I have tried to contact the parts department twice - each time the phone rings repeatedly without answer then is cut off. I have tried to send an enquiry twice but each time pressing 'send' comes back with "Ooops - something went wrong at our end". Please retry". Retrying opens the form again with all typed data removed. Very frustrating.

To whom it may concern at Lookers Vehicle ComplaintsPlease find attached formal rejection notice under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in relation to vehicle WD68 ZF0 sold by Mercedes-Benz of Gatwick, 78 Gatwick Road, Crawley, West Sussex, RH10 9AW.Notice will also be provided via recorded delivery post. Additional history can be found on this email chain, which also clearly states that Lookers Gatwick have been fully aware of the issues and the history.I look forward to hearing from you.Yours faithfullyKieren StanleyThe Master BuildersBroomehall RoadDorkingRH5 6HP(address at time of purchase 8 Stanley Close, Coulsdon, CR5 2LN)

Hi John,I am writing to formally raise a complaint regarding a vehicle I purchased from your Mercedes-Benz Gatwick dealership approximately 6–7 months ago.At the time of purchase, I specifically asked Michael whether the vehicle had sustained any exterior damage or had been involved in any prior accidents. I was clearly assured that it had not, and I relied on this when making my decision to proceed with the purchase.However, I have recently identified significant issues with the vehicle’s paintwork, including scuffs, spray marks, and extensive polishing damage that appears to have burnt the paint. The only time the vehicle has undergone polishing was while it was in your dealership’s possession for an extended period of nearly one month. I am most certain that these defects were apparent and known prior to sale and after sale, yet they were not disclosed.These issues have only become visible in direct sunlight over the past few days. As discussed on the phone, the previously dull weather conditions made it difficult to identify the true condition of the paintwork. I have attached photographic evidence demonstrating the condition of the vehicle in both low light and direct sunlight, including timestamps.To further assess the issue, I arranged an independent inspection by a professional bodywork specialist. This inspection identified clear evidence of prior damage and repair work, including resprayed panels, resprayed rear bumper, and filler on the driver’s door, as well as a respray. This confirms that the vehicle has undergone significant exterior repairs, directly contradicting the assurances provided at the point of sale, all of which has cost me both time and money in doing so.Given the above, the vehicle has been misrepresented and, therefore, mis-sold. This is not compliant with the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which requires goods to be as described, of satisfactory quality, and fit for purpose. It also raises concerns regarding potential breaches of Trading Standards regulations relating to misleading sales practices.In light of this, I request a full refund of the purchase price. Alternatively, I would consider a like-for-like replacement vehicle of equivalent specification and mileage, in a condition consistent with the representations originally made.Please confirm in writing within 7 days of receipt of this email how you intend to resolve this matter.If this issue is not resolved promptly and satisfactorily, I will escalate the matter without further notice. This will include reporting the issue to Trading Standards, seeking legal advice, and pursuing all available remedies to recover my losses.I trust you will treat this matter with the seriousness it warrants, and I look forward to your prompt response.Regards,Mustafa Coskun

I had an MOT which failed, however the reason why it failed was because of a cracked wing mirror that had passed it's mot for the previous 6 years with only a minor defect, I complained at the time and I was advised that it is down to the tester opinion.I advised that I was unhappy and that I was going to take it to another testing station, I did that and the MOT failed again, however it did not fail on the mirror it failed on excessive offside front brake fluctuating.I am complaining as when I went down to another garage to to ask there opinion he stated that he couldn't believe how this was not picked up on the original MOT as this was very serious.

No response from parts department - fundamental issue with telephones - no one answers!

Unable to get through to the parts department.There seems to be a fundamental issue with your telephone system.I have already completed this form once and emailed twice with no response.Absolutely unacceptable

When I bougt my car I also paid for an extended warranty due to begin 12 months later. Before it started I cancelled the warranty and by contacting Mercedes Gatwick and folowed up with an email to Michael Kindall. I recieved no acknowledgement. I tried again a couple of months later - same result. What has happened to my money, nearly £1000?

The cust originally raised this complaint back in 2024 and has stiil no resolution from you regarding this Complaint ref:  CAS-33826-K6W0Q2 Customer Name:      Reg No:  GY72YED Complaint Details:  Submitted form fields:Customer Web Form Type: ComplaintTitle: MsFirst Name: ZinatLast Name: KhanEmail Address: enquiries@ukdatadirective.comTelephone Number: +447851069396Complaint details: There is evidence of malpractice by Lookers Gatwick during the service of my vehicle. Parts were changed by engineers on my vehicle without my knowledge and when I discovered this after clear evidence, Lookers were not forthcoming with documentation regarding it. The EV battery appeared to be charging at the service garage around midnight when it was in service and when the car was returned we encountered numerous charging issues which resulted in the car being forcefully towed despite a clear cannot be towed indicator on screen. Major safety issue encountered when the moving vehicle stopped on the road. Lookers said the main EV battery needed replacing, this was just over a year old. After first service, the dashboard blurred, switched off during driving. The sunroof operation panel was swapped by engineers for one without a sunroof operating button and this error was not communicated. I have requested documentation to show the batteries in the car at the time it was returned from service matched the batteries at origin. I have been informed that both the engineer who serviced the vehicle initially or replaced parts unknown, as well as the service / engineering manager have left the company since work was undertaken on the vehicle. At present there is cause for concern that the service activities have affected the quality of my vehicle and resulted in a grave safety concern where a moving vehicle is at risk of stopping again mid ride with total shutdown which jeapordises the safety of those on board.Dealership: Mercedes-Benz of GatwickDealership ID: 8FB1C438-67D7-4B0B-B4C2-C781BB01EA9FCurrent Vehicle - Type: CarCurrent Vehicle - VRM: GY72 YEDComplaint Type: ComplaintVehicleComplaint Details - Department: Service

My car was booked in for a service on 19th March, I was called the day before to advise that a courtesy car was now not available due to re-fleeting. I was told to either bring the car and wait or to rebook the appointment, the option of having my car collected and returned was not possible. I called your service department on a number of occasions and have emailed to request a new appointment and have not had any reply - nearly one month later I have had no further communication from Lookers. Your re-fleeting which caused the cancellation of my service is of no concern to me, it should have been planned when you don't have commitments to provide a courtesy car. I have owned the car for two years and both of the times I have had to deal with Lookers for a service it has been a complete farce. I have now sold the car mainly due to poor dealership experience. DONT CALL ME TO DISCUSS.

cust paid 2 separate £250 deposit on the 27.03.26 and 30.03.26.The dealership were informed Monday 30.03.26 that the cust wasnt going ahead and have not received any monies back.