Is Mercland engaging in fraudulent activities? Unauthorised usage of customer vehicle

[AMG33D]

I have an unusual scenario, and I aim to articulate it clearly without excessive elaboration. My last inquiry will pertain to three specific matters: what actions would you do now?
I believe I submitted the vehicle inside the warranty term, but Mercland disagrees.
Mercland has sold me a non-existent warranty.
Mercland has operated my vehicle upon certification of its repair for personal use.
In January 2023, I purchased an S205 estate with an extended warranty from Mercland.

January 16, 2023 I received my automobile from Mercland (Nuneaton) at my residence and can confidently assert that I am a proud owner of a Mercedes-Benz s205, 64 plate. Within a few days, I saw that the automobile took longer to start than usual. This marked the start of a seven-month period characterised by fluctuating travel to Mercland, during which I was without the vehicle for a total of six weeks and accrued over 2,000 more miles for 'test driving' purposes. I express it as 'this' because I received penalty penalties in the mail for unpaid tolls in London (about 3 hours distant / 140 miles from Mercland), which I find peculiar given the significant likelihood of the vehicle entering limp mode. Following the seven-month period, the vehicle was in satisfactory condition, and all repairs fell inside Mercland's six-month guarantee, which was acceptable.

In September 2023, the Audio 20 system malfunctioned. A failure I encountered online is not unusual. Mercland informed me that this is now under the extended warranty (RAC) and no longer covered by Mercland. Understood. I was unaware of this, since I had never gotten any information about RAC and had previously assumed that the warranty was entirely with Mercland for its whole period. The RAC website indicates that the garage would provide all repair details, and I anticipated being called. I purchased the service at Mercland and then forgot about it over time.

On January 7, 2025, I took the vehicle to Mercland for a comprehensive service. On the morning of January 11th, my automobile failed to start at my residence. This is the point of intrigue.

The AA, sent via my insurance, came on January 12th in the early morning but was unable to identify the issue. An emergency vehicle was sent to remove my automobile. I contacted Mercland, since the vehicle is under repair there and I purchased the warranty from them, to enquire whether they can accept the car. That was feasible. While en route to Mercland, I sent a detailed email to elucidate the car's issues for the technicians' assistance. I also enquired about the specifics of my warranty, since it is set to expire on the 16th, two years from now. They did not respond to it. I requested the information by phone, and the representative assured me they would email it promptly; nevertheless, I never got it.

I believed that Mercland would reach out to RAC, as indicated on the RAC website, and that Mercland would thereafter manage the situation. However, after many days, it began to irritate me, prompting me to request it again by email. Jay said that sales had ceased and that accessing the system is challenging, but he will send me the information at his earliest convenience. Furthermore, he said that the warranty would have lapsed by now anyway. I am still awaiting information on the warranty. I acknowledged that the warranty has already expired, but it was valid when I brought the vehicle in, and I would contact him the following morning. Consequently, I proceeded to do so. During this period, I spoke with RAC via both phone and email, receiving responses indicating their inability to locate any information on myself or the vehicle. I informed them that the warranty would have expired by now.

I spoke with Janki, who confirmed that you purchased the automobile on January 4th, thereby initiating the warranty at that time. I was astonished. I said that the automobile was delivered on the 16th, although she insisted that the 4th was the correct date. After some debate over the phone, I initiated a hypothetical situation. I purchased a vehicle on January 1 without an extended warranty, hence the coverage lasts just six months. I will get the automobile on March 1. Is the subsequent two months of warranty rendered ineffective? Janki said that this is excessive; the purchase should occur in one or two days, but this is too severe. I said that mine is 12 days; where do you establish the boundary? She did not respond to the inquiry.

The vehicle has been repaired after over four weeks, indicating that it has been at Mercland for more than ten weeks within a two-year period. Upon retrieval, I enquired once again about the warranty details. She resumed with the fourth item, which has now expired. I recognised and said that this is not what I enquired about. I would want to see the warranty paperwork, as I need to verify if I really had a warranty with RAC, as you said. She would send the details the next day. I did not get it and emailed a courteous reminder at the end of the day requesting it for the following day. No response received.

I sent an email to RAC, the National Conciliation Services, and Mercland. I said that I would take action since this is fraud. Mercland has sold me an item that has never existed. It incurred additional expenses, and I would not use Mercland for comprehensive auto servicing if not for the guarantee provided by them, since there are Mercedes experts nearer to my residence.

Upon returning the vehicle, I reviewed the dashcam video. I see many distinct excursions undertaken by the owner with my automobile after the notification from Mercland that the vehicle is prepared for collection. For instance, trips to their residence or delivering a package for mailing. This occurred without my notification.

This concludes my narrative, and I pose the question: what actions would you do now? To recover the funds disbursed and to inform the relevant parties that Mercland has perpetrated fraud by compensating me for the use of my vehicle.

Thank you everyone for your time!

[ianwh4]

I am not an attorney. Were I in that position, I would impose a fee in the three-figure range for this comments.

An accusation of fraud does not constitute "fraud." Your assertion is noted. Fraud is only established when the police examine the evidence of an accusation, validate it, collaborate with the Crown Prosecution Service to forward the case to the Magistrates Court, and thereafter present it in court (likely in 2026), contingent upon the Magistrates' agreement that it constitutes fraud.


The purchase occurs at the signing of the contract and the completion of payment, rather than at the time of delivery. Ownership of the thing is established upon entering into a contract for its acquisition, rather than at the point of receipt.

Based on your statements, I am certain that the police would neither refer the matter to the Crown Prosecution Service, nor would the CPS escalate it to the Magistrates' Court. If they proceeded, it would be 2026 before the case reached the Magistrates Court, after considerable expenditure of time and resources on the requisite documentation.

I regret that this is not the information you want to receive, but it reflects the expenses and characteristics of the judicial proceedings.

[AMG33D]

Thank you for your response; I completely concur. This is only my understanding; no court or official agency has corroborated it, thus the question marks.
If it is really the day of signing, then that is the situation, naturally. In summary, I get that it is a lengthy and probably futile procedure.
Thank you
 

[ianwh4]

I possess analogous advise for those who are irate about little expenditures and difficulties with contractors. It is arduous, costly, and burdensome in terms of work to pursue matters in Magistrates Court, and it should be avoided wherever feasible. Engaging in extensive efforts to advocate for your position often results in significant expenditure of both energy and financial resources, particularly when faced with the overwhelming influence of administrators and legal counsel. The common adage is that "every narrative has two perspectives."

[Paulinelinker]

It is not inherently true; one must review the sales terms and conditions. For instance, from a renowned retailer's website.

"7.8 Each Product shall remain our property until full payment has been received or the Product has been delivered to you, whichever occurs later, at which point ownership will transfer to you."

[clk320x4]

The acquisition and transfer of ownership for automobiles and caravans occur on the day of pickup, rather than the day the order is signed; the warranty commences on the same day. It has been consistent in all my previous workplaces.

[ianwh4]

I acknowledge my error. I apologise.

[ML350_Colin]

It seems that, while you want accountability for their corruption, the primary interest is with the money remuneration. This aspect is distinct from any unlawful concerns and is within the jurisdiction of the County Court or High Court.
The County Court is, in my opinion, cumbersome and often exasperating owing to its inefficacy, however it may be worth a go. Initially intended as a less formal method for achieving resolution, it has evolved to be as procedural as the more formal approaches.


The High Court represents a more significant risk owing to the expenses involved in reaching it. The several thousands of pounds required may exceed the losses incurred.
Awards for costs might be equally uncertain.

Certainly, in both scenarios, the defence may choose not to challenge your deception and instead pursue a settlement via negotiation.

This is only my non-professional, but cynical perspective shaped by adverse experiences.