Went to dealership. Set out my interest. Got no response on the car I was interested in, in your network.

Myles was great - very helpful, polite and relaxed, not pushy like staff from other Audi garages (Guildford etc)!

Poor standard of car for approved usedAbsolutely horrendous car my daughter purchased from Audi farnborough, damaged paint, holograms, dents and scratches she was promised they would be taken care of. Once they did the "prep" still has holograms still has dents who ever the neanderthal that did the polish job left so much residue all over it got it all into the black plastic left a sheet of sand paper on the scuttle panel the interior was filthy dirt in the peddles, I've seen better back street garages in Slough total joke of a car. I've also questioned the legitimacy of the milage of the car as it appears to have done more miles than the clock shows, also impact damage on the side of the car that's not recorded for a 2nd hand approved used car it's shocking, poor response from the staff after letting them know we are still not satisfied with it. Failed to respond to a follow-up email regarding the problems

Dear Sir / Madam,I raised the request below via the Farnborough enquiries system on the website but have not received a response so far.My car was in your service centre last week to investigate a fault with the rear parking sensors which look to have detached feom the bumper. The technician identified that these may have been repaired prior and this repair has failed.With Audi being a premium brand and vehicles priced as such you can imagine my disappointment being told I would need to pay for a new rear bumper to rectify this long standing fault.This car was purchased from you in March from Farnborough with a 6 month warranty.As there was clearly a fault which has now failed and the car was purchased from you only a few months ago and within the 6 month car purchase window for quality of function faults, I would appreciate a discussion on how this can be satisfactorily resolved without being presented with a ver high quote for a new bumper please.The registration is GL69 PYT if you wish to look at the sale documents or fault records.Thanks in advance,Paul Inglis.

Lack of communication, unkept promises, calls not returned, awful experience

I am writing to raise a complaint regarding my recent vehicle service.My car was sent in for servicing, and I specifically requested that the AC be checked, as this was a legacy issue from my last year’s service. However, the vehicle was returned to me without the issue being fixed and without any communication or explanation, despite the car being with the garage for two days.This level of service is not acceptable. I would have expected to be informed of the findings, any work required, and the next steps before the vehicle was returned.I have attempted to contact Laura Anderson several times to resolve this, but I have not received a response as she has reportedly been unavailable/engaged.Could someone please contact me as soon as possible to discuss this matter and arrange for the issue to be rectified?I look forward to your prompt response.

Car was originally incorrectly registered to VWFS due to a failure if the VU3 agency system.Proposed solution to bring the vehicle back into trade and re-register it.I am now writing to formally decline this remedy.The reasons for which I explain below.As stated re-registering the vehicle will add an additional keeper to the V5C logbook. In the premium motor trade, an extra keeper on a 2025 asset causes immediate and permanent financial depreciation. The proposed fix as I have previously outlined places me at a severe financial disadvantage for an error made entirely by the dealership.As the vehicle now does not conform to the contract and cannot be repaired without devaluing the asset, I am exercising my statutory Final Right to Reject the vehicle under Section 24 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.Under the provisions of the Act, I believe I am entitled to a formal contract unwind and refund based on the original purchase invoice price of approx. £70,000, subject only to a fair, industry-standard mileage usage deduction for the +5,000 miles driven.I understand therefore that it is not me who is responsible to settle the PCP balance.In addition it is the dealer who is responsible for the following:1. To pay the remaining £39,452.38 PCP balance directly to Audi Financial Services to close the credit line.2. A direct cash refund to my bank account of previously paid funds (representing my upfront deposit, plus any monthly PCP payments made to date, minus the mileage allowance).Please confirm receipt of this statutory rejection and provide the formal unwind figuresI appreciate that this is now a legal matter and you may need to refer this correspondence to your legal department for advice. I understand that this type of error is well documented and there is legal precedent in how this matter should be resolved.I do not think I am being unreasonable in requesting a resolution to this issue since unknown to me it has been going on for over a year.It also appears that the catalyst to this current position was when I attempted to tax the car in May (which I eventually did). At least twice then since May I was then advised that that the matter of the V5C was “sorted”, but it is evident that this was not the case and it appears only now that the full extent of the error and subsequent consequences are evident , much to my detriment.I think the way this matter has been handled by the dealership so far has been poor and the notion of trying to give me a token £500 to make the matter go away disrespectful.I will be forwarding a copy of this email to VWFSI below give the precedents which are applicable in cases like this.Regards,David EvansAppendix: Regulatory Framework and Supporting Precedents1. Irreparable Failure of Description (Consumer Rights Act 2015)• The Legal Standard: Under Section 11 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, a vehicle must match its description . A vehicle sold as a brand-new, first-owner vehicle that is mistakenly registered to a corporate entity (VWFS) breaches this requirement.• The Irreparable Defect Principle: The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) maintains that a registration error permanently altering a vehicle's keeper history is inherently irreparable [financial-ombudsman.org.uk]. Because the DVLA cannot erase an entry from a vehicle's chronological history, the dealership cannot offer a repair that conforms to the original contract. The consumer's Final Right to Reject under Section 24 is therefore absolute.2. The Financial Penalty of an Extra V5C Keeper• FOS Precedent on Diminution of Value: Dealerships routinely argue that an extra keeper on a logbook is a minor administrative error. However, in past dispute decisions involving registration faults, the FOS has explicitly recognized that an additional registered keeper causes automatic financial depreciation (diminution of value) on an executive asset.• Consumer Detriment: Forcing a consumer to accept a vehicle with a multi-owner history penalizes them on future trade-in or resale values. The FOS rules it unfair to force a buyer to absorb a loss resulting entirely from a dealer or manufacturer system failure.3. Proportionate and Fair Use Deductions (Section 24)• Rejection of Blanket Formulas: While Section 24 allows a dealer to deduct a fee for the miles driven, the Act specifies it must be a "reasonable deduction". Many dealers attempt to apply an arbitrary 45p per mile charge (based on HMRC business rates).• The FOS Standard for Mileage Charges: The FOS has historically ruled that a 45p per mile charge for a rejected vehicle is excessive and unfair. Because 45p per mile accounts for fuel, maintenance, and insurance—costs already covered out of your pocket—the FOS aligns fair vehicle usage with the excess mileage rates found in PCP contracts. For premium vehicles, this establishes an equitable rate between 15p and 25p per mile.4. The Tripartite Liability of the Finance Provider• Section 56 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974: Because this asset is funded via a PCP contract, the legal transaction sits between the consumer and Audi Financial Services (VWFS), with the dealership acting as the intermediate agent.• Lender Compliance Risks: The FOS holds the finance provider directly responsible for the quality and description of the asset [financial-ombudsman.org.uk]. Since the asset was mistakenly registered to the corporate lender's fleet instead of the individual customer, the underlying credit agreement is structurally compromised. The lender is required to instruct the dealer to initiate an immediate contract unwind to protect its own data and compliance standing.

crack in windscreen and has been attempting to go to autoglass to get windscreen replaced, unable to do so as error codes keep on coming up so then is having to return to us but then by the time that vehicle gets back to autoglass the error codes are present again. customer stating he is having to waste a lot of his and his wife's time repeating this cycle and the issue keeps occurring. feels the vehicle he leases from us is unfit for purpose.

To Whom It May Concern,I am writing to formally raise a complaint regarding my Audi A1S (registration NJ21 OYP), which I purchased under a finance agreement (Agreement No. 440166764909).Since taking delivery of the vehicle on 27 September 2024, I have experienced persistent faults, most notably the recurring Emergency SOS System Fault and Driver Assistance System Fault warnings. These faults disable the vehicle's Auto Start/Stop system and cruise control and have been occurring on an almost daily basis.The Emergency SOS system is an essential safety feature designed to enable occupants to access emergency assistance in the event of an accident. As this fault has persisted for approximately 18 months despite repeated reports and repair attempts, I no longer have confidence that the vehicle is safe or of satisfactory quality.I’ve also been doing research of my own and are aware that a common SOS fault is due to the battery needing changed and recoding to the car. I believe this is a common fault for Audi, VW and Seat, for which are all in the same group. Please consider.I have repeatedly reported these issues and have made every effort to allow them to be investigated and repaired. However, despite numerous visits and ongoing communication, the faults continue to reappear. I am not prepared to incur any further costs for repairs to issues that I first reported shortly after taking delivery of the vehicle.My understanding of my rights under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 is as follows:- Within 30 days I have a right to reject the car. Or demand a full refund, providing the fault wasn’t caused by the customer- 30 day- 6 moths: The dealer gets one opportunity to repair or replace the vehicle. If the repair fails, takes an unreasonable amount of time or causes significant inconvenience, I am able to reject the car and seek a refund, if the car fault was present/ developing at the time of sale.- After 6 moths: I can still make a claim (up to 6 years), providing I can show the fault was present of devolving at the time of purchase.Below is a timeline of events:• 21 September 2024 – Finance agreement signed (Agreement No. 440166764909).• 27 September 2024 – Part-exchanged previous vehicle and collected the Audi A1S.• 20 October 2024 – Dashboard screen intermittently switched off while driving (logged as an MMI fault).• 25 October 2024 – Reported the Emergency SOS System Fault appearing on the dashboard.• 3 December 2024 – Vehicle booked in for investigation of the recurring faults.• 14 January 2025 – Repair work carried out in an attempt to rectify the faults. Did updates in reagrds to MMI fault. States in Service report that they cleared all faults. No doccumentation to say how they have fixed the SOS syetm fault. (documentation attached)• Autumn 2025 faults reoccured• 29 April 2026 – Vehicle health check identified further work required.• 3 June 2026 – Additional diagnostic and repair work carried out. I requested copies of the diagnostic printout but have not yet received them. The workshop identified repeated camshaft position faults, an oil pressure fault, replaced the oil pressure regulation valve, and advised that further investigation may still be required.• During this visit, the Emergency SOS fault was also diagnosed. A static fault (B180B13) relating to the emergency call aerial (R322) was confirmed. I was advised that further investigation would require removal of the rear bumper to inspect the wiring, and that any wiring issue may not be covered under warranty, meaning a customer pay out of £400+.• 10 June 2026 – Vehicle collected from Five Oaks Audi.• 11 June 2026 – The Emergency SOS fault reappeared the day after collection. I contacted the dealership immediately and arranged for the vehicle to return on 20 July 2026 for further investigation.Given the length of time this matter has been ongoing and the repeated failure to permanently resolve the fault, I am requesting that this issue is now dealt with as a formal complaint.I would like confirmation of how you intend to resolve this matter. I expect the vehicle to be repaired successfully at no cost to myself. However, if the fault cannot be permanently rectified within a reasonable timeframe, I will consider escalating the matter further and seeking advice regarding my rights under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, including referring the complaint to the Motor Ombudsman and pursuing any other remedies available to me.I have attached copies of the relevant repair documentation and previous correspondence for your reference.I look forward to receiving your response within 14 days.Kind regards,Eleanor Lee

Carson was Excellent