matter where it is serviced. I suppose I look on the warranty as an incentive to get the vehicle serviced at a main dealer. Fortunately down here service prices are very competitive and it would be silly of any local BMW\Mercedes-Benz owner not to go to a main dealer.

Good luck with your claim as some members have had full reimbursement for bodywork repairs on unwarranted vehicles.

Regards,
John

 

[Shude]

You have not disclosed the mileage of the vehicle nor where you bought it.

I would have thought that neither the mileage nor the seller would affect the amount of rust on the bootlid.

 

[glojo]

I would have thought that neither the mileage nor the seller would affect the amount of rust on the bootlid.

Totally agree, but high mileage vehicles sell for a lot less than standard mileage. The money you save can be put towards the body repair.

Glasses Guide I believe quotes deductions for each 10,000 miles over the average mileage.

We all enjoy buying a cheap bargain but surely the buyer must be aware, that bargains sometimes have a price?

John

 

[Shude]

Totally agree, but high mileage vehicles sell for a lot less than standard mileage. The money you save can be put towards the body repair.

High mileage cars are serviced more often so they see a mechanic more often. Low mileage cars might go two years before anyone seeing it. I don't understand how the higher mileage car owner should be penalised. The value of the car is not an issue here - it is rusty bodywork, if you buy a car for £2000 less than someone else it does not mean it is more likely to be rusty, the rust is not that picky!

Glasses Guide I believe quotes deductions for each 10,000 miles over the average mileage.

Not sure how that is related to a debate about rusty bodywork

We all enjoy buying a cheap bargain but surely the buyer must be aware, that bargains sometimes have a price?

Did you negociate anything off the price of your car when you bought it new? Do you think that if you'd paid full list price for it then it would be less likely to rust?

Mileage/value and many other variables could be brought into play with this but the reality is that only defective panels will rust in the way described and this isn't down to mileage or the forecourt price it's down to bad workmanship about 5 years ago when the car was built!

 

[DITTRICH]

...this is just another negotiation. First offers ARE just that. I suspect you won't get 100% but might well get more than 25%. Go for it.
Rgds
Les

 

[glojo]

Sorry that we disagree,
The terms and conditions are quite clear and we can continue the 'what ifs?' and, the 'don't applies'. I am merely trying to highlight that if a consumer buys a car covered by the warranty then he should expect to be able to claim against it.

If you buy something without a warranty you cannot then say it is unfair because you cannot claim against a warranty that you do not have??

This gentleman purchased a car without a mobilo warranty. He accepts that he has no mobilio cover, (the terms and conditions were not complied with) However Paul is trying to claim against the warranty he does not have?.

If this was any other make of vehicle then he would just have to pay up. The only reason we are discussing this is because of a warranty he does NOT have?

Your arguements are reasonable, but in my opinion flawed.
I say this with the greatest of respect and hopefully we will not fall out over this?

I wish Paul every success with his claim because a four year old Mercedes-Benz should not corrode, but it is going to have to be a 'Goodwill' gesture on behalf of Mercedes-Benz and not a claim against a non existant warranty.

Sorry to disagree with you Shude, but the warranty is quite clear, I accept the terms of it and Paul is obviouly aware of its terms.

I could say go ahead and demand they carry out a full repair, but that is not giving an honest opinion of his rightful entitlement.

My reference to buying 'cheaper vehicles' is solely to highlight the savings that might have to be put towards any future repairs

Regards,
John The Stubborn

 

[Steve_Perry]

I would go for 100% contribution as the location of the rust spot that you mention is a well known flaw or maybe that should be "MB design feature". The plastic strip above the number plate that you mention sits directly against the bodywork and hence rubs against the paint thus causing a route for moisture to invade and eventually attack the metal. Usually the rust appears at either corner (extreme end) of the plastic trim.

I'm sure I have read Koolvin post that US versions of the W202 & W210 actually have a rubber gasket that sits between the plastic trim and the paint of the bodywork thus eliminating the problem. The design of the US bootlids are subtly different from Euro bootlids in that the number plate recess is a different shape and much narrower. The question then arises why didn't the European models get a gasket too? Cost saving would be my guess.

Go for it, what's the worst that could happen? MB say "no dice". I would only go to an independent for a cheap solution until I had exhausted the MB warranty route (i.e. they pay 100%, or contribute at a level you are happy with).

John, just to chip in with your discussion with Shude. Surely whether the car has a warranty or not, would the sale of goods act cover this situation? As you say, a new(ish) car, no matter who the manufacturer is, shouldn't be rusting after 4 years of sensible use. P.S. Even though peeps have differences of opinion I doubt that would be a cause of 'falling out'.

S.

 

[Shude]

Sorry that we disagree

I am not sorry, we're keeping this thread nice and active and highlighting the need for discussion forums in general

The terms and conditions are quite clear and we can continue the 'what ifs?' and, the 'don't applies'. I am merely trying to highlight that if a consumer buys a car covered by the warranty then he should expect to be able to claim against it.

It is supposedly a "30 Year Rust Guarantee!*" with a nice disclaimer that unless it is serviced by a stealership cannot be claimed against.

If you buy something without a warranty you cannot then say it is unfair because you cannot claim against a warranty that you do not have??

Correct

This gentleman purchased a car without a mobilo warranty. He accepts that he has no mobilio cover, (the terms and conditions were not complied with) However Paul is trying to claim against the warranty he does not have?.

What happened to the 30 years of guarantee? Do you think that mercedes would have sold ANY cars if they had put on the sales brochures that the bodywork might rust and the paint fall off after a couple of years if it wasn't brought in for a service with ONLY daimler-chrysler stealerships?

If this was any other make of vehicle then he would just have to pay up. The only reason we are discussing this is because of a warranty he does NOT have?

We don't know this. If his was the first and only W210 that had rusted then he might get 100% cover simply to keep it quiet. This has been a costly mistake for MB and they will try to wriggle out of it as best as possible!

Your arguements are reasonable, but in my opinion flawed.

I for one do not think it is reasonable for a mercedes to start rusting under undamaged paintwork after only 4 years, regardless of how much of a hard life or what price the car was bought for.

I say this with the greatest of respect and hopefully we will not fall out over this?

I don't fall out with mercedes enthusiasts. BMW enthusiasts maybe...

Sorry to disagree with you Shude, but the warranty is quite clear, I accept the terms of it and Paul is obviouly aware of its terms.

Be VERY careful with the terms of a warranty. Warranties and Guarantees are often not worth the paper they are written on.

I could say go ahead and demand they carry out a full repair, but that is not giving an honest opinion of his rightful entitlement.

His rightful entitlement as a mercedes customer is not to have a rusty car after 4 years. His rightful entitlement as a consumer in the UK means that a product should be fit for use and should be free from manufacturing defects.

I was quoted £100 to fix the rust around the bootlock on my previous W202 which would have been covered by the 30 year guarantee (but I didn't know about it). I would have just paid that rather than harrass the stealership about it.

As previously stated if they have offered 25% it must mean they accept some of the blame. I don't think they can blame you for any of the rust so howcome it's only 25% their fault, surely it's 100% their fault! Remember it isn't the stealership that will foot the bill for this work it is daimler-chrysler, your stealership will most likely MAKE money out of this deal so you might get on better than you think.

Good luck with the claim!

 

[glojo]

It is supposedly a "30 Year Rust Guarantee!*" with a nice disclaimer that unless it is serviced by a stealership cannot be claimed against.

Good luck with the claim!

Do we know where the car was purchased?

I can here you shouting that it does not matter!

If the car was purchased from anyone other than a Mercedes-Benz dealer then why claim against the dealer? (he will surely have to justify the repair)

How long has the car been owned by Paul? (in other words did he buy it recently when the condition of the bodywork was clearly visible)

What warranty did the buyer get when he purchased this car?

Like everyone I feel the 210 has a problem with corrosion, hence the need to make sure you buy wisely. Buyer beware.

To help me maintain my position I need more facts. on the cars history.

Please do not take this as an easing of my stubborn position. IF the car was purchased at a Mercedes-Benz main dealer then I might, might have some sympathy for the buyer.

If it was not then back to the trenches.

Please let me know if I am rambling too much? Like you I enjoy forums that can have healthy debates. It certainly stops me from getting bored. (I should be doing my physiotherapy )

Regards,
John

 

[PaulSmart]

Thanks for all the contributions - its cheered me up! - I like the 25% of the blame tact, which I may well use.

To answer some other queries the car (240 elegance) has done 60,000miles, and was purchased from a relative who kept it garaged. the price I paid was the trade in value qouted in Parkers, but the car does have some good extras - Heated leather, sunroof, xenons, cd changer, about ~£3500 in total.

Paul

 

[Shude]

Do we know where the car was purchased?

I can here you shouting that it does not matter!

It does not matter!

If the car was purchased from anyone other than a Mercedes-Benz dealer then why claim against the dealer? (he will surely have to justify the repair)

Ok I can handle that argument! The problem really is that the seller has no control over whether the rust happens or not, it is down to a manufacturing defect. If you bought a TV from dixons in Scotland and it exploded at your house in London you'd not be expected to return it to the Scottish branch you could do it at your local branch. Sames goes for the car, it's a dealer network all owned by the same company (now) and they would be claiming off the same parent department. Buying the car privately second hand doesn't mean that daimler chrysler can shirk it's obligations as a manufacturer - the defects were there when it was sitting on the forecourt as a brand new car waiting for collection.

IF the car was purchased at a Mercedes-Benz main dealer then I might, might have some sympathy for the buyer.

They may or may not have spotted it in their so-called inspection, but even then he might have had trouble claiming, don't forget accident damaged cars have been sold from the forecourt when the cars are all listed as never having been in an accident. Stealerships have also been known to have backstreet repairs made to brand new cars so the paintwork is "perfect" for the customer, without the customer's knowledge or consent!

Please let me know if I am rambling too much? Like you I enjoy forums that can have healthy debates. It certainly stops me from getting bored. (I should be doing my physiotherapy )

Don't forget to do your physio John or you'll get stiff!

 

[glojo]

Thanks for all the contributions - its cheered me up! - I like the 25% of the blame tact, which I may well use.

To answer some other queries the car (240 elegance) has done 60,000miles, and was purchased from a relative who kept it garaged. the price I paid was the trade in value qouted in Parkers, but the car does have some good extras - Heated leather, sunroof, xenons, cd changer, about ~£3500 in total.

Paul

Thanks Paul,
Hopefully you have seen the good side of this excellent forum.

I wish you luck with your claim, because Mercedes-Benz does have a history of 'Goodwill' gestures.

The car sounds very nice and hopefully you will get enormous pleasure from it.

Shude
I will NOT back down

Private purchase, any complaint should be with the 'relative'

Regards,
John The Obstinate
John

 

[glojo]

Good debate

Hi Shude,
Thanks for a healthy, enjoyable debate.

Take care,
John

 

[230K]

Hi all

This car is four years old and should not be rusting FULL STOP

MB cut corners with the 210 not to give we the customers a better product but to line their pockets.
They should and will fix it at their cost. Borrow an elcometer and measure the paint thickness and write a strong letter to MB.

Also check under door seals.

Good luck and if you need help with letter PM me.

On the subject of mileage etc how many miles would be on the car if it was 29 yrs old and only 1 year of warranty left.



230K

 

[barflux]

The same thing happens on C & CLK Models too.

 

[glojo]

This car is four years old and should not be rusting FULL STOP

On the subject of mileage etc how many miles would be on the car if it was 29 yrs old and only 1 year of warranty left.

If it only had one day of WARRANTY left it would be covered.

This whole thread is not about a vehicle, it is about a warranty. This car does not have one. We can argue the rights and wrongs of the construction of the 210, but owners that have a warranty are 'lucky' those do do not need to be 'lucky'.

I understand and accept that it is terrible that a four year old car is rusting, but I guarantee you it is not the only one. It is fortunate that this particular manufacturer has had the courage to offer a warranty for the life of the vehicle. (30 years). Most car manufacturers do not offer this. Furthermore Mercedes-Benz only offer it to nominated countries. They have quite reasonably put a price on this 'warranty'. That price is that they service the vehicle. We therefore have a choice, pay the premium (car service) for peace of mind, or not pay the premium.

If I buy a house I would reasonably expect the structure to last a lifetime?

I still take out insurance against the building. According to certain members logic I can claim against the builder (Mercedes-Benz) if things go wrong and not have any insurance (Mobilio)?

I respect your offer to write a letter for this member and I have already sincerely wished him luck.

But if this was a different brand of vehicle would we still be defending the person that buys privately and then goes to the nearest dealer and complains about some rust?

Regards,
John

 

[peterchurch]

If it only had one day of WARRANTY left it would be covered.

This whole thread is not about a vehicle, it is about a warranty. This car does not have one. We can argue the rights and wrongs of the construction of the 210, but owners that have a warranty are 'lucky' those do do not need to be 'lucky'.

I understand and accept that it is terrible that a four year old car is rusting, but I guarantee you it is not the only one. It is fortunate that this particular manufacturer has had the courage to offer a warranty for the life of the vehicle. (30 years). Most car manufacturers do not offer this. Furthermore Mercedes-Benz only offer it to nominated countries. They have quite reasonably put a price on this 'warranty'. That price is that they service the vehicle. We therefore have a choice, pay the premium (car service) for peace of mind, or not pay the premium.

If I buy a house I would reasonably expect the structure to last a lifetime?

I still take out insurance against the building. According to certain members logic I can claim against the builder (Mercedes-Benz) if things go wrong and not have any insurance (Mobilio)?

I respect your offer to write a letter for this member and I have already sincerely wished him luck.

But if this was a different brand of vehicle would we still be defending the person that buys privately and then goes to the nearest dealer and complains about some rust?

Regards,
John

A Honda / Saab /Volvo / Toyota / Ford <add brand here> .... would not show rust after 4 years so why would you expect that a Mercedes would, just because it does a high millage or doesn't see a main dealer every year? I would rather have a pukka 10 year warranty than a sneaky 30 year one that gets you to pay for it through inflated service costs...

A Merc that is rusting after 4 years is sub-standard and should not carry the badge it has on the bonnet