Dear Sir/Madam,I am writing to raise a formal complaint regarding my vehicle (registration ML22WYG*), purchased on 9 December 2025.Since purchase, the vehicle has experienced multiple faults and has been returned on several occasions. Most recently, the vehicle has suffered a major engine failure and I have been informed it requires a full engine replacement.While I understand a warranty claim is currently in progress, I do not consider a repair to be an appropriate resolution given the history of faults within such a short period of ownership.Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, I do not believe the vehicle is of satisfactory quality or fit for purpose.As this issue has arisen within the first six months of ownership, I would like to formally request to discuss rejecting the vehicle or arranging a suitable replacement, rather than proceeding with a repair.Please confirm how you intend to resolve this matter.Kind regards,Rachel

Copy of letter sent to your Ellesmere Port Branch. This vehicle was purchased from Star CityRegarding our Vauxhall Grandland KT19JXZ which we have booked in with you for tomorrow 6th, May 2026 the problem is as follows.We purchased the car from Lookers , Star City, Birmingham just under two years ago. It went into limp mode on the way home and we had to get the RAC out to take it back to Birmingham. This problem persisted at regular intervals, along with a high oil consumption and you have a record of the work and some of the problems we have encountered, it has been persistently unreliable and we dare not take it on long journeys.You recently requested we drive around 620 miles and you then rechecked the oil. You decided it was using too much. You replaced the vaporizer and put in a new wet belt under warranty. I cannot now travel a fraction of this distance without the warning lights coming on warning of low oil. I fill up to the maximum on the dipstick and the warning comes on when on minimum. The distances driven when the oil goes from maximum to minimum in the last four instances are as follows: 286 miles. 169 miles, 304 miles and 194 miles.Clearly something is seriously wrong: soon I will be using more oil than petrol! I cannot go to London from Rhyd Ddu without the engine light coming on and having to fill up with oil two or possibly three times. I have no complaints with your efforts to identify the problem though I do object to the charge of £144 for doing so. The unfortunate truth is that I have obviously been sold a lemon and the last two years have been very stressful as far as driving is concerned. With the guarantee about to run out, if the problem cannot be identified with certainty we have no alternative but to request our money back or an alternative car (not Vauxhall ?! ). Hopefully you will come up with a mutually agreeable solution that avoids legal proceedings. Better still find the cause. You mentioned the cost of stripping the engine if required - I do not intend to pay for this. It is up to you to find the problem at your expense not ours.All the best and wishing you every success

I am writing to raise a formal complaint regarding my vehicle (registration ML22WYG*), purchased on 9 December 2025.Since purchase, the vehicle has experienced multiple faults and has been returned on several occasions. Most recently, the vehicle has suffered a major engine failure and I have been informed it requires a full engine replacement.While I understand a warranty claim is currently in progress, I do not consider a repair to be an appropriate resolution given the history of faults within such a short period of ownership.Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, I do not believe the vehicle is of satisfactory quality or fit for purpose.As this issue has arisen within the first six months of ownership, I would like to formally request to discuss rejecting the vehicle or arranging a suitable replacement, rather than proceeding with a repair.Please confirm how you intend to resolve this matter.

Good morning,I am writing to formally reject the vehicle I purchased from you on 23 September 2025 (Peugeot 3008, reg: YL17 ODT).Since shortly after purchase, the vehicle has suffered from:• Engine oil warning lights (with photographic evidence from within days of purchase)• Ongoing excessive oil consumption requiring frequent top-ups• Visible smoke during accelerationThese issues indicate a serious engine fault, and the vehicle is not of satisfactory quality under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.I have since had the vehicle inspected, and it has been confirmed that the engine is excessively burning oil. In addition, I have evidence that significant engine-related repairs were carried out prior to sale, including turbo replacement and oil system work. Given the nature of these repairs and the symptoms I experienced shortly after purchase, it is clear the underlying issue was present or developing at the time of sale.I also experienced issues with the MOT status and vehicle registration process, which further impacted my confidence in the vehicle and its sale.As I no longer have confidence in the reliability of this vehicle, I am exercising my right to reject the vehicle and request a full refund.Please confirm within 14 days how you will arrange collection and refund.If this matter is not resolved, I will escalate it further.Kind regards,Alice Blair

I am writing to formally complain regarding the 2023 Hyundai Tucson I purchased from Lookers Vauxhall Star City on October 11th 2025 registration plate BC23 FYH.Basis of complaint: Mis-selling and Breach of Advertised Standards.The vehicle was mis-sold and is not of satisfactory quality under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.Specifically;Verbal Misrepresentation: at the point of sale your Salesperson, Salman, explicitly assured me the car had full service history and was up to date in line with Hyundai’s specifications for warranty.Documented Service Failure: the service book shows a service was not recorded until 21,261 miles. As the Tucson requires servicing every 10,000 miles, this vehicle had already missed its first vital milestone by over 11,000 miles before you sold it to me. This confirms the car does not have “full service history” promised and is a direct breach of your advertised standards.Failure of Advertised Checks: your advertisement promises a “thorough 150-point check” and states vehicles are “serviced as required.” Had these been performed with professional due diligence, Lookers would have identified the missing service and also the outstanding manufacturer campaign code.Mechanical fault: the engine management light has appeared intermittently. As this is within the 6 months of purchase, the law assumes this defect existed at the point of sale.Required resolution.I have booked a major service and diagnosis check at Motorfair Hyundai Mackadown Birmingham on Friday 1st May. To resolve this, I require Lookers to:Fully reimburse the total cost of this service and diagnostic work.Provide a cash payout (compensation) for the permanent diminished resale value caused by the broken service history which was wrongly advertised as “full”

Dear General Manager,Further to my email sent earlier today, I wish to clarify the specific resolution I require to settle this matter.Given that the vehicle’s resale value is now permanently diminished and the manufacturer’s warranty is at risk due to the missed services, I require:1. Full reimbursement for the service and diagnostics at Hyundai Mackadown this Friday.2. A cash payout of £3,000 to account for the diminished resale value caused by the misrepresentation of the service history.3. A formal Letter of Indemnity from Lookers, guaranteeing that you will cover the cost of any future mechanical repairs should Hyundai refuse a warranty claim based on the service gaps that occurred prior to my purchase.I look forward to receiving your confirmation on these points alongside my previous email by Wednesday.

Dear General ManagerI am writing to formally complain regarding the 2023 Hyundai Tucson I purchased from Lookers Vauxhall Star City on October 11th 2025 registration plate BC23 FYH.Basis of complaint: Mis-selling and Breach of Advertised Standards.The vehicle was mis-sold and is not of satisfactory quality under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.Specifically;Verbal Misrepresentation: at the point of sale your Salesperson, Salman, explicitly assured me the car had full service history and was up to date in line with Hyundai’s specifications for warranty.Documented Service Failure: the service book shows a service was not recorded until 21,261 miles. As the Tucson requires servicing every 10,000 miles, this vehicle had already missed its first vital milestone by over 11,000 miles before you sold it to me. This confirms the car does not have “full service history” promised and is a direct breach of your advertised standards.Failure of Advertised Checks: your advertisement promises a “thorough 150-point check” and states vehicles are “serviced as required.” Had these been performed with professional due diligence, Lookers would have identified the missing service and also the outstanding manufacturer campaign code.Mechanical fault: the engine management light has appeared intermittently. As this is within the 6 months of purchase, the law assumes this defect existed at the point of sale.Required resolution.I have booked a major service and diagnosis check at Motorfair Hyundai Mackadown Birmingham on Friday 1st May. To resolve this, I require Lookers to:Fully reimburse the total cost of this service and diagnostic work.Provide a cash payout (compensation) for the permanent diminished resale value caused by the broken service history which was wrongly advertised as “full”Please confirm by Wednesday that you agree to these terms. If I do not receive a satisfactory response, I will seek to recover all costs and damages by the financial ombudsman service.

Dear Sir/Madam,I am writing to formally raise a complaint regarding my 2019 Vauxhall Corsa, purchased from yourselves in April 2025.Due to significant concerns regarding the way this matter has been handled, I am now collecting the vehicle and have formally withdrawn my consent for any further diagnostic work to be carried out.The vehicle has developed multiple faults affecting critical safety systems, including ABS, ESP/ASR, hill start assist, and collision detection warnings. These faults have persisted and returned even after a battery replacement, and braking performance has been noticeably affected. This is a serious safety concern and is not acceptable for a vehicle of this age and purchase history.I was initially quoted £144 for diagnostic work, which I accepted in good faith. I have since been advised that a cost of near £450 would be required for additional diagnostics, despite the fault already being identified within the ABS system. I consider this charge to be wholly excessive and unjustified. At no point has a clear or reasonable explanation been provided as to why such an extensive and costly additional diagnostic process is required.Furthermore, the vehicle is covered under an active warranty with RAC. I would expect the correct process to be followed in engaging the warranty provider once a fault has been identified, rather than being asked to authorise significant additional costs upfront. This approach is not acceptable.In addition, I am raising a separate issue regarding the paintwork on the boot sill. This defect was present prior to purchase and was repaired before collection. The same issue has now reappeared in the exact same location, clearly demonstrating that the original repair was not carried out with reasonable care or to an acceptable standard.Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, I am entitled to expect that the vehicle is of satisfactory quality and that any repairs carried out are completed with reasonable care and skill. Based on the above, I do not believe these obligations have been met.Given the circumstances, I require the following:- A full written explanation and justification for the near £450 diagnostic charge- Confirmation of why the RAC warranty process was not appropriately followed once a fault had been identified- Written confirmation that the paintwork issue will be rectified properly at no cost as a failed pre-sale repairPlease treat this as a formal complaint. I expect a prompt and satisfactory response. Should this matter not be resolved appropriately, I will have no hesitation in escalating the issue further, including pursuing my rights under the Consumer Rights Act.I look forward to your response.Kind regards,Mrs Christine Eaton

SubjectFormal Complaint Regarding Tyre Replacement.Dear Lookers Vauxhall Star City,I am writing to formally raise a complaint regarding an issue with my vehicle’s tyre.At the time of purchase, I specifically requested that a new tyre be fitted, and I was informed that this had been done. However, just three days later during a period of heavy snowfall, I experienced significant difficulty driving, which raised concerns about the condition of the tyre.I subsequently arranged for the tyre to be replaced, but despite multiple follow-ups, this has still not been completed. Furthermore, a recent health check has confirmed that the vehicle requires a new tyre.I would appreciate it if you could urgently investigate this matter and arrange for the tyre to be replaced as originally agreed.I look forward to your prompt response.Kind RegardsEbiuwa Bello

Sold a car on Thursday 26th march ,left a deposit-had finance in place with 1st response,salesman Phil knew this,suggested trying their finance companies as well for a better rate,which he did that day,but not accepted so proceeded with 1st response -this week Phil said to us that your company had to invoice us rather than the finance company-which obviously cannot happen as we don’t have the funds the finance company do-we have tried to speak to numerous people including managers with no one coming back to us-today we have just spoken to the other Phil at the company who said company policy is not to use -1st finance as they are 3rd party company-why were we not advised of this if this is the case,last Thursday! And now we are a week on,with no car and no deposit -and if we had been informed of this last week we would’ve had time to go elsewhere