Mercedes-Benz of Wilsonville

Please send copies of the email and text message documentation so that we can resolve this.

First of all I apologize for the delay in this response. 
 
We are the highest rated Mercedes-Benz dealer in Oregon and take consumer complaints extremely serious. We sell more Mercedes-Benz vehicles than any other Mercedes-Benz dealer in Oregon (according to MBUSA retail sales reports...

since May 2014 to April 2017). It is our belief that it is our customer service standards that have continued to bring customers to our dealership.
 
We are also the only North West Mercedes-Benz dealer that has been awarded the Best of the Best Dealer Recognition Award by Mercedes-Benz USA. This award is given by Mercedes-Benz USA for dealerships meeting the highest level of Service, Sales and Manufacturer Customer Surveys.  I say this only to emphasize that the customer experience is the highest of our priorities. Here are the findings of my research based upon service records and management conversations.
 
[redacted] [redacted] purchased a 2012 ML 350 4WD SUV in October 7, 2016. This vehicle was a Certified Pre-Owned vehicle meaning it underwent all of the certified service requirements mandated by Mercedes-Benz. This includes a rigorous inspection and certification process that covers everything from the engine, drivetrain and electrical system, to exterior and interior appearance. A Mercedes-Benz pre-owned vehicle can not be considered Certified Pre-Owned without undergoing this certification process. For more on the Certified Pre-Owned Certification Process, please see our website here - http://www.mercedesbenzwilsonville.com/why-buy-mercedes-benz-certified-pre-ow...⇄ />  
In addition Certified Pre-Owned Mercedes-Benz vehicles are covered under the Unlimited Confidence Warranty, including a seven (7) day exchange policy which you can review here - http://www.mercedesbenzwilsonville.com/mercedes-benz-certified-pre-owned-warr...⇄ />  
At the time of delivery to the customer on October 7, 2016 Mr. [redacted] stated his wife is extremely sensitive to mold and that he thought there was a smell of mold at time of purchase. Mr. [redacted] took delivery of the vehicle. Under the Certified Pre-Owned Warranty Mr. [redacted] could have returned this vehicle within seven (7) days for a full exchange.
 
On February 3, 2016, Mr. [redacted] came to our dealership with several concerns. Our service department did an extensive multi-point inspection and was unable to confirm any of the consumers complaints. Please see the attached internal Service RO #[redacted]. I have summarized these issues and our findings below. Customer was not charged for the service.
Consumer states mold in vehicle.
We were unable to detect any mold in the vehicle. Consumer was not able to tell us where the mold was. There was no noticeable odor or mold present at the time we inspected the vehicle. The vehicle was treated with ozone generator as a courtesy.
Consumer states heated steering wheel not working in some areas or not at all.
The steering wheel heating element is in other ring of steering wheel so it only heats the outer portion of the steering wheel. Steering wheel heater is working as designed by Mercedes-Benz
Consumer states Keyless Go on Drivers Door is inoperable.
Keyless Go was working as designed upon our inspection
Consumer states wipers chatter when in use even after he had the wipers replaced.
Wipers did not chatter on road test during our inspection
Consumer states noise when vehicle is started cold.
During our inspection we were not able to duplicate this issue.
Consumer states harsh shift in transmission
No fault codes found during our inspection, road test or software update
Consumer also requested a quote for trading in this vehicle for a newer vehicle. Our management was involved and did everything possible to find the highest trade in value since he was interested in purchasing a newer vehicle from us. Mr. [redacted] was not happy with our numbers as the dealer trade in value was $5,000 less than he purchased the vehicle retail from us. I have also attached a copy of the quote, prepared by our General Sales Manager Dave R[redacted], for his trade in value.
 
We do regret that we were unable to find a more satisfactory solution in Mr. [redacted]’s perspective; however, we believe that we acted in good-faith and in accordance to Oregon State and Mercedes-Benz standards. Please let me know if you require any additional information to satisfy this complaint.
 
Sincerely,
 
Kerry M[redacted]
Digital & Media Marketing 
Mercedes-Benz of Wilsonville

Please review our attached document for a reply to this complaint.Regards,Kerry M[redacted]Mercedes-Benz of Wilsonville[redacted]@mbwil.com
Re: Complaint ID [redacted] To Whom It May Concern: We are in receipt of complaint ID [redacted] regarding services rendered to [redacted] by...

Mercedes-­-Benz of Wilsonville. Please accept the response herein to complaint ID [redacted]. On January 6, 2015 Mr. [redacted] had his 2004 Mercedes-­-Benz S500 towed in to our dealership as the vehicle would not shift out of park. After extensive diagnosis we were able to determine that the electronic selector lever module or ESM was faulty. After diagnosis we were verbally authorized to replace the ESM after our Service Advisor Chris C[redacted] spoke with Mr. [redacted]. The ESM is a special order part that does take over a week to receive. On February 18th we installed the new ESM that was ordered to repair Mr. [redacted]’s shifting complaint. During the programming of the new ESM there was a programming issue that prevented the new part to be correctly installed. We ordered a new ESM (a replacement of a replacement part covered under warranty) on February 19th. On the 27th of February we installed the new electronic shifter and we were able to successfully program the new control module. Following the completion of the repairs, Mr. [redacted] requested that we tell his insurance company that the work required was the result of a previous accident. Mr. [redacted] also stated that he would be unable to pick up the vehicle for several weeks due to a medical procedure. Since this was an electronic part that failed and there was no sign of physical damage, we were unable to agree to his request to inform the insurance agency that this was a result of a previous accident. We did however agree to include his statement of “since his accident the vehicle would not shift out of park”. Once the repairs were completed in February we allowed the vehicle to set at our location waiting for some direction from either him or from his insurance company regarding payment for repairs. On July 24th Mr. [redacted]’s father paid the invoice in full for $1,475.78 for the replacement of the ESM on repair order # [redacted]. He also asked if we could deliver the vehicle to his location around 4:30pm on Friday afternoon. We agreed as a goodwill gesture to return the vehicle to his location in Happy Valley. After driving the vehicle for 10-­-15 mintues our driver could hear a loud knocking sound coming from the left rear of the vehicle. We had the car brought back to our location so that we could investigate the sound further. Our Service Manager, Shaun R[redacted], called Mr. [redacted] around 5:30 pm on Friday the 24th to advise him that we were unable to return the vehicle as requested and that we were looking into what was causing the noise. On Monday morning we were able to locate the cause of the noise from the left rear tire. At some point this vehicle has had aftermarket wheels installed and with that aftermarket lug bolts put on. We have no history of removing the lug bolts from this vehicle. It appears that the lug bolts are too long and were impacting a portion of the left rear parking brake unit that is housed inside the left rear brake rotor. This is not something that we would have ever seen during an inspection as this is an internal mechanical part. This would also not be affected when we installed the new ESM. Since the car was towed into our dealership we were unaware of additional issues with the vehicle. It is our opinion that the “knocking noise” was happening prior to the vehicle being towed to our facility. Once the items were identified and an estimate was built, the information was sent to Mr. [redacted]. The total repairs would cost $2,260.00 for us to perform the additional needed repairs. Mr. [redacted] was not satisfied and stated that we did not have authorization to drive his car to him. It was our understanding that due to his medical condition that he had empowered his father to make payment as well as handle the transport of his vehicle. We would like to reach a settlement with Mr. [redacted] but he has been unwilling to work with us for a positive outcome. At this time we have absorbed the cost of diagnosis and waived all fees related to the additional repair order #[redacted]. The vehicle is still at our dealership and Mr. [redacted] is able to pick it up at his convenience if he would like to take it to another dealership for repair. If you have any questions or need further clarification please feel free to reach me directly. We truly wish to resolve this complaint with Mr. [redacted]. Regards, Kerry M[redacted] Mercedes-­-Benz of Wilsonville [redacted]@mbwil.com

Revdex.com:I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. Sincerely, [redacted]