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

Vehicle Registration - NX24 LTVGood morning, Just want to share my experience with yourselves regarding my my most recent visit, Not sure where to start to be honest, Having issues with my van on a regular basis i visited Ford Lookers to book an appointment to have these looked at, I was asked if I needed a replacement van and I declined so I was given a prompt appointment, Dropped the van off on Thursday 5th February at 8.30, Got a call to say it needed parts which will have to be ordered and asked if I would like to pick up the van until the parts where delivered then bring it back to lookers, I said keep the van and get it repaired and then I’d pick it up once repaired to save me running around back and forth wasting my time, I then received a call on Friday the 6th February saying the parts where ordered and just waiting on delivery but at no point was I told this may be a few days before we receive them ? Then was asked if I required a replacement van to use over the weekend and it could be dropped off at my home address which I said that would be great if possible, After been contacted by ford Rental to give my details etc I then received a call from Enterprise who said a van would be dropped off late afternoon which was great but then received a call back from them at 6.10 pm to say the couldn’t get one dropped off as they had no one available to drop it off, Said they would try again Saturday morning but again no van ? After the weekend having no transport I rang lookers to get an update on my repair to be told we don’t get any deliveries on a Monday ? I then asked if they could get a delivery date so if it’s going to be another couple of days I’d try and get a replacement van but obviously I didn’t receive an update on when the parts were coming in ? I had to call again Tuesday to find out what was going on to be told it would be ready by lunch time Wednesday the 11th February, Having not had my van for nearly 7 days which it’s my only form of transport for my business, this has impacted my ability to work, The lack of communication from Lookers regarding the repair timetable has been terrible, I asked to speak with the manager who unfortunately wasn’t available, I then asked 2 ladies from service team to ask the manager to ring me, Still no call back to this date, The on going problems with my van is worrying, The time I’ve spent running back and forth to have the repairs is costly and the lack of communication and care is not acceptable, I was told in December after I had problems with my windscreen washers as they weren’t working that I had probably blocked the filters in the tank as I had been putting windscreen wash in it ?? Told I would have to pay to have lookers look at it and could do it myself I drove away but then to be told last week when In for its repairs it needed 2 new jets is worrying, Driving around for 3 months without washers working was unnecessary, Transmission not in park component has been replaced twice in less than 12 months is also worrying, also having to jump start my van on regular occasions before having to have the battery replaced again is concerning, These issues are not what I thought I would be having with my new 24 reg van when I bought it in March 2024 ? Look forward to hearing back from you, Regards Terry Eaton

Warranty claim flat battery. Service dept quoted new battery fitted. As voltage is still low despite charging and long drive, I checked battery. It is date stamped Dec 22 and still has the Germany production sticker on. Battery type Matlu 2812253. Told this to Lookers Review follow up call which came a few days after visit and they stated the dealer would be contacted and they would call me, this never happened.

Felt no pressure to buy

Sales staff were friendly and helpful

Because i have never had a reply!!!!

Dear Sir/MadamI am writing to formally escalate my profound concerns and extreme dissatisfaction regarding the brand-new van I purchased from your garage. The vehicle has repeatedly demonstrated fundamental issues since the day of collection, leading me to completely lose confidence in its reliability, and i consider it to be not fit for purpose.I am extremely disappointed with both the condition of the vehicle and the service I have received. As a self-employed individual, I rely entirely on this vehicle for my livelihood, and the repeated breakdowns and excessive time spent off the road have caused significant inconvenience, substantial loss of income, and wasted time.Chronology of Major Issues and Poor Service:-1. Fault on collection: The engine management light illuminated immediately upon driving the van off the forecourt. Although initially attributed to a low battery, an underlying fault later transpired.2. Limp Mode Failure: The van went into 'limp mode' while I was working in Redcar, and unable to continue with customer appointments, resulting in a loss if business. I had to drive all the way home in limp mode. I was later informed this was due to a sensor related to the DPF.3. Persistent Starting Issue: I experienced further problems with the van starting, requiring me to disconnect and reconnect the battery to get it running, causing additional downtime and inconvenience.4. Door and Alarm Faults:• The door has had a persistent issue since collection, sounding as though it is going to snap when opened or closed.• The van alarm has been going off at random times, including during the early hours.5. Failed Repair Attempts and Delays:• Despite reporting the alarm issue, the garage was unable to book the vehicle in promptly. When seen, the battery was replaced but the problem continued.• I was subsequently informed the van required a software update which could not be completed, and later, that the ECU needed replacing.• I was led to believe the repair would be quick, but the van has now been with you for over two weeks with no further updates.6. Inaccessibility of Tools: Upon visiting the garage to collect tools, I found i could not access the van because the electrics has been disconnected, forcing me to borrow and buy additional tools and materials than necessary.7. Poor Communication: My phone calls for updates have consistently been met with the same response: the garage is waiting for updates from Ford, which has happened on numerous occasions.Legal Position and Required Resolution:-The repeated, serious, and fundamental faults, alongside the significant time the van has been off the road, demonstrate a clear breach of my rights under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Specifically, the van has failed to meet the statutory requirement of being of satisfactory quality and fit for purpose. Given the gravity and frequency of these faults - which have occurred from the day of purchase - and the unsatisfactory duration and outcome of the repair process, the vehicle's underlying reliability has been irreparably compromised:• A full replacement of the van with a new, fault- free equivalent model; or• Rejection of the vehicle and a full refund of the purchase price, along with reasonable compensation for the significant loss of income, wasted time, and inconvenience caused by the constant phone calls, rescheduling jobs, repeated trips and the expense of acquiring replacement tools/materials.I require your prompt written response within 14 days of the date of this email, providing a full explanation of the steps you will take to resolve these ongoing problems and the course of action you will be taking to meet my request for a replacement or a full refund. I also expect reassurance that the vehicle will be returned in full working order if a repair is attempted, and that the underlying reliability concerns will be addressed once and for all.Please treat this matter with the utmost urgency. Should a satisfactory resolution not be agreed upon. I will be left with no option but to escalate this complaint to The Motor Ombudsman and seek legal advice to recover my losses without further notice.I look forward to your prompt response.Yours faithfullyCRAIG CHAPMAN

Can't believe you would put 2 vans we viewed on your fore court in that state

Found pricing of vehicles I was interested (car and van) to be non-competitive/passive, especially px valuation (car).

Because the staff were good and fast acting as I was in between jobs but got all the info to me