Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: once again Bob is denying the issue, he significantly misrepresented the condition of car and his offer to reimburse me is not even the amount it cost me to resolve one of the myriad of issues noted let alone a fair and reasonable offer given the significant expense incurred to bring car to condition he represented it to beI have posted pictures on the Revdex.com website in previous replies and offered to send to Bob directly but he never wanted to see themI appreciate the Revdex.com's efforts but have engaged an attorney to resolve this issue Sincerely, [redacted]
In regards to the complaint ID [redacted] :The customer states that he may seek relief through legal action, under the premise of fraud or grossnegligenceIn either case, I am prepared to provide proof of the quality of materials used (new OEM Volvoparts in many instances) as well as cataloged receipts from the vendors who worked on the carThe issuewill come down to "intent to defraud", which is clearly not the case hereI employed professionals who didthe work to the best of their abilities and I have the necessary proof to back that up.If the customer is dissatisfied with the outcome of that work then we have a difference of opinionI wassatisfied with the work done and reflected my opinion of such in my marketing of the carMy impression isthat the customer employed a mechanic to rectify the issues he first mentioned to me, and the mechanicproceeded to then deconstruct the car - and bill accordinglyMany of the issues noted in his invoice Idisagree with, for they were working properly when the car was sold to the customerI was never given theopportunity to speak with the customer's mechanic, and was never even informed that this type of work wasbeing commissioned in the first place.The FTC Buyer's Guide which the customer reviewed and signed states that ''The dealer assumes noresponsibility for any repairs regardless of any oral statements about the vehicle"If the customer'sstandards are higher than mine, then a pre-purchase inspection should have been initiatedIn mymarketing materials I clearly stated that "You and/or your representative are welcome and encouraged toinspect the car before the close of auction".I did state in my marketing materials that the car is "show quality'' and "bone stock", I did not use the phrase"like new car" as the customer has suggestedThe only cars that are "like new" are new carsThe car thatthe customer bought is years old, and while it is a show quality example, there were some flaws that Idefinitely made note of in the marketing materialsAdditionally, there were over high resolution photosshowing every detail of the car, undercarriage included.My business maintains a 100% feedback rating comprised of 1,sales on eBay (see attachment), and Istrive to ensure that my customers are satisfiedIt's unfortunate that this customer is unhappy with hispurchase, and I tried twice to offer reimbursement for the issues that he mentioned to me upon receiving thecarBeing presented with a list of work he commissioned months after that sale is not something I cantake responsibility for, especially when I was kept uniformed about it that entire time.Bob W [redacted] Owner, Cascadia Classic LLCNE Killingsworth St.Portland, OR 97218503-891-
Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: once again Bob is denying the issue, he significantly misrepresented the condition of car and his offer to reimburse me is not even the amount it cost me to resolve one of the myriad of issues noted let alone a fair and reasonable offer given the significant expense incurred to bring car to condition he represented it to beI have posted pictures on the Revdex.com website in previous replies and offered to send to Bob directly but he never wanted to see themI appreciate the Revdex.com's efforts but have engaged an attorney to resolve this issue Sincerely, [redacted]
In regards to the complaint ID [redacted] :The customer states that he may seek relief through legal action, under the premise of fraud or grossnegligenceIn either case, I am prepared to provide proof of the quality of materials used (new OEM Volvoparts in many instances) as well as cataloged receipts from the vendors who worked on the carThe issuewill come down to "intent to defraud", which is clearly not the case hereI employed professionals who didthe work to the best of their abilities and I have the necessary proof to back that up.If the customer is dissatisfied with the outcome of that work then we have a difference of opinionI wassatisfied with the work done and reflected my opinion of such in my marketing of the carMy impression isthat the customer employed a mechanic to rectify the issues he first mentioned to me, and the mechanicproceeded to then deconstruct the car - and bill accordinglyMany of the issues noted in his invoice Idisagree with, for they were working properly when the car was sold to the customerI was never given theopportunity to speak with the customer's mechanic, and was never even informed that this type of work wasbeing commissioned in the first place.The FTC Buyer's Guide which the customer reviewed and signed states that ''The dealer assumes noresponsibility for any repairs regardless of any oral statements about the vehicle"If the customer'sstandards are higher than mine, then a pre-purchase inspection should have been initiatedIn mymarketing materials I clearly stated that "You and/or your representative are welcome and encouraged toinspect the car before the close of auction".I did state in my marketing materials that the car is "show quality'' and "bone stock", I did not use the phrase"like new car" as the customer has suggestedThe only cars that are "like new" are new carsThe car thatthe customer bought is years old, and while it is a show quality example, there were some flaws that Idefinitely made note of in the marketing materialsAdditionally, there were over high resolution photosshowing every detail of the car, undercarriage included.My business maintains a 100% feedback rating comprised of 1,sales on eBay (see attachment), and Istrive to ensure that my customers are satisfiedIt's unfortunate that this customer is unhappy with hispurchase, and I tried twice to offer reimbursement for the issues that he mentioned to me upon receiving thecarBeing presented with a list of work he commissioned months after that sale is not something I cantake responsibility for, especially when I was kept uniformed about it that entire time.Bob W [redacted] Owner, Cascadia Classic LLCNE Killingsworth St.Portland, OR 97218503-891-