the salesman was friendly helpful and professional

Agreement Number: 000040372609Vehicle: Peugeot 2008Registration: ESZ6088Dear Sir or Madam,I am writing to raise a formal complaint regarding my finance agreement for the above vehicle and to formally notify you of my decision to reject the vehicle under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. I am including below a chronological summary of events, as I am conscious that earlier correspondence to customer service to redline finance was not reviewed from 28th April 2026.I purchased the Peugeot 2008 on 11 November 2025, at which point it had a recorded mileage of 25,049 miles. Since purchase, the vehicle has covered approximately 2,500 miles. The transaction involved a part exchange of my previous vehicle, together with a cash deposit, with the remaining balance funded through the above finance agreement. I have continued to make monthly payments of £288 throughout this period. The vehicle was also supplied with an extended warranty, which I understood would provide reassurance and protection should any issues arise.On 2 April 2026, less than six months after purchase, the vehicle suffered a breakdown and required recovery from the RAC.Following recovery, the vehicle was diagnosed with multiple faults, including, complete battery failure and heating system failure.There were initial delays in securing a service booking due to lack of availability, where I was quoted early June (11/06/2026) as the first chance they could fix the vehicle. Following several lengthy discussions and emails, and a complaint to Peugeot Customer Services, the car was left at Peugeot Belfast on the 3rd April to be fixed at the earliest opportunity. The appointment was then booked for 17/04/2026 at 8am which I was told was the earliest they could do. At this point I had asked for a courtesy car, Peugeot said this was not an option to me and they had no cars to give me.Once finally inspected, the battery issue became a point of dispute, with the warranty provider initially declining to cover the battery replacement on the basis of “wear and tear,” despite the fact I had owned the vehicle for only five months and it was covered by an extended warranty. I understand this is a wear and tear item, but my argument was there was very little wear and tear on the car given the mileage and time owned. This dispute caused further delay while responsibility for the cost was discussed between the warranty provider, UsedDirect, and Peugeot. Following further challenge, the battery replacement was eventually agreed as a “good will gesture”.It then took more time to fit and replace the battery, where the heating system had still to be diagnosed. Following complaint emails to Peugeot and management on the 28th April 2026, the heating fault was subsequently addressed and parts were fitted. However, during this process, additional faults were identified. Following even further delays, I have now been advised that the vehicle requires a new control unit. As of yesterday, the required part has only just been ordered by Peugeot Belfast, with an estimated delivery timeframe of 7–10 days, followed by a further period required to complete the repairs. At this moment, there remains no confirmed completion date.Throughout this process, communication has been limited by Charles Hurst and Peugeot unless I have actively chased updates by phonecall. For advice and to try seek some form of compensation, I contacted your customer experience team on 27 April 2026 and again on 28 April 2026, neither of which received a response (I have also emailed again yesterday). Throughout this period, I have also raised a complaint directly with Charles Hurst regarding these ongoing delays; however, despite this escalation, the situation and the car remains off the road.As matters stand, I have now been without use of the vehicle for almost six weeks. Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, faults arising within six months of purchase are presumed to have been present at the time of sale unless proven otherwise. The Act also requires that repairs be carried out within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience to the consumer. In my view, the extended period without the vehicle, the discovery of additional faults during repair, the delays despite the existence of an extended warranty, the lack of a courtesy vehicle, and the continued requirement to pay £288 per month demonstrate that this standard has not been met.I have therefore lost confidence in the vehicle, as well as in Peugeot and Charles Hurst’s ability to provide an effective remedy. I consider that the seller has been given their opportunity to repair the vehicle and that this opportunity has failed.Accordingly, I am formally exercising my final right to reject the vehicle and wish to exit the finance agreement. I am seeking a return of all monies paid to date, including the part exchange allowance, the deposit, and all monthly payments made, in line with my statutory rights.I would appreciate prompt written confirmation acknowledging this rejection and advising on the next steps to resolve this matter.Yours faithfully,Eamonn

The Peugeot representative at Boucher branch (Jonathan) was very formative/professional when dealing with my questions.

I had my car repaired on 22/05/25. However, less than a year later the same esp warning is activating ever time I drive.y MOT is die on 15/05/26 and I am fearful that due to this fault it will not passed. This is not acceptable especially as specifically took the car to Peugeot for a quality fix. Equally I was promised that my navigation would be updated but this never happened. Does this qualify as acceptable customer care and reach Peugeots exacting standards?

Hi,I’m getting in touch regarding my Peugeot 3008, which I purchased from Charles Hurst in April 2024.Before buying the vehicle, I specifically raised concerns about the known wet belt issues with the Peugeot 1.2 PureTech engine (DSZ 4827). I emailed to ask whether this had been addressed and was told it would be checked with the workshop. I was later advised over the phone that the issue had been sorted. I was also reassured in writing before purchase that “this vehicle should have received a full technical check by our trained technicians.”At the time of purchase, the car had around 62,000 miles. It has now done approximately 71,000 miles.Unfortunately, since then I’ve had to pay for significant repairs totalling over £2,000, including:• Wet belt replacement (along with dephaser replacements)• Battery management replacementMy main concern is the wet belt failure and related engine issues. As you’ll know, these engines are known for premature wet belt deterioration, which can contaminate the oil system and lead to further problems.Since owning the car, I’ve made sure it has been properly maintained using the correct specification oil. Given the servicing, mileage, and the scale of the repairs needed, I don’t believe the wet belt issue had actually been fully resolved before I bought the vehicle.I relied on the assurances given at the point of sale that this had been checked and sorted. If I had known it hadn’t been properly dealt with, I may not have gone ahead with the purchase.With that in mind, I’d like to ask if Charles Hurst would consider offering any goodwill support towards the repair costs I’ve had to cover.I can provide invoices, receipts, photos, videos, and previous correspondence if needed.Kind regards,Curtis

Bought car car 2012 and 2022

When I called in, I was pleased with the experience of a chat and a test drive, but unfortunately the salesperson I spoke to never followed up with me, as he had said he would.

I received an email dated 17th April from the manager apologising for the way I have been treated and lack of communication . He stated he would personally deal with this and move it forward. I emailed on the 20th April again stating what the issues were with the car reminding him I had previously spoke with him about five weeks prior to this but had no reply . 27th April I received an email telling me Caithlyn was trying to book the car into an MG dealership, whoever can have it done the quickest.and will confirm that day . I have waited ontil today but no one has gotten back to me with an update or confirmation. To say I am disappointed would be an understatement but to be honest I didn’t expect the update . This has been ongoing for a year without an outcome even though there were three warranties for the car . I am totally fed up and am so sorry I ever went near the Charles Hurst group for a car . I honestly am so frustrated and angry at the lack of communication or response to my inquiries. I do not know what to do next but shall check options as to what can be done .

Arranged to see a 5008 and test drive with the view of purchasing a car..Arrived at the time agreed. Nothing arranged. Assistance was given and I could see inside the vehicle. Though already opened to see as I had the day before. Understood the person I spoke to, to arrange a test drive was on a course. Went away hoping some one would call me back, did not happen. Spent 33,000 with another dealer within a few days. Disappointed

Dear Charles Hurst team,I am writing to formally raise a complaint about a mobility vehicle I leased three years ago, with a £2,500 deposit. At 74 years of age, this was my first mobility car, and I saved carefully for the deposit. Since then, I have faced repeated issues. I have had multiple engine failures, and on numerous occasions, the RAC had to be called out and the car taken back to the garage due to safety risks. Each time, I relied on friends and family to take me to appointments, as I was left without a hire vehicle for a number of days, one time over a week and taxis weren't an option as I live rural, and was let down before when I booked a taxi. The garage kept the car for long periods, and when it returned, the problem was never fully resolved. When the car was due a service, I'd always book and arrange to pay for a curtesy car and each time when I went no curtesy car was available. Then on one occasion I arrived for the car to be serviced and as usual no curtesy car was available. I explained as I always did I couldn't wait as my mum was being looked after by a neighbour as she can't be left alone, I did point out on this particular day that every time I was driving the car it was coming up on the dash board in red braking issue but no one listened to me and was let leave the garage with this issue. When I got home, I rang the RAC and they were very shocked I was let leave the garage with a really dangerous issue coming up in red writing. The RAC said they would be out to look at the cat, but to contact Charles Hurst and lodge a complaint with the service manager, ( I think his name was Neil) I did and he said he'd arrange a hire car immediately and when the RAC arrived the car was taken back to the garage again at Charles Hurst, Boucher Road. Just a few weeks ago, while it was in the garage for the engine repair, it was also hit on the passenger side. I feel I was brushed off in terms of the damage as I was told "it wasn't that bad very minor" although when I went over to assess the damage for myself it was bad enough and not only that there was damage to the wing mirror that the service department weren't aware of that I had to point out to them. Prior to the damage I was contacted to ask that a mechanic would bring it home over the weekend to check it, when I asked when this incident happened, they said they were unsure when the damage actually happened. They did not provide clarity, and there was no CCTV footage, but I feel extremely let down by Peugeot. Because of all these safety issues and the time the car spent in the garage, I have only had about 40% use of the car in three years, with just 11,500 miles. I strongly believe I am entitled to at least 50% of my deposit back, given I have not been able to enjoy the full use of the car due to these safety issues, and I feel the entire experience was frightening was unsafe. I look forward to a prompt resolution.Sincerely,Angela Gilmore