Suren N.
I place this account on record as a…
I place this account on record as a matter of consumer protection and public interest. Based on my direct dealings, it is my firm and considered position that GWM Thornleigh, Penrith Hills Auto Traders, and Sydney Online Auctions operate under a single commercial umbrella, from the same premises, with shared personnel—principally managed by Ian, with Stephen Best acting in a senior supporting capacity. Notwithstanding this operational overlap, when concerns arise, it is repeatedly asserted that the vehicle was purchased from a separate entity “next door,” and therefore outside their responsibility. In my view, this distinction lacks transparency and appears designed to deflect accountability. The vehicle in question—a Mercedes-Benz C250 CGI Avantgarde—was advertised under the GWM Thornleigh banner. Prior to purchase, I made my position unequivocally clear to the sales representative, Charlie: I do not, under any circumstances, purchase vehicles sourced from auctions. I was expressly assured that this vehicle formed part of the GWM/Penrith Hills Auto Traders inventory. However, during the documentation process, I observed Stephen Best place his business card over the invoice in a manner that obscured reference to “Sydney Online Auctions,” which, in my view, raises serious concerns regarding full and frank disclosure. Within approximately five kilometres of taking possession, the vehicle suffered immediate and catastrophic mechanical failure, notwithstanding representations that it had recently received a clean bill of health, supported by a pink slip issued only days earlier. The defects were extensive and egregious, including timing chain failure, thermostat malfunction, ignition and electrical system faults, and battery failure—resulting in repair costs exceeding $5,000. I am in possession of comprehensive diagnostic printouts, mechanical reports, and supporting documentation, all of which stand in stark contradiction to the prior representations made regarding the vehicle’s condition. In my subsequent dealings with Ian, I found his conduct to be evasive, capricious, and, at times, vexatious. He was not forthcoming, declined to engage transparently, and failed to address the matter in a manner consistent with good faith. In my view, such conduct falls short of the standards required under the Australian Consumer Law, particularly in relation to misleading or deceptive conduct, and raises serious concerns regarding compliance with the Motor Dealers and Repairers Act 2013 (NSW) and the regulatory expectations of NSW Fair Trading, including obligations of honesty, due care, and fair dealing. The warranty provided—nominal in value—proved, in practical effect, illusory. Upon attempting to invoke it, I was advised that their workshop availability extended several months in advance, thereby denying any timely or meaningful remedy. This explanation, in my view, is inconsistent with standard industry practice and undermines the very purpose of such a warranty. The contrast in conduct before and after the sale was stark: attentive, accommodating, and persuasive prior to payment; thereafter dismissive, obstructive, and unwilling to accept responsibility. Attempts to resolve the matter were met with deflection and delay, further compounding the situation. I am presently pursuing formal avenues of redress and will rely on a substantial body of documentary and evidentiary material in support of my position. If you are in the market for a new or used vehicle and encounter these entities, I strongly urge you to exercise the highest level of due diligence. Obtain fully independent mechanical inspections, scrutinise all representations, and proceed with extreme caution. Based on my experience, the disparity between representations made and outcomes experienced - I reiterate that these three organisations fall under the same roof. Have a readof their reviews and look at the consistency of the narrative: