Where do I stand

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

l5foye

Active Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2003
Messages
926
Location
N.Ireland
Car
ML 300CDI
A short while ago, the sills on my ML filled up with water which overflowed into the battery dept corroding a SAM. The SAM was replaced with MB giving 36% discount on parts and labour as a goodwill gesture. Afterwards the passenger's side mirror stopped dipping when reverse was engaged. I mentioned this to the dealer who said it was probably due to programming
and to leave the ML in. The understanding was the re-programming was free.
When I called to collect, I was told that they had spent between 4.5 and 5 hours identifying the problem (as re-programming didn't work) and that a part was needed. They have ordered this from MB on a sale or return basis. If I am charged for all the labour and the part, I reckon I could end up with the most expensive dipping mirror in the UK. I had no idea that 'fixing' would become a saga as the mirror dipping or not is not something I would lose sleep over. I am of the view that this has all arisen in the first place because of a manufacturing defect. Where do you think I stand? Please don't tell me 'up the creek' !
 
Did you sign anything to give them permission to do the work?
 
Best practise would be that if the work is going to be materially different from that discussed and agreed the garage would contact you for approval first. Five hours work at full rate of around £150/hr is beyond what I personally would expect to be taken as expected if the car was just booked in for a programming session on Star. But what was your conversation with them? Did you ask them to investigate and fix?
 
I did not sign anything nor was I asked to. My understanding was it was just going to be a re-programming. When I did collect the ML, they did say 'it was a disaster' !
 
There is no simple answer legally. Morally you have the right of it but that may not be sufficient. If you are presented with a large bill and there is no willingness on behalf of the garage to negotiate an equitable settlement then you are down the route of expert assessment of the causes of the original fault (design,maintenance etc) the steps the garage took to effect the repair and replacement of the Sam,if they then programmed it correctly and all functions were checked prior to return (this seems a possible area of dispute) and then what understanding both parties had about the second programming and its cost.
The degree of difficulty they say they had in diagnosis is of little matter,their inability at their trade should not be a burden placed on you. They are held to be competent,if they are not then they are liable for the costs incurred,not you.
 
I believe that if you did not approve the additional work then you can decline the reapir and the cost.

I am not sure this is the legal standing, but this is standard practice and I would be very surprised if any garage will not abide by it.

Keeping in mind that you are a consumer there are plenty of organisations you could turn to, and I seriously doubt that any reputable garage will want to get involved in a dispute with Trading Standard or Which? Magazin or the RMI etc etc.

Unless of course there is disagreement regarding what you have actually agreed to. You say it was your understanding that it only involves free programming, but this may not have been the garage's understanding.
 
Last edited:
Thank you pipmk and markjey for your very relevant points. I don't really want an argument with the dealer- they have been good to me in the past.
I just worry that when a 'technician' is using STAR, logical reasoning goes out the window. Once it was found that it was not a programming issue, with both mirror motors working, the only conclusion would be that there is a breakdown in communication between gearbox and LH mirror motor or is that too simple?
 
Thank you pipmk and markjey for your very relevant points. I don't really want an argument with the dealer- they have been good to me in the past.
I just worry that when a 'technician' is using STAR, logical reasoning goes out the window. Once it was found that it was not a programming issue, with both mirror motors working, the only conclusion would be that there is a breakdown in communication between gearbox and LH mirror motor or is that too simple?

Sorry,this is outside of my area of competence,no doubt someone much better informed will address this.

I should have mentioned supra that "it needs a new part" (for which we will naturally bill you) is often used by garages when they have made a bog up and seek to get some money back from the punter,so insist on getting the old part from them immediately for possible inspection. It is good that you think well of the garage but remember their business is making a profit,mending cars is merely how they choose to do it and they are not friends,they are people you employ.
 
I don't think that any garage expects a raincheque from customers.

They must have explained to you in some way how they might charge, if not provided a cost estimate of 'between' this and that.

However if they just booked your car in and not a word was said about cost, then they will know already that they got it wrong and will be on the defence.

I suggest you thank them for the effort they made and tell them politely that you have decided not to proceed with the repair and would like to have your car back in its original condition, and at the same time ask if 'there is anything to pay' for the diagnostics. Then based on what they say, take it from there. Perhaps it will all amount to nothing...
 
Have you asked the dealer if and how much they are intending to charge?
 
As far as I am aware the 164 suffers from broken wires in the mirror loom just like the older 203's and 211's.
 
No, not yet. I am waiting for the dealer to get back to me when they obtain the part which is on order. Then I will be asking what they intend to charge. An interesting aside- I was speaking to an ex-employee of the company (incidentally a very skilled mechanic) -when I mentioned the 'technician' who worked on the ML, he said he would not let him work on a wheel barrow, that unless Star told him what to do, he was lost.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom