Advantage One Realtors

I am rejecting this response because: Roger [redacted] is lying For starters, I have left SEVERAL MESSAGES, for him I left messages on 4/30., 5/04, 5/16, and the last one right before I contacted the Revdex.com, WCCO news, and the MN Attorney Generals office Mr [redacted] didn't speak with me because he refused to return my calls As far as I am concerned, he sold me a garbage car, he never filed for the title on the vehicle ( I had to do it, spoke with Dealer Unit at DMV) and then he stole my car back with plans to resell it to another unsuspecting person The car is in MY name, the reason for it is not importantI never gave permission for him to have the car, and my husband says he never did either A person can only sell a car that they own My husband doesn't own the car, I do! That's receiving stolen property, which is a felonyRoger [redacted] stole my carMy husband says he never gave permission for my car to be sold nor has he ever gotten money for it! More importantly, I NEVER AGREED TO IT! I would have never agreed to a "pitley $300" in exchange for $that I paid for it! That doesn't make sense! Why would I be going through all of this if I agreed to it! He has no proof that I did, and since I DIDN'T-even if my husband did do this__he says he didn't---where's the paper trail? Where's the receipts for all of these "transactions"? The answer to that is THERE ARE NONE, because it didn't happen! But what did happen is he defrauded me by selling ME a "garbage car", then ignored my calls when I complained, and then turned around and stole my car back so he could resell it, and keep my money I'm still trying to figure out why he's still in business and not in jail! The only reasonable resolution to this is for him to refund ALL MY MONEY, which is $ If it is not resolved through these measures, then the next step is Small Claims CourtI'm sure a judge will agree with me

Owner Roger *** left some info in a VM for Revdex.com -- Revdex.com called Mr *** back, to get additional clarification on business' perspective.Mr *** says that the only phone conversations he ever had were with Mr ***, not Mrs ***, and that he was not avoiding callsHe says the purchase
was put in Mrs ***'s name because Mr *** did not have his license on him at the time of purchase, but his subsequent interactions were all with Mr ***.He says when Mr *** first contacted CARS Inc about vehicle issues he was having, the conversation was heated at times -- says Mr *** used profane language, etcMr *** says he could not agree at that point to paying for all the repairs Mr *** indicated the vehicle needed, but agreed to give him $toward vehicle repairs because he wanted to help outHe says Mr *** insisted on cash (vs a check, etc.), and came to pick it up in personSays the interaction was pleasant at that point, and Mr *** seemed appreciative.He says when Mr *** then called back about further vehicle issues, he asked Mr *** if CARS Inc would buy the vehicle back from himMr *** explained he couldn't pay him retail for the vehicle, and asked what Mr *** would accept for itHe says they agreed on $(not the 'original' $toward repairs, a 'new' $300), as Mr *** indicated he wanted to "cut his losses" and move on from the car purchase.Mr *** says CARS Inc sent a mechanic, Bob, to deliver the $to Mr *** and take the Cadillac awayWhen he arrived, Mr *** says Mr *** became verbally abusive with Bob, to which Bob responded that he was simply there to deliver the money and take the car, and that any additional concerns Mr *** had should be taken up with Mr ***.Mr *** says that Mr *** subsequently contacted CARS Inc, thanking Mr *** for "getting (the car) out of his life," and that he wasn't mad at CARS Inc -- was frustrated with himself for not "checking it out better."Mr *** says that from his interactions with Mr ***, he understood that he was giving Mr *** a final $for the Cadillac, and that the ***s were walking away from the purchase altogether

I am rejecting this response because: Roger [redacted] is lying.  For starters, I have left SEVERAL MESSAGES, for him.  I left messages on 4/30., 5/04, 5/16, and the last one right before I contacted the Revdex.com, WCCO news, and the MN Attorney Generals office.  Mr. [redacted] didn't speak with me because he refused to return my calls.  As far as I am concerned, he sold me a garbage car, he never filed for the title on the vehicle ( I had to do it, spoke with Dealer Unit at DMV) and then he stole my car back with plans to resell it to another unsuspecting person.  The car is in MY name, the reason for it is not important. I never gave permission for him to have the car, and my husband says he never did either.  A person can only sell a car that they own.  My husband doesn't own the car, I do! That's receiving stolen property, which is a felony. Roger [redacted] stole my car. My husband says he never gave permission for my car to be sold nor has he ever gotten money for it!  More importantly, I NEVER AGREED TO IT!  I would have never agreed to a "pitley $300" in exchange for $2500 that I paid for it!  That doesn't make sense! Why would I be going through all of this if I agreed to it!  He has no proof that I did, and since I DIDN'T-even if my husband did do this__he says he didn't---where's the paper trail?  Where's the receipts for all of these "transactions"? The answer to that is THERE ARE NONE, because it didn't happen!  But what did happen is he defrauded me by selling ME a "garbage car", then ignored my calls when I complained, and then turned around and stole my car back so he could resell it, and keep my money.  I'm still trying to figure out why he's still in business and not in jail! The only reasonable resolution to this is for him to refund ALL MY MONEY, which is $2500.  If it is not resolved through these measures, then the next step is Small Claims Court. I'm sure a judge will agree with me.