Citroen Denied Roof Paint Defect on My C5 Aircross Despite Clear Evidence
In November 2023, I purchased a brand-new Citroen C5 Aircross. Before the warranty period expired, the vehicle developed four instances of roof paint peeling, clearly indicating a manufacturing defect and a defective product. To resolve this issue, I contacted Citroen Headquarters and explicitly requested either compensation for depreciation or a vehicle replacement. Citroen Headquarters instructed me to have the issue inspected and documented with photographs at an authorized service center. I visited the Citroen Authorized Service Center. During the inspection, the paint peeling issue was unequivocally confirmed. Photographs were taken and sent to headquarters. However, Citroen Headquarters attributed the defect to "environmental factors," without providing any concrete evidence or explanation to substantiate this claim. If the problem had indeed been caused by external factors such as bird droppings or sun damage, there would have been clear signs of such impacts (acid burns, cracks, etc.) on the vehicle. However, no such indications were present. This makes it evident that the paint peeling is a manufacturing defect. Despite this, the company's attempt to dismiss a clear manufacturing flaw by citing unsubstantiated claims of "environmental factors" is both dishonest and contrary to the principles of good faith and legal compliance. Furthermore, it was stated that the team conducting the inspection was independent of the Citroën authorized service center. However, no information was provided regarding the technical qualifications, certifications, or impartiality of this team. I cannot accept the credibility of an evaluation conducted by a team whose technical competence is questionable. Moreover, the written inspection report I requested was denied because "the company's brand value does not permit the issuance of such a document." This refusal is entirely unlawful. It is evident that the company is attempting to conceal a clear manufacturing defect and is avoiding remedying my grievance. This stance violates Turkish Consumer Law and gives the impression that the company sees itself as above legal regulations. If the damages to the vehicle are not compensated, I hereby declare that I will pursue my rights before the Consumer Arbitration Committee and Consumer Courts under the Consumer Protection Law No. 6502, the Turkish Code of Obligations, and other relevant legislation.
Although a week has passed since the issue, no one has contacted me and no solution has been offered. I used a Peugeot 3008 for years and never encountered such a problem; whenever I needed support, I always found communication. But from now on Citroen? Never, never, never, never.
Yes, the record we opened for the third time was also rejected. For the first record, they said it was user error. For the second record, they said it was bird droppings or external factors. For the third record, they evaluated it as a stone chip. Instead of admitting their mistakes, they keep making up creative lies. I won’t give up, I will continue to open a record every month.
