Claim against the company Mazda Motor Croatia d.o.o. regarding the failure of the vehicle Mazda 6 of 27.06.2015.

Chronology of events of 27.06.2015.

On Saturday, 27.06.2015 at 16.10h I received a call from my wife who told me that on her return from the seaside, before entering the highway towards Zagreb at the Prgomet junction, yellow DPF and yellow engine warning lights came on and she stopped the car not knowing what to do. Her call is shown on the attached image wp_ss_20150627_0003.jpg. I told her to wait until I make some checks and tried to call 016060260 (the number of Mazda Technical Service) but without success. Then I called her at 16.16h and asked her to read the MES (Mazda European Service) number from the label on the car door (see the image wp_ss_20150627_0003.jpg ). At 16.17h, I called the MES number and I got a gentleman (later on identified as Mr. Igor Jovanov) to whom I described what had happened and that the two yellow lights were flashing. Mr. Jovanov said that my wife should continue to drive and that the problem would probably disappear after some 30-40 km, otherwise that I contact him again. He also said that flashing yellow warning lights do not indicate a serious problem and only when red lights come on the car shall be stopped immediately. I informed my wife accordingly who, by the way, was in the car with three children. At 16.30h my wife called me again (see the attached image wp_ss_20150627_0003.jpg ) and said that she could hardly pass through the first tunnel Dubrava and stop on the emergency lane, that she could no more start the car and the smoke was coming out of the engine. I called MES again and explained the situation to a lady who introduced herself as Mrs. Dragana, I informed her about my previous call and that my claim was registered under no. 20151039950. I asked the lady to explain the further procedure and I was told that a towing service will be called and that I was entitled to a replacement car. I asked her whether anything will be undertaken with my car or they will wait until Monday, for how long the replacement car will be available, how I would get my car back after the solution of the problem and who would bear the relevant costs, whether I would get any receipt from the towing service, to which repair shop my car would be towed and where it would be placed until the shop is opened, who will contact whom and when regarding the further procedure. I was answered as follows: - The car will be towed and checked on Monday; - We are entitled to a replacement car for two days (later on in turned out that it was not two but more days, up to the amount of 480EUR, see attached printout of the „e mail MES Igor Jovanov 28062015 21_41h.pdf“) - I shall pick up the car after the repair and at my expense!? - Of course, I will get a receipt from the towing service – they were rather surprised with my question (however, during one of my telephone conversations with a gentleman from the towing service ATP Ujević I was told that he had no documentary evidence of the take-over of the vehicle. That means that my car would be towed based on mutual “trust”, without any official record!?!?) - As regards the repair shop, it was confirmed that its name was Automobilia because I insisted that my car was taken to an authorised service centre and the lady was very surprised with my request because “it is something that goes without saying” (I saw how the things went without saying when it came to the take-over of the car!) - The car will be placed at ATP Ujević until Monday. - They will, of course, contact me as soon as they have any new information about my vehicle. I informed my wife about all this by phone at 16.42h (see the image wp_ss_20150627_0002.jpg ). In the meantime, I also called the Service Centre of the Zagrebačka banka where I also have a road assistance agreement and, to my surprise, the person who answered my call at that number was Mr. Igor Jovanov!?!? who told me that I could not exercise my rights on two different bases, but this time from the Zagrebačka banka office. Of course, I reported this event to ZaBa as well and the fact that Mazda and ZaBa have the same subcontractor should not preclude my rights granted on both bases. In the meantime, the towing service arrived but without any papers, so I called MES and asked them to send me by e-mail a statement confirming that they will take my car. I also tried to contact them by phone and ask them to confirm all options regarding the car, repair, costs etc. However, I called 6 times and all my calls were put on hold (listening to the music!? while my wife and kids were waiting on the highway). When they finally answered my sixth call I was already very upset and insisted to have immediately the required confirmation of towing and all options regarding the transport, costs etc.

Eventually, they called my wife and sent the required mail to her and not to me, although I called them again one hour later.

I specified the chronology of events in order to explain what and when happened and to underline that we acted strictly according to instructions. I also want to point out that MES is a great service as long as you do not need it or if you need it but you manage to solve your problem by yourself – otherwise it is totally disorganised and undocumented service. Nothing that should have “normally” happened if you followed the support staff instructions, did actually happen. There are no written records, everyone has its own version of exercising the client’s rights, there is no coordination with subcontractors …. etc. etc.

I have copies of all e-mail communications related to the car failure of 27.06.2015, as well as a part of the communications related with the car defects that occurred from the first year of its use.

I am listing below certain facts and grounds for my objections and claim:

- General vehicle information o Purchased in 2006. o I am the first and the only owner. o The car has been regularly checked and maintained at authorised Mazda service centres o Servicing intervals are 20.000 km or one year, in my particular case every 9-10 months because I drive more than 20.000km/year. o The last service was performed on 09.06.2015, after 240.00km, which was a major service involving belt replacement etc. o Mazda operates a computer system where all service information is stored so that complete service information is available from each authorised service centre, from the very moment when this system was first implemented.

- Objection related to the failure of 27.06.2015. o Considering that at the first warning indication (two yellow lights flashing) we stopped the car and called MES who told us to go on driving and considering that we have regularly serviced our car (less than three weeks had passed from the last service), we expected that Mazda would repair the car at its expense and restore its proper operating conditions as they were or should have been after the performed service. The fact that the car “fell apart” three weeks after the regular service indicates serious negligence on the part of the service centre and its staff and eventually Mazda Hrvatska d.o.o. that should have provided a kind of a written warranty of the vehicle’s usability and safety level. Failure to provide such written warranty is a professional and ethical omission, contrary to ISO 26000 social liability standards applied and referred to by Mazda in its publicly available information. o Why suggesting the driver’s negligence when the driver in this case acted by the rules, stopped the car and informed the service centre about the warning lights that were flashing at the time – if more of them had come on, she would certainly mentioned such other lights, too. We, as the drivers and contract parties, timely warned MES about the indicator lights. Unfortunately, they underestimated the problem and recommended to go on driving. Such a mistake led to a potential life risk and risk of a more serious damage to the engine. o Due to the wrong judgement by MES, the life of my wife and three small children was put in danger, because they hardly managed to get out of the tunnel and park the car at the very exit. o Thus both the human life and property were put in danger as provided by Article 215 of the Criminal Law. o We were given ambiguous information as to our right to use a replacement car (from two days, over several days and finally up to one week). o The subcontractors, i.e. the towing service sent for intervention, took our car without issuing any written receipt. This is a further evidence of non-professional attitude of the partner of Mazda Hrvatska. It is absolutely unacceptable that no written confirmation or similar record (specifying the vehicle type, licence plate number, description of the vehicle’s condition, etc.) is issued by the towing service. o I do not know how my car was protected until the first working day of the service centre because, theoretically, in two days anybody could do anything to the car. So, if the car was towed without any “papers”, how they could assure me that it was stored in a safe place? o Why the subcontractor engaged for assistance refuses to provide support on another basis for the same event (in particular, the same subcontractor has been engaged both by Mazda and by Zagrebačka banka) o Why the subcontractor did not respond to 5 subsequent telephone calls but put me on hold to listen to the music while my wife and kids were waiting on the highway for my further instructions? It is incredible that an EU authorised service partner after having been warned of the problem, does not respond to a number of repeated calls – another evidence of non-professional attitude of MES and violation of regulations of Good Professional Conduct. o Why the subcontracted partner was not willing to send me the required e-mail confirmation of the take-over of the car after my repeated call, but sent the same to my wife a couple of hours later? o How it is possible that the car “falls apart” three weeks after a regular service – was it due to negligence or incompetence?

- General objections o From the very beginning, this car required frequent servicing due to defects and failures due to unidentified causes. Obviously, this car presented problems during the first year of use. The authorised service centres of Mazda Hrvatska d.o.o. should have performed computerised trouble shooting (diagnostics) to identify all material defects (Articles 401 and 404 of the Civil Obligations Act) Mazda, as a world brand (ranking 15th among car manufacturers at the global level), should have identified all hidden defects, material and functional problems affecting the use of the car. o Certain parts have been replaced although they had not been the cause of the problems. The replacement of parts that were not the actual cause of the problems encountered during the use of the car resulted from improper trouble shooting and diagnostic services. o This particular vehicle is obviously a defective one, sold at the full price without the right of replacement in case of the need for repeated extraordinary repair. Why such a car is not recognised as defective by Mazda and replaced with a car in proper operating conditions? Based on the problems faced with my Mazda 6 since the date of purchase up to the present date, I hereby request computerised diagnostics of all critical components of the car – in particular the engine, braking system, chassis, suspension, car geometry etc. I hope to finally get a detail diagnostics of the defects that have bothered me since 2006 until today. Thereafter, I shall insist on exercising my rights under Article 410 of the Civil Obligations Act, also based on the findings of the last regular service and the failure of 27.06.2015. Mazda as a world brand shall not permit non-professional approach either of its service centres or technical support services. o Why Mazda tends to blame the user when it does not know the cause of a failure? Throughout the period between 2006 and the present day, Mazda Hrvatska and its service centres and partners tried to shift the responsibility for failures to the car buyer and user. I purchased this car by signing a contract with Mazda Hrvatska d.o.o. based on certain fundamental principles (Art. 3 – 10 of the Civil Obligations Act): 1. Art. 3 – Equality of Parties to Obligations 2. Art. 4 – Principle of Good Faith and Fair Dealing 3. Art. 5 – Duty to Cooperate 4. Art. 7 – Principle of Equal Value of Performance 5. Art. 9 – Duty to Perform an Obligation 6. Art. 10 – Conduct in the Course of Performing Obligations and Exercising Rights Besides, the contractual relationship between the Buyer/User and Mazda, its service centres and partners should be based on:  Code of Business Ethics  Good business practice  Good professional conduct Mazda and its partners in Croatia should have provided a vehicle that is safe on the road (however, its failure at the tunnel exit is an indication of violation of the consumer’s fundamental right to safety of goods and services). o Why a user is not granted a replacement vehicle as long as his/her car is repaired? For example, for the last failure, one week was required only for the diagnostics and it remains to be seen how long it will take to repair the defect(s). In the meantime our family is without a car which is neither due to our fault nor to a force majeure event. We have experienced similar situations from the very beginning – I always had to pay the costs of replacement vehicles and spend my time for their transport and take-over while Mazda service partners attempted to solve the defects but without success. Yet, they regularly invoice their hourly rates and nobody takes into consideration my hourly rate to which I am also entitled. o Such attitude is misleading for actual and prospective buyers because at the time when I purchased my Mazda 6 it was classified as Class 1 to ADAC reliability rating and this notwithstanding it has caused me so many problems which is a clear indication of a manufacturing defect. Mazda’s advertising is focused on the quality of products and services but, if you are not lucky enough to fall within the statistical average, you have purchased a poor quality car for the price of a good quality one and you cannot do anything about it.

Claims against Mazda Motor Croatia d.o.o.:

- Exercising of rights under Article 410 of the Civil Obligations Act; - Compensation of damage i.e. reimbursement of all costs charged for extraordinary services and replacement vehicles (all relevant invoices can be obtained from the service centres providing such services and which shall keep records of such invoices for a statutory period of time). This particularly because: o the car presented various defects since the purchase up to the present day, and o service centres obviously have never found a permanent solution of the defects - Reimbursement of costs of the use/purchase of another car, because the vehicle concerned is the only car of this family which cannot be used due to somebody else’s fault; - Compensation for improperly declared quality of Mazda products (Mazda 6) which was the reason for our purchase of the same but turned out to be false from the very first year until the last failure; - Bringing in line Mazda’s business practices related to offered products and services with all relevant laws, specified articles/regulations and international reference standards; - Press release to confirm its commitment to the above mentioned legal compliance and a public apology for the past treatment of the users of their goods or services which, like in my particular case, was contrary to the declared and advertised quality of the goods and services of Mazda brand.