Was I mis-sold this car?

RensterUK

When I returned the car, MB billed me for all sorts of repairs, inc the bumper. I dispute this, and most of the bill (accepting of course, what I knew was my fault). They accepted and acknowledged the bumper wasn't my doing, and removed this from the bill (along with a couple of other items).... Letters back and forth disputing much of the rest of the bill, it all goes to independent arbitration - at which point MB finally admit they dont have a pre-delivery report, and as such can't prove anything - bill cancelled.

Your point about why didnt I notice the poor repair is valid. I didnt. Even based on the photographic evidence they sent, I still couldnt see a problem. I even sent all their photos to an independent repair specialist, who said he could see nothing wrong with the car (both with the bumper, and other so called damage) - seemingly this was MB trying to recover some losses that my returning the car early had landed them with (a trick they seem to pull quite often - see some of my other threads for details!).

So I returned the car in what I thought was near-perfect condition, other than the bits I knew I had to pay for. They bill me for other, seemingly non-existent items, and finally admit they can't prove any of them (having early admitted the front bumper "fault" was there already, I'm left thinking the "meticulous inspection" they do on their AUC's didnt happen - given the lack of report, and the fact that if it was done, it missed at least one item they tried to bill for on the car's return.

I hope I'm making more sense. What it seems to me to come down to is that *if* the car was inspected prior to me buying it, it clearly wasn't done to the same "meticulous" standards as it was when I returned it, and the fact that MB now seem unable to prove any inspection was done before I bought it makes me doubt any inspection was done (given that they subsequently tried to bill me for existing (hard to see to the untrained eye such as mine) faults, and as dazzadub above commented - it seems unfair that I've paid a premium price for a seemingly less than premium product.

vaio

I suppose the question then becomes "what are your actual quantifiable losses incurred as a result of this lack of inspection?"

k3lvc

Out of interest was this from an MB main dealer or MB Direct ?

When you buy an 'approved used' (or whatever their current marketing term is) MB as part of the selling process you receive a detailed copy of the pre-sale inspection.

They're not perfect but they're better than most in my experience.

I would question the wisdom of taking out a PCP on a used car without a very thorough inspection (and copy of the results)

You also remark that you paid a premium price for a less than premium product - at any point during ownership did you feel this or only when you'd returned it ?

Hammyman

RensterUK wrote: »

LOL that would be nice! Not overly realistic tho

There's no disputing the car served me well. The point I'm trying to make is that it was described and sold as an MB approved used car, which by their own definition was 100% perfect, that had been through all MB's AUC procedures etc... When seemingly in reality it was a car that had undergone substandard repairwork, and hadn't been through all MB's AUC procedures after all - and as such, shouldnt have commanded the premium price payable for cars that undergo such strict vetting.

You had over 2 years years to decide it wasn't as described. You have only now just decided it wasn't after someone else has pointed it out to you - someone who has a vested interest in painting it in as worse a light as possible. You have no leg to stand on as not only did you accept it and were happy with it, you were happy with it for over 2 and a half years.

A court would ask you why didn't you reject it or raise the point at any time you owned it before wanting to return it early? The only answer you can give is that you were happy with it and as far as you were aware, you had got what you had paid for.

getmore4less

WHat are your losses?

Did you have to pay for something while owning or on return that you would not have had to pay if the car was "as described".

Any other losses like reduced fuel economy or more servicing costs etc.


I just don't see any losses,

k3lvc

Renster - in your opening post in a seperate thread on the same topic you claim to be aware of the repair to the bumper - did this happen during your ownership or not ?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3230998=

Hammyman

k3lvc wrote: »

Renster - in your opening post in a seperate thread on the same topic you claim to be aware of the repair to the bumper - did this happen during your ownership or not ?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3230998=

Heh-heh, how inconvenient.

and a "poor repair" - which was in my view an excellent job replacing a faulty parking sensor and respraying the bumper, done by an independant MB specialist.

I wonder who took it there and why....

vaio

I suspect that's the end of this particular thread, and if anyone from Mercedes Benz/BVRLA is reading this it could get quite interesting/costly for the OP.

Wonder if Renster is his actual name?

motorguy

RensterUK wrote: »

The point I'm trying to make is that it was described and sold as an MB approved used car, which by their own definition was 100% perfect, that had been through all MB's AUC procedures etc...

No Approved Used Scheme claims any car is 100% perfect. Therein lies the problem for you. You seem to have got it into your head that buying a MB Approved Used Car you were guaranteed perfection. All it guarantees is that some boxes were ticked.

RensterUK wrote: »

When seemingly in reality it was a car that had undergone substandard repairwork, and hadn't been through all MB's AUC procedures after all - and as such, shouldnt have commanded the premium price payable for cars that undergo such strict vetting. The only significance of the 2.5 years I had the car is that it took that long for the truth to come out. Had I known the car's history, and apparent lack of inspection 2.5 years ago, I wouldnt have bought it.

But by your own admittance on another thread, YOU had the bumper repainted??

RensterUK wrote: »

Does that make any more sense?

Yes, it makes perfect sense. You're out no money, you had paintwork done to the car, by your own admission the car has 'served you well' and yet you feel in some way you were mis sold the car??

You're a prime example of 'claim culture Britain' to be honest.

vaio

pgilc1 wrote: »

.......You're a prime example of 'claim culture Britain' to be honest.

Nah, there is a world of difference between claiming what you are lawfully entitled to be compensated for and telling lies with the intention of getting something you are not entitled to (as a few MPs have recently discovered)

as I said above, maybe (even hopefully) some one from MB is reading this and will sift lies from truth and sort it all out