READ HERE WHAT SOME PEOPLE HAVE TO SAY
many problems with finance and the car itself we decided that this was a bad
idea and asked for our deposit back. The salesman refused and it wasn't until we
threatened him with the small claims court that we got to speak to a manager. He
told us that he would try and sort it and if he couldn't he would give us our
money back. Surprisingly enough he was unable to do anything and we were assured
that a cheque would arrive in the post within the next few days. Three weeks on,
still no cheque!!! I have phoned many times and always asked for the manager, I
have only managed to speak to a manager once, normally I get the idiot who
attempted to sell us the car and he is just rude and unpleasant. I am giving
them until the end of the week then I am going to have to look at the small
claims court option. Arnold Clark sucks!!!!!!!!!.30.4.2003
advertised twice in our local paper that they had two at their AYR facility. I
went along and talked to a real condescending salesman who said they did not
have the car but if I really wanted it, then they could get it for me. This was
an £18,ooo car which they wanted me to put a deposit down without seeing the
thing. I questioned their advertising policy, saying that they should not be
advertising cars that they don't have. The salesman suggested that this was the
way things were always done and if you don't like it then tough. The following
day I spent 30 mins trying to get through to customer services to complain about
the advertising and the off hand manner of the salesman. The Sales director of
the AYR branch then called me and reiterated that this was common practice and
he advertises cars in the same way on a weekly basis. I then took my complaint
to Trading Standards who took up my case and the outcome!
is that you should now see an asterix beside the car being advertised but
not actually at the location. The asterix will be explained at the foot of the
advert saying that Arnold Clark can get the car for you but do not have it for
viewing at the location. This all happened very recently and I am sceptical that
Arnold will comply. I would encourage anyone else who has encountered the same
thing to get on to their local Trading Standards office and call the AYR branch
for details. I am still waiting on the promised apology letter.. 30.4.2003
Looking for a new car and came across your website, which I think is brilliant -
glad you decided to hit them where it hurts most - I will certainly not be
contacting them - glad to hear Parks are OK as about to contact them.
Car dealers sit up and listen!
You should develop this website - I have no doubt it would frighten the shit out
of most dealers and improve customer service..30.4.2003
partner and I decided to sell the car because we were having so many problems
with it, and we were spending a lot of money getting these problems
rectified. Whilst getting all the relevant paperwork/documents together to sell
the car we were horrified to notice that there were major mileage discrepancies
in the warranty and maintenance record booklet. The car currently has a mileage
of 54,900 as of today's date (1.5.03),and below I will list the last 3 entries
into the above mentioned booklet:
25.6.01 59,300
17.1.02 64,611
23.8.02 67,558
Is it me or am I missing something?
The Trading Standards in Glasgow have just dropped my case due to insufficient
evidence????? and AC are not interested at all. Nobody returns my calls, my
letters are ignored and not one person in the AC organization has shown the
slightest sign of being bothered.
I just wish that I would have seen this website before I parted with my
hard earned £5000. 1.5.2003
another branch. the cost was only£6988,old lady charged £7988,i got £30 for doing
the deal .felt awful, but told to get on with my job. please keep my e-mail private
if you want to know a lot more.1.5.2003
number of complaints are about Arnold Clark whenever i have phoned one of there
managers to resolve an issue for a customer the attitude really has been 'F**K
OFF its not my problem' one case i have dealt with this morning is as follows
customer has bought a brand new Fiat Punto Dynamic which as standard comes with
a CD player not from AC's it doesn't they took out the CD player and replaced it
with a Cassette player (which doesn't fit properly) then told the customer this
is normal as not many 'dynamics' actually come with a CD player. I told him the
UK spec includes a CD player as standard and he has gone to speak to the dealer
(AC Oldbury) 2.5.2003
we spotted an ad in our local paper from Arnold Clark Elgin, 306 L diesel W-reg 26,000 miles there was also a second 306 L diesel V-reg 30,000 miles( We still have the paper ).
We decided on a Sunday to go and have a look, when we arrived there we found 3 salesmen on duty but to busy gassing about Saturday night to bother helping customers so we decided to look for the 306's ourselves, we found one, it had been sold, but get this it didn't have 28,000 miles or even 30,000 miles it had 36,000 miles on the clock and it was the only 306 W-reg there.
I was a bit pissed off and made my feelings felt but after reading your e-mails I think this is a common feeling when dealing with Arnold Clark and needless to say I wont be buying sod all from wee Arnie.2.5.2003
in the day I called to see how things were progressing and was told the car had
had its service & that it was still to have the MOT. It was not mentioned that
at service they had noticed there was a problem with the brakes of the car.
After the MOT they called me back & said it had failed as there was a problem
with the brakes. I queried why I was not informed of this when I had called to
see how the service had went - had I been told this I would obviously not have
wanted the car going through an MOT as it was sure to fail & what was the point
in paying for an MOT for the car to fail. Had I been told of the problem after
the service I would have got the brakes fixed & then put it through the MOT
I feel I have been charged unnecessarily for the MOT
My wife complained to Arnold Clark whose 1st response was to come back to her,
to tell her that the problem may not have been picked up on at the service but
was picked up at MOT. We found this very concerning i.e. the brakes were
supposed to have been checked at the service so how was the problem not picked
up upon. We then queried how thorough the service had been and then Arnold
Clark came back and said yes the problem had been identified at the service but
they had to go ahead with the MOT as it was part of a combined package deal i.e.
service & MOT - we did not know this when we put the car in.
If a garage picks something up in a service they normally call you and give you
the chance to fix the problem before putting the car through an MOT.
We took our car elsewhere and got the work done for a third of the price Arnold
Clark had quoted us.
To be honest I have only been overcharged for the MOT & feel this has been a
lesson to avoid this garage, I feel sorry for the people who have been out of
pocket by far greater amounts - I just hope other people can learn from the
mistakes all of the people who have contacted your sight have made in trusting
Arnold Clark.
Many thanks to you in taking the time to exploit those who exploit others.
Please can you answer these questions for me on the website:
Given the amount of people who feel ripped off - Are Watchdog interested in
investigating the practice of Arnold Clark garages? could be if you write to them.
Does the ministry of transport regulate garages & are they aware of the amount
of people who have had dodgy dealings with this firm? . 3.5.2003
Matt Seville. He wasn't even interested in selling me a car as he had more
interest in chatting up the receptionist! How mad is that? Why should i buy a
car from here? It is uncouth, and completely unprofessional! I took my business down the road thank you.4.5.2003
