Motorhome SP22APV that had a problem with the air pipe dislodging on the way home from major service. I have not used the vehicle since I managed to reattach the hose and get home and I would like to return to Middlesbrough and have the fitter double check or refit the hose. Could I please call in on 29th, 30th or 31st July if possible?Kind regardsGeoff Hunter

I have got my last 4 or 5 cars from lookers

Vehicle air hose disconnected causing vehicle to stop at busy traffic lights, I managed to move the vehicle to the side of the road and phoned the service receptionist who asked if I could drive from Durham to Middlesbrough which I tried but vehicle stalled each time it was put in gear. I lifted my bonnet and noticed the big air hose had become detached so contacted service dept and asked if I should try and fix it myself, whilst fixing it got oil on my expensive polo shirt which needed to be put in the bin. My concern is that a 4 hour service only took 2.5 hours and I’m concerned that the hose checks might not have been carried out. On a positive note the oil after the oil change was very very clean and the service reception area and staff were very nice.

Ok experience, employee was 20 mins late to appointment but was helpfull and seems quite busy

Liam Harris was extremely professional in how he dealt with my enquiry and came back with a quotation within the time frame he had set. I would have liked a little more choice of what was available but that was not a real problem.

Good afternoon we recently purchased a ford mini bus. Your salesman Liam went above and beyond from the first time we spoke. We love our new bus the kids from ormesby boxing academy. Will be able to get out and about in style all over the country. So a big thanks to Liam for everything he done for us 10 out of 10 mark west secretary of ormesby boxing academy.

Overall service from start to finish

I have already made a complaint and I have had no response

I have sent this information directly to David Horsley in Sales who sold me the vehicle but would like the information to be on record as a formal complaint also.I’ve had a number of problems with the Ford Ranger I purchased from Lookers Middlesbrough (MD73CPK) since collecting it on the 21st March 2026.The driver door has clicked and clunked from the beginning, which was raised as an issue within days of owning the vehicle. I was advised this would be looked at when the vehicle was brought in for the roller shutter fitting the following week. However, the matter was not solved at that visit and I was advised to have the vehicle assessed under warranty at Lookers Gateshead closer to home.Over the past 2weeks the brakes have started to make high pitched noises when being used, especially when bringing the vehicle to a stop. I have the car booked in with Lookers Gateshead tomorrow to look into this and was just going to get it sorted hopefully under warranty.However, I’m contacting you today as an engine light has just come on with the warning ‘Exhaust Filter over limit - service now’Which suggests a possible issue with the DPF filter which I had raised a query/concern during the test drive due to the low mileage on the vehicle suggesting previous history of frequent, short trips. I don’t know if this is something that will have a quick fix or if it will need to be replaced. If the latter I’ve read this can be costly - if not covered under warranty.I haven’t been in possession of the vehicle for 30 days yet and I’d like to explore what options I have to return it on the basis of all of these faults. Either that or request that Lookers rectify all of these issues as quickly as possible.

From: J MDate: 9 March 2026 at 07:58:04 GMTTo: Enquiries Darlington CtyCc: Andrea Clayton, davidgordge@lookers.co.uk, Chloe Heathcock, AndrewWood2@lookers.co.ukSubject: Amended particulars of claim. 688MC319:Particulars of Claim1. The Claimant is the owner of a Ford van registration number M121 MLN2. The Defendant is Lookers Moror Group, a motor vehicle dealership and repairer providing vehicle servicing and repair services to consumers.3. On or around 18th march the Claimant presented the vehicle to the Defendant due to a knocking noise from vehicle (suspected gearbox)4. The Defendant diagnosed the fault as a bent or kinked middle section of the exhaust system and informed the Claimant that replacement parts would be required. (Claimant NOT convinced)5. The Claimant waited several weeks while the Defendant attempted to source the required parts. The Defendant subsequently informed the Claimant that the parts had arrived and that repairs had been completed.6. Upon collecting the vehicle, the Claimant discovered that the middle section of the exhaust, which the Defendant had previously identified as bent, had not been replaced.7. The Claimant was informed that replacement of the middle section was not necessary. However, the original knocking noise remained.8. The Claimant returned the vehicle to the Defendant for further investigation and spoke with the mechanic who carried out the work. The mechanic confirmed that the middle section had not been replaced because the Defendant had been unable to determine the correct part number. (Ford transit van and Ford main dealer couldn’t find part number?)9. The Claimant subsequently located the correct part number within approximately 10 minutes, despite the Defendant having been unable to identify it over a period of several weeks.10. The Defendant then agreed to order and install the correct middle section. However, by this stage the Defendant had already installed other exhaust components, including a catalytic converter and tailpipe sections, onto the previously identified bent or kinked middle section.11. The Defendant had acknowledged in written correspondence that the middle section was kinked, yet proceeded to install further components onto that defective section.12. When the middle section was eventually replaced, the exhaust system became twisted and misaligned as a direct consequence of the Defendant’s earlier work.13. The Claimant raised the issue with the Defendant including its management. Despite being aware of the circumstances, the Defendant refused to rectify the damage caused.14. As a result, the Claimant was forced to take the vehicle to the supplying Ford dealership in Reading in order to rectify the damage caused by the Defendant’s work. This was to mitigate the claimant’s losses as Reading Ford agreed to do all works at cost, saving 40% on parts and labour at £50 per hour instead of £160. The supplying dealership also did NOT agree it was ever the exhaust (all in writing via email)14. . The vehicle required a full new exhaust system due to being twisted and further remedial work including replacement of gearbox oil and driveshafts to try and rectify the knocking which was NOT being caused by the exhaust15. The total cost incurred by the Claimant for these repairs was £4,507.18.16. The Claimant also incurred additional losses including approximately 10 hours of travel and two overnight stays required to deliver and collect the vehicle for repair resulting in the claimant losing x3 days at work.17. The Claimant attempted to resolve the matter directly with the Defendant and through the Defendant’s central complaints procedure. Despite following the Defendant’s stated complaints process allowing 14 days for response, the Claimant received no substantive response.18. The Defendant failed to carry out the repair service with reasonable care and skill.19. The Defendant is therefore in breach of section 49 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which requires services to be performed with reasonable care and skill a within a timely manner.20. As a direct result of the Defendant’s breach, the Claimant has suffered financial loss and has had huge affects on his mental health, Claimant is diagnosed with adhd and suffers debilitating anxiety when out of routine and tried to take his own life due to this vehicle due to the affects it was having on him, his family, business and overall quality of life.21. Gearbox failed a few weeks after return from Reading, the gearbox the claimant insisted was at fault from the very start- x2 gearboxes installed at Hartlepool ford, both failed, battery also fitted even tho lookers (paid for my claimant) as lookers said the battery was good even tho the claimant had to jump start the top of line van each cold morning. (Cost of £455 to claimant as battery out of warranty)22. Lookers motor group misdiagnosed, caused further damage and made no effort at all to rectify, vehicle was eventually bought back from Ford Motor GroupAND the Claimant claims:1. Damages in the sum of £4,507.18 being the cost of remedial repairs.2. Additional reasonable expenses including travel and accommodation incurred as a result of the Defendant’s breach.3. Court fees.4. Interest of 28% due to claimant paying on Barclaycard and that’s the interest (defendent knew this was the only way I could pay)Thank youJohn(Sent from my iPhone 17 Pro Max)This email may be confidential and is intended solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify us and delete it from your system and to avoid incurring legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information