Chuck Patterson Toyota Scion Dodge

MR [redacted] MET WITH A REPRESENTATIVE OF TOYOTA MOTOR SALES AT CHUCK PATTERSON TOYOTA IN CHICO CATO INSPECT HIS VEHICLEAFTER THE TEST DRIVE AND INSPECTION MR [redacted] WAS INFORMED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS OPERATING AS DESIGNED AND NO DEFECTS IN TOYOTA WORKMANSHIP OR MATERIALS WAS FOUNDMR [redacted] SEEMED OK WITH TOYOTA'S RESPONSE AND LEFT WITH HIS VEHICLENO FURTHUR ACTION ON EITHER TOYOTA'S PART OR CHUCK PATTERSON'S PART IS NECCESSARYCUSTOMER CONCERN RESOLVED TO THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE [redacted] SERVICE MANAGER CHUCK PATTERSON TOYOTA ###-###-####

Mr [redacted] invested in one of our most popular products, the % money back guaranteed mechanical breakdown insuranceI am very sorry that Mr [redacted] did not familiarize himself with the Terms and Conditions of his % money back guarantee service contractA completed copy of the Terms and Conditions of the contract were provided to him at time of saleIn addition to the Terms and Conditions of the contract, on the separate document the period of time during which the refund could be applied for was written down and highlighted with a fluorescent yellow highlighter! Mr [redacted] without regard to the Terms and Conditions of the contract chose to sell his vehicle prior to the expiration of the term of the contract forfeiting his right to 100% of his money backNeither the Insurance company nor Chuck Patterson Toyota is responsible for Mr***’s decision not to honor his obligations according to the contractMr [redacted] and Mr [redacted] alone is responsible for his forfeiture of refund

I reject and rebut the response of Chuck Patterson Toyota (CPT) to my Revdex.comcomplaintCPT failed to address the salient points of my complaintas follows:1) A and Misleading statement was made in CPT’s response: “...on the separate document the period of time during which therefund could be applied for was written down and highlighted with afluorescent yellow highlighter!” FALSEThe Finance Managerwrote down and highlighted my refund date on the outside of the envelopecontaining the service contract documents with their attendantrepositories of fine printShe marked with a circle the small-printprovision that limits the refund window to daysShe did NOT markor otherwise indicate, mention, or explain anything to do with thesmall-print requirement that ownership of the car be maintained for eight years.CPT’s statement to the contrary is self-serving, dishonest, andmisleading.2) Another and Misleading statement by CPT: “Neither theInsurance company nor Chuck Patterson Toyota is responsible for Mr.***’s decision not to honor his obligations according to thecontract.” This incorrectly implies that I had foreknowledge ofthe onerous small-print provision requiring ownership of the car foryears, and consciously decided to ignore itThis is a falsehoodgenerated by CPT, and appears to be intended to deceive and misleadthird partiesObviously, I had no knowledge of this ownershipprovisionIf CPT had disclosed to me this critical and onerous majorcomponent, I would have refused to buy the productCPT’s FinanceManager knew this because I had just told her I did not intend tokeep the car more than or so years and needed financing that had noprepayment penaltyIf CPT had done the ethical thing and disclosedthis major year ownership provision, they would have lost the saleof this “most popular product.” One wonders how many others havefound themselves in my predicament, and will continue to do so unlessCPT is held accountable for their unethical and dishonest businesspractice in aggressively and deceptively selling service contracts.3) Proper DisclosureFrom Bankrate.com: “Some dealerships evenvideotape the entire transaction to prove that people got the properdisclosures.” This demonstrates the legal and ethicalimportance of proper disclosure of these lucrative "service contract" insuranceproductsIf non-disclosure or or hiding of onerous provisions was anacceptable legal practice, why would reputable auto dealers spend thetime and money to record such transactions? Could it be that they hadfound themselves paying punitive damages in court?4) CPT fails to address the and Deceptive business practice underwhich they sold this productDuring the Finance Manager’s oralpresentation, she mislead me by not disclosing an onerous small-printprovision, which materially and grossly affected the nature, value,and refundability of the insurance policyShe carefully andthoroughly disclosed all other aspects and features of the servicecontractShe admitted that the product was overpriced, but convincedme that with its “guaranteed refundability” I couldn't lose;either I used it, or I would get a full refund.5) Wikipedia: “US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regulations statethat, for an advertised offer to be lawful, the terms of the offermust be clear and conspicuous, not relegated to fine print.”Beyond the legal requirements of adequate disclosure, there exists an unspoken yet real bond of trust when transacting with a scrupulous,responsible, and honest merchant: that they will not embed onerous,major provisions of a product in small print and then pretend as ifthese traps don’t exist, hoping that the customer will not discover it bycombing through the pages of legaleseCPT violated this covenant byswindling me into buying a product I did not need, and hiding a majorand onerous provision that made the product non-refundableThey haverefused to acknowledge or address the deceptive business practiceused to swindle me out of $2,Such deception must surely bediametrically opposed to the provisions of the Revdex.com merchantguidelines

Although Mr [redacted] continues to be somewhat long winded and continues to object to the same points, I’m sorry he did not read the contract and did not honor the conditions of the contractWe followed our process of full disclosure in this case as in all casesWe stand by our original response that denial of the refund is solely the responsibility of Mr [redacted] failing to honor the terms and conditions of the contract

I am rejecting this response because:Personal criticism aside, this is my response to Chuck Patterson Toyota’s latest Revdex.com statement:1) In their response, CPT failed to address their false and misleading statement which I had disclosed in paragraph 1 of my previous statement, in which they allege that their Service Manager marked and highlighted my paperwork. CPT did NOT mark the document as CPT had described. Does CPT stand behind their original statement, or do they admit to stating a falsehood?2) A second fiction generated by CPT was their assertion that I had foreknowledge of a fine-print provision, and consciously and deliberately chose to ignore it. In paragraph 2, I fully refuted that falsehood; does CPT accept or reject this?3) CPT’s response ignores paragraph 4 of my previous statement, and refuses to discuss the False and Misleading business practice described there and in paragraph 3, which sets forth tactics used to lure me into purchasing the extra insurance product. CPT’s closest reply to paragraph 4 is the statement: “We followed our process of full disclosure in this case as in all cases.”4) Follow up question: If CPT’s claim of disclosure is true, then what training, programs, memos, meeting notes, or other company correspondence, supports CPT’s claim of and definition of “process of full disclosure”? Is this Process of Full Disclosure found in the company’s Policies and Procedures? Will CPT make any such documents available to the interested parties?5) CPT ignores the fact, as I previously stated regarding the FTC pronouncement about auto dealers’ fine pint: “. . . the terms of the offer must be clear and conspicuous, not relegated to fine print.” CPT’s response on how they comply with the letter and spirit of this law, has been, and continues to be, disappointing. They seem to argue that they have every right to utilize misleading and deceptive business practices, and if the customer doesn't spot the omitted term buried in fine print, then CPT has no further obligation, be it moral, legal or ethical. This openly defies the “Integrity” clause of the Revdex.com’s Business Code of Ethics. Beyond expressions of small-print defiance, CPT is stonewalling. They are, at present, refusing to discuss the deceptive and misleading way I was hustled into buying this highly profitable, and controversial insurance product. They will not discuss how their Finance Manager, who had foreknowledge of me not wanting to keep the car for even six years and who, during her sales presentation of the warranty, withheld disclosure of the eight-year, ownership-refund requirement, or to discuss how she instead, assured me that the policy was fully refundable as long as I didn't use it. I have disclosed to CPT that, at the time of the signing, their Finance Manager was aware that without refundability, this product was useless to me and there would be no sale, and hence, no commission.The manner in which this transaction occurred should give pause to any reputable company. It is inconceivable that any merchant who wishes to be considered trustworthy, would infer that a customer should have poured over a pile of “sign here, and here….” documents with an eagle eye, instead of trusting the company’s oral presentation and tacit assurance that no other major provision are hiding in small print. As we consider CPT’s non-responses and stonewalling, tenets of the Revdex.com’s Code of Ethics come to mind:"TruthWe shall make accurate claims to our customers, use only competent testimonials, and strive to be open about all aspects of the products or services we offer.HonestyWe shall uphold the principle of fair play and be vigilant against conduct which has the intent, capability, or effect of being deceptive towards our customers.IntegrityWe shall not merely abide by the law in a technical way but will strive to serve our customers with honest values, avoiding all devices and schemes which prey on human ignorance or gullibility."

I am rejecting this response because:I find it with interest that the dealership claims I lack professionalism regarding the fixing of my car. It seems to not make sense that my car would come back with parts missing and damage under the hood of the car after a fuel injector was replace. They only want their money and would not call to see if they could fix what is wrong. I would like to have the following questions answer as to why this has happened to my dependable car that is now not perfect.1.      Why is the Shroud that covers the fan missing? It was on the vehicle when I took it in.2.      Why were all the bolts off of the cover that went over the fuel injectors? Again, it was on the vehicle when I took it in.3.      Why the gas mileage has gone from 33 to 25? It was making 33 miles to the gallon prior to the fuel injector being fixed? I have been told that I should be making better mileage since the bad one has been replaced.4.      What has happen to customer satisfaction to repair jobs?5.      Who is going to pay for me to get these items fixed?Enclosed you will find a letter that I rec’d from Chuck Patterson that blames the car for the mileage it has on it, and where they are only concerned about getting their money. Since I am not driving the car in the condition that I took it into the dealership, I feel I do not owe them money so they can wipe their hands clean of the terrible repair job that they did. They have serviced this car since I first purchased it in 2003 and they are the ones that will not stand behind their work when they mess up someone’s car. But I have forgotten one thing in life that big dealerships don’t lie. It is a shame that the dealers can get away with messing up your car so you are forced into buying a new car. I have owned and operated Toyotas since 1973 to never have experience this kind of treatment. Is this the treatment we are to be experiencing in the future? Sincerely[redacted]

please disregard complaint they have located check

Quote from the cilajet website "Repels dirt, bird droppings, tree sap, raw eggs, acid rain, salt and mineral deposits" Cilajet was never intended to prevent dirt, bird droppings, tree sap, raw eggs, acid rain, salt and mineral deposits. [redacted] picked the customers vehicle up at his...

residence, re-applied the product, and delivered the vehicle back to the customer all at "no-charge"! No defect exists in the product or its application. The product simply does meet the owners expectations.

I reject and rebut the response of Chuck Patterson Toyota (CPT) to my Revdex.comcomplaint. CPT failed to address the salient points of my complaintas follows:1) A False and Misleading statement was made in CPT’s response: “...on the separate document the period of time during which therefund could be applied for was written down and highlighted with afluorescent yellow highlighter!” FALSE. The Finance Managerwrote down and highlighted my refund date on the outside of the envelopecontaining the service contract documents with their attendantrepositories of fine print. She marked with a circle the small-printprovision that limits the refund window to 60 days. She did NOT markor otherwise indicate, mention, or explain anything to do with thesmall-print requirement that ownership of the car be maintained for eight years.CPT’s statement to the contrary is self-serving, dishonest, andmisleading.2) Another False and Misleading statement by CPT: “Neither theInsurance company nor Chuck Patterson Toyota is responsible for Mr.[redacted]’s decision not to honor his obligations according to thecontract.” This incorrectly implies that I had foreknowledge ofthe onerous small-print provision requiring ownership of the car for8 years, and consciously decided to ignore it. This is a falsehoodgenerated by CPT, and appears to be intended to deceive and misleadthird parties. Obviously, I had no knowledge of this ownershipprovision. If CPT had disclosed to me this critical and onerous majorcomponent, I would have refused to buy the product. CPT’s FinanceManager knew this because I had just told her I did not intend tokeep the car more than 5 or so years and needed financing that had noprepayment penalty. If CPT had done the ethical thing and disclosedthis major 8 year ownership provision, they would have lost the saleof this “most popular product.” One wonders how many others havefound themselves in my predicament, and will continue to do so unlessCPT is held accountable for their unethical and dishonest businesspractice in aggressively and deceptively selling service contracts.3) Proper Disclosure. From Bankrate.com: “Some dealerships evenvideotape the entire transaction to prove that people got the properdisclosures.” This demonstrates the legal and ethicalimportance of proper disclosure of these lucrative "service contract" insuranceproducts. If non-disclosure or or hiding of onerous provisions was anacceptable legal practice, why would reputable auto dealers spend thetime and money to record such transactions? Could it be that they hadfound themselves paying punitive damages in court?4) CPT fails to address the False and Deceptive business practice underwhich they sold this product. During the Finance Manager’s oralpresentation, she mislead me by not disclosing an onerous small-printprovision, which materially and grossly affected the nature, value,and refundability of the insurance policy. She carefully andthoroughly disclosed all other aspects and features of the servicecontract. She admitted that the product was overpriced, but convincedme that with its “guaranteed refundability” I couldn't lose;either I used it, or I would get a full refund.5) Wikipedia: “US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regulations statethat, for an advertised offer to be lawful, the terms of the offermust be clear and conspicuous, not relegated to fine print.”Beyond the legal requirements of adequate disclosure, there exists an unspoken yet real bond of trust when transacting with a scrupulous,responsible, and honest merchant: that they will not embed onerous,major provisions of a product in small print and then pretend as ifthese traps don’t exist, hoping that the customer will not discover it bycombing through the pages of legalese. CPT violated this covenant byswindling me into buying a product I did not need, and hiding a majorand onerous provision that made the product non-refundable. They haverefused to acknowledge or address the deceptive business practiceused to swindle me out of $2,049. Such deception must surely bediametrically opposed to the provisions of the Revdex.com merchantguidelines.

In response to the complaint I have attached letters from[redacted]. As you can see there is a lack of professionalism which is why wethought it best [redacted] did not respond. However, myself, as CustomerRelations Manager did respond, unfortunately it was not what she wanted tohear. As I...

explained to [redacted], after our review we have concluded that theparts she claimed to be damaged by us were either not part of the repair forthe fuel injector, or exhibit normal wear and tear consistent with a 289,000mile vehicle. We did not damage, remove, or contribute to the failure of any ofthe parts she pointed out.  Her requestfor us to make it right is simply unreasonable as for us giving her a new car.We only charged her for the parts and labor spent on her 2003 Corolla, not anunreasonable procedure.

I am rejecting this response because: No, not buyers remorse! I showed you photo's and even video. This car will not work for us because I cannot drive down my driveway without bottoming out even with one person in it, and it's damaging the car. You are 100% aware of this problem. Please do not resort to bold face lies on top of everything else you have put us through. I sent them certified mail. I have proof.

vehicle has been repaired to pre-accident condition and has been returned to the owner

MR. [redacted] MET WITH A REPRESENTATIVE OF TOYOTA MOTOR SALES AT CHUCK PATTERSON TOYOTA IN CHICO CA. TO INSPECT HIS VEHICLE. AFTER THE TEST DRIVE AND INSPECTION MR [redacted] WAS INFORMED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS OPERATING AS DESIGNED AND NO DEFECTS IN TOYOTA WORKMANSHIP OR MATERIALS WAS FOUND. MR....

[redacted] SEEMED OK WITH TOYOTA'S RESPONSE AND LEFT WITH HIS VEHICLE. NO FURTHUR ACTION ON EITHER TOYOTA'S PART OR CHUCK PATTERSON'S PART IS NECCESSARY. CUSTOMER CONCERN RESOLVED TO THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE.
[redacted]
SERVICE MANAGER
CHUCK PATTERSON TOYOTA
###-###-####

Mr. [redacted] invested in one of our most popular products, the 100 % money back guaranteed mechanical breakdown insurance. I am very sorry that Mr. [redacted] did not familiarize himself with the Terms and Conditions of his 100 % money back guarantee service contract. A completed copy of the Terms and...

Conditions of the contract were provided to him at time of sale. In addition to the Terms and Conditions of the contract, on the separate document the period of time during which the refund could be applied for was written down and highlighted with a fluorescent yellow highlighter! Mr. [redacted] without regard to the Terms and Conditions of the contract chose to sell his vehicle prior to the expiration of the term of the contract forfeiting his right to 100% of his money back. Neither the Insurance company nor Chuck Patterson Toyota is responsible for Mr. [redacted]’s decision not to honor his obligations according to the contract. Mr. [redacted] and Mr. [redacted] alone is responsible for his forfeiture of refund

cannot locate this owner in database.owner must provide original chuck Patterson repair order and other supporting documentation for considerationthank you[redacted]service managerchuck patterson autoworld

I am rejecting this response because: An offer if $43,000 for a replacement truck which is over 8,000 more than we owe on our brand new damaged tundra. There was no negoitiating. That was the offer, period. We would loose $11,000 if we accepted that offer. The damaged tundra is being repaired but they are having trouble. First paint didn't match, then they stripped the bolts on the truck bed and had to drill them out. So they'd bed liner had to be sprayed again. We call them and they don't return our phone calls. We are very frustrated with this dealership.

Although Mr. [redacted] continues to be somewhat long winded and continues to object to the same points, I’m sorry he did not read the contract and did not honor the conditions of the contract. We followed our process of full disclosure in this case as in all cases. We stand by our original response that denial of the refund is solely the responsibility of Mr. [redacted] failing to honor the terms and conditions of the contract.

Review: I recently brought my new 2013 Toyota Tacoma into Chuck Patterson Toyota Scion Dodge for a problem that I have been having with the drivers side cv joint and front differential. There is a grinding feeling in the front of my vehicle that seems to be getting worse and I do not feel safe driving the vehicle at freeway speeds. The truck is under warranty so addressed my concern with the dealership and they said they would "look into it." After dropping the vehicle off first thing in the morning they then called me later that same afternoon to inform me that I needed to come down and drive it with one of the service tech so they could identify the problem. So I had to take time off work to go drive with the tech who after several trips up and down the freeway finally acknowledged the problem. They then contacted me the next day saying that they had fixed the problem by balancing my tires. This was not the issue I was having and they denied being able to detect any other problem. They had me come back down to the dealership to drive my truck again to acknowledge that the problem still existed which it did. I even had to crawl under the truck to point out how loose the drivers side cv joint was compared to the passenger side. I then pointed out that none of the other trucks on the lot where like this and that there was an obvious problem. So they kept my vehicle again and I left finally feeling like I had made some progress in making them understand the seriousness of the issue. They informed me that they would have to contact Toyota to see what to do? What? They then called me back to come pick up the vehicle and said that there was nothing they could do. I was beyond mad. I asked to speak with the service department manager who was not there. I then made 3 separate calls and left messages for the manager to call me back with no success. I am furious about this whole experience and reached out to the corporate office to file a complaint. I still have not heard back on my issue. This is unacceptable!Desired Settlement: This is the worst experience I have ever had with a vehicle. This is my third Toyota Tacoma truck and I have never had a problem before. I took my truck to get looked at by two other independent mechanics who both verified that there is a problem and it needs to be addressed soon before more damage is done. You need to actually do some work on the vehicle and not just look at it and say there isn't a problem. I don't feel safe driving my truck. It needs to be fixed or replaced period!

Business

Response:

MR. [redacted] MET WITH A REPRESENTATIVE OF TOYOTA MOTOR SALES AT CHUCK PATTERSON TOYOTA IN CHICO CA. TO INSPECT HIS VEHICLE. AFTER THE TEST DRIVE AND INSPECTION MR [redacted] WAS INFORMED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS OPERATING AS DESIGNED AND NO DEFECTS IN TOYOTA WORKMANSHIP OR MATERIALS WAS FOUND. MR. [redacted] SEEMED OK WITH TOYOTA'S RESPONSE AND LEFT WITH HIS VEHICLE. NO FURTHUR ACTION ON EITHER TOYOTA'S PART OR CHUCK PATTERSON'S PART IS NECCESSARY. CUSTOMER CONCERN RESOLVED TO THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE.

SERVICE MANAGER

CHUCK PATTERSON TOYOTA

###-###-####

Review: Damage to Dashboard and Stereo Panel

My vehicle was in for warranty repair to replace the Navigation system, the service tech end up damaging the system by using a black color marker.. the service tech also caused damaged to my control panel and dashboard. The dealership took 3 weeks to return my call and when I finally reached them on 12/30 the service manager refused to talk to me about the situation.. instead he had a service rep contact me and tell me that the stereo would be replaced again but they would not do anything about the damage to the control panel or the dashboard. It is clearly shown the damage is caused by them but they refuse to cover their own faults.. I have open an insurance claim with statefarm and also complaint to Chrysler on this dealership practices.. I have advised the dealership to either recondition the scrathes or replace the damage but they refuse to do either..Desired Settlement: I want the dealership to take responsability for their mistake.. this car cost me 55K and went in on good interior condition.. I want either dashboard recondition and control panel replaced or both replaced. My car had no damage of this type when it went for service and I expect for it to come back to me in good condition

As far as the Nav System, they have agree to replace it but I dont want any more damages.. them hiding the damage to the Nav is not an Ok practice and should be consider deceitful.

Business

Response:

In addition to what we have already agreed to do we offered customer 50% credit on additional repairs as goodwill. We don’t believe the additional damages are our responsibility but are willing to assume half the responsibility in fairness to the customer. This offer was conveyed to the customer by phone. Customer is deciding on a course of action.

Review: In 2007, I purchasing a new car from Chuck Patterson Toyota. I was pressured into buying an extended warranty policy that they said would be fully refundable if it was not used, providing I applied to them for the refund 8 years later, and within a 30 day window. I did not use the policy. Two days after the eight year date, Chuck Patterson refused me a refund of the premium because I still did not own the car 8 years later. Incredibly, a small-print provision required that I own the car for a full 8 years! "Read the fine print," they said, even though the hidden clause was stapled to a sheet in a way that made that difficult.When I was pressured into buying the insurance, the dealer's representative told me that I couldn't lose: if I didn't use the policy, I would receive a full refund, as long as I applied within the 30 day window eight years later. I had previously asked this rep if the financing the offered had a pre payment penalty since I would sell the car in 5 years. So, this rep knew full well that I wouldn't keep the car for 8 years, and so, when she began her oral presentation and reviewing the features of the extended warranty insurance, she did not disclose this major component that, as she knew, would have caused me to refuse to buy the product. This critical clause was hidden in the fine print on a form furnished by the insurance company, which subsequently has gone out of business due to unscrupulous and illegal practices. Chuck Patterson has since assumed administration of these extended warranty policies, and so it is well within their ability to waive onerous provisions hidden in fine print. I feel that the representative deliberately concealed a critical component of this product with the purpose of defrauding me of $2049. She was quite through in all other aspects of the presentation and sale, including writing the refund date on the envelope and highlighting it for me. In my view, her omission was deliberate, and constitutes misrepresentation, deceit, and fraud.Desired Settlement: The full refund of $2049.

Business

Response:

Mr. [redacted] invested in one of our most popular products, the 100 % money back guaranteed mechanical breakdown insurance. I am very sorry that Mr. [redacted] did not familiarize himself with the Terms and Conditions of his 100 % money back guarantee service contract. A completed copy of the Terms and Conditions of the contract were provided to him at time of sale. In addition to the Terms and Conditions of the contract, on the separate document the period of time during which the refund could be applied for was written down and highlighted with a fluorescent yellow highlighter! Mr. [redacted] without regard to the Terms and Conditions of the contract chose to sell his vehicle prior to the expiration of the term of the contract forfeiting his right to 100% of his money back. Neither the Insurance company nor Chuck Patterson Toyota is responsible for Mr. [redacted]’s decision not to honor his obligations according to the contract. Mr. [redacted] and Mr. [redacted] alone is responsible for his forfeiture of refund

Consumer

Response:

I reject and rebut the response of Chuck Patterson Toyota (CPT) to my Revdex.comcomplaint. CPT failed to address the salient points of my complaintas follows:1) A False and Misleading statement was made in CPT’s response: “...on the separate document the period of time during which therefund could be applied for was written down and highlighted with afluorescent yellow highlighter!” FALSE. The Finance Managerwrote down and highlighted my refund date on the outside of the envelopecontaining the service contract documents with their attendantrepositories of fine print. She marked with a circle the small-printprovision that limits the refund window to 60 days. She did NOT markor otherwise indicate, mention, or explain anything to do with thesmall-print requirement that ownership of the car be maintained for eight years.CPT’s statement to the contrary is self-serving, dishonest, andmisleading.2) Another False and Misleading statement by CPT: “Neither theInsurance company nor Chuck Patterson Toyota is responsible for Mr.[redacted]’s decision not to honor his obligations according to thecontract.” This incorrectly implies that I had foreknowledge ofthe onerous small-print provision requiring ownership of the car for8 years, and consciously decided to ignore it. This is a falsehoodgenerated by CPT, and appears to be intended to deceive and misleadthird parties. Obviously, I had no knowledge of this ownershipprovision. If CPT had disclosed to me this critical and onerous majorcomponent, I would have refused to buy the product. CPT’s FinanceManager knew this because I had just told her I did not intend tokeep the car more than 5 or so years and needed financing that had noprepayment penalty. If CPT had done the ethical thing and disclosedthis major 8 year ownership provision, they would have lost the saleof this “most popular product.” One wonders how many others havefound themselves in my predicament, and will continue to do so unlessCPT is held accountable for their unethical and dishonest businesspractice in aggressively and deceptively selling service contracts.3) Proper Disclosure. From Bankrate.com: “Some dealerships evenvideotape the entire transaction to prove that people got the properdisclosures.” This demonstrates the legal and ethicalimportance of proper disclosure of these lucrative "service contract" insuranceproducts. If non-disclosure or or hiding of onerous provisions was anacceptable legal practice, why would reputable auto dealers spend thetime and money to record such transactions? Could it be that they hadfound themselves paying punitive damages in court?4) CPT fails to address the False and Deceptive business practice underwhich they sold this product. During the Finance Manager’s oralpresentation, she mislead me by not disclosing an onerous small-printprovision, which materially and grossly affected the nature, value,and refundability of the insurance policy. She carefully andthoroughly disclosed all other aspects and features of the servicecontract. She admitted that the product was overpriced, but convincedme that with its “guaranteed refundability” I couldn't lose;either I used it, or I would get a full refund.5) Wikipedia: “US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regulations statethat, for an advertised offer to be lawful, the terms of the offermust be clear and conspicuous, not relegated to fine print.”Beyond the legal requirements of adequate disclosure, there exists an unspoken yet real bond of trust when transacting with a scrupulous,responsible, and honest merchant: that they will not embed onerous,major provisions of a product in small print and then pretend as ifthese traps don’t exist, hoping that the customer will not discover it bycombing through the pages of legalese. CPT violated this covenant byswindling me into buying a product I did not need, and hiding a majorand onerous provision that made the product non-refundable. They haverefused to acknowledge or address the deceptive business practiceused to swindle me out of $2,049. Such deception must surely bediametrically opposed to the provisions of the Revdex.com merchantguidelines.

Business

Response:

Although Mr. [redacted] continues to be somewhat long winded and continues to object to the same points, I’m sorry he did not read the contract and did not honor the conditions of the contract. We followed our process of full disclosure in this case as in all cases. We stand by our original response that denial of the refund is solely the responsibility of Mr. [redacted] failing to honor the terms and conditions of the contract.

Consumer

Response:

I am rejecting this response because:Personal criticism aside, this is my response to Chuck Patterson Toyota’s latest Revdex.com statement:1) In their response, CPT failed to address their false and misleading statement which I had disclosed in paragraph 1 of my previous statement, in which they allege that their Service Manager marked and highlighted my paperwork. CPT did NOT mark the document as CPT had described. Does CPT stand behind their original statement, or do they admit to stating a falsehood?2) A second fiction generated by CPT was their assertion that I had foreknowledge of a fine-print provision, and consciously and deliberately chose to ignore it. In paragraph 2, I fully refuted that falsehood; does CPT accept or reject this?3) CPT’s response ignores paragraph 4 of my previous statement, and refuses to discuss the False and Misleading business practice described there and in paragraph 3, which sets forth tactics used to lure me into purchasing the extra insurance product. CPT’s closest reply to paragraph 4 is the statement: “We followed our process of full disclosure in this case as in all cases.”4) Follow up question: If CPT’s claim of disclosure is true, then what training, programs, memos, meeting notes, or other company correspondence, supports CPT’s claim of and definition of “process of full disclosure”? Is this Process of Full Disclosure found in the company’s Policies and Procedures? Will CPT make any such documents available to the interested parties?5) CPT ignores the fact, as I previously stated regarding the FTC pronouncement about auto dealers’ fine pint: “. . . the terms of the offer must be clear and conspicuous, not relegated to fine print.” CPT’s response on how they comply with the letter and spirit of this law, has been, and continues to be, disappointing. They seem to argue that they have every right to utilize misleading and deceptive business practices, and if the customer doesn't spot the omitted term buried in fine print, then CPT has no further obligation, be it moral, legal or ethical. This openly defies the “Integrity” clause of the Revdex.com’s Business Code of Ethics. Beyond expressions of small-print defiance, CPT is stonewalling. They are, at present, refusing to discuss the deceptive and misleading way I was hustled into buying this highly profitable, and controversial insurance product. They will not discuss how their Finance Manager, who had foreknowledge of me not wanting to keep the car for even six years and who, during her sales presentation of the warranty, withheld disclosure of the eight-year, ownership-refund requirement, or to discuss how she instead, assured me that the policy was fully refundable as long as I didn't use it. I have disclosed to CPT that, at the time of the signing, their Finance Manager was aware that without refundability, this product was useless to me and there would be no sale, and hence, no commission.The manner in which this transaction occurred should give pause to any reputable company. It is inconceivable that any merchant who wishes to be considered trustworthy, would infer that a customer should have poured over a pile of “sign here, and here….” documents with an eagle eye, instead of trusting the company’s oral presentation and tacit assurance that no other major provision are hiding in small print. As we consider CPT’s non-responses and stonewalling, tenets of the Revdex.com’s Code of Ethics come to mind:"TruthWe shall make accurate claims to our customers, use only competent testimonials, and strive to be open about all aspects of the products or services we offer.HonestyWe shall uphold the principle of fair play and be vigilant against conduct which has the intent, capability, or effect of being deceptive towards our customers.IntegrityWe shall not merely abide by the law in a technical way but will strive to serve our customers with honest values, avoiding all devices and schemes which prey on human ignorance or gullibility."