The truth about Mercedes-Benz ownership in Australia
The three-pointed star is once again doing a poor job with customer care. There’s a reason why this company is on my ‘don’t buy’ list - and it has nothing to do with the cars themselves, which are typically excellent.
This report concerns a dude named Chris Thurley, who bought a Mercedes-Benz C200 from the local Townsville dealer, and he paid $2500 extra for the so-called COMAND Online Package, which no longer accepts Mr Thurley’s commands because … Microsoft. They can’t (and/or won’t) fix it.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
I urge you to read these documents below for yourself and make your own determination as to whether I’m being fair and balanced here. I think you’ll find this report is not a half-baked hatchet job.
I’ve redacted all personal contact information in the documents below, but otherwise they are unaltered. Mr Thurley’s e-mail to me is below left, and Mercedes-Benz’s response to Mr Thurley’s numerous enquiries comprises the remaining two pages. (Click to enlarge.)
Mr Thurley alleged to me (and to the universe more broadly via Facebook) that Mercedes-Benz discontinued the COMAND Online features on March 1 this year. And then he spent what he claims was about 50 phone calls over about three months requesting those features, which he paid for, to be reactivated. Unsuccessfully.
THE FALLACY OF AMBIGUITY
In a generally self-justifying and mostly unhelpful letter headlined, ‘Without predjudice, save as to costs’ Mercedes head office in Shitsville explained:
“As you can appreciate, much of the software that is operating in your vehicle is ultimately supplied by external software providers and not Mercedes-Benz Australia Pacific Pty Ltd.” - Mercedes-Benz AuP
To which I would retort: The vehicle is not a Microsoft-Mercedes collaboration. That’s bullshit. Every part of it is a Mercedes-Benz. This is why people buy them. Passing the buck in this way is - let’s be kind - disingenuous. The iron ore for the body might have come from Rio Tinto in the Pilbara - but if the car starts to rust, that remains wholly a Mercedes-Benz problem.
FAILURE TO FUTURE-PROOF
“In the case of the internet browsing functionality, the software certificates which are required for the browsing to function securely in your vehicle are provided by Microsoft. The certificates that support and secure the free browsing function could not be updated as Microsoft no longer offers these certificates for your specific version of the COMAND Online System.” - Mercedes-Benz AuP
I’d suggest that cars are supposed to last … just spit-balling it … 15 years? This is a two-year-old prestige German car, and it just doesn’t seem very future-proof at this early stage, gestation-wise. This functionality cost extra. Mr Thurley paid for it. Not being able to use it, two years in is - to me - completely unacceptable.
Mr Thurley says he specifically wanted COMAND Online integration. But he says he no longer gets online radio, online help access, online apps, points of interest and nav updates, YouTube and Netflix, or weather app updates.
Regardless of whether or not you think this stuff is trivial or non-core to the business of driving - as a consumer, if you pay for … I dunno … Rubber Dogshit Plus, and the company promises to supply Rubber Dogshit Plus, and one day you wake up and discover you’ve been downgraded (without consultation) to Rubber Dogshit Minus, you would have every right to feel unfairly treated.
Or maybe not.
“The situation is comparable to the discontinuance of an operating system, such as Windows XP or Windows 8 due to lack of support by Microsoft, as you may have heard about from the press.” - Mercedes-Benz AuP
Bad analogy. Windows XP launched on 24 August 2001, and the final service pack was deployed 21 April 2008. Microsoft even offered extended support until 8 April 2014. So, that’s a total XP operating system support envelope of 12 years and eight months. On computers that cost a couple of grand.
This is a two-year-old car that cost almost $80,000. So I’d suggest there’s no universe where these software support situations are comparable.
CUSTOMER PRIORITIES MATTER
“...we informed the dealer many times that the “Command Online” features were more important to us than the colour of the car and if it didn’t have it we were not interested in making the purchase. At no time did they ever tell us that 2 years after buying the car it would be casually removed. Mind you in my C-200 I had to pay an additional $2500 to have it added so I was serious about it being important.” - Repeat Mercedes-Benz customer and C 200 owner Chris Thurley
That’s Mr Thurley’s Facebook post there, in part. I’ll make Mercedes-Benz’s full, official response available for you here [POINTS] on the blog. I urge you to download it, to confirm I’m not selectively quoting the company to make them look bad.
CONSUMER LAW LIABILITY?
Anyway in its response, Mercedes takes the position that this is in fact not a defect.
MB AuP do not consider that the allegations you have raised would amount to a defect, fault or failure of the vehicle which would give rise to liability under the consumer guarantees.” - Mercedes-Benz AuP
And, doubling right down on this:
“Even if the allegations were considered a fault or failure, which MB AuP vehemently deny, it would at most be considered a minor failure which we consider could be easily and quickly remedied by providing you with a substitute, remote device to browse the web (such as an Ipad).” - Mercedes-Benz AuP
So - let’s get this straight: Big, bad Benz is calling Mr Thurley’s claims (quote) “allegations” even though it’s admitting the features no longer work and even giving the reason why. #Microsoft.
He did pay for it. They told him it would work. Now it doesn’t. And that’s not a failure or a fault, or a breach of consumer law. And if it is, here’s your mis-spelled iPad. Now, do go away. There’s a good chap.
If I were a Mercedes-Benz owner with this redacted feature, I would not want to be brushed off with an iPad. I’d want the car to live up to the reputation promised over - let’s call it - the past 50 years of collective Mercedes-Benz advertising.
You know: ‘Best or nothing.’ ‘Engineered like no other car.’ That kind of thing. In other words the exact opposite of ‘may cease to work without warning, at any time - and that’s fair enough’.
PS: It’s not that hard to figure out how to spell ‘iPad’. Just saying.
UNDERLYING VALUE & DAMAGES
Mercedes-Benz goes on to explain that the feature is worthless anyway:
“...your direct remedy against MB AuP … is generally limited to damages for the reduced value in the vehicle arising from the reduced internet functionality as outlined in s272. In our opinion, the reduced value of the vehicle in light of the reduced internet functionality is minimal if anything at all.” - Mercedes-Benz AuP
Once again, I kinda struggle with this. If you sell something for $2500 but claim its value by omission is zero, is there not a word for this? Is that word not ‘scam’? Certainly the up-front price appears to misrepresent the long-term value of this feature.
What else do you call it when you get sold something intrinsically worthless for $2500?
ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE
I know - it’s COVID-19, things are uncertain and money’s tight.
But is your roadside assistance up to date? With a lot of cars, you’re only covered for the first year of ownership.
If not, keep your loved ones secure, help support AutoExpert and get nationwide roadside assist from as little as $69.
WHY THIS CONDUCT MATTERS
The reason I’m telling you Mr Thurley’s story is not ‘Merc hatchet job’. It’s just not. When you buy a car, it’s a big spend - for you. It doesn’t matter if you’re spending $20k or $120k. It’s a big spend for you. And you jump in bed not only with the car, but also the manufacturer. The two are inseparable.
If that car develops a problem, then the underlying morality of the carmaker - meaning: its focus on doing the right thing by you - really does matter. A lot. And this kind of behaviour we see here is why I choose not to recommend Mercedes-Benz.
This is despite having fallen in love with every AMG car I have ever driven. CLS 63, E 63, C 63, SLK 55. They are awesome to drive. And current Mercedes products are stunning - there’s no doubt there. But when you scratch the surface - this is what you’re up against. And to me, that’s just unacceptable. Unacceptably risky.
Daimler had 2.7 billion Euros in 2019. It employs 300,000 people. The company has the resources to fix this problem. Not fixing it is a decision the company has taken. I’d suggest this tells you a lot about the company’s commitment to customer support.
CUE THE TWILIGHT ZONE THEME SONG
There is a ‘Twilight Zone’ twist to this story.
“Notwithstanding the above, on a purely commercial basis and without any admission of liability whatsoever, MB AuP is willing to make the following offer to you:”
Mercedes-Benz Townsville agrees to repurchase the vehicle for total sum of $76,153.14 inc GST in full and final settlement of the claim the details of which are to be determined between Mercedes-Benz Townsville and yourself;
The parties enter into a deed of settlement with mutual release confirming the above.
- Mercedes-Benz AuP
THE VEILED THREAT
And, of course, where would we be without a veiled threat of legal costs, right at the end, to grease the wheels of decision-making?
“Please note that any claim brought against MB AuP in relation to the above will be rigorously defended and we reserve our right to produce these correspondence on a question of costs.” - Mercedes-Benz AuP
There’s a bit to unpack here, but I’d suggest on the threat of costs … if you pull a knife in a streetfight - which I recommend you never get in one - but if you do, you really have to be prepared to to go 100 per cent Kill Bill. I’m talking the full sashimi chef meal deal.
This is not that. It’s just an empty threat. Because even if you lose in consumer court, the plaintiff and the respondent typically bear their own legal costs. To cop the other team’s costs you have to be an egregious, vexatious party - like Land Rover was in the battle against the Princess of Poshtovia (also known as Sally Morphy).
The massive landmark refund of $283,191.33 to the princess. Official VCAT judgement >>
The equally massive award of costs against Land Rover. Official VCAT judgement >>
Your conduct needs to be borderline unconscionable to have the other team’s costs imposed upon you. So that’s an empty threat.
More importantly though … if Mercedes really thinks there’s no liability, or its liability can be adequately absolved by sliding a mis-spelled iPad across the desk … why offer Mr Thurley a buyback for $76k?
Because that’s like falling on your sword without first defending yourself. It’s going to cost them $30k - because the dealer will take the shitbox C 200 back, tart it up, and re-sell if for about $50k. And there’s gunna be some costs in that. They’ll be $30k out of pocket on the round trip.
WHY THE BUY-BACK OFFER?
So why do the whole ‘without prejudice’ bullshit and make the costs threat and explain it’s not a fault and they’re not liable, and generally behave like malignant corporate mongrels? There has to be a reason…
…and I think it might be the sound of lawyers stampeding to the local courthouse to file the class action papers. Because he who files first generally gets to run it.
See, 30,000 people a year buy Mercedes-Benzes here in Shitsville. And between 2015 and 2019 (inclusive) that’s about 150,000 customers. And if just 10 per cent of them opted for COMAND Online ‘whatever’, and it no longer works, there’s 15,000 potential plaintiffs. Kind of a lot of egg to be wiping off your face in the weekly conference call back to Stuttgart. Just saying.
And, in my view, that’s probably what that bullshit about the deed of release is about. Deeds like that basically achieve two things: Firstly it says you agree not to sue them over this ever again. You absolve them of any additional liability in respect of this unfortunate event.
Secondly, it’s a gag order. That’s term number six in the deed - strict confidentiality. No statements whatsoever as to the (quote) “terms or substance of this deed to the media or otherwise”. Or otherwise. Meaning: no talking to anyone. Anyone. Otherwise: Lawsuit.
That’s the only aspect of this proposal that I can see, which is worth the roughly $30,000 out-of-pocket expense of buying the car back without a fight. One settlement: Certainly better than 15,000 in a class action, surely?
CONCLUSION
I sincerely hope this report does two things: A) It serves to highlight why don’t in good faith recommend Mercedes-Benz to potential customers like you, despite being gorgeous cars that are generally awesome to drive, and B) It shows you how some carmakers conduct themselves when that conduct is deprived of the oxygen of publicity.
I think you’ll agree - if you download and read Mercedes-Benz’s correspondence (link in the description) - that the Mercedes-Benz reflected in its letter to Mr Thurley is very different to the Mercedes-Benz that jumps off the screen at you on the website or in an advertising campaign.
Finally, to carmakers everywhere I’d say: Stop tyring to be so fricken clever with peripheral technology. Apple and Google are better at this than you. They always will be. You’ll be better at them at making cars. So I’d suggest that an iPad or Android tablet would be substantially better than every carmaker integration of those features, which I have ever used. A nice place to clip it in the cockpit would be delightful.
That’s where the real integration needs to take place, because $2500 for a system with a two-year lifespan, which worked worse than an iPad (when it worked) is flat-out unacceptable.
And if you own a three-pronged suppository with COMAND Online, let me know your experience with those redacted features, and how the company treated you, in the comments feed below. Of course, if you’ve already signed the company’s grubby gag order, don’t breach your confidentiality duty. Thanks for watching.
MORE REPORTS FOR YOU
The BYD Shark 6 is the third Chinese ute trying to compete with Ranger, Hilux and Triton. It promises affordability and more power than a Ranger Raptor. But can the Shark 6 really be a better dual-cab ute?