I own a B5 Passat 1.9TDi Highline saloon on an 05 plate. I am the second owner having owned it for almost 8 years when it had circa 30k miles and in v good condition with no known history damage. It now has 100K on clock and is in reasonable condition with no problems other than normal maintenance - clutch, steering arm sleeves - all undertaken by VW agents along with normal services and no accident history. Over the past year I noticed water ingress in the driver footwell and suspected blocked plenum drains which I ultimately cleaned out when replacing the 9 year old battery. I always admired German engineering until I undertook these two processes and was stunned as to how difficult VW had made the task which would be OK if you were double jointed but a total pain otherwise.

Unfortunately cleaning the plenums did not solve the problem as although they were blocked water still leaked into the footwell. In investigating the problem I realised water was actually ingressing through a rust area on the edge of the roof/windscreen and flowing down the windscreen column - I discovered this as the internal lining was soaked at the top of strut/column after a night of heavy rain . This surprised me as although I had noticed a rust bubble developing on the corner of the roof at the top of the strut on the driver side I had never thought it was so bad as to have actually perforated the bodyshell leading to water ingress.

This caused me to look closely at the rest of the bodywork and I detected another significant rust bubble on the opposite side of the roof, along the seam by the windscreen, and also classic bubbling on the front wheel arches. None of these defects were associated with chipping and appeared to be signs of the manufacturer's bodywork defects. On taking the car in for its next service I asked the dealer to inspect the car and advised to investigate if I could make a warranty claim. They apparently took photographs of the bodywork and forwarded them to their main office who some 4 weeks later contacted me to advise me they were writing to advise that having undertaken a review they would rectify the defective wings on a 50% warranty basis topped up by an offer of 50% VW goodwill. When I questioned the representive what was the decision on the roof defects which are obviously of more concern he advised me that using the VW score chart there was nothing they could offer. This struck me as odd and I started to argue quite forcibly on the logic of such a decision given that it was apparent that the roof was actually perforated and it was a manufacturing fault covered by their warranty. The rep claimed that there is no history of such problems and as such could not consider a claim! This left me stunned and I continued to argue the point until he suggested if I carried on in this manner he would, it was implied review the offer of replacing both wings. I decided to adopt a more discretionary stance and agreed to wait for the letter and see what exactly they were saying. In the event I now have an offer from the main dealer of having both wings replaced at a time to suit myself but no mention whatsoever of the more important roof defects. These are both loated on the edge of the widscreen and will be far more difficult to repair given that they will involve removal of the original VW winscreen and welding of replacement bodywork. There is absolutely no refence to the roof defects to the roof in the agent's letter - it is if they dont exist! It appears to me that they are resorting to virtual blackmail techniques to encourage me to forgoe the roof claim.

My question is should I take up the offer of replacing the wings then pursue VW direct over the roof defects or defer the replacement wings and pursue a claim for a comprehensive repair of both wings and roof with VW direct? Has anyone got past experience of this sort of main dealer practice. If I accept the replacement wings will it impact on any future bodywork claim? At present the wing corrosion is verging on cosmetic in appearance so I suspect they could be repaired but the roof corrosion is a significant.

Sorry for the length but any advice appreciated.