Adams, Chase & Emerson

Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 5, 2016/06/20) */ Capital Honda sold a [redacted] to [redacted] The car met all of the criteria for [redacted] In [redacted] , provided the details of [redacted] 's Warranty Extension for that model for paint flaking on the hood and front fenders The terms of the bulletin limited the Extension to years from the original In Service date [redacted] 's car was older than that but [redacted] 's Customer Relations Department authorized its dealers to cover [redacted] 's hood and front fenders under their goodwill policy [redacted] was not satisfied with the terms of the Warranty Extension and pressed [redacted] to cover the roof and trunk as well The matter was elevated to the highest level of [redacted] 's Customer Relations Department, but they stood by the terms of the original Warranty Extension to cover the hood and fenders only [redacted] will not authorize its dealers to perform warranty work to a car that has no evidence of any problem at that particular time [redacted] 's Customer Relations Department confirms that Capital Honda did nothing wrong in its business transactions with [redacted] Initial Consumer Rebuttal / [redacted] (3000, 8, 2016/06/22) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) Capital Honda has failed to address the fact that during the sell of my car they intentionally withheld information pertinent to my carAt no time was I told or warned that there may be an issue with the clear coatAs a means of example, if you were purchasing a house that you know may have faulty pipping, you would HAVE to divulge this information as it may affect the decision of the buyer Capital Honda did not afford me the fact that my specific vehicle had been part of a production line that had know defects, [redacted] Had I known I would have had the car inspected thoroughly and would have probably found out at the time that Honda only accepted to cover part of the repair work and not all [redacted] As for the lack of evidence, the people at [redacted] have stated to me that the problem on the roof is the SAME problem as that on the hood and fender Stating that nothing wrong was done does not make it so, information WAS withheld, which is bad business practice

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2016/06/20) */
Capital Honda sold a[redacted] to [redacted]
The car met all of the criteria for [redacted]
In 2015 [redacted], provided the details of [redacted]'s Warranty...

Extension for that model for paint flaking on the hood and front fenders
The terms of the bulletin limited the Extension to 7 years from the original In Service date
[redacted]'s car was older than that but [redacted]'s Customer Relations Department authorized its dealers to cover [redacted]'s hood and front fenders under their goodwill policy
[redacted] was not satisfied with the terms of the Warranty Extension and pressed [redacted] to cover the roof and trunk as well
The matter was elevated to the highest level of [redacted]'s Customer Relations Department, but they stood by the terms of the original Warranty Extension to cover the hood and fenders only
[redacted] will not authorize its dealers to perform warranty work to a car that has no evidence of any problem at that particular time
[redacted]'s Customer Relations Department confirms that Capital Honda did nothing wrong in its business transactions with [redacted]
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 8, 2016/06/22) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
Capital Honda has failed to address the fact that during the sell of my car they intentionally withheld information pertinent to my car. At no time was I told or warned that there may be an issue with the clear coat. As a means of example, if you were purchasing a house that you know may have faulty pipping, you would HAVE to divulge this information as it may affect the decision of the buyer.
Capital Honda did not afford me the fact that my specific vehicle had been part of a production line that had know defects,[redacted]
Had I known I would have had the car inspected thoroughly and would have probably found out at the time that Honda only accepted to cover part of the repair work and not all.
[redacted]
As for the lack of evidence, the people at [redacted] have stated to me that the problem on the roof is the SAME problem as that on the hood and fender.
Stating that nothing wrong was done does not make it so, information WAS withheld, which is bad business practice.