Aire-Master of the Gem State

Response to Revdex.com files 10800784We thank you for the opportunity to respond to Mr [redacted] concerns regarding the transportation of his ChevroletCorvette This matter was reviewed in its entirety with Sky ***, sales manager at Ed Martin ToyotaHe advised that Mr [redacted] had briefly inspected the car at the dealership prior to purchaseAt the time of inspection, this year old car exhibited the paint chipping, scratches associated with use Mr [redacted] also noted that this vehicle was purchased from Ed Martin Toyota “As IS” and provided a copy of the "AS IS" disclosure documentation(See Exhibit 1)Following the vehicle purchase, a sales associate logged into the CarsArrive Network website and arranged transportation with SanosTransportation, rather than arranging the move through Cars Arrive directly As a result of this direct dispatch, Mr[redacted] was not provided with the delivery information that he would have received from one of our Carrier Services team members By arranging transportation directly for the customer, it became incumbent upon the dealership to provide delivery instructions(inspection of the car, noting damages etc.) to Mr [redacted] prior to delivery Following delivery of the car, Mr [redacted] contacted CarsArrive to report transportation damage to the car’s bumper as well as other areas of chipping He was advised to forward the photos and estimate for repairs, claim was established to address his concerns.Upon receipt of the claim, a review of the bill of lading indicated that the claimed damages had been marked at the pick up location (Ed MartinToyota) by the transport driver prior to the car’s delivery to Mr [redacted] Upon delivery, the bill of lading was signed by Mr [redacted] acknowledging the damages marked at pickup and attesting to the fact that there were no further damages (Exhibit 2) The transport driver noted that while Mrand Mrs [redacted] took time to inspect the car at delivery, neither reported new damages Regarding the small rock chips embedded in the trunk seal, no damages associated with their presence were ever reported Mr [redacted] submitted an estimate from Turnersville Collision Center which included the previously marked damages as well asreplacement of old, worn hood sealsThe estimate totaled $ (Exhibit 3)It was explained to Mr [redacted] that Ed Martin Toyota advised that the damages noted on the bill of lading were present at pickup,and had been present at the time of his inspection The minor chipping and scratches were the wear and tear expected to be found on a year old car These damages were recorded on the bill of lading by the driver and acknowledged by Mr [redacted] at delivery when Mr [redacted] signed the bill of lading Please note they did not record any new damages following their inspection of the carWhile we sympathize with Mr [redacted] in this matter, our driver duly recorded the preexistingdamages on bill of lading, which Mr [redacted] acknowledged at the time ofdelivery.As there is no evidence to substantiate that the previouslydisclosed damages occurred during our transport of this car, we mustrespectfully decline participation in the repair processRegards, [redacted] Claims ManagerCarsArrive Network [redacted] ***

We once again welcome the opportunity to reiterate our position:Damage that presented as transportation in nature was proved to be preexstingSKY *** sales manager at Ed Martin Toyota provided information that Mr*** had briefly inspected the car prior to purchaseThis year old car exhibits the paint chipping, scratches, associated with useBill of lading documentation issues: Because this transport was arranged by the sales associate at Ed Martin Toyota, this was a direct dispatch, Mr*** was not provided with the delivery information such as inspecting the car and marking damages on the bill of lading, he would have received from one of our Carrier Services representativesAll damages marked had been at pickup with no fresh damage notedDamage Claim for $The estimate submitted by Mr*** for $ was related to all the old damages noted by the seller, Ed Martin Toyota as well as by the driver at pickup. No new damages were noted.As all damages have been confirmed to have been preexsting in nature by the seller, Ed Martin Toyota, there is nothing to substantiate that any of these damages occurred during transportAs a result, we once again respectfully decline to participate in the repair of this vehicle

My position on this issue has not changed.Again, we are not talking about pre-existing damagesWe are speaking of three specific damages that were not there when we bought the carWe are speaking of three specific damages that the driver did NOT mark on the bill of lading when he took on the responsibility of transporting our car safely from Indiana to us in New JerseyThe six inch scratch in the rear bumper is the largest damage on the carHow could he have missed marking the largest damaged area on the car? The answer is becsuse it wasn't there when he received the car from the dealorshipCars arrive assigned this job to Sanos Transportation, not the dealorship Again, if the dealorship agrees that the ALL of the damages were pre-existing then why tell us to file the insurance claim with Cars arrive and why tell us that they will no longer use cars arrive for their transportation needs once they found out that cars arrive refused to submit a claim for usThe estimate for repair does not cover all of the damages to the car(We did not submit an estimate for a total repaint of the car!!) If there are pre-existing damages near the areas where the new damage exist and they end up being included in the estimate it can not be helped due to the close proximity to the new damagesThis is a terrible and unfortunate situation and cars arrive needs to accept responsibility and pay for the damages.*** ***

Response to Revdex.com files 10800784We thank you for the opportunity to respond to Mr. [redacted] concerns regarding the transportation of his 2001 ChevroletCorvette.  This matter was reviewed in its entirety with Sky [redacted], sales manager at Ed Martin Toyota. He advised that Mr. [redacted] had...

briefly inspected the car at the dealership prior to purchase. At the time of inspection, this 14 year old car exhibited the normal paint chipping, scratches associated with use.    Mr. [redacted] also noted that this vehicle was purchased from Ed Martin Toyota “As IS” and provided a copy of the "AS IS" disclosure documentation. (See Exhibit 1)Following the vehicle purchase, a sales associate logged into the CarsArrive Network website and arranged transportation with SanosTransportation, rather than arranging the move through Cars Arrive directly.  As a result of this direct dispatch, Mr.[redacted] was not provided with the delivery information that he would have received from one of our Carrier Services team members.  By arranging transportation directly for the customer, it became incumbent upon the dealership to provide delivery instructions(inspection of the car, noting damages etc.) to Mr. [redacted] prior to delivery.  Following delivery of the car, Mr. [redacted] contacted CarsArrive to report transportation damage to the car’s bumper as well as other areas of chipping.   He was advised to forward the photos and estimate for repairs, claim 4435950 was established to address his concerns.Upon receipt of the claim, a review of the bill of lading indicated that the claimed damages had been marked at the pick up location (Ed MartinToyota) by the transport driver prior to the car’s delivery to Mr. [redacted].  Upon delivery, the bill of lading was signed by Mr.  [redacted] acknowledging the damages marked at pickup and attesting to the fact that there were no further damages.   (Exhibit 2).  The transport driver noted that while Mr. and Mrs. [redacted] took time to inspect the car at delivery, neither reported new damages.  Regarding the small rock chips embedded in the trunk seal, no damages associated with their presence were ever reported.  Mr. [redacted] submitted an estimate from Turnersville Collision Center which included the previously marked damages as well asreplacement of old, worn hood seals. The estimate totaled $2445.96.  (Exhibit 3). It was explained to Mr. [redacted] that Ed Martin Toyota advised that the damages noted on the bill of lading were present at pickup,and had been present at the time of his inspection.  The minor chipping and scratches were the normal wear and tear expected to be found on a 14 year old car.  These damages were recorded on the bill of lading by the driver and acknowledged by Mr. [redacted]  at delivery when Mr. [redacted] signed the bill of lading.  Please note they did not record any new damages following their inspection of the car. While we sympathize with Mr. [redacted] in this matter, our driver duly recorded the preexistingdamages on bill of lading, which Mr. [redacted] acknowledged at the time ofdelivery.As there is no evidence to substantiate that the previouslydisclosed damages occurred during our transport of this car, we mustrespectfully decline participation in the repair process. Regards,[redacted]Claims ManagerCarsArrive Network[redacted]

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
Hello,I did submit a verbal response along with several photos as my exhibits. I do not know why you did not receive them.I will try to duplicate what I believe my response was. I do not dispute that the car was purchased 'as is' and had some minor paint imperfections in it from normal wear and tear for a 14 year old car. I would point out that the car is not a typical used car but a corvette and as such is considered a collectable! In fact, car fax listed this car as worth more than the dealer asking price. ([redacted]: exhibit 1)  I am apolled that cars arrive has tried to deflect it's responsibility for instruction on to the dealer period! What difference does it matter that the arrangements were made on line as opposed to by phone. Most reasonable businesses would make certain that instruction was given regardless of how the arrangements were made specifically to avoid this 'blame game' that cars arrive is playing. Has anyone followed up with the dealership to see if they agree that they are responsible? Should I, the paying customer be caught up in this blame game? The driver lied if he told cars arrive that we did not point out any damage at the delivery point. My wife and I pointed out the very obvious, new chip on the passenger door. The driver actually stated: "is going to get some stone chips from the road'. My wife was present and heard him state this. Cars arrive states that we did not bring to the drivers attention any damage yet, they acknowledge the stones wedged in the trunk lid. This is because they can't despute it because the picture my wife took shows the reflection of me and the driver in it with the wedged stones. So, if we didn't bring up these damages at delivery why would we have taken pictures at delivery. ( see photo: [redacted]: exhibit 2)It is offensive that cars arrive has implied that the estimate submitted for repair is for the previous existing paint imperfections that were there when we bought the car. Their on bill of lading shows minimal damage When they took possession of the car from the dealership. The pictures I have submitted show damage to areas of the car thatWere not marked by the driver when he took possession of the vehicle. I think it's rediculous that cars arrive is trying to say the new damages were normal wear and tear on any used car but expect us to agree to them when the driver did not mark them at the dealorship. It can't work both ways. They can't expect us to have followed the protocol of marking the bill of laden (We weren't instructed or given the opportunity too) and at the same time allow their driver to be so lax and inaccurate about it when he took possession from the dealorship. I want to reiterate that the driver delivered the car at dusk making it difficult to properly inspect the car. We spotted the stones and the one chip. The sun had set and the car was covered with water spots and dust. You can see the dust that is on the car within the silloette of the driver on exhibit 2. You can see the water spots too.I have included other pictures as further exhibits that show what time the driver called us 8:11pm. Another photo showing what time sun set was that day. 8:20pm. Three pictures of the new damages. A second large gouge in the drives door that is to the extreme left of the gouge that was on the door, a large scratch (6 inches that goes from the drivers side of the bumper over onto the back of the bumper, and the chip in the passenger door. I washed the car the next day found the scratch in the bumper and the second gouge in the drivers door and reached out to to dealer.A very unhappy,[redacted]