Automaxx of San Diego

[redacted] ***Campo Rd., Spring Valley, CA 91977, Tel (619) 729-8109Via U.SCertified MailMs [redacted] 8th Place Apt #1Hermosa Beach, CA 90254To: [redacted] From: [redacted] ***., dba Automaxx of San DiegoRe: Complaint: [redacted] Vehicle: [redacted] CPurchase Date: May 2, 2015Date: June 29, 2015Dear [redacted] :We are writing this answer in regards to the recent reply we received on behalf of theRevdex.comI sincerely appreciate your patience in receiving this response toyour reply dated June 26, regarding the above referenced matterPlease contact meafter you have had an opportunity to review this responsePlease note that this letter is forresponse purposes only and is privileged and protected under all relevant statutes, includingthe California Evidence Code section [redacted] claims that the [redacted] report was intentionally withheldfrom herWhat [redacted] fails to consider is that she was free to do business withAutomaxx on her own accordHer claim makes no mention of coercive conduct byAutomaxx Sales Employees [redacted] could have requested a [redacted] fromAutomaxx and Automaxx would have either provided one for her or would have declined toobligeThe [redacted] report was a discretionary disclosure, not mandatoryAutomaxx isnot required under California Vehicle Code to provide a [redacted] history report, insteadcustomers are free to request a report or independently obtain a report at the retail priceprovided online as [redacted] claims she subsequently acquiredCalifornia VehicleCode requires a dealer to provide an NMVTIS report with the sale of each vehicle and toapply a disclaimer sticker on the windshield (Attached as Exhibit 1)As Mr [redacted] claimed in her initial complaint and reply, Automaxx did provide her the NMVTIS reportfor her reviewAlso, a disclaimer sticker (4” x 5.5”) was affixed to the vehicle windshield atthe time of sale (Attached as Exhibit 2).2There are multiple auto history report providers (Autocheck, [redacted] , VinAudit,TitleCheck.us, VinSMART.com, etc.) [redacted] effectively makes the broad claimthat Automaxx should have furnished all known vehicle reports for her examinationThis isneither practical nor customary practice at any dealershipCustomers have varyingpreferences as to history report providers and Automaxx does its best to provide the reportsas required under California LawAs previously mentioned, California Vehicle Coderequires a dealer to provide an NMVTIS report with the sale of each branded title vehicle.There is no requirement that Automaxx is to provide other history reports such as a [redacted] reportThus, [redacted] was free to refuse or proceed with the purchase andshe made the ultimate decision to purchase the vehicle with the information provided andrequired by law.Additionally, [redacted] makes an unfounded claim that Automaxx was requiredbut did not follow USAA protocol based upon their agreement with True CarAutomaxxprovided USAA with all required information to process the loan documents as required byUSAA[redacted] further claims that the [redacted] report reads “branded title salvage,severe damage, total loss.” Although this is stated in the [redacted] report, this is a generaldesignation for vehicles that hold branded titlesIt is not an all inclusive statementMs[redacted] construes the [redacted] statement as if the Prius, in fact, sustained severedamageThis is not trueThe photos of the damage provided to [redacted] weredocumented photos of the damage prior to repairs that the insurance company provides tothe purchasing dealer [redacted] was provided these photos prior to purchaseAt notime did [redacted] mention that she would like a [redacted] report once she saw thephotos and the NMVTIS reportIt is clear that those photos speak more to the history of thevehicle than the [redacted] history report [redacted] does not provide the statement“branded title salvage, severe damage, total loss” from a police report or first handknowledgeThis statement is generic information attributable to the majority of brandedtitle cars but is not true of every branded title vehicleIn fact, [redacted] ’s cherished [redacted] history report also states “No Airbag Deployment” and “No Structural Damage”;one would find it logically inconsistent that a vehicle can be severely damaged yet have noairbag deployment or structural damageHowever, [redacted] seems to welcome the [redacted] report as an ultimate finding of fact but disregards all statements that areinconsistent in the reportIn the opinion of the Automaxx representative, Mr***, whopurchased and repaired the Prius, the damage to the Prius was cosmetic and lightMs[redacted] could have accepted Mr***’s opinion or refused to proceed [redacted] was free to obtain an independent inspection by a mechanic of her choice or conduct herown independent research prior to executing a binding vehicle purchase agreementMs[redacted] instead went forward with the purchase.Automaxx of San Diego and its staff correctly represented the vehicleAutomaxx ofSan Diego did not: (1) Misrepresent the quality or condition of the vehicle; (2) Conceal thehistory of the vehicle; (3) Fail to provide a history report; (4) Fail to provide a disclosure3statement affixed to the windshield of the vehicle; (5) Violate state or federal truth inlending laws.I hope I have made it clear that Automaxx of San Diego is not liable to Ms[redacted] for any of her claims, and is not willing to unwind the deal ( [redacted] signed and agreed to decline the Contract Cancellation Option attached as Exhibit 3)Thestaff at Automaxx of San Diego feels that they have worked very hard to go above andbeyond for [redacted] , who in turn is trying to establish frivolous claims due to buyer’sremorseI am sure that [redacted] has her own feelings on this situation.In the interest of good faith, Automaxx of San Diego is willing to provide Ms[redacted] a refund of $14,on her vehicleThe taxes, licensing, and registration fees willnot be refundable, as the vehicle has already been registered in her name and she did notagree to purchase the contract cancellation optionOnly one condition exists; [redacted] will have to pay off her lienholder and provide Automaxx of San Diego the Prius Titlefree of any and all encumbrances upon her request to exercise this settlement offerFurther, [redacted] must schedule a time to drop off the vehicle and allow the dealership toconfirm her lien has been satisfiedConsidering [redacted] expressly declined topurchase a contract cancellation option, this offer is more than reasonable and goes outsidethe contract terms agreed toIt is my hope that we can find a speedy resolution, withoutadding to the emotional distress of either party.Please contact us after reviewing this letter.I look forward to hearing from you soon.Sincerely, [redacted] ***

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID 10671340, and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below[In reply to [redacted] who signed the dealership's response: The transaction needs to be reversedI am not asking for $22k even though I have spent countless hours dealing with this which totals $4k based on my hourly rate at work of $40/hrIn addition, I have since had to purchase the [redacted] report at $I simply want to break evenI paid $17,for the carI will allow for the car to be picked up if I am offered $17,The [redacted] report has since been added by the dealership as substantiating documents as it was never provided the day of or prior to sale May Had that [redacted] report been provided the day of or prior to sale which I most certainly asked for, I would definitely not have purchased the vehicle as the [redacted] notes are substantially different and alarming compared to the NMVTIS report provided as the [redacted] report reads "branded title salvaged, severe damage, total loss"In addition, had the dealership followed USAA protocol based upon their agreement with True Car and disclosed this branded title there, I would not have even contacted the dealershipFurthermore, had the California law as of July been adhered to by the dealership in which a branded title disclosure must be displayed on the vehicles (***) being sold, I again would not have continued interest in the carThe first time seeing the [redacted] report from Mr.Kiyum in the response I noticed was dated April which means it could have and SHOULD have been provided the day of or prior to sale May This is bothersome revealing it was deliberately withheld therefor, the claim by the business that I have buyers remorse could not be further from the truthIn fact, it's a sickening feeling to continue being lied toIn addition, the dealership claims "The [redacted] market value with a clear title is $22k, then at the purchase price at $16k Mrs [redacted] received the vehicle at 72% of the clear title market valueWhen purchasing a lightly damaged and quality rebuilt vehicle, this is the common range one should expect to pay." In reply to that statement made by the dealership in their response to me, I find it interesting how again the damage is being referred to as lightly damaged and cosmetic when the [redacted] report (that was never provided until now) says SEVERE damage deemed as a total loss by the insurance company Please note that this response is for response purposes only and is privileged and protected under all relevant statutes, including the California Evidence Code section ] Regards, [redacted]

Revdex.com:I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID 10671340, and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.[In reply to [redacted] who signed the dealership's response: The transaction needs to be reversedI am not asking for $22k even though I have spent countless hours dealing with this which totals $4k based on my hourly rate at work of $40/hrIn addition, I have since had to purchase the [redacted] report at $I simply want to break evenI paid $17,for the carI will allow for the car to be picked up if I am offered $17,The [redacted] report has since been added by the dealership as substantiating documents as it was never provided the day of or prior to sale May Had that [redacted] report been provided the day of or prior to sale which I most certainly asked for, I would definitely not have purchased the vehicle as the [redacted] notes are substantially different and alarming compared to the NMVTIS report provided as the [redacted] report reads "branded title salvaged, severe damage, total loss"In addition, had the dealership followed USAA protocol based upon their agreement with True Car and disclosed this branded title there, I would not have even contacted the dealershipFurthermore, had the California law as of July been adhered to by the dealership in which a branded title disclosure must be displayed on the vehicles (***) being sold, I again would not have continued interest in the carThe first time seeing the [redacted] report from Mr.Kiyum in the response I noticed was dated April which means it could have and SHOULD have been provided the day of or prior to sale May This is bothersome revealing it was deliberately withheld therefor, the claim by the business that I have buyers remorse could not be further from the truthIn fact, it's a sickening feeling to continue being lied toIn addition, the dealership claims "The [redacted] market value with a clear title is $22k, then at the purchase price at $16k Mrs [redacted] received the vehicle at 72% of the clear title market valueWhen purchasing a lightly damaged and quality rebuilt vehicle, this is the common range one should expect to pay." In reply to that statement made by the dealership in their response to me, I find it interesting how again the damage is being referred to as lightly damaged and cosmetic when the [redacted] report (that was never provided until now) says SEVERE damage deemed as a total loss by the insurance company Please note that this response is for response purposes only and is privileged and protected under all relevant statutes, including the California Evidence Code section ]Regards, [redacted]

[redacted].9029 Campo Rd., Spring Valley, [redacted] Tel (619) 729-gI09Yia U.S. Certified Mail[redacted]To:From:Re:Date:[redacted]., dba Automaxx of San DiesoComplaint: [redacted]Vehicle: [redacted]Purchase...

Date: Mav 2.2015Jwrc 79,2015Dear [redacted]:We are writing this answer in regards to the recent complaint we received on behalfof the Revdex.com. I sincerely appreciate your patience in receiving thisresponse to your letter dated June 15, 2015 regarding the above referenced matter. pleasecontact me after you have had an opportunity to review this response. Please note that thisletter is for response purposes only and is privileged and protected under all relevantstatutes, including the califomia Evidence code section [redacted]RESPONSE[redacted] purchased a[redacted], identifiedabove from Automaxx of San Diego on May 2,2015 for the amount of $16,000, whichtotaled to $L7,794 after taxes, title, and registration fees. [redacted] signed andagreed to the Retail Installment Sales Contract for the purchase of the vehicle (attached asExhibit 1). [redacted] signed and agreed to the Due Bill (attached as Exhibit 2). Ms.[redacted] signed and agreed to the Contract Cancellation Option (attached as Exhibit 3).[redacted] signed and agreed to the Buyers Guide Form (attached as Exhibit 4). Ms.[redacted] signed and agreed that she was aware the vehicle received a rebuilt title due tothe damage sustained (attached as Exhibit 5).2Prior to the purchase of the vehicle [redacted] stated to the salesman that shehad been searching for a similar vehicle during the week. [redacted] and herboyfriend were offered a test drive of the vehicle under no obligation to purchase. Thesalesman disclosed the previous accident to [redacted] and her boyfriend andprovided them both with a copy of a [redacted] History Report and NMVTIS HisroryReport; the aforementioned disclosures are customary practices at the dealership(attached as Exhibit 6). [redacted] and her boyfriend viewed the history report,acknowledged the branded accident history resulting in a Rebuilt/Revived Title andcontinued to move forward with the purchase (attached as Exhibit 5). [redacted] wasaware that this vehicle was listed well below the retail value and below the price otherlocal dealers were advertising. [redacted] was made aware that the vehicle,s previoushistory resulting in a Branded Title was the sole reason the vehicle price was listedsignificantly below Clear Title value. Further, it was apparent from the documentedinsurance photos disclosed to Mr[redacted] and her boyfriend that the damage did notsignificantly compromise the integrity of the vehicle (attached as Exhibit 7). As a resultof the cosmetic damage, the vehicle required some reconditioning which was disclosed to[redacted] and was the sole reason the vehicle was sold to her for $16,000 when the[redacted] retail value of the vehicle at the time of sale was almost $22.000(attached as Exhibit 8). [redacted] presented herself as a competent adult and seemedto have a convincing grasp of the English language at the time of the transaction.Additionally, her boyfriend accompanied her and also seemed to provide additionaloversight during the transaction. In fact, the salesman stated that [redacted] and herboyfriend both confirmed atacitunderstanding of the salvage brand indication when theyreviewed the history report.At the time of sale, the vehicle held a California Rebuilt Salvage Title and wassafe to be driven on California Roads per the Department of Motor Vehicles rules andregulations. The transaction was not rushed and [redacted] had sufficient time toconsider the vehicle and the prior history. [redacted] and her boyfriend wereprovided documented photos of the damage prior to repair (attached as Exhibit 7). After atest drive and lengthy visual inspection by both [redacted] and her boyfriend, Ms.[redacted] finalized the purchase on May 2, 2015. The vehicle did not present anysignificant issues at the time of sale and the vehicle was functioning properly per themessage indicator on the speedometer and prior inspections by the service department.Further, [redacted] was not coerced to purchase the vehicle, as her boyfriend wasalso present which indicates that she was not intimidated.3If requested, a copy of the title would have been provided to [redacted]. At thetime of the sale, [redacted] never requested a copy of the vehicle,s title, nor wouldthe title have revealed undisclosed information because [redacted] was aware of theBranded Title history and currently Automaxx of San Diego's ownership of the vehicle isnot at dispute.[redacted] purchased the vehicle As 1s in all other aspects provided on thereverse side of the Buyers Guide. This was a fully integrated contract; no oral promiseswere made' Moreover, the vehicle value was not $8,000 as stated in the complaint. Theanalysis provided in the complaint, ascertaining the value at half of $16,000 is unfoundedand arbitrary. There is no support for this contention. Rebuilt Title,s have values that canvary significantly based on the extent of the damage sustained. For example, a floodvehicle that is subsequently rebuilt is worth far less than a cosmetically damaged vehiclethat is subsequently rebuilt. The final value of a rebuilt vehicle can range anywhere form50-85vo of the clear title market value. The [redacted] market value with a clear title is$22,000 (attached as Exhibit 8), than at the purchase price of $16,000 Mr[redacted]received the vehicle at 727o of the clear title market value. When purchasing a lightlydamaged and quality-rebuilt vehicle, this is a common range one should expect to pay.There is no set formula or active commercial website that provides valuation on rebuiltvehicles because there are so many factors to be taken into consideration. Regardless, [redacted] was provided full disclosure of the previous history and the valuation of thevehicle was something that she negotiated with the salesperson.Automaxx of San Diego and its staff correctly represented the vehicle. Automaxxof San Diego did not: (1) Misrepresent the quality or condition of the vehicl e; (2)Conceal the history of the vehicle; (3) Fail to provide a history report; (4) Fail to providea disclosure statement affixed to the windshield of the vehicle; (5) Violate state or federaltruth in lending laws.I hope I have made it clear that Automaxx of San Diego is not liable to Ms.[redacted] for any of her claims, and is not willing to unwind the deal ([redacted]signed and agreed to decline the Contract Cancellation Option attached as Exhibit 3). Thestaff at Automaxx of San Diego feels that they have worked very hard to go above andbeyond for [redacted], who in turn is trying to establish frivolous claims due to buyer,sremorse. I am sure that [redacted] has her own feelings on this situation.4In the interest of good faith, Automaxx of san Diego is willing to provide Ms.[redacted] a refund of $14,000 on her vehicle. The taxes, licensing, and registration will fees not be refundable, as the vehicle has already been registered in her name and she did not agree to purchase the contract cancellation option. only one condition exists; [redacted] will have to pay off her lienholder and provide Automaxx of san Diego the 2014 Prius Title free of any and all encumbrances upon her request to exercise thissettlement offer' Further, [redacted] must schedule a time to drop off the vehicle and allow the dealership to confirm her lien has been satisfied. considering [redacted]expressly declined to purchase a contract cancellation option, this offer is more thanreasonable and goes outside the contract terms agreed to. It is my hope that we can find aspeedy resolution, without adding to the emotional distress of either party.Please contact us after reviewing this letter.I lookforward to hearing from you soon.Sincerely,[redacted]EXHIBIT

[redacted].9029 Campo Rd., Spring Valley, [redacted] Tel (619) 729-gI09Yia U.S. Certified Mail[redacted]To:From:Re:Date:[redacted]., dba Automaxx of San DiesoComplaint: [redacted]...

[redacted]Vehicle: [redacted]Purchase Date: Mav 2.2015Jwrc 79,2015Dear [redacted]:We are writing this answer in regards to the recent complaint we received on behalfof the Revdex.com. I sincerely appreciate your patience in receiving thisresponse to your letter dated June 15, 2015 regarding the above referenced matter. pleasecontact me after you have had an opportunity to review this response. Please note that thisletter is for response purposes only and is privileged and protected under all relevantstatutes, including the califomia Evidence code section [redacted]RESPONSE[redacted] purchased a[redacted], [redacted], identifiedabove from Automaxx of San Diego on May 2,2015 for the amount of $16,000, whichtotaled to $L7,794 after taxes, title, and registration fees. [redacted] signed andagreed to the Retail Installment Sales Contract for the purchase of the vehicle (attached asExhibit 1). [redacted] signed and agreed to the Due Bill (attached as Exhibit 2). Ms.[redacted] signed and agreed to the Contract Cancellation Option (attached as Exhibit 3).[redacted] signed and agreed to the Buyers Guide Form (attached as Exhibit 4). Ms.[redacted] signed and agreed that she was aware the vehicle received a rebuilt title due tothe damage sustained (attached as Exhibit 5).2Prior to the purchase of the vehicle [redacted] stated to the salesman that shehad been searching for a similar vehicle during the week. [redacted] and herboyfriend were offered a test drive of the vehicle under no obligation to purchase. Thesalesman disclosed the previous accident to [redacted] and her boyfriend andprovided them both with a copy of a [redacted] History Report and NMVTIS HisroryReport; the aforementioned disclosures are customary practices at the dealership(attached as Exhibit 6). [redacted] and her boyfriend viewed the history report,acknowledged the branded accident history resulting in a Rebuilt/Revived Title andcontinued to move forward with the purchase (attached as Exhibit 5). [redacted] wasaware that this vehicle was listed well below the retail value and below the price otherlocal dealers were advertising. [redacted] was made aware that the vehicle,s previoushistory resulting in a Branded Title was the sole reason the vehicle price was listedsignificantly below Clear Title value. Further, it was apparent from the documentedinsurance photos disclosed to Mr[redacted] and her boyfriend that the damage did notsignificantly compromise the integrity of the vehicle (attached as Exhibit 7). As a resultof the cosmetic damage, the vehicle required some reconditioning which was disclosed to[redacted] and was the sole reason the vehicle was sold to her for $16,000 when the[redacted] retail value of the vehicle at the time of sale was almost $22.000(attached as Exhibit 8). [redacted] presented herself as a competent adult and seemedto have a convincing grasp of the English language at the time of the transaction.Additionally, her boyfriend accompanied her and also seemed to provide additionaloversight during the transaction. In fact, the salesman stated that [redacted] and herboyfriend both confirmed atacitunderstanding of the salvage brand indication when theyreviewed the history report.At the time of sale, the vehicle held a California Rebuilt Salvage Title and wassafe to be driven on California Roads per the Department of Motor Vehicles rules andregulations. The transaction was not rushed and [redacted] had sufficient time toconsider the vehicle and the prior history. [redacted] and her boyfriend wereprovided documented photos of the damage prior to repair (attached as Exhibit 7). After atest drive and lengthy visual inspection by both [redacted] and her boyfriend, Ms.[redacted] finalized the purchase on May 2, 2015. The vehicle did not present anysignificant issues at the time of sale and the vehicle was functioning properly per themessage indicator on the speedometer and prior inspections by the service department.Further, [redacted] was not coerced to purchase the vehicle, as her boyfriend wasalso present which indicates that she was not intimidated.3If requested, a copy of the title would have been provided to [redacted]. At thetime of the sale, [redacted] never requested a copy of the vehicle,s title, nor wouldthe title have revealed undisclosed information because [redacted] was aware of theBranded Title history and currently Automaxx of San Diego's ownership of the vehicle isnot at dispute.[redacted] purchased the vehicle As 1s in all other aspects provided on thereverse side of the Buyers Guide. This was a fully integrated contract; no oral promiseswere made' Moreover, the vehicle value was not $8,000 as stated in the complaint. Theanalysis provided in the complaint, ascertaining the value at half of $16,000 is unfoundedand arbitrary. There is no support for this contention. Rebuilt Title,s have values that canvary significantly based on the extent of the damage sustained. For example, a floodvehicle that is subsequently rebuilt is worth far less than a cosmetically damaged vehiclethat is subsequently rebuilt. The final value of a rebuilt vehicle can range anywhere form50-85vo of the clear title market value. The [redacted] market value with a clear title is$22,000 (attached as Exhibit 8), than at the purchase price of $16,000 Mr[redacted]received the vehicle at 727o of the clear title market value. When purchasing a lightlydamaged and quality-rebuilt vehicle, this is a common range one should expect to pay.There is no set formula or active commercial website that provides valuation on rebuiltvehicles because there are so many factors to be taken into consideration. Regardless, [redacted] was provided full disclosure of the previous history and the valuation of thevehicle was something that she negotiated with the salesperson.Automaxx of San Diego and its staff correctly represented the vehicle. Automaxxof San Diego did not: (1) Misrepresent the quality or condition of the vehicl e; (2)Conceal the history of the vehicle; (3) Fail to provide a history report; (4) Fail to providea disclosure statement affixed to the windshield of the vehicle; (5) Violate state or federaltruth in lending laws.I hope I have made it clear that Automaxx of San Diego is not liable to Ms.[redacted] for any of her claims, and is not willing to unwind the deal ([redacted]signed and agreed to decline the Contract Cancellation Option attached as Exhibit 3). Thestaff at Automaxx of San Diego feels that they have worked very hard to go above andbeyond for [redacted], who in turn is trying to establish frivolous claims due to buyer,sremorse. I am sure that [redacted] has her own feelings on this situation.4In the interest of good faith, Automaxx of san Diego is willing to provide Ms.[redacted] a refund of $14,000 on her vehicle. The taxes, licensing, and registration will fees not be refundable, as the vehicle has already been registered in her name and she did not agree to purchase the contract cancellation option. only one condition exists; [redacted] will have to pay off her lienholder and provide Automaxx of san Diego the 2014 Prius Title free of any and all encumbrances upon her request to exercise thissettlement offer' Further, [redacted] must schedule a time to drop off the vehicle and allow the dealership to confirm her lien has been satisfied. considering [redacted]expressly declined to purchase a contract cancellation option, this offer is more thanreasonable and goes outside the contract terms agreed to. It is my hope that we can find aspeedy resolution, without adding to the emotional distress of either party.Please contact us after reviewing this letter.I lookforward to hearing from you soon.Sincerely,[redacted]EXHIBIT

Revdex.com:I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID 10671340, and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.[In reply to [redacted] who signed the dealership's response: The transaction needs to be reversed. I am not asking for $22k even though I have spent countless hours dealing with this which totals $4k based on my hourly rate at work of $40/hr. In addition, I have since had to purchase the [redacted] report at $50. I simply want to break even. I paid $17,794 for the car. I will allow for the car to be picked up if I am offered $17,794. The [redacted]  report has since been added by the dealership as substantiating documents as it was never provided the day of or prior to sale 2 May 2015. Had that [redacted] report been provided the day of or prior to sale which I most certainly asked for, I would definitely not have purchased the vehicle as the [redacted] notes are substantially different and alarming compared to the NMVTIS report provided as the [redacted] report reads "branded title salvaged, severe damage, total loss". In addition, had the dealership followed USAA protocol based upon their agreement with True Car and disclosed this branded title there, I would not have even contacted the dealership. Furthermore, had the California law as of 1 July 2012 been adhered to by the dealership in which a branded title disclosure must be displayed on the vehicles ([redacted]) being sold, I again would not have continued interest in the car. The first time seeing the [redacted] report from Mr.Kiyum in the response I noticed was dated 17 April 2015 which means it could have and SHOULD have been provided the day of or prior to sale 2 May 2015. This is bothersome revealing it was deliberately withheld therefor, the claim by the business that I have buyers remorse could not be further from the truth. In fact, it's a sickening feeling to continue being lied to. In addition, the dealership claims "The [redacted] market value with a clear title is $22k, then at the purchase price at $16k Mrs[redacted] received the vehicle at 72% of the clear title market value. When purchasing a lightly damaged and quality rebuilt vehicle, this is the common range one should expect to pay." In reply to that statement made by the dealership in their response to me, I find it interesting how again the damage is being referred to as lightly damaged and cosmetic when the [redacted] report (that was never provided until now) says SEVERE damage deemed as a total loss by the insurance company.  Please note that this response is for response purposes only and is privileged and protected under all relevant statutes, including the California Evidence Code section 1152. ]Regards,[redacted]

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID 10671340, and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
[In reply to [redacted] who signed the dealership's response: The transaction needs to be reversed. I am not asking for $22k even though I have spent countless hours dealing with this which totals $4k based on my hourly rate at work of $40/hr. In addition, I have since had to purchase the [redacted] report at $50. I simply want to break even. I paid $17,794 for the car. I will allow for the car to be picked up if I am offered $17,794. The [redacted]  report has since been added by the dealership as substantiating documents as it was never provided the day of or prior to sale 2 May 2015. Had that [redacted] report been provided the day of or prior to sale which I most certainly asked for, I would definitely not have purchased the vehicle as the [redacted] notes are substantially different and alarming compared to the NMVTIS report provided as the [redacted] report reads "branded title salvaged, severe damage, total loss". In addition, had the dealership followed USAA protocol based upon their agreement with True Car and disclosed this branded title there, I would not have even contacted the dealership. Furthermore, had the California law as of 1 July 2012 been adhered to by the dealership in which a branded title disclosure must be displayed on the vehicles ([redacted]) being sold, I again would not have continued interest in the car. The first time seeing the [redacted] report from Mr.Kiyum in the response I noticed was dated 17 April 2015 which means it could have and SHOULD have been provided the day of or prior to sale 2 May 2015. This is bothersome revealing it was deliberately withheld therefor, the claim by the business that I have buyers remorse could not be further from the truth. In fact, it's a sickening feeling to continue being lied to. In addition, the dealership claims "The [redacted] market value with a clear title is $22k, then at the purchase price at $16k Mrs[redacted] received the vehicle at 72% of the clear title market value. When purchasing a lightly damaged and quality rebuilt vehicle, this is the common range one should expect to pay." In reply to that statement made by the dealership in their response to me, I find it interesting how again the damage is being referred to as lightly damaged and cosmetic when the [redacted] report (that was never provided until now) says SEVERE damage deemed as a total loss by the insurance company.  
Please note that this response is for response purposes only and is privileged and protected under all relevant statutes, including the California Evidence Code section 1152. ]
Regards,
[redacted]

1[redacted].9029 Campo Rd., Spring Valley, CA 91977, Tel (619) 729-8109Via U.S. Certified MailMs. [redacted]635 8th Place Apt #1Hermosa Beach, CA 90254To: [redacted]From: [redacted]., dba Automaxx of San DiegoRe: Complaint: [redacted]Vehicle: [redacted] CPurchase Date: May 2, 2015Date: June 29, 2015Dear [redacted]:We are writing this answer in regards to the recent reply we received on behalf of theRevdex.com. I sincerely appreciate your patience in receiving this response toyour reply dated June 26, 2015 regarding the above referenced matter. Please contact meafter you have had an opportunity to review this response. Please note that this letter is forresponse purposes only and is privileged and protected under all relevant statutes, includingthe California Evidence Code section 1152.[redacted] claims that the [redacted] report was intentionally withheldfrom her. What [redacted] fails to consider is that she was free to do business withAutomaxx on her own accord. Her claim makes no mention of coercive conduct byAutomaxx Sales Employees. [redacted] could have requested a [redacted] fromAutomaxx and Automaxx would have either provided one for her or would have declined tooblige. The [redacted] report was a discretionary disclosure, not mandatory. Automaxx isnot required under California Vehicle Code to provide a [redacted] history report, insteadcustomers are free to request a report or independently obtain a report at the retail priceprovided online as [redacted] claims she subsequently acquired. California VehicleCode requires a dealer to provide an NMVTIS report with the sale of each vehicle and toapply a disclaimer sticker on the windshield (Attached as Exhibit 1). As Mr[redacted]claimed in her initial complaint and reply, Automaxx did provide her the NMVTIS reportfor her review. Also, a disclaimer sticker (4” x 5.5”) was affixed to the vehicle windshield atthe time of sale (Attached as Exhibit 2).2There are multiple auto history report providers (Autocheck, [redacted], VinAudit,TitleCheck.us, VinSMART.com, etc.). [redacted] effectively makes the broad claimthat Automaxx should have furnished all known vehicle reports for her examination. This isneither practical nor customary practice at any dealership. Customers have varyingpreferences as to history report providers and Automaxx does its best to provide the reportsas required under California Law. As previously mentioned, California Vehicle Coderequires a dealer to provide an NMVTIS report with the sale of each branded title vehicle.There is no requirement that Automaxx is to provide other history reports such as a[redacted] report. Thus, [redacted] was free to refuse or proceed with the purchase andshe made the ultimate decision to purchase the vehicle with the information provided andrequired by law.Additionally, [redacted] makes an unfounded claim that Automaxx was requiredbut did not follow USAA protocol based upon their agreement with True Car. Automaxxprovided USAA with all required information to process the loan documents as required byUSAA.[redacted] further claims that the [redacted] report reads “branded title salvage,severe damage, total loss.” Although this is stated in the [redacted] report, this is a generaldesignation for vehicles that hold branded titles. It is not an all inclusive statement. Ms.[redacted] construes the [redacted] statement as if the Prius, in fact, sustained severedamage. This is not true. The photos of the damage provided to [redacted] weredocumented photos of the damage prior to repairs that the insurance company provides tothe purchasing dealer. [redacted] was provided these photos prior to purchase. At notime did [redacted] mention that she would like a [redacted] report once she saw thephotos and the NMVTIS report. It is clear that those photos speak more to the history of thevehicle than the [redacted] history report. [redacted] does not provide the statement“branded title salvage, severe damage, total loss” from a police report or first handknowledge. This statement is generic information attributable to the majority of brandedtitle cars but is not true of every branded title vehicle. In fact, [redacted]’s cherished[redacted] history report also states “No Airbag Deployment” and “No Structural Damage”;one would find it logically inconsistent that a vehicle can be severely damaged yet have noairbag deployment or structural damage. However, [redacted] seems to welcome the[redacted] report as an ultimate finding of fact but disregards all statements that areinconsistent in the report. In the opinion of the Automaxx representative, Mr. [redacted], whopurchased and repaired the Prius, the damage to the Prius was cosmetic and light. Ms.[redacted] could have accepted Mr. [redacted]’s opinion or refused to proceed. [redacted]was free to obtain an independent inspection by a mechanic of her choice or conduct herown independent research prior to executing a binding vehicle purchase agreement. Ms.[redacted] instead went forward with the purchase.Automaxx of San Diego and its staff correctly represented the vehicle. Automaxx ofSan Diego did not: (1) Misrepresent the quality or condition of the vehicle; (2) Conceal thehistory of the vehicle; (3) Fail to provide a history report; (4) Fail to provide a disclosure3statement affixed to the windshield of the vehicle; (5) Violate state or federal truth inlending laws.I hope I have made it clear that Automaxx of San Diego is not liable to Ms.[redacted] for any of her claims, and is not willing to unwind the deal ([redacted]signed and agreed to decline the Contract Cancellation Option attached as Exhibit 3). Thestaff at Automaxx of San Diego feels that they have worked very hard to go above andbeyond for [redacted], who in turn is trying to establish frivolous claims due to buyer’sremorse. I am sure that [redacted] has her own feelings on this situation.In the interest of good faith, Automaxx of San Diego is willing to provide Ms.[redacted] a refund of $14,000 on her vehicle. The taxes, licensing, and registration fees willnot be refundable, as the vehicle has already been registered in her name and she did notagree to purchase the contract cancellation option. Only one condition exists; [redacted]will have to pay off her lienholder and provide Automaxx of San Diego the 2014 Prius Titlefree of any and all encumbrances upon her request to exercise this settlement offer. Further,[redacted] must schedule a time to drop off the vehicle and allow the dealership toconfirm her lien has been satisfied. Considering [redacted] expressly declined topurchase a contract cancellation option, this offer is more than reasonable and goes outsidethe contract terms agreed to. It is my hope that we can find a speedy resolution, withoutadding to the emotional distress of either party.Please contact us after reviewing this letter.I look forward to hearing from you soon.Sincerely,[redacted]

Review: 2 May 2015: [redacted] purchased a [redacted] from Automaxx of San Diego (9029 Campo Rd Spring Valley, CA 91977) ph:619-729-[redacted] Purchased from [redacted] ([email protected]) turned out to have a salvaged/rebuilt title. This information was NOT disclosed on the [redacted] car buying service website (a requirement for the dealership). In addition, it was not displayed on the vehicle per California Law "Effective July 1, 2012, California-licensed dealers must obtain a National Motor Vehicle Title Information System (NMVTIS) report from an approved provider before a used vehicle is offered or displayed for sale. If the NMVTIS used vehicle history report indicates the vehicle is or has been a junk or salvage, or the certificate of title contains a brand, the dealer must post a disclosure statement on the vehicle while it is displayed for sale. The only exceptions are when a dealer attempts to obtain an NMVTIS report, but NMVTIS does not have a record for the vehicle...." [redacted] did not only deliberately fail to disclose title information; he also sold the [redacted] for double its value considering the branded title. The [redacted] with 5K miles is worth only $8K & was sold for $16K . She gave the dealership plenty of opportunities to rectify the issue. [redacted] continues to lie saying they provided a [redacted] report the day of sale which was never provided. In closing when asked for the [redacted] report again he instead showed the NMVITS report that showed pages of green checks with one record found when she asked to clarify [redacted] said "it was nothing the car was in a fender bender we had to replace the front bumper. He later e-mailed the pics from the fender bender. [redacted] had 1 blurb in the paperwork signed that read CA California Rebuilt title which is NOT enough disclosure. When asked to clarify [redacted] lied about it being rebuilt as fixing the bumper NOT a salvage branded title. The registration arrived on 4 June 2015 when she became aware that her registration read "Salvage"Desired Settlement: Ms. P wants Automaxx of San Diego to take their branded titled [redacted] back as well as pay her for her trade in they already sold since they broke both usaa protocol auto buying service as well as the CA law to properly disclose the branded title.[redacted]The trade in Automaxx of SD paid Ms. P was $12,500. The [redacted] has not been driven since finding out the title is salvaged. Only 1K miles have been put on the vehicle since purchase (averaging 4 miles a day).

Business

Response:

[redacted].9029 Campo Rd., Spring Valley, [redacted] Tel (619) 729-gI09Yia U.S. Certified Mail[redacted]To:From:Re:Date:[redacted]., dba Automaxx of San DiesoReview: [redacted]Vehicle: [redacted]Purchase Date: Mav 2.2015Jwrc 79,2015Dear [redacted]:We are writing this answer in regards to the recent complaint we received on behalfof the Revdex.com. I sincerely appreciate your patience in receiving thisresponse to your letter dated June 15, 2015 regarding the above referenced matter. pleasecontact me after you have had an opportunity to review this response. Please note that thisletter is for response purposes only and is privileged and protected under all relevantstatutes, including the califomia Evidence code section [redacted]RESPONSE[redacted] purchased a[redacted], identifiedabove from Automaxx of San Diego on May 2,2015 for the amount of $16,000, whichtotaled to $L7,794 after taxes, title, and registration fees. [redacted] signed andagreed to the Retail Installment Sales Contract for the purchase of the vehicle (attached asExhibit 1). [redacted] signed and agreed to the Due Bill (attached as Exhibit 2). Ms.[redacted] signed and agreed to the Contract Cancellation Option (attached as Exhibit 3).[redacted] signed and agreed to the Buyers Guide Form (attached as Exhibit 4). Ms.[redacted] signed and agreed that she was aware the vehicle received a rebuilt title due tothe damage sustained (attached as Exhibit 5).2Prior to the purchase of the vehicle [redacted] stated to the salesman that shehad been searching for a similar vehicle during the week. [redacted] and herboyfriend were offered a test drive of the vehicle under no obligation to purchase. Thesalesman disclosed the previous accident to [redacted] and her boyfriend andprovided them both with a copy of a [redacted] History Report and NMVTIS HisroryReport; the aforementioned disclosures are customary practices at the dealership(attached as Exhibit 6). [redacted] and her boyfriend viewed the history report,acknowledged the branded accident history resulting in a Rebuilt/Revived Title andcontinued to move forward with the purchase (attached as Exhibit 5). [redacted] wasaware that this vehicle was listed well below the retail value and below the price otherlocal dealers were advertising. [redacted] was made aware that the vehicle,s previoushistory resulting in a Branded Title was the sole reason the vehicle price was listedsignificantly below Clear Title value. Further, it was apparent from the documentedinsurance photos disclosed to Mr[redacted] and her boyfriend that the damage did notsignificantly compromise the integrity of the vehicle (attached as Exhibit 7). As a resultof the cosmetic damage, the vehicle required some reconditioning which was disclosed to[redacted] and was the sole reason the vehicle was sold to her for $16,000 when the[redacted] retail value of the vehicle at the time of sale was almost $22.000(attached as Exhibit 8). [redacted] presented herself as a competent adult and seemedto have a convincing grasp of the English language at the time of the transaction.Additionally, her boyfriend accompanied her and also seemed to provide additionaloversight during the transaction. In fact, the salesman stated that [redacted] and herboyfriend both confirmed atacitunderstanding of the salvage brand indication when theyreviewed the history report.At the time of sale, the vehicle held a California Rebuilt Salvage Title and wassafe to be driven on California Roads per the Department of Motor Vehicles rules andregulations. The transaction was not rushed and [redacted] had sufficient time toconsider the vehicle and the prior history. [redacted] and her boyfriend wereprovided documented photos of the damage prior to repair (attached as Exhibit 7). After atest drive and lengthy visual inspection by both [redacted] and her boyfriend, Ms.[redacted] finalized the purchase on May 2, 2015. The vehicle did not present anysignificant issues at the time of sale and the vehicle was functioning properly per themessage indicator on the speedometer and prior inspections by the service department.Further, [redacted] was not coerced to purchase the vehicle, as her boyfriend wasalso present which indicates that she was not intimidated.3If requested, a copy of the title would have been provided to [redacted]. At thetime of the sale, [redacted] never requested a copy of the vehicle,s title, nor wouldthe title have revealed undisclosed information because [redacted] was aware of theBranded Title history and currently Automaxx of San Diego's ownership of the vehicle isnot at dispute.[redacted] purchased the vehicle As 1s in all other aspects provided on thereverse side of the Buyers Guide. This was a fully integrated contract; no oral promiseswere made' Moreover, the vehicle value was not $8,000 as stated in the complaint. Theanalysis provided in the complaint, ascertaining the value at half of $16,000 is unfoundedand arbitrary. There is no support for this contention. Rebuilt Title,s have values that canvary significantly based on the extent of the damage sustained. For example, a floodvehicle that is subsequently rebuilt is worth far less than a cosmetically damaged vehiclethat is subsequently rebuilt. The final value of a rebuilt vehicle can range anywhere form50-85vo of the clear title market value. The [redacted] market value with a clear title is$22,000 (attached as Exhibit 8), than at the purchase price of $16,000 Mr[redacted]received the vehicle at 727o of the clear title market value. When purchasing a lightlydamaged and quality-rebuilt vehicle, this is a common range one should expect to pay.There is no set formula or active commercial website that provides valuation on rebuiltvehicles because there are so many factors to be taken into consideration. Regardless, [redacted] was provided full disclosure of the previous history and the valuation of thevehicle was something that she negotiated with the salesperson.Automaxx of San Diego and its staff correctly represented the vehicle. Automaxxof San Diego did not: (1) Misrepresent the quality or condition of the vehicl e; (2)Conceal the history of the vehicle; (3) Fail to provide a history report; (4) Fail to providea disclosure statement affixed to the windshield of the vehicle; (5) Violate state or federaltruth in lending laws.I hope I have made it clear that Automaxx of San Diego is not liable to Ms.[redacted] for any of her claims, and is not willing to unwind the deal ([redacted]signed and agreed to decline the Contract Cancellation Option attached as Exhibit 3). Thestaff at Automaxx of San Diego feels that they have worked very hard to go above andbeyond for [redacted], who in turn is trying to establish frivolous claims due to buyer,sremorse. I am sure that [redacted] has her own feelings on this situation.4In the interest of good faith, Automaxx of san Diego is willing to provide Ms.[redacted] a refund of $14,000 on her vehicle. The taxes, licensing, and registration will fees not be refundable, as the vehicle has already been registered in her name and she did not agree to purchase the contract cancellation option. only one condition exists; [redacted] will have to pay off her lienholder and provide Automaxx of san Diego the 2014 Prius Title free of any and all encumbrances upon her request to exercise thissettlement offer' Further, [redacted] must schedule a time to drop off the vehicle and allow the dealership to confirm her lien has been satisfied. considering [redacted]expressly declined to purchase a contract cancellation option, this offer is more thanreasonable and goes outside the contract terms agreed to. It is my hope that we can find aspeedy resolution, without adding to the emotional distress of either party.Please contact us after reviewing this letter.I lookforward to hearing from you soon.Sincerely,[redacted]EXHIBIT

Consumer

Response: