[Turbo Ed]

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.