Newmanandreidy Opiniões 

Resposta da Newmanandreidy

Há 6 dias

Thank you for those lovely words Diane, and thank you so much for your repeated custom, it means a great deal to us all and we look forward to looking after all your motoring needs for many years to come

Resposta da Newmanandreidy

8/09/2026

We are disappointed to read this review as we do not feel it gives a fair or accurate account of what happened, particularly regarding the seriousness of the defect found on your vehicle.
We offer our customers a Free MOT for Life on the vehicle they purchase from us, for as long as they own it. We have thousands of customers who benefit from not having to pay the annual cost of an MOT, and both they and we feel the scheme works extremely well. We can see that you purchased your C3 from us over three years ago, when you were living in Liverpool.
Your MOT was booked with us on 7th August as a “while-you-wait” appointment for 8:30am on 2nd September. We are therefore unsure how arranging the appointment could reasonably be described as “tedious”.
On the day, your father arrived with the vehicle at approximately 8:45am, 15 minutes after the allocated appointment time. As the vehicle had not arrived, our MOT tester had started another MOT. We explained this to your father and told him we would get your vehicle tested as quickly as possible. He replied that this was no problem as he was dropping the vehicle off anyway rather than waiting for it.
The most important point omitted from this review is why the vehicle failed its MOT.
The D-bushes on the anti-roll bar had de-bonded, allowing the anti-roll bar to move laterally. On full steering lock, the anti-roll bar was physically contacting the front brake calipers and preventing the front brakes from operating correctly. This is an extremely serious safety defect and one we have encountered before on this model.
Citroën do not supply the D-bushes separately for this application; they are supplied as part of the complete anti-roll-bar assembly. Our quotation of approximately £700 was therefore based on replacing the assembly using the manufacturer-supplied component and carrying out a repair that we were prepared to stand behind.
You or your father subsequently referred us to an alternative repair seen on YouTube, whereby the original D-bushes are cut away and aftermarket bushes are fitted to the existing anti-roll bar. We were asked whether we would carry out this repair and we declined.
Our reason was very simple: if those aftermarket bushes subsequently moved, the anti-roll bar could again move laterally, contact the brake calipers and result in loss of the front brakes. Given the potential consequences, we were not prepared to carry out or put our name to that repair simply because it offered a cheaper alternative to replacing the complete assembly.
You chose not to proceed with our recommended repair and took the vehicle away, which was your prerogative. However, because we considered the vehicle dangerous to drive in the condition presented, we asked for a disclaimer to be signed confirming that you had been advised of the safety issue.
From your review, we presume that another garage has subsequently carried out the alternative repair and that the vehicle has now passed an MOT. We are pleased that you have been able to resolve the matter. However, another garage choosing to carry out a different repair does not mean that the part “didn’t need doing”, nor does it make our diagnosis or quotation incorrect. It simply means that they chose a different method of repairing the defect that we had identified and one we were not prepared to carry out on the grounds of your safety.
We take MOT testing and braking safety extremely seriously. We will not recommend unnecessary work, but equally we will not compromise our standards or carry out a repair we are not prepared to stand behind where the possible consequence of failure is the loss of the vehicle's front brakes.
As you have stated publicly that you would rather pay another garage for an MOT you trust, we respect your decision and will withdraw the Free MOT for Life benefit from this vehicle.
We thank you for your past custom and wish you well for the future.

Resposta da Newmanandreidy

29/07/2026

Thank you for the 5 star review Conner. We were more than happy to address your concerns over the bodywork and are pleased that both you and your sister are now happy

Resposta da Newmanandreidy

19/08/2026

Thank you for your reply Paul.
We chose not to respond publicly for many months. However, after repeatedly seeing what we believe to be inaccurate accounts of events published online, we feel it is necessary to provide our perspective in order to give readers a balanced view and to protect the reputation of our business.
In your latest comments, you suggest that the location of the vehicles was of relatively little importance to you. That is difficult to reconcile with the concerns you expressed at the time and the strength of your criticism towards both my staff and myself regarding the matter. The issue was clearly important enough to form a significant part of our discussions and your initial review.
You also state that the mileage discrepancy was not properly addressed. This is not correct. The discrepancy was discussed at the time, and I explained the most likely reason for it. I further explained that the entry had been made by an independent MOT tester and that there was no realistic prospect of obtaining any additional clarification years later, particularly given the likelihood that the individual concerned would neither recall the specific vehicle nor the circumstances surrounding it.
From my recollection, once this explanation had been provided, the matter was understood and no request was made for us to obtain further evidence. Had such evidence been available, we would of course have provided it, but the practical reality was that there was no reasonable means of obtaining it.
I also think it is important to clarify the circumstances surrounding the removal of your review, as this appears to have become a significant part of your subsequent account.
The review was not simply removed because we disliked what you had written or because it was inconvenient to our business. We requested its removal and the review site operator subsequently authorised that removal on the basis that the wording of the review was considered to imply malfeasance. That was a decision made by the review site operator under its own rules; it was not a decision made by us to silence a customer because they had criticised us.
We did not object to you recording your experience or raising legitimate concerns. What we objected to was the way certain conclusions were presented and the implication that our business or staff had acted improperly when, in our view, the facts did not support that conclusion. It is therefore misleading to suggest that your review was removed simply at the request of the advertiser because it was an "inconvenient" review. Had the review site operator considered it to comply with its rules, it would not have authorised its removal. We have no control over that decision.
We are also aware that Trustpilot contains many reviews which are considerably more critical, and we have no issue with customers expressing genuine dissatisfaction. Reviews are valuable precisely because customers should be able to give honest accounts of their experiences. However, that principle has to work both ways. A review platform should provide consumers with a reliable picture based on genuine experiences, while also allowing businesses to challenge statements which they believe are inaccurate or which imply misconduct.
We respect every customer's right to share their experience. Equally, we believe it is important that any public account accurately reflects the discussions that took place and the information that was provided at the time.
We have no wish to prolong this matter further but given the continued publication of what we believe to be inaccurate information, we feel it is only fair that readers are able to see our side of the story.

Resposta da Newmanandreidy

6/07/2026

Thank you so much for those kind words Jon, it was our absolute pleasure to be able to supply both your daughters with their new cars. We hope they both get many years of happy motoring from them and we look forward to being able to supply many more over the coming years

Resposta da Newmanandreidy

8/06/2026

Thank you for those kind words David, it was our absolute pleasure to be able to assist you

Resposta da Newmanandreidy

Há 4 dias

Thank you for the lovely review Jayne and thank you for all your repeated custom over the years, it is greatly appreciated. We are glad that we could help you when the bodyshop you had your car taken to seemed to be less than willing to repair the car properly. It took us a little while to get it sorted but we got your car recovered to our bodyshop and the car was repaired as it should have been and we got you back on the road and enjoying it as you should do.

Resposta da Newmanandreidy

Há 4 dias

Karen, we are disappointed to read this review as we do not feel it gives a fair or accurate account of the aftersales support we provided to you and you car.
You purchased the BMW from us in May 2023 with 143,368 miles recorded. You state that our attitude was “we have your money now we are not interested in any of your issues”, but our records simply do not support that.
In December 2023 you returned with concerns relating to the rear wiper cover, heated seat and a parking sensor. We dealt with these issues free of charge. You returned again in January 2024 regarding the parking sensor and the boot not opening. The parking sensor was traced to a loose wire and rectified; the battery was found to be low, but the boot operated correctly when tested.
We therefore find the comment “when they did decide to look at my vehicle” particularly unfair. We had already inspected and carried out work on the vehicle on several occasions without any charge.
The next significant issue was on 2nd June 2025, more than two years after purchase and approximately 9,000 miles later, when the RAC recovered the vehicle with a reported suspension fault. This so happened to be the day your warranty expired.
However, that aside, we inspected the BMW but were unable to reproduce or identify the reported fault. You subsequently took it to a BMW main dealer and state that they “couldn't believe” the issues we had failed to notice but we were never provided with their diagnostic report or given a further opportunity to inspect or rectify whatever they subsequently identified.
Without that report, we cannot comment on what BMW found, whether it related to the original suspension complaint, or whether the items were maintenance or wear-related on a vehicle which by then had covered over 152,000 miles.
Regarding your claim that the RAC Gold warranty was “mis-sold”, a warranty not requiring every replacement component to be a genuine part does not mean it was mis-sold or “not worth the paper it's written on”. Like most warranties, it has terms and conditions governing covered repairs and replacement components. The intention is to repair the vehicle using an appropriate OEM-equivalent component where applicable, not to guarantee genuine parts in every circumstance.
If you believe RAC incorrectly declined a particular claim, we would be happy to look at that specific decision. However, that is very different from suggesting the warranty itself was worthless.
We appreciate that faults with any vehicle are frustrating. However, this was a used BMW purchased at 143,368 miles. We continued to assist you after the sale, carried out repairs free of charge and were still happily inspecting the vehicle more than two years later.
We are always prepared to accept criticism when we get something wrong, but we also feel entitled to correct a review which suggests we took your money and then refused to help when our documented history clearly demonstrates otherwise.
We are sorry that you ultimately became dissatisfied with the BMW and us, but we cannot agree with the picture of Newman & Reidy presented in this review and deny your claims most vociferously.

Resposta da Newmanandreidy

Há 4 dias

Thank you for the kind words Michael, we always try to be as straightforward as we can. We know buying a car is difficult enough without adding any complications to the process. Thank you for your business, it is greatly appreciated

Resposta da Newmanandreidy

6/07/2026

Hi Duncan,
Thank you for your review, and I'm sorry to hear you experienced this problem with the vehicle.
When you purchased the car, it came with a three-month "back to base" warranty. This meant that if you experienced any issues, we would have been given the opportunity to inspect and repair the vehicle ourselves.
From my understanding, the vehicle went into limp mode and you chose to take it to a local garage. You then authorised repairs totalling approximately £750 without first contacting us or giving us the opportunity to assess the fault. The first we became aware of the issue was when you emailed us the invoice and asked us to reimburse the cost.
At the time, we explained that had we been given the opportunity, we could almost certainly have repaired the vehicle at a significantly lower cost. As you were only around 50 miles away, we could have arranged to collect the vehicle and worked with you to resolve the problem.
I was under the impression there had been some dialogue between yourself and the salesman involved. If he failed to respond to any communication from you, then I sincerely apologise for that.
If you still have a copy of the repair invoice, please email it to me at adam@newmanandreidy.co.uk. Although I cannot promise an outcome given the circumstances, I am more than happy to review it personally and see whether there is anything I can do to help.