was booked for a waiting appointment today for recall on the panoramic roof, has taken the time off work and completed 35 mile round trip to be advised seals have not been ordered and that diagnostic appointment and fee would be required before the recall could even be carried out. customer extremely annoyed and shocked by this level of service as had she been advised of this when booking the appointment then she could have planned it more accordingly and wouldn't be as surprised to told this and would feel like it was just a cash grab technique.

Hi,Please can you log a complaint on Rep for the below nonregulated elements and assign to MB Stourbridge.Thank you 😊2. Failure to Deliver Vehicle Within Reasonable TimeframeThe vehicle was initially scheduled for delivery on 22 June 2026, then delayed to 24 June, and ultimately not delivered until 30 June, despite full payment having been made more than 12 days prior.This delay, caused by internal invoicing issues, resulted in my vehicle being withheld without justification. This is a clear failure to meet obligations under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which requires goods to be delivered within a reasonable timeframe. I do not understand why my goods were held due to an internal process of invoices4. Misrepresentation of Vehicle MileageThe vehicle was advertised as having 4,600 miles. I subsequently discovered—only after the sale—that the actual mileage is approximately 5,600 miles.A discrepancy of 1,000 miles is material and constitutes misrepresentation under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. This directly influenced my purchasing decision.5. Incomplete Approved Check DocumentationThe documentation provided to evidence your “approved checks” contains multiple omissions. Despite several follow-up emails requesting clarification and completion, I have received no response.This raises concerns about both the integrity of the checks and your after-sales responsiveness.6. Condition of Vehicle (Interior – Driver’s Mat)Visual evidence shows that the driver’s mat supplied with the vehicle differs from that shown in pre-sale materials. The delivered mat is in materially worse condition (threadbare), which is inconsistent with both the advertised standard and mileage.This further reinforces concerns regarding misrepresentation and quality under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.7. RAC WarrantyTook 2 weeks to receive documentationJenny StegglesComplaints Resolution HandlerHead OfficeLookers House, 1st Floor, Lookers Stoke, Bede Road, Stoke-on-Trent, ST4 4GUT: 0161 291 0043lookers.co.ukFrom: H OSent: 08 July 2026 15:09To: Jenny StegglesSubject: CAS-39834-T0F6F8 Formal complaint - KO75 FUW from your Stourbridge site.External Sender: Confirm legitimacy before acting.---------- Forwarded message ---------From: H ODate: Tue, Jun 30, 2026 at 4:21 PMSubject: Formal complaint - KO75 FUW from your Stourbridge site.To:Dear Sir/Madam,I write to raise a formal complaint regarding my recent purchase of vehicle CLA KO75 FUW from your Stourbridge site.While I acknowledge that Zee (Sales Representative) has been courteous and has attempted to assist, the issues outlined below represent serious failings in process, compliance and customer service. Collectively, they fall significantly below the standards expected of a Mercedes-Benz dealership and raise concerns regarding compliance with consumer protection legislation and FCA requirements.1. Incorrect Personal Data Use and Finance Account ErrorDuring initial engagement, an error occurred whereby my mother’s details were incorrectly accessed and subsequently used. Despite me providing my correct personal information (including address and date of birth), this was not properly updated, resulting in a finance account being opened incorrectly.This constitutes a serious breach of data protection principles under UK GDPR, including accuracy and lawful processing. I expect confirmation of how this breach has been investigated, reported (if applicable), and remedied.2. Failure to Deliver Vehicle Within Reasonable TimeframeThe vehicle was initially scheduled for delivery on 22 June 2026, then delayed to 24 June, and ultimately not delivered until 30 June, despite full payment having been made more than 12 days prior.This delay, caused by internal invoicing issues, resulted in my vehicle being withheld without justification. This is a clear failure to meet obligations under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which requires goods to be delivered within a reasonable timeframe. I do not understand why my goods were held due to an internal process of invoices3. Failure to Provide FCA-Regulated Insurance DocumentationI paid approximately £2,000 for additional warranty and minor damage insurance products. Despite repeated requests, I have not received the terms and conditions for these products.I was incorrectly informed that documentation would only be provided after completion. This is unacceptable. These are FCA-regulated insurance products, and I should have received full documentation at the point of sale, including details of:• Cover and exclusions• Cancellation rights• Cooling-off periodAs a result, my statutory 14-day cooling-off period has effectively been denied, which is a serious compliance concern.A YouTube video was shared; this is not good enough.4. Misrepresentation of Vehicle MileageThe vehicle was advertised as having 4,600 miles. I subsequently discovered—only after the sale—that the actual mileage is approximately 5,600 miles.A discrepancy of 1,000 miles is material and constitutes misrepresentation under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. This directly influenced my purchasing decision.5. Incomplete Approved Check DocumentationThe documentation provided to evidence your “approved checks” contains multiple omissions. Despite several follow-up emails requesting clarification and completion, I have received no response.This raises concerns about both the integrity of the checks and your after-sales responsiveness.6. Condition of Vehicle (Interior – Driver’s Mat)Visual evidence shows that the driver’s mat supplied with the vehicle differs from that shown in pre-sale materials. The delivered mat is in materially worse condition (threadbare), which is inconsistent with both the advertised standard and mileage.This further reinforces concerns regarding misrepresentation and quality under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.ImpactThis experience has caused significant inconvenience, including:• Repeated rearrangement of personal commitments• Extensive time spent chasing information• Ongoing uncertainty regarding key elements of the purchaseDespite courteous interactions with individual staff, the overall experience falls far below acceptable standards for a premium brand.Resolution SoughtGiven the seriousness and cumulative nature of these issues, I am seeking:1. A financial refund/compensation, reflecting:o Misrepresentation of the vehicleo Loss of use and delivery delayso Failure to provide FCA-compliant documentationo Time and inconvenience caused2. Immediate provision of all outstanding documentation, including full insurance terms and confirmation of cancellation rights3. Formal confirmation of how the data breach has been handled, including any reporting to the ICO4. A written explanation of how these failures will be addressed to prevent recurrenceIf I do not receive a satisfactory response within, I will have no hesitation in escalating this matter to the relevant regulatory bodies, including:• Financial Conduct Authority (FCA)• Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO)• Motor OmbudsmanI trust this will not be necessary and that this matter can be resolved promptly and appropriately.I look forward to your response.Kind Regards,Hala Osman

Dear Customer Relations,I am writing to formally raise a complaint regarding the service I have received from Mercedes-Benz Stourbridge following the purchase of my new vehicle. Unfortunately, what should have been an exciting experience has instead been extremely disappointing from start to finish.The issues began before I even collected the vehicle. I originally ordered a specific car, only to be informed around a week later that it was no longer available. I was instead offered an alternative vehicle with a different interior. Although this was not ideal, I accepted the change in good faith and looked forward to collecting the car.Prior to collection, I specifically asked my salesperson, Chung, to ensure the vehicle’s software had been updated, as I was aware that early software versions can cause a number of issues. He assured me this would be done.When I arrived to collect the car, the protective cover was removed to reveal dull paintwork and a significant scratch across the bonnet. After I pointed this out, Chung simply drove the car away without explanation, leaving me waiting in the showroom. He returned a short time later after the scratch had been machine polished out. This was hardly the standard I expected when collecting a brand-new Mercedes-Benz.The handover itself was equally disappointing. Chung rushed through the infotainment setup, skipping through important screens and accepting multiple terms and conditions on my behalf without allowing me the opportunity to read them. Another member of staff even commented that these steps should be completed at the dealership in case any issues arose. Despite this, Chung insisted I could simply complete everything at home, clearly keen to conclude the handover as quickly as possible.Shortly after leaving the dealership, I discovered that the air conditioning was not functioning correctly, along with several other software-related issues that appeared to stem from the vehicle not having been updated as I had specifically requested.I emailed Chung detailing these issues, along with concerns regarding the paintwork. While he forwarded my email to another department, he did not acknowledge my concerns or respond personally. Since the sale was completed, I have received no meaningful communication from him whatsoever. This is in stark contrast to how responsive he was while the purchase was being arranged.After washing the vehicle myself, I discovered numerous scratches, swirl marks and generally poor paintwork across the car. This was particularly concerning given that I had paid Mercedes-Benz £600 for a paint enhancement, ceramic coating and detailing package before collection.To obtain an independent opinion, I took the vehicle to a respected professional detailing specialist. They were genuinely shocked by the condition of the paintwork and advised that the ceramic coating had clearly been applied without the necessary preparation or paint correction. They identified numerous scratches and defects that had simply been polished over or concealed rather than properly rectified. Their professional opinion was that the preparation fell well below the standard expected for such a premium service.As a result, I had no option but to pay a further £500 to have the vehicle professionally corrected and ceramic coated properly. The car now looks exactly as I expected it should have looked when I collected it from Mercedes-Benz.Overall, I am extremely disappointed by every stage of this experience, from the change of vehicle, to the poor handover, the lack of software preparation, the unacceptable condition of the paintwork, the ineffective ceramic coating, and the complete lack of after-sales support.When purchasing a vehicle of this value from a premium manufacturer, I expected a significantly higher level of professionalism and customer care. Instead, this has been one of the worst vehicle purchasing experiences I have had. If this reflects the standard of service across the Mercedes-Benz dealer network, it genuinely makes me question whether I would purchase another Mercedes-Benz in the future.I would appreciate a full investigation into this matter and an explanation of how Mercedes-Benz intends to resolve my concerns.In particular, I would like Mercedes-Benz to consider reimbursing the £600 I paid for the dealership’s ceramic coating and detailing package, as the service was clearly not carried out to an acceptable standard and I was forced to pay a further £500 to have the work completed properly by an independent professional.I look forward to receiving your response and understanding how you intend to bring this matter to a satisfactory conclusion.Yours faithfully,

DearI am writing to formally request the immediate release of the full policy documentation for the insurance product I was sold as part of my vehicle purchase.At the point of sale, I was not provided with the policy wording, IPID, or terms and conditions for the insurance product. I have since been informed that these documents are being withheld due to unrelated paperwork not being signed. As you will be aware, insurance products are regulated financial services, and withholding essential policy information on the basis of unrelated documents is not permitted under FCA rules or the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.Customers must receive full policy information before or at the time of agreeing to purchase an insurance product. Without these documents, I am unable to understand the cover, exclusions, cancellation rights, or obligations associated with the policy. This situation places me at a disadvantage and does not meet the standards expected of a regulated insurance sale.I therefore request that the complete policy documentation be provided to me without further delay. If there is any issue specifically relating to the insurance product itself, please confirm this in writing.I trust this can be resolved promptly. If not, I will consider escalating the matter to the Financial Ombudsman Service for review.Kind regards,

I am writing to make a formal complaint regarding my recent experience with Lookers Mercedes-Benz Stourbridge.On 29 June 2026, I booked my Mercedes E-Class in for an air conditioning regas appointment on 3 July 2026. Before confirming the booking, I specifically asked whether the dealership had the correct R744 refrigerant required for my vehicle. The service advisor checked the system and confirmed that they did. I was told that the booking was suitable for Mercedes S-Class air conditioning systems, which use the same type of refrigerant, and therefore my vehicle could be serviced without issue.Based on that assurance, I arranged to take a day off work and attended my appointment at 10:45am on 3 July.Nearly two hours later, at approximately 12:36pm, I received a phone call informing me that the dealership did not, in fact, have the correct refrigerant required for my vehicle. This was extremely frustrating, as the issue could and should have been identified before my appointment was confirmed.I remained at the dealership until around 2:00pm while a health check and car wash were completed. Whilst I appreciate those services, they were not the reason for my visit and do not compensate for the inconvenience caused by the original booking error.Following this, I contacted Lookers Mercedes-Benz Wolverhampton myself after being advised they may have the correct equipment. They have now booked my vehicle in for 10 July 2026. However, I have been informed that I cannot wait while the work is carried out, and if I require a courtesy car, the earliest availability is 27 July and there is an additional charge of £30.As a result of this error, I have already lost one day’s annual leave from work and will now need to take a second day off next Friday because the original appointment was incorrectly accepted. This inconvenience was entirely avoidable had the correct checks been carried out before my booking was confirmed.I would also like to recognise the excellent customer service provided by Daisy at Lookers Mercedes-Benz Stourbridge. Throughout my time at the dealership, she was professional, courteous, understanding and did everything she could to assist me. My complaint is not about her service, but about the failure of the booking process and the inaccurate information I was given before attending my appointment.I would appreciate a response addressing:* Why my booking was accepted and confirmed when the dealership did not have the required R744 refrigerant.* What steps will be taken to prevent other customers experiencing the same issue.* What goodwill gesture or compensation Lookers considers appropriate in light of the unnecessary loss of two days’ annual leave, the wasted journey, and the significant inconvenience caused.I look forward to your response.

PLEASE SEE ATTACHMENTS FOR THE COMPLAINT

We have not been paid for a job we did in March, six mots on funeral vehicles. they could not mot themsleves as the vehicles were too big for their mor rampPayment urgently needed £329.10 I have tried the accounts many, many times.

customer has advised that vehicle had been in with yourselves for servicing and wheel alignment and following collection he has noticed damage and looking to determine when this occurred. received notifications while the car was in regarding doors and boot opening & closing and certain he received one for the sunroof which he thought was odd. collected the vehicle and then was on holiday for a week, has since then used the car and noticed shattered glass. reported it to site and still awaiting a response regarding it.

visited dealership and after viewing vehicle on the ramp had agreed on purchasing for £18000. numerous cosmetic issues were highlighted and agreed to be carried out before receiving it. was advised to come up to dealership to sort private plate transfer, has received log book and details were recorded incorrectly. called the dealership to advise of this and was then told alloys would only be painted not diamond cut, seat repair would only be carried out to best they can. has since received a call from the sales executive he had been dealing with today to advise that they are refunding his deposit back to him due to him not being happy with the vehicle. he has advised he has never stated this and would not have paid the retention cost for the private plate and drove back and forth several times if he was not interested in going ahead with it.

Dear Sirs,This email constitutes our final, absolute, and non-negotiable Formal Notice of Rejection regarding the Mercedes-Benz GLB, registration GV71 BWK, pursuant to Section 19 and Section 24 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.This regulated finance contract is officially in a state of terminal dispute. From the receipt of this notice, no further standard customer service discussions will be entered into with Mercedes-Benz of Stourbridge. The vehicle is permanently rejected as an unsafe, non-conforming asset. The statutory resolution and financial unwinding of this contract now sit strictly between the finance provider (as the legal owner of the vehicle) and Lookers Motor Group (as the supplying dealership).1. Chronology of Material Defect & Failure of the Statutory Right to RepairUnder UK law, a supplying dealer is permitted a single statutory opportunity to repair a significant defect. Lookers Mercedes-Benz Stourbridge has been afforded five consecutive opportunities spanning seven months, and has fundamentally failed.The undisputed timeline of this specific, life-threatening transmission communication failure is as follows:• Incident 1 (December 2025): The vehicle first suffered a transmission/gearbox failure. Lookers took possession, diagnosed a potential software anomaly, and updated the control software. The finance company was explicitly formally notified of our concerns at this juncture, but we acted in good faith to allow the repair attempt.• Incident 2 (10th April 2026): The exact same fault reoccurred. Lookers retained the vehicle and issued a diagnostic reading of "No Fault Found" (NFF).• Incident 3 (27th May 2026): The vehicle suffered a catastrophic loss of drive while operating in Lane 3 of a live motorway with children on board. This resulted in an emergency highway closure by traffic authorities to facilitate recovery. The consumer incurred a direct personal out-of-pocket cost of£192.00 for this recovery (invoice retained).• Incident 4 (June 2026 - Consecutive Workshop Access): Following the motorway failure, the vehicle became temporarily operable again and was returned to Lookers. The workshop again issued a "No Fault Found" conclusion and dangerously instructed the consumer to "drive it around over the weekend to try and make the failure happen again."When it did not actively fail that weekend, it was returned the following Monday for further investigation, where a fourth "No Fault Found" was issued.• Incident 5 (15th June 2026 - Current Incident):The vehicle suffered another total loss of drive, rendering it completely un-roadworthy and stranded. The AA attended the scene (Job Number: 13219). Operating independently, the AA patrol ran diagnostics while the vehicle was in a failed state and successfully captured the root defect: Fault Code U040229 (CAN communication failure with Transmission Control system / Message from transmission not plausible).2. Repudiation of Dealer Claims Regarding "Warranty Exclusions"Following intake on 17/06/2026, Lookers Stourbridge service staff verbally confirmed that their workshop diagnostics now point to an internal wiring loom/network communication issue requiring extensive physical stripping of the asset. Staff simultaneously asserted that wiring harnesses are excluded under the Mercedes-Benz Extended Warranty policy (administered by Allianz).We formally state that this position is a legal irrelevance and cannot be used to challenge this rejection:1. Statutory Law Overrides Insurance Policies: An extended warranty is an independent insurance product. This dispute is governed strictly by theConsumer Rights Act 2015, under which the consumer’s contract is with the finance company and the supplying dealer.2. Inherent Manufacturing Defect: Internal wiring harnesses and CAN-bus networks are fixed components designed for the lifetime of the vehicle; they are not wear-and-tear items. A systemic failure of the vehicle’s communication network that actively strips the vehicle of drive constitutes a fundamental breach of the statutory implied terms of satisfactory quality, safety, and fitness for purpose.3. Explicit Admission of Prior Fault: By verbally confirming a suspected deep-seated wiring network failure yesterday, Lookers has explicitly admitted that a physical defect has existed within the car all along, proving that their previous "No Fault Found" assessments were structurally incorrect.3. Final Legal Position & Financial RemediationBecause the statutory single opportunity to repair was legally exhausted four visits ago, our Final Right to Reject is absolute. We require the finance provider to finalize the termination of this agreement and process the following mandatory remedies within the regulatory timeline:• A full refund of the initial deposit paid.• A full refund of all monthly finance instalments paid from the inception of the contract to date.• Reimbursement of the £192.00 emergency motorway recovery fee caused directly by the vehicle’s failure.• The statutory addition of 8% compensatory interest per annum on all refunded sums, calculated from the date of each payment to the date of settlement.4. Mandatory Maintenance of Continuous MobilityTo ensure compliance with the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) guidelines regarding consumer vulnerability and treating customers fairly, Sarah Fones must not be penalized or left without transport for work due to the supply of this dangerous asset.A hire car has currently been provided and funded by Mercedes Stourbridge.• If Lookers attempts to prematurely withdraw or recall this hire car as a consequence of this formal rejection notice, the responsibility shifts instantly to the finance company, as the legal owner of the disputed asset, to immediately step in and fund an alternative rental vehicle on their corporate account.• The current hire vehicle (or an equivalent provision funded directly by the finance provider) will remain in Sarah Fones’ possession until this dispute is officially closed, the contract is canceled, and all settlement funds have cleared into our bank account.The vehicle keys, the asset itself, and the logistical burden of its ongoing diagnostic teardown are now entirely the property of Lookers and the finance company. We await written validation of the rejection and the final calculation of our refund figures.Please forward a reference number for this rejection notice as a matter of urgency as agreed in our phone conversation of 22/06/2026Yours faithfully,Sarah Fones