I am writing to raise a complaint regarding my recent pre-booked Service B and MOT carried out on 12th March. Unfortunately, the experience fell well below the standard I expect. My vehicle was returned to me in a dirty condition, and I was not provided with any paperwork at the time, as I was informed your printer was not working and that the documents would be emailed—however, I have yet to receive them. Additionally, I did not receive the health check video that was supposed to accompany the service. More concerning, less than a month later on 4th April, I had to refill the AdBlue after a warning light appeared, which is unexpected so soon after a full service. This level of service is unacceptable and not what I would expect from a Mercedes dealership. Please could you send me the health check video, all service documentation outlining what was carried out and the vehicle condition, as well as my MOT certificate at your earliest convenience.

Dear Lookers Mercedes Worcester,I think you run an excellent business, staff are always very polite and helpful. There was some confusion about a quote but Dan handled the situation perfectly. I have been and will carry on singing your praises to friends and family. Thankyou.Kind Regards,Stuart and Helen Homer.

Dear Mr Fisher,I am submitting a formal complaint regarding the rejection of my Lookers Motor Group Platinum Plus warranty claim, administered by RAC/Assurant, for my vehicle:Vehicle details:• Make & Model: Mercedes-Benz C200 (2016, W205, petrol)• Registration: KS16 OPO• Mileage at time of fault: under 59,000 miles• Warranty: Lookers Motor Group Platinum Plus (administered by RAC / Assurant)Nature of the fault:The vehicle developed an airbag warning light and the dashboard message:“Front left malfunction – consult workshop.”A Mercedes-Benz main dealer diagnosed the fault as a failure of the weight sensing system pad and control unit for the front passenger seat. The quoted cost of repair is £1,902.Claim outcome:The warranty claim was declined by RAC/Assurant, citing the exclusion:“seats (including all internal electrical/mechanical components)”Grounds for complaint:1. Incorrect classification of a safety-critical componentThe failed part is part of the occupant detection system, directly affecting airbag deployment. While physically in the seat, its function is clearly related to vehicle safety systems rather than seat comfort or trim.2. Conflict with primary policy coverThe policy states that all mechanical and electrical parts are included unless specifically excluded. The failed part is an electrical sensor and control unit. No clear exclusion exists for safety-related SRS electronics.3. Ambiguity and unreasonable interpretationThe policy separately excludes “air bag” and “seats (including all internal electrical/mechanical components)” but does not exclude airbag sensors, control units, or occupant detection systems. RAC’s rejection relies solely on the component’s location, not its function, which is an unreasonable interpretation.4. Eligibility and nature of the failureThe vehicle is under 80,000 miles, satisfying the policy criteria. There is no indication that the failure is due to wear and tear or end-of-life. This is an unexpected electrical failure within the scope of warranty cover.Resolution sought:I request that Lookers Motor Group honour the warranty and cover the full cost of repair (£1,902).Attachments:• Complaint document RAC• RAC/Assurant rejection letter• Warranty document• Mercedes-Benz diagnosis• Repair quotePlease confirm receipt of this complaint and provide a timeline for resolution.Yours sincerely,Marjan Lazov

Dear Lookers,I am writing to formally raise a complaint regarding the £250 deposit refund owed to Mr Spriggs.Mr Spriggs paid a £250 deposit on 18 February. He attended the dealership again on 10 March and provided the log book as requested. At that point we were informed that the £250 refund would be processed. Logically, this should have been actioned the following working day. However, we have since been told that the refund was not processed until 20 March.It has now been 14 days since that date and the funds were only received today.I am extremely dissatisfied with the lack of communication and the way this matter has been handled. I have repeatedly called the dealership asking to speak to someone else or to receive a call from the finance team, yet I have heard nothing back from either a manager or the team responsible for payments. Being repeatedly told to “wait a few days” is not an acceptable response.I work in finance and understand how payment processing works. If a payment has genuinely been issued, it should normally reach the receiving bank account by the next working day. Based on the timeline provided, this refund should reasonably have been received no later than 12 March.I had already given multiple opportunities for this to be resolved informally. Due to the continued delays and lack of action, this email now serves as a formal complaint. Retaining a customer’s funds for this length of time without clear explanation or resolution does not meet any reasonable standards.As this has now been raised formally twice, I expect a formal response and prompt resolution.Kind regards,Rosie Rhodes

I refer to my ongoing complaint under reference 87105752. The issue has still not been resolved. I was told I would receive contact from the manager who would be in the office at 8:30am. Ot was not until this afternoon that I heard from him. I repeated my position that I was never advised that (a) the £120 was to cover just one hour costs. That from my perspective made no sense as I had to leave the car with them the whole of Friday. It was therefore reasonable in the absence of being told anything to the contrary that the £120 was the total cost of the diagnostic check. (b) They had failed to advise of additional costs both at the time of booking and when I checked in the car on the Friday. (c) their staff are experts and as such would have known that to access the parts responsible for the issues the front bumper would need to be removed. Again without being advised to the contrary it was reasonable for me to assume this would be included in the notified costs.(d) there has been a total lack of communication both in respect of costs and in keeping me updated. Bearing in mind the car was left with them on Friday I had expected a courtesy call later that day. Had I not chased them on the following Monday I’m not sure I would have heard from them. (e) I was advised of the additional costs for the very first time during that phone call. I must assume they accepted liability for failing to fully advise me at the time I booked the appointment as they offered to halve the additional hourly rates. That is not acceptable to me.I pointed out to the manager that they are in breach of contract. I was told the cost of the diagnostic check (£120), they accepted the car on that basis when it was booked in on the Friday. So there is offer and acceptance. I should mention that my wife and I are both lawyers and fully conversant with our legal rights.Following my conversation with the manager he said he would take advice and get back to me in an hour or so. He has not done so (it is now 17:32).This is another example of the lack of communication which goes to evidencing the failures I have mentioned.It does not help that you have not responded formally to my complaint ref 87105752. Can please treat this matter as one of urgency with a view to resolving this very unsatisfactory state of affairs.

Non payment of refund deposit despite chasing several times by phoine and email

My wife’s car, reg K12TFF, required a full diagnostic check to ascertain the cause of a number of issues namely, inoperative park assistance, inoperative brake assist, inoperative SOS . I called Worcester Merc to arrange for the checks to be carried out. I was initially told the cost would be £80 for full diagnostic check and for a report to be provided setting out the findings and details of costs etc. I was also advised I would need to leave the car with them for a whole day. When I took the car on Friday 20/03, I was told by the service staff member (Anthony) that the cost was in fact £120. I mentioned the earlier cost advice but told it was wrong so although annoyed accepted it was an error. I discussed the issues to ensure the diagnostic covered everything. I pointed out that I had a separate insurance and so would need to have the report and costing for the insurer as they would have to authorise any work. It was on this basis that the car was left for the diagnostic checks to be made at the agreed cost of £120.I was told I would be updated but heard nothing from the Friday so on Monday 23/03 I called to find out. I spoke with the same service chap and expressed my disappointment that no one had called to update me for which he apologised. However, I would have expected a much better service in that respect. Then, to add insult to injury, I was advised the service department would need the car for an additional 2 hours which I was fine with until I was told they required an additional £229 per hour (£498) to complete the diagnostic check as it required removal of the front bumper.I repeated that it had been agreed the cost of the diagnostic check would be £120. He replied that that was the cost for the first hour which had never been said at the time of making the booking. Furthermore, as the car was required for the whole day, it was by inference agreed that the £120 was the total amount payable. Otherwise why would you need the car for the whole day if what you are saying is that you only did one hour’s work on it? It is a simple matter of contract I.e; you agreed to do the work for £120, I accepted the cost by leaving the car with you, and you undertook to do the work which I expected to be completed on the Friday (no mention of needing the car for more than the specified day). I would add that knowing what the issues were and together likely to be the front camera/radar system, you would know, that in order to carry out the checks you would have to access it by removing the front bumper. You have had the car from Friday and still have it now. I get the impression that my car was not worked on the whole time it was with you but that is not my concern. You cannot now say that you did not have enough time and expect me to make a further payment. Incidentally, I was advised the assistant manager had agreed to reduce the additional hourly rate to £120 which suggests you know you are in the wrong. However I am not prepared to pay any more than what was agreed.I repeat, there exits between us a contract for you to do the specified full diagnostic checks and a courtesy health check for £120.Please confirm instructions will be given for the work to be done at no further cost to me to include providing a full written report with details of and parts required and the related costs as was agreed at the time I handed over the car.

Good Afternoon BrianThank you for your email.As the product is non regulated this would not be something our team would deal with.@Customer Feedback – please could you arrange for this to be logged and referred to the dealership.Many thanks.Regards.F and I ComplaintsManchester Head OfficeLookers House 1st Floor, Lookers Stoke, Bede Road, ST4 4GUlookers.co.ukFrom: Brian PageSent: 18 March 2026 14:21To: F and I ComplaintsCc: Andrew LeighSubject: FW: 21076481 - GN22UVT - Kalooji - WorcesterGood afternoonWe have received the attached complaints via MB CCCI am unsure if you would need to investigate and reach out to the customer directly.I have responded to MB in the meantimePlease let me know if you require any further informationThanksBrianBrian PageGeneral ManagerMercedes-Benz of WorcesterHindlip Road, Hindlip | Worcester | WR3 8SBT: 01905 450 200lookers.co.uk/mercedes-benzFrom: Mercedes CACSent: 17 March 2026 15:44To: Andrew Leigh; Luke Roessler; Brian PageCc: Mercedes CACSubject: 21076481 - GN22UVT - Kalooji - WorcesterCS/Complaint – Mis-Sold Extended Warranty14/03/26, 21:26Selling Retailer: MB Worcester Service Retailer: MB Heathrow • The customer purchased an extended warranty from Lookers Mercedes Benz Worcester in March 2024, believing it to be a genuine Mercedes Benz manufacturer warranty. • They were not informed that the policy was administered by RAC, and the invoice did not clearly disclose this. • When attempting to make a warranty claim for a faulty fingerprint sensor at Sytner Mercedes Benz Heathrow, the customer was told the claim could not be processed because the warranty is not a Mercedes Benz warranty. • The customer was instructed to return to Lookers Worcester, which is over 50 miles away and causes unreasonable inconvenience. • They believe the warranty was mis sold due to lack of transparency and inaccurate representation at the point of sale. Expectations – Authorisation for Sytner Heathrow to complete the repair under the warranty, or – Collection and repair of the vehicle by Lookers Worcester, or – A full refund for the extended warranty due to mis selling. • They state they will escalate the matter to Trading Standards and the Financial Ombudsman if unresolved. • They request a written response within 14 days and have included the invoice for reference.Refuse caseAccept for editingFeedback17/03/26, 13:30Hi Team, Can you please look into this customers complaint. • The customer purchased an extended warranty from Lookers Mercedes Benz Worcester in March 2024, believing it to be a genuine Mercedes Benz manufacturer warranty. • They were not informed that the policy was administered by RAC, and the invoice did not clearly disclose this. • When attempting to make a warranty claim for a faulty fingerprint sensor at Sytner Mercedes Benz Heathrow, the customer was told the claim could not be processed because the warranty is not a Mercedes Benz warranty. • The customer was instructed to return to Lookers Worcester, which is over 50 miles away and causes unreasonable inconvenience. • They believe the warranty was mis sold due to lack of transparency and inaccurate representation at the point of sale. Expectations – Authorisation for Sytner Heathrow to complete the repair under the warranty, or – Collection and repair of the vehicle by Lookers Worcester, or – A full refund for the extended warranty due to mis selling. Thanks in advance.

Cust wishing to have the deposit back as they are not going ahead with the purchase.

Hi called the service team, just to ask when my next service was due, the person started asking me for address and email and telephone info. I asked why she needed all my personal data just to let me know at what mileage I should book in. She had no idea what I meant, why I was challenging and the implications not GDPR. She then cut the callShort saying once a year or every 15000 miles which was not really what I needed