A Mercedes Benz SUV bought by a Dunedin couple with four children under 8, including a newborn, had to use two cars for months because of ongoing seatbelt breakages. Photo / Supplied
A couple who bought a seven-seater Mercedes-Benz for $135,000 felt they had no choice but to sell it back to the dealership at a huge loss after ongoing seatbelt issues.
The Dunedin couple, who do not want to be named, lost “a significant amount” and felt they had to accept the wholesale offer because the car was due for a warrant of fitness, had persistent seatbelt issues and they believed the three-year warranty was about to expire.
The couple’s 2020 Mercedes-Benz GLS 400d is identical to that of Auckland woman Ms Feng who returned her $175,000 Mercedes-Benz to the repair shop 20 times in two years.
The seatbelt in Feng’s third-row seat has also broken three times and is currently awaiting repair.
The couple, with four children aged under 8, were shocked to read of Ms Feng’s story in the Herald on Sunday last week and said it “wound us up completely because it was exactly what we went through.”
“We bought the seven-seater because we were expecting our fourth child but we ended up having to drive two cars everywhere to fit in four child seats.”
The first two times the seatbelt broke, the rear seat was unusable until the part arrived around two months later. The third time was the catalyst to sell the car back to the dealership, the couple said.
The car was due for a warrant of fitness and as far as the couple knew the three-year warranty was also about to expire.
They said the part was expected to arrive after the car was due for a warrant.
“We didn’t want to be stuck with a car with no warranty, couldn’t get a WOF with ongoing seatbelt issues,” the woman said.
The couple bought the car from Armstrong Mercedes-Benz in February 2022. It had been traded in and was 18 months old.
“We got it home, folded up the rear seat and found one of the clickers on the left-hand side where you put the seatbelt in was crushed,” the woman said.
Fast forward a year and the couple said the seatbelt fitting had been crushed twice more.
They tried to figure out what was causing the damage and watched as the seat went up and down.
On one side the buckle would move with the seat in the seatbelt path but the side that was damaged wouldn’t move and was squashed in the folding mechanism.
“It was like metal on car seat.”
The car was also part of a recall from Mercedes-Benz involving the third-row seat - the same third-row seat as the broken buckle.
The recall saw at least 60,000 of the SUVs recalled because of a manufacturing defect in the third-row seat’s locking mechanism.
A spokesperson for Mercedes-Benz said both Ms Feng and the Dunedin couple’s cars were inspected as part of the recall but were not faulty.
After a year of ongoing issues, the Dunedin couple decided to sell the car before the warranty expired.
The Herald on Sunday has since discovered the car had a two-year certified warranty added to the car’s history electronically, which meant it was covered until March 2025.
The couple said they were never made aware of this and had even been offered an extended warranty for $1800 from the dealership.
They told the dealership that part of the reason for selling the car was that the warranty was due to expire.
“If we had known it was still covered we wouldn’t have sold it to the dealership in such a hurry and for such a loss,” the woman said.
Armstrong Mercedes-Benz bought the car back from the couple for a lower wholesale price.
“We don’t even want to say what we lost because that was hard enough but it was a significant amount,” the woman said.
“The next day it was on Trade Me for $116,000, we couldn’t quite believe it.”
“For us selling it to them wasn’t a resolution, it was an absolute nightmare.”
The couple spoke to a lawyer about options but said it was too stressful and “had robbed us of peace for months”.
“We just needed to move on and we also needed the money to buy another car.”
After the sale, the couple purchased a Toyota Landcruiser, the same model of car they owned before the Mercedes-Benz.
“It’s an eight-seater and we have not had one issue with it at all.”
A spokeswoman for Mercedes-Benz said the company was committed to ensuring the safety of its customers and takes compliance very seriously.
“We are aware of this customer’s experience and each of their issues were addressed and rectified,” the woman said.
“We have conducted an investigation into the separate issues that these customers have experienced, including what may have caused the external damage to the respective seatbelt buckles.
“We are satisfied we have acted appropriately and in the customer’s best interests, given what occurred to the seatbelt buckles was not considered to be the result of any material or manufacturing defect.
“We can confirm that the vehicle remains under warranty until February 2025.”
Armstrong Mercedes-Benz Dunedin apologised to the couple for the confusion over the warranty expiry date.
The company said there was “no specific customer documentation provided to confirm the March 2025 warranty expiry date” but instead the two-year warranty was loaded electronically to the car’s history.
The spokesman said the information provided “falls short of the customer service standards we set ourselves and as a result we are reviewing some of our customer communications”.
Armstrong Mercedes-Benz Dunedin also said it has no record of the third breakage in the service history.
However, the Herald on Sunday has viewed a text message from the couple to Armstrongs - dated a month after they said it broke the third time - asking about the arrival time for the seatbelt part.
Jessica Walker, from Consumer NZ, said both Ms Feng and the Dunedin couple are protected under the Consumer Guarantees Act. Under this act goods, including cars, must be fit for purpose, acceptable in appearance and finish, free from minor defects, safe and durable.
“Given the ongoing problems with the Mercedes-Benz, it’s clear these guarantees haven’t been met, so the buyer is entitled to a refund, repair or replacement,” Walker said.
“However, if the defect can’t be repaired or is substantial, they’re entitled to reject the car and insist on a refund.”
Consumer NZ said despite selling the car to the dealership, the Dunedin couple could still make a claim at the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal for the difference between what the dealer paid them for the car and what they originally paid for it.