ACE delivers consistently excellent service and thorough reporting for successful legal disputes, but faces serious criticism from customers who feel inspections were superficial, conclusions unsupported by evidence, and complaints were mishandled.
What customers love
Common concerns
Customers mention
Crooks AVOID
I wish to formally express serious concerns regarding the services provided by ACE UK. Based on my experience, I found the engineering reports they produced to be inconclusive and lacking the depth and rigor expected of a professional independent assessment. The inspection I commissioned, for a fee of £300, lasted approximately 20 minutes and primarily involved the use of a diagnostic tool, which merely confirmed faults previously identified. Despite the limited scope of the inspection, the resulting report reached definitive conclusions regarding the condition of the vehicle. Furthermore, the quality of fault analysis and technical evaluation appeared inadequate, and the level of customer service was unsatisfactory. Given these observations, I cannot recommend ACE UK for those seeking a thorough, reliable, and professional engineering assessment, particularly in the context of disputes or matters requiring expert verification. Potential clients are advised to exercise caution and consider alternative providers with verifiable expertise and thorough reporting standards.
I paid £500 for an “independent engineering report” from ACE and received what can only be described as a superficial, box-ticking exercise. The inspection lasted around 30 minutes and consisted primarily of plugging in a diagnostic tool, which simply confirmed faults already identified elsewhere. There was no road test, no fluid inspection, no dismantling, and only limited visibility of key components. Despite this, the report went on to reach firm conclusions about the condition of the vehicle. What is particularly concerning is that the report itself acknowledges that further investigation would be required into critical issues including the transmission (you don't say, if only there was a company that could do a report on this kind of thing), yet still concludes that no faults were developing at the point of sale. That is not a balanced or technically robust assessment, this is a subjective view on a half-hearted money grab assessment. Matters deteriorated further when I provided a subsequent specialist report, which involved actual mechanical investigation and confirmed severe gearbox contamination, overheating damage, and risk of catastrophic failure. Rather than engage with this evidence, ACE declined to review their conclusions in any meaningful way. Instead, I was told their position remained unchanged because a previous owner had not reported a transmission fault. This is not engineering analysis. It is a non-technical justification that ignores physical evidence. For a report that is marketed and priced as independent, dispute-grade evidence, I found the service to be superficial, inconsistent, and ultimately not fit for purpose. I would strongly advise anyone needing a reliable expert assessment, particularly for a dispute, to proceed with caution. If you’re looking for useless. Go to ACE.
Mis-sold service and a total scam. I am not sure how they are recommended by the Financial Ombudsman. Firstly, when arranging the call-out I was told that a specialist engineer would attend to carry out an initial assessment and that if there was potential for a report in the customer’s favour, they would proceed. They also shared several well-written, customer-focused reports as examples of their work. However, soon after paying the money for an independent review, the so-called engineer arrived and literally did nothing of substance. The knowledge and experience that were claimed were simply not there. There was no evidence of a well-researched, evidence-based argument, but rather conclusions based purely on opinion. I will be reporting them to the finance companies so that they stop recommending them.
Terrible experience with this company. Carried out an independent inspection which was extremely different to the one described to me during consultation, £288 wasted as the inspection did not even look at the issues noted. Have contacted the company several times since the start of December to be passed on from one person to another, who is very unprofessional and unhelpful and thinks ‘ive chased this’ is a sufficient update. I would avoid using this company as the work carried out is not as described and when you highlight this you will be fobbed off continuously. I have now had to contact the ombudsman regarding this company as they refuse to address my complaint in a timely manor. I hate bad reviews and rarely leave a review at all but this needed highlighting. Shame as the owner Graham was absolutely lovely during consultation.
Would give 0 stars if I could. Absolute fraud of a company. Purchased a car on finance and after 9 months had an EML on the dash. Car was coked in carbon and needed a new camshaft, vac pump, injector seals and a host of other underlying engine repairs, I wanted to return the car but was told by the finance company I needed an independent engineer's report to prove the fault/faults were present before purchase so went with these guys. Just shy of £300 for an 'inspection' which involved an 'engineer' coming out to literally just take pictures of the oil condition, start and rev the engine and plug in a diagnostics reader for faults. Waited 14 days for a basic repetitive 'report' stating that the deteriorated oil has caused catastrophic damage to the turbo and the fault was not present at the time of purchase?! (Can oil deteriate that bad in 9 months?!) They also concluded that as they had no service history the car was not properly maintained leading to these issues. So I queried the report and sent them proof I had the car fully serviced on time to which I had no reply. I've had to pay out thousands of pounds on engine repairs and funnily enough the only component that hasn't needed repairing is the turbo which has "catastrophically failed"?! Two different QUALIFIED mechanics who have worked on/inspected the car and cleaned out the engine have both agreed the previous owner knew it was knackered, cleared the faults and part exchanged it. I wrote to ACE with an official complaint a month after sending proof I had the car serviced and guess what....no reply! I'm taking my complaint to the ombudsman and will be also looking to claim back my money on this FALSE report!
I wish I had read the reviews on here before booking the service, as it isn't fit for purpose. Everyone I worked with was polite and cordial, it's just that the service didn't prevent me from experiencing high repair bills shortly after purchase. When I raised a complaint it took a very long time for ACE and the AA (who I purchased the service through) to engage in the complaints process and provide relevant responses.
I am writing to express my dissatisfaction with the recent inspection report concerning my vehicle. The engineer noted that the cause of cabin fumes is failed fuel injectors and concluded that this was not a fault at the point of purchase. I find this conclusion difficult to accept based on the following facts: Fumes were detected and recorded 23 days after purchase at 99,000 miles, and we have video evidence from that time showing fumes coming from the bonnet. The inspecting engineer also took video evidence of the same issue at the current mileage of 119,417 miles. It is hard to understand how a fault of this nature could suddenly arise 23 days after purchase without having existed at the point of sale. Additionally, during the inspection, the engineer acknowledged that: -Fumes were present immediately upon arrival. -The vehicle was unsafe to drive due to the fumes. -Multiple pre-existing faults were identified. Despite these observations, the report concludes that the vehicle has been “durable” and that the issue was not present upon purchase. This conclusion does not appear to be supported by the timeline, the physical evidence, or the engineer’s own statement As a consumer, I rely on your organisation to provide impartial and fact-based assessments. At present, the report appears partial and biased and does not objectively reflect the evidence. The question of the matter is the cabin fumes being reported at present at mileage 119 417miles that where reported at 99000 after 23 days of purchase does this reflect to be a problem that existed at point of sale yes or no? If it's failed fuel injectors causing the cabin fumes at present mileage of 119417 it means it was fuel injectors causing the problem when dealership was notified 23 days after purchase when mileage was at 99000 is it not?
When I called to make the appt to report on my vehicle, I made it clear that there were no current issues and that the issue we'd had was in the past. The finance company wanted to know if the car could have had a fault at the point of sale, the current condition of the car is irrelevant. I paid £360 for a report that was 99% the current condition (no surprises nothing wrong) and 1 paragraph outlining that it was impossible to know if the previous issue was there at the point of sale. Why come out and charge me £360 for that? I am so disappointed as all of this was known when I asked someone to come out and the fairest thing would have been to say that the report wouldn't have been able to help me, not take my money knowing you wouldn't be able to comment on what I actually needed.
I owned the car for 163 days and ACE engineer was asked to assess the car had issues at the point of sale, suprisingngly he ruled NO, for those who understand timing chain life span help me understand if this engineer is correct. 2 months in ownership of the car , i even gave him evidence of me texting my mechanic about the car coming up with "perfomance restricted", In his final ruling he did not even consider the texts msg sent after 2 months of purchasing a £15 000 car, he just ruled,no, timing chain was perfect at the point of sale, he didnt dismantle the car or take it away to open it no. He just based his final decision on diagnostic codes and assumptions and the 20 000miles i drove! But the whole report he wrote it is hard to rule the cause without dismantling the car?There you go people, be careful who does your work and how they do it! The admin girls were very good though but the so called experienced engineers, Im shocked!!
The engineer has lied on the report,,the things that were absolutely not working has been shown as working.
I chose this vehicle inspection service after clearly explaining the issue I was facing and what kind of professional evaluation I was hoping to receive. During the initial consultation and again when the engineer arrived, my concerns and expectations were discussed in detail, and I was told they would be able to help. Unfortunately, the final report did not meet my expectations. The findings were mostly general observations that were already obvious, and the report did not provide insights or recommendations that were useful for addressing my specific issue. As a result, it was hard for me to see the added value of a professional inspection. I was also unclear on how the final conclusions were reached. I requested several clarifications and revisions, but the responses did not fully explain the reasoning behind the conclusions. If you are expecting in-depth technical analysis or a more scientific, expert-level evaluation, you may want to consider other options. In my case, the service did not justify the time and cost.
Based on 40 verified customer reviews, Automotive Consulting Engineers Ltd holds an average rating of 3.6 out of 5 — rated Good on ReviewTerminal. 65% of customers gave 4 or 5 stars.