Hi I’m part exchanging my car, I have noticed today that there’s an outstanding recall on my car, I did get this done however it is still showing as outstanding can this be rectified immediately. As it's been 3 months and 6 days since the work was carried out please see attached.Also, could you email me a letter from yourself on headed paper to confirm the work was carried out and it is an admin error and that you will rectify this.

I bought This Mazda cx-3 2019 model with car reg NG19NXE last 30/6/2026. I was not fully aware & not informed that there is a long split / tear on front driver side rubber door seal & front passenger side door seal it will tear soon as there is sign of deterioration on the rubber. also when you turn on to start the engine there is high revolution & cranking sound every time you turn on the engine. I did message Salesman Jacob today thru whats up but no reply. your kind actions will be grand. thank you

Cust purchased a vehicle end of Oct 2025 which they are sure they took out te minor damage protection. The cust has since scuffed an alloy and has tried to use this however they dont have any paperwork for this. She feels like she has been dismissed by the sales manager and that he isnt wanting to help. He has advised the cust that he has no senior management so there is no point. The sales person didnt put his put of office on so the cust was unaware that he was not in the business.

Dear Dealership Manager,I am writing to make a formal complaint regarding the transfer of my BMW service plan following the purchase of my new BMW 1 Series from your dealership.When I exchanged my previous BMW for my new vehicle, I was told by a member of your sales team that my existing service plan would be transferred to my new car. I relied on this information when completing the purchase.I have since been informed that the service plan was never transferred due to an error by the dealership. I am now being asked to pay higher monthly payments, despite this situation arising solely because the agreed transfer was not carried out.I understand there was approximately £214 remaining on my previous service plan, yet I am now being asked to pay an additional £216. I do not believe it is fair or reasonable that I should be financially disadvantaged because of a mistake made by the dealership.I have not signed the new service plan agreement, as I do not agree that I should bear the cost of an error that was outside of my control.My vehicle is also due for its MOT and service by the end of next month. I do not want this essential maintenance to be delayed because of an issue that should have been resolved when I collected my new vehicle.I respectfully ask that Lookers honour the original agreement by transferring or reinstating my service plan on the terms that were promised, without increasing my monthly payments. I would appreciate a prompt response and a fair resolution.If this matter cannot be resolved at dealership level, please treat this as a formal complaint and advise me of the next stage of your complaints process.I look forward to your response.Yours faithfully,Garry Williams

The online contact form does not wortk and has not for months - when typing an explanation, it fails to acknolwe==edge anything is typed in the box and theredofre the request cannot be submitted. here is the link I am referring to: https://www.lookers.co.uk/car-hub/contact-us/lookers-car-hub-birminghamI also managed to contact Lookers car hub by live chat (cannot find this again), and the agent claimed he would pass my case on to the dealer which he did not do and it's been 3 months. I may have to resort to claling the dealer but i rarely have a chance to do this so I would appreciate some help if possible. My comment was:"Hi, I contacted you guys 3 months ago about this, but never heard back sadly. I bought a vehicle in August/September 2024, for which I can provide evidence and details as needed. I found out recently that the car was serviced by yourselves in July 2024 but it is not recorded on the iDrive and I also do not have any paperwork for it. I'd just like an invoice so the service history can be complete when I do sell the car on. Please let me know he we can arrange that."

I am raising a formal complaint and escalating my rejection of a Volkswagen Golf GTE purchased from Lookers Star City/Birmingham on 12 January 2026.At the point of sale/test drive, concerns were raised about steering/alignment, possible rear suspension issues, the master window switch/window issue, and a separate curbed alloy. We were told to come back later and Lookers would take care of it. We were reassured the vehicle had passed preparation, that any issues would be resolved, and that “the dealership wasn’t going anywhere”. We were also told we could take the vehicle to Volkswagen for diagnostics if required.After purchase, the steering/alignment, suspension and coolant concerns continued. Volkswagen inspected the car and identified issues requiring further investigation, including suspension concerns and an oil leak between the engine and gearbox. Coolant loss also continued.On 3 February 2026, the issues were raised in writing. On 4 February 2026, Lookers asked for the vehicle back for inspection. We agreed, but made clear this was not a waiver of our rights under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. On 6 February 2026, we confirmed the vehicle had no coolant and was not drivable.On 10 February 2026, Lookers confirmed the vehicle was in the workshop. That same day, we expressly confirmed in writing that diagnostic inspection only was authorised and that no repair work had been approved. Despite this, Lookers proceeded with repair activity, including radiator/coolant work.I have since received confirmation from RAC that, on 20 March 2026, Lookers claimed the radiator repair under my warranty. This was done without my knowledge or approval. I expected Lookers, as the selling dealer, to cover the repair because the issue was raised within the first month and the car had been returned under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.On 2 March 2026, Lookers confirmed the vehicle was ready for collection, but release became linked to a separate courtesy vehicle insurance/excess issue, causing further delay. The vehicle was ultimately collected on 16 March 2026. On the day of collection, the coolant warning appeared again almost immediately. Within approximately five minutes of leaving, we returned to Lookers and the car had to be looked at again. At collection, we also raised that the Volkswagen charging-port flap was damaged. Jamie stated in person that we could take it to another garage to be looked at and Lookers would cover the cost. This remains unresolved.It also became clear at collection that some work marked as completed had not actually been carried out, which undermined confidence in the repair process.Later on 16 March 2026, on the way home, we called back due to there being a new noise and issue which was a loud droning noise around the speed of 50mph and more. Lookers asked for the vehicle to be brought back again.On 20 March 2026, we disputed Lookers. and explained that alignment concerns had been raised and documented at sale, and that after Lookers’ repair attempt a new pronounced droning/pulsing noise had developed at approximately 55 mph and above. This issue was not present before Lookers’ intervention. We stated the car had been returned in a worse condition and that we would seek independent Volkswagen inspection after they wanted it back for further inspection.On 29 March 2026, the vehicle was formally rejected by email. The email stated: “Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, I am exercising my right to reject the vehicle, as it has not been of satisfactory quality, including following attempts to repair it.” The email also stated the car had been with the dealership for a considerable time, the same issue returned immediately on collection, some agreed items were not completed, and new droning/further issues had developed. A full refund and return arrangements were requested.On 30 March 2026, Lookers replied that the vehicle met its approved standards and invited a further booking. This was refused the same day. It was made clear that no further inspection or repair was agreed, that faults were present during and shortly after purchase, that Lookers had already had the vehicle back for repair, and that Lookers’ internal standards do not override statutory rights.On 8 April 2026, an update was chased as no refund/return arrangement had been confirmed.After rejection, further diagnostic evidence was sought. Any delay was due to the dealership/garage being fully booked; the earliest available appointment was booked.On 1 June 2026, the rejection was escalated again with independent diagnostic evidence confirming incorrect rear springs and pulsing above 50 mph which needed further investigation. The same email also raised a refuelling fault where fuel unexpectedly flowed back out of the filler neck, despite correct refuelling, and requested reimbursement of a £105 diagnostic charge.A further recent Volkswagen diagnostic identified that the fuel actuator/fuel filler issue requires replacement and suspects a bearing fault. The charging-port flap remains damaged/unresolved.The vehicle has suffered repeated and unresolved issues including steering/alignment concerns, suspension concerns, coolant loss, coolant warning immediately after collection, oil leak concern, window issue, brake fluid issue, incomplete work marked as complete, new droning/pulsing after Lookers’ repair attempt, fuel being expelled while refuelling, fuel actuator/filler fault, suspected bearing fault, and damaged charging-port flap.These issues affect safety, reliability, roadworthiness, refuelling safety and confidence in the vehicle. Lookers had the vehicle back for inspection/repair after faults were raised within the first month. The repair attempt did not resolve the issues and further faults arose afterwards.I am not agreeing to any further repair attempt. I require Lookers to accept rejection of the vehicle, arrange collection/return without requiring it to be driven, process the appropriate refund, reimburse the £105 diagnostic charge and explain the RAC warranty claim made without my approval, and provide a written final response if rejection is refused.I had been liasing with Jamie who I have found out has left which explains recent emails not being responded to.

About 5 months ago cust bought the car. The vehicle has been in for a warranty job regarding the door the trim has not been put back properly. The cust has brought up with the branch but been told he has to pay for a diag even though it has been from when you had it. The vehcle has a problem with the steering now and would like to know if this can be covered by the warranty

I picked up my vehicle (FG68 ZDD) on 28th March, after one month on 28th April, the vehicle was taken into the service team at Star City. Later that day I was informed that the vehicle would require a new engine which came as a massive shock and disappointment having had the vehicle for such as short time.In the following six weeks since in was determined that the vehicle would require a new engine, no progress has been made to effect a repair. Every time I call for an update I am told that the warranty company want photos and videos of the engine before deciding on whether they will cover the cost of the repair. It has been very frustrating to hear the repeated non-updates will no progress made.One update was that the warranty company wanted the engine to be stripped there was back and forth between them and the service department over who would cover the costs of labour to do this. I was informed on 27th May by Sam, the service manager that the service team were stripping the engine to send additional pictures and videos to the warranty company, I learned on Friday 5th June, when I called again, that this was potentially untrue and the engine had not been stripped and instead a tool had been ordered to take the pictures to negate the costs of stripping the engine.Six weeks down the line and no repair has been started. It is my opinion that I was sold a faulty vehicle and no repair has been initiated due to the warranty company and Lookers not wanting to take responsibility for the cost with no regard for the customer who has been without a car all of this time. Every time I have called the service desk I have requested a courtesy car and I have always been told that I am top of the list for one but during this entire time one has not been available. For six weeks I have been without the car that I purchased and only had use of for a month before it failed.I purchased the car in order to commute to my new job so obviously this situation has made that incredibly difficult and I have personally incurred extensive costs in car hires and train fares. Aside from the monetary cost, this has also impacted the ability to see my children who do not live with me because I am unable to get to them. I find it surprising that not a single courtesy car has been available during this entire time.As I was sold a car that turned out to be faulty, I would like to request that the repair is carried out at the earliest opportunity in order that the inconveniences I have suffered are not prolonged. I see it that this should be carried out so the customer is not impacted and then whether Lookers or the warranty company covers the cost can be decided between the two parties. If the delays without action are going to continue, then on the basis of being sold a car that is faulty I would like to request a refund or replacement.

Dear Sir,I am writing further to my previous emails regarding the windscreen chip/damage on the Tesla Model Y, registration LD73WRA, which was raised with you following collection of the vehicle.I have chased this matter several times and, despite being advised that this had been passed on and would be followed up, I still have not received a clear response or reimbursement.For reference, the attached invoice from Luton Automotive is dated 16/05/2026 and totals £840.00 for two windscreen supply and fit replacements. As the invoice relates to two vehicles, the cost attributable to LD73WRA is £420.00.This email is therefore my final attempt to resolve the matter amicably before taking further action.Please confirm by return email, no later than 7 days from the date of this email, whether Lookers Birmingham will be reimbursing the £420.00 cost relating to the windscreen replacement for LD73WRA.If I do not receive a satisfactory response within this timeframe, I will have no option but to proceed with a claim through the County Court without further notice.I would prefer to resolve this directly, however I cannot continue chasing indefinitely.Kind Regards,Imtiyaz

Dear Lookers Customer Resolution Team,RE: Formal Complaint regarding Peugeot e-208 (Registration: BF22MTO) purchased from Lookers [Lookers Car Hub, Star City Birmingham].I am writing to log a formal complaint regarding a major, pre-existing high-voltage fault with the vehicle detailed above, and the unsatisfactory diagnostic handling by the local Lookers branch.1. Background and Technical ContextI purchased this vehicle from Lookers on 15 April 2026 and have covered approximately 1,000 miles since. Whilst I have owned the vehicle the air conditioning has never worked.An independent diagnostic check confirmed a major error in the high-voltage Air Conditioning (HVAC) loop and its interaction circuit. Crucially, the vehicle still home-charges (7kW) and fast-charges (50kW) perfectly. This absolute evidence proves that the main charging hardware—such as the On-Board Charger—is completely intact. The fault is strictly localized to a physical failure of the high-voltage AC compressor unit or its pressure sensor.This is a well-documented manufacturing defect inherent to early-generation Peugeot e-208s, recognized by the DVSA via Official UK Safety Recall R/2023/140 (Manufacturer Ref: MF9).2. The Dispute with Lookers Car Hub, Star CityI have attached the full email chain and independent diagnostic report sent to the local site staff on Monday.Despite being presented with clear evidence, the branch team remains to refuse to engage with me positively, simply refusing to respond to most of my attempts to contact them, and when they do get a response, it's a largely garbled, inconsiderate holding message. Furthermore, the independent garage have advised against driving the car due to a hypothetical "thermal battery risk."As I have proven by driving 1,000 miles and safely fast-charging the vehicle, the battery is not overheating. The car's internal safety software completed under the DVSA recall has simply isolated the faulty AC compressor to keep the vehicle safe, leaving a total loss of cabin cooling as the primary symptom. The local branch's lack of technical knowledge regarding electric vehicles is causing unnecessary delays and leaving me without a functional car.3. Legal Position & Required ResolutionUnder the UK Consumer Rights Act 2015, a vehicle sold by a dealership must be of satisfactory quality and fit for purpose. Because this failure occurred within the first six months of ownership, the law states the defect is legally presumed to have been present at the point of sale.To resolve this complaint, I require the central team to ensure the local branch coordinates the following:1. A Full Repair at Lookers' Expense: The failed high-voltage component must be replaced using Peugeot's updated, superseded hardware part number. Ideally I would like this work conducted at an alternative location as it is clear that this location holds no regard for their customers.2. Adherence to Official Technical Bulletins: The entire climate loop must be completely chemically flushed and the desiccant filter replaced to prevent residual metallic debris from ruining the new compressor.3. Financial Reimbursement: A full reimbursement of the independent diagnostic fee I had to pay to identify this pre-existing stock defect.4. Mobility Support: Immediate provision of a comparable courtesy car while my vehicle is undergoing these repairs.I expect a formal acknowledgment of this complaint within your standard 5-working-day protocol, alongside an immediate intervention to ensure the local branch handles this matter legally and professionally.Yours sincerely,Jacob Buckingham07917611142