Carter Subaru

Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because:Subaru of America based their rejection on information provided by Carter SubaruPer SOA, the claim was rejected based on a verbal conversation with Carter Subaru in which Carter used the term "outside influence" to describe the assumed causeIf they could not determine the cause - and could not definitively say this was not a defect, the correct conclusion is "we do not know what caused this" rather than disputing my statement, pictures and account of the incident.If all of the warranty is carried by the manufacturer, then Carter should not have been involvedThis is clearly collusion - Subaru of America asks Carter (or any dealer) to make an "investigation" and then bases their denial in part on the information that Carter providesIn this case, it was and at least partly misleading informationThis statement is more appropriate: We cannot prove that something hit the glass just as we cannot prove that something did not but still somehow allows them to draw the conclusion that this was not ta manufacturing defectThey are drawing this conclusion without evidence.The information that the dealer is not aware of a rise in such incidences is also as I forwarded links to articles to the dealer about this very problemOne from Consumer Reports, who covered this issue and one from a database collecting information on car owners who have experienced this problemmajor car manufacturers have already had class action lawsuits brought against them - more are forthcomingIf Carter isn't aware of this, I am surprised - and know that Subaru of America certainly is aware of this issue.Regardless of the duration of any warranty - when a customer's safety is compromised due to faulty manufacturing, a substandard product or a known dangerous part - it is the responsibility of the manufacturer - and in this case the dealer as agent for the manufacturer - to make it rightThe right thing to do here is for Subaru to accept and cover the cost of labor and full replacement with a renewed warranty for the life of the replaced productI'm not asking you to replace the car or some incidental vent coverThis sunroof exploded, created a hazard for me and my passengers and Subaru and Carter need to take responsibility for fixing it Sincerely, [redacted]

Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:Subaru of America based their rejection on information provided by Carter SubaruPer SOA, the claim was rejected based on a verbal conversation with Carter Subaru in which Carter used the term "outside influence" to describe the assumed causeIf they could not determine the cause - and could not definitively say this was not a defect, the correct conclusion is "we do not know what caused this" rather than disputing my statement, pictures and account of the incident.If all of the warranty is carried by the manufacturer, then Carter should not have been involvedThis is clearly collusion - Subaru of America asks Carter (or any dealer) to make an "investigation" and then bases their denial in part on the information that Carter providesIn this case, it was and at least partly misleading informationThis statement is more appropriate: We cannot prove that something hit the glass just as we cannot prove that something did not but still somehow allows them to draw the conclusion that this was not ta manufacturing defectThey are drawing this conclusion without evidence.The information that the dealer is not aware of a rise in such incidences is also as I forwarded links to articles to the dealer about this very problemOne from Consumer Reports, who covered this issue and one from a database collecting information on car owners who have experienced this problemmajor car manufacturers have already had class action lawsuits brought against them - more are forthcomingIf Carter isn't aware of this, I am surprised - and know that Subaru of America certainly is aware of this issue.Regardless of the duration of any warranty - when a customer's safety is compromised due to faulty manufacturing, a substandard product or a known dangerous part - it is the responsibility of the manufacturer - and in this case the dealer as agent for the manufacturer - to make it right. The right thing to do here is for Subaru to accept and cover the cost of labor and full replacement with a renewed warranty for the life of the replaced productI'm not asking you to replace the car or some incidental vent coverThis sunroof exploded, created a hazard for me and my passengers and Subaru and Carter need to take responsibility for fixing it
Sincerely,
*** ***

To whom it may concern, I have responded to Mr*** certified lettersThe vehicle he purchased passed the oil consumption testWe performed the test (as we did on all vehicles with said bulletin, in our loan car fleet), to make sure the car was not consuming oilIf it had failed the test,
we would have performed the proper fix, then certified the vehicleThis was not the case, howeverThis vehicle did not require a fix, because it was not consuming oilThere is no reason to refund him the purchase price, because there is not an issue with his vehicleThis was a national bulletin, not just for his carWe did not withhold any informationIf the vehicle needed the fix, that would have been disclosed
I also told Mr*** that if he found the vehicle was not performing as it should, we would perform the test again, and go through the proper channels at no cost to him
Please let me know if I can answer any additional questions

Complaint: ***We are rejecting this response because: An affected Subaru car can pass an oil consumption test if it does not use more than one quart in miles Given that a car typically goes about 5,miles between oil changes, this translates into using up to quarts of oil between oil changes - a rather excessive amount in anybody's experience Carter is using the oil consumption test as a excuse for not disclosing that the vehicle consumes oil They knew that the car used oil, but did not disclose it They knew that the car used oil, because it was in their leasing program The leasing program requires the car be brought in for periodic checkups Also, there's no reason for them to have performed the oil consumption test, if they had no reason to suspect it was using oil They did suspect it was using oil, because of the bulletin Hence, they performed the oil consumption test 7,miles prior to selling it to us Carter did not disclose that there was a bulletin about the car consuming oil when they sold it to us, either They used their Certified Pre-Owned program to entice us to buy the car The implied promises of a defect-free car were empty We would have never purchased the car had we known that either it had such a service bulletin or that it was indeed using oil Sincerely,*** *** *** ***

The customer was told that based on their residency status that we would try our captive lender (Chase) that offers the 1.49% and if that was declined we will try another lender (First Tech CU)The customer agreed to thisAfter the loan request was declined from Chase we informed the customer
that it was declined and we did not have a deal unless we get an approval from another lenderThey said they wanted to get approved so we then submitted the loan request to First Tech CUWe did receive an approval from First Tech at which point we informed the customer that the terms of the loan were not the same as with ChaseAt that time the customer elected to not accept the deal and asked us to refund their deposit via checkBill D*** (Finance Manager) told them that because the deposit was taken via credit card it must be returned via the same credit cardThe customer said that they would call us backAfter many attempts to reach the customer (they have no voicemail set up on their phone) we finally reached the customer and refunded the deposit on to the proper credit card

It is Carter Subaru's understanding that Subaru of America denied warranty coverage because the vehicle warranty is expired.  The car is nearly six years old and has over 82K miles on it.  Any and all manufacturer warranty is carried by the manufacturer, not the retailer.  Carter...

Subaru does not have the legal authority to decide what is warranty and what is not, however in this situation we did provide our professional opinion which is that the glass failure is not a result of a manufacturing defect.The term "outside influence" was used and indicates the failure was caused by something other than a defect.  We cannot prove that something hit the glass just as we cannot prove that something did not.  The glass may have had prior damage that ultimately led to the failure, there may have been an underlying torsional force, something could have ricocheted off the cargo box,  we do not know. The dealer also does not have any evidence of a "rise of such incidences" within the Subaru brand.  In a case like this where the assumption of risk falls on the driver, comprehensive insurance can ease the financial burden of repairs.

Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because:
1. I wasn't informed by them that the 1.49% might be rejected before I sign the contract. 
2. I wasn't informed by them that they were applying another loan from First Tech. 
3. It's them, who sent me the message about "either accept the high rate, either recall the deal".
4. I was only contacted once in a business day afternoon, when they finally replied my email asking about car status. In that email, they said they would refund me.
  I admit I missed this single call since I was having meeting at work.  Before this email, they didn't reply me for long, even the emails I forwarded to their manager. 
5. I wasn't contacted at all after 4.
6. My boyfriend and I called more than 10 times, after 4, about deposit refunding.
7. My boyfriend finally got connected to them after long long hold, they requested me to go to their dealership to be refunded, which means another $100 on transportation and another few hours.
8. I requested to be refunded through a check is because my credit card expire soon. It's my company's card. I told them when I was paying the deposit. 
9. I finally got contacted by them and was refunded through phone by Bill Deamer, right after my complaint on Revdex.com was started being tracked. Seems they didn't care about their customer, they only cared about Revdex.com Complaint. 
 
Considering the sayings from this business, I'm really upset and angry about their attitude and behaviors of pushing their responsibilities away. I'll do whatever I can to protect my rights and get my compensation back. 
 
Sincerely,[redacted]