Brian Harris Pontiac Buick GMC, Inc.

Review: My vehicle was dropped off at this dealership to receive diagnostics for a check engine light on December 2nd 2015. I was notified that they would need my car another day to find out what was wrong with it to see if it would be covered by a special coverage for engine repair. The following day, the 4th, no one called me with an update so I called myself, to check on the status. I was told that they didn’t have a clear answer but they would know by Friday the 5th. With no one having called me Friday, I called to check on the status. They then stated that they would “for sure” know by Monday the 8th if my car would qualify for this special engine repair. At that point I needed a loaner car because I could no longer use my families spare car. I went to the dealership and was told by Tracey that “I was not their customer so they didn’t have a loaner for me to use” and that I could “go to the Enterprise across the interstate and rent a car, when GM approved my engine to be rebuilt, it would be retroactive for the dealership to cover my loaner car”. I proceeded to Enterprise to rent a car, they made me put a credit card down but I did inform them that the dealership told me once my repair was approved, they would be taking over for the payment. I ended up having the car for a total of 13 days, 10-11 of which was waiting for the dealership to get approval. Totaling $537.22. I got my car back on the 17th, that evening. I drove my car Friday with no problem. But Saturday I was driving my car at 35-45 miles an hour and I lost complete engine power while driving taking a turn, I slid across the highway and ended up having to push my car to get out of the road. I had to have my car towed to the dealership and didn’t pick it up again until the 23rd. I had to wait until the 21st to get a loaner car from them but I did have to rent a car till then, which cost me $39.15.

There is not enough room to finish what has happened with me at this dealershipDesired Settlement: I am extremely disappointed in the service I received and honestly disgusted. I don’t feel like I was treated with any respect by anyone. I’ve never been talked to that way, not when I’m a paying customer.

I want my car to be fixed like they said they would, and to refund me for my loaner car. I will not take it back to this dealership after one of the service people, Tracy, slammed the door in my face.

Business

Response:

Ms. [redacted]’s 2010 Chevrolet Equinox was delivered to us by Supreme Ford because that is where she purchased the vehicle from and she was told by Levis Chevrolet to return the vehicle to where she purchased it from. We took delivery of the vehicle on 12/2/15 and had a tech look at it the next day. The tech found the engine to be running very rough and sounding like something was broken on the inside. Because the vehicle had 103,910 miles when we got it, the tech stopped work on it until he knew how to proceed. The Service Manager okay’d for the tech to tear down the engine and find what was causing the noise. In the meantime, the customer was requesting a vehicle to drive while we were working on the vehicle. We explained that they vehicles we have to loan out are for customers who are still under standard warranty and/or purchased the vehicles from us. We offered for Ms. [redacted] to rent a vehicle from Enterprise at our company rate to help her out. Once the tech was able to tear down the engine, he found that the timing chain and the balancer chains had been damaged and caused collateral damage also. Once we had that information, we were able to find out that Ms. [redacted]’s vehicle was covered under a special coverage related to the balancer chain failing. Because this vehicle is a Chevrolet and not a Buick or GMC, we had to get authorization from the GMC District Manager to move forward with the repair. The entire time this is going on, we were working with GM Customer Care, the customer, and her uncle trying to help this customer because this is not a vehicle that we should be working on. We agreed to this repair because GM Customer Care asked if we could help this customer since Levis Chevrolet refused to work on her vehicle. When Ms. [redacted] asked about getting a rental paid for by GM, we explained that it is up to GM if they wish to provide a vehicle. By this point, we didn’t have any loaner vehicles available from us to give Ms. [redacted] instead. Once, the vehicle was repaired, we verified the vehicle was working and gave it back to her. Unfortunately, she had an issue with a sensor that left her with a vehicle in “Limp Mode”. When she brought us the vehicle back, we were able to provide a loaner vehicle for her at that time while we worked on the vehicle. Once we determined that there was a lose connection, we made the repair and test drove the vehicle for 20 miles to verify the repair fixed the concern and to make sure no other issues would arise. Ms. [redacted] contacted GM Customer Care in hopes of having the rental bill paid for the time she was without her vehicle. They contacted us asking for assistance and we explained that we can’t reimburse her for the bill. GM would have to make that decision because it is a cross-warranty repair that we provided. The dealership has gone above and beyond for helping a customer that is not a Buick or GMC or Brian Harris Autoplex customer. Ms. [redacted]’s vehicle was out of all applicable warranties and yet we still moved forward with trying to help her with this repair. The dealership was looking out for Ms. [redacted]’s best interest. This repair would’ve cost Ms. [redacted] well over $3,000 if it were to be customer pay. Ms. [redacted] claims that she is “paying customer” however she has never been a customer of ours. We ONLY took this vehicle in because of the working relationship between us and Supreme Ford. We went outside the guidelines to help this customer and now the customer is unhappy because they are responsible for the rental bill for the vehicle they were using. As for the way the customer claims they were treated by the dealership, we are sorry they feel that way and will work with personnel to help control that in the future. The service the customer received was well above what was given at the other dealerships and GM Customer Care will agree that at times this customer was very difficult to deal with because they were not willing to work with us on the proper process for dealing with a non-Buick/GMC vehicle. Thank you, Chris K[redacted] Service Department Brian Harris Autoplex

Review: Unfortunately,I could only mark one complaint type though I have many with this dealership.

1. I was sold a vehicle advertised as no dents scratches or blemishes (other than curbed wheels). I have pictures and text from salesman "Chris" for documentation. When the vehicle was loaded on the transported truck the sales manager "Curtis Adams" signed documentation notating damage on the vehicle. The vehicle arived in CA damaged in the noted location of the delivery company. I feel the dealer damaged the vehicle after purchase and prior to loading of the vehicle on the delivery truck.

The dealer claims they have pictures showing no damage but the pictures are of poor quality and pixelated upon zooming in. If the damage was not there why did they provide an acknowledging signature?

I have an estimate for the noted damage aproximately 1500.

2. I was told the car had good tires. The car arrived with a very low left front tires. Upon inspection it was found that the tire had a leaking patch and could not be repaired. All four tires had severe dry rot with tread starting to delaminate. The car is unsafe to drive. Despite this the dealer charged me a wast tire fee?

3. I was told that the car had blue tooth. I have since found out that it does not. Apparently this only came on the 2009.5 model not the 2009 which I purchased.Desired Settlement: The dealer should pay for repairs to the vehicle, I can provide the estimate.

The dealer should pay for half the cost of new tires (of equivalent grade)and refund the wast tire fee.

The dealer should pay for an aftermarket blue tooth device. There is a device called "costar" which can be added to the vehicle.

*future shipped vihicles should have "quality" pictures taken of the specific damage noted at the time of loading. The current low quality distance shots are nothing more than a scam.

Business

Response:

In response to the complaint from [redacted] had three points of complaint. As to point 1. The 2009 Pontiac G8 had no dents scratches or blemishes that stood out as more than normal wear and tear on a vehicle of the age and mileage of the vehicle. Pictures were sent to [redacted] of the vehicle along with the pictures that were online at the time. On the day that the transporter that [redacted] hired to pick up the vehicle arrived he was in a single car flat bed tow truck. Because the vehicle was going from Slidell La. To Brentwood Ca I am sure the vehicle was going to be moved from that truck to another ( or even more). So I took some additional pictures of the vehicle before the driver loaded it. I forwarded those pictures with the transporter preparing to load the vehicle. I did not take close up pictures all the way around the vehicle. I took angle shots to show both sides and the front and the back of the vehicle. I forward those pictures to [redacted] after he called about a scratch in the bumper. The scratch he is wanting us to pay for can not be seen in any of the pictures of the vehicle that were taken here. I also received a copy of the inspection reports from the transportation company dated on 12-1-15 the date the vehicle was picked up and a backup inspection report dated 12-9-15 (completed somewhere between Slidell and Brentwood) and the vehicle was delivered to [redacted] on 12-12-15. On the inspection report dated 12-1-15 ( the day the vehicle was picked up from Brian Harris Slidell) there are 5 damage codes listed on the vehicle. On 12-09-15 after the vehicle left Slidell La. There are more than 30 (thirty) additional damage codes listed on the later inspection report. I feel like the damage that [redacted] is trying to claim needs to be claimed and complained about against his transporter not Brian Harris Slidell. Point 2. There were no issues with the tires before [redacted] decided to complain to the Revdex.com. I assume that since he was trying to get money from us he would try to get extra for tires. If one of the tires had a patch in it we were not aware of it as we do not take tires off of the rims to inspect the inside of them we only inspect the exterior of the tires and found no safety concerns with them, and none of the tires lost air pressure while it was on the lot. As for the tire disposal fee, he is correct we should not have charged that on a used car. We will send him a check for the $8 that we collected as it is not due on a used vehicle.Point 3. Bluetooth was not installed on the vehicle from the factory. This is the first time that I have heard anything about and issue with Bluetooth. We did not advertise the vehicle as having Bluetooth and should not have to add and aftermarket add on item to a vehicle after a purchase.