Good morning,I have forwarded this on to the sales team to deal with, we are all in aftersales and have had no dealings with this client.Many Thanks,Vito.Vito Lepore Aftersales ManagerLookers Land Rover Bishop's StortfordT: 01279 606 497E: VitoLepore@lookers.co.ukjaguar.co.uk | lookers.co.uk/jaguarlandrover.co.uk | lookers.co.uk/land-roverREG OFFICE: Stortford Hall Industrial Park, Dunmow Road | Bishop Stortford | CM23 5GZCONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message including attachments, is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed & may contain confidential information. Any unauthorised review;use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.-----Original Message-----From: Customer FeedbackSent: 18 November 2025 06:43To: Brian Hayes; Fouzi Benlounes; Vito Lepore; Harrison TrocardSubject: complaint chaser - FW: Automatic reply: Disgraceful customer service! LB20 FSO Range Rover EvoqueMorningPlease see customers complaint below. Have also attached customers previous emails.Can this be looked into and the customer contacted.Regards-----Original Message-----From: Will MallonSent: 17 November 2025 16:34To: Customer FeedbackSubject: Re: Automatic reply: Disgraceful customer service! LB20 FSO Range Rover EvoqueExternal Sender: Confirm legitimacy before acting.Dear Sirs.I am absolutely appalled that you STILL have failed to acknowledge my customer complaint!It is now approaching a month since I received an automated reply to my email, I find it flabbergasting that I have owned this car for nearly two years and made your garage fully aware that I was NOT happy within a few months of taking delivery of the vehicle!Please can you pay me some courtesy and respond by return.Thank you.Will Mallon.

I am writing to raise a formal complaint regarding the appalling experience I have had with Lookers Land Rover Bishop Stortford — from the initial finance process through to the eventual delivery of my vehicle, and now even beyond that. What should have been an exciting and premium purchase has instead been marked by continual miscommunication, disorganisation, and a complete lack of professionalism at every stage.1. Poor Communication, Delays, and Administrative ErrorsFrom the outset, communication was unacceptable. We were urged to complete the finance on 30th September, which we did promptly, yet the deal was not completed until 10th October.Funds were transferred on 3rd October, and remittance was sent by my finance broker the same day. Despite this, on 10th October the dealership was still claiming not to have received the funds. This was later identified as an administrative error on your end, as the payment was quickly located once my broker followed up directly.This delay — combined with the dealership’s failure to send the unit docking form in time (despite being repeatedly chased by email) — demonstrates a concerning lack of internal coordination and professionalism.2. Unanswered Queries and Unhelpful ResponsesThroughout the process, both email and telephone responses were consistently inadequate. Basic questions went unanswered, and at no point did I feel that anyone was taking ownership or attempting to resolve the issues I raised.3. Failed Vehicle Collection ExperienceWhen we arrived to collect the vehicle on 11th October from Lookers Land Rover Bishop Stortford, having driven two hours, we were informed that the DVLA site was down and the car could not be taxed. We were then sent to a post office with Andreas, only to discover that the branch did not provide that service.When the vehicle was eventually taxed — after my partner suggested Andreas try the DVLA site again — we then discovered that the battery was completely flat, and the vehicle could not be driven away. This meant that our four-hour round trip had been entirely wasted, despite assurances from David on 10th October that he would ensure a “seamless experience” following the earlier issues.Additionally, after paying £1,899 for a three-year extended warranty on 11th October, we had to chase Andreas twice before receiving any confirmation or documentation. This added yet another layer of frustration to what was already an incredibly poor experience.4. Failure to Meet Approved StandardsIt was evident that the Land Rover Approved Used 165-point check had not been properly completed. One of the primary checks listed includes “Mechanical and electrical: A comprehensive check of all systems, including engine, transmission, brakes, and electrical components.” Given the state of the battery and the general condition on collection, it is clear that this inspection did not take place as claimed.5. Inconsistent Information and Inappropriate CommunicationOn 11th October, after driving over two hours to collect the vehicle and being unable to do so, we were reassured that the car would be delivered to us on Monday 13th October. However, by mid-morning on the 13th, I had heard nothing from Andreas. When I called to chase, I spoke with Omar, who informed me that the vehicle was in a queue to be looked at and that Mo would later contact me to discuss compensation.The following day, however, Andrea provided completely different information, stating that the vehicle should arrive by Thursday and that no compensation would be offered because “getting the vehicle to you is costing us money.” This comment was wholly inappropriate and unprofessional. His repeated claim that he “only deals in solutions, not problems” was particularly concerning given the consistent lack of resolution.6. Unacceptable Delivery ExperienceWhen the vehicle was finally delivered — on 18th October — it had been driven over 90 miles to reach me, something never disclosed or agreed upon. Furthermore, the £50 fuel payment made the previous week was used for this journey without my consent.To make matters worse, the delivery driver, visibly frustrated and unfamiliar with the area, asked me for a lift to Eastbourne (nearly 20 miles away). Out of courtesy, I drove him four miles to Uckfield so that he could reach public transport — something no customer should ever have been put in a position to do.7. Dart Charge Penalty — Yet Another Avoidable IssueWhen dropping off the vehicle, I specifically asked the delivery driver whether the Dart Charge had been paid. He confirmed that it had. However, last week I received a penalty notice stating that the Dart Charge had not been paid. This is simply unacceptable and yet another example of misinformation, poor communication, and a lack of basic customer care. This entire experience has been one issue after another, each compounding the last.8. Overall ExperienceFrom start to finish, this experience has been utterly unacceptable and far below the standards expected from a premium brand such as Land Rover. The persistent lack of communication, accountability, accuracy, and care displayed throughout my dealings with Lookers Land Rover Bishop Stortford has left me extremely disappointed and frustrated.I would like a formal apology and a clear explanation of:How such a series of failures were allowed to occur.What steps Lookers Land Rover Bishop Stortford will take to ensure this does not happen to other customers.What compensation will be offered in recognition of the inconvenience, wasted time, financial impact, and poor service I have received.I look forward to your prompt response within 14 days, in line with Lookers’ complaint handling policy.

Good morning,We have received a new Satisfactory Quality Dispute complaint from Mr Stephen Burns, Registration No. BU57NSSPlease provide a comprehensive response to this complaint, even if you believe this is now resolved, including supporting correspondence and evidence within the next 10 working days.Important: You are required to support customer complaints around the quality of goods provided as provisioned within the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and under the terms and conditions of the agreement with Black Horse Ltd, to support an appropriate solution.If we do not receive a response or sufficient information from you within 10 working days, we will decision the complaint based on the information we hold and may seek redress from you for any reasonable costs incurred.Vehicle/Finance InformationInception date: 05 June 2025Date of complaint: 12 November 2025Goods details: Land Rover Range Rover VelarRegistration number: BU57NSS Original: KT23RSVNew/Used: UsedMileage at POS/POI: 17979Current mileage: 20986Agreement number: 578707301 Price of goods (at sale): £39598.00Advance amount: £36598.00Deposit amount: £3000.00Term: 49 months.PCP/HP: PCPPCP mileage: 42479Dealer name: Charles Hurst LTDDealer number: 57825410The following information outlines what the customer has told us and may not be the opinion of Land Rover Financial Services.Complaint Detail Customer’s Preferred Resolution• June (Approx. 6 months ago) – Customer purchased the car.• 13th August – Car was in for what customer assumed was a new filter replacement; later discovered by engineer that the filter was only cleaned.• 15th August – Customer informed by engineer that filter was not replaced.• 22nd October – Scheduled appointment for filter replacement.• 21st October – Customer received a call stating the part was unavailable; promised resolution in a few days.• Since October – Customer has been ringing every other day, repeatedly fobbed off, with no resolution. The filter replaced.The engine management light turned off. They feel this is reasonable as the car is under warranty and should be a simple fix.We require the following information from you, where applicable1. Evidence/confirmation of any pre-sale vehicle checks that were completed.2. Please provide a copy of the vehicle advert3. Was there any negative equity included in the finance amount? Please also provide a copy of your sales invoice.4. Was there any external contribution towards the deposit e.g., manufacturer contribution / government contribution / scheme/ allowance?5. What was specifically discussed at point of sale regarding the mis-sale/mis-rep allegation, if applicable6. A full timeline of events from POS until now of when vehicle has been seen, outlining reasons why, what work was carried out, when and why and to include discussions/conversations had with the customer, cause of any issues/concerns raised i.e. wear & tear, lack of maintenance etc.7. Evidence/confirmation of any diagnostics/repairs completed, this to include specific dates, mileages, specifically what was carried out and why?8. Confirmation of service history9. Are you aware of any modifications made to the vehicle either before, during or after the sales process? These will include any enhancements to the vehicle’s engine (remapping), the fitting of a Ghost Immobiliser or any accessories put on the goods. If you are aware of any of these, could you please give us more detail of how these were added i.e. were they included within the Finance Agreement?10. Any other comments/evidence you feel are relevant.11. What will you do to resolve the complaint?We look forward to your response within the next 10 working days. Please respond to this email attaching all relevant evidence.

Good evening Jade,Thanks for your email.Please see my responses in red following your comments below.RegardsSimon de la Nougerede________________________________________From: Jade KelseySent: Wednesday, November 05, 2025, 16:04To: sdn944.sd@googlemail.comCc: Zeeshan AliSubject: Re: Fw: Subject: New issue SDN 944 - Engine exhaust smell and whining noiseGood afternoon Mr Dela-Nougerede,Thank you for your email and for taking the time to outline your concerns regarding the recent MOT and associated works on your vehicle.Having reviewed your correspondence and the earlier email sent to Zeeshan on 17th October, I would like to clarify a few key points. In your message dated 17th October, you confirmed that we were to carry out an MOT while the vehicle was with us. While you did ask that other works be priced and approved beforehand, the MOT itself was authorised as part of your instructions.Before any work was carried out by Lookers, I had specifically requested a quotation or cost for the MOT, as stated in my earlier email dated 17th October. I did not receive any cost information for the MOT which was carried out without my authorisation until your email this evening. I would like to emphasise that I did not provide authorisation for any work to be undertaken at that stage.Regardless of when the MOT was carried out, please note that the vehicle would still have failed on the same items — specifically, the two tyres identified with cuts to cords. The MOT failure was not related to emissions or any of the other issues your vehicle was initially booked in for.Time line as outlined below, there appear to have been several procedural and communication failings surrounding the health check and subsequent MOT.On Monday, 27th October, I dropped off my vehicle at Lookers as arranged and was waiting for a vehicle health check to be sent to me, as I understood that no work would be undertaken without prior authorisation following this inspection.However, I did not receive the health check report until 08:15 on Tuesday, 28th October. This report, which outlines any recommended works, did not mention anything about an MOT.After reviewing the report carefully, I did not approve any work and requested a call back, as stated in my email to Caterina. Having received no response, I called your branch at 12:24, and your receptionist informed me that Caterina was at lunch and would call me back upon her return.I eventually received a call back from Caterina at 16:40 on 28th October. During this discussion, Caterina confirmed that no works had yet been authorised. But however, I was surprised to learn at this point that an MOT had already been carried out on 27th October the day before our discussion and without my consent.From my original email communication and based on the events described above, there are three key failings I wish to highlight:1. No health check was completed or shared prior to 'any' works being undertaken.2. No prior notification or approval was given regarding the cost of the MOT, contrary to my email dated 17th October.3. No works, including the MOT, were authorised by me at any stage.Under The Consumer Rights Act 2015, performing unauthorised work on a customer’s vehicle constitutes a breach of contract and may also be considered an unfair or misleading commercial practice.I therefore request a full explanation of how this situation occurred and what corrective actions Lookers intends to take to resolve this matter.It is also important to clarify that, in line with DVSA regulations, we are not permitted to carry out any form of pre-inspection or “pre-MOT check” prior to conducting an MOT test. Doing so would be a breach of DVSA guidelines and could risk the loss of our MOT testing licence. Please note that your earlier correspondence does not request a pre-MOT inspection, and had it done so, we would have explained these regulatory constraints at that time.I did not request a pre-MOT check, so this information is not relevant. However, as the vehicle health check forms part of your standard protocol, I would have expected this to identify any necessary work prior to any taking place. This check should outline any recommended repairs or maintenance, not just those related to the MOT.My main concern is that I wanted to know the cost of the MOT, but I only received the pricing details in your email this evening.The MOT test has therefore been carried out correctly and in accordance with all DVSA requirements. The MOT fee of £54.85 including VAT remains applicable, and we would not be able to replace your tyres free of charge.Let’s clarify this carefully.Obtaining (or requesting) a price for work after it has been carried out can breach the Consumer Rights Act 2015.The core rule under the Consumer Rights Act 2015Under the Act, consumers must be given clear information about the price before entering into a contract for services.• Section 50 requires that any information the trader gives the consumer about pricing (or how prices are worked out) becomes binding once the contract is made.This will be our final position on the matter. Should you remain dissatisfied with this outcome, you are entitled to seek independent advice or raise the matter with The Motor Ombudsman.My final position on this matter remains that the service I have received has been unprofessional, misleading, and deceptive. I am formally requesting the transcripts or recordings of all phone conversations held with Caterina, Zeeshan, and the receptionist. These records will confirm that I did not authorise any work to be carried out and that I was seeking clarification as to how my vehicle underwent an MOT without my consent.I would also like to highlight that there was no formal handover process when I dropped off my vehicle. As with my previous visits to your branch, a visual walk-around inspection should have been completed at the time of handover. I trust that no damage has occurred to my vehicle while it has been in your care, and I expect confirmation of this.Finally, I would like to remind you that the insurance for the courtesy vehicle currently in your possession will expire at 5:00 PM this Friday. If you wish to continue pursuing this dispute, the courtesy vehicle will need to be returned, and your own vehicle collected, while the matter is under review.I regard your final comment as a threat and unacceptable conduct. I will be contacting The Motor Ombudsman to lodge a formal complaint about this matter. I also intend to collect my vehicle without paying for any works that were carried out without my express, written authorisation. If I discover the authorisation has been falsified I will take legal advice and will hold any individual personally accountable for their failings.Final note:I would like to formally express my dissatisfaction with the service I received from Lookers, particularly at the Bishops Stortford branch. The conduct I experienced over the past couple of years has been completely unacceptable, and as a result, I will not be using Lookers again for any purchases whether a new vehicle or any other services performed on my vehicle.Furthermore, I intend to share my experience through media reviews specifically addressing the Bishops Stortford branch, to inform others about the level of service they can expect. I am compelled to speak out because, contrary to any impression that my case may be isolated, the standard of service I received was extremely poor and should be brought to public attention.Kind regards,Jade

Cust had the car booked in for today and should have been a waiting appointment for an MOT and service. They have declined the cust the appointment and have had to rebook the appoint and the cust has no MOT now. The vehicle was booked in for 10am but unfortunately the booking office had not put this on the appointment.

Good MorningI’m writing to raise a complaint regarding the poor level of service I’ve received following the purchase of my used vehicle from Lookers Land Rover.I placed a deposit on 3rd October 2025 and was told the vehicle would be ready within 72 hours. This was ideal for me, but when I followed up on Monday 6th October, I was informed there were some issues and that the vehicle wouldn’t be ready due to a part delay caused by the cyberattack. While disappointing, I understood the situation, I had to keep chasing & was finally advised, the car would be ready on 17th October.After travelling over 200 miles that day, I arrived to be told the vehicle was still being cleaned. On inspection, I noticed several scratches and bubbling laminate on the front grill. When I raised this, I was told that, as it was a used vehicle, such imperfections were to be expected. While I don’t expect a perfect car, I felt the condition was below the standard I anticipated.During handover, I asked about the electric seats, which were not functioning. I was told the vehicle might need to stay for further inspection or be returned later, but after some insistence, the issue was found to be related to the headrest position and was resolved. I also appreciated that Dee kindly added £50 of fuel.However, over the weekend (19th–20th October), it rained heavily, and I discovered a pool of water in the passenger footwell. The electric seats also began working intermittently. I emailed Dee on Monday 20th October, reporting these issues and asking for guidance on whether I should take the car to a local dealership. I received no response.I sent a follow-up email on Tuesday 21st October, after which Dee called to say he would find out what to do and get back to me — but I never heard back. On Thursday 23rd October, I emailed again, mentioning a new knocking sound from the front offside wheel when turning around roundabouts. Dee called later that day, saying he’d find out as a matter of urgency and call me back. Again, no response followed.I emailed again on Friday 24th October, still without reply, and decided that afternoon to contact my local Land Rover dealership to book the vehicle in for inspection. I informed Dee of this by email and requested details of any work carried out prior to the sale, as nothing appears on the online service record. On Saturday 25th October, Dee called to say I shouldn’t take it elsewhere as the warranty might not cover it and that your team would arrange collection and repair. That was the last communication I received.I sent further follow-up emails on Monday 27th and Tuesday 28th October to check progress and confirm that I had transferred the registration to my personal plate — again with no response.This entire experience has been extremely disappointing. I fully understand that issues can arise, particularly with used vehicles, but the repeated lack of communication and failure to follow up is unacceptable. It has left me feeling let down and uncertain about the reliability of both the vehicle and the service provided.I am therefore requesting a full written response to this complaint, including Confirmation of what work, if any, was completed on the vehicle before sale, as nothing is logged on the online history as I thought it would be.I would appreciate a response so we can resolve this matter promptly.Regards

Good MorningI’m writing to raise complaint regarding the poor level of service I’ve received following the purchase of my used vehicle from Lookers Land Rover.I placed a deposit on 3rd October 2025 and was told the vehicle would be ready within 72 hours. This was ideal for me, but when I followed up on Monday 6th October, I was informed there were some issues and that the vehicle wouldn’t be ready due to a part delay caused by the cyberattack. While disappointing, I understood the situation, I had to keep chasing & was finally advised, the car would be ready on 17th October.After travelling over 200 miles that day, I arrived to be told the vehicle was still being cleaned. On inspection, I noticed several scratches and bubbling laminate on the front grill. When I raised this, I was told that, as it was a used vehicle, such imperfections were to be expected. While I don’t expect a perfect car, I felt the condition was below the standard I anticipated.During handover, I asked about the electric seats, which were not functioning. I was told the vehicle might need to stay for further inspection or be returned later, but after some insistence, the issue was found to be related to the headrest position and was resolved. I also appreciated that Dee kindly added £50 of fuel.However, over the weekend (19th–20th October), it rained heavily, and I discovered a pool of water in the passenger footwell. The electric seats also began working intermittently. I emailed Dee on Monday 20th October, reporting these issues and asking for guidance on whether I should take the car to a local dealership. I received no response.I sent a follow-up email on Tuesday 21st October, after which Dee called to say he would find out what to do and get back to me — but I never heard back. On Thursday 23rd October, I emailed again, mentioning a new knocking sound from the front offside wheel when turning around roundabouts. Dee called later that day, saying he’d find out as a matter of urgency and call me back. Again, no response followed.I emailed again on Friday 24th October, still without reply, and decided that afternoon to contact my local Land Rover dealership to book the vehicle in for inspection. I informed Dee of this by email and requested details of any work carried out prior to the sale, as nothing appears on the online service record. On Saturday 25th October, Dee called to say I shouldn’t take it elsewhere as the warranty might not cover it and that your team would arrange collection and repair. That was the last communication I received.I sent further follow-up emails on Monday 27th and Tuesday 28th October to check progress and confirm that I had transferred the registration to my personal plate — again with no response.This entire experience has been extremely disappointing. I fully understand that issues can arise, particularly with used vehicles, but the repeated lack of communication and failure to follow up is unacceptable. It has left me feeling let down and uncertain about the reliability of both the vehicle and the service provided.I am therefore requesting a full written response to this complaint, including Confirmation of what work, if any, was completed on the vehicle before sale, as nothing is logged on the online history as I thought it would be.I would appreciate a response, so we can resolve this matter promptly.

I am writing to make a formal complaint regarding the ongoing and serious issues I have experienced with my Range Rover Vogue (BG24 WXB), purchased through my company car allowance in May 2024. I am extremely disappointed by both the vehicle’s lack of reliability and the manner in which Land Rover has handled the situation, which has resulted in considerable financial loss and personal inconvenience.Shortly after taking delivery of the vehicle, I began encountering intermittent electrical faults. When I contacted Land Rover, I was advised that these were likely due to the car being new and that the issues would resolve themselves, which they did temporarily.However, the vehicle continued to suffer from recurring problems, including repeatedly cutting out and entering "limp mode,". This culminated in a complete breakdown on the M11 motorway, requiring the car to be recovered and taken to your Bishop’s Stortford service centre on 15th May 2025. The vehicle remained in the workshop until 18th August 2025, over three months in total due to issues with the EPIC B module. If I am honest, I still to this day do not know what the issue was or how it was resolved.During this period, I was provided with a courtesy vehicle (KP24 OKG – Velar), which was of a higher specification than my own. As I had the courtesy car for more than 30 days, my payroll department was legally required to notify HMRC, triggering a significant change in my company car tax liability. As a result, I have paid over 50% more in tax for the month of September. This increased rate will continue until April 2026, as HMRC calculates benefit in kind tax annually. This ongoing financial burden is entirely due to the extended delay in repairing my vehicle, an issue completely outside my control.To make matters worse, a minor scratch occurred on the courtesy vehicle during this period, and I was charged £500 upon its return. This cost would not have arisen had I been driving my own vehicle, as it would have been covered under my existing insurance policy. See attached check in report detailing the damage.Adding to the frustration, I recently received yet another recall notice (refer to email dated 9th September), requiring me to return the vehicle again for further work. I shared the full extent of my experience and concerns with your service advisor at Bishop’s Stortford, only to be handed an umbrella as a gesture of apology. Given the substantial financial and emotional toll this situation has taken, I found this response both inadequate and inappropriate.To summarise, since purchasing the vehicle, I have:• Experienced a serious electrical fault that left me stranded• Been without my vehicle for over three months• Incurred a significant and ongoing tax liability due to prolonged courtesy car use• Paid £500 for damage to a courtesy vehicle I did not request to use long-term• Received a further recall notice for additional faults• Received no meaningful apology, goodwill gesture, or compensationI am therefore requesting appropriate financial compensation for:• The increased benefit-in-kind tax caused by the courtesy vehicle• The £500 charge for damage to a vehicle I was required to use• The substantial inconvenience, stress, and disruption caused by ongoing vehicle faults and excessive repair timesPlease treat this letter as a formal complaint under your internal complaints procedure. I expect Land Rover to respond in writing within 14 days with a fair and satisfactory resolution.

Dear Sir/Madam,I am writing to make a formal complaint regarding the ongoing and serious issues I have experienced with my Range Rover Vogue (BG24 WXB), purchased through my company car allowance in May 2024. I am extremely disappointed by both the vehicle’s lack of reliability and the manner in which Land Rover has handled the situation, which has resulted in considerable financial loss and personal inconvenience.Shortly after taking delivery of the vehicle, I began encountering intermittent electrical faults. When I contacted Land Rover, I was advised that these were likely due to the car being new and that the issues would resolve themselves, which they did temporarily.However, the vehicle continued to suffer from recurring problems, including repeatedly cutting out and entering "limp mode,". This culminated in a complete breakdown on the M11 motorway, requiring the car to be recovered and taken to your Bishop’s Stortford service centre on 15th May 2025. The vehicle remained in the workshop until 18th August 2025, over three months in total due to issues with the EPIC B module. If I am honest, I still to this day do not know what the issue was or how it was resolved.During this period, I was provided with a courtesy vehicle (KP24 OKG – Velar), which was of a higher specification than my own. As I had the courtesy car for more than 30 days, my payroll department was legally required to notify HMRC, triggering a significant change in my company car tax liability. As a result, I have paid over 50% more in tax for the month of September. This increased rate will continue until April 2026, as HMRC calculates benefit in kind tax annually. This ongoing financial burden is entirely due to the extended delay in repairing my vehicle, an issue completely outside my control.To make matters worse, a minor scratch occurred on the courtesy vehicle during this period, and I was charged £500 upon its return. This cost would not have arisen had I been driving my own vehicle, as it would have been covered under my existing insurance policy. See attached check in report detailing the damage.Adding to the frustration, I recently received yet another recall notice (refer to email dated 9th September), requiring me to return the vehicle again for further work. I shared the full extent of my experience and concerns with your service advisor at Bishop’s Stortford, only to be handed an umbrella as a gesture of apology. Given the substantial financial and emotional toll this situation has taken, I found this response both inadequate and inappropriate.To summarise, since purchasing the vehicle, I have:• Experienced a serious electrical fault that left me stranded• Been without my vehicle for over three months• Incurred a significant and ongoing tax liability due to prolonged courtesy car use• Paid £500 for damage to a courtesy vehicle I did not request to use long-term• Received a further recall notice for additional faults• Received no meaningful apology, goodwill gesture, or compensationI am therefore requesting appropriate financial compensation for:• The increased benefit-in-kind tax caused by the courtesy vehicle• The £500 charge for damage to a vehicle I was required to use• The substantial inconvenience, stress, and disruption caused by ongoing vehicle faults and excessive repair timesPlease treat this letter as a formal complaint under your internal complaints procedure. I expect Land Rover to respond in writing within 14 days with a fair and satisfactory resolution.Yours sincerely,Kind regardsEmma ClearyProject Manager

Good AfternoonAny update on my complaint below.I am not seeking further responses from the branch, as they have already offered what they consider an appropriate form of compensation—an umbrella.I am requesting that this matter be escalated beyond the branch for further resolution.Kind regardsEmma ClearyProject Manager07710 672111OCTAVIUS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.STOP Think! Thinking differently, making better decisions and changing livesFrom: Customer FeedbackSent: 10 October 2025 16:52To: Emma ClearySubject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Formal Complaint – Range Rover Vogue (Registration: BG24 WXB)***ATTENTION*** This message originated from outside of Octavius Infrastructure. Treat hyperlinks and attachments in this email with caution.________________________________________This Message originated outside your organization.________________________________________Afternoon,I will get this escalated and updated from branchThank youFrom: Emma ClearySent: 10 October 2025 16:21To: Vehicle ComplaintsSubject: RE: Formal Complaint – Range Rover Vogue (Registration: BG24 WXB)External Sender: Confirm legitimacy before acting.Good Afternoon,Can I please have an update on my complaint below?Kind regardsEmma ClearyProject Manager07710 672111OCTAVIUS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.STOP Think! Thinking differently, making better decisions and changing livesFrom: Emma ClearySent: 01 October 2025 16:02To: 'VehicleComplaints@lookers.co.uk'Subject: Formal Complaint – Range Rover Vogue (Registration: BG24 WXB)Dear Sir/Madam,I am writing to make a formal complaint regarding the ongoing and serious issues I have experienced with my Range Rover Vogue (BG24 WXB), purchased through my company car allowance in May 2024. I am extremely disappointed by both the vehicle’s lack of reliability and the manner in which Land Rover has handled the situation, which has resulted in considerable financial loss and personal inconvenience.Shortly after taking delivery of the vehicle, I began encountering intermittent electrical faults. When I contacted Land Rover, I was advised that these were likely due to the car being new and that the issues would resolve themselves, which they did temporarily.However, the vehicle continued to suffer from recurring problems, including repeatedly cutting out and entering "limp mode,". This culminated in a complete breakdown on the M11 motorway, requiring the car to be recovered and taken to your Bishop’s Stortford service centre on 15th May 2025. The vehicle remained in the workshop until 18th August 2025, over three months in total due to issues with the EPIC B module. If I am honest, I still to this day do not know what the issue was or how it was resolved.During this period, I was provided with a courtesy vehicle (KP24 OKG – Velar), which was of a higher specification than my own. As I had the courtesy car for more than 30 days, my payroll department was legally required to notify HMRC, triggering a significant change in my company car tax liability. As a result, I have paid over 50% more in tax for the month of September. This increased rate will continue until April 2026, as HMRC calculates benefit in kind tax annually. This ongoing financial burden is entirely due to the extended delay in repairing my vehicle, an issue completely outside my control.To make matters worse, a minor scratch occurred on the courtesy vehicle during this period, and I was charged £500 upon its return. This cost would not have arisen had I been driving my own vehicle, as it would have been covered under my existing insurance policy. See attached check in report detailing the damage.Adding to the frustration, I recently received yet another recall notice (refer to email dated 9th September), requiring me to return the vehicle again for further work. I shared the full extent of my experience and concerns with your service advisor at Bishop’s Stortford, only to be handed an umbrella as a gesture of apology. Given the substantial financial and emotional toll this situation has taken, I found this response both inadequate and inappropriate.To summarise, since purchasing the vehicle, I have:• Experienced a serious electrical fault that left me stranded• Been without my vehicle for over three months• Incurred a significant and ongoing tax liability due to prolonged courtesy car use• Paid £500 for damage to a courtesy vehicle I did not request to use long-term• Received a further recall notice for additional faults• Received no meaningful apology, goodwill gesture, or compensationI am therefore requesting appropriate financial compensation for:• The increased benefit-in-kind tax caused by the courtesy vehicle• The £500 charge for damage to a vehicle I was required to use• The substantial inconvenience, stress, and disruption caused by ongoing vehicle faults and excessive repair timesPlease treat this letter as a formal complaint under your internal complaints procedure. I expect Land Rover to respond in writing within 14 days with a fair and satisfactory resolution.Yours sincerely,Kind regardsEmma Cleary