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

I am submitting a formal complaint regarding a vehicle I purchased from Mercedes-Benz of Eastbourne on 27th April 2026.I raised concerns via email on 30th April 2026 directly with the Sales Manager, regarding the condition and presentation of the vehicle. Before the purchase I queried with a previous MOT advisory relating to tyre wear, I was reassured that the tyres had been replaced.The vehicle was advertised with Continental SportContact 6 tyres however I noticed after purchase, that that the vehicle had been fitted with budget-brand tyres (Nexen) that were not equivalent to the premium tyres shown in the advertisement.I received a response from the Sales Manager on 4th May 2026. However, the said response did not properly address my concerns.Subsequently, I responded with an email on 5th May 2026, to which I have not obtained an acknowledgement or response to this date. I have since tried to make further contact with a follow-up email on 21st May 2026 to request an update; that has not been acknowledged either.Since then, further issues have arisen which have significantly undermined my confidence in both the vehicle and the preparation standards applied prior to sale.The vehicle developed an alarm fault which caused the alarm to activate repeatedly without reason and continue to sound while driving. This required investigation and repair by my local Mercedes-Benz garage (Marshall) on 17th June 2026, causing inconvenience. The diagnostic was that the overhead control panel needed replacing.Whilst the vehicle was with the garage, a health check was carried out which identified several additional concerns, including:• Front wiper blades worn and smearing, with wear indicators visible. (Requiring immediate attention)• Rear wiper blade worn and smearing. (Requiring immediate attention)• Front brake discs showing significant lip wear. (Requiring immediate attention)• Front brake components showing notable wear.• A missing under-tray beneath the vehicle.The front tyres also showed wear on the inner edge. The mechanic recommended a replacement of these in the near future, along with a wheel alignment. I appreciate that some items may be regarded as wear-and-tear components. However, given that I have only owned the vehicle since the 27th April 2026 and covered relatively few miles since purchase.The issues flagged are beyond the wear and tear expected for the length of time/mileage since the date of purchase.In addition, I would also like to highlight the failure to obtain the advertised 5-day Mercedes-Benz drive-away insurance.On the day of collection, I was informed that I was unable to activate the insurance, but no explanation could be provided at the time despite enquiries being made. Throughout the process of purchase I was not made aware of any eligibility restrictions that would prevent me from using the cover.This left me having to arrange alternative insurance cover at short notice and at additional cost in order to drive the vehicle home. Whilst I later received an explanation regarding age-related eligibility criteria, this information should have been communicated clearly before collection.Although this issue alone may not have been sufficient to warrant a complaint, when considered alongside the other concerns regarding the vehicle and the subsequent lack of response to my correspondence, it has contributed to a disappointing overall customer experience.I purchased this vehicle from an authorised Mercedes-Benz dealership because I expected a higher standard of vehicle preparation, inspection and customer service than would be available from an independent trader. Unfortunately, my experience has fallen well below those expectations. I am therefore requesting that this complaint be formally investigated, that the vehicle’s pre-delivery inspection and preparation records be reviewed, and that an appropriate resolution be offered in light of the issues identified and the poor handling of my concerns to date.

Service and access to car was great, follow upNot so much.

Dear Sir or MadamFormal complaint — Mercedes-Benz of Eastbourne — Vehicle GF25 WGOI am writing to make a formal complaint to Lookers Motor Group about the conduct ofMercedes-Benz of Eastbourne in the sale of a Mercedes-Benz A-Class to me on 30 May2026, and the subsequent failure to follow through on commitments made to me. As at the date of this email, 16days have passed since I collected the vehicle, and these matters remain unresolved.The complaint relates to a serious mileage misdescription appearing on the AutoTraderadvert and across three dealership documents (two of which I signed), the dealership's slowand inadequate response to my complaint, the inadequacy of the settlement offer made todate, and a separate failure to arrange agreed repairs to the vehicle. I am asking head officeto intervene to gain a resolution.I have attempted in good faith to resolve this directly with the dealership but have not beenable to reach agreement, and I am therefore escalating to Lookers Motor Group.Vehicle and purchase details• Vehicle: Mercedes-Benz A-Class A200d AMG Line Executive• Registration: GF25 WGO• VIN: W1K3F1CB8SJ499177• Date of first registration: 31 March 2025• Selling dealership: Mercedes-Benz of Eastbourne (Lookers Motor Group)• Salesperson: Matt Fear• General Sales Manager: Scott Willett• Customer Order Number: 350676• Vehicle Invoice Number: 7666• Advertised price on AutoTrader: £24,693 (flagged by AutoTrader as “£643 belowmarket average — Great price”)• Deposit paid: £1,000 (27 May 2026)• Total invoice value: £24,296• Balance transferred: £23,296 (30 May 2026)The misdescriptionThe mileage of 15,137 appeared on the following:1. 2. 3. The original AutoTrader advert placed by Mercedes-Benz of EastbourneThe MB Central Stock Vehicle Order Form, which I signedThe Vehicle Order, Customer Order No. 350676, dated 28 May 2026, which I signedA further document, the Vehicle Invoice No. 7666, dated 30 May 2026 and signed by me atcollection, then recorded the mileage as 20,635.A photograph of the dashboard taken after collection shows a total mileage of 21,039 with a trip counter of 1,009.3 miles, which I presume was reset to zero on the morning of collection.Across the evidence, three different mileage figures are recorded: 15,137 on the advert andtwo signed documents, 20,635 on the Vehicle Invoice, and 21,039 on the actual car. Thedealership's own records contradict each other, and none of the documentation matches theactual mileage on the vehicle.The original AutoTrader advert also explicitly stated: "Mileage and history are alsoindependently checked and verified." In the same advert, the dealership further promisedthat "A comprehensive multi-point check is carried out by certified, Mercedes-Benz-trainedtechnicians." If either of those processes had genuinely been carried out, the discrepancy ofnearly 5,500 miles would have been identified before the car was advertised, ordered andsold.I would also point out that AutoTrader’s own pricing system flagged the advert at £24,693 as"£643 below market average — Great price", based on the advertised mileage of 15,137.AutoTrader’s algorithm assessed the price against a 15,137-mile car. The vehicle’s actualmileage of 20,635 was not what AutoTrader’s system was pricing against. This contradictsthe dealership’s position that the car was “priced internally for its actual mileage” — thepublic market-pricing flag plainly relates to the wrong mileage figure.Timeline of communicationsSaturday 30 May 2026 — Vehicle collected from Mercedes-Benz of Eastbourne. I was toldthat a warning light had come on while the car was being valeted on the morning ofcollection, and that the 12V battery had been replaced as a result. I also noted multiple stonechips in significant places on the windscreen and raised them in person with Scott Willett,who agreed to arrange repair through Mercedes-Benz of Worcester.Monday 1 June 2026 — I emailed Matt Fear about the rear-view mirror (auto-dim functionstuck) and multiple stone chips on the windscreen. No response.Tuesday 2 June 2026 — I telephoned the dealership and asked to speak to Scott Willett. Nocallback received.Wednesday 3 June 2026 (morning) — I emailed Scott Willett directly about the rear-viewmirror and the windscreen chips, noting Matt Fear had not responded. No response.Wednesday 3 June 2026 (later) — I emailed Scott a second time, this time raising themileage discrepancy and several other points requiring clarification. No response.Saturday 6 June 2026 — I emailed Scott again, copying Matt Fear, summarising alloutstanding points and the lack of response to date. No response.Sunday 7 June 2026 — I telephoned the dealership again. I was told by reception that Scotthad been in the office during the latter part of the week. I left a message asking him torespond as a matter of urgency.Monday 8 June 2026 (evening) — Scott Willett responded for the first time, acknowledgingthe issues, apologising for the mileage discrepancy, and asking for 24 hours to investigate.He pre-committed in writing to a full buyback option if the investigation confirmed thediscrepancy.Tuesday 9 June 2026 — Scott provided his detailed findings. He admitted in writing: "we arenot in dispute with you that the miles have been inaccurately advertised." He explained thatthe mileage had been keyed in incorrectly when the vehicle was brought into stock, and thewrong figure had then pulled through to the advert. He offered two options: (i) full buyback atthe price I paid, or (ii) £250 as full and final settlement to retain the car. He also confirmedthat Matt Fear had spoken to Mercedes-Benz of Worcester and that they would contact medirectly to arrange a date for the windscreen repair and to look at the rear-view mirror.Wednesday 10 June 2026 — I responded to Scott, formally rejecting £250 as aproportionate settlement, setting out the impact of the misdescription, citing the relevantconsumer law framework, and proposing £1,250 as a fair price reduction.As at the date of this letter — I have received no further response from Scott Willett, and Ihave not been contacted at all by Mercedes-Benz of Worcester regarding the windscreenchips or the rear-viewIn addition to the mileage complaint, two repairs were agreed as part of the sale and remainoutstanding:4. 5. Windscreen chips — multiple chips were visible on the windscreen when I collectedthe vehicle. Scott Willett agreed at the point of collection to arrange repair throughMercedes-Benz of Worcester. In his email of 9 June he confirmed Matt Fear hadspoken to Worcester and that they would contact me directly. They have not done so.Rear-view mirror — the auto-dim function is permanently tinted and does not clear inany conditions, including with the ignition off. Scott confirmed in his email of 9 Junethat this would be assessed alongside the windscreen repair. Worcester has notbeen in touch to arrange this either.The walkaround video requested before purchase the original AutoTrader advert specifically offered: "For a bespoke Video of the vehicle,please call 01323 376879 now and ask for a member of the Sales Team quoting theregistration number: GF25WGO." Before agreeing to travel 4½ hours from Malvern toEastbourne to collect the car, I took up that offer and specifically asked Matt Fear to providea thorough walkaround video showing any imperfections so that I could make a fullyinformed decision. Matt's video did not show the multiple stone chips on the windscreen.Had I been aware of them, I would not have purchased the vehicle. As I explained to ScottWillett in person on the day of collection, the chips are in significant places.Scott Willett's position, and why £250 is not acceptable -Scott's position is that the car was internally priced for its actual mileage of 20,635, andtherefore that I have not been financially disadvantaged. He has 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.With respect, this argument does not stand up. I shopped around for a vehicle with thelowest mileage possible. I selected this car on the basis of the advertised mileage of 15,137and compared it against other low-mileage vehicles on the market. The internal pricing logicthe dealership has used was not something I had sight of or could have factored into mydecision — I had only the advertised figure to rely upon. I should not be the onedisadvantaged or held responsible for the dealership's human error.The £250 offer does not adequately address:• The next service being brought forward by nearly 5,000 miles, with Mercedes-Benzmain dealer servicing costs, which I presume to be more expensive than independentalternatives, incurred sooner than budgeted• Nearly 5,000 additional miles of accelerated wear on tyres, brakes and otherconsumables absorbed without my knowledge• The fact that a vehicle with higher mileage will be harder to sell on, and at a lowerresale value than a 15,137-mile equivalent• The need to correct the mileage I declared to my insurer based on the dealership'ssigned documentation• The systemic nature of the failure — three separate dealership documents, two ofwhich I signed, recorded the wrong figure• The broken promise from the AutoTrader advert that mileage was "independentlychecked and verified"• A 4½-hour journey from Malvern to Eastbourne to collect a vehicle that did not matchits description• A full week of unanswered communications before Scott replied for the first time.The wider experienceI should also say that this is my first Mercedes-Benz purchase, and one I had been lookingforward to for some time. What should have been the start of my Mercedes-Benz ownershiphas instead been a deeply disappointing and frankly exhausting experience. Throughout thisprocess I have felt ignored — by Matt Fear, by Scott Willett, and now by Mercedes-Benz ofWorcester. The amount of time, effort and stress I have had to invest in chasing responses,gathering evidence and challenging the dealership's position is, in my view, a disgrace from a prestigious brand of this standing.Legal frameworkUnder the Consumer Rights Act 2015, sections 9 and 11, goods supplied must be ofsatisfactory quality and as described. The vehicle as advertised, ordered and described didnot match the vehicle supplied. This is a breach of the Act and entitles me to a remedy undersection 24, including a price reduction.Under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, which replaced theConsumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 on 6 April 2025, themisdescription of mileage on the advert and on signed documentation constitutes amisleading action, which is unlawful under that Act. It influenced a transactional decision Iwould not otherwise have taken in the same way. The Act provides a private right of redressfor consumers affected by such practices.The claim in the AutoTrader advert that mileage was "independently checked and verified"also engages the substantiation requirements for advertising claims under the AdvertisingStandards Authority CAP Code.What I am asking Lookers Motor Group to doI am asking head office to:6. Acknowledge receipt of this complaint and confirm the timescale within which I willreceive a substantive response7. Investigate Mercedes-Benz of Eastbourne's conduct in this sale, including how thesame incorrect mileage came to appear on the advert and on two documents I wasasked to sign8. Investigate how the "independently checked and verified" claim was made in theadvert despite the actual mileage being some 5,500 miles higher than the figurepublished9. Confirm whether the vehicle was used as a demonstrator, courtesy vehicle, or for anyinternal dealership purposes between its acquisition into stock and my collection on30 May 2026, and how any such use was reflected in the disclosed mileage10. Arrange for Mercedes-Benz of Worcester to contact me promptly to book in thewindscreen repair and the rear-view mirror assessment11. Put forward a price reduction reflecting the actual impact of the misdescription on me.Next stepsI would prefer to resolve this matter with Lookers Motor Group directly. However, if asatisfactory resolution cannot be reached, I will refer the matter to the Motor Ombudsman,report the AutoTrader advert to the Advertising Standards Authority, and report thedealership's conduct to Trading Standards via Citizens Advice.I look forward to hearing from you.Yours faithfully.Sharon DaviesEnclosures / attachments:12. Copy of the original AutoTrader advert (text content)13. Screenshot of the MB Central Stock Vehicle Order Form (signed)14. Photograph of the Vehicle Order, Customer Order No. 350676 (signed)15. Photograph of the Vehicle Invoice No. 7666 (signed)16. Photograph of the vehicle dashboard showing current mileage and trip counterEvidence PackMercedes-Benz of Eastbourne — Vehicle GF25 WGOAttachments referenced in the formal complaint letter to Lookers Motor GroupAttachment 1 — Original AutoTrader advertMileage advertised: 15,137 miles. AutoTrader market-pricing flag: "£643 below market average —Great price". Advert promised: "Mileage and history are also independently checked and verified" and "A comprehensive multi-point check is carried out by certified, Mercedes-Benz-trained technicians."(See following pages for full content of this attachment)Original AutoTrader advert — Mercedes-Benz of EastbourneVehicle GF25 WGO — content captured from listing2025 Mercedes-Benz A Class2.0 A200d AMG Line (Executive) 8G-DCT Euro 6 (s/s) 5drPrice: £24,693£643 below market average — Great price(AutoTrader market-pricing flag, based on the mileage as advertised)Finance: £397.23 per month (PCP)OverviewMileage: 15,137 milesRegistration: 2025 (25 reg)Fuel type: DieselBody type: HatchbackEngine: 2.0LGearbox: AutomaticDoors: 5Seats: 5Emission class: Euro 6Body colour: BlackVehicle registered: 31/03/2025Description (verbatim from advert)Mercedes-Benz of Eastbourne are delighted of offer this stunning 1 Owner, A200d AMG Line ExecutiveHatchback, with Automatic Gearbox. Finished in the striking Cosmos Black and Black AMG LineUpholstery.The Specification also includes items such as, Adaptive Highbeam Assist, Apple CarPlay, 64 ColourAmbient lighting, Heated front seats, Reversing camera, Front & Rear parking sensors, Park Assist,Wireless charging, Privacy Glass and lots more!At Lookers Mercedes-Benz of Eastbourne, all our Approved Used vehicles come with a minimum of 12months' warranty, and up to three years maximum. A comprehensive multi-point check is carried outby certified, Mercedes-Benz-trained technicians, and the remainder of up to 30 years' free roadsideassistance is included (providing 24/7 emergency breakdown and recovery wherever you are in the UK).Mileage and history are also independently checked and verified.For a bespoke Video of the vehicle, please call 01323 376879 now and ask for a member of theSales Team quoting the registration number: GF25WGOVehicle history (as stated in advert)Service history: FullOwners: Contact sellerKeys: Contact sellerwritten off)Basic history check: 5 checks passed (not stolen, not scrapped, not imported, not exported, never beenRunning costs (as stated in advert)CO■ emissions: 131 g/kmInsurance group: 24ETax per year: £200Seller detailsMercedes-Benz of Eastbourne, part of Lookers Motor Group — serving drivers across Eastbourne, Bexhill,Hastings, and the surrounding East Sussex area. Telephone: 01323 376879.Attachment 2 — MB Central Stock Vehicle Order Form (signed)Mileage stated: 15,137. Signed by Sharon Davies.Attachment 3 — Vehicle Order, Customer Order No. 350676 (signed)Dated 28 May 2026. Mileage stated: 15,137. Signed by Sharon Davies.Attachment 4 — Vehicle Invoice No. 7666 (signed)Dated 30 May 2026. Mileage stated: 20,635. Signed by Sharon Davies on collection.Attachment 5 — Photograph of the vehicle dashboardTotal mileage: 21,039. Trip counter: 1,009.3 miles. - (these attachments will be enclosed with my postal application as they cannot be pasted into this section.)

Your phone system is crap also your apps system

I tried to send the following query to MB Eastbourne, but after no success on the phone, I used their enquiry form, but that didn’t work either!! I am so disappointed that MB service seems so poor now, it’s as if they don’t care any more.This was my query, if you have a carrier pigeon free, maybe you could send it to them as phone and electronic don’t appear to work!I’ve been having a very frustrating time trying to contact someone who can advise me re installing a dash cam in my A Class. Several attempts and after waiting ages, the call drops….nit a good start.Anyway….grumble over! I’m thinking about getting a dash cam installed….if you do it for me, should I buy one myself or use one of yours and what is the cost for both options.Many thanksCarryRes GV25OKC

Scott,Sadly, since your telephone message on Tuesday 19th May, you have not attempted to contact me. To move things forward, the key areas where there have been issues are as follows (in no particular order):I agreed to purchase a CLA 250e on Saturday 18th April and paid my deposit on the understanding that it would take at least a week to release the funds from some of my investment holdings to pay the balance.ElementLookers ResponseGrievanceCar Collection – unfair demandsI was contacted by Ru on the Monday 20th to say that I have an appointment on Thursday 24th at an estimated time of 16:00.I replied to reiterate that my investments would not be available as cash and it is now looking likely to be a little longer and so I would prefer a collection date of the 1st May.'Having discussed this with Matt and Scott, the deal falling into May wouldn’t be a possibility I’m afraid'.Paying and making the collection on the 1st still sits within your payment conditions and so your insistence that I collect the car before then is unjustified.The refusal to accept my collection preference was being driven by sales targets - customer satisfaction or convenience didn’t feature at all.Car Collection – unfair demandsCollection of a car on the last day of the month means that I was paying for April car tax which was of no real use to me.Your insistence that I collect the car before the end of the month has left me financially disadvantaged and it is also a clear indicator that you do not value customer satisfaction.Car Collection – undue pressureI was told that if the car was seen on the forecourt, Lookers would be obliged to sell the car to someone else regardless of the fact that a deposit had been paid.In other words, comply with our (unjustified) demands or lose the car.Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 applies:A practice is illegal if it “significantly impairs the average consumer’s freedom of choice through harassment, coercion or undue influence”Car Advert A – Misleading combined with undue pressureI queried that the advert that I'd based my purchase on showed a mileage of 3,713 whereas the mileage was actually, pre-delivery, 4,788 (23% higher)‘Although it was advertised incorrectly, I can confirm that it sits correctly within our pricing matrix'.To infer that the mileage discrepancy had no impact on the price to be paid is untrue.This is backed by Motor Ombudsmen previous cases that have backed the purchaser for a smaller mileage discrepancy.They further note that human error is no defence.https://www.themotorombudsman.org/case-studies/vehicle-sales/used-car-mileage-discrepancy-2/Car Advert B – Misleading combined with undue pressureConsumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 applies:Misleading actions – giving false or deceptive informationMisrepresentation Act 1967 applies:Negligent misrepresentation (careless falsehood) or Innocent misrepresentationConsumer Rights Act 2015 applies:Core principles breach:Goods must be as describedMercedes Service ContractOn the day of collection, 30th April, I agreed to stop my existing service contract for the previous Mercedes CLA200 and start a new contract for the CLA250e.No contact / No contractI reminded you verbally in your showroom that I hadn’t been contacted on 3rd May and via email on 15th May.a, As of today, I have had no contact from your Service Department.b, To stop making service contract payments for a vehicle that I no longer own, I had to cancel the previous contract myself on 8th May.Money held by Lookers until a V5 registration document is submitted by me to you – Delays in returning the £1,000The V5 Document was submitted to Lookers on Sunday 3rd May. Given that it was a Bank Holiday weekend, I was advised that it should be processed on Tuesday 5th with payment of the refund to be made on Wednesday 6th.Chase response - 15th May ‘I know the refund request has been sent to our managers so I will chase them’Chased by email on 15th May.You didn’t contact me on Monday 18th, an arrangement that you’d suggested, because you didn’t want to be on the back foot in the knowledge that the refund had not been made. Instead, you waited until later on Tuesday 19th when you’d checked that the payment had been sent to my bank.The delays and a lack of attention to customer satisfaction is unacceptable.Compliant Handling – Non-complianceLookers Policy:We aim to resolve most complaints within 5 business days. Complex matters may take longer, but we’ll keep you updated throughout. If your concern isn’t resolved within 14 working days, it will be escalated to the relevant operational director for review.If you remain dissatisfied, you can refer your complaint—free of charge—to The Motor Ombudsman (TMO) or The National Conciliation Service (NCS).Complaints Procedure | Complain to Lookers | LookersActual5 Business Days – Not met14 Working Days – Not metWhilst everything within me said to pull out of the sale, I have had to try to see the bigger picture; that it's the type of car that I want to own. However, the net effect of the points above is that all trust has been lost, I have been left materially disadvantaged and a previously good customer / dealership relationship has been ruined.I look forward to receiving your proposals regarding putting matters right.M