My MachE was booked in to the Lookers Ford Servicing Centre in Colchester on 1st July to have some recalls done under warranty. The service I received from the checking in staff was great but when I got my vehicle home I noticed that whoever had sat in the driver's seat had put their feet all over the plastic black door sill and left really dirty footprints all over that, the bottom of the seat and the mat. The metal MachE decal on that plastic trim also had scratches on it which I am pretty sure weren't there before. I had only purchased the car in June and it had only done 1500 miles as an ex demonstrator. It was in pristine condition (with no marks or dirt on the plastic trim) until it went to Lookers. I have been trying to keep it that way but had to clean the door sill when I got home. Its a shame that the person who had sat in the driver's seat did not clean the door sill when they had finished. Is it possibler for Ford to provide me with a new decal please?

Dear Executive Complaints Team,I am writing to request that this complaint is handled directly by Lookers' Executive Complaints Team and is not referred back to Lookers Ford Colchester, as I believe the dealership has now had a full and fair opportunity to investigate and respond to my concerns.Although my wife was the purchaser of the vehicle, I have managed the subsequent complaint and correspondence with Lookers on our behalf.Over recent weeks, I have engaged extensively with Lookers Ford Colchester in an effort to resolve this matter. Whilst I appreciate the time taken to investigate my concerns, and I acknowledge the positive steps that have been taken to repair the air conditioning system and replace both rear tyres at no cost, I believe we have now reached a point where the dealership's position is firmly established and further dialogue at that level is unlikely to achieve a different outcome.For that reason, I respectfully request that this complaint is reviewed independently by Lookers' Executive Complaints Team rather than being referred back to the dealership or the individuals who have already considered the matter.I have now also referred the complaint to The Motor Ombudsman. However, as I understand the current waiting time for an investigation is approximately six months, I wanted to provide Lookers with one final opportunity to review this matter at Executive level before an independent determination is made.My hope is that an Executive Review will consider not only whether the vehicle met Lookers' internal preparation standards, but also whether the complaint has been handled fairly, transparently and in a manner consistent with the level of customer care that Lookers would expect customers to receive.Why I Am Escalating This ComplaintFirstly, I would like to acknowledge that Lookers has taken positive steps in response to my complaint.Following our correspondence, Lookers agreed to repair the air conditioning system and replace both rear tyres in full. Those decisions were welcomed, and I appreciate that Lookers sought to resolve those aspects of the complaint.However, despite these positive actions, I remain disappointed that the principal issue I have consistently raised has never been addressed.Throughout my correspondence, my complaint has never been that the vehicle failed to meet Lookers' internal retail preparation standards.Nor have I ever suggested that every item identified during a dealer's inspection must necessarily be repaired before a used vehicle can be sold.The issue I have consistently sought to raise is much simpler.Should information already known to Lookers during its own pre-sale inspection process have been proactively disclosed before we committed to purchasing the vehicle?Despite several detailed exchanges with the dealership, I do not believe this question has ever been answered directly.Instead, the responses I have received have repeatedly explained that the vehicle met Lookers' internal preparation standards and was considered suitable for retail sale.Whilst I fully accept that this may be the dealership's position, I respectfully believe that it addresses a different issue.Whether a vehicle satisfies a dealer's internal preparation standards is not the same as whether information already known to the dealership regarding deterioration, repairs undertaken or components identified as nearing replacement should reasonably have been disclosed to the customer before the purchase.That distinction lies at the heart of this complaint.As customers purchasing from an authorised Ford dealership, we placed considerable trust in Lookers' expertise, inspection processes and professional judgement.We reasonably expected that if Lookers' own inspections identified deterioration, repairs carried out during preparation or components already approaching the end of their serviceable life, that information would either be addressed before the vehicle was sold or brought to our attention so that we could make a fully informed purchasing decision.Instead, we only became aware of these matters after experiencing problems with the vehicle, raising a formal complaint and specifically requesting documentation that had existed before the sale.It is for this reason that I believe the complaint now requires an independent review by Lookers' Executive Complaints Team.BackgroundMy wife purchased the vehicle from Lookers Ford Colchester in January 2026.One of the principal reasons we selected this particular vehicle was its relatively low mileage together with the reassurance of purchasing from an authorised Ford dealership.We therefore purchased the vehicle in good faith, believing that any significant findings identified during Lookers' own preparation process would either have been rectified before the sale or openly disclosed during the purchasing process.Approximately two months later, during the first period of warmer weather following the purchase, we discovered that the air conditioning system was not functioning.As the vehicle had been purchased during the winter months, this was the first opportunity we had to identify the fault.The vehicle was subsequently inspected by Lookers South Woodham Ferrers.That inspection identified:• corrosion affecting the air conditioning condenser and lower pipe;• rear brake discs and rear brake pads requiring replacement; and• concerns relating to the rear tyres.Whilst the failure of the air conditioning system has now been accepted and is being rectified by Lookers, it nevertheless meant that my wife spent much of the recent period of exceptionally warm weather driving a vehicle without functioning air conditioning whilst we waited for the issue to be investigated and resolved.This was both inconvenient and uncomfortable and inevitably affected our overall experience of purchasing from Lookers.During the course of our complaint, Lookers Ford Colchester supplied, for the first time, a copy of the Vehicle Health Check completed during the vehicle's pre-sale preparation.This document identified matters that had never previously been disclosed to us, including:• deterioration to the near-side rear tyre;• a puncture to the off-side rear tyre which Lookers considered necessary to repair prior to sale;• rear brake pads measuring 4.0 mm, with replacement already recommended.These findings had all been identified before the vehicle was sold.However, none of this information had been shared with us during the sales process.In my view, it is this lack of transparency, rather than the existence of the individual defects themselves, that remains the fundamental issue.The Inspection HistoryHaving carefully reviewed all of the documentation supplied during the complaint process, I believe the inspection history is particularly significant.Lookers Ford Colchester carried out:• the July 2025 MOT, which recorded an advisory for damage, cracking or perishing to the near-side rear tyre;• the December 2025 MOT, immediately prior to the vehicle being offered for retail sale, which did not record an advisory relating to that tyre; and• the Vehicle Health Check completed during the pre-sale preparation process, which nevertheless identified deterioration to the same near-side rear tyre immediately before the vehicle was sold.The same dealership therefore had continuous knowledge of the vehicle's inspection history before it was offered for sale.I fully appreciate that an MOT and a Vehicle Health Check are different inspections carried out for different purposes and that a tyre may not necessarily warrant an MOT advisory whilst still showing deterioration.However, I find it difficult to reconcile that Lookers Ford Colchester:• identified concerns with the near-side rear tyre during the July 2025 MOT;• subsequently carried out the December 2025 MOT but did not record an advisory relating to that tyre;• nevertheless identified deterioration to the same tyre during its own pre-sale Vehicle Health Check immediately before the vehicle was offered for sale; and• did not consider that inspection history, or the findings of its own Vehicle Health Check, sufficiently relevant to disclose during the sales process.My complaint is not that the December 2025 MOT was necessarily incorrect.Rather, it is that Lookers had a documented history of concerns relating to the same tyre, culminating in deterioration being identified again during its own pre-sale inspection immediately before the sale. That information was known to Lookers but was not disclosed before we committed to purchasing the vehicle.In my view, a reasonable customer would have expected to be made aware of that history before deciding whether to proceed with the purchase.Rear Braking SystemThe second outstanding issue relates to the rear braking system.The pre-sale Vehicle Health Check completed by Lookers Ford Colchester recorded the rear brake pads at 4.0 mm and had already recommended that they be replaced before the vehicle was offered for retail sale.Approximately 3,500 miles later, Lookers South Woodham Ferrers, another dealership within the Lookers group, inspected the vehicle and advised that the rear brake pads had reduced to 3.0 mm and that both the rear brake pads and rear brake discs required replacement.Throughout our correspondence, Lookers has maintained that there is no evidence to demonstrate that the braking system required replacement when the vehicle was sold.I acknowledge that brake components are consumable items and that brake disc corrosion can develop over time due to a range of factors, including usage, inactivity and environmental conditions.However, my concern has never been that the rear brake discs necessarily required replacement on the day the vehicle was sold.Rather, it is that Lookers' own inspection process had already concluded that the rear brake pads had reached a point where replacement was recommended before the vehicle was sold.That recommendation formed part of Lookers' own assessment of the vehicle, yet it was never disclosed to us during the sales process.Had we been informed that Lookers' own Vehicle Health Check had already recommended replacement of the rear brake pads, we would have been able to properly assess the likely future maintenance costs associated with the vehicle and make a fully informed purchasing decision. We could then have decided whether to proceed with the purchase, negotiate the purchase price or request that the work be completed prior to collection.Instead, we only became aware of this recommendation after experiencing problems with the vehicle and obtaining the pre-sale Vehicle Health Check during the complaint process.Whilst I appreciate that Lookers may consider the vehicle to have met its retail preparation standards, I believe the fact that its own inspection had already recommended replacement of the rear brake pads was information that any reasonable customer would expect to know before completing the purchase.Vehicle Usage and Historical ConditionDuring our correspondence, Lookers explained that brake disc corrosion may develop due to inactivity, environmental conditions and usage patterns.I do not dispute that this is possible.Indeed, one of the principal reasons we chose this vehicle was because of its relatively low mileage.However, that same low mileage also indicates that the vehicle had experienced comparatively little use before our ownership and may have spent prolonged periods inactive.Since purchasing the vehicle, it has covered approximately 3,500 miles and has primarily been used for normal daily commuting. It has not been subjected to unusually harsh driving conditions or repeated heavy braking that might reasonably accelerate brake wear.I also note that Lookers accepted responsibility for repairing the air conditioning system due to corrosion affecting the condenser and lower pipe.Whilst I appreciate that this is a separate component and should be considered on its own merits, it nevertheless contributed to my wider concern that aspects of the vehicle may already have been affected by its historical usage before we purchased it.I am not suggesting that this proves the rear brake discs were below the required standard at the point of sale.However, when considered alongside the Vehicle Health Check recommendation to replace the rear brake pads before the vehicle was sold, it reinforces my belief that the findings of Lookers' own inspection should have been openly disclosed during the sales process.Why I Believe the Dealership's Response Has Failed to Address My ComplaintThroughout our correspondence, Lookers has consistently responded by explaining that the vehicle met its internal retail preparation standards.I do not dispute that this may have been the dealership's assessment.However, I respectfully believe that this response addresses a different question from the one I have consistently raised.At no stage have Lookers disputed that:• deterioration to the near-side rear tyre had been identified before the vehicle was sold;• the off-side rear tyre required repair during the preparation process;• the rear brake pads had already been measured at 4.0 mm, with replacement recommended before the sale.The disagreement between us is simply whether that information should have been proactively disclosed before we committed to purchasing the vehicle.In my view, the answer is clearly yes.A customer purchasing from an authorised Ford dealership is entitled to expect openness regarding information already known to the dealership through its own inspection process.The issue is not whether every item should have been repaired before the sale.The issue is whether information concerning deterioration, repairs undertaken and components already identified as nearing replacement should have been shared with the customer before they committed to purchasing the vehicle.I believe that throughout the complaint process Lookers has repeatedly answered the question of whether the vehicle met its internal preparation standards.Unfortunately, it has never directly addressed the separate question of whether information already known to the dealership should have been disclosed in the interests of transparency and informed decision making.That distinction is fundamental to this complaint and is the reason I have sought an Executive Review.Why I Am Seeking an Executive ResolutionI have now referred this matter to The Motor Ombudsman for independent review. However, I understand that the current waiting time for an investigation is approximately six months.I am hopeful that this matter can be resolved directly with Lookers before that process concludes.My decision to escalate this complaint is not driven solely by the financial aspect relating to the rear braking system. Rather, it reflects my genuine disappointment that the wider issue of transparency has never been recognised.Throughout this process, I have made every effort to resolve matters constructively and amicably. I have acknowledged where Lookers has acted positively, particularly in agreeing to replace both rear tyres and repair the air conditioning system. I have also carefully considered every response provided by the dealership.Despite this, I remain concerned that the dealership has focused almost exclusively on whether the vehicle met its internal retail preparation standards, rather than addressing the separate issue of whether information already known to Lookers should have been disclosed before the sale.I believe there is an important distinction between a vehicle being considered suitable for retail sale and a customer being provided with sufficient information to make a fully informed purchasing decision.Those two principles are not mutually exclusive.A vehicle may satisfy a dealership's internal preparation standards whilst still having deterioration, repairs undertaken during preparation or components already identified as nearing replacement that a reasonable customer would expect to know about before deciding to proceed.That is the principle I respectfully ask the Executive Complaints Team to consider.The Resolution I Am SeekingI am not seeking to revisit every aspect of the complaint.I acknowledge and appreciate that Lookers has already agreed to repair the air conditioning system and replace both rear tyres. Those decisions have resolved a significant part of the complaint and demonstrate that Lookers has been prepared to reconsider aspects of the case.However, I believe there remains an opportunity for Lookers to reach a fair and complete resolution.I therefore respectfully ask the Executive Complaints Team to consider:• whether information identified during the pre-sale Vehicle Health Check, including deterioration to the near-side rear tyre, the puncture to the off-side rear tyre that Lookers repaired prior to sale and the recommendation to replace the rear brake pads, should reasonably have been disclosed before the vehicle was sold;• whether the fact that Lookers Ford Colchester carried out both the July 2025 MOT, the December 2025 MOT and the pre-sale Vehicle Health Check creates a greater expectation that the dealership should have communicated that inspection history to the customer before the sale;• whether the complaint has, to date, focused too heavily on whether the vehicle met Lookers' internal standards, rather than on the separate issue of transparency and informed decision making; and• whether, given that Lookers' own pre-sale Vehicle Health Check had already recommended replacement of the rear brake pads before the vehicle was sold, it would now be fair and reasonable to make an appropriate contribution towards the replacement of the rear brake discs and pads.I am not asking Lookers to accept liability for every item of wear identified after purchase.Rather, I am asking Lookers to recognise that the findings of its own inspection process were information that we reasonably believe should have been shared with us before we committed to purchasing the vehicle.Closing RemarksWhen we chose to purchase this vehicle from an authorised Ford dealership, we did so because we believed that buying from a main dealer would provide reassurance, professional preparation and transparency.Whilst I appreciate that used vehicles will inevitably require maintenance throughout their lives, I also believe that customers should be able to place trust in the information provided by the dealership and have confidence that material findings identified during the dealership's own preparation process will either be addressed before sale or openly disclosed.It is disappointing that, despite extensive correspondence, I remain of the view that this principle has never been properly addressed.I sincerely hope that the Executive Complaints Team will consider this matter afresh, independently of the previous responses issued by the dealership, and view it not simply as a dispute regarding vehicle condition, but as a question of fairness, openness and customer trust.For the avoidance of doubt, I respectfully request that this complaint is considered and responded to directly by Lookers' Executive Complaints Team and is not referred back to Lookers Ford Colchester, as I believe the dealership has already had a full opportunity to investigate and respond to the issues raised.I remain hopeful that this matter can still be resolved directly with Lookers without the need for a formal determination by The Motor Ombudsman.Thank you for taking the time to consider my complaint. I look forward to your response.Yours faithfully,Doug BarberOn behalf of the purchaser

My concerns are as follows:• I originally booked my vehicle online for a service on 6 June. Despite the booking system allowing me to select this date, I subsequently received a call advising that the branch would not be able to carry out the service on that day and my appointment was moved to 13 June.• I was initially quoted over £400 for a major service. During the call, I advised that the vehicle had undergone a major service last year, meaning this information should already have been correctly recorded on the system. Following this, I was then quoted £260.• On 12 June, I received a call confirming my appointment and was advised to arrive first thing in the morning as work operated on a "first come, first served" basis. I found this confusing given that appointments are booked in advance.• I arrived at 8:00am on 13 June and, after some time, noticed that my vehicle had been washed. Upon asking Amy whether the service had been completed, I was informed that it had only been washed. I was surprised that the vehicle had been washed before any service work had commenced.• More concerningly, I then waited for over two hours before the service had even started. Having specifically been asked to arrive first thing, this was frustrating and resulted in a significant amount of unnecessary waiting.• During this time, I overheard a mechanic comment, "I better get back to work now rather than selling my car." Whilst perhaps said in jest, I felt it came across as unprofessional given the number of customers waiting.• I also observed my vehicle being driven quickly from the reception area to the rear of the premises, with the engine being unnecessarily revved. This left me concerned about the manner in which my vehicle was being handled.• When I asked Amy how much the service would cost, I was advised that she was unable to provide a figure until the invoice had been generated. Given that servicing is generally a fixed-price item, I was unclear why the cost could not be confirmed.• Finally, despite initially being quoted over £400 and then £260, I was ultimately charged £290. I would appreciate an explanation for the differing prices provided throughout the process.Having owned Ford vehicles for many years, I was disappointed that what should have been a straightforward service resulted in a frustrating experience. I would appreciate a response addressing each of the points raised above, together with an explanation of any action that will be taken to improve the customer experience going forward.I look forward to hearing from you.Yours faithfully,

Josh was excellent throughout my purchase. Accommodated each request I had.

I am incredibly disappointed with my experience at Lookers Ford Colchester. I traveled to see a car after being given a description/video that turned out to be completely inaccurate. There was absolutely no mention beforehand of the three scuffed alloy wheels, multiple stone chips, or the scratches by the boot. It was a complete waste of my time and a wasted journey.To make matters worse, their customer service following this was also poor. While at the dealership, I was told they would look into fixing the damage. A couple of days later, I received a phone call confirming that all damage would be repaired and promised they would call me back to finalise everything.I never received that call. They completely ghosted me.It is incredibly poor business practice to misrepresent a vehicle's condition, but to promise a resolution and then completely fail to follow up is unacceptable. Very poor service, I will not be returning.

Sales person was not really interested

Very helpful and professional.

still waiting for deposit return after 2 weeks when a car was purchased

a good job and a good team

My car went in for 4 year service with no issues. Came out again Unknown to me (as didn't open rear doors - all I knew is something sounded wrong) with rear door weather strip hanging off under the car. Returned to garage at earliest opportunity to resolve and was told "we didn't do it" before I suggested you had and then was told its just wear and tear and paid the bill. The car is 4 years old with only 25000 miles on clock with little use of the rear doors anyway. To be told its wear and tear is either rubbish (never had anything like that on much older cars in over 30 years) or reflection of quality of car sold (?) But the customer service was terrible. I made a complaint in the garage but it was just fobbed off as I say - by usual of it wasnt us and wear/tear. Made to feel not valued, stupid and frankly taken for granted. Felt like it had been conned - car ok then some wear item needs doing in place it would be almost illogical to happen. No one came to talk to me, no one asked mechanic or cleaner of car (how do you miss so.ething like that hanging down when you open the door?) So I am left inconvenienced. At moment lookers ford is last place id go for service or another new car (and all for a bit of care and £100 or so) on what is marginal at best a wear item given age and mileage (ignoring fact door is hardly used anyway). Just felt rubbish.