Feedback left on-lineI was told the car was “ready to go”. Just shy of £14,000 I paid and, although the car had been washed on the outside, the interior was filthy. Dust and dirt on the dashboard, air vents and around the handbrake area. Really poor from a used car brand the size of Lookers. Selling a clean car is vital and this was missed. Repair shop replaced the faulty sensors which I can’t complain about, their service was spot on, but this issue should have been identified before the car was put up for sale. When I went into the dealership to drop off the car, the salesman seen me and dipped his head and lifted his phone to his ear to avoid me!!! To date, I’ve had 5 serious faults with the car, have had to take 3 separate days off work to take the car back for repair, waiting around Shields for up to 5 hours each time, arrogant young girl in the desk. Refuses to give me a phone number or email address of customer service, finally giving me the name Dave Taylor, but Lord knows who he is or how I contact him. Pathetic service, pathetic car quality, pathetic salesman. Says it all. 1 star as there’s no option for minus stars

Ref: Ford Puma purchaseSales registration: YB20 CGGNew registration: TL64 TERMr TaylorI purchased the above vehicle for Lookers Ford, South Shields on 30/01/2026, the sales person told me the car was “valeted and ready to go”, this sadly was the first untruth, as, where he outside of the car was clean (although torrential rain polluted down that day so probably did the job for Lookers), the inside was unclean, no valet had been done for some time. A slight issue but not insurmountable.I seen the very next day there was an issue with the tyre sensors, also with a rear tyre losing air.I booked the car into the workshop for these to be rectified. Having to take a day off work for the bother, a thorn in my side to have to return to South Shields, however it needed to be investigated and repaired.A few days later, having finished work at 10pm I approached my car, only to notice an LED fault with a headlight. The next day I checked out the car in more depth, as clearly, not only were there no robust vehicle checks done prior to sale, it appears a basic glance wasn’t even done before the car was advertised.I had to return the car to Shields once again for repairs. Only to be told, there’s a broken part of the rear door card that needs replacing and a headlight would need to be ordered. No empathy from the young, rude girl in the desk, just a matter of fact attitude.Then, I returned a third time, so a third annual leave day was taken from work (12 hour duties, so I’ve taken 36 hours leave in total) where these issues were rectified.How can a dealership of your size miss these issues, why are staff not trained to treat customers who pay the neck end of £14K cash for a car like they are valued and their time is important to them and sorry Lookers failed and it’s resulted in THREE separate appointments that I have to make.Each time I walk into the dealership for more work, the sales person sees me. He either looks down to avoid me or, twice picks up his mobile phone to his ear as if to pretend he’s on a call, again to avoid me.Your company service approach is disgraceful. Staff rude and uncaring, lack sympathy and empathy and this purchase has cost me money, time and leave for no reason other than this car was never checked fully before being placed for sale.No courtesy car ever offered as a goodwill gesture, I have to pay to take a metro into Shields or Newcastle to kill time on three occasions, no gesture of goodwill by way of compensation is ever offered or a free extended warranty to give me reassurance having bought a car unfit for purpose.I doubt very much I’ll get a reply, however will search for a head office contact if I don’t and forward this to them.Totally dissatisfied customer.Terry LANE

Good Morning,I am writing to raise a formal complaint regarding the 2021 Land Rover Discovery I purchased from your dealership.The vehicle has been undriveable for approximately 8 weeks due to a failed DC-DC converter. The fault was diagnosed by the repairing garage, who confirmed that the component requires replacement. However, the part has been on back order for several months and I have now been informed that there is no estimated delivery date for the replacement part.This has caused significant inconvenience. I am still making finance payments on the vehicle while being unable to use it, and during this period I have had to rely on hire vehicles at my own expense, which has now cost over £1000.The failure occurred only one week after the vehicle’s warranty expired, which raises serious concerns about the durability of such a major electrical component.Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, goods must be of satisfactory quality and durable. A major component failing and leaving the vehicle undriveable for several months with no repair date is causing significant inconvenience.Given the circumstances, I ask that you urgently review this situation and advise how you intend to resolve it. In particular, I would like you to consider:Assistance with the repair costs or goodwill support given the timing of the failureReimbursement of the hire costs I have incurred while the vehicle has been unusableProvision of a courtesy vehicle while the vehicle remains undriveableClarification of what options are available should the repair continue to be delayedI would appreciate a prompt response outlining how this matter will be resolved.Kind regards,Tom WilliamsVehicle reg - FV21 FFZ (N80 GLN)

Subject: Formal Complaint and Notice – Vehicle Registration P19AKH (Suspected Mileage Tampering)Dear Sir/Madam,I am writing to raise a formal complaint regarding a vehicle I purchased from Lookers, registration P19AKH. Recent events have led me to believe that the vehicle may have been sold with inaccurate mileage due to the presence of a mileage blocker device.Recently, I had routine maintenance carried out on the vehicle, specifically an oil change. During this service, the mechanic connected an OBD diagnostic tool in order to reset the service light.The following day, my instrument cluster stopped functioning completely. I have video evidence documenting this issue.I returned to the mechanic to investigate the fault. After inspecting the vehicle, the mechanic indicated that the instrument cluster itself appeared to be functioning correctly but suspected that a mileage blocker device may be installed in the vehicle. The mechanic then opened the instrument cluster and identified a mileage blocker installed within the system. This process was recorded on video, and I have retained this evidence. It is possible that resetting the service light may have reactivated the mileage blocker device installed in the vehicle.I would like to make it clear that I had absolutely no knowledge of any mileage blocker being installed in the vehicle at the time of purchase or at any point since owning the vehicle. It was only through this chain of events, beginning with routine maintenance and the subsequent failure of the instrument cluster, that the presence of this device was brought to my attention.The presence of a mileage blocker raises serious concerns about the accuracy of the vehicle’s recorded mileage at the point of sale. The vehicle is currently showing approximately 68,000 miles; however, given the discovery of this device, I can no longer rely on the recorded mileage as an accurate representation of the vehicle’s true usage.This is particularly concerning as mileage is a critical factor when determining maintenance schedules, component wear, and the overall value of the vehicle. For example, the engine mounts on the vehicle are now completely worn and require replacement. The vehicle also requires a gearbox service at the current mileage level; however, as I am now unaware of the vehicle’s true mileage, it is possible that this service may have been required some time ago. Continued use of the vehicle without knowing its true mileage may therefore be causing additional mechanical wear or damage.In addition, I would like to highlight that from the very first day of purchase, the vehicle experienced several issues that required ongoing attention for approximately six months after purchase. I have retained receipts and documentation for all repairs and issues that had to be addressed, which further contributes to my concerns about the vehicle’s history and condition at the time of sale.Given the seriousness of this matter, I request that Lookers investigate this issue urgently. Specifically, I would like clarification regarding:• Whether Lookers were aware of the presence of a mileage blocker device prior to the sale.• How the vehicle’s mileage was verified before it was sold to me.• What checks were carried out to ensure the mileage recorded was accurate.Due to the uncertainty surrounding the vehicle’s true mileage and the impact this has on the vehicle’s value, reliability, and maintenance requirements, I am seeking appropriate compensation and resolution. I would therefore ask Lookers to consider one of the following remedies:• Vehicle buy-back: Lookers repurchase the vehicle from me for the full amount paid.• Financial compensation: Payment of the difference between the value of the vehicle as sold and its actual value if the true mileage were known. However, I acknowledge that calculating this accurately may be difficult unless the true mileage of the vehicle can be reliably determined.• Like-for-like replacement: Provision of a replacement vehicle of equivalent specification, condition, and value.Selling a vehicle with altered or unreliable mileage is a serious issue and may constitute a breach of consumer protection legislation, including the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which requires goods to be as described and of satisfactory quality.If this matter cannot be resolved satisfactorily, I will have no option but to consider escalating the complaint through the appropriate channels. This may include raising the matter with The Motor Ombudsman, seeking independent legal advice, and pursuing any remedies available to me under UK consumer protection law.I would appreciate a written response within 14 days of receipt of this letter outlining how Lookers intends to investigate and resolve this matter. If I do not receive a satisfactory response within this timeframe, I will proceed with escalation through the relevant regulatory and legal channels.Evidence available to support this complaint includes:• Video evidence of the instrument cluster failure• Video evidence showing the discovery of the mileage blocker within the instrument cluster• Receipts and documentation relating to the mechanical issues experienced within the first six months of ownership• Maintenance records relating to the recent service where the issue was discoveredI am prepared to provide this evidence if required.I look forward to your prompt response.

please see attachment for customers complaint

Dear Sir/Madame,I am writing to raise a formal dispute regarding a vehicle financed under my agreement with you.The vehicle was supplied by Lookers in June 2024. In January 2025 it developed serious mechanical faults, including EGR valve failure and excessive oil consumption.The vehicle has been correctly serviced and maintained since purchase.I have formally notified the supplying dealer that I am asserting my rights under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. However, they have stated that an investigation may incur charges of £2,131.20, which I dispute. In which I have attached the email. The car is consuming 2/3L of oil per month!!!As the finance provider, you are jointly liable for any breach of contract or misrepresentation relating to the supply of the vehicle. The vehicle is not of satisfactory quality or durable as required by law.I therefore request that you:1. Open a formal investigation into this dispute.2. Confirm that I will not be liable for unreasonable diagnostic fees while liability is being determined.3. Confirm what steps you will take to resolve this matter.Please treat this as a formal complaint.If this matter cannot be resolved, I will escalate the complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service.I look forward to your response within 14 days.

Dear Lookers Customer Complaints Team,I am writing to formally raise a complaint regarding my vehicle purchased from Lookers South Shields in June 2024. Serious mechanical issues began in January 2025 and have been persistent ever since.The faults include:• Excessive engine oil consumption• Brake fluid loss/evaporation• EGR valve faults• Persistent knocking noises from the engine• Track rod ends failing• Door Module failing on 31/1/25 – Lookers still unable to repair this, was told I would have to speak to Volvo for them to diagnose it, yet I advised them this needed coded, my car door is open and wont lock all based on Lookers technician not known this was required.The vehicle has been serviced fully in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations, and I can provide all supporting documentation, all thought the garage may have not been VAT registered where this was serviced!I am very concerned that Lookers South Shields have advised I may be liable for diagnostic or investigation costs if the warranty provider does not authorise repairs. Given these significant faults appeared within six months of purchase and have continued since, I believe the vehicle is not of satisfactory quality or fit for purpose.I still have three years remaining on the finance agreement and cannot reasonably continue paying for a car with ongoing unresolved faults.Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, I would like clarification on:1. My rights regarding repair, replacement, or rejection of the vehicle2. Confirmation that Lookers will cover all diagnostic and repair costs related to these faults3. The steps Lookers will take to resolve this matter urgentlyThis is having a series effect on my mental state and well-being.Please provide a written response within 14 days. If necessary, I will escalate this matter to the Motor Ombudsman and my finance provider.I hope we can resolve this promptly and amicably.Paul Armstrong

I am submitting a formal complaint regarding an unresolved fault on my MINI purchased from Lookers Car Hub South Shields. The vehicle was collected and fully purchased with deposit on 25 April 2025.Within a few days of collecting the car, and certainly within the first week, I emailed the sales team to report two issues:• A “speed limit failure” warning appearing on the dashboard• A problem with the brakesI have full proof of this early report, including the original email, dates, and photographs of the fault.My vehicle was booked in and inspected on 2 May 2025, where the brakes were repaired and the initial error message was temporarily cleared. However, the speed limit failure fault persisted, and it has continued ever since. I have photographic evidence showing the fault remained after the repair attempt.Following this, I submitted multiple online enquiry forms to ensure the issue was logged, but I did not receive any response from the dealership. At this point, I had owned the car for less than two weeks, meaning both faults were clearly present at the time of sale.I have now booked the car back in for 29 January 2026 so the ongoing speed limit failure can be investigated. However, during a recent phone call with the branch, I was informed that although the diagnostic fee would be waived, I would be liable for all repair costs because the warranty has expired.This is not acceptable.The fault was reported within 7 days of purchase, and the dealership attempted a repair on 2 May 2025 which did not resolve the issue. Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, because the fault was reported within the first 30 days, Lookers remains responsible for repairing the original issue at no cost to me, regardless of the warranty expiry date. The relevant date is when the fault was first reported, not when the repair is attempted.I fully understand that cars can develop issues, but in this case, two faults were present within the first two weeks of ownership, demonstrating that the vehicle was not thoroughly checked prior to sale. One of those faults remains unresolved nearly a year later.I am therefore requesting:• Confirmation that the speed limit failure fault will be repaired at Lookers’ expense• Written acknowledgement that this is an unresolved issue originally reported within the first week of ownership• Assurance that I will not be charged for any repair relating to this original fault• A clear plan for resolving the matter promptly and the complaint is remained open until I give permission to closeIf this issue is not resolved, I will escalate the matter to the Motor Ombudsman and consider further action, including a chargeback request with my bank and a small claims claim if necessary. I would prefer to resolve this directly with Lookers, but I am prepared to pursue all available routes.

I bought my vehicle on 30th December and collected on 31st December, with the promise of a broken trim being fixed once the part was in stock. Car was booked in on Monday 12th January to have trim replaced, I showed up as agreed and was told I had no booking. This was then sorted with mark the salesman when he got into work at 9am, however I was told the wrong part had been ordered and they would need to order another part and get me back in another day. This was very stressful as I was only off work on Monday 12th as it was my nanas funeral. Fast forward to today Wednesday 28th January, car was booked in for the 2nd time. This is my partners only day off this week and she has had to take the car to have the trim replaced. She dropped the car off and has then had a phone call to say that they will need to order another part as once again the wrong part has been ordered for the vehicle. Not only has the wrong part been ordered but the old trim has been removed and could not be refitted. So now we are driving around with no trim and my partner is needing to spend her day off next Tuesday 3rd February taking the car again to have this sorted. I can understand a mistake once but not twice with the same part.

Dear Sir or Madam,I am writing to formally raise a complaint regarding my recent vehicle purchase from Lookers Ford, South Shields, on 30 December 2025, and the subsequent handling of a serious mechanical defect identified immediately after sale.The day following purchase, I became aware of a knocking noise originating from the external passenger side of the vehicle. I contacted the dealership promptly to report this issue and was advised to contact the RAC under the extended warranty package purchased with the vehicle. The RAC attended and confirmed that the front stabiliser drop links were defective, with perished seals and unsecured components. I was informed that this condition should have resulted in an automatic MOT failure.I relayed this information to Lookers Ford, at which point I was reassured that the matter would be resolved. While the Sales Manager did make efforts to assist by contacting the RAC and warranty providers, I received conflicting information directly from those parties, who advised that responsibility for rectifying the defect rested with the dealership and that I should not have been required to pursue this matter myself.Although the vehicle has now been repaired, I am currently £545.81 out of pocket, having purchased the vehicle in good faith from what I believed to be a reputable dealership. Given the nature of the defect, it is my view that this issue should have been identified during the pre-sale inspection and MOT, the vehicle should have failed, and the necessary repairs completed prior to sale.Furthermore, I understand that all calls to and from the dealership are recorded. In light of this, I formally request a copy of the recorded conversation from 5 January 2026. During this call, the salesperson who sold me the vehicle stated that I “did not need to worry” as Lookers would take care of the issue. When questioned as to why the vehicle did not fail its MOT given the defects identified, the salesperson stated: “Well it’s not really a full MOT that the cars get before they’re sold.”This statement was deeply concerning and raises serious questions regarding the integrity of the MOT process carried out prior to sale. The suggestion that a vehicle may be sold with known defects, supported by an MOT pass certificate that does not reflect the vehicle’s true condition, is unacceptable and potentially fraudulent.I would appreciate a full written response addressing the points raised above, confirmation of how this situation will be remedied, and reimbursement of the costs I have incurred as a direct result of this issue.