Carfax Inc

Review: Carfax will not honor their buyback guarantee. I have provided all documentation which proves my statements below are correct.

In good faith, purchased the car based on the carfax report - with assurance of the carfax buyback guarantee. Unknown to me the car has previously been salvaged.

I purchased the carfax report to ensure “clean title” and that there was not a salvage problem based on the carfax buyback guarantee (Specifically against salvaged vehicles).

The Carfax buyback guarantee states:

“CARFAX agrees to pay to the holder of a CARFAX® Vehicle History Report (the "Report") making a Claim (the "Claimant") the Claimant's purchase price of the vehicle to which the Report relates (the "Vehicle") up to 10% over the Kelley Blue Book value (see terms 8 and 9 for details) if the Report states that the Vehicle has a title history with no Branded Titles showing, but a Branded Title actually exists.”

Clearly the vehicle I purchased had a branded title, and the carfax report I ran did not show that it had a branded title. I have provided all this documentation to carfax, and carfax does not want to honor their guarantee. Additionally, CARFAX recommends a pre-purchase vehicle inspection by a professional to check for prior repairs and hidden damage – which I performed.

Carfax stated that my claim was denied for 3 reasons.

“ (a) the branded title was not issued before 60 days prior to your purchase, (b) the advertisement for the vehicle clearly indicating this vehicle was a salvage with a branded title, and (c) the Georgia DMV confirmed that you signed the salvage certificate prior to purchasing the vehicle.”

My response to their 3 reasons:

(a) the branded title WAS issued before 60 days prior to my purchase. I purchased the vehicle in April of 2013, and the salvage certificate was issued in November of 2012. The [redacted] – (the new York salvage cert certificate) was issued on the car was salvaged on 11/30/2012. (certificate [redacted] T which I sent to carfax in my documentation) The car was purchased in April 2013.

(b) the advertisement did not clearly indicate this vehicle was a salvage with a branded title. I also had numerous conversations with the seller and he indicated that the vehicle was not flooded or salvaged. Secondly, I had the car professionally checked. My inspection came back with no issue – specifically I had the car checked for flooding and the inspection (from the Honda dealership in the sellers state) stated no indication of flooding. I have this documentation as well. I did my best to have the vehicle checked out professionally – and I purchased the car based on the carfax buyback guarantee.

(c) The Georgia DMV could not have confirmed that I signed the salvage certificate prior to purchasing the vehicle. I purchased the vehicle on [redacted] on 4/16/2013, and I did not sign a document or certificate until I was asked to do so at the Georgia DMV at time of registration. I purchased the vehicle on 04/16/13 – the vehicle was shipped to me and I didn’t receive the title until 04/24/2013. I have sent this documentation to carfax as well.Desired Settlement: I am seeking 30,000 to cover the purchase, registration and repairs I have had to perform on a salvaged vehicle - which carfax did not report as salvaged.

Business

Response:

Dear [redacted]:

We appreciate the

opportunity to offer the following response to the subject complaint.

CARFAX always honors its

Buyback Guarantee, pursuant to its terms and conditions, but this case does not

qualify. While the vehicle may have been

acquired in November of 2012, the salvage was not issued by NY until April, the

ad for the vehicle listed the title status as Salvaged, and if the vehicle

arrived with a salvage certificate but was not indicated in the advertisement, it

could have been returned at that point prior to taking the salvage certificate

to the DMV to apply for ownership.

The claim is denied under

terms 1, 5, and 6. For more information,

please consult the terms and conditions of the CARFAX Buyback Guarantee located

here: http://www.carfax.com/manifest/bbg/termsConditions.cfx.

Respectfully,

Manager, Product Support and Data Escalations

CARFAX, Inc.

Consumer

Response:

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because I have adhered to terms 1, 5 & 6.

Carfax is not honoring their buyback guarantee. I purchased

the car with the assurance that if there was a problem with the car title, that

carfax would buy the car back. Since I was purchasing this vehicle off of [redacted],

I specifically decided to purchase this vehicle – based on the carfax

guarantee. Carfax has given me the run around in hopes of delaying and

hindering my claim. I have tried tirelessly to work with carfax and I am

requesting a phone call with you, me and carfax to fully understand why they

are denying my claim. Simply stating “terms 1, 5 &6” is inadequate

See below response to Carfax that the claim is denied under

terms 1, 5 & 6

Carfax Term 1: The Claimant

must have registered for the Buyback Guarantee within ninety (90) days of

purchasing the Vehicle. Registration may be made online at www.carfax.com.

Registrations can also be made by mail by sending name, address, telephone

number, email address, the VIN of the guaranteed Vehicle and the purchase price

to: Consumer Affairs Department, CARFAX Buyback Guarantee, 5860 Trinity

Parkway, Suite 600, Centreville, VA 20120, USA.

Response: I did this. I purchased the car in April 2013 – the Carfax claim was made

60 days later in June 2013. The vehicle was issued a salvage title by new york on 11/13/2012 (certificate e[redacted] t timestamp) - I purchased the carfax report 134 days later. I registered for the buyback guarantee within 90 days of purchasing the carfax report.

Carfax Term 5: The Claimant must provide a copy of the front and back

of the Branded Title, or an acceptable alternative, certified by the issuing

state/province authority. This document must have been issued at least 60 days

prior to the date the Report was run.

Response: I did this. I provided a copy of the branded title to carfax when I

issued my claim. I also have it and will provide it again if it is required. Certificate

issued from New York on 11/30/2012. (Certificate E[redacted] T in my documentation)

I included it in my claim to carfax on 6/21/13

Carfax Term 6: If, prior to purchasing the Vehicle, the Claimant

knew, or should have known, of the existence of a Branded Title for the

Vehicle, CARFAX reserves the right to reject the Claim.

Response: This is completely false and I do not understand how I could have

known. The seller indicated the vehicle had never been damaged or flooded. The carfax website states "CARFAX recommends having a pre-purchase inspection conducted by a professional before buying any used car" and I

had the car inspected by a local Honda dealership in Philadelphia and the car

checked out and indicated no flooding or damage. Secondly, the listing listed

the car as “Brand new”. A salvaged vehicle could not be Brand new. Last, I have

provided documentation of the inspection and will provide it again if it is

required.

Carfax has made some additional statements that simply are not accurate. Carfax states “While the vehicle may have been acquired in November of

2012, the salvage was not issued by NY until April”. The vehicle was salvaged in November 2012 - see certificate e[redacted] Not in april as Carfax is claiming. I have tried to detail out

for Carfax multiple times the timeline for this vehicle – They either is

choosing to ignore my material or they are having a problem comprehending.

1. The vehicle was salvaged in New York on

11/30/2012 – (a salvage company purchased the car from the dealership best I

can tell) See salvage certificate issued from New York on 11/30/2012.

(certificate [redacted] T in my documentation)

2. I purchased the carfax report on April 12 2013.

(134 days after the salvage certificate was issued by New York).

3. The carfax report showed a clean title (which

was wrong) and I am asking carfax to honor the buyback guarantee. Carfax sells

their product based on “knowing the history” of a car. In this case, their

information was wrong. That is unfortunate for both me and carfax, but it is a

carfax issue and need to compensate me as their consumer. I am not an expert on titles, that is why I

rely on carfax – isn’t that how they attract customers?

4. I did my due diligence as suggested by carfax, I

had the car inspected prior to purchasing the car. I had the seller take the

car to the local Honda dealership, and they inspected the car in [redacted] Pa. (Where the car was located and where I purchased the vehicle.) Specifically

I had the dealership look for flood damage and the inspection came back without

any issues (I have documentation that I have already provided to carfax and

will provide more if needed

5 The advertisement listed the car as BRAND NEW

2012 HONDA ODYSSEY EXL. I also talked with the owner and he described to me how

he received the car – and that the car was not flooded or damaged. He described

the car as brand new.

6. The car was purchased from [redacted] 4/16/2013

7. Payment was made to the seller on 4/18/13 and he

shipped the car

8. I received the car a few days after he shipped the car approximately 4/21/2013

9 I received the title approximately 4/27/2013 (the title did not come with the car)

10 I had paid for a car and received a branded

title. The only thing I could do was go through the process of getting a title

for the car. I had the car in my possession for some time before I received the actual title. I had

asked the seller if he would take the car back and he wouldn't. The seller stopped

talking with me and stopped taking my calls since he already had been paid. I asked [redacted] if they would step

in, but they wouldn't since the payment was made via a wire transfer instead of paypal. After multiple

attempts to find a solution, I started working with the Georgia Department of

Motor Vehicles and went through their process of having the title re-branded (post

4/27/13) and filed the carfax buyback claim in June 2013.

Secondly, Carfax said “the ad for the vehicle listed the

title status as Salvaged” The ad clearly listed the car as a BRAND NEW 2012 HONDA

ODYSSEY EXL. If the car was salvaged – why would it list the car as BRAND NEW?

Last, Carfax is making a statement on “what I should

have done” when they say “and if the vehicle arrived with a salvage

certificate but was not indicated in the advertisement, it could have been

returned at that point prior to taking the salvage certificate to the DMV to

apply for ownership.” As I previously mentioned, the owner would not take

the car back. I had no other options. This is a distraction to

the fact that the Carfax information was wrong. I would appreciate Carfax making suggestions to Carfax on how they should honor their buyback guarantee - instead of making suggestions (in which they are uninformed) on how I should have returned the car. Carfax's “suggestion” to return the vehicle was not an option as the person in Philadelphia was not willing to work with me once he

had been paid in full.

Stating “terms 1, 5 & 6” at this point is a stall tactic

in hopes of hampering my pursuit of a fair settlement. Carfax has been

unwilling to work with me at all. I am requesting a personal conversation with me,

you and carfax. The responses from carfax are vague only hamper resolution - I

have indicated multiple times that I have adhered to all of their terms but

they continue to reject my claim.

Regards,

Business

Response:

Dear [redacted]:

We appreciate the

opportunity to offer the following response to the subject complaint.

To avoid any further confusion, I will restate the specific

reasons for the denial of this claim.

Condition 5: The Claimant must provide a copy of the front

and back of the Branded Title, or an acceptable alternative, certified by the

issuing state/province authority. This document must have been issued at least

60 days prior to the date the Report was run.

The Salvage Certificate

provided by the customer is not a DMV-issued Salvage branded Title and is not

covered under the CARFAX Buyback Guarantee.

The Salvage Certificate is a hand-written document provided by an

insurance company or other salvage vehicle seller. The CARFAX Buyback Guarantee defines a

branded title as

“a passenger motor

vehicle ownership or registration document issued by any of the 50 states of

the U.S. (or the District of Columbia).”

Salvage Certificates are not Branded Titles, are not issued by any

state, and are thus not covered by CARFAX.

New York State did not issue a Salvage Branded Title until April 23,

2013, which is after the customer purchased the vehicle.

Condition 6: If, prior to

purchasing the Vehicle, the Claimant knew, or should have known, of the

existence of a Branded Title for the Vehicle, CARFAX reserves the right to

reject the Claim.

The advertisement for the

vehicle on [redacted] listed the title status of the vehicle as salvaged. Whatever other representations the seller

made about the vehicle are irrelevant because they did disclose the salvage

status of the vehicle. The customer

knew, or should have known, the title status of the vehicle because it was

disclosed to them prior to sale as having a Salvage Branded Title.

Respectfully,

Manager, Product Support and Data Escalations

CARFAX, Inc.

Review: CARFAX sells a service based on a vehicles history attributed to its VIN or PLATE Number. I ordered this service from CARFAX on 10/1/2013, I order the service called UNLIMITED CARFAX REPORTS FOR 54.99. Today, I went to search and was prompted with a notice that I reached my limit (of only 5 searches). I have attempted to contact this company and they do not respond.

I asked for a refund, and I have no response.Desired Settlement: I would like to be reimbursed for the charges that I paid

CARFAX should be advised to stop advertising to promote unlimited access, when in fact, they only give access to 5 searches.

Business

Response:

Dear **. [redacted]:

We appreciate the

opportunity to offer the following response to the subject complaint.

CARFAX sent the consumer the following email on October 24,

2013:

The unlimited account allows you to run an unlimited number

of private party license plates and 5 free VINs within a 30 day time period. I

see you have run all available VINs. Since you were unaware of the limitations,

I am adding 5 more VIN searches as a onetime courtesy. Good luck in your

search!

Respectfully,

Manager, Product Support and Data Escalations

CARFAX, Inc.

Review: The Carfax website offers three different approaches to using their service. You can purchase the ability to review one Carfax report, five Carfax reports or 'Unlimited' reports. I feel the 'Unlimited' plan is uses Unfair and Deceptive practices in presenting itself. You have to open a second web-page and read through the fine print to find out that the 'Unlimited' plan isn't unlimited at all. In fact it is significantly limited - by time. The plan expires 30 days after purchase.

Since CarFax takes such care to express the quantity of the other two plans (1 report and 5 reports) it should present equally carefully and equally notably the limits of the 'Unlimited' plan.

If I cannot receive resolution through the Revdex.com I plan to take this to my State Attorney General.Desired Settlement: I seek what I believe is a reasonable resolution. One year of 'Unlimited' CarFax reports through the web-site. Clearly CarFax feels that people must believe they are purchasing a greater quantity than 30 days worth of service or they would have been willing to adequately disclose the full material terms in the promotional web-site versus the terms and conditions.

Business

Response:

Dear **. [redacted]:

We appreciate the

opportunity to offer the following response to the subject complaint.

CARFAX does not offer a plan that allows unlimited access

for one year. The CARFAX Unlimited plan

allows consumers to run an unlimited number of CARFAX Reports by U.S. license

plate for 30 days. It also includes five

CARFAX Reports by VIN for free. The 30

day timeframe is specified in the Customer Agreement on the order page, to

which the customer agreed when placing the order; it was also included in the

receipt email, and the expiration date is displayed in the CARFAX account each

time it is accessed.

As a courtesy, the customer can contact our customer support

team through our Help Center to request a one-time 30 day extension to his

Unlimited account to continue running an unlimited number of CARFAX Reports by

U.S. license plate for 30 more days, or any remaining CARFAX Reports by VIN he

may have. www.carfax.com/help

I apologize for any misunderstanding about the plans CARFAX

offers.

Respectfully,

Manager, Product Support and Data Escalations

CARFAX, Inc.

Review: According to Carfax provided by [redacted] of [redacted] etc.. when I purchased a 2003 Mustang gt ; Vin # [redacted], the last reported odometer reading was 58,097 mileage,thus giving this vehicle a carfax history impact of +340 (above retail value)), stating" this vehicle is worth more than average, based on information in this report". At the time of this report, two owners were reported to have owned this ar. On 05/26/2008, [redacted] Chevrolet of Nevada [redacted] Nv. ###-###-####,,purshased this car, and no mileage was reported, in same Year of 05/26/2008 . II consulted with [redacted] and the informed me that they show, on their hard copy, all entries were reported for that time in questioned as was the first by desert mini.The most recent reported mileage reported was on 05/04/2007 of 2,429 by the then previous owner#1.On or around , Feb. 2013, another Carfax report was provided by [redacted] Ford [redacted]. [redacted] NV.89107 . Unlike what carfax reported the previous report, mentioned here, and received by me in Jan. 2012, this report reflects no last reported odometer reading as the first one reported by [redacted] which had cited 58,097 mileage .Additionally, this report reports "$20.00 below retail book value. unlike the previous 1 year earlier Carfax report of #340.00 Above retail book value. Going further, ,in the detailed history, dated 05/26/2008, this reports an entry of "none" at all for reported entry mileage,yet the 2008 entry has reported 60,705 for its' reported entry.with the comment "mileage inconsistency" was entered by Carfax report I received in Jan. 2012. With the history report provided by [redacted] Ford as of Feb. 2013. the 05/2602008 mileage has a direct affect on this cars Carfax price adj. of negative $20.00 below retail book value when just 1 year ago,the first Carfax history impact reported +340 above retail value. The Carfax reports are in conflict thus I was not afforded a non-bias informational report at the time I purchased this car.Desired Settlement: As is stated by Carfax themselves on page 2 of their reports, "title problems not reported by carfax will guarantee them to buy back the car". I request that since then have incorrevtly "Ommited" the ststed information here in this complaint, that they also refund entire amount of the car purchase by me too due to my not having correct information on the report.

Business

Response:

Dear **. [redacted]:

We appreciate the

opportunity to offer the following response to the subject complaint.

I do not see anything wrong with the CARFAX Report, nor do I

understand the complaint. Odometer

readings are not considered as part of the CARFAX Price Adjustment because the

odometer reading is part of the vehicle’s retail book value. The mileage inconsistency was removed in

April of 2013 because the source of the record contacted CARFAX and stated that

it was reported in error.

Respectfully,

Manager, Product Support and Data Escalations

CARFAX, Inc.

Consumer

Response:

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because:

Hello, First, thanks for the assistance. This will be considered a disagreement to the response from carfax. They themselves have stated not until April 2013, did the information take proper citation. That is correct, and around same time , I spoke with [redacted] Chevrolet about the missing mileage , and was told they did in fact report it to carfax. This finding was on their hard card. They can attest to the accuracy of this information to any party in this complaint. Therefor, I was not afforded the opportunity to make an informed decision due to the lack of information by carfax.

According to the [redacted] ford carfax,of which was made in 2013,th entry dated 05/26/2008, comments column reflects the following:"Vehicle sold, mileage inconsistency. On the other carfax report, [redacted] of [redacted] of which I was relying on at the time of my purchase, the same entry reflects no mileage inconsistency. The only entry made is "Vehicle sold". Also, carfax price calculator for the value of this car is based on the information in its' carfax reports(,quoted ). The [redacted] of [redacted] report reflects +$340.00 abovetail value book value.Yet, the [redacted] Ford report reflects _$20.00 below retail book value (Quoted).Now, by simple logic,, the +$340.00above retail book value takes hold ,true,because of no reports of any mileage inconsistency had been enteredin the comments column. Yet, the carfax report of 2013,[redacted] Ford,with the -$20.00 below book value (Quote) does have the mileage inconsistenvy enteredof which gave the 2003 Mustang GT a negative value only due to that comment. A cars value for retail sales are based on the odometer reading , thus estimating this cars retail value of $5000.00 according to the [redacted] Ford appraisal team at 2013 carfax date.In contrast, the +$340.00 on first carfax, [redacted] Mini, was entered because same information, mileage inconsistency, wasn"t entered . Had it been entered, and now its' known it should have been by carfax, as findley Chevrolet has stated and will state same to any party in this complaint, the value would have been lower for the retail value at that time. But, that did't occur thus [redacted] and I, were misinformed of a mileage inconsistency, and led to believe the value it was sold at $12,000. Thus, respondant didn't reveal correct information at time of my purchase and should have since they were given a mileage on that date of 60, which again would have reflected the true retail value, and not $12,000.00.

Thank You, [redacted]

Business

Response:

**. [redacted], In response to complaint [redacted], I am still not certain what exactly **. [redacted] is asking for. However, it is true that an incorrect odometer reading was reported to CARFAX, which was corrected when the source notified CARFAX of the error. It is also true that a mileage inconsistency can affect the value of a vehicle, but so can hundreds of other factors, including accidents and multiple vehicle owners. Today, which no mileage inconsistency reported to CARFAX, the CARFAX Price Adjustment is still a negative value. Respectfully, [redacted]Manager, Product Support and Data EscalationsCARFAX, Inc.

Review: It was not clear that the UNLIMITED CAR FAX REPORTS they advertise are ONLY FOR using a licsence plate to request report. On TV it only says VIN and when we used this many years ago there was not this difference.

We would not have ordered this service if it was clear that the service had changed and was advertised clearer on TV.Desired Settlement: Refund, cancellation of subscription that was started less then 12 hours ago today.

Business

Response:

The customer emailed CARFAX customer support on 8/23/2014 and received a full refund. In the product selection box on the CARFAX order page, it states clearly that the Unlimited plan is unlimited using the U.S. license plate. This is also stated in the customer agreement on the order page. CARFAX does not advertise an unlimited plan by VIN and has not offered such a plan if over five years.

Review: I purchased the Unlimited CARFAX Reports for $54.99. I was under the impression that this would give me unlimited carfax reports using the VIN number of the car. This is how it has always been in the past. It doesn't anymore. You can only run five reports using the VIN and after that you must search via the license plate number. Using the license plate is a huge inconvenience since a lot of sellers will cover their license plate in their ads. So, if I want to run a report on their car , I'm forced to call or email them, which delays the car buying process immensely.

I see carfax has a "Money Back Guarantee if Not 100% Satisfied - No Risk!'' when I click on 'order reports' and then scroll all the way to the bottom of the page and look to the left of the screen. There isn't any fine print or an asterisk after the aforementioned statement. Be that as it is, I am formally requesting a refund. Carfax is refusing to honor their "Money Back Guarantee if Not 100% Satisfied - No Risk!'' statement, which is listed on their site. The money back guarantee contradicts the terms and conditions, which state that only 2 reports can be researched in order to qualify for the refund, but 3 or more is too many. Are you kidding me? How can carfax expect its consumers to be unsatisfied, unless they first try out the service? If a refund is not given, the next step will be to file a complaint with the FTC.

Thank you,

[redacted] and [redacted]

Business

Response:

The customer purchased the license plate only plan. The order page lists the plan as "Unlimited CARFAX Reports / only $54.99 / Unlimited Reports by U.S. License Plate" and also states this on the order page under the Customer Agreement, to which the customer read and accepted before placing their order. If the customer does not have a need to run CARFAX Reports by license plate, then perhaps the 5 Pack would be the better plan for them. As a gesture of goodwill, the customer was given an additional five CARFAX Reports to run by VIN.

Review: I relied on a car fax report on Vehicle VIN # [redacted], that the car fax report on this vehicle reflects odometer reporting requirements in accordance with the Federal odometer Motor Vehicle cost information act; 32704After researching your history report with the [redacted] state DMV, I discovered [redacted] State is a buyer beware state not requiring odometer readings on title/ownership changes if the vehicle is over 10 years old. Based on Car Fax records showing 21,108 miles at the latest title transfer on 10/10/2012, I purchased this vehicle not knowing that the odometer could have been rolled back between and 01/21/2008 and 10/10/2012 in violation of the Federal law, yet the car fax report failed to show a disclaimer not to rely on the car fax report since [redacted] state is a buyer beware State. Car Fax does not show this disclaimer on your customer reports, which negates an implied promise of authenticity in the accuracy and value of your service.I have the report and it clearly shows under" Not actual mileage" car fax "Guaranteed NO PROBLEM as well as under odometer check "no indication of an odometer rollback" as well as the check for no issues indicated. These car fax claims are at best misleading, if not fraudulent.Car fax general disclaimers are designed to avoid an implied promise of a guarantee to your customers. In fact the Car Fax wording on their reports show the preceding caption not actual mileage followed by Guaranteed (in red) NO ProblemMoreover this wording along with the reports Guarantee of a vehicle buy back are clearly an implication of a contractual commitment made by Car Fax in return for the purchase price of the report. This is in direct conflict with their general disclaimer, which states essentially car fax bears, no responsibility for any promise, guarantee stated or otherwise implied as to the accuracy of their report.It is deceptive to make such a guarantee statement and leaves the target consumer to believe your services provide protection against odometer rollback, when it cannot.I believe the Car Fax reporting system is designed through false and misleading statements to sell the customer a pseudo contract when in fact such a promise is impossible to keep, in view of the varying states implementation of the federal odometer roll back regulations.As a reasonably diligent consumer of the Car Fax product, I believe I exercised due diligence in the purchase of this vehicle, but was put at risk for exposure to potential odometer rollback directly attributable to the Car Fax false, misleading and potentially fraudulent wording in their implied GUARANTEED contractual agreement. The actual Car Fax report I used on which to base my purchase is available for review, however my claim of fraudulent advertising and a false guarantee of authenticity relates to the generic context of their report product, and is not vehicle specific.Desired Settlement: Valadation of vehicle mileage through professional inspection to validate the Car fax implied guarantee of accuracy

Business

Response:

Dear [redacted]:

Review: Carfax reported that the car we own is a total loss, but its the wrong car they reported. I have fole two forms to rectify the issue. It has been two weeks and I have not heard anything from them. We would like to trade our car but no dsaler want ro buyit it because of the wrong reporting is showing. I cant mobe forward.Desired Settlement: Complete the job. Fix report.

Business

Response:

On December 9, 2014, CARFAX sent the following email to the customer:

Review: I purchased a carfax report bundle that included 5 carfax's for $49.99. After a month I only used two and then the carfax expired. On 3/22/2014 I found an automobile and purchased the 5 carfax bundle again for $49.99. I ran the carfax. The carfax displayed one owner. The owner of the car stated that he was the 2nd owner. I went on carfax and tried to get a refund and was prompted with this message : "This account does not currently qualify for the money back guarantee. The account has been used to run three (3) or more CARFAX reports using your CARFAX Account."

I feel that this is an unfair and unclear refund policy. The first two reports should be associated with the first $49.99 purchase. The 2nd purchase should be associated with 2nd report bundle that I purchased for $49.99.Desired Settlement: I would like my 2nd carfax bundle purchase refunded the full $49.99 due to the false car fax.

Business

Response:

Please contact our customer support team directly with your refund request through our Help Center. http://support.carfax.com/c_contactus

Consumer

Response:

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response. If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.

Regards,

Review: When selling my vehicle, I was informed that this company showed a record that my vehicle was disabled in an accident with another vehicle. No driver in my family recalls any accidents with the vehicle, my insurance company has no record of claims for this vehicle, the Arizona department of motor vehicles has no record, and Carfax has no phone number listed for communication. I found a link for online request for information on how to correct erroneous information shown on their reports and how to submit information and forms, but one cannot submit a form for something that did not take place.

I have yet to hear back, other than an automated email acknowledging my request for the source of the information, with a record number [redacted]. Still there is no way to contact Carfax by phone to correct their claim that has damaged the value of my car due to their record report.Desired Settlement: The value of this vehicle was lowered by the dealer considering a trade in by over $500. Carfax should make me whole for the loss.

Business

Response:

On December 9, 2014, the customer was sent the following email:

Review: Carfax is using deceptive website advertising to trick consumers into buying their product thinking they are getting unlimited searches for automobile information. They run commercials advertising how their product can be used so the consumer does not get ripped off by a used car dealer, which is ironic. The majority of Carfax commercials ran on TV are about a consumer using their product to not get ripped off by a used car dealer. It is well known that car at dealers do not have license plates so the logical way to search for the information is via a vin number search. Most all competitors to Carfax online state "vin number" search. Carfaxes advertisement on their web page states unlimited Carfax Reports then in smaller print it states unlimited reports of US License Plates for 30 Days for $54.99. Carfax has two other options which are 1 report for $39.99 and 5 reports for $49.99. The single report and the 5 reports are for vin number searches. Neither the 39.99 ot 49.99 options says vin number reports but that is what they are. The 54.99 package does not say the consumer only gets 5 vin reports. If one package states 5 reports and they are vin reports and the next package has a headline of unlimited reports it is easy to see that Carfax is trying to trick consumers into thinking that for more money they are buying unlimited vin reports. This is deceptive advertising by a company that says they are helping consumer not get hoodwinked by a used car dealers. I will also be forwarding my complaint to the NC Attorney General's Office for review. When I complained to Carfax they immediately reset by Vin number allowable searches back to 5 which suggest to me that is a low level customer service does this immediately it means he was instructed to do so by management, which means that many other people who purchased the unlimited report searches have been hoodwinked by their deceptive advertising.Desired Settlement: I want unlimited Carfax vin number search reports for 30 days.

Business

Response:

The customer is mistaken. The 1 Report and 5 Report plans are not "VIN number"plans. Rather, those CARFAX Reports plans are by VIN or license plate. The Unlimited plan, as it clearly states on the order page, is by license plate only. This is also outlined in the customer agreement on the order page.

Review: CarFax has erroneously reported an accident claim against my car.

First, my car has never been in an accident.

Second, the report is vague in that it does not disclose the exact date of the accident (June 2011 - July 2012), nor does it report any other details about the accident.

I attempted to contact CarFax to resolve the problem. I was transferred three times to an automated system despite my request to speak with a live person.

When I attempted to escalate the difficulties I was having to management, I was stalled, deferred, and hung up on three times.Desired Settlement: An incorrect report costs the car owner money, prevents them from selling their car when they want, and costs the owner time and money to resolve the issue. While I accept that mistakes can be made, I should not be penalized because I don't know what they are reporting.

CarFax needs to change their policies / procedures and be accountable for the information they report. Specifically, if they report a negative event about a car, they need to notify the registered owner this has occurred.

Additionally, they need to make live people available to respond to issues. It is unacceptable that they hide behind "email only" correspondence and "chat" sessions with employees who have no useful information.

Business

Response:

Dear [redacted]:

We appreciate the

opportunity to offer the following response to the subject complaint.

On May 28, 2013, CARFAX

sent the following response via email to [redacted]:

Good Morning [redacted],

Thank you for filling out the online correction form.

I have initiated your research request under case # [redacted]. I will be in

contact with you as soon as an update is available. I look forward to speaking

with you. Have a wonderful day!

Resolution Manager

Respectfully,

Manager, Product Support and Data Escalations

CARFAX, Inc.

Consumer

Response:

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because:

My desired outcome as stated in my complaint to the Revdex.com was:

Review: I am trying to buy a vehicle and therefore signed up to run the unlimited carfax reports. It is not until later (in the fine print) that they tell you that only 5 reports can be run by vin number. The unlimited is for license plates. The problem here (and I am sure they know this) is that if I am looking to buy a vehicle from a Dealer, then the vehicle does not have a license plate. The only way I found out is when I went to check the 6th vin and it told me I reached my 5 vin number limit. I would have never paid the $55 for unlimited had I known this. In fact I never would have signed up at all. I feel scammed out of my $55!Desired Settlement: I would like my "UNLIMITED" reports that I was misled to purchase. I would also like to save others from having to be scammed by the "Fox" Carfax with them changing the wording on their deceptive practices. If you don't want to give unlimited don't place it right next to the listing that gives 5 reports for $49.99. Very shady!!!

Business

Response:

As it states on the order page in the product selection box, the Unlimited plan is unlimited by U.S. license plate only. This is also listed in the Customer Agreement on the order page.

Consumer

Response:

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because:

Where it says that you must run license plates to get the unlimited is extremely small. It is deceptive advertising. I would not have even purchased anything from carfax, I would have gotten the truly unlimited service from AutoCheck for 49.99. The only reason I spent the extra money was because I believed I was getting unlimited Carfax reports. I am not scamming or trying to get something for nothing. I am a consumer who feels taken advantage of!

Review: I am trying to correct an an error in the Carfax report for my car, but customer service claims to have lost my information , even after receiving a case number. I tried to input my information again using their on-line form as instructed by customer service after they told me they lost my first request, but I get the error "Create - Connector configuration error. Case.ContactId is set to reference a parent object that could not be found." so it seems like there is no way to for me to contact support. I just want to fix the report error so I can sell my my car at its correct value.Desired Settlement: I want Carfax to correct the report error.

Business

Response:

Dear [redacted]:

We appreciate the

opportunity to offer the following response to the subject complaint.

Unfortunately, the

customer filled out an online form of some type that created an email in our system,

but cannot be used for CARFAX to initiate research. That form is not linked anywhere from CARFAX’s

website or Help Center – they must have found it using a search engine such as

[redacted].

In order for CARFAX to

research the dispute, the below form must be filled out. I have provided a direct link for their convenience.

http://support.carfax.com/c_datarequest

Respectfully,

Manager, Product Support and Data Escalations

CARFAX, Inc.

Consumer

Response:

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because:

the provided website does not work due to a database error. I cannot submit any request. this was included in the previous complaint.

carfax must correct the internal system error so that the request can be filed from the providedwebsite.

error message:

Please review the error(s) below.

Create - Connector configuration error. Case.ContactId is set to reference a parent object that could not be found.

Regards,

Business

Response:

Dear [redacted]:

We appreciate the

opportunity to offer the following response to the subject complaint.

I apologize for the

trouble filling out the form online. We

have identified an issue with the website and are working to correct it. In the meantime, I have verified that the

vehicle was indeed listed as a total loss by an insurance company and reported

to CARFAX, as well as other sources, and therefore it will remain on the CARFAX

Report.

Respectfully,

Manager, Product Support and Data Escalations

CARFAX, Inc.

Consumer

Response:

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because:

Both of the insurance companies involved in the accident associated to the total loss in the carfax report confirmed that they did not report a total loss of the vehicle.

Carfax must verify information is correct by contacting "an insurance company" they mentioned in their response.

Regards,

Business

Response:

Dear [redacted]:

We appreciate the

opportunity to offer the following response to the subject complaint.

The total loss has been

verified. If the customer can backup

their statements that the total loss was reported in error, they must provide a

letter from the insurance company stating this.

They can submit this

online, which should be working now, at: http://support.carfax.com/c_datarequest,

or they can download, fill out, and fax/mail back this paper version of the

form, [redacted].

With the letter of correction from the insurance company, we will not be

able to remove the total loss.

Respectfully,

Manager, Product Support and Data Escalations

CARFAX, Inc.

Consumer

Response:

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because:

The insurance companies are confirming it's the carfax error (I have already filed a request for corrections).

I have spent so much time and effort on this issue starting from identifying their malfunctioning on-line correction request form (which they kept telling me to use many times without checking its function) and their malfunctioning system that did not accept my request form that made me file the request many times. On the top of it, I could not sell my car due to this error.

I am not accepting the response until this whole issue is resolved and the mistake is corrected.

Regards,

Business

Response:

Dear [redacted]

We appreciate the

opportunity to offer the following response to the subject complaint.

CARFAX resolve this

matter with the customer on May 22, 2013.

Respectfully,

Manager, Product Support and Data Escalations

CARFAX, Inc.

Review: I purchased Carfax which provides the history of a vehicle. The vehicle is mine and I provided the VIN, but the history I received indicated my car had been totaled by the insurance company om 02/14/2011. My

car had the driver side mirror repaired on said date. I paid for the repair myself. The insurance company did not pay for the repair of the mirror and the car was not declared "totaled". I sent an email to carfax and

they indicated I would recive a response in one day. That was 3 days ago and I have not heard from them.

I am unable to trade in my car for a new car because the dealers indicate my car has little value

because of the error on the Carfax report, indicating my car was totaled. Carfax has failed to respond to

attemts to contact them.Desired Settlement: Correct the Carfax reprt to show my vehicle has not been declared totaled, and provide and explanation

how they could have reported this error.

Business

Response:

Dear [redacted]:

We appreciate the

opportunity to offer the following response to the subject complaint.

On April 17, 2013, CARFAX

emailed the following response:

Hi **,

Thank you for providing the insurance letter.

I have removed the Total Loss record from the CARFAX Report and I have

sent you a separate email that contains a link to the updated CARFAX Report,

the link will be active for 14 days.

Thank You,

Respectfully,

Manager, Product Support and Data Escalations

CARFAX, Inc.

Review: 2007 my husband and I purchased 2007 Toyota Camry LE. During the closing of the sale we were presented with a clean Carfax report that showed no accidents. A short time later we began having problems with the vehicle ( water leaks inside the car - mold & mildew). Most recently my husband purchased AutoCheck and to my surprise our car was in a rear end collision in 2006 which was not reported on CarFax but was reported on [redacted]. I called the dealership headquarters and was told that they called CarFax and they just added this accident to my CarFax report on 2-14-2013. Due to this I am losing resale value because of this delay in reporting and this also explains why we were having severe water leakes in our car. During the repairs of the car we were old that 6 or 7 plugs were missing and sealants were also missing and all of the issues were in the rear of the car. Had we known that this car was in a rear end collision we would have never purchased this car.Desired Settlement: I would like for CarFax to either purchase a 5 yr Warranty for our vehicle or pay off this loan. Due to their faulty reporting this has caused a lot of hassles, headaches, running back and forth to dealership for repairs. When all of this could have been reported in a timely fashion. The accident occured 11-28-2006 and was just reported on 2-14-2013. It took almost 7 years to report this accident.

Business

Response:

Dear [redacted]:

Review: My secretary used my business information to get a quote from Carfax and after a couple days we started receiving phone calls from them, but we though it was for the quote we had requested. She used the service the one time when she thought she was getting a free quote and in June we accidentally pulled one unintentionally. Soon after we received an invoice and that is when we learned that she had not signed up for a quote rather the screens she went through were an agreement of a 12 month contract. My secretary has called and explained the situation, but they refuse to do anything about it. They are getting ready to send me to collection for non-payment. My secretary did not agree to a contract and I did not authorize the agreement of a contract nor did I ever sign anything to make this contract binding.Desired Settlement: I will pay for the two Carfax Reports that I pulled for May and June but I will not pay for the 12 month contract that I never authorized or signed and never wanted.

Business

Response:

The customer in their complaint states that they were unaware they were completing a 12-month contract, that the secretary did not have the authority to authorize the contract, and since only two CARFAX Reports were run, are requesting cancellation of the CARFAX account and a refund of all but two CARFAX Reports. Per CARFAX records, the customer was well informed that they were completing a 12-month contract, and were reminded of this on numerous occasions, and, therefore, the contract is valid, cannot be canceled until 2015, and is not entitled to a refund. The details of this are listed below. However, as a gesture of goodwill, CARFAX is willing to cancel the contract effective June 30, 2014 if the customer pays the past due balance of $546.25. This is all we can offer. If the customer is willing to accept this off, they can contact [redacted] at ###-###-####. CARFAX cannot offer anything further due to the timeline of events outlined below indicating that the customer did engage in a legally-binding contract and was made well aware of the terms of the contract on numerous occasions.

Review: Carfax refuses to correct an incorrect auto history report. Evidence has been submitted by law enforcement yet they will not reply to requests to correct the problem.Desired Settlement: Please correct carfax record and forward corrected copy via email address provided.

Business

Response:

A police department

reported an accident to CARFAX for the customer’s vehicle. The police report was later corrected by the

police department, and, on November 26, 2013, CARFAX removed the accident from

the CARFAX Vehicle History Report.

Consumer

Response:

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response. If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.

Regards,

Review: We are the current owners of a 2002 Volkswagen New Beetle, VIN: [redacted]. The Carfax report for our vehicle has serious errors. We asked Carfax to remove these errors and also provided them with documentation to show specifically what was erroneous and needed to be fixed. All we have received from Carfax is an automated response. We are not aware of any phone number, so cannot reach them by phone. The serious errors in the Carfax report have made it impossible to sell our vehicle.

The specific things that need to be fixed in the report are listed below. The information reported for 8/29/11, 8/31/11 and 8/29/2012 is incorrect. The last lien taken out on our vehicle was in 2007, not 2011 as Carfax states. That lien was paid in full in July 2012. Carfax' current report states 3 times that our vehicle currently has liens. Our vehicle has no liens. Carfax added the 8/29/12 information to our report after our initial contact regarding this issue, and in spite of the fact that we provided them with documentation showing that our vehicle has no liens.Desired Settlement: We ask that Carfax immediately repair the errors in the Carfax report for our vehicle and provide us with proof that they have done so. Anything else is less than satisfactory.

Consumer

Response:

From: [redacted] howell <[redacted]>

Date: Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 6:28 PM

Subject: Re: Complaint ID #[redacted].

To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>

Carfax has finally resolved the issues we brought up to them. Our complaint can now be closed. Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Review: Upon trying to trade in my leased vehicle I was told by the dealership that they could not take my vehicle because the Carfax report should that I had a front end collision which is incorrect. I had an incident in a parking lot where another vehicle scrapped the side of my car, but not collision whatsoever. This report is negatively effecting my ability to trade in my vehicle and receive the amount I would normally receive without the false accident. When I try to contact Carfax, you can only contact them via email and there is no telephone to reach a customer service department.Desired Settlement: I want information corrected immediately. I need to turn in my vehicle or else it will have a negative effect on mr financially.

Business

Response:

CARFAX’s customer support team resolved this matter directly with the

customer on 2/19/2014.