Did not receive a call back.

Polite efficient and attentive sales man, clean showroom with a calm environment.

I was well attended to, I love the serviced been offered

I am writing to formally escalate a critical safety defect affecting my 2013 Mercedes-Benz E 220 CDI (W212 model). The vehicle failed its MOT on 31 May 2025 at 97,927 miles due to severe internal corrosion and weakening of the rear subframe (“Nearside Rear Sub-frame corroded and seriously weakened – 5.3.3 (b)(i)”).Following this failure, a qualified independent garage performed a minimal weld repair as an emergency interim measure solely to restore temporary roadworthiness. The vehicle subsequently passed its MOT on 3 June 2025 (noted as “Rear Sub-frame modified but not seriously weakened, covered in underseal – 5.3.3 (c)(i)”). However, this weld is only a short-term mitigation, not a permanent repair, and the subframe remains structurally compromised. Continued use poses a serious risk of detachment, loss of control, and potential collisions or injury.Mercedes-Benz, as a responsible manufacturer, has a duty of care under the General Product Safety Regulations 2005 and the DVSA Code of Practice on Vehicle Safety Defects and Recalls (March 2024 update) to investigate and remedy known design or construction defects that compromise vehicle safety. The Code defines a safety defect as a failure likely to cause significant risk of injury, which is directly applicable here.This corrosion issue is widely documented as a manufacturing defect originating from inadequate anti-corrosion protection of subframe cavities, affecting multiple models from the mid-2000s to early 2010s (including the W212 E-Class and W204 C-Class). In the United States, Mercedes-Benz implemented a 20-year/unlimited-mileage warranty extension for subframe corrosion following NHTSA investigations. Similar concerns have led to class-action litigation in Canada. Across the UK and EU, numerous owners have received full subframe replacements under goodwill arrangements, confirming the defect’s recognition within Mercedes-Benz’s global framework.Notably, I previously owned a 2011 Mercedes-Benz C-Class (Reg: MK61 ZBY) that suffered the same rear subframe corrosion and detachment issue, which I had to repair privately at my own cost. This pattern demonstrates that the defect is not due to wear or maintenance but a recurring structural flaw.Given these precedents and my vehicle’s relatively modest mileage and condition, I respectfully request that Mercedes-Benz UK authorise a free-of-charge replacement of the rear subframe assembly (and related components) under goodwill or manufacturer assistance, consistent with your global response to this defect.To resolve this matter efficiently, I request:1. Inspection: Please arrange a complimentary diagnostic inspection at an authorised Mercedes-Benz dealer—preferably Mercedes-Benz of Maidstone (Bircholt Road, ME15 9YN, 01622 607992) or Mercedes-Benz of Tonbridge (Vale Rise, TN9 1TB, 01732 771761)—within 14 days of this correspondence. The dealership should document the findings with photographs and submit them to your Technical Warranty Division.2. Decision and Replacement: Provide a written decision within 7 days of inspection. If approved, authorise full replacement of the subframe and provide a courtesy vehicle during the repair period.3. If Denied: If you are unable to approve coverage, please provide a comprehensive written explanation citing the specific policy basis and outlining any formal appeal or reimbursement process available.Attached / Supporting Information:• MOT test record (31 May 2025 – Fail) citing subframe corrosion and weakening.• MOT test record (3 June 2025 – Pass) confirming temporary weld/underseal repair.• Historic MOT record (20 Jan 2023 – 2011 C-Class, Reg: MK61 ZBY) showing subframe detachment failure.• (Pending) Independent garage invoice/report for the temporary weld repair.I am in the process of obtaining a copy of the garage’s invoice and repair report confirming the temporary weld and will forward it promptly once received. In the meantime, the official MOT records clearly demonstrate the nature and severity of the defect.This matter concerns public and consumer safety. Should this issue remain unresolved, I may refer it to the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) and Trading Standards under the Code of Practice on Vehicle Safety Defects and Recalls. However, I trust Mercedes-Benz UK will address this consistently with your established global goodwill practices.Please confirm receipt of this correspondence and provide an initial response within 7 calendar days.I can be contacted at (07583701515) or (fabcrested@yahoo.com) for any clarifications.Yours sincerely,

Following up on my previous emails from yesterday, I am writing to confirm that if the full service history for my vehicle cannot be provided by midday today, I will require a full refund of the purchase price, minus a reasonable wear-and-tear mileage deduction as outlined below.The vehicle was sold to me as having a full service history online, as standard for approved used vehicles and reinforced in my email dated 15 December 2023, where I asked how to check it. I have acted in good faith, assuming you were simply busy but reassured that the car being approved used,would mean it would be there when it came to the sale. As an Approved Used Mercedes-Benz dealer, the responsibility for verifying and ensuring a complete service history lies entirely with you.Selling a vehicle on the basis that its service history is “online,” without having checked this yourself, and then failing to respond within the 30-day rejection period constitutes a misrepresentation under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. This is completely unacceptable.In addition, the car was sold to me with a pre-existing AdBlue leak into the sound system—an issue you have acknowledged and only eventually repaired—without initially offering a courtesy car, and when one was finally provided, it had an engine warning light on. Furthermore, I have since discovered that the vehicle was supplied with an out-of-date tyre inflation kit.These issues clearly demonstrate that you did not perform the necessary Approved Used checks, including history, mileage, and safety inspections. The vehicle has therefore been both misrepresented and sold in an unsafe condition, representing a clear breach of contract.Accordingly, I am requesting a full refund of the purchase price of £21,999, less a mileage deduction of 9p per mile as per the finance contract, with an additional 0.15p surcharge per mile over 20,000 as a gesture of goodwill. As of today’s mileage of 24,813, this equates to a total deduction of £2,521.95, resulting in a refund due of £19,477.05.I also expect a full refund for the warranty purchased, as it would reasonably be considered invalid without the full service history that was represented as part of the sale.If these terms cannot be met—or if the full service history is not provided by midday today—I will escalate this matter directly to Mercedes-Benz UK, highlighting that Lookers are selling vehicles which do not meet the Approved Used standards. I will also raise a formal complaint with the Motor Ombudsman, and make my experience known publicly through consumer platforms and review sites.Please treat this matter as urgent. I have a vehicle reserved for collection at 3pm today, and if a resolution is not reached, I will pursue reimbursement for the £500 deposit at risk as a result of your delay.I look forward to your immediate response.I forwarded this complaint to you last week in exasperation at the conduct of your representatives at Lookers Maidstone. As Mercedes-Benz is a premium brand, I expect your appointed retailers to uphold the same level of professionalism and transparency that your customers associate with the brand.When purchasing my vehicle in December 2023, I was informed by Richard Rapley at Lookers Maidstone that it was an Approved Used Mercedes-Benz, and therefore came with full service history. This assurance was consistent with the information published on Lookers’ own website, which clearly states that “With our Approved Used Cars, you’ll have access to the full service history.”- See Below:I can evidence, through my correspondence with my previous dealer, that I specifically sought reassurance on this point—having just sold a car that turned out to have incomplete service history. It is inconceivable that I would have proceeded with this purchase without such assurance. I also emailed Lookers on 15 December, shortly after purchase, asking how to access the service history, and was told to wait for a software update—further reinforcing that full records existed and would become available.The lack of distinction made during the sales process between Lookers Approved Used and Mercedes-Benz Approved Used vehicles is extremely misleading. At no stage was this difference explained, and the branding, advertising, and communication all implied that they were one and the same.I would therefore like to ask:• Why is it acceptable for a Mercedes-Benz retailer to sell vehicles in a way that leads customers to believe they are manufacturer-approved when they are not?• What action will Mercedes-Benz take to address this issue and ensure Lookers’ marketing and sales practices meet your brand and compliance standards?• Are you comfortable that Lookers’ representations meet your expectations for honesty and transparency?I have now escalated this matter to The Motor Ombudsman and will shortly be escalating a complaint to the Financial Conduct Authority, as consumer finance was arranged on the basis of what I believe to be a misleading advertisement.I would appreciate Mercedes-Benz UK’s formal comment on whether this behaviour is endorsed by the brand, or whether you intend to take action against this representative.I look forward to hearing from you,Thank youKind RegardsAndrew Gregory---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Andrew GregoryDate: Fri, 17 Oct 2025 at 10:01Subject: Re: Refund Request and complaint- UrgentTo: William Griffiths, Richard Rapley,,Hi William,Thank you for your response. I do not accept your conclusions, and I consider your position both inaccurate and misleading.You state that the vehicle was sold as “Lookers Approved” rather than “Mercedes-Benz Approved Used,” and that therefore there was no misrepresentation. However, this distinction was never made clear at any stage of the sales process. The use of the term “Approved Used” throughout your advertising, documentation, and forecourt presentation would reasonably lead any customer to believe the vehicle met the same standards as a manufacturer-approved scheme.More importantly, your own website (Lookers.co.uk, “Why Choose an Approved Used Car”) explicitly states:“With our Approved Used Cars, you’ll have access to the full service history. You can trust that the vehicle has been well-maintained and cared for.”- see picture below.That is a direct representation forming part of the basis of the sale. The vehicle I purchased does not have a full service history, which constitutes a clear misrepresentation under the Misrepresentation Act 1967, and a breach of contract under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.Your response also contradicts Richard’s email of 16/10/2025, in which he confirmed that the service history would be in the car. This further demonstrates that your own staff expected and represented the vehicle as having a full service history at the point of sale.For context, I had only just sold my previous vehicle (a Peugeot) through Lookers after discovering its service history was incomplete on the day of collection—an issue I raised directly with your team at the time and can evidence through email correspondence. It is therefore inconceivable that I would have proceeded with this purchase without reassurance that the full service history was available.Additionally, as this transaction involved regulated finance, your failure to refer me to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) in your “final response” is a serious omission. FCA rules require that financial promotions and associated adverts be clear, fair and not misleading. The website and advert in question are, unfortunately, all three—misleading in both content and presentation.I will now be escalating this matter to:• Lookers Head Office,• Mercedes- Benz• The Motor Ombudsman, and• The Financial Conduct Authority,to determine which of these bodies holds your organisation most accountable for this conduct.Please consider this my final communication before escalation. I will give you until 3pm before escalating to the above bodies.RegardsAndrewOn Fri, 17 Oct 2025 at 09:21, William Griffithswrote:Good morning Mr Gregory,I have investigated the terms of your purchase from Maidstone Mercedes in December 2023 and your concerns – the car you purchased was advertised and sold to you as a “lookers approved” vehicle and not through the Mercedes-Benz approved used program.This fact, the way it is displayed on the forecourt and our online advert displays the car as not qualifying for the Mercedes approved used program as part of its sale terms and as such it has categorically not been misrepresented during the sales process to you or to any customer who would have been looking to purchase the vehicle.Please find the description from the advertisement at the time of your purchase below detailing that it is not a Mercedes approved vehicle and comes with a 3 month Lookers warranty;In light of the above I do not see any grounds for a right to reject the vehicle under the claims of a breach of the consumer rights act or of advertising standards and, that I can see, at no point has it been communicated with you that the car you purchased has full service history.Whilst I appreciate this is not the answer you will have been hoping for, this is my final response to your request to reject the vehicle. If you are dissatisfied with it, you may refer your complaint to the National Conciliation Service (NCS). This is a free alternative dispute resolution process. The NCS website can be found at: https://www.nationalconciliationservice.co.uk/. The NCS can be contacted by telephone (01788 538317), by post (NCS, 2 Allerton Rd, Rugby CV23 0PA) or by email (contact@nationalconciliationservice.co.uk).Alternatively, I can confirm that we are also a member of the Motor Ombudsman (TMO) which is another free alternative dispute resolution service.The Motor Ombudsman website can be found at: https://www.themotorombudsman.org/. TMO can be contacted by telephone (0345 241 3008* (option 1)), by post The Motor Ombudsman, 71 Great Peter Street, London, SW1P 2BN United Kingdom or by email using their web form (https://www.themotorombudsman. org/contact/garages-contact).Yours sincerely,William GriffithsGeneral ManagerMercedes-Benz of MaidstoneBircholt Road, Parkwood | Maidstone | ME15 9YNT: 01622 623 700www.lookers.co.uk/mercedes-benzFrom: Andrew GregorySent: 17 October 2025 08:28To: William GriffithsSubject: Re: Refund Request and complaint- UrgentExternal Sender: Confirm legitimacy before acting.Hi William,I appreciate the last minute nature of your notification, as was mine.I also did not find out about this until I was sat in the middle of a car showroom having just parted with a £500 deposit.I’ll expect recompense if the £500 is lost.Thank youAndrewOn Fri, 17 Oct 2025 at 08:25, William Griffithswrote:Good morning Mr Gregory,Thank you for your email.I will look into the situation and your comments before providing a full response, the timelines highlighted below are however unrealistic and this is the first notification of your dissatisfaction that I have been made aware of.I will aim to provide a full response to your concerns within the next 3 working days; Tuesday 21st October.

Very courteous and professional

I never got a response

When I purchased my vehicle new from Mercedes Maidstone, I took out the Minor Damage Protection+ policy. I submitted a claim on 22-Aug-25, followed by another on 11-Sep-25, both of which were assigned to Mercedes Maidstone. Despite my attempts to follow up on progress, I received no communication from Mercedes Maidstone until 08-Oct-25, and at the same time was informed by the insurer (Premia Solutions) that Mercedes Maidstone had "returned the repair" despite them being an authorised repairer.I have now been offered an alternate repairer by Premia Solutions which is not a Mercedes dealership and not in a convenient location for me to attend. I would like to understand why it is not possible for the repair to be carried out at the dealership I purchased the vehicle and the insurance product from, given alloy wheel repair is a service that Mercedes Maidstone offers.

Hi there, to whom it may concern I need urgent assistance with Maidstone branch.Car: Mercedes SL63 AMGLocation: Maidstone lookersMy name: Albert CameronPhone number: 07931332940Email: albertcameron55@gmail.comBelow I will attach the invoice for fitting of new headlights.I am absolutely appalled by the service I have received the last 2 occasions my car has been in for repair.This is for a product failure. That is due to Mercedes faulty product.Backstory is I had both of the headlights replaced in January 2025 due to water ingress and lead to failure. Now the passenger side has condensation and has now failed.The service that I have received has been absolutely diabolical along with the customer care and blatant refusal to replace the product (headlight). I had given my car in with great faith that the problem would’ve been resolved first time which it wasn’t. The blame was being pushed towards me even though proven by my approved Mercedes mechanic (Stevensons) that it is not, I had given the car in on the 10th of September which wasn’t repaired calming that the headlight has exterior damaged. I took it away checked it out with my mechanic to which we was extremely confident that there wasn’t, there was no cracks or marks or movement. So I rebooked it in. I have received a call this morning claiming that there was movement to my headlight which wasn’t there before nor was it picked up or mentioned during the first visit. I know for a fact that this was not the case prior to your Mechanic touching it. The gentleman that I dealt with both times has been extremely adamant and abrupt that he didn’t want to replace it under warranty before even taking the headlight out of the car to find the issue of water ingress and condensation, asking me to come and get the vehicle with no conversation.I am also completely appalled that the car has been sabotage prior to the mechanics video in order for them to not replace the part under the warranty. I absolutely cherish this car. Give it all it needs including the 2 new headlight that was replaced January 2025. I personally clean it every week to keep it pristine. I would’ve noticed if the headlight was moving or distorted, which it wasn’t prior to your company touching it.I need this to be looked at ASAP due to this dragging on for months now. You’re supposed to be a high class valued company and this is the treatment I am receiving.RegardsAlbert Cameron07931332940RegardsAlbert Cameron

Feed back re value of my car very quick and concise. 4 values given.