The basic facts as stated in the complaint referenced above are correctComplainant did purchase a Dodge Journey SXT from us on January 12, which had miles at that time.Our Pre-Sale Inspection and New York State Inspection records indicate that a Front End Alignment wasperformed prior to purchaseOther repairs were performed at that t ime as well which do not seem tobe related to the complaint at hand.Complainant returned to Terry's Rte Superlot on February 3, with 67,miles at which time an inoperative rear window defroster was the only complaint which was fixed at no charge eventhough it wasn't a covered item under either the NYS Used Vehicle Limited Warranty nor the Warranty Solutions brand "3-Star Plus" Extended Warranty.Complainant returned again to Terry's Rte Superlot on May 27, with miles on the vehicle at that time complaining that her rear tires were excessively worn We checked the ti res and found them worn, but NYS Inspection legalWe continued further diagnosis and found that the rear alignment specifications were beyond factory tolerance and recommended to Complainant that the rear tires be replaced and that the Rear suspension settings be returned to factory settingsSince the vehicle had no warranty protection which would cover the repairs, we offered to perform the repairs at no charge and sell Complainant two (2) rear tires at our costComplainant refused to pay any portion of the needed repairs and insisted that we were somehow defrauding herRejecting that accusation, we continued the offer of two new rear tires at our cost and no charge rear suspension alignment for daysComplainant did not accept our offer.We will re-extend the offer to Complainant for another days from the date of this letter of two new rear tires, including mounting and balancing at no charge, and a "Rear End Alignment" at no charge, as long as Complainant pays our cost for the tires selected
The basic facts as stated in the complaint referenced above are correctComplainant did purchase a Dodge Journey SXT from us on January 12, which had miles at that time.Our Pre-Sale Inspection and New York State Inspection records indicate that a Front End Alignment wasperformed prior to purchaseOther repairs were performed at that t ime as well which do not seem tobe related to the complaint at hand.Complainant returned to Terry's Rte Superlot on February 3, with 67,miles at which time an inoperative rear window defroster was the only complaint which was fixed at no charge eventhough it wasn't a covered item under either the NYS Used Vehicle Limited Warranty nor the Warranty Solutions brand "3-Star Plus" Extended Warranty.Complainant returned again to Terry's Rte Superlot on May 27, with miles on the vehicle at that time complaining that her rear tires were excessively worn We checked the ti res and found them worn, but NYS Inspection legalWe continued further diagnosis and found that the rear alignment specifications were beyond factory tolerance and recommended to Complainant that the rear tires be replaced and that the Rear suspension settings be returned to factory settingsSince the vehicle had no warranty protection which would cover the repairs, we offered to perform the repairs at no charge and sell Complainant two (2) rear tires at our costComplainant refused to pay any portion of the needed repairs and insisted that we were somehow defrauding herRejecting that accusation, we continued the offer of two new rear tires at our cost and no charge rear suspension alignment for daysComplainant did not accept our offer.We will re-extend the offer to Complainant for another days from the date of this letter of two new rear tires, including mounting and balancing at no charge, and a "Rear End Alignment" at no charge, as long as Complainant pays our cost for the tires selected