Culligan of Magic Valley

Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: the dents on the side of my car we e not parking lot dents and because it is very apparent that they refuse to take responsibility for their lack of professionalismBased on the response from the dealer, it leads me to believe that they continue to deny any responsibilityI did appreciate the loaner 201( Honda Civic and not Accord that I was allowed to useWill not be returning to the dealer as I'm offended with their demeanor by stating the dents and scratches were not their negligence and poorly handled Regards, [redacted] ***

Revdex.com: 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, [redacted]

The car in question was purchased over a year ago with over 60k miles at the time of delivery The customer said she had no issues with the car in the months that she drove it 30k miles The Carfax report was disclosed and as is our practice we had the customer sign it and offered her a copy The carfax report is a 3rd party reporting service that we have no control over and could not possibly have altered or influencedAnd she knew it had been involved in an accident at the time of the sale The accident was with the 1st owner at less than 12k miles No issues were noted for the next years or 80k miles by the next owners The customer was offered a more than fair trade in for the car, less the change in value for the months of time elapsed and the 30k miles that the car gave her service without incidentThe customer wants the money "invested" in a depreciating asset Owning and driving a car is a cost or expense as opposed to an investment It's not reasonable to think that you would get your money back even the finance charge the bank recieved to fund your purchase after using the car for months and putting miles equal to a year average driving The trade value that we offered her would cause her to suffer the depreciation in value that it costs each of us to operate a vehicle Our offer to trade the car is still available

From our perspective, repairing the damage irregardless of how it happened was a resonable response to the situation We wish Ms [redacted] good fortune moving forward

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
Regards,
*** ***

Due to an error at the state department that issues and reissues tittles for automobiles there was a substantial delay in the paper work being made available.The state has very recently provided what was needed to complete the registration process and at this time we are told that we should
see no other delay. Our representatives have been in contact with the customer. All should be taken care of now. *** ***

We will contact Keesler during business hours on Monday 2/20/and resolve the issue to the customers satisfaction

We are sorry that the customer was less than satisfied with her experience. We contracted with a third party for repairs to the vehicle for small "parking lot" dents in the car that the customer believed were of our making. We agreed to make the repairs with the upmost of good
will in mind and provided a Honda Accord for her use while the repairs were being made Upon completion the customer found different flaws on another area of the car that she belived were caused by the body shop washing the car.At this point we are still willing to detail/wax the car but that will be the extent of the remedy available

We have reached out to Mr*** to let him know that we never make unsolicited calls to a customer to inform them that service is due.We searched the phone number that he received the call from on Google and it has multiple reports as being associated with scams and was reported as a company or
individual trying to sell extended warranties. We are in no way associated with any such efforts. The phone number is shown to be a mobile phone from Moss Point Ms.Mr*** has my personal contact information and would appreciate the opportunity to give him more back round on what happened

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: the dents on the side of my car we e not parking lot dents and because it is very apparent that they refuse to take responsibility for their lack of professionalism. Based on the response from the dealer, it leads me to believe that they continue to deny any responsibility. I did appreciate the loaner 201( Honda Civic and not Accord that I was allowed to use. Will not be returning to the dealer as I'm offended with their demeanor by stating the dents and scratches were not their negligence and poorly handled. 
Regards,
[redacted]

Revdex.com:
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,
[redacted]

Revdex.com:
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,
[redacted]

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: Had the dealership mention the frame damage that was discovered by another dealership that Pat Peck Honda used to determine repairs needed on my car, I would have never purchased the car from the beginning. So it doesn't matter how many miles I've driven the car, the problem is Pat Peck selling me a car without disclosing the frame damage to the car which if known I wouldn't have purchased the car. You can look up the Carfax and it states minor traffic collision damage and the salesman stated it was a fender bender. Frame damage is not a minor collision nor a fender bender. 
Regards,
[redacted]

We have had a 3rd party inspection done and given the customer a report verifying that the car is free of frame damage and has no evidence of any serious damage done.The customer's complaints are without merit and we reject all of the accusations of this complaint to the Revdex.com.  No further action from the dealership on this matter is to be expected.  Our last conversation with the customer was cordial and we believe that everyone involved considers the issue closed.

Revdex.com:
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,
[redacted]

From our perspective, repairing the damage irregardless of how it happened was a resonable response to the situation.  We wish Ms [redacted] good fortune moving forward.

The car in question was purchased over a year ago with over 60k miles at the time of delivery.  The customer said she had no issues with the car in the 16 months that she drove it 30k miles.  The Carfax report was disclosed and as is our practice we had the customer sign it and offered her...

a copy.   The carfax report is a 3rd party reporting service that we have no control over and could not possibly have altered or influenced. And she knew it had been involved in an accident at the time of the sale.  The accident was with the 1st owner at less than 12k miles.  No issues were noted for the next 4 years or 80k miles by the next 2 owners.  The customer was offered a more than fair trade in for the car, less the change in value for the 16 months of time elapsed and the 30k miles that the car gave her service without incident. The customer wants the money "invested" in a depreciating asset.  Owning and driving a car is a cost or expense as opposed to an investment.  It's not reasonable to think that you would get your money back even the finance charge the bank recieved to fund your purchase  after using the car for 16 months and putting miles equal to a 2 year average driving.  The trade value that we offered her would cause her to  suffer the normal depreciation in value that it costs each of us to operate a vehicle.  Our offer to trade the car is still available.