New Mercedes - Filed Small Claims Court

[goobey]

Basically purchased a brand new Mercedes online from a dealer 120 miles away in Dec 2019 and I'm the 1st owner. I've owned many AMG Mercedes from new - on this model they are using a new larger size of disk & caliper and on their internal systems they now acknowledge that there can be brake squeal and this service bulletin was written February 2022 - and the brake pads should be changed.

From new there was break squeal of which at every service I advised the local dealership but nothing happened - eventually at 2nd service it got bad with brake judder with 5,600 miles (very low mileage) the servicing dealer says brakes 'due to warping' are not covered because it's 'fair wear and tear' and quoted £1800 to replace.

Although it's an AMG vehicle I'm on the original tires - so it's absurd to assume it's been raced, tracked or likewise as it's never been driven in this manner as it's been driven very little. The tyres are worn 4mm from brand new - so my view is that it's insane for Mercedes to say it's fair wear and tear on brakes.

Going back and forth headoffice repeated the same thing, no warranty on brakes & the servicing dealer said the same. I went to the Motor Ombudsman and they said an independent report should be done.

So I purchased genuine disks & pads from Mercedes directly at £500. I got a brake specialist to replace them and write a report at £180. So £680 all in.

Went back to Ombudsman and they said they still reside with the manufacturer.

So I thought with the claim being so low - I thought they would just settle the matter because it's not worth defending... But I didn't realise that maybe the supplying dealer (of which I've never visited) is the company to take to court?

Do I need to switch my claim from Mercedes Benz UK to the supplying dealer? This seems unfair as I don't actually see why the supplying dealer should be out of pocket?

Paperwork attached.

[goobey]

attachment

[R0b]

From reading the defence, it appears you have issued a claim against the wrong company. There is a general legal principle in contract law called 'privity' and what that means is only the parties to a contract may sue or be sued.

I think you have made a common mistake by consumers where they do not realise that each company is a separate legal entity and you need to issue the claim against the legal entity you contracted with. For example, some Mcdonalds restaurants are owned and operated by Mcdonalds but in many instances Mcdonalds also operates as a franchise where a third party purchases the brand rights to the Mcdonalds name.

The principle would apply here, where a third party company has purchased the rights to use the Mercedes brand but the underlying company is entirely separate to the Mercedes who manufactured the vehicles. This is what Mercedes-Benz Cars UK Limited have explained in paragraph 4 of the defence.

Check your contractual paperwork and, according to MBUK Limited, you will find that the company listed as the seller is them but someone else. So to answer your question, if the company name on your paperwork does not show MBUK Limited as the seller, you have issued a claim against the wrong company and you will need to either make an application to substitute MBUK Limited with the correct defendant at a cost of £255 or you could discontinue the claim and then restart the claim against the correct entity. If you decide to discontinue the existing claim, you may want to confirm with MBUK Limited that you are willing to discontinue the claim on a 'drop hands' basis and will be reissuing the claim against the correct entity. A drop hands basis means you both walk away bearing your own costs and the reason you may want to do this is because if you discontinue before the claim has been allocated by the court to the small claims track, you could be liable for MBUK Limited's costs.

[Manxman]

...Check your contractual paperwork and, according to MBUK Limited, you will find that the company listed as the seller is them but someone else. So to answer your question, if the company name on your paperwork does not show MBUK Limited as the seller, you have issued a claim against the wrong company...

Just to clarify for the OP's benefit (although I suspect they will have realised anyway) I think there may be a significant omission in the above response? I suspect it ought to read:

"... Check your contractual paperwork and, according to MBUK Limited, you will find that the company listed as the seller is NOT them but someone else..."

I'm sure the OP has realised but the word "not" can be a tricky one if inadvertantly missed out.