COSMIN C

AVOID THEM - Mazda6 2016 GX16RVT

Mazda6 2016 GX16RVT. Vicious people with no morals only seeking profits and avoiding responsibility. Read the below very carefully! On 27th May, my partner and I viewed a 2016 Mazda6 GX16RVT, which seemed in good condition apart from a clicking noise. We paid a £500 deposit, an auxiliary belt to be replaced for the clicking noise confirmed by Lee, and requested new brake discs/pads due to their worn-out state (which we had to pay for as the MOT didn't require them to be replaced) Car collection, originally scheduled for 3rd June, got delayed because of wrongly delivered brake pads. After numerous follow-ups, we acquired the car on 6th June without a retest, wrongly assuming its condition hadn't changed. Immediately after purchase, we experienced shaking engine and black smoke from the exhaust. Multiple issues emerged in the following day, including fluctuating engine RPM, shaking while idle, stuttering in gears 1-3, and a persisting clicking noise from the outside (drivers side). When we voiced these issues to Garry on 7th June, he turned hostile upon the mention of our right to reject. An extensive argument ensued, and he failed to send the promised HPI report. Given the car's numerous problems indicating it wasn't roadworthy, we decided to return it. On 10th June, we tried to return the car in person with a rejection letter, but Lee was unable to accept it without Garry's authorization. In Garry's absence, we left the unsafe car there and were instructed to return at 1PM to handle the rejection with Garry directly. At 12:38pm (10th June), Lee called to invite us back. Upon our arrival, despite boss Garry's absence, Lee immediately declared the car fixed, revealing that a faulty MAF (Mass Air Flow) sensor had been the issue. Unexpectedly, Lee had replaced the sensor with a used one from another Mazda in their stock during our absence. Asserting that the car was now functional, he declined to accept our rejection. We conducted another test drive: the engine shaking had been resolved, but the clicking noise and smoke persisted, further eroding our confidence in the car's reliability, particularly given that we hadn't consented to Lee's repair decision. Lee insisted they had our approval from our 7th June call (where we had simply requested a car inspection, not a repair), dismissing our objections and rejecting our formal letter of rejection. This refusal, together with Garry's earlier reluctance to share the HPI report, left us distrusting the company. Alarmingly, at no point had Lee communicated any intentions to perform a diagnostic or replace the MAF sensor. Moreover, they failed to provide invoices for the auxiliary belt and MAF sensor replacements, both of which Lee claimed were executed. Lee's defensive demeanor felt dismissive, aiming to force us to accept the unreliably repaired car without a refund. We decided to leave and consult an independent garage. However, within 10 minutes of leaving, the car's engine light came up, forcing us to stop on the highway. A call to Lee led us back to their dealership, where he immediately agreed to process a refund. Unfortunately, this resolution wasn't without costs: we lost £406 on brake replacements, £52 on fuel, nearly 4 hours on visits to the dealer, 2 hours waiting for Garry, and even missed a property viewing. Though we were refunded the car's value, no additional compensation was offered. Lee even unjustly insinuated that we buy and reject cars. Our experience with this dealership was highly disappointing and stressful. They exhibited unprofessional behavior, causing substantial time and financial losses with zero compensations. It's concerning that the car's faulty MAF sensor and thin brakes didn't result in a MOT failure or at least advisories. As stated by both Lee and Garry, their perspective is that "a used car can fail at any point," implying no guarantee of the vehicle's roadworthiness post-purchase.