>> **To:** VehicleComplaints@lookers.co.uk>> **CC:** CustomerFeedback@lookers.co.uk, cs.uk@cac.mercedes-benz.com>>>>>> **Subject:** Formal Complaint: Substandard After-Sales Service & Missing AMG Experience – F15 BKR>>>>>> FAO: General Manager, Mercedes-Benz of Tonbridge>>>> Dear Sir/Madam,>>>> I am writing to formally lodge a complaint regarding the unacceptable level of after-sales service I have received following the purchase of a 2026 Mercedes-AMG GLC 63s from Mercedes-Benz of Tonbridge in March of this year.>>>> As a flagship performance vehicle, my expectations for handover and subsequent customer care were high.>>>> Unfortunately, the experience has fallen significantly short of both the Lookers Group standard and the premium reputation of the AMG brand in two distinct areas:>>>> 1. Pre-Delivery Inspection (PDI) Failure & Poor Remedial Care>>>> The vehicle was delivered with a prominent door dent. Rectifying this defect took weeks of poor communication and constant chasing on my part.>>>> Ultimately, the lack of proactive management from the Tonbridge team forced me to personally coordinate and deal with the third-party dent repair technicians to get the issue resolved.>>>> Having to act as my own service coordinator to fix a delivery defect on a high-value vehicle is entirely unacceptable.>>>> 2. Missing AMG Driving Academy Invitation>>>> As a core part of the AMG purchase value, I am entitled to a complimentary AMG Experience at Mercedes-Benz World.>>>> Four months post-delivery, this invitation has still not been processed or issued by the dealership. Because this entitlement must be booked and taken within 12 months of delivery, the delay is actively eating into my eligibility window.>>>>>> Required Resolution:>>>> To resolve this matter satisfactorily, I expect:>>>> Immediate manual intervention from management to trigger and confirm my AMG Experience booking at Mercedes-Benz World.>>>> A formal response addressing the lack of ownership and poor communication regarding the delivery damage.>>>> A meaningful gesture of goodwill from Mercedes-Benz of Tonbridge to compensate for the significant time, effort, and frustration expended on correcting a fault that should have been caught prior to handover.>>>> I look forward to your prompt response detailing how Lookers and Mercedes-Benz intend to rectify this situation.>>>> Yours sincerely>>>> Amanda Baker>>>>

Formal Complaint Regarding the Conduct of Sales Executive Jack HeasmanI wish to raise a formal complaint regarding the service we received from Mr Jack Heasman during the purchase of our Mercedes-Benz GLE (registration GH75GBR), ordered in August 2025 through the Mercedes-Benz Tonbridge dealership.When we visited the showroom in August 2025, our intention was to exchange our existing Mercedes-Benz GLE (registration G22GBR) for the new hybrid version. From the outset, we made it absolutely clear that we wished to replace our existing vehicle on a like-for-like basis, with the new vehicle matching the specification of our current car as closely as possible.We repeatedly explained that we required the highest and most comprehensive specification available for this model, including every optional feature available. Mr Heasman assured us on several occasions that this would be the case. He stated that he had checked the specification and confirmed that the new vehicle would match our existing vehicle accordingly.However, at no stage before the order was signed, the deposit was paid, or the vehicle was delivered were we informed that the new vehicle would not include important features that were fitted to our previous GLE.In particular, the following items were omitted:* Dashcam* DISTRONICHad we been made aware of these omissions before placing the order, we would have reconsidered the specification and explored alternative options. Instead, we relied entirely on Mr Heasman's repeated assurances that the new vehicle would be equivalent to, or better equipped than, our existing one.The discrepancies only became apparent after we had handed over our previous vehicle and taken delivery of the new one. This caused considerable disappointment and frustration, as we had trusted the advice given to us throughout the purchasing process.It is our view that insufficient care was taken to compare the specifications of the two vehicles before the order was finalised. As a result, we were sold a vehicle that did not meet the requirements we had clearly communicated from the outset. Our impression is that the priority was completing the sale rather than ensuring that the vehicle ordered genuinely met our stated requirements.We ask that Mercedes-Benz investigates this matter, explains how these omissions occurred despite our repeated requests for a like-for-like replacement with the fullest available specification, and advises what steps can now be taken to resolve the situation.We have been loyal Mercedes-Benz customers and expected a far higher standard of professionalism, accuracy and customer care throughout what should have been a straightforward replacement purchase.We look forward to your response.

Hi, I recently had my car mot'd and some minor repairs done and wanted to commend you on your customer service, at a time when finding good staff is difficult ( being an employer myself) the service I received was fantastic , namely Josh who looked after my wife and I from booking to updates, courtesy car request and feedback on our car. Also to Joanne who was always on hand to assist as well. You are very lucky to have such great employees. As much as I don't want to go back ( until my next mot !!) I know if I have to I will be looked after. Many thanks Carl and Samantha Rogers.

I would like to raise a serious complaint regarding work carried out by your dealership on 10 February 2026.On that date, my car underwent tyres change at your official dealership, together with a vehicle health check. Since that appointment, I had not opened the boot or carried out any checks myself.On 9 May 2026, I received both a dashboard warning and an email stating that the coolant level was critically low and that continuing to drive could damage the engine. After parking the car and opening the boot, I discovered that the coolant reservoir cap had been left completely open and was lying nearby rather than secured in place.This is extremely alarming and unacceptable. The cap should clearly have been checked and properly secured during the vehicle health check performed by your dealership. Driving a vehicle for almost three months with the coolant system left open could have caused serious engine damage and created a dangerous situation.On 11 May 2026, the Mercedes-Benz roadside assistance team refilled the coolant and carried out checks on the vehicle. My understanding is that the issue has been temporarily resolved; however, this does not change the fact that the vehicle was left in a potentially dangerous condition following the work performed by your dealership.I trusted an official dealership to carry out professional and safe work on my vehicle. Discovering such a critical oversight has seriously undermined my confidence in the quality and safety standards of your service department.I would like:a full investigation into how this happened,confirmation of whether any damage may have been caused to the vehicle,and clarification of what corrective action will now be taken.I look forward to your response.Kind regards,Svitlana

Visited Tonbridge in April, with idea of trade-for above vehicle. Callum located a likely replacement KT25LXK. Had third year of prepaid unused Service Plan on EF14 asked Callum the position for transferring residual to replacement vehicle. He stated we should just take out new plan & apply for refund for unused SP. Sounded good so proceeded with purchase documentation. Justin then appeared to set up new Service Plan on KT25. We again checked regarding the unused period Service Plan. Justin repeated we should apply for refund.Contacted MG Service Plan providers who stated no refund was due for unused plan and indeed we owed money because more costs had been previously expended without our knowledge.Complaint rests on fact that had we not twice been given misleading information from Tonbridge Sales we would not have made replacement vehicle at that juncture but at a later date when we had full value from original plan.We have had two phone conversations with Justin & when last spoke on this issue he promised to ring us back but never did. Have called showroom twice, told Justin not available, left messages, still no callback.Sales team are highly professional and on the ball regarding selling but solving our issue appears zero priority.Colin Saunders

Dear Lookers Customer Resolutions Team,Re: Formal Complaint regarding Mercedes-Benz Financial Services PCH agreement 0026665250509001I am writing to log a formal complaint regarding my current Personal Contract Hire (PCH) vehicle, registration number GF25JTX, which was supplied and delivered to me just under a year ago by Mercedes-Benz of Tonbridge (Vale Rise, TN9 1TB).This vehicle represents my second consecutive PCH agreement with Lookers. I explicitly requested and ordered the exact same model with the identical specifications as my previous vehicle. Because the vehicles were structurally identical, I had a fair and reasonable expectation that the ongoing running costs and tax liabilities would remain consistent with my first lease.At no point during the renewal process, nor during my consultations with the sales team at the Tonbridge branch, was it disclosed to me that this replacement vehicle had an original manufacturer list price exceeding £40,000 when new—subsequently triggering the DVLA Expensive Car Supplement.While the vehicle was marketed and sold to me at a price point under £40,000, your team completely omitted the fact that its baseline list price carries a mandatory premium car tax penalty of £440 per year. As a returning customer renewing a like-for-like contract, I relied on Lookers to explicitly flag any significant financial changes or added overheads between the old vehicle and this replacement.Failing to disclose a premium tax liability on an identical vehicle upgrade constitutes a direct breach of the FCA’s Consumer Duty principles. Lookers failed to provide clear information, thereby creating an unmitigated financial trap and causing me direct financial detriment.As a resolution to this complaint, I expect Lookers to:1. Recompensate me for the £440 annual tax surcharge invoices passed on by Mercedes-Benz Financial Services for the remaining duration of my lease contract.2. Provide a formal explanation as to why this material change in running costs was omitted during my renewal consultations at the Tonbridge dealership.I expect a formal acknowledgment of this email within 3 working days and a final response within 8 weeks, as per FCA guidelines, before I escalate this matter directly to the Financial Ombudsman Service.Yours sincerely,Devinder KaurContact No: 07871550582Address: 232 Walstead road, delves, Walsall. WS54DP

cust recently purchased a vehicle and over the weekend found a stone chip. Auto glass and have advised the cust that there has been a repair to the windscreen recently. The cust has had the vehicle for 7 weeks. Cust have spoken to branch but they are not willing to help

deposit paid and nothing has been returned to thee customer after advising that they were not going ahead with the purchase. £250 17th April

I have multiple warning lights on GK67YHT. It’s disappointing that the vehicle cannot even be looked at ‘til 30 April. Since 2002 I have bought all my cars from you and had them serviced by you. Now I have to go elsewhere- even to have the problem assessed.

wiper blades not working cust sorted himself. car due for service took to local dealership and they dew cut attention to an oil leak coming from rear diff, temp sensor leaking. as not covered under the warranty. bought in October, should have been in good working order, advisory for the oil leak and also the window wipers.