pls advice: dealer printouts show fishy items
06-05-2023, 03:13 AM
#1
Newbie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AMG c43 cabriolet
pls advice: dealer printouts show fishy items
I have a suspicion that the dealership might have avoided doing a few grand worth of repairs, which now would have to come out of my pocket. Or I might be paranoid. So I am turning to the community for advice.
I've just bought out my AMG C43 at the end of the lease. The transaction was handled by the dealership that had originally sold me the car - Mercedes-Benz of San Jose. As a part of the process (possibly as a prerequisite for selling me an extended warranty?) the dealership performed a "multi-point inspection".
A few days later the "breaks" light lit up. I freaked out and immediately took it to the nearest dealership (a different one), where a question was asked of me "Why do you look so surprised? You knew about this!"
When I admitted to being totally clueless, the advisor suggested i talk to the original dealership. A visit to Mercedes-Benz of San Jose produced two papers:
First, titled "Invoice." "Customer Copy" is essentially the result of the multi-point inspection. Apparently someone was supposed to give me a copy when I was buying out my car. But they did NOT.
Second document is the standard Vehicle Master Inquiry (VMI)
The "oh, we just forgot to give you this" story made me sit down and read both documents and I found the lines that made me wonder whether the dealership had been supposed to actually fix those breaks before letting me drive away.
The inspection report goes:
RBK CURRENT CONDITION - BRAKES REQUIRE REPLACEMENT
8980 IMUC
DSFB Declined Front Brake Replacement
8980 IMUC
Those very lines are also present in the VMI.
My questions are:
1. Was the dealership obligated to fix the brakes once they discovered said brakes to be in a condition bad enough to make a record?
2. If "yes" to #1, was the dealership obligated to do it at their (or Mercedes) expense? (which would explain their "forgetfulness")
3. How bad of a transgression is it that they lied about customer declining brake replacement (in writing)?
4. Where do I report the transgression in #3?
5. Am I missing an angle here?
Am i being paranoid and all is legit and legal?
Many thanks for your thoughts!
~Andrey
I've just bought out my AMG C43 at the end of the lease. The transaction was handled by the dealership that had originally sold me the car - Mercedes-Benz of San Jose. As a part of the process (possibly as a prerequisite for selling me an extended warranty?) the dealership performed a "multi-point inspection".
A few days later the "breaks" light lit up. I freaked out and immediately took it to the nearest dealership (a different one), where a question was asked of me "Why do you look so surprised? You knew about this!"
When I admitted to being totally clueless, the advisor suggested i talk to the original dealership. A visit to Mercedes-Benz of San Jose produced two papers:
First, titled "Invoice." "Customer Copy" is essentially the result of the multi-point inspection. Apparently someone was supposed to give me a copy when I was buying out my car. But they did NOT.
Second document is the standard Vehicle Master Inquiry (VMI)
The "oh, we just forgot to give you this" story made me sit down and read both documents and I found the lines that made me wonder whether the dealership had been supposed to actually fix those breaks before letting me drive away.
The inspection report goes:
RBK CURRENT CONDITION - BRAKES REQUIRE REPLACEMENT
8980 IMUC
DSFB Declined Front Brake Replacement
8980 IMUC
Those very lines are also present in the VMI.
Also in the report:
" I ALSO FOUND THE FRONT AND REAR BRAKES VERY CLOSE TO MIN SPECS, RECOMMEND REPLACING SOON"
.
I most definitely DID NOT decline the bakes replacement (or any other repairs for that matter) on that day. Putting those words into my mouth and into an official record smells of fraud. Or is it simple negligence?" I ALSO FOUND THE FRONT AND REAR BRAKES VERY CLOSE TO MIN SPECS, RECOMMEND REPLACING SOON"
.
My questions are:
1. Was the dealership obligated to fix the brakes once they discovered said brakes to be in a condition bad enough to make a record?
2. If "yes" to #1, was the dealership obligated to do it at their (or Mercedes) expense? (which would explain their "forgetfulness")
3. How bad of a transgression is it that they lied about customer declining brake replacement (in writing)?
4. Where do I report the transgression in #3?
5. Am I missing an angle here?
Am i being paranoid and all is legit and legal?
Many thanks for your thoughts!
~Andrey
Last edited by andrabr; 06-05-2023 at 03:16 AM.
06-05-2023, 03:58 AM
#2
MBWorld Fanatic!
1 - NO owner has to authorize any repair not warranty or recall.
2- no would be your cost as wear item like tires are as well.
3- did they lie or just not tell you everything?
4- call MB customer service ortalk to service manager at dealership
5- not sure issue as you turned in lease cart that needed brakes so you would have to paid then
2- no would be your cost as wear item like tires are as well.
3- did they lie or just not tell you everything?
4- call MB customer service ortalk to service manager at dealership
5- not sure issue as you turned in lease cart that needed brakes so you would have to paid then
06-06-2023, 09:35 PM
#3
Out Of Control!!
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: unbegrenzt
Posts: 13,336
Received 3,928 Likes
on
3,094 Posts
2017 GLE350 4MATIC
Dealers lie every day. It's on the first page of their training manual. In my experience MB dealers are among the worst. Unfortunately.
Take the car to an indy shop for an inspection, and post the results here. Or just drive and enjoy the car.
Take the car to an indy shop for an inspection, and post the results here. Or just drive and enjoy the car.
06-07-2023, 09:58 AM
#4
Newbie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AMG c43 cabriolet
Many thanks for all the advise and support!
A bit more clarification about my concern:
A bit more clarification about my concern:
The item "DSFB Declined Front Brake Replacement" smells to me like a standard corporate way to cover someone's ***. If they are trying to cover their ***, there must be a reason, so I wonder what it is.
It also annoys me immensely when people put it writing that I have done (or NOT does, as is in this case) something, and do this behind my back. I never got a chance to decline their brake replacement, they simply decided for me and then recorded their decision as mine. That's just plain wrong. I am eager to make that point somehow, even if it does not save me money.
Any advise?
It also annoys me immensely when people put it writing that I have done (or NOT does, as is in this case) something, and do this behind my back. I never got a chance to decline their brake replacement, they simply decided for me and then recorded their decision as mine. That's just plain wrong. I am eager to make that point somehow, even if it does not save me money.
