My car squealed badly from new and I took it in to have it looked at among other items. They replaced the pads with a “new version” you can see my post history for the scanned document showing the numbers. Ever since it’s been changed the car has never squealed at all. It was LOUD and annoying before.

 

Do you use the active cruise control regularly?

 

I'll try a different dealership, see what they say! I've also contacted some disc skimming companies.

Don't use cruise.

 

Please DO NOT buy Aftermarket Discs. I have been in the Auto Design business all my life [Rover Group/Honda/BMW/and Continental: the biggest Brake Manufacturer on the Planet]. The manufacturing tolernaces and material used are RUBBISH. All you will do is give yourself problems in the future. Forget the cost, think about peace-of-mind.

 

They will tell you to do one, I posted another thread about brake disc judder (which I reported at 2nd service at 4,000 miles as it was getting bad). Never been race started, on original tyres, been complaining about break squeal since new. They decided to void the warranty when it went in for it's 2nd service but the dealership did not tell me this as I removed the OPF and in the court documents it says they voided warranty on the entire car, they should have told me this upfront rather then me paying for brake inspection reports and I would have footed the bill.

I did put in a claim for the cost of parts only, I thought they would just pay up as the cost was relatively small... but nope!

You have to take the supplying dealer to court, in this case they only supplied me the car and has never seen it since as they are not local. MB UK hide behind this, so they cannot be taken accountable directly. The local dealer who are an AMG specialist also sided with the voided warranty from MB UK/MB AMG.

This is the last Mercedes/AMG I'm going to own for the forseeable, ordinarily I wouldn't post parts of their defence but it may help someone at least get the right entity.

MERCEDES-BENZ CARS UK LIMITED Defendant

1) The Defendant is the importer and distributor of Mercedes-Benz and Smart vehicles in the United
Kingdom (Company Number: 02448457). The Defendant does not own or operate Mercedes-Benz
retail and repair sites. All Mercedes-Benz approved sites within the UK are franchised businesses
owned and operated by separate legal entities to the Defendant. Moreover, the Defendant is not
the manufacturer of Mercedes-Benz vehicles.

2) It is not clear to the Defendant on the legal basis which the Claimant is bringing the claim. The
Claimant has not disclosed any contractual agreement, has not specified what contractual
loss. The Claimant has failed to identify any statutory obligation that the Defendant has allegedly
breached.

5) In response to the limited contents provided in paragraphs 3.5 to 3.9 of the PoC the Defendant
responds as best it can below. In so far as it understands, the
that the braking system of the Vehicle is defective. The Defendant infers the Claimant is attempting
CRA alleging the Vehicle
was not of satisfactory quality and/or fit for purpose pursuant to section 9 of CRA. The Defendant
submits that no contract exists or has ever existed between the Claimant and Defendant pursuant
to section 1 of CRA. The Claimant is put to strict proof regarding its cause of action against the
Defendant.

7) The Defendant asserts that MB D**** found no evidence of an inherent or manufacturing defect
with the brakes or at all with the Vehicle. Furthermore, as the issues with the brakes fell outside
and due to the third party software presence in the Vehicle,
the Claimant as the registered owner/keeper was required to bear the costs for any
repairs to remedy the brake issue.

9) Notwithstanding the above, the Defendant avers it is the incorrect legal entity to respond to the
Claim. The Defendant maintains that any claim under CRA for the Vehicle allegedly being of not of
satisfactory quality and/or not fit for purpose should be directed to the selling dealer, with whom
the Claimant holds the contract of sale.

10) The Defendant denies breach of statutory duty, contractual or tortious liability as alleged or at all.
The Defendant avers that the Claimant has failed to provide a legal basis for its claim and the
Defendant has no contractual relationship with the Claimant.

@crocket
They voided warranty on the entire vehicle, because you altered the exhaust system?
Is THAT even legal in the UK?
Certainly not in Australia.
The only way they could do that here would be if they could prove a direct technical connection between the change you made and whatever is the basis for the warranty claim.
A little difficult to technically connect exhaust system and brake problems I would have thought.
However, obviously I don't understand UK Consumer Law, so you need local advice.

As for who you sue, in your case, I would have made the original supplying dealership the principal defendant, with MB UK joined to the action as a secondary defendant.
That is what I believe your Solicitor should have advised you.
Frankly, MB UK's defense is predicable.

 

Blue discs as you know is due to excessive heat. So either:
1. You have a pad / caliper issue where its been constantly in contact building up heat over a long distance
2. Someone has been doing excessive braking and punished the brake beyond their capacity.

So you need to either prove number one or pay.

There might be after market options so maybe look to upgrade?

 

Well I would challange their decision. Sounds like option 1 needs to be proven. Have you tried speaking to a different Mercedes dealership?

 

 

As a brakes designer for over 40 years, I would give you this simple story as a real candidate for the problem that you have.
[1] I would bet that your car was not new out of the factory when you collected it. I would guess that it had been parked long term in a field somewhere awaiting dispatch. This period of time would cause the Discs to corrode. The side effect is that the area around the Pads would become excessively corroded because of the Acids that leach out of the Pads and act on theDiscs. The effect at the start of your ownership would be NOISE. Continual driving would then generate Disc distortion because the Pads would not be able to eliminate the Rust Patch that would be the same shape as the Pads. This would exhibit itself as Brake Judder.
[2] The only solution now is new Pads and Discs. NEVER NEVER go to idiots that offer Disc Regrinding _ their accuracy like the surface of the Moon. It's cheap and cheerful. if that's what you want. It will probably invalidate your Warranty for any issues that develop around the Front/Rear Suspension Components.
[3] It might not help now because of the time that has passed, but ask Mercedes when the car was built and what date did you pick it up. It the time lapse between to lapse is more that 4 weeks, then its a god guess to presume that they caused your original issue. The longer the gap the more likely they caused it. Parking a car in a field for a long time, or even at the Docks, awaiting dispatch to the UK with it's salty atmosphere, could be an interesting issue. Salt equals corrosion.

 

 

One more thing. If the 'Blue Discs' where on the Rear, then a 'Binding Handbrake System' could cause overheating of the Discs.
Even slow drivers can actually cause overheating of the brakes _ if they drive around slowly but they are just hovering over the Brake Pedal all of the time, they generate heat, which over a long period of time can cause Blue Discs.

 

They are blue all round including the rears - I rang another dealership but they said they won't look at it as headoffice have got involved and won't change the decision.

I've logged it with the Motor Ombudsman but I doubt they will overturn the decision.

The cost is £1338 fitted :/

 

Feel for you mate, but is there not after market brakes out there instead. You’re not the first to mention warped discs on here, so Merc discs are probably not the way to go.

 

@crocket Could you give us an update on this saga in this thread please?

Thank you

 

I'll copy what I put in the other thread on spark plug shortages...

-------

They will tell you to do one, I posted another thread about brake disc judder (which I reported at 2nd service at 4,000 miles as it was getting bad). Never been race started, on original tyres, been complaining about break squeal since new. They decided to void the warranty when it went in for it's 2nd service but the dealership did not tell me this as I removed the OPF and in the court documents it says they voided warranty on the entire car, they should have told me this upfront rather then me paying for brake inspection reports and I would have footed the bill.

I did put in a claim for the cost of parts only, I thought they would just pay up as the cost was relatively small... but nope!

You have to take the supplying dealer to court, in this case they only supplied me the car and has never seen it since as they are not local. MB UK hide behind this, so they cannot be taken accountable directly. The local dealer who are an AMG specialist also sided with the voided warranty from MB UK/MB AMG.

This is the last Mercedes/AMG I'm going to own for the forseeable, ordinarily I wouldn't post parts of their defence but it may help someone at least get the right entity.

MERCEDES-BENZ CARS UK LIMITED Defendant

1) The Defendant is the importer and distributor of Mercedes-Benz and Smart vehicles in the United
Kingdom (Company Number: 02448457). The Defendant does not own or operate Mercedes-Benz
retail and repair sites. All Mercedes-Benz approved sites within the UK are franchised businesses
owned and operated by separate legal entities to the Defendant. Moreover, the Defendant is not
the manufacturer of Mercedes-Benz vehicles.

2) It is not clear to the Defendant on the legal basis which the Claimant is bringing the claim. The
Claimant has not disclosed any contractual agreement, has not specified what contractual
loss. The Claimant has failed to identify any statutory obligation that the Defendant has allegedly
breached.

5) In response to the limited contents provided in paragraphs 3.5 to 3.9 of the PoC the Defendant
responds as best it can below. In so far as it understands, the
that the braking system of the Vehicle is defective. The Defendant infers the Claimant is attempting
CRA alleging the Vehicle
was not of satisfactory quality and/or fit for purpose pursuant to section 9 of CRA. The Defendant
submits that no contract exists or has ever existed between the Claimant and Defendant pursuant
to section 1 of CRA. The Claimant is put to strict proof regarding its cause of action against the
Defendant.

7) The Defendant asserts that MB D**** found no evidence of an inherent or manufacturing defect
with the brakes or at all with the Vehicle. Furthermore, as the issues with the brakes fell outside
and due to the third party software presence in the Vehicle,
the Claimant as the registered owner/keeper was required to bear the costs for any
repairs to remedy the brake issue.

9) Notwithstanding the above, the Defendant avers it is the incorrect legal entity to respond to the
Claim. The Defendant maintains that any claim under CRA for the Vehicle allegedly being of not of
satisfactory quality and/or not fit for purpose should be directed to the selling dealer, with whom
the Claimant holds the contract of sale.

10) The Defendant denies breach of statutory duty, contractual or tortious liability as alleged or at all.
The Defendant avers that the Claimant has failed to provide a legal basis for its claim and the
Defendant has no contractual relationship with the Claimant.

 

Yup, what @Turbo Ed says, you need local advice I guess. Seriously that can't be legal. I have heard of cases such as denied liability because of modified parts, even if they're not directly related to the problem, but at least they had to be involved into the same function, i.e. modified exhaust voiding engine (still doesn't make much sense but whatever). Exhaust voiding brakes is absurd. A this point they could void paint because of modified sub.