I am formally complaining about Audi Teesside’s handling of an unresolved fault with my Audi Q5, purchased new in May 2025 on a PCP agreement.The vehicle developed significant faults around November 2025, including a defective fuel gauge and intermittent heating fault. I first contacted Audi in January 2026 and the vehicle was inspected on 13 February 2026. I was subsequently advised the issue could not currently be repaired because the required software fix does not yet exist. I am left with an unsafe vehicle.Since then, despite months of delay and repeated chasing from me:no repair has been completed,no courtesy car has been provided,no settlement figures have been issued,and no clear resolution has been communicated.I commute approximately 500 miles per week and repeatedly explained I do not feel comfortable driving a vehicle with a known unresolved fault. Despite this, Audi has left me continuing to drive the car with no meaningful support offered.I requested termination of the PCP agreement due to the unresolved faults and total loss of confidence in the vehicle. Audi then advised further diagnostics were needed before progressing matters, however no arrangements or next steps have subsequently been actioned.I consider this a breach of my rights under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The vehicle is not of satisfactory quality, not fit for purpose and Audi has failed to resolve the matter within a reasonable timeframe.I require urgent Head Office intervention to bring this matter to a fair conclusion.I do not want multiple contact points as I have a very demanding job meaning I have limited availability to respond to phone calls during office hours. Audi Teesside are well aware of my complaint. I want progress and resolution.

Vehicles I looked at were in a poor state of cleanliness and generally did not give us confidence to purchase

I sent a autotrader message. No reply for ages. I rang and never got a call back, rang again about 10 times nobody even answered the phone

6 May 2026The Complaints ManagerLookers Motor Group LimitedLookers House, 1st FloorLookers Stoke, Bede RoadST4 4GUFor the attention of: The Group Customer Relations / Complaints TeamYour Reference: GBR00468A / Teesside Audi / KN67 NKDVehicle Registration: KN67 NKDVIN: WAUZZZF86JN005879Initial Complaint Date: 22 April 2026 (to Lookers Group customer services)Follow-up Reminder: 28 April 2026 — no response received to either communicationVehicle Off Road Since: March 2026 — now exceeding 6 weeksRe: Second and Escalated Formal Complaint — Teesside Audi (GBR00468A) — Systemic Vehicle Defect, Misdiagnosis, Withheld Diagnostic Data, and Active Notice of Section 75 Claims — Demand for Resolution by 14 May 2026Dear Sir or Madam,I write to submit a second and formally escalated group-level complaint against Teesside Audi (Brooklime Avenue, Stockton-on-Tees, TS18 3UR — dealer reference GBR00468A), a trading subsidiary of Lookers Motor Group Limited, in respect of a series of serious failures relating to the diagnosis, repair, and data handling of my vehicle — an Audi A8 Saloon L 55 TFSI Quattro, registration KN67 NKD, VIN WAUZZZF86JN005879.This escalation is driven by two distinct failures, which I address in turn.1. Lookers Motor Group Has Not Responded to Formal Complaints of 22 April and 28 April 2026On 22 April 2026, I submitted a comprehensive formal complaint directly to Lookers Motor Group's customer services email address (customerservices@lookers.co.uk). That complaint set out in full the systemic defect history, the misdiagnosis in October 2024, the pattern of three acute failures, the withheld diagnostic data, and the absence of a courtesy vehicle. It was accompanied by a detailed Technical Reference Document and a four-part evidential appendix bundle.On 28 April 2026, I sent a written follow-up reminder to vehiclecomplaints@lookers.co.uk, reiterating the complaint and noting that the vehicle remained off the road with no resolution in sight.As of the date of this letter — 5 May 2026 — Lookers Motor Group has provided no response of any kind to either communication. No acknowledgement of receipt, no interim holding reply, and no indication of when a substantive response will follow.Lookers Motor Group has not responded to a formal complaint submitted on 22 April 2026.A written reminder on 28 April 2026 has also received no response.Thirteen days of complete silence from the group on a matter involving a vehicle that has been off the road for over six weeks is not acceptable.This group-level failure to engage is the primary driver of this escalation.2. Teesside Audi Has Engaged Patchily But Is Not Progressing the MatterIn contrast to the complete absence of any response from Lookers Group itself, Teesside Audi has provided some responses — but these have been inadequate, incomplete, and have not resulted in any meaningful progress. Specifically:• Teesside Audi has communicated with Audi UK regarding the current proposed repair (BSG replacement at 50% customer cost). However, the basis for this recommendation has not been provided to me in writing, and the required diagnostic documentation has not been disclosed.• Teesside Audi has not provided the ODIS diagnostic report from the October 18, 2024 sessions — despite this covering 10 hours of charged diagnostic labour and being formally requested on multiple occasions since 30 March 2026. This is a subject of a DSAR request to your GDPR team.• Teesside Audi has not provided the May 2023 BSG replacement invoice, which would confirm the part number actually fitted.• Teesside Audi has not provided a written root cause analysis explaining why the vehicle has stalled on three separate occasions following prolonged motorway drives.• Teesside Audi has not provided a confirmed repair timeline or a courtesy vehicle, despite the vehicle having been off the road for over six weeks.• Teesside Audi did not provide a complaints policy despite more than one request to the after-sales manager.The withholding of the October 18, 2024 diagnostic report is the central bottleneck. Rather than releasing this data directly — as it should have done the moment I first requested it — Teesside Audi allowed the matter to escalate to the point where a formal Subject Access Request under UK GDPR was required. That SAR has now been passed to the Lookers Group's own data protection team, who have requested a further 7-day extension to produce the data.The withheld October 18, 2024 ODIS diagnostic report is the specific reason I cannot authorise the proposed repair.I cannot agree to contribute 50% of a repair cost without understanding what the full diagnosis shows across all sessions — including the sessions for which 10 hours of labour was charged.The current deadlock over repair authorisation is a direct consequence of Teesside Audi's failure to provide information that belongs to me. It is not a failure of engagement on my part.Lookers Group, as the responsible corporate parent, must now intervene to unblock this.3. Background — The Systemic Defect and Three FailuresMy vehicle is fitted with a 48V Mild Hybrid Electrical System incorporating a Belt Starter Generator (BSG), part number 4N0-903-028. Audi has formally acknowledged — through Technical Service Bulletins, Service Campaign 27BQ (April 2024), a 7-year extended warranty, and a US class action settlement covering 169,000 vehicles (Steinhardt v. Volkswagen Group of America, final court approval October 8, 2024) — that this component is defective by design. The revised replacement part is 4N1-903-028.The vehicle has suffered three acute electrical failures, all following prolonged motorway drives and all producing the same pattern of fault codes:Date Event Key IssueMay 2023 First stall — Looe, Cornwall BSG replaced with defective part 4N0-903-028. Invoice withheld. Paid by Barclaycard Visa.October 3, 2024 Child lock visit — electrical fault discovered BSG/converter codes (P0A9400, P0E5600) recorded. Dealership recommends 12V battery.October 18, 2024 Second stall — A66/A19 dual carriageway 10 hrs diagnostic labour charged. Report withheld — now with Lookers Group DPO. Recommendation changed to 48V battery. Paid by Capital One Mastercard.November 2024 48V battery replaced BSG — the root cause — NOT replaced. Vehicle off road 3+ weeks. No courtesy vehicle.March 2026 Third stall — A66 dual carriageway Police attended and escorted. Identical fault codes return in replacement battery. Vehicle off road 6+ weeks.22 April 2026 Formal complaint to Lookers Group No response received.28 April 2026 Follow-up reminder to Lookers Group No response received.5 May 2026 This letter Second escalation — firm deadline imposed. Section 75 notice given.4. Substantive Complaints Against Teesside Audi4.1 Incorrect Repair — October 2024The October 3, 2024 diagnostic report — produced before the October 18 stall — already recorded fault codes P0A9400 and P0E5600. These are upstream codes generated at the BSG output stage. They cannot be caused by a failing battery. They indicate the BSG was failing to deliver adequate voltage. Replacing the 48V battery while leaving the defective BSG in place addressed the symptom and left the root cause unresolved. This is precisely why the March 2026 failure reproduced identical fault codes in the replacement battery.Additionally, Audi TSB 2067906 states the 48V battery must only be replaced if its State of Charge is below 5% or if the ODIS GFF test plan specifically directs it. No evidence of compliance with either condition has been provided.4.2 Missed Warranty EntitlementThe BSG replaced in May 2023 carried a two-year parts and labour warranty valid until at least May 2025. The October 18, 2024 stall fell within that warranty period. A correct diagnosis at that visit — identifying the BSG as the failing component — would have resulted in a free BSG replacement. The misdiagnosis directly removed this entitlement and caused a direct financial loss.4.3 Campaign 27BQ Not AppliedService Campaign 27BQ, launched by Audi in April 2024, mandated proactive replacement of the defective BSG part (4N0-903-028) with the revised design (4N1-903-028). This campaign was available six months before the October 18 stall. Vehicle KN67 NKD was not contacted, assessed, or offered BSG replacement under this campaign. Had it been, the October 2024 and March 2026 failures would not have occurred.4.4 Defective Part Used in May 2023 RepairThe BSG replacement in May 2023 almost certainly used the same defective design (4N0-903-028) that Audi subsequently declared defective under Campaign 27BQ. The revised part was not available until April 2024. The May 2023 invoice — which would confirm the part number fitted — has been withheld.4.5 Withholding of Diagnostic Data and Its ConsequencesTeesside Audi has failed to provide the October 18, 2024 ODIS diagnostic report despite: my initial request on 30 March 2026; at least five follow-up reminders; and a formal Subject Access Request submitted under UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018. The matter has been passed to the Lookers Group DPO, who has requested a further extension. The May 2023 repair invoice has also not been provided.This is not a minor administrative delay. The withheld October 18, 2024 report covers 10 hours of charged diagnostic labour and is the specific document that would confirm whether the BSG was properly assessed before the battery replacement was approved. Without it, I cannot verify whether the current proposed repair is correct or whether the 50% contribution being sought is justified. The withholding of this data has directly caused the current repair deadlock.4.6 No Courtesy VehicleNo courtesy vehicle has been provided during the current repair period, despite the vehicle having been off the road for over six weeks and despite this being specifically requested in my complaint of 22 April 2026. This request has received no substantive response.5. Active Notice of Section 75 Claims — Consumer Credit Act 1974I hereby give formal notice that Section 75 claims under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 are being actively prepared in respect of two repair transactions paid by credit card at Teesside Audi. As a trading subsidiary of Lookers Motor Group Limited, Teesside Audi's acts and omissions engage the corporate responsibility of Lookers Group. Lookers Motor Group will be named as the responsible supplier in both claims.5.1 May 2023 — Barclaycard VisaCreditor: Barclaycard Visa. Supplier: Teesside Audi / Lookers Motor Group Limited.The May 2023 BSG replacement was paid by Barclaycard Visa. The claim is founded on misrepresentation — the repair was presented as appropriate and durable — and breach of contract under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (services not carried out with reasonable care and skill; goods not of satisfactory quality). The part fitted (4N0-903-028) was the defective design subsequently declared defective by Audi. The repair was not durable — the vehicle failed again from the same root cause. The invoice confirming the part number has been withheld, and its disclosure is itself a requirement of this complaint.5.2 October/November 2024 — Capital One Platinum MastercardCreditor: Capital One Platinum Mastercard. Supplier: Teesside Audi / Lookers Motor Group Limited.The October/November 2024 48V battery replacement was paid by Capital One Platinum Mastercard. The claim is founded on misrepresentation — the battery replacement was presented as the correct repair — and breach of contract (services not carried out with reasonable care and skill). The October 3 diagnostic codes already pointed upstream at the BSG. The battery was replaced when, on the available evidence, the BSG was the failing component. The Mastercard chargeback scheme is also available as a parallel route.Resolution of this complaint by Lookers Motor Group remains Dr. Jesuraj's strongly preferred outcome.However, both Section 75 claims will be formally submitted to Barclaycard and Capital One unless and until a satisfactory resolution is achieved.Both card issuers will receive a copy of this letter and the accompanying Dealer Accountability and Diagnostic Failure Report as supporting evidence.Lookers Motor Group, as the corporate parent of Teesside Audi, will be named as the responsible supplier in both claims.6. What I Require from Lookers Motor GroupI require Lookers Motor Group to address the following by no later than 14 May 2026:1. Provide a formal written acknowledgement of this group-level complaint within 3 working days, explaining why my communications of 22 April and 28 April 2026 received no response.2. Direct the Lookers Group DPO to release without further delay: (a) the October 18, 2024 ODIS diagnostic report and all associated diagnostic session data; and (b) the May 2023 BSG replacement invoice including the part number fitted.3. Provide a written root cause analysis confirming the BSG as the cause of all three failure events, based on the full diagnostic record.4. Confirm in writing whether the 50% customer contribution towards the current BSG replacement is being waived, and on what warranty basis the repair will be carried out.5. Confirm whether vehicle KN67 NKD was assessed under Service Campaign 27BQ, and if not, provide the reason.6. Arrange a confirmed repair completion date and provide a suitable courtesy vehicle for the remainder of the repair period.7. Confirm Lookers Group's position on the two Section 75 claims described in Section 5, and whether Lookers Group intends to resolve these matters without involvement of the respective card issuers.7. Formal Deadline and Consequences of Non-ResponseMy vehicle has been off the road for over six weeks. I am a Consultant Urological Surgeon, and the absence of a reliable vehicle during a period of intensive professional clinical activity has caused me significant inconvenience and disruption. My complaint to Lookers Group has gone entirely unanswered. Teesside Audi's patchy and incomplete engagement has produced no resolution.If a satisfactory written response is not received by 14 May 2026, I will without further notice:(1) Submit Section 75 claims to Barclaycard Visa and Capital One Platinum Mastercard, naming Teesside Audi / Lookers Motor Group as the supplier;(2) Refer this matter to the Motor Ombudsman;(3) Submit a formal complaint to the Information Commissioner's Office regarding the prolonged withholding of diagnostic data;(4) Pursue all available remedies under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, including price reduction and/or rejection;(5) Escalate this matter as a formal vehicle safety complaint to the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA).8. Schedule of Remedies Sought• Reimbursement of the May 2023 BSG replacement cost — the part fitted was the defective 4N0-903-028 design. Invoice withheld and to be fully particularised upon disclosure.• Reimbursement of the October 2024 48V battery replacement cost — this was an incorrect repair. The BSG was the failing component. The BSG was within its two-year warranty and should have been replaced at no cost.• Reimbursement of the missed warranty entitlement — the October 18, 2024 stall fell within the May 2023 BSG's two-year warranty. Correct diagnosis would have resulted in a free repair. This entitlement was lost due to misdiagnosis.• Full coverage of the current BSG replacement cost — the 10-year BSG warranty (Steinhardt v. VWGoA, October 2024) applies to this vehicle to 5 February 2028. No 50% customer contribution is appropriate.• Compensation for consequential losses — vehicle downtime, alternative transport, and professional disruption across all three failure events.• Formal written confirmation that the 10-year BSG warranty is applied to vehicle KN67 NKD.I trust that Lookers Motor Group will now engage with this matter at group level with the seriousness and urgency it warrants.Yours faithfully,Dr. Manohar Jesuraj

I have this year purchased three Audi cars from Lookers Audi Teesside, two Audi S3'sand an Audi A3.My previous 5 vehicles were purchased at Looker Dealerships in Darlington, Northallerton & Newcastle. All these vehicles were fitted with either Bridgestone, Good Year or Pirelli top quality tyres?My most recent nearly new purchase of an Audi A3 is fitted with Nexen tyres a mid range budget tyre?I have queried this with the dealership as I feel that if paying in excess of £33K for a vehicle then the tyres should reflect the value?The dealership are not to wanting to replace the tyres.I am most disappointed as I have been a loyal customer for the past eight years?

Top quality service and excellent sales executive

Assim was kind, patient and a lovely bloke

I submitted a Subject Access Request on 30 March 2026 to Teesside Audi (part of Lookers Motor Group Limited) requesting all diagnostic data, fault codes, and test results relating to my vehicle.Vehicle details: Audi A8 Saloon L 55 TFSI Quattro , Registration: KN67 NKD, VIN: WAUZZZF86JN005879Despite multiple reminders (at least five), the requested information for the period between 18 October 2024 and 14 November 2024—during which the vehicle was retained by the dealership—has not been provided. This is particularly concerning as I was charged for over 10 hours of diagnostic labour during this episode.Partial data from other periods (2023, early October 2024, and 2026) have been disclosed, but the key diagnostic records for this interval appear to be withheld without explanation. A final notice before the potential ICO complaint was sent to the after-sales manager at Teesside AUDI yesterday (26/04/2026).I consider this an incomplete response to a formal data request and request full disclosure of all relevant records in line with UK GDPR obligations.

I purchased my new car on the 31st March, during the 1st 3 weeks of life the suspension felt hard and there was a clunking / rubbing noise especially when going over uneven terrain. I contacted the garage on the 18th April who advised I could bring the vehicle in for a check up at the end of June beginning of July!! I asked what were my options to get it checked sooner and they advised to ring Audi Assist. I rang Audi Assist and they attended my vehicle on the afternoon of the 18th April and removed 6 blue transport blocks from the front suspension. The technician advised that as I had travelled over 600 miles with them on they had damaged the dust boot on one side, and that I needed to contact the dealership for them to check the car for any further damage. He also explained that had I needed to perform an emergency stop the car would have not responded effectively making the driving of the vehicle unsafe. I contacted the dealership on the same day and asked to speak to the Sales person I had dealt with originally, he was unavailable at the time so I spoke to the sales manager whose name was Gary. I asked that my car be looked at as soon as possible as it was unacceptable that I had been allow to drive away with an incomplete Pre Driving Inspection. He said he would contact me 1st thing on Monday morning (20/4/26) to arrange everything. I waited until 12:30pm on Monday before contacting the dealership myself to speak to Gary who was unavailable. The person I spoke to arranged for my car to be booked in on Thursday the 23rd with a courtesy car to enable me to get to work, she said there was a note on Gary's desk to ring me and she would remind him to contact me to "touch base". I am still awaiting that telephone call! I dropped my car in to the dealership on Thursday 23rd, with no further communication from a member of the sales, after sales team or Management. I was asked why my car was booked in and what to be checked, to which i explained. I was then pointed in the direction of the courtesy car then left to work out how to start a hybrid A3. I was informed that I would be updated on my cars progress during the day and I had advised that I would be collecting my car after work between 4 and 5pm. At 4pm I rang the dealership again to get information on my cars progress and to see if it was ready for collection. I was informed that the person who took my keys and details at 8am had left for the day. Not sure how I was going to get my update if they had left! Craig ( the gentleman on the phone this time) checked on my car's progress and then sent over the Audicam video and advised my car was ready for collection. I arrived at the dealership at approximately 4:30pm again with no communication from anyone regarding the fact that I had been given an unsafe car to drive away. I handed in the courtesy car key received my own key back with no follow up or information from the days check up. No follow up call was received the next day either. I acknowledge the concept of human error, but the blatant dismissiveness and lack of courtesy from the dealership regarding this matter is astounding and ultimately rude. This is not my 1st Audi, and I had considered myself a loyal customer. The fall out from this PDI oversight could have been unthinkable yet I am not afforded a conversation to address this nor an apology.

On 7th April I paid £250 for an Audi A1 black edition which was at the Glasgow branch, The car wasn’t available until 23rd April. I had nothing but pressure from Adhil for me to commit to buying this car even though the correct mileage wasn’t available. I kept getting different excuses and I hadn’t even seen the car.To get him off my back I eventually declined the car. Just out of curiosty I rand Glasgow the next day and they told me the car which I paid the deposit on iwas sold 3 weeks ago??? I asked if my name was on it he said NO, So the question is did Adhil have 2 buyers for the car hence the pressure.I will buy another Audi shortly but not from the Teesside branch