What People Type into Google to Find MyPentagonHell.com

It’s quite interesting what people type into Google and find MyPentagonHell.com. In previous months since this site was published people have typed in all sorts of things like;

“what is covered with my pentagon used vehicle warranty”

“pentagon vauxhall poor customer service”

“should i have been told the history of the car by the saleman”

“subaru events derbyshire 2012″

“bought an ex rental car was told it was ex management”

Below are the most popular recent search terms which lead people to MyPentagonHell.com (in order of popularity);

1 my pentagon hell
2 trevor reeve pentagon
3 mypentagonhell.com
4 jh powell & co
5 mypentagonhell
6 pentagon hell
7 pentagon vauxhall derby
8 pentagon vauxhall reviews
9 vanessa wix
10 pentagon chilwell reviews
11 alan able international motors
12 alan able subaru
13 covering letter to managing director
14 customer reviews pentagon garage
15 imgroup alan
16 j h powell
17 j h powell and co
18 letter before action
19 letter for courtesy car
20 letter pentagon
21 michael wood derby
22 misrepresentation act 1967 section 13
23 misrepresentation act uk
24 motorcodes.co.uk
25 pentagon dealers leicester
26 pentagon motor holdings ltd managing director
27 pentagon motor holdings sales director
28 pentagon motors reputation
29 pentagon motors reviews
30 pentagon trevor reeve
31 pentagon vauxhall facebook page
32 pentagon vauxhall refer a friend
33 pentagonvauxhallderby
34 recorded delivery on the letter
35 richard kightley
36 sale of goods act gazebo
37 stone chip on courtesy car
38 stone chip rust after 2 weeks?
39 subaru
40 subaru corrosion
41 subaru uk twitter
42 trevor reeve pentagon email
43 warranty denial letter
44 waterside retail park ashbourne
45 www.mypentagonhell

Subaru UK’s offer

In February this year (2012) the Subaru was coming up for service, so I called Subaru to locate my nearest dealer for service (apart from Pentagon). I was told my nearest dealer was in Leicester, with a new one opening in Derby soon. I decided to book the Subaru into Leicester for Tuesday the 28th of February.

I also learned that Pentagon Motor Holdings Limited was no longer a Subaru dealer.

Some time back, Pentagon had put in a warranty claim for my corroding alloy wheels to be replaced, and as far as I was aware they still had the wheels in stock. I decided to call Subaru UK on Friday the 17th of February about this, to try and arrange for them to be fitted when the vehicle was being serviced. I was put through to Mr Mike Wood, Technical Support and Development Manager.

I had a long call with Mr Wood, who very kindly arranged to send my wheels to Beechwood in Derby who were about to become a Subaru dealer, so that I could have them fitted there, as time was too tight to get them to Leicester for my booked service.

I explained to Mike Wood the problems I had with BF59ODL. Mr Wood said that he would have a chat with others within Subaru and get back to me, which he did, to advise me that Mr Alan Able, National Fleet & Used Car Sales Manager for Subaru UK, would be telephoning me.

On Wednesday the 22nd of February 2012, at Mr Alan Able called me to say that he was working on finding a vehicle to offer in replacement for BF59ODL, and that he would contact me by the end of the week.

On Friday the 24th of February, Mr Able called me to say that Mr Mike Wood was looking for suitable cars in the compound, and that he (Mr Able) would be in touch with me the following week with an offer.

As promised, on Wednesday the 29th of February, Mr Able called and offered to exchange BF59ODL for a similar vehicle as long as I paid £1000. The replacement he offered was white, registered in March 2010, and had 21000 miles on the clock. I explained to Mr Able that I was already over budget and that I didn’t really want to spend another £1000. Besides which I felt that I had already spent a considerable sum of money in legal fees and other costs as a result of my dealings with Pentagon Motor Holdings Limited, so much so, that I could have bought a brand new Subaru Legacy in the first place!

Mr Able sympathised, and said that he would have to speak to someone within International Motors to see if he could alter the offer, and that he would call me back within the week.

On Friday the 2nd of March, Mr Able called me to say that the offer was their final and only offer, and they would leave open until Tuesday 6th of March 2012. He said that if I wanted to view the vehicle I could do so at I.M. Group Parts & Service, Ryder Street, West Bromwich, B70 0EJ.

My feeling was that whatever the offer, there was no harm in meeting Mr Able in person and viewing the vehicle, even if I didn’t accept the offer. I called Mr Able back and agreed to meet him at his Ryder Street site with BF59ODL.

When I arrived at the Ryder Street site, signed in and parked, I got out and noticed another car parked nearby looking similar to BF59ODL, but with a licence plate that I had seen somewhere before. I couldn’t think where I had seen the plate before, or whether I had merely seen something similar.

Mr Able met me on the car park with one of his technicians and made introductions. The technician listened to my concerns and did his best to allay my worries about BF59ODL, saying that he thought the car to be in great condition and that the stone chips were “honest” stone chips and nothing to worry about, but just to touch them up. He also told me that it was normal for parts to rust in the engine bay, and that I shouldn’t worry about it as it would be a very long time before the car submitted to “tin worm”. I also mentioned the parcel shelf in BF59ODL that was coming apart, which Alan immediately exchanged.

Mr Able told me that the offer he had made would be on the condition that I didn’t take Pentagon Motor Holdings to court. It was at this point I categorically turned down the offer, as I felt that I couldn’t sacrifice my right to pursue Pentagon Motor Holdings Limited in court with regard to sections 13(1) and 14(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and section 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967.

I thanked Alan for his time, as at the end of the day my contract of sale is with Pentagon and not IM Group. International Motors were by no means obligated to make me any offer, and I took the gesture in the spirit of goodwill in which I believe it was intended. I found both Mr Mike Wood and Mr Alan Able very pleasant to deal with, and remain grateful to them for their time and effort in the matter.

As I drove away I was still trying to place the licence plate I’d seen, and then it came to me; BV10YCR was on the list of three vehicles in group stock from which Pentagon had initially offered to let me choose (see below).

Replacement car offers list

Replacement car offers list

I called my Solicitor who had a copy of the list, just to check if I was right and sure enough it was the same registration, type, colour and mileage.

Also in my dealings with International Motors I found out the reason for BG10LFJ’s very worn driver’s seat. Apparently it was used by someone in the import department who used it to travel around site a lot, getting in and out of the vehicle very frequently. So that explained the excessive driver’s seat wear in I mentioned in “Viewing BG10LFJ”.

Next Post Due Tonight


The next post will be about the offer I couldn’t accept, made by Alan Able of Subaru UK (International Motors) as, mentioned, by Kate of Pentagon in her comment made on Saturday which you can view here: “Contact from Pentagon”

I will also reveal what I was told regarding BG10LFJ which explained it’s condition, as you may remember this was the vehicle Pentagon offered to me in replacement for BF59ODL. You can read about when I went to view BG10LFJ here: “Viewing BG10LFJ”

***UPDATE: Not had time to complete the post tonight, check back tomorrow***

Contact From Pentagon

Today I’ve had contact via the comment section on the “About” page of this website from a Pentagon employee. This is the first time, to my memory, that I’ve had contact from an employee of Pentagon since Mr William Johnson’s letter dated the 24th of November 2011.

I’ve put Kate’s comment below, followed by my reply.

Kate writes:

My name is Kate and I have worked for Pentagon for 20 years. This is a family run business and we take our customer satisfaction and level of service very seriously.
Every customer that buys a used car from Pentagon is invited to take part in a satisfaction survey either by email, text or letter which involves answering questions about the dealership, staff, the vehicle they purchased and their overall satisfaction. We have been using JudgeService since December 2011, and prior to that we used a company called Feefo. The figure of 4.6/5 is based on everybody’s feedback since we started using JudgeService. Anyone who leaves feedback via the Judge Service website that hasn’t been invited to take part has their comments read by the General Manager and the Sales team at the relevant dealership.

As an employee of Pentagon I have been very much involved with customer satisfaction, and I can assure you that we do work tirelessly, quickly, and as fairly as we can to resolve any customer issues or complaints.

Don’t get me wrong, we do get things wrong sometimes, but our mission has always been, and will continue to be, to keep all our customers happy and to deliver an exceptional level of customer service. I understand that this will not always be the case, and every so often we do get customers that we cannot please no matter what we do, and are quite frankly impossible to deal with.

As I understand it, Pentagon have tried on many occasions to resolve your issues with various substantial offers, and Subaru UK also made you a very generous offer a few weeks ago that hasn’t been mentioned anywhere. I also believe that you informed Subaru UK that you were perfectly happy with your car which leads me to believe that you do not have any issues with this car any longer.

It really does sadden me when someone is tainting the name of Pentagon, a family owned business whose mission hasn’t changed in over 20 years which is “to make car and van buying and servicing easy and affordable and to treat people as we would like to be treated”.

The motor industry has had a bad reputation in the past, but its companies like Pentagon that have helped to improve that reputation in recent years by providing customers the opportunity to let us know if they are unhappy with the service they have experienced. This in turn gives us the opportunity to put matters right, and to improve our service in the future for everybody.”

And my reply to Kate’s comment:

Hi Kate,

Thank you for taking the time to add your view to MyPentagonHell.com.

I understand that Pentagon is a family run company, this is partly what influenced my decision to place my trust in their Chilwell dealership and purchase the Subaru. I have at no point been asked to take part in a satisfaction survey by email, text, letter or otherwise.

Comments via the JudgeService.com website may well be read by the General Manager and the sales team although they aren’t all published publicly. However in my experience the Pentagon employees that I have dealt with, tend to ignore problems in the hope that they will disappear, with the exception of Neil Vernon.

Mr Steve Armstrong Sales Manager at Pentagon Chilwell repeatedly didn’t return my telephone calls and Mr Trevor Reeve Managing Director of Pentagon Motor Holdings Limited still hasn’t replied to the letter that I sent to him by registered post on the 21st of November 2011.

You are quite right companies do sometimes get things wrong, I accept this, but they have to accept when they are in the wrong and face up to their mistakes.

Pentagon’s mistake was to tell me the vehicle was something it wasn’t, this is misrepresentation. It is my belief that your salesman did this to close the deal and and make a sale to the value of £22990.00.

At no point have I been impossible to deal with. I would add quite “frankly” as you put it, that if I wanted to be impossible to deal with I would Ignore Pentagon’s calls and letters and then instruct a solicitor to write letters which contain incorrect facts to Pentagon’s solicitor and perhaps drag things out by asking for more time to reply to a letter and then reply late.

Pentagon has only made me one offer and this was in the form of a replacement vehicle it was far from substantial and not acceptable you can view the details here: http://mypentagonhell.com/?p=123

You mention the offer that Subaru made to me, which as yet I haven’t published because my contract of sale is with Pentagon Motor Holdings Limited and not Subaru UK (International Motors). However you are correct Alan Able of Subaru UK as an interested 3rd party did make me an offer on the condition that didn’t take any legal proceedings against Pentagon Motor Holdings Limited. This was not acceptable to me. I will put full details of Alan Able’s offer in my next blog post but it was basically this, in return for BF59ODL, £1000 and my silence they would provide me with BV10YCR a vehicle which I mentioned earlier in my blog here:http://mypentagonhell.com/?p=115

I am not happy with the car because it is not what your salesman said it was and not what I paid £22800.00 for. I hope this is clear.

If the truth taints Pentagon’s reputation I would respectfully suggest that in my opinion, it’s time for a change of “mission”.

The motor industry may have had, as you put it a “bad reputation” in the past. However Pentagon have in my mind only enforced that reputation. I wish this was not the case and that my purchasing of the Subaru had been as I had planned, a pleasurable experience. In reality it has cost me considerable stress, time, money and inconvenience.

I remain receptive to dialogue with the aim of acceptably resolving the situation as always.


Pentagon’s Customer Reviews – The Truth

Since I published MyPentagonHell.com, it looks like Pentagon Motor Holdings Limited have been getting lots of great reviews for customer satisfaction on a website called JudgeService.com, and published on their Facebook page.  In fact at the time of writing (10:50 14/04/2012), Pentagon has some 555 reviews, with an overall customer satisfaction rating of 4.6 out of 5.  This has been promoted by @JimatPentagon tweeting ”Now rated 4.6/5 for overall satisfaction after 555 customer reviews. Thanks @JudgeService”, and @JudgeService tweeting “See what great feedback Pentagon Motor Group is getting from their customers”.

I decided to submit my review, and waited for it to appear on Pentagon’s page within the JudgeService.com website. Strangely, nothing appeared, which led me to question whether it ever would. I then looked into the website a little further, and found that it was for dealers to refer their customers to, in order for them to leave their feedback. It would seem that in order to secure mostly positive reviews you would simply have to give only happy customers the referral details. These details are your vehicle registration number and a password given to you by the dealer. Not exactly a true representation of Pentagon’s customer base.

I had a read of JudgeService.com and found the following quotes:

“In the old days an unhappy customer might tell half a dozen of his closer friends about his grievance. Starting with the internet, evolving on to blogs, and then finally social media, it has become increasingly easy for people to share their criticisms with everyone they know and then some.” - How correct they are (and then some).

“According to recent research (source Zoomerang), 82% of customers would definitely recommend a friend or family to buy from a car dealer if they felt they had received good service, and 73% said they would be more likely to recommend a friend if the dealer asked and indeed incentivised them.” - Incentives eh?

Having looked into JudgeService.com, I decided to look for other review sites on the internet and came across MotorCodes.co.uk, which is government-backed.

Their website says, ”Motor Codes is the government-backed, self-regulatory body for the motor industry.  Its voluntary membership of thousands of garages are all committed to maintaining high standards across new car sales, service and repair and vehicle warranties.  So, whether you’re buying a new car or need a service or repair job carrying out, use our garage finder to seek out your nearest OFT-approved garage.”

Having read this, I thought I’d search for satisfaction reviews of Pentagon Motor Holdings Limited.  This is what I found:

Pentagon Manchester: 71% – 81%

Pentagon Barnsley: 72% – 78%

All other 13 Pentagon dealership sites had no reviews.

These are much more believable compared to the score of 4.6 out of 5 (which equates to 92%). I also believe that if you were to select to leave feedback only those customers whom you believed were happy, and would give a great review, 92% is actually a pretty poor score.

To me, this also rather reinforces my belief that with Pentagon everything isn’t always what it seems at first glance.

MyPentagonHell.com Promotion

I’ve had a MyPentagonHell.com sign made for the rear of the Subaru to promote this site so that as many people as possible will be able to read my story and hopefully avoid the same misfortune that I’ve experienced.

Below is a picture of the Subaru at the Waterside Retail Park in Ashbourne during a road safety promotion event it was there all day and having checked the website statistics it got quite a lot of attention.

Subaru Legacy

Subaru Legacy

As of today (31/03/2012) Pentagon still haven’t contacted me to resolve the situation.

I believe that Vanessa Wix of Geldards ( http://www.geldards.com/people/profile/vanessa-wix ) acting on behalf of Pentagon Motor Holdings Ltd. has called my solicitor and requested that he instruct me to take this site down immediately but to my knowledge she has yet to give any legitimate grounds as to why I should remove this site.

I have also been asked by a friend for a MyPentagonHell.com graphic for his Vauxhall which I am pleased to say I am able to supply if anyone else would like one just get in touch (see contact page).

I have also printed a number of eye catching banners like the one below, so watch out for them near your local Pentagon site!

I would like to thank all my friends and supporters for their continued support and a very special thank you to those who have offered their assistance and ideas for future events.


Life’s a Beach, a Salty Tale

Subaru rusting

Life's a beach a salty tale

The Subaru’s early life as a press vehicle seems to be catching up with it. In the above picture you can see the Subaru driving across a beach exposing it to high levels of salt.

Looking at various parts of the car (photographs below) corrosion seems to have started to eat away at the poor Subaru, possibly caused or accelerated by contact with high levels of salt. This level of corrosion surprises me and makes me wonder if this is normal for a now 29 month old Subaru Legacy to rust in this way.

Rust on the Subaru's Engine Parts

Rust on the Subaru's Engine Parts

Rust on the bodywork in the engine bay under the bonnet

Rust on the bodywork in the engine bay under the bonnet

Rust on the Subaru's Wheel Nuts

Rust on the Subaru's Wheel Nuts

Rust on the Subaru's wheel nuts

Rust on the Subaru's wheel nuts

Rust on the Subaru's wheel nuts

Rust on the Subaru's wheel nuts

Rust on the Subaru's wheel nuts

Rust on the Subaru's wheel nuts



Reply to Geldards’ Letter

On Friday the 20th of January 2012 I received an email from Mr Kightley of Powell and Co. with a response attached that he had received from Geldards. It had arrived after the agreed deadline of the 16th which Geldards had requested to give them more time to respond.

Neither Mr Kightley or I have given a response to this letter before now.

I believe, having read the letter from Geldards that it is based upon assumption and/or guesswork on Pentagon’s part as to what events have actually taken place. For example they refer to me having a courtesy car provided by them, this is fiction. They have never provided one to me and this caused me inconvenience for 10 days.

The letter seems to be written in the style of, saying the vehicle was used by a Subaru Area Manager, when they don’t know and haven’t checked.

I will quote Geldards letter in italics and my response in bold script and mix the two together making it easier to follow. I will include an original copy of the letter in full at the bottom of this post.

Dear Sirs
Mr D ****** – Subagu Legacy 2.0D (Reg No: BF59 ODL)

Further to your letters of 14th December 2011 and 4th January 2012 we confirm that we have now taken our client’s detailed instructions and can now respond formally to you. We also advise that the fee earner with conduct of this matter has been away on annual leave until the 11th January 2012 and therefore this has led to the short further delay encountered.

We have therefore considered the various allegations made within your correspondence but cannot agree with such comments. It is further clear that your client has not necessarily made you fully aware of all of the facts, nor explained to you the various efforts which our client has undertaken in order to appease your client, despite there being no obligation for them to do so.

We consider that it is important for the parties to be fully aware as to what exactly is being alleged and for there to be any suggestion that the vehicle was not of satisfactory quality at the time of purchase the parties should take into account all relevant factors, namely the age of vehicle, mileage, price, condition etc. At the point of sale in May 2011 the vehicle was some 19 months old and had a mileage of 17,300 miles. Accordingly the standard of a used vehicle would never be considered to be the same standard as expected from a new vehicle.

I realised the car was a used car and at the same time was assured by Mr Hudson that Subaru’s approved used cars were prepared to the highest standard. I didn’t expect there to be a rusty pin sized stone chip on the roof which was pointed out to me when the car was valeted. Along with the two chips on the rear quarter and not to mention the paint flaking off the front bumper after I had used the headlamp wash. Mr Armstrong told me that the stone chips could have been caused by my driving. I explained to him that I’m a Gold standard RoSPA advanced driver and that I treat my vehicle with the utmost care, to the extent of contacting the council to establish which roads they would be treating with stone chippings, so that I can avoid them.

Prior to purchase your client fully inspected the vehicle and was completely satisfied with its condition. Had cosmetic issues been apparent at the time of sale your client would have clearly noticed such issues, especially when he had the choice of two vehicles which he had test driven but had preferred to purchase this vehicle. Further the vehicle had also undergone a Subaru approved used car check and was also sourced from Subaru UK themselves so as to ensure that the vehicle was fully compliant with the standard expected under the Subaru Approved Used Vehicle Scheme.

Following my enquiry by telephone, Mr Hudson sent me the details of two vehicles that I may be interested in, by email one being BF59ODL. I Made the decision to purchase BF59ODL over BV10YCX based on the fact that BV10YCX was stated as an “EX-SUBARU (UK) LTD RENTAL FLEET VEHICLE” on your vehicle details sheet, mileage, optional equipment and more importantly, on Mr Hudson’s statement that BF59ODL had been previously been an “Area Manager’s vehicle”.

Mr Hudson told me that for him to bring the vehicle to the dealership I would need to pay a £500 deposit, which I did by electronic bank transfer that same day (Friday 6th May).

The next day I rang the dealership and asked if they had a demonstrator that my partner Helen could have a drive in as she wasn’t familiar with the type of vehicle and was apprehensive that I had put a deposit on something that in her opinion may not meet our needs. I was told they didn’t have one at Chilwell but their Ashbourne branch had one that she could try. We went to Ashbourne that day (Saturday 7th May) and Helen had a short drive and a look around the vehicle’s features to confirm this type of vehicle would meet our needs.

In hindsight we commented that Pentagon Ashourne’s Mr Neil Vernon was much more knowledgeable of this type of vehicle than Mr Hudson and we were very glad of his input. We weren’t test driving this demonstrator with a view to purchasing it, the staff at Pentagon were aware of the reason for our visit.

When the car arrived at the dealership I went to look at it with my father. We looked around the car which had been highly polished and didn’t notice any imperfections. We were not expecting to find any imperfections as the vehicle had spent many days in preparation according to Mr Hudson. Also we were purchasing it from an authorised Subaru dealer and expected their standards to be higher than I now believe they are through my experience. We paid for the vehicle using a debit card and were told that we could collect the car on Friday the 13th of May at 15:00, this became Saturday Lunchtime. On Saturday lunchtime my partner Helen took me to collect the vehicle from the dealership and Mr Hudson gave me the keys and paperwork. I have had more detailed hand-overs with rental cars.

At no point did I get to test drive BF59ODL, I had driven a similar vehicle some months ago and I was purchasing the vehicle based on Mr Hudson’s testimony which I believed to be true at the time, the credibility of being an authorised Subaru dealer and Pentagon being a prominent large local business.

It is my belief that the Subaru approved used scheme is just a marketing tool for dealers to use and not an assurance of quality that it purports to be, judging by the quality of BF59ODL and BG10LFJ.

It was not until 14 July 2011 that your client first notified our client of any alleged issues with the vehicle, this being some 2 months after delivery of the vehicle. Mr ******** alleged that he had found a small area of ‘rust’ on the roof which may be from a stone chip and slight offcolouring to the front bumper. Although upon inspection of the vehicle our client did not agree with the allegations made and considered the vehicle to be in a satisfactory condition and further in the same condition as it was supplied, they did agree purely as a gesture of goodwill to rectify the issues. Works were completed to the vehicle and the vehicle was returned to your client on the 12th August 2011. Mr ******* was given a complimentary courtesy car whilst repairs were undertaken. There was some residual dust inside the car which is again normal from paintwork as the car has to be polished and buffed before it is handed back to a Customer, which our client also had valeted out and paid the full cost of as well as all paintwork. Our client also paid the cost of transportation and the courtesy car as well as insurance for Mr *********.

It wasn’t until the valet noticed when washing the vehicle the stone chips and poor paintwork on the front bumper and brought them to my attention. A stone chip cannot rust to the extent it had ‘spidering’ under the roofs paintwork within two months. 

Geldards refer to “slight off-colouring of the front bumper”, this is not what I alleged. It was the paint flaking off the bumper after having used the pop up headlamp washers that appeared to have been painted over.
The paint flaking off then brought my attention to the over spray on the bumper furniture and foreign objects beneath the paint’s surface. All of this in my opinion indicated to very poor workmanship and at best an amateurish repair job. The idiom ‘papering over the cracks’ comes to mind.
I took the vehicle to my local independent garage for their expert opinion at the time and they was surprised by the state of the repair.

I took the vehicle at their request to their body shop at Burton when I arrived I showed them all of the areas on the vehicle which needed attention and their employee took photographs. I then asked for the courtesy car which I believed to be waiting for me only to be told that one hadn’t been booked. They offered me a lift home which I had little choice in accepting. I was told BF59ODL would be in the body shop for 3 days so I rearranged my normal schedule to accommodate this. They hadn’t completed the work by the end of the 3 days and I had to wait a further 7 days for the work to be completed making 10 days in total without the car not including the 11th day when I collected the car.

Despite being in Pentagon’s body shop for so long, when we collected the Subaru the stone chips on the near side rear quarter were untreated and you could see a mark under the paint where the rust had been. Or perhaps still is? There was also residual dust inside the vehicle when I collected it and I took it straight to their Nottingham site where they offered to vacuum up the dust and give it a quick wash outside. Pentagon’s Mr Neil Vernon took pictures of the chips on his camera.

At no point have they covered the cost of my transportation with the exception of driving me home when I delivered the car to their Burton site. I had to make my own way there to collect it and at no point have Pentagon paid for any insurance on my behalf except for the complimentary 7 days insurance when I purchased the vehicle.

Mr ******* also complained of some alloy wheel corrosion. This is not uncommon on used vehicles and would certainly not be something which would amount to a used vehicle being considered as unsatisfactory quality. ln any event the manufacturer has agreed to replace the four alloy wheels under the manufacturer’s warranty.

Accordingly it is denied that the vehicle concerned breached the threshold in respect of quality and accordingly your client had no entitlement to reject the vehicle on this basis. Further, if which is denied, your client was able to convince the court that the quality threshold was breached your client’s proportionate remedy was that of repair and the repairs, save for the alloy wheel, were all completed prior to any mention by your client about his intention to reject the vehicle.

It therefore appears to us that your client’s decision to reject the vehicle had little to do with the quality of the vehicle, but was purely motivated by the fact that he had later discovered that the vehicle had been reviewed by the press and appeared in an article. After investigation it transpired that the vehicle had in fact been used by Subaru UK for media purposes. In any event the description given to your client prior to sale was not inaccurate and we fail to see on what basis your client believes that a vehicle being reviewed by press makes the vehicle inconsistent with the description given.

The vehicle quality issues arising due to substandard repairs which revealed themselves over time started to form a picture of, in my opinion, careless previous ownership.

While still at Pentagon after the DPF had been fixed and I had wasted some more hours of my work day sat waiting at the dealership, As I was about to leave I spoke to the Service Manager who walked to the car with me. He suggested that I look into the history of the vehicle starting with a phone call to International Motors, Subaru’s UK agent, as it was unusual to have so many problems with this type of vehicle. It was his advice that started me on my investigative endeavour, culminating in the discovery of the press articles and revealing the true history behind BF59ODL

The salesman, Mr Hudson misled me concerning the vehicle’s history. He categorically told me that the vehicle had been used by a “Subaru area manager” and stated that the vehicle would have been used by the area manager as their company car from new. If he had told me it had been a press hack or road test car I would not have bought it.

ln any event and once again in order to appease your client, Pentagon offered Mr ******* a replacement vehicle. Unfortunately at that time there were no similarly aged Subaru Diesel Tourers available and therefore Mr ******** was offered a newer Subaru Legacy, being an identical model, colour trim but with a lower mileage that the vehicle he had originally purchased. Mr ******** was unhappy with the condition of the proposed replacement vehicle despite it meeting the Subaru Used Car standard. As a result our client contacted Subaru UK who agreed to send out their own independent inspector. Subaru UK carried out a full inspection of the car and gave written confirmation that the replacement car we offered Mr ******** not only absolutely meets their strict approved used car standards but was in excellent condition for its age and mileage. Our client informed Mr ********* of this but he was still unhappy and said he would seek legal advice.

The replacement vehicle BG10LFJ was in my opinion what can best be described as ‘rough’ condition with paintwork repair issues similar to BF59ODL. There was over spray on the resin bumper protector indicating to me that the repair job had been done in a quick an sloppy manner similar to the front bumper on BF59ODL. The driver’s seat was excessively worn for a vehicle which had covered 20000 + miles. I notice Pentagon still have the vehicle listed as for sale on their website despite lowering the price, this leads me to believe that I can’t be the only person to think that BG10LFJ is not a good example of this model of car.

I believe that Subaru’s inspection of the vehicle is far from independent.

Accordingly our client has offered your client various remedies in order to resolve this matter. Your client’s rejection of the vehicle is not accepted. Your client has driven in excess of 12,000 miles in the vehicle since purchase with no issues arising other than the minor cosmetic issues which he highlighted 2 months after purchase. Since such time these minor issues have been repaired and he has continued to use the vehicle until 19th November 2011, being over 6 months from purchase. Our client does not wish to be engaged in litigation with any customer and it is for this reason why considerable efforts have been made by our client to resolve matters directly with Mr ******** despite there being no entitlement for them to do so. However our client cannot under any circumstances provide a refund for a vehicle in circumstances when no entitlement exists for such a remedy and further when such a remedy is disproportionate to the other remedies offered.

In addition to the cosmetic issues there was the instance of the vehicle failing on the A52 and entering ‘limp home mode’ because of the DPF filter filling up to 99% causing me to cancel all work for the rest of the day and divert to Pentagon’s Nottingham site. I was told the cause of the problem was my driving, as an advanced driver I would argue this wasn’t the case.

The “minor” issues weren’t all remedied as the two stone chips on the rear quarter were not repaired and still remain.

I visited Pentagon on the 17th of September with the vehicle, all paperwork associated with it and both keys having emptied it of all my personal belongings with the intention of returning the vehicle. I informed Mr Armstrong that I wish to reject the vehicle on the grounds that it was sold to me using misrepresentation by Mr Hudson. Mr Armstrong asked me to put everything in an email and to keep using the vehicle whilst he looked into the situation. I continued to use the vehicle as per Mr Armstrong’s instruction whilst Pentagon sought a remedy to the situation. Two months later when it became apparent that they were either unable or unwilling to remedy the situation satisfactorily, I informed Pentagon that I had ceased using the vehicle and that I required a full refund and asked them to collect the vehicle.

Pentagon may not wish to be in litigation with myself and it isn’t a decision I would take lightly, especially due to cost. So instead of entering immediately into litigation I have created this website, as I believe that Pentagon should be able to read and realise the inconvenience and cost this situation has caused my partner and I. The reasons below have also motivated me to create it.

  • I believe that Pentagon sold me the vehicle under false pretences.
  • I had given Pentagon 2 months to remedy the situation. Which they haven’t.
  • Pentagon frequently wouldn’t return my phone calls.
  • Pentagon have maintained a pretty obdurate attitude.
  • Managing Director Trevor Reeve hasn’t replied to my letter asking him to resolve the situation.
  • The overall impression I’ve gained from Pentagon’s behaviour is that they hope I will go away and the problem will disappear.
  • I have been keen to resolve the situation in a timely manner and Pentagon have appeared to dragged their feet requiring me to make numerous telephone calls to chivvy them up.

 I am very keen to resolve this matter and it has been my priority since September.

Having the Subaru parked on our drive is causing us considerable inconvenience, with us having to park one of our vehicles on the road which has been reversed into as a consequence. The vehicle would have normally been parked on the drive in the space the Subaru is occupying.

Geldards’ letter Page 1

Late Letter from Geldards Page 1

Late Letter from Geldards Page 1

Page 2

Late Letter from Geldards Page 2

Late Letter from Geldards Page 2

Page 3

Late Letter from Geldards Page 3

Late Letter from Geldards Page 3

Focus on the Road

Whilst this saga has continued we have had to store the Subaru on our driveway to keep it safely out of harm’s way. The driveway is only big enough for two cars, so this has meant that we have had to park one of our cars on the road.

This has been an inconvenience to us and our neighbours so much so that on Thursday the 19th of January 2012 at approximately 16:30 one of our neighbours accidentally reversed into Helen’s Ford Focus.

This would not have happened had the car been parked on the driveway in the space occupied by the Subaru. We now had all the hassle of an insurance claim.

Geldards Respond on Pentagon’s Behalf

On Tuesday the 3rd of January Geldards wrote to Powell and Co asking for further time (until the 16th of January 2012) in which to respond on Pentagon’s behalf to the before action letter which Mr Kightley had sent on the 14th of December 2011. I agreed to this and confirmed it to them in a letter sent by Powell and Co on my behalf on Wednesday the 4th of January.

You can view the respective letters below.

Letter from Geldards:

Letter from Geldards

Letter from Geldards

Letter to Geldards agreeing to give them more time:

Letter from JHP to Geldards

Letter from JHP to Geldards


By January the 16th 2012 J H Powell and Co had not received a response from Geldards so Mr Kightley sent the following email to Geldards on the 17th of January:


Dear Sirs,

MR D ******** – SUBARU LEGACY 2.0D (REG NO. BF59 ODL)

We are disappointed to note that you have not responded to our letter before action of 14 December 2011 by the agreed deadline of 16 January 2012.

Unless we receive the sum of £22,990 into our belowmentioned account by 5pm today, together with your client’s proposals for collecting the vehicle, our client will instruct us to issue proceedings against Pentagon Motor Holdings Limited to recover the aforementioned sum, plus costs and interest.


Should such action become necessary, then we shall obviously be bringing the pre-action correspondence to the attention of the Court as and when the issue of costs is determined, irrespective of the outcome of the proceedings.

Yours faithfully,