We have contacted Mr. Roney (complaint ID 1[redacted]) and have sent another check for his taxes. We are not sure what caused the lack of communication and have apologized for the inconvenience. Thank you, [redacted]Finance ManagerVolkswagen
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted] I accepted the result of my complaint but didn’t get an update. The business decided to give me and additional $500. That was weeks ago. I haven’t had any contact with the Revdex.com or the company since then. Can you check for me please. The website is saying complaint closed and client not happy. I’m certain I hit accept on my phone when I got the message. But for some reason it didn’t go through. Can someone walk me through how to accept the results and the clients response so that it shows all was resolved by both parties. Thanks [redacted]
[redacted] [redacted]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me. I will wait for the business to perform this action and, if it does, will consider this complaint resolved.
Regards,
[redacted]
[redacted]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to...
[redacted], and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me. I will wait for the business to perform this action and, if it does, will consider this complaint resolved.
Regards,
[redacted]
This customer did have an issue with oil consumption with the vehicle. The first complaint was at approximately 39,000 miles. According to General Motors Policy and Proceedures an oil consumption test has to be performed to determine the amount of oil the engine is using. This test determines what...
repair needs to be made to correct the issue. At 51,817 miles the connecting rods and bearings were replaced to correct the oil consumption issue. The cost of the repairs were covered by the factory warranty on the vehicle. The customer came in with approximately 58,000 miles with a complaint of the windshield wipers not working. The customer was quoted a diagnostic charge of $50.00 to determine the cause of the problem due to the factory warranty on the wipers expired at 36,000 miles. The customer has an extended service contract on the vehicle which carries a $50.00 deductible if the needed repairs are covered under the contract. The customer refused to pay the $50.00 diagnostic charge or the deductible. After speaking with management and still refusing to authorize the diagnostic charge or the deductible the customer left with the vehicle. After speaking with upper management Bachman Chevrolet agreed to waive the $50.00 diagnostic charge. The customer was notified by phone of this decision. The customer missed the scheduled appointment to have the wipers diagnosed
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the 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.
Regards,
[redacted]
This response from Bachman Auto Group is further support of poor customer service and evidence of the tactics used to place blame on the customer. It is my opinion that Bachman Auto Group engaged in an adversarial process versus a collaborative process.This has been a valuable learning experience as I will never purchase another vehicle from Bachman Auto Group and I will never have my vehicles serviced at Bachman Auto Group.
For my complaint status, I would like the following to be known.I declined the offer and stand by the original advertisement pricing. I consider this as an unresolved dispute due to the dealership failing to honor an advertised price or making a comparable offer.Thanks,[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]To Whom it may concern,On 7/19/16, the vehicle was brought in by [redacted] and written up with service advisor. On write up, it was noted several scratches and dents on the vehicle along with the touch up paint....
On pick up, Ms. [redacted] walked back inside stating that there was body damage to the car. This was discussed with the service advisor that did the write up and Ms. [redacted] left with the vehicle (7/25/16).Mr. [redacted] came back to the dealership later (7/28/16) with the vehicle and I inspected the car with him. The vehicle has damage to the passenger rear door, the passenger side door handle and the passenger side rear fender- all of which had touch up paint on top of the scratches. The touch up paint was quite noticeable and scratched through. I asked Mr. [redacted] about the touchup work on the car and he stated that we must have scratched off the paint ourselves.I explained that we don’t touch up a car without the owner’s permission but would be happy to pull the paperwork and speak with the advisor that wrote up the car and the shop foreman (who worked on the vehicle). After reviewing the walk around form, speaking with the advisor and the shop foreman- it was determined that the scratches and touchup paint were present prior to the vehicle coming to the shop-- hence the decline in the body repairs of the vehicle.Sincerely,[redacted]Service ManagerBachman Volkswagen[redacted]
To Whom It May Concern: The following is in answer and response to Mr. [redacted] Revdex.com complaint regarding our dealership actions and employee’s response: I will start by saying that “it is extremely difficult to respond effectively without disclosing sensitive credit information.”...
Therefore, due to privacy implications and out of respect for Mr. [redacted] we will refrain from getting into great detail but will respond to the points he made in his complaint. It is true that Mr. [redacted] attempted to purchase a 2014 Chevrolet Volt from our dealership, and it was certainly our goal to follow through on his request subject to approved financing and a timely turnaround of the required documentation. With respect to same, the following facts accurately depict the turn of events; a) Mr. [redacted] had a “conditional pre-approval” with [redacted] through their Auto-Navigator on-line application process; it was not a full approval and was subject to certain lender requirements and loan restrictions. I am addressing this fact up front only because he mentions being pre-approved in his post. This “pre-approval” was subject to proof of income and meeting certain other bank requirements. Mr. [redacted] income would prove difficult to confirm due to certain facts pertaining to his employment and method of earnings. b) The only institution affording us a way to go required sufficient proof of income (they would not review this ahead of receiving the documentation so we had no way of knowing whether or not they would fund our loan until we received the documents back from Mr. [redacted] and forwarded them on to the bank. This was explained to Mr. [redacted] in detail, and he was aware of the requirement.c) The approval was restrictive in nature and it was time sensitive.d) The customer was informed that his $500 deposit was refundable and that it would only hold the vehicle for a limited period of time. a. The time we held the vehicle far exceeded the typical 24 hour hold that a deposit of that nature afforded a prospective buyer. b. We made multiple exceptions during this time frame in an effort to accommodate Mr. [redacted]e) Contrary to his assertions, Mr. [redacted] was communicated with and treated respectfully throughout the transaction; he was not treated in a demeaning fashion by our employee(s). f) It is understood that Mr. [redacted] is angry that his plans did not go according to his or our intentions; however, this is not the fault of the dealership and his accusations are simply misrepresentative of the facts.g) Mr. [redacted] lived out of state (MD) requiring the transactional details to be disclosed and agreed to over the phone in advance of our shipping the documents out to him. h) Mr. [redacted] was not “strong armed” into anything and was thoroughly informed of the “option” to purchase a [redacted], and the benefits they represented. i) Our intentions were/are sincere and the details were carefully explained and agreed to prior to our shipping the documents to him; not once but “twice” as he changed his mind after the documents had originally been sent out, wanting to add the [redacted] protection. His own actions further delayed matters on a deal we were working on faith alone only because it was subject to final confirmation and all documentation being delivered to the lender for their review and final approval before funding. (We did not know if we would be funded until they received the funding package which was repeatedly delayed by Mr. [redacted])j) After a great deal of time dealing with the back and forth between either purchasing or not purchasing the [redacted], [redacted] or both; Mr. [redacted] changed his mind a third time which would again require drafting an all new set of documents and again shipping the documentation to the customer. k) Finally, after all of this transpired over an extended period of time, the dealership decided to cancel the pending sale and refund Mr. [redacted] deposit in full.l) The vehicle has subsequently been sold to another customer… Every effort was made to accommodate this customer’s request, we ran out of time due to the uncertainty of being funded and the customer’s repeated requests to change the terms which were fully explained and agreed to by both parties, not once, but twice. We deeply value our reputation; we are open and transparent in our business dealings and strive for 100% customer satisfaction. Although this is always our goal, in certain isolated situations such as this one it simply isn’t possible to attain. We sincerely hope that this clarifies the dealership’s position and ends any question as to our actions or the intentions of our employees. The customer’s deposit was refunded in full as promised. Sincerely, [redacted]Finance & Lease Director[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
I am responding to the complaint filed ([redacted]) involving a refund issue. The customer purchased multiple products in addition to the...
warranty and select vehicle coverage and those products are NON-cancellable products, Xzilon paint sealant and collision deductible coverage, however I notified the customer that provided he had not had the sealant applied, I would send him a refund for that coverage and also that I would refund the price for the collision deductible coverage provided he sends me an email or letter stating he wishes to cancel both of those coverages. Once I receive the cancellation request, the $800 requested will be fully returned to the bank that financed those products and removed from his loan. Thank you,[redacted]Finance Director
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the 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.
[Mr. [redacted] responded and apologized, however, he blamed a “third party vendor” for an advertising mistake.. He offered a $3000 credit toward a new Silverado at prices that were $6000 higher than was advertised on February 14. I feel that the business should have honored the price of the truck as it was advertised the day we came in to make the purchase. If this truly was the fault of the “third party vendor” then they should have been held responsible for the price difference. ]
Regards,
[redacted]
I am responding to a complaint filed by [redacted] (ID [redacted]) in regards to a concern with a exterior back glass molding alignment issue.The issue was resolved prior to receiving the formal complaint letter from the Revdex.com. I spoke to Ms. [redacted] this morning 13 July 2016 at 8:40 am.Per our...
phone conversation Ms. [redacted] advised me that she and her [redacted] were happy with the final results and the issue has been resolved to their satisfaction.I asked Ms. [redacted] to contact me personally if she had any additional questions or concerns in the future.Thank you,[redacted]Director of Operationssee attachment
We have contacted Mr. Roney (complaint ID 1[redacted]) and have sent another check for his taxes. We are not sure what caused the lack of communication and have apologized for the inconvenience. Thank you, [redacted]Finance ManagerVolkswagen
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted] I accepted the result of my complaint but didn’t get an update. The business decided to give me and additional $500. That was weeks ago. I haven’t had any contact with the Revdex.com or the company since then. Can you check for me please. The website is saying complaint closed and client not happy. I’m certain I hit accept on my phone when I got the message. But for some reason it didn’t go through. Can someone walk me through how to accept the results and the clients response so that it shows all was resolved by both parties. Thanks [redacted]
[redacted]...
[redacted] [redacted]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me. I will wait for the business to perform this action and, if it does, will consider this complaint resolved.
Regards,
[redacted]
[redacted]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to...
[redacted], and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me. I will wait for the business to perform this action and, if it does, will consider this complaint resolved.
Regards,
[redacted]
This customer did have an issue with oil consumption with the vehicle. The first complaint was at approximately 39,000 miles. According to General Motors Policy and Proceedures an oil consumption test has to be performed to determine the amount of oil the engine is using. This test determines what...
repair needs to be made to correct the issue. At 51,817 miles the connecting rods and bearings were replaced to correct the oil consumption issue. The cost of the repairs were covered by the factory warranty on the vehicle. The customer came in with approximately 58,000 miles with a complaint of the windshield wipers not working. The customer was quoted a diagnostic charge of $50.00 to determine the cause of the problem due to the factory warranty on the wipers expired at 36,000 miles. The customer has an extended service contract on the vehicle which carries a $50.00 deductible if the needed repairs are covered under the contract. The customer refused to pay the $50.00 diagnostic charge or the deductible. After speaking with management and still refusing to authorize the diagnostic charge or the deductible the customer left with the vehicle. After speaking with upper management Bachman Chevrolet agreed to waive the $50.00 diagnostic charge. The customer was notified by phone of this decision. The customer missed the scheduled appointment to have the wipers diagnosed
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the 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.
Regards,
[redacted]
This response from Bachman Auto Group is further support of poor customer service and evidence of the tactics used to place blame on the customer. It is my opinion that Bachman Auto Group engaged in an adversarial process versus a collaborative process.This has been a valuable learning experience as I will never purchase another vehicle from Bachman Auto Group and I will never have my vehicles serviced at Bachman Auto Group.
For my complaint status, I would like the following to be known.I declined the offer and stand by the original advertisement pricing. I consider this as an unresolved dispute due to the dealership failing to honor an advertised price or making a comparable offer.Thanks,[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]To Whom it may concern,On 7/19/16, the vehicle was brought in by [redacted] and written up with service advisor. On write up, it was noted several scratches and dents on the vehicle along with the touch up paint....
On pick up, Ms. [redacted] walked back inside stating that there was body damage to the car. This was discussed with the service advisor that did the write up and Ms. [redacted] left with the vehicle (7/25/16).Mr. [redacted] came back to the dealership later (7/28/16) with the vehicle and I inspected the car with him. The vehicle has damage to the passenger rear door, the passenger side door handle and the passenger side rear fender- all of which had touch up paint on top of the scratches. The touch up paint was quite noticeable and scratched through. I asked Mr. [redacted] about the touchup work on the car and he stated that we must have scratched off the paint ourselves.I explained that we don’t touch up a car without the owner’s permission but would be happy to pull the paperwork and speak with the advisor that wrote up the car and the shop foreman (who worked on the vehicle). After reviewing the walk around form, speaking with the advisor and the shop foreman- it was determined that the scratches and touchup paint were present prior to the vehicle coming to the shop-- hence the decline in the body repairs of the vehicle.Sincerely,[redacted]Service ManagerBachman Volkswagen[redacted]
To Whom It May Concern: The following is in answer and response to Mr. [redacted] Revdex.com complaint regarding our dealership actions and employee’s response: I will start by saying that “it is extremely difficult to respond effectively without disclosing sensitive credit information.”...
Therefore, due to privacy implications and out of respect for Mr. [redacted] we will refrain from getting into great detail but will respond to the points he made in his complaint. It is true that Mr. [redacted] attempted to purchase a 2014 Chevrolet Volt from our dealership, and it was certainly our goal to follow through on his request subject to approved financing and a timely turnaround of the required documentation. With respect to same, the following facts accurately depict the turn of events; a) Mr. [redacted] had a “conditional pre-approval” with [redacted] through their Auto-Navigator on-line application process; it was not a full approval and was subject to certain lender requirements and loan restrictions. I am addressing this fact up front only because he mentions being pre-approved in his post. This “pre-approval” was subject to proof of income and meeting certain other bank requirements. Mr. [redacted] income would prove difficult to confirm due to certain facts pertaining to his employment and method of earnings. b) The only institution affording us a way to go required sufficient proof of income (they would not review this ahead of receiving the documentation so we had no way of knowing whether or not they would fund our loan until we received the documents back from Mr. [redacted] and forwarded them on to the bank. This was explained to Mr. [redacted] in detail, and he was aware of the requirement.c) The approval was restrictive in nature and it was time sensitive.d) The customer was informed that his $500 deposit was refundable and that it would only hold the vehicle for a limited period of time. a. The time we held the vehicle far exceeded the typical 24 hour hold that a deposit of that nature afforded a prospective buyer. b. We made multiple exceptions during this time frame in an effort to accommodate Mr. [redacted]e) Contrary to his assertions, Mr. [redacted] was communicated with and treated respectfully throughout the transaction; he was not treated in a demeaning fashion by our employee(s). f) It is understood that Mr. [redacted] is angry that his plans did not go according to his or our intentions; however, this is not the fault of the dealership and his accusations are simply misrepresentative of the facts.g) Mr. [redacted] lived out of state (MD) requiring the transactional details to be disclosed and agreed to over the phone in advance of our shipping the documents out to him. h) Mr. [redacted] was not “strong armed” into anything and was thoroughly informed of the “option” to purchase a [redacted], and the benefits they represented. i) Our intentions were/are sincere and the details were carefully explained and agreed to prior to our shipping the documents to him; not once but “twice” as he changed his mind after the documents had originally been sent out, wanting to add the [redacted] protection. His own actions further delayed matters on a deal we were working on faith alone only because it was subject to final confirmation and all documentation being delivered to the lender for their review and final approval before funding. (We did not know if we would be funded until they received the funding package which was repeatedly delayed by Mr. [redacted])j) After a great deal of time dealing with the back and forth between either purchasing or not purchasing the [redacted], [redacted] or both; Mr. [redacted] changed his mind a third time which would again require drafting an all new set of documents and again shipping the documentation to the customer. k) Finally, after all of this transpired over an extended period of time, the dealership decided to cancel the pending sale and refund Mr. [redacted] deposit in full.l) The vehicle has subsequently been sold to another customer… Every effort was made to accommodate this customer’s request, we ran out of time due to the uncertainty of being funded and the customer’s repeated requests to change the terms which were fully explained and agreed to by both parties, not once, but twice. We deeply value our reputation; we are open and transparent in our business dealings and strive for 100% customer satisfaction. Although this is always our goal, in certain isolated situations such as this one it simply isn’t possible to attain. We sincerely hope that this clarifies the dealership’s position and ends any question as to our actions or the intentions of our employees. The customer’s deposit was refunded in full as promised. Sincerely, [redacted]Finance & Lease Director[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
I am responding to the complaint filed ([redacted]) involving a refund issue. The customer purchased multiple products in addition to the...
warranty and select vehicle coverage and those products are NON-cancellable products, Xzilon paint sealant and collision deductible coverage, however I notified the customer that provided he had not had the sealant applied, I would send him a refund for that coverage and also that I would refund the price for the collision deductible coverage provided he sends me an email or letter stating he wishes to cancel both of those coverages. Once I receive the cancellation request, the $800 requested will be fully returned to the bank that financed those products and removed from his loan. Thank you,[redacted]Finance Director
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the 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.
[Mr. [redacted] responded and apologized, however, he blamed a “third party vendor” for an advertising mistake.. He offered a $3000 credit toward a new Silverado at prices that were $6000 higher than was advertised on February 14. I feel that the business should have honored the price of the truck as it was advertised the day we came in to make the purchase. If this truly was the fault of the “third party vendor” then they should have been held responsible for the price difference. ]
Regards,
[redacted]
I am responding to a complaint filed by [redacted] (ID [redacted]) in regards to a concern with a exterior back glass molding alignment issue.The issue was resolved prior to receiving the formal complaint letter from the Revdex.com. I spoke to Ms. [redacted] this morning 13 July 2016 at 8:40 am.Per our...
phone conversation Ms. [redacted] advised me that she and her [redacted] were happy with the final results and the issue has been resolved to their satisfaction.I asked Ms. [redacted] to contact me personally if she had any additional questions or concerns in the future.Thank you,[redacted]Director of Operationssee attachment