Hi, recently my 2012 Fiat Punto developed a gearbox fault which was taken in under warranty to be fixed, after a load of getting messed about (No courtesy car, correct part ordered but turned up as the wrong part in the package apparently and taking nearly a week to fix when i was told id have it the next day) upon collecting the car, theres a scratch on the bonnet that was not there when it was dropped off. They provided the job card with a report that indicated that there was a scratch when they went to start the work, however, as I do like to polish and wax it at least once a month I know for a fact that it was not there. After speaking to the "service manager" and basically being given 2 fingers up I'm looking to find out where I stand. Ive got contact details for AC and Fiat although these are only CS which I intend to follow up tomorrow. Any advice would be much appreciated. Thanks.

I bought a car back in may this year for £9988.00 Vauxhall Insignia. Very happy with the vehicle until I started noticing faults appear the longer I had the vehicle. Contacted Arnold Clark who took the car back for repairs. I thought great customer service until there repairs weren't up to the standard they should have been. The car has been into there garage 7 times so far. A list of repairs are below: 1. Supplied and fitted O/S/F drop link 2. Supplied and fitted N/S/F Strut 3. Lubricated both front strut mounts 4. Lubricated and adjusted gear selector cables 5. Supplied and fitted sump plug 6. Supplied and fitted vac pod solenoid x2 7. Supplied and fitted airbag ECU 8. Supplied and fitted clutch pedal box 9. Supplied and fitted fanbelt 10. Supplied and fitted glovebox lamp 11. Supplied and fitted seat occupancy sensor 12. Supplied and fitted parcel shelf 13. Repaired washer jet hose 14. Supplied and fitted anti roll bar saddle bushes 15. Supplied and fitted battery 16. Supplied and fitted new gear box with new bolts, replaced gearbox oil and bleed clutch 17. Wheel alignment measurement The car has had 2 gearboxes in 4 months at a cost of £4600.00 per gearbox. Arnold Clark have now decided the car is ok and aren't interested in discussing it with me now. There customer service department is horrendous. The advisor has been nothing but rude and any correspondence I send I don't get the answers I am looking for. Anyone have any suggestions as to where to take this. I'm about to use the ombudsman but anyone suggest anything else other than them before I use them? Thanks

Hello friends, I have recently registered with ConsumerAction Group and my story is about Arnold Clark,CrowRoad, Glasgow. I bought a second hand VW Beetle Cab from the above. I was misled to believe that they were VW second hand dealers, however they are not. The damage was on the passenger side: front and back bumpers with dents etc. The front and rear passenger alloy wheels were seriously scuffed. When I queried all this I was told my Mr Mn that this is what I had to expect from a second hand car. I did not want to go through with the sale but after much deliberation between Mr M and Mr T (Mgr.) it was agreed that I could have a 'smart' repair carried out. There was lots of things that were not pointed out to me and I found later, i.e. the sill under the front passenger seat was buckled in. AC are now saying it could have been me. They failed to honour their 2 month warranty until one month later. I wrote letter to Mr T (he told VW he did not receive it!!!!). VW Head office Sheffield have been very supportive and have opened a file concerning AC and my situation. I complained to AC Customer Services - Mr A.M. phoned me and said there was nothing that could be done. I have written to Mr E.H., Group MD for AC. I will let you know what happens. To scanniaman I say that I know exactly what you are and have gone through with renegades AC. If I can support you in any way, I will do so. My next step is to contact Trading Standards. Will come back when I have more to report.

Hi guys, I'm just looking for a wee bit of guidance/advice. I'n in the process of buying a car from a private seller, i placed a small deposit with the seller and I'm awaiting my loan coming through, unfortunately there has been a bit of a delay on my part owing to some errors on the loan application (Date of birth, and exact address). This'll be going into the third week now that I've had to keep the seller waiting and he's understandably getting a bit fed up. My main concern is that he (the seller) has been informed by Arnold clark that if he does not come up with the money for his new car on Thursday, then they will send the car back (his new car). He's using the funds from selling car to me to fund new car at AC. I'm assuming he put a deposit down on his car. I'm essentially wondering if this sounds right? Is there any law which states that car must be paid of in X amount of time since deposit placed?

Hi all, I have a question that i hope someone can help me with. I booked and paid for a car from the above company, for one week over the Christmas period, to pick up on Christmas Eve. I booked and paid for this car via their website, well in advance of the holidays. Having been stung before by another company, i checked Arnold Clark website looking for the amount of deposit required. It clearly states on the FAQ page, that a deposit is not normally required, however check at time of booking. Now being completely paranoid these days, i checked by phoning the company and asked if a deposit was required, the answer i was given was a definite "NO" I still wasn't sure though, as it is strange that most other companies require a deposit, so i checked the website again and trawled every page, nothing. I phoned the company again a few days later to double, double check and was given the same reply "NO" On the day of hire, i phoned the branch from where i was due to pick the car up from and was put through to a central switchboard, who also couldn't get through to the branch but they would get them to phone me back, still waiting!!! While on the phone i asked again from customer services if a deposit was required, the answer again was"NO". I went to pick the car up and on entering the reception, i was met with a sign that from "30/10/12 a £200 deposit was required" I assumed that didn't mean if you had already prebooked. I presented all the documentation that they had requested and was then asked for a £200 deposit. When i explained that no mention of a deposit was made, either verbally or via the website, i was told that it states on the website FAQ page that a deposit is required. I pointed out that it doesn't say that at all and refused to pay a deposit, they refused then to hire the car to me and refunded my money. My question is, are they in breach of contract and do i have a right to sue them in the small claims court? I had taken what i deem necessary action to ensure the validity of the hire agreement. When i got home i phoned the customer service department to complain and was told that it was now company policy to take a deposit, although, no where on the site or elsewhere does it say about that. Needless to say, my refund will not go into my bank until after christmas, so i couldn't go elsewhere and get something arranged. Christmas has been ruined, i was unable to go over to my son's and spend the holiday with his family and my grand daughter's first Christmas, as was arranged. Someone please tell me that i have a good case or even some advice. Cheers. cuzznx

We bought a fleet of brand new cars in May when Arnold Clark opened up their new garage in Strathaven, Lanarkshire for our driving school. One of these cars went for a driving test the other day and when the Examiner inspected the car, he discovered that the tax disc and the registration plate DID NOT MATCH! The test was cancelled and the car was put off the road by the Driving Standards Agency, leaving a young girl, who was due to sit her test, absolutely distraught. Our initial thought was that they had put the wrong tax disc on the vehicle but after further investigation on our part, we discovered it was the wrong registration plates that Arnold Clark had fitted before delivery. This car has been running about since May on incorrect plates! The car has been off the road now since 8 November as we cannot legally drive it on the public roads, resulting in a vast amount of lost earnings. On Friday, 9 November, I went back to the dealership to ask what they were prepared to do about it. They asked "where's the car?" I told them it was in Gartcosh. Their reply was "Can you bring it over then? We've got new plates made for it" What part of cannot legally drive on public roads do they not understand? I told them it could not be driven and we were also looking for compensation for our loss of earnings and reimbursment of the driving test fee for the pupil who lost her driving test. They flatly refused saying that it was not Arnold Clark policy to reimburse anyone for loss of earnings. It has left me with no alternative than to raise an action at Hamilton Sherrif Court on Monday and sue Arnold Clark for loss of earnings and loss of test fee for the pupil, stress and embarassment to my company and stress and embarrasment suffered by the pupil and the driving instructor concerned, all caused by this oversight by Arnold Clark. Also included in this claim will be the return of several hundred pounds that they charged me for the registration fee and the pre delivery inspection fee (will have definate monetary values by Monday) which is payable by everyone who purchases a new car. Arnold Clark certainly failed to register my vehicle correctly and failed in their pre delivery inspection of my vehicle by failing to notice that the registration plates failed to match the properly issued road fund licence on the car. Dear Mr Arnold Clark, Directors, Managers, Salesmen......this isn't just a case of one man and his car. Over the last 40 years that I have been in business as one of Lanarkshire's biggest driving schools, we have bought several hundred cars from you, not to mention the several thousand pupils who we have introduced to Arnold Clark who have bought cars from you, similar to the one's used by us. My daughter has recently qualified as a driving instructor and will hopefully take over the reigns of my driving school within the next 2 years as I am due to retire. One of the conditions that I will impose is that she never buys another car for the fleet from Arnold Clark and she never recommends Arnold Clark to any of our pupils. I have also advised my current instructors, that under no circumstances have they to mention or recommend Arnold Clark to any more of the pupils. In fact, I've told them to tell everyone not to buy a car from Arnold Clark. I am also now in the process of taking any further bodyshop, mechanical, service, warranty work to some other dealership in my area. This could all have been resolved on Friday for the paltry sum of £418.00 which only included our loss of earnings and the return of the pupils test fee. Now, as it stands, the loss of earnings will accrue on this car for every day it sits idle with it's wrong plates.......could be a really costly mistake Arnold Clark!

Hi I bought a Mini convertible 2007 from Arnold Clark on 7/6/12 and have had problems ever since. The main problem is on day 10 of having the car and after 3 days of very heavy rain I got into the car to find a substantial amount of water in the passenger footwell. I took the car to my nearest Arnold Clark repair centre as arranged by the salesman and was told that they performed 2 water tests on the car and could not find a leak. Obviously their water test is not the equivalent to three days of heavy rain. I pointed out to them that just because they cant find a fault does not mean there isn't one as I have had water inside my car. After five hours they arranged for me to be given a courtesy car and have my mini taken to BMW for further tests to be done this Monday coming. In the meantime, I have made an official complaint to Arnold Clark and asked for the car to be replaced, but when speaking further to Citizens Advice they have told me that because I have asked them to repair it then I need to let them go ahead with this and that my grievance is not with Arnold Clark but with the finance company that I took the HP out with (Toyota). I have now sent Toyota a copy of the complaint I sent Arnold Clark explaining the problems I have had along with a template letter from the Citizens Advice website. I also phoned them to advice what has happened, but the person in complaints was on the phone so he is supposed to be calling me back on Monday. Can anyone advice what I do next if BMW also come back saying they cannot find a leak?? What are my rights and what would my next step be??

ASA Adjudication on Arnold Clark Automobiles Ltd Ad Claims on www.arnoldclark.com for a used car stated "2003 (03) Vauxhall Corsa 1.2 SXi 3 Dr. Sale Price £2988. Pre Sale price £3488. Save £500 ...". Issue The complainant challenged whether the savings claim was misleading, because he did not believe the car had been offered at the higher price for a sufficient period of time to avoid customers being misled by the price reduction. CAP Code (Edition 12) 3.13.17 Response Arnold Clark Automobiles Ltd (ACA) pointed out that they had been trading since 1954 and the Real Sale had been used as a marketing initiative for the last 20 years, which returned around 25,000 vehicle sales per year. They said this was the first type of complaint they had received. They explained that the car was on sale at the higher price of £3,488 for 10 days from 13 December 2011 to 23 December 2011, at which point it was reduced to £2,988. ACA admitted that they had not advertised the car at the higher price for 28 days, as recommended in the BIS Pricing Practices Guide. They said the nature of the motor trade industry, where in order to have a viable business model used stock needed to be turned over every six weeks, rendered the 28-day rule unviable and would be damaging to their business. They said they had been advised by their Primary Authority to display a notice on the car in the showroom if it had not been on sale at the higher price for 28 days, although they had mistakenly omitted to do this for the car in question. They provided a copy of the notice. They believed the price of £3,488 was a reasonable price at which to sell that particular model and age of car (2003 Vauxhall Corsa 1.2i 3 door) and they explained that the Manager had looked at how the rest of the company priced similar vehicles at that particular point in time. They provided a copy of a spreadsheet showing two similar vehicles at that time were priced at £3,488 and £3,988. They also provided copies of third-party ads for similar used cars which were being advertised for around £3,500. Assessment Upheld The ASA noted the BIS Pricing Practices Guide (the Guide) was not binding on traders, the Courts or the ASA, but that the Code stated that it should be taken into account. We noted the Guide recommended that a price used as a basis for a comparison should be the most recent available price for 28 days or more. We acknowledged that this need not always be the case and that if a comparison used in an ad differed from this advice, the basis of the comparison should be made clear. We noted that the car had been advertised at the higher price of £3,488 for only 10 days and that the website did not make that clear, for example, it did not contain the dates between which the higher price was applicable. We understood that this information was normally provided in the notice which was displayed on the car in the showroom, as advised by ACA's Primary Authority, although this information was not provided on the website. We also noted the Guide stated that price comparisons must be reasonable in terms of time and that prices used as a reference for price comparisons should be genuine retail prices, which included, amongst other things, that the item was on sale at the higher price for a sufficient period of time to allow consumers to become aware of the availability of the item, view the item, make up their minds whether to purchase them and, if so, complete the purchase. We noted ACA's comment regarding the speed of stock movement in the used motor trade industry, and considered that a consumer looking to purchase a used car would normally have a model, make and age in mind, and would realise that they would have to act quickly in relation to an advertised vehicle since there was only one item available. We therefore concluded that 10 days was a sufficient period of time to constitute a genuine offer of sale for this type of product. Nevertheless, because the website did not make clear that the car had been advertised at the higher price of £3,488 for only 10 days, for example by stating the dates between which the higher price applied, we concluded that the savings claim was misleading. The claim breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising) and 3.17 (Prices). Action The claim must not appear again in its current form. We told ACA to take care when advertising sale prices to ensure that it is made clear where a car has been advertised at a higher price for less than 28 days. They say this is the first complaint, so where are all the complainents that have been here, it's no good just moaning, you have to go out and DO something.

There is an article on BBC News 24 about Scottish youngsters not being employable and centers around an Arnold Clark apprentice training workshop. One of the instructor can be clearly seen 'smashing' a steel wheel to remove it from the hub with a steel hammer. What a disgusting thing to teach someone to smash a customers car with a steel hammer and not a mallet. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-18158510 The video above doesn't show that particular part of the clip, but it is still running on the live news channel. I'm not sure if News 24 can be watched again on the likes of iplayer.

I recently bought an 08 plate Chevrolet Captiva from them, was very happy with it, that was until i found a letter in the folder that was in the glove box that had been sent to previous owner about a safety recall notification, after sevral phone calls to them about it & just being told that they would have to get in touch with their service department to see if inspection/repairs had been carried out & that someone from the service department would call, needless to say there was no phone calls, after again phoning the dealership in which I bought the vehicle & & speaking to the salesman that sold me the vehicle, he acted surprised that I had not been called, eventually I had to get in touch with the manufacturer myself & they were going to contact AC themselves, what has taken 2 weeks for AC to do, took Chevrolet less than an hour to let me know that the vehicle hadn't been inspected & needed to be taken immediately to my nearest retailer.