CarMax , Inc.

Review: I went to the store on a Sunday afternoon and walked cars with the salesman. I then wanted to test drive a car or two so he requested my drivers license to make a copy. After 10 minutes, the manager came back to me and said the CarMax chooses who they will do business with and that they have chosen not to do business with me. When I asked why he said that it was due to a prior transaction with the company or some other information that I had provided. He then handed me a card and said that if I wanted further information that I should call the number. I called the number later that day but only left a message as it was a corporate office. They called me back Monday and I related what happened and asked to know what the information was that caused the decision. They said they would call me back. I waited the remainder of Monday and all day Tuesday but did not get a reply. I called back Wednesday and left another message. I finally received a call back then but they just told me the same thing as the store manager, that CarMax chooses who they will do business with and that they have chosen not to do business with me and that it was due to a prior transaction with the company or some other information that I had provided. I could not get any more information from them or even why it took corporate 48 hours to get an answer that the store had in 10 minutes.Desired Settlement: I would like the business to call me and let me know what the prior transaction was or other information provided was that would cause them not to want my business.

Business

Response:

July 14, 2015

720 Moorefield Park Drive, Suite 300

Richmond, Virginia 23236

Dear Mrs. [redacted]:

I am writing

you in response to your letter dated July 6, 2015, wherein you forwarded a

complaint from Mr. [redacted]. Mr. [redacted]

requested a phone call to discuss his recent experience at the CarMax store

located in Columbus, Ohio (“CarMax”).

CarMax’s records indicate that Mr. [redacted] was

contacted by CarMax on or about July 9, 2015 to address his concerns as

requested.

CarMax appreciates the opportunity to respond

to this complaint and considers this matter resolved.

Please contact me at [redacted] extension [redacted] with any

questions you may have.

Sincerely,

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the offer and/or response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

While they did call me and tell me that they made an error, they did not give me any of the details I asked about. I can understand how maybe the dealership could have made a mistake and mixed things up, but when I called the corporate office and then they took 2 days to respond, how did they get it wrong again. They did not explain this too me, or what caused the error in the first place, what they might be doing so it does not happen again, or if anyone was disciplined over the error. I cannot say that someone else will not have to go through the same experience that I went through.

Regards,

Review: I am unable to register and obtain a tag or transfer my existing valid tag to the vehicle if a title has not been issued for the vehicle, when required. I cannot legally operate the vehicle without a valid tag issued for and affixed to the vehicle. I am subject to fines and vehicle impoundment if stopped by law enforcement if they operate their vehicle without a tag; with an expired tag; or with a tag not registered to the vehicle.

I have contacted the dealership, haven’t received a straight answer about your title application’s progress, and have reason to believe that the dealer has willfully failed to apply for my title. I have been waiting 7 months.Location: [redacted]Make: [redacted]Model: [redacted]Owner/Co-Ownder? NoDesired Settlement: The selling dealer is liable for civil penalties and their failure to apply could be classified as a misdemeanor crime

Subject to fines by the State Board of Registration of Used Motor Vehicle Dealers

Loss of their state-issued license. And my title.

Business

Response:

April 6, 2016

Revdex.com

720 Moorefield Park Drive Suite 300

Richmond, VA 23236

Thank you for forwarding the complaint [redacted] received in

your office from Mr. [redacted] regarding the [redacted] (the “Vehicle”) that was purchased on or about July 26, 2015 at the CarMax

store located in Southlake, Georgia (“CarMax”).

In this complaint Mr. [redacted] is requesting information about the titling

process and for CarMax to apply for a title for him to the Vehicle.

According to our records, Mr. [redacted] purchased the Vehicle

in Georgia, and was residing in Georgia based on the address listed on his

Retail Installment Contract. Usually,

CarMax would assist Mr. [redacted] processing title and registration paperwork with

the GA DMV on his behalf. In Mr. [redacted] case, his lienholder, Exeter Financial, informed CarMax that there was a

problem with the funding of the Vehicle loan.

CarMax has been in communication with Mr. [redacted] on multiple occasions.

Mr. [redacted] would have been responsible

for registering and titling the vehicle properly with the state of Texas, if

that is where he currently resides; however, as of September 10, 2015, the

Vehicle is titled to CarMax.

As of September 8, 2015 Mr. [redacted] case had been turned

over to the CarMax Credit and Collections Recovery department. Mr. [redacted] is encouraged to contact Mary A[redacted]

at [redacted] extension [redacted] if there are any further questions.

If needed, the Revdex.com can also please review the Revdex.com response

submitted by CarMax Auto Finance in August of 2015. CarMax appreciates the opportunity to respond

to this complaint, and I am unable to respond further about this matter.

Sincerely,

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the offer and/or response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

[Provide details of why you are not satisfied with this resolution.]

Regards,

Review: I purchased a Truck from CarMax in December 2014, a 2012 GMC with less then 12000 miles on it fully loaded and paid extra to have it shipped here from an out of state location. I also trading in a car as part of the down payment. March 23, 2015 I received a phone call from the new manager of the CarMax telling me that the would have to buy the car back from me as it was sold to me under false pretense. The Car was damaged in a wreck and the repairs had been covered up, there was frame damage to the truck. None of this information was told to me when I bought the truck and the title and carfax didn't show any of this. The Manage said he wasn't sure how it got pass them but it was coming up now. I'm glad that CarMax is trying to do the right thing, however it should have never gotten pass them. They are willing to buy the truck back and return the payments, down payment and shipping cost, But I would have to find another truck (which they can't find one of equal value at this time) and I would have to try and finance another truck with no guarantee of getting the same low rate I got with this truck.

Product_Or_Service: Used vehicle

Account_Number: [redacted]Desired Settlement: DesiredSettlementID: Replacement

I would like the truck replaced with another one with low miles and fully loaded like the truck I have. I'm will to work on the color but the model must be the same and the year of the truck must be equal or newer. I want a guarantee that the monthly payment will stay the same. Since I'm unsure of the damage of the vehicle at this time and the safety of the vehicle I would also want a rental car or a temp replacement tell a new vehicle is found.I would also want

Business

Response:

April 8, 2015

Revdex.com

720 Moorefield Park Drive Suite 300

Richmond, VA 23236

Re: MR. [redacted]

Dear Mrs. [redacted],

Thank you for forwarding the complaint 10550764 received in

your office from Mr. Norman [redacted] regarding the 2012 GMC Sierra 1500, 1GTN1TEX0CZ278987

(the “Vehicle”) that was purchased on or about December 12, 2014 from the

CarMax store located in Burbank, California (“CarMax”). In this complaint, Mr. [redacted] is requesting a

replacement vehicle with equal or fewer miles, the same or newer model year and

same options at the same monthly payment.

He is also requesting a rental or loaner vehicle until the replacement

is found.

CarMax contacted Mr. [redacted] on or about March 24, 2015 to

advise of an insurance claim reported for the Vehicle through the National

Motor Vehicle Title Information System.

CarMax advised Mr. [redacted] the Vehicle did not meet CarMax standards and

should not have been sold to him. CarMax

offered to return the Vehicle in full and pay off Mr. [redacted]’s loan, and

reimburse any payments made including the original down payment. CarMax also offered to reimburse Mr. [redacted]

for any documented out of pocket expenses due to repairs since purchase. CarMax offered to place Mr. [redacted] in a loaner

vehicle for one week after processing the return while Mr. [redacted] shops for

another vehicle.

CarMax is declining the settlement request as set forth in

the complaint. CarMax will not negotiate

the price of another vehicle. Mr. [redacted]

is under no obligation to purchase another vehicle from CarMax nor is he

obligated to return the Vehicle. The

finance rate and the amount of the payments for the replacement vehicle will be

based on his current credit, and the cost of the replacement vehicle. CarMax cannot guarantee the financing terms that

might be offered to Mr. [redacted] by the finance companies.

CarMax appreciates the opportunity to respond to this

complaint.

Please call me at [redacted] extension [redacted], if you

have any questions.

Sincerely,

Analyst, Customer Relations

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the offer and/or response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

No compromise could be met at this time, CarMax has yet to provide me with a replacement vehicle of equal standards nor are they willing to work on a price of another. Their offer of a loaner for one week only doesn't seem like enough time. They are also unwilling to do any or the repairs still needed on the vehicle or try to keep me in it if possible. They are also unwilling to compensate me for anytime loss from work on this matter. They have also been unwilling to disclose how the vehicle got pass their inspection or the vehicle damage report. At this time I'm going to seek legal advice to help me understand my full rights in this matter. CarMax has violated the California's vehicle code section 9990-9993 chapter 4 knowing and seems to think it's ok if they just buy back the vehicle and leave me carless, I went out of my car to buy this vehicle paying extra to have it shipped here and traded in my other and only car if I would have know of the repairs I would have found another vehicle and never wasted my time on this one. The repairs on this vehicle where and are obvious and should have been gotten pass them. Once CarMax is willing to not only refund the payments I've made and the down payment, shipping cost of the vehicle, inspection fees/repairs, time loss from work, pay off the vehicle loan, provide a loaner car tell another vehicle is found or provide me with an equal vehicle option to buy I will not settle. total compensation seeking are payments made 1400.00, down payment 700.00, shipping cost 900.00, time loss from work 12 hours 522.00, inspection fees/repairs 275.00, loan payoff 20,825.93. Total $24,622.93

Regards,