LY66UJS

Our Response

Firstly, Llandow Tuning has never tuned this vehicle and has not carried out any tuning work on this car at any point. The vehicle was known to our sister company, Cowbridge Specialists, and as we share premises and work closely together, we are happy to provide a clear response to the complaint that has been made.

The vehicle was not booked in as an immaculate car with no issues. It was booked in with a reported power assisted steering leak, several dashboard warning lights, and a request for a service and MOT test. In fact the customers wording is "After cold weather and 4 months stood still it is like a Christmas tree"

The Original Job Sheet

That is the starting point of the matter. The car arrived with pre-existing faults, warning lights, and a known fluid leak. These issues were not created by us.

Condition of the Vehicle

Although the vehicle may be low mileage, it is still an older Maserati Levante and it was not free from faults. The car had warning lights present, including issues relating to systems such as ABS, PAS and engine management. A vehicle with unresolved warning lights of this nature cannot simply be treated as ready for MOT without further investigation and repair.

The power steering leak was not a minor issue. The pipework was badly corroded, and the customer chose to source a used replacement part. That decision is relevant because it shows the repair route was being controlled by cost and by the parts supplied, not by us pretending the car was in better condition than it was.

The multiple warning lights were also not something that could fairly be blamed on us. The faults present were consistent with communication and electrical issues, including CAN bus related errors. Water ingress and corrosion around electronics are well-known types of issues on vehicles of this age and type, particularly where scuttle or drainage problems are involved. As we advised the customer it had NINE pages of fault codes stored on initial code scan.

Known History of Car

May 2020

We first saw the vehicle in May 2020 at 19754 miles when the car required a service and had a fault with the fuel filler cap not opening. Even then the car wasn't faultless! We were able to do a "temporary repair" to allow the flap to open whilst the part was on order from Italy so the customer could use the car, however customer didn't bother returning for the part to be fittd until over a year later when the service became due again"

---

August 2021

We next saw the vehicle in August 2021 because the vehicle had thrown an engine management light and a warning for the adblue system.

---

November 2021

We next saw the vehicle in November 2021 when the vehicle was recovered in non-running after the customer ignored an AdBlue countdown and it ran out, triggering the AdBlue Immobiliser which then meant that due to security gateway module issues, the AdBlue module had to be replaced. Yet more electronic and electrical system issues on this "immaculate, faultless, never given me any trouble, no issues" car

---

January 2023

We next saw the vehicle in January 2023 when customer realised his MOT had expired and advised that the only thing that may effect mot is front nearside indicator bulb which turned out to be integral to the headlight unit and not changeable separately. We managed to get it partially working enough for it to pass an MOT test but advised that it needed replacing.

---

February 2024

We next saw the vehicle in February 2024 when it yet again had an engine management light illuminated, this time related to the EGR valve and carbon build up. There was also a code for the oil pressure sensor which is not uncommon to need replacing on these. Also worth noting that it had a dodgy MOT test somewhere in January because headlight still not fixed at this point and nothing even advised. First time customer mentions intending to sell the car.

---

December 2024

We next heard from the customer in December 2024 to advise that he's sent the headlight off to a repair specialist and is wanting to organise fitting the oil pressure switch and a service. Later in the month we are advised the headlight couldn't be repaired and requesting availability for replacement.

---

February 2025

We next heard from the customer in February 2025 to bring the car in for an annual maintenance service, a new headlight and a DPF chemical clean because it was blocked and the EML was on again. Customer again mentions may just auction the car. On service paperwork we advised that the discs and pads needed doing.

---

March 2025

We next heard from the customer in March 2025 because it had thrown an error light again just before someone was allegedly coming from Luton to buy it. Note customer states this is his last maserati as they're too temperamental..... bit of a different story to this apparently perfect car with no faults referred to in his first unedited review. Hear from him again a few days later about having the discs and pads advised on the service done. Looking for aftermarket parts then by evening changes mind and says has decided to keep car as only getting silly offers for it. Car attends 10 days later for the brakes to be fitted with a message stating that "one day there won't be one light on dash and next day every light is on and warnings of everything needing a service". Multiple error codes were logged for undervoltage, customer supplied battery.

---

Work Billed For

To be absolutely clear, we have carried out the work we have billed for. The invoice relates to work requested and completed. It does not make us responsible for unrelated or pre-existing electrical faults on the vehicle.

Mr Courtney is now suggesting that the electrical issues and warning lights were not present when the vehicle arrived. We strongly disagree. The original job sheet clearly records that various dashboard warning lights were already present, and we also hold customer messages confirming that the vehicle had warning lights and issues before the work proceeded.

The customer now appears to expect us to repair unrelated electrical issues at our cost, while also attempting to link those faults to the later third party damage. That is not a position we accept.

MOT Position

The vehicle was not in a condition where it could simply be presented as a clean, fault-free car. The warning lights and unresolved issues needed to be dealt with properly first. The customer was made aware of this.

The suggestion that this was an immaculate car which was somehow made faulty by us is simply not accurate. The car came in with the issues noted above, and those issues were recorded at the time.

Third Party Damage While Parked

Unfortunately, while the car was parked on our site, it was struck by a third party from a neighbouring premises. This was not caused by Llandow Tuning or Cowbridge Specialists.

The incident was captured on CCTV. The driver came in, admitted what had happened, provided insurance details, and contacted their insurer while on site. There was no attempt to hide the matter and no dispute that the third party was responsible for the damage they caused.

The key point is this: an unrelated third party damaging the vehicle does not cancel the bill for diagnostic, service, repair, or labour work requested by the customer. The damage claim and the mechanical repair invoice are two separate matters.

Attempt to Avoid Payment

After the third party incident, the customer repeatedly attempted to argue that because the car had been damaged by somebody else, there should be no bill for the work carried out. We do not accept that position.

The vehicle came in with a power steering leak, multiple warning lights, and a request for a service and MOT. Work was carried out in relation to the customer’s instructions. The later third party damage did not make that work free of charge.

Customer Conduct, Authorisation and Vehicle Background

We also think it is relevant to explain the wider pattern of dealing with this vehicle. This was not a simple case of a customer authorising whatever was required to put the car right. Over a period of time, it had become increasingly difficult to obtain clear authorisation for proper repairs when faults were found.

On previous occasions, rather than authorising new or recommended parts, the customer chose to supply or source parts himself, including used parts and customer-supplied brake pads. That is his choice, but it is relevant because it shows the vehicle was being maintained around cost limitations and customer-supplied parts, rather than by simply authorising the correct repair route each time faults were identified.

We had previously advised the customer to consider selling the vehicle because it was developing issues which were likely to become expensive to resolve properly. He did not sell it apparently because the buyers who turned up would not pay what he felt it was worth, and the vehicle has now returned with further faults, including warning lights and electrical issues which were recorded before this dispute arose.

We believe the customer is now looking for a scapegoat because the vehicle has become more problematic and less valuable than he hoped. That does not change the facts. The vehicle arrived with warning lights and a PAS leak. Those issues were recorded. The work we have billed for was carried out.

Publicly Available Company Background

As Mr Courtney has chosen to make this matter public and has identified himself online, we consider it fair to refer to publicly available company records where they are relevant to the credibility of the complaint, the payment dispute, and the wider context of the allegations now being made against us.

Public Companies House records show a number of dissolved companies connected with Mr Courtney. Several of those records also show creditors’ voluntary liquidation. The links are included below so that readers can review the public records for themselves. Many suppliers have been left significantly out of pocket by Mr Courtney.

Readers can draw their own conclusions from the public records. What matters for this dispute is that this is not a case of a fault-free vehicle being damaged by our workmanship. The vehicle arrived with warning lights and a PAS leak, those issues were recorded, work was requested, and the work we have billed for was carried out.

The later third party damage is a separate insurance matter involving the party who hit the parked vehicle. It is not a reason for Mr Courtney to avoid paying our invoice, and it is not a reason for us to repair unrelated or pre-existing electrical faults free of charge.

Conduct Towards Staff

We also need to make clear that our staff should not be abused, shouted at, or intimidated. Following this dispute, people acting on behalf of or in connection with the customer attended the premises and behaved aggressively towards staff.

We understand that vehicle disputes can be stressful, but that does not justify abusive conduct. We will always deal with complaints properly, but we will not tolerate staff being shouted at or threatened over a bill that is properly due.

Evidence Available

We hold records relating to this matter, including the original job sheet, diagnostic notes, details of the customer’s requested work, customer communications, photographs where applicable, and CCTV relating to the separate third party incident.

The facts are clear: the vehicle arrived with pre-existing faults, the customer requested work, a third party later damaged the parked vehicle, and that third party accepted responsibility through the proper insurance route. That does not remove the customer’s responsibility to pay for the work they requested.

Final Position

We reject the complaint as presented. This was not a tuning issue, not a fault caused by Llandow Tuning, and not a case of an immaculate car being damaged by our workmanship.

It was an older Maserati with existing mechanical and electrical faults, a corroded power steering pipe, dashboard warning lights, and a customer who later attempted to use an unrelated third party accident as a reason not to pay the bill.

We remain willing to deal with genuine complaints professionally and with evidence. However, we will also defend our staff, our business, and the facts where a public complaint gives a misleading account of what happened.