What you have said would be enough for me to look elsewhere and choose another.

Haven't bought it yet - agreed on getting the scratches fixed before and when I came to collect it they still weren't so gave them another week to sort it. Tires - as I said they haven't even told me about it, I only looked up the details of MOT online myself to find out the advisory from few days ago.

Limited supply of used vehicles, buyers who still want used vehicles and will pay silly money to secure anything due to low supplies.

Result is what the OP found. A shoddy used example. Advisories on a first MOT is sign of an owner who didn't care.

I agree with everything you've said here. It's the driver's neglect. People with "I don't care it's not my car" mentality. Minimum maintenance with the cheapest oil, fluids or tyre available. Because it's not my car and will be returned in XX months anyway.....

Plus, poor highway maintenance...A countless number of potholes and speed humps which I beleieve cause abnormal tyre wear on inner edge....

That '30k on the clock' was like nearer to 45k-50k and reset before the car handed back at the end of its PCP \ lease and before its first MOT. Service book doesnt suggest that? No, they never do.

Well not necessarily! Some people abuse their cars even though they only do a small mileage.

Yes the OP should expect better and keep looking. Unfortunately there is a national shortage of good retail stock at the moment, which means that many car dealers are able to sell ones which not so long ago would have been shipped off to auction.

Edited by SLO76 on 26/09/2021 at 19:41

Thanks for all your replies!

Requested full paperwork before driving down again and it turns out that the car had only one oil change at an unauthorized garage... Suffice to say I walked away despite the dealer still trying to argue that it has FSH and is in perfect condition!

Dreading starting the search again ?? turns out approved used is not what it used to be few years ago.

Edited by Miniman777 on 28/09/2021 at 13:59

I bought a 'Used Approved' Suzuki last year. I had to reject it because of untreated body corrosion. Luckily I had bought it on PCP which meant that the finance company (Suzuki Finance Ltd, part of Lloyds Banking Group) was liable and so I was able to refer this to the Financial Ombudsman. I achieved a satisfactory outcome after some months (I could see why LBG were fined £63m for bad customer service).

I came to realise that 'Used Approved' is nothing more than a marketing tactic. The manufacturer has no part - and is not interested in - the process other than perhaps setting age and mileage limits. The Suzuki Used Approved warranty is in fact a third-party warranty insurance policy with numerous exclusions. (After I had rejected the car I found that the a/c was not working due to a corroded condenser - not covered by warranty).

LBG's proposed solution was to take the car back to the dealer, who proposed to fix the roof corrosion under the Suzuki anti-corrosion warranty. Not only does that warranty not cover this, but closer inspection of the service history showed that the dealer (the original supplying dealer who had carried out services) had never completed a 'corrosion warranty inspection'.

The question is: this when it comes to 'Used Approved' - by whom is it approved? Generally, the dealer who's trying to sell it to you, and you should disregard any marketing BS about 'inspection by skilled techicians' and such. It's a used car just the same as any other used car being sold by any other dealer. Caveat emptor.

I agree SLO, seems to me "pride of ownership" has gone out of the window, even if you don't really own it why don't folk look after the thing? To me it reflects on there personal standards.

I guess the dealers know they can shift shody stock but again its a poor reflection on them and can do nothing for there future reputation when "things" get better.

We fully intended to buy another Vauxhall ,when we went to have a look I honestly couldn't find one car on there lot that looked ok, there used stock was appaling and couldnt beleive some of it actually had sold stickers on. what done it for us was the state of there admittedly limited new stuff, we where buying new, again I couldn't see a car that wasn't marked in some way....we walked!

Re: clocking - Surely with all the modern technology available, shouldn't there be a digital trail that shows this up? Or is it that the don't care?

Presumably your proposed digital trail would be somewhere in the car's electronics ? If so, it would be as accessible as the figures that are already being manipulated by the clockers.

What one bunch of bright nerds can put together. another less scrupulous bunch can tinker with.

My recollection is that when ex-rental has come up over the years that the consensus was that they could be good buys. Certainly HJ himself didn’t see a problem with them. He considered different drivers a good thing in a cars first year as varied use is good for bedding in the engine. Also hire cars are checked over for every rental.

I have had two exhire cars. A 1999 Astra we kept for about 18 fault-free years and my current 2018 Golf which had a boot leak issue after purchase but completely unrelated to its history.

Any second hand car is a risk. A one private owner car might have been abused every day of its life by a clutch-slipping kerb-mounter. Or it might have been cherished and carefully driven. A rental car might have had a few days of abuse but is unlikely to have had bad drivers every day. I would not seek out an ex-rental car but neither would I avoid one solely for its being ex-rental. As I have bought nearly new for my last two cars generally these must be ex-fleet or ex-rental.