Chris Osmond from Pro Cars Southampton in response to AVOID!!!

Thank you for your review JR but you’re not being entirely accurate here. After 10 months of ownership and 9,000 miles covered you have indeed had your vehicle MOT’d, despite your vehicle qualifying for the 6 month Covid-19 MOT extension issued by the government. I can see that although it did initially fail, it was not declared dangerous like you've claimed. Your car failed on 2 anti-roll bar links, something that would be considered fair wear and tear after the usage it’s been put through. Advisory items do not deem a car “dangerous” or “un-roadworthy” and are expected on a 10 year old, 96,000 mile vehicle. Having had no contact from you at all, I’m not sure how you can justify a 1 star rating on resolving issues, cleanliness or dealer knowledge; you’ve never given us a chance to help! Should you like to contact us we’d be more than happy to talk you through your vehicles condition as no doubt you are continuing to use it and would like to ensure it's safety. We’d also like to encourage your MOT station to put in writing that next year; “she’ll be written off” as I have serious reservations about this claim.

Chris Osmond from Pro Cars Southampton in response to Just don't. Really. Avoid. Really.

10 days after purchasing a £3850 car, PB had a 140 point mechanical inspection carried out on the vehicle then demanded a full refund based on this report. After initially refusing to send us through this report, we offered to send an independent engineer to inspect the vehicle or the opportunity for the vehicle come back to us so that we could resolve any issues raised. Both of these offers were refused. When an edited version of the report was sent through, the car did not fail any of the 140 point checks; it only had some minor advisory items. PB then had his own MOT carried out on the car and it did indeed fail on 2 items; a tyre had a damaged side wall (this was an advisory on the first report and the mechanic that carried out the report confirmed it was road legal at the time of his inspection) and the nearside side repeater was damaged (was not mentioned in the first report or by PB at all). There were advisories on “slight surface corrosion” but they clearly stated beforehand that none of the components were seriously weakened. We then offered £60 towards the replacement of the tyre and were told this would only buy a “cheap” tyre that PB wouldn’t feel comfortable having his wife drive on despite the offer being a contribution towards the replacement, not the whole amount. When PB issued his claim, one of the items he claimed for was the reimbursement of the cost of replacing said tyre. He paid £59.95 for the replacement tyre. In the mean time PB was mistakenly given a spare key for another vehicle. After initially saying he was “of a mind to keep hold of the key” until we resolved the matter to his satisfaction, he then claimed he had lost the key. After having a CCJ issued against him, the item was miraculously found and returned. We really did try to help this client but it became abundantly clear that no matter what we said, did or offered, it wouldn’t satisfy. We actively encouraged PB to peruse a claim through the small claims court as we had all the evidence required to fully defend ourselves and had no doubt a judge would see this and give a fair and just ruling. Much to our amazement, before we went to court PB settled for £1000 less than he claimed for. I ask; if he felt we sold him a “dud” and had all the evidence to support this, why settle before court? We have kept all correspondence from PB and will gladly show anyone just what this man is really like, not how he presents himself online

Paul Osmond from Pro Cars Southampton in response to Everything has gone wrong with the car

Thank you, Miss Parish, for your review, fortunately we have copies of both bills for work carried out on your car in the last 7 months and 8,000 miles of use. Miss Parish bought a 2010 Hyundai I10 in April 2018. 3 months later an ABS sensor became defective and was diagnosed by a garage in Worthing. The sensor and labour should have cost, according to workshop manual and Eurocarparts, £162. That claim was authorised BUT strangely the garage decided to charge £395.13 to include £65 for 4 wheel geometry test?? therefore Miss Parish was required to pay the difference, the correct amount was paid under warranty. 7 months after purchase the car started a misfire, a different garage in Worthing diagnosed 2 problems with the car, it was due a service including a set of spark plugs and a split in an exhaust flexi hose. Miss Parish sent us an aggressive and rude email to which we replied and then we contacted the garage directly. They stated that the car was due servicing and the exhaust flexi hose was just general wear and tear consistent with a 8 year old 90,000 mile car, We decided, as a gesture of goodwill, to contribute 20% towards the bill which was paid in advance to Miss Parish by bank transfer. Miss Parish has not spent thousands on her car and nor has it ever broken down or failed to start and drive. We welcome constructive praise and criticism by way of review sites but would ask for a fair and true statement of facts.