Mercedes-Benz warranty

[television]

MB Chelsea is part of MB UK

 

[hawk20]

The crucial problem is not ownership of the various companies, but the difficulty of proving who caused the damage. See my earlier posting.

The main issue is was the damage caused by the customer, or MB Chelsea or the recovery company. Once that is decided (even if formal proof is impossible and the judge has to use 'judgement') allocating damages is relatively simple.

 

[Rory]

or the recovery company.

The recovery company was Mobilo.

 

[robertjrt]

"The Mediation which took place at the HO in Milton Keynes was a classic case of physiological intimidation"

I can imagine! But why would a Mediator agree to MB offices? Why would you agree? Surely there are independent mediator chambers in the UK?

I've been involved in both Court cases, as an Expert witness, and a mediation, and frankly tension can be much higher in mediation.

I was in one when my daughter was badly injured, and settling an uninsured driver case. The opposing lawyer launched into a very hostile X- exam of my daughter. After a few minutes, I got up, leaned over the table and told the lawyer that one more smart ass remark and he would be feeding through a tube for 6 weeks. (I'm pretty laid back, but you can get very aggressive over your children!) The Mediator suggested that the insurance Co, party move to a different room, and shuttled back and fotrth ajnd gave gave a 100% settlement to us.

This would never have happened in Court, which has a much more detached atmosphere.

OK, personal rant over.

Why don't you just nip in, with a Court order, and distrain MB Chelsea's entire stock? That will get their attention!

Ahh, this is where my character comes in, planning and implementation is my forte. As I have previously posted, previous experience prepared me for what might happen, although I did not think it would be this long a dispute!

My idea was to give the "other side" the "advantage" of a home turf and the meeting went as planned. About five hours+ later, no lunch/tea, the Mediation ended. The Mediator remarked too me "you did enjoy that, did you not" and I must say I did. The meeting was very, very informative, expensive, £5,000, but, confirmed my idea of what happened to my car.

The suggestion of distrain MB Chelsea's stock is not a bad idea, the Costs money has still not arrived, six months after the Judgment.

 

[robertjrt]

Not quite fair but then you rarely let the facts spoil your attacks on MB do you?

The electrics were damaged either by the owner, or the recovery people or by the Chelsea dealers. As is so often true in cases like this, it doesn't seem to be possible to prove conclusively who did the damage -or the case would have been resolved long ago.

In an equally difficult case a long time ago, when two mothers said they were the rightful parent of a baby, the judge said cut the baby in half. This case seems no easier to me but the judge chose in favour of the car owner so good for him.

But let's not pretend this was anything other than a very difficult case to prove either way. No reason why the dealer should pay for the customer's damage; equally no reason why the customer should pay for the dealer's damage; and equally no reason why the dealer should pay for the recovery firm's damage (nor why they should pay for his). Tricky, tricky tricky.

The big problem for Mercedes-Benz Chelsea was the fact that the recovery companies driver started my car and drove it to his recovery vehicle several streets away and when he arrived at MB Chelsea's Wandsworth workshop, drove my car into the car park. My requests for a viewing/copy of the CCTV was ignored. My witness to my car being collected was rated "credible".

During the trial the Judge asked the defendants Barrister if the Claimant was responsible for the damage to the car, the reply produced the comment "why are we here?" The Barrister then explained that it was for me to prove who should pay for the repair even though I was not responsible for the damage.

My search now is to find out what on earth MB were thinking when they walked into the Court.

I have a very, very good idea, and I think I can prove it in Court, but, that is in the future, perhaps before a Judge again.

I shall wait for Mercedes Benz UK to finish digging the grave where their reputation will be buried, then, perhaps their customer service will be fundamentally changed to what it should be now. Lying to customers is never a good long term business stratagem.

Somebody as ****** minded as me was bound to come along sooner or later.

 

[hawk20]

The recovery company was Mobilo.

That helps not one jot in proving who did what.

 

[Rory]

That helps not one jot in proving who did what.

The point is that it was all "Mercedes". OK, it manifests itself in various legal forms, but that's irrelevant to the poor customer.

That this wasn't sorted out internally is an absolute disgrace. You're trying to defend the indefensible, even after a definitive court case.

 

[robertjrt]

That helps not one jot in proving who did what.

I followed the instructions from MB Chelsea and 'phoned the number given who then passed the instruction to Mondail who then instructed the recovery company to collect my car and deliver it to the Wandsworth workshop.

I did not instruct the recovery company, nor did I pay the recovery fee.

Mercedes-Benz stated that the recovery company was "not their servant or agent" and was therefore not liable for their actions. Absolute rubbish!

MB tried to blame me, somebody known too me or the recovery company
while knowing that the damage was occasioned at their workshop.

The Judge at the trial asked why the technician was not called as a witness, yes, I wondered that also. My Barrister was looking forward to asking a few pertinent questions while he was under Oath.

I am still hopeful that Mercedes-Benz will settle this matter, but, if not, I shall continue to try to redress the hurt done too me, no matter what the cost or how long it will take.

 

[hawk20]

The point is that it was all "Mercedes". OK, it manifests itself in various legal forms, but that's irrelevant to the poor customer.

That this wasn't sorted out internally is an absolute disgrace. You're trying to defend the indefensible, even after a definitive court case.

No: it was not all Mercedes. For a start, the owner of the car is not Mercedes and nor are Mondial who did the recovery.
http://www.mondial-assistance.co.uk/en/aboutus/products/automotive_services.htm

Most cases that go to court do so because it is not clear who did what. It could have been the customer who did the damage, or someone who worked for the dealer or someone who worked for the recovery company. Had conclusive proof been available as to who did the damage, and on who was concealing the fact that they had done it, the case would presumably have been settled long ago.

No doubt over the years at least some owners have sometimes denied doing things in the hope of avoiding large bills; similarly some mechanics will no doubt have concealed mistakes to avoid being fired; and so will employees of recovery companies. It is a great mistake to assume that we can guess who did what from one version of the sad events surrounding this case.

 

[Rory]

No: it was not all Mercedes. For a start, the owner of the car is not Mercedes and nor are Mondial who did the recovery.
http://www.mondial-assistance.co.uk/en/aboutus/products/automotive_services.htm

Operating Mobilo, they are agents of Mercedes-Benz UK and they were acting on the intructions of Mercedes-Benz Chelsea, who are owned by Mercedes-Benz Retail.

In court the dealership stated that the recovery service was provided by Mercedes-Benz UK.

How many times do you need to see the words "Mercedes-Benz"?

Most cases that go to court do so because it is not clear who did what. It could have been the customer who did the damage, or someone who worked for the dealer or someone who worked for the recovery company. Had conclusive proof been available as to who did the damage, and on who was concealing the fact that they had done it, the case would presumably have been settled long ago.

No doubt over the years at least some owners have sometimes denied doing things in the hope of avoiding large bills; similarly some mechanics will no doubt have concealed mistakes to avoid being fired; and so will employees of recovery companies. It is a great mistake to assume that we can guess who did what from one version of the sad events surrounding this case.

Again, we don't need to guess - a judge, who was apparently baffled as to why the case was before her, has already decided. The one person who wasn't blamed in court was the owner.

 

[robertjrt]

Thank you for all the posts.

It would seem that the article about my court case, published in the Auto Express is not available on the web.

I have, of course, reams of paperwork and from reading it all, as well as what was said at Court, I have a fairly good idea of what may have happened.

Under the disclosure rules I have copies of Mercedes-Benz internal documents which are very interesting, as well as the Inspection reports, all three of them!

 

[hawk20]

Operating Mobilo, they are agents of Mercedes-Benz UK and they were acting on the intructions of Mercedes-Benz Chelsea, who are owned by Mercedes-Benz Retail.

In court the dealership stated that the recovery service was provided by Mercedes-Benz UK.

How many times do you need to see the words "Mercedes-Benz"?



Again, we don't need to guess - a judge, who was apparently baffled as to why the case was before her, has already decided. The one person who wasn't blamed in court was the owner.

If Mondial did the damage I think you will find they would be responsible for paying for it - not Mercedes.
And that would apply however often you put up the words "Mercedes Benz".

Similarly if the owner had caused the damage he would be responsible for paying for the repairs.

Nobody can be certain what happened in this case. The owner says it was not him; the mechanic at the dealer says it was not him; and the guys at Mondial say it was not them. The one certainty appears to be that nobody is putting their hand up.

 

[robertjrt]

If Mondial did the damage I think you will find they would be responsible for paying for it - not Mercedes.
And that would apply however often you put up the words "Mercedes Benz".

Similarly if the owner had caused the damage he would be responsible for paying for the repairs.

Nobody can be certain what happened in this case. The owner says it was not him; the mechanic at the dealer says it was not him; and the guys at Mondial say it was not them. The one certainty appears to be that nobody is putting their hand up.

In a nutshell, yes.

This is why it has taken three and a half years, and counting, to reach this stage, including a trial at the County Court.

Mercedes-Benz admitted it Court that I was not responsible for the damage and as MB are responsible for the actions of it servants and agents I was given Judgment and £10,750.

There are just the outstanding issues to address before this matter is brought to a close, it will all be in my book, "Mercedes-Benz; The death of a reputation" which will be available, free of charge, on-line in due course.

 

[Rory]

Mercedes-Benz admitted it Court that I was not responsible for the damage and as MB are responsible for the actions of it servants and agents I was given Judgment and £10,750.

Thank you. It's not a difficult concept, which makes it all the more outrageous (and I can't begin to imagine how you feel about this) that MB put you through this. They should have been hit with punitive damages for wasting the court's time.

 

[Dosco]

In a nutshell, yes.

it will all be in my book, "Mercedes-Benz; The death of a reputation" which will be available, free of charge, on-line in due course.

Now that will be a good bedtime read

 

[television]

The one thing that I learnt when being heavily involved with Yamaha and any bad press reviews was to sort it quickly and do not respond to the press. That way things were soon forgotten and business as usual.

Not every sale or repair can go like clockwork, there are too many variables. The actual cost of the parts in this case to MB were quite small, as they all have a huge mark up, even the labour rate in terms of actual cost were only £10-£15 per hour, so out of the total that MB wanted £4k was profit, and in terms of a loss, that would be at around £2.4k at the worst

 

[robertjrt]

Thank you. It's not a difficult concept, which makes it all the more outrageous (and I can't begin to imagine how you feel about this) that MB put you through this. They should have been hit with punitive damages for wasting the court's time.

I am a bit miffed, three and a half years without my car, £40,000 spent and not all of it coming back, and still, no car.

It looks like I shall have to put up with a lot more of this nonsense before the book can be published. MB keep adding chapters.

I am still waiting for the Costs, six months after the Judgment!

Mercedes-Benz lied to me, no question, MB also lied in Court, under Oath.

MB have argued on the amount of Damages, for instance, why did I have an "experiences solicitor when a Junior could have done the work?", so, it would seem that even though MB lost in Court, their attitude toward me has not changed one iota. Good on you MB, keep digging that grave.

Mr Kelly has ignored my letter asking him to use his "good offices" to end this dispute, I sent two options for consideration, the reply; a £5,000 deduction for my costs of the Mediation!

Don't you just love Mercedes-Benz!

Punitive damages are not available in this case. They are in Libel/Slander actions, so, if MB will oblige me with a Writ, I will be more than happy to walk down the road to the Royal Courts of Justice and give them a day they will never forget.

 

[robertjrt]

The one thing that I learnt when being heavily involved with Yamaha and any bad press reviews was to sort it quickly and do not respond to the press. That way things were soon forgotten and business as usual.

Not every sale or repair can go like clockwork, there are too many variables. The actual cost of the parts in this case to MB were quite small, as they all have a huge mark up, even the labour rate in terms of actual cost were only £10-£15 per hour, so out of the total that MB wanted £4k was profit, and in terms of a loss, that would be at around £2.4k at the worst

Yes, I agree with what you write. At one time it was mentioned that I pay for all the parts and MB would fit them, err, no.

I have been in business for years and know the difference between wholesale and retail prices, its called gross profit.