I did contacted Mercedes as having trouble , just discovered the the car left front is tilting , checked the tyre pressure was ok . it sound like one of the spring snapped ?!! as driving this am most incoming light flashed their light to me .! contacted Mercedes advice me not to drive it. for they send recovering car to take it to Mercedes looker , been told on the phone that they will not provide curtsy car ,but the recovery will provide one , and they do not have car for me as all been booked.which is really not helpful from Mercedes .the recovery told me they do no curtsy car.if you can see from your records that the car ins insured and have contract for services and extended warranty all with Mercedes.

I have unfortunately had a few issues with the car over the last year (not many, but more than I'd like). In any case I have always received exceptional service from the services department (Hannah in particular) at Eastbourne. Thanks I'm sure are due to the engineers and folks behind the scene too. Cheers

My car was in for a repair at the end of March, for which it was at Mercedes twice. I received the first health check which was all good for the first visit, then took the car home and brought it back the next week for repairs. Here a second health check was done, however I did not get the results of this until 3 months later, which showed RED issues for suspension components. How this can go from green to red in a matter of 10 miles amazes me, so I spoke to the service manager Chris who said we could do another health check at the MOT in August. Issue with this is if there is an issue, its now too late to solve before the MOT, and driving round on worn suspension components will promote additional wear and tear elsewhere. I managed to book in a health check today which confirmed that there was an issue with the suspension, however it was not as severe as on the second health check. I was not given a formal quote to repair, only a verbal estimate and not given the option to book the repair in. I do not feel this is acceptable, as now I only have a matter of a couple of weeks to rectify before the MOT, or take a chance and hope it passes. If I had been informed of the issues back in March or April at the second health check then I would have had ample time to resolve them before the MOT, and would not have been driving a potentially unroadworthy car for 3 months that the dealership were aware of but had not informed me. To top it off, I specifically asked Nick when collecting the car from the repairs at the start of April if it was all ok and passed its health check to which he told me it had passed with flying colours.

PLEASE SEE ATTACHMENT FOR REQUEST TO REJECT VEHICLE.

Duncan Norris15 Melvill LaneEastbourneBN20 9EAThe Dealer PrincipalMercedes-Benz of Eastbourne (Lookers)Unit 32 Mountney Bridge Business ParkEastbourne RoadWesthamPevenseyEast SussexBN24 5NJ12th July 2026Dear Dealer Principal,FORMAL COMPLAINT – Consumer Rights Act 2015 – Request to Reject Vehicle Following Failed RepairVehicle: Mercedes-Benz A200 Sport CDI AutoRegistration: KY65 KVTDate of Purchase: 26 February 2026I am writing to raise a formal complaint regarding the above vehicle, which I purchased from Mercedes-Benz Eastbourne (Lookers) on 26 February 2026 for £12,099. At the time of purchase, the vehicle had approximately 33,053 miles.This complaint is made pursuant to the Consumer Rights Act 2015, specifically Sections 9, 23 and 24, and concerns the quality of the vehicle supplied to me.At the point of sale, I was provided with documentation signed by Lookers confirming that the vehicle was mechanically sound, roadworthy and that any mechanical faults within the scope of the supplied warranty had been corrected. I relied upon those representations when purchasing the vehicle from a franchised Mercedes-Benz dealership.Unfortunately, my ownership experience has been entirely inconsistent with those assurances.Timeline of Events26 February 2026I collected the vehicle from Mercedes-Benz Eastbourne.25 April 2026 (approximately two months after purchase)While driving to work, the ABS warning light illuminated, triggering multiple safety-related faults. The Pre-Safe system became unavailable together with power steering assistance, cruise control and other driver assistance functions.Later that day the warning lights temporarily cleared, although the engine management light remained illuminated.On my journey home, the vehicle then suffered a significant mechanical failure. An injector failed, causing excessive exhaust smoke, loud engine rattling under acceleration, engine misfiring and the return of the ABS and safety system warnings.26 April 2026I arranged recovery of KY65 KVT through the RAC. It was recovered to Lookers in Eastbourne.The vehicle was diagnosed with four fault codes relating to Cylinder 2 together with a faulty front left ABS sensor.The injector was replaced under warranty before the vehicle was returned to me.Although I appreciated the assistance at the time, this repair did not restore the vehicle to a reliable condition.9 May 2026While travelling to Bristol, the ABS warning returned together with the same safety system failures experienced previously. The engine management light also reappeared.11 May 2026A local garage attempted to diagnose the fault before my return journey home. Unfortunately, by the time the vehicle was inspected the warning lights had disappeared and no fault could be identified.5 June 2026During a journey home from Wales, the engine management light returned. Diagnostic equipment identified an insufficient Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) fault.The following morning the warning light disappeared once again.3–4 July 2026The engine management light returned while stationary in heavy traffic. The vehicle began revving unusually high when moving away and made harsh downshifts into first gear at low speed, making it extremely unpleasant to drive.I scanned the vehicle myself, which again identified an EGR-related fault.Following discussions with Matt and Hannah, I was assured that Lookers would investigate the matter. I delivered the vehicle back to Mercedes-Benz Eastbourne, where Terry advised that, although the warranty had expired, the dealership would investigate the issue.Your technicians diagnosed the vehicle as requiring a replacement intake manifold. I was initially informed that this repair could be carried out under warranty and that authorisation would be sought.I was subsequently contacted and informed that the warranty claim had been rejected because the fault was considered unrelated to the previous injector repair and attributed to carbon build-up. I was quoted £2,412 for the repair, less a £500 goodwill contribution from the Sales Department.I do not accept this position.Consumer Rights Act 2015This complaint is made pursuant to the Consumer Rights Act 2015, in particular Sections 9, 23 and 24.Section 9 requires goods supplied by a trader to be of satisfactory quality, taking into account the description of the goods, the price paid and all other relevant circumstances. Satisfactory quality includes freedom from defects, durability, safety and fitness for purpose.In my view, a reasonable person would not consider a Mercedes-Benz purchased for £12,099, with only approximately 33,000 miles, from a franchised Mercedes-Benz dealership to be of satisfactory quality when it develops repeated and significant mechanical and electrical faults within two months of purchase.Whilst I appreciate that Lookers replaced the injector under warranty, Section 23 provides the consumer with the right to require goods that do not conform to the contract to be repaired or replaced.Although a repair was undertaken, the vehicle has continued to experience recurring mechanical and electrical faults. The vehicle has therefore never been brought into conformity with the contract, and I have consequently lost confidence that it can be made reliable.I also question how Lookers has concluded that the current intake manifold issue is entirely unrelated to the injector failure, particularly given that the injector failure resulted in substantial quantities of soot passing through the engine. If Lookers maintains that the two faults are completely unrelated, I request that you provide the technical evidence supporting that conclusion.Similarly, I remain concerned that the ABS-related fault diagnosed in April has never been permanently resolved, as the same dashboard warnings and associated safety system failures have repeatedly returned.I purchased this vehicle specifically because I believed that a low-mileage Mercedes-Benz from a franchised Mercedes-Benz dealership would provide reliable daily transport for my commute to Horsham.Instead, during just four and a half months of ownership, I have experienced repeated mechanical failures, recovery by the RAC, multiple visits to the dealership and continuing concerns every time I drive the vehicle. I have lost confidence in its reliability and no longer feel comfortable depending upon it for my daily journeys.Resolution SoughtGiven the number, seriousness and recurrence of faults experienced within the first six months of ownership, together with the unsuccessful repair already carried out, I no longer have confidence that this vehicle is of satisfactory quality or that it can be relied upon going forward.My preferred resolution is therefore for Lookers to accept the return of the vehicle under Section 24 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and provide an appropriate refund, taking into account any lawful deduction for the use I have had of the vehicle if applicable.Should Lookers believe that the vehicle can still be brought into conformity with the contract, I ask that you explain why and set out in writing:• why you believe the vehicle remains of satisfactory quality;• what further repairs you propose;• why those repairs will permanently resolve the recurring issues; and• why I should have confidence that the vehicle will thereafter provide the level of reliability that could reasonably be expected.I also request copies of:• all workshop reports;• all diagnostic reports;• all recorded fault codes;• the technical findings relating to the injector failure;• the technical findings relating to the intake manifold diagnosis; and• any documentation explaining why the warranty claim was initially considered valid before subsequently being rejected.I hope this matter can be resolved promptly and amicably. However, if I do not receive a satisfactory response within 14 days of the date of this letter, I will have little option but to pursue the matter further. This may include raising the dispute with my finance provider, referring the matter to the appropriate Alternative Dispute Resolution scheme and, if necessary, commencing proceedings in the County Court to enforce my statutory rights under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.For ease of reference, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 can be found at:https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/contentsI look forward to your prompt response.Yours faithfully,Duncan Norris

I booked my car in for a service - specifically at 10am. This was confirmed on a text from the dealer. Dropped my car off at 8am with the intention of returning once the service was completed. I heard nothing from the dealer until after lunch at which point i called and was told the service was being done then and would be ready that afternoon. i received the emails etc with the service results and began making my way to the dealer to collect the car. i was then called and told that the car would not be ready as spark plugs were required and it would be done in the morning and the dealer would deliver the car home. So i had no car that evening. Next morning i heard nothing until i called at around 11am - car still not done. the car eventually arrived at nearly 1pm after i had to make a number of calls to find out what was happening.

Cust. made a reservation of a £1000 for vehicle reg. GL24LXY but the deal didn't go ahead, and he's been chasing up his refund for over 2 weeks. Customer paid this via credit card so would like this urgently addressed, or at the very least get a courtesy update on the stages of the refund as no one's responding.

I have asked repeatedly for the paperwork regarding the purchase of my vehicle GX71RVJTime and again I’ve been told someone will call me or just generally fobbed off, rest assured we will not be using your garage again or Mercedes for that matter, absolutely appalling aftercare

Good Morning,I am writing to formally express serious concern regarding my vehicle and the ongoing unresolved issue relating to its high voltage battery.Last year, I received communication from Mercedes Benz advising that the vehicle should not be charged beyond 80% due to potential safety concerns, and the car was subsequently recalled. While I initially complied with this instruction in good faith, I was later informed that the fault could not be rectified and that the high voltage battery would need to be replaced.At that time, I was given further instructions not to charge the vehicle beyond 80% and not to keep it in my garage. This has placed me in a highly impractical and inconvenient position, as my home charging point is located in the garage. As a result, the usability of the vehicle has been significantly compromised.I am now deeply concerned that, despite these severe limitations and safety implications, I have received no further communication or update from Mercedes Benz for several months. I don't know the exact date, as the letter I received through the post was undated. This lack of progress or clarity is unacceptable.The current situation leaves me with a vehicle that:• Cannot be safely or fully charged• Cannot be parked in its intended location• Cannot reasonably be sold due to the known fault and restrictionsThis represents a substantial loss of use and value, and ongoing inconvenience.I therefore request:1. An immediate update on the status of the battery replacement programme2. A clear timeline for when the required repair or replacement will be carried out3. Details of any interim support or compensation available given the prolonged disruption4. Clarification on my options should this issue remain unresolved within a reasonable timeframeI have always expected a high standard of safety, reliability, and customer care from Mercedes Benz. Unfortunately, my experience in this matter has fallen significantly short of those expectations.Please treat this matter with urgency. I look forward to your prompt response.Kind regards,Russell Kaye

Email sent to Scott Willis - General Manager Lookers Eastbourne... sent 22/06/2026Morning Scott,Thank you for your further response and for increasing the goodwill offer to £500.I appreciate the movement. I do not, however, consider £500 to be a fair or reasonable offer. £500 does not begin to reflect the fact that I have been misled about, and sold, a car carrying nearly 5,500 more miles than the figure I was shown and ordered against, let alone the time and inconvenience I have been put through since collection in trying to get this resolved. I will be direct with you about why.I have read your letter carefully. The language has been very precisely chosen. Phrases such as "we have seen no evidence that the difference in mileage has resulted in a financial loss", "without any admission that the vehicle has suffered a corresponding reduction in value", and the framing of the Consumer Rights Act as being satisfied only by buyback or goodwill, are drafted to limit the dealership's liability rather than to address the substance of what has happened. I recognise the approach but I do not accept it.On the question of "evidence of loss", the proposition that nearly 5,500 miles makes no material difference to the value of a 14-month-old Mercedes-Approved A-Class is not credible. AutoTrader's listing for the car displayed the flag "£643 below market average — Great price", based on the advertised mileage of 15,137. Whatever pricing system the dealership used internally, the public marketplace flag attached to the listing was a clear signal to buyers that the £24,693 represented a good deal for a car of that stated mileage. That signal is part of the context against which I made my decision.I would also note that your letter's claim that "we have seen no evidence that the difference in mileage has resulted in a financial loss" is directly contradicted by your own earlier figures. In your email of 9 June you stated that had the mileage been correctly recorded at 15,137, the vehicle would have been advertised at £25,255 rather than the £24,693 at which it was actually advertised. That is, on your own calculation, a £562 differential attributable to mileage alone. The dealership cannot credibly claim there is no evidence of a financial impact when the dealership itself has quantified one. And £562 reflects only the headline pricing gap. It takes no account of the accelerated wear and tear, the service interval brought forward by nearly 5,000 miles, the impact on resale value, or the considerable time and effort I have personally invested over the past three weeks in researching the legal position, preparing correspondence and pursuing this matter, none of which I should have had to undertake had the vehicle been accurately described in the first place. A £500 goodwill payment does not begin to address any of that.I should also draw your attention to the market context at the time of purchase. In the weeks before I purchased the Eastbourne vehicle, I had been actively researching similar A200d AMG Line Executive cars across the Mercedes-Benz Approved Used network. Two of the cars I found were a Sytner Mercedes-Benz dealership offering one at £23,000 with 21,300 miles, and a Lookers Mercedes-Benz dealership at Gatwick offering one at £23,499 with 22,191 miles. Both were 2024-registered, a year older than the Eastbourne car. If, as the dealership now maintains, the Eastbourne car was internally priced to reflect its actual mileage of 20,635, it would be expected to sit at or below the prices of those older cars at comparable mileage. Instead, it was advertised at £24,693, above both. The dealership's own group pricing therefore does not support the argument that the car was internally priced for a mileage of 20,635.There is also a fundamental contradiction at the heart of the dealership's position. On the one hand, you have admitted in writing that the mileage was inaccurately advertised and that this occurred through an administrative error at the point the vehicle was brought into stock. On the other hand, you maintain that the vehicle was internally priced based on its actual mileage of 20,635. Both of these statements cannot be true. If the dealership genuinely priced the car against 20,635 miles, that figure would have appeared on the advert, the MB Central Stock Vehicle Order Form, and the Customer Order I signed. Instead, those documents all show 15,137, and 20,635 appears only on the Vehicle Invoice generated on the day of collection. Either the mileage was known and the customer-facing documentation was misrepresentative, or the mileage was not known and the £24,693 price was set against the 15,137-mile figure I saw and relied upon. Either way, the documentary record I had sight of as a customer does not support the argument now being put forward.I would also note that the demonstrator/courtesy vehicle question I raised in my email of 3 June has still not been answered. In particular, you have not explained how the car came to be driven approximately 1,000 miles between the valuation figure of 19,635 you cited in your reply and the invoice figure of 20,635 on the day of collection. I would be grateful for a clear answer.In the Consumer Rights Act 2015, section 24 expressly provides for a price reduction as a remedy in its own right. It is not satisfied only by full unwind or a discretionary goodwill payment. The legislation gives the consumer the choice of remedy where goods do not match their description. I am exercising the price-reduction remedy. That is my statutory right under section 24, not a request for goodwill.In addition:Under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, the misdescription of mileage across the advert and three dealership documents (two of which I signed) is a misleading action, which is unlawful under the Act. The Act provides a private right of redress for affected consumers, including a discount on the price paid.Under section 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967, the false statement of mileage induced me to enter the contract. The Misrepresentation Act requires a trader who has made a misstatement of fact to demonstrate that they had reasonable grounds to believe the statement was true. Where, as here, the dealership has admitted that three different mileage figures were in circulation across its own internal systems, none of which agreed with each other, it cannot credibly establish that it had reasonable grounds to believe the figure of 15,137 used on the advert and on the sale documents was accurate. The claim is at minimum a negligent misrepresentation under section 2(1), and the burden is on the dealership to disprove negligence. The damages available under the Misrepresentation Act are a separate cause of action from the Consumer Rights Act remedies.The "independently checked and verified" claim made in the AutoTrader advert engages the Advertising Standards Authority CAP Code substantiation requirements.I would also say this. I chose this car based on the advertised low mileage of 15,137 and on the fact that it was being sold by a Mercedes-Benz Approved Used dealership within the Lookers Motor Group. I assumed, reasonably, that the information given to me about the car would be accurate, that the multi-point inspection and the independent mileage verification described in the advert would have been carried out properly, and that the sale would be above board. I paid a premium for that assurance. What I did not expect was to be misled on the most basic and verifiable fact about the car, its mileage, to find significant stone chips on the windscreen that had not been disclosed to me before I committed to the purchase, and then to spend three weeks trying to get the dealership to put it right.Taking all of the above into account, I am prepared to move from my original position of £1,250 to £900 in order to bring this matter to a close. I do so as a final concession on my part, and on the basis that £900 represents a fair and proportionate resolution given the documented misdescription and its consequences.I should also add that earlier last week, on Monday or Tuesday, I received a call from a man saying he had been asked to arrange repair of the windscreen chips. He did not tell me who he was or which company he represented, which is not how I would have expected this to be arranged. He asked me to text him my availability, which I did last Tuesday confirming Thursday 18 June. I have heard nothing further, and the repair has not been arranged. I would be grateful if you could now make contact with him directly, confirm the name of the company involved, and ensure the repair is properly scheduled. The chips remain on my car and still need doing.I should also say, honestly, that the way this has been handled has begun to feel less like a customer issue being resolved and more like a position being managed. The repeated use of carefully worded language, the shifting explanations of how the mileage figure came about, and the lack of follow-through on the agreed repairs, have left me feeling that the dealership's priority has been to limit its exposure rather than to put right what is plainly wrong. I would like that on the record.I have already escalated this matter to Lookers Motor Group head office customer services as a formal complaint, and I will also be sending a copy of this correspondence to them.£900 is my last and final counter-offer and would allow us to draw a line under this matter. Should we not reach agreement, I will progress the complaint through the Motor Ombudsman, to which Lookers is signed up. I have the documentary evidence, the written admission of misdescription, the documented timeline and the legal framework to support such a referral.I would prefer to resolve this matter directly with you, but my position is firm.I would be grateful for your substantive response by the end of business on Wednesday 24 June. Should I not have heard from you by then, I will take that as confirmation that no further movement is possible and will proceed accordingly.Sincerely,Sharon