Sign in

DCH Toyota of Simi Valley

Sharing is caring! Have something to share about DCH Toyota of Simi Valley? Use RevDex to write a review
Reviews DCH Toyota of Simi Valley

DCH Toyota of Simi Valley Reviews (4)

Review: When I leased the car I was told the seats and the tint would be, for an extra charge, upgraded to "leather seats" and "5% tint". The car was delivered on 4/30/2014 with a faux leather interior and without any tint. Since May 1, 2014 I have made several attempts via written and oral request to rectify the complaint.On June 23, 2014 I was contacted not by my Toyota representative, but by someone else at the branch, they informed me that the tint would be corrected but that their leather seats are not leather so they would not correct that issue.In my written sales bill it very clearly states the word "leather", in every conversation prior to June 23, 2014, the dealer and the lease broker stated the word "leather" when referring to the material used for the seats in my Toyota Prius.It is disingenuous to orally refer to the seats as "leather" and factitious to write the word "leather" on my sales bill if "leather" is not the material which is used in the manufacturing of the seats.Desired Settlement: I would like leather seats I have contractually agreed to pay for.

Business

Response:

CF - As Stated by the Business.

In regards to [redacted]’ complaint in rejecting our first response, we have agreed to the following:

Switch out the leather seats to original equipment as Toyota had installed.

Refund customer the cost of the leather $995.00 + Tax of 9% = $1084.50

Since the complainant has leased the vehicle the refund must be given back to the individual who has leased the vehicle. The complainant can however send the funds to the leasing company therefore reducing the amount owed on the vehicle.

Since the Customer has chosen to use a broker, he would be advised to reach out to his broker to set up the appointment with the Fleet Department. This will expedite the processing of his claim.

Thank you,

F.R.

General Manager

DCH Toyota Simi Valley

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID 10103054, and would like to receive a clear understanding of the resolution offer. Can you please have the dealer send, in writing, the clear details of their resolution offer. We want to be sure that we are clear on the terms of their offer.

Regards,

Review: I recently purchased a vehicle for my company at this dealership and was told that they would put it in the company name. I came to find out that that was not true. It was put under my personal credit. I am now left to correct their error. I feel lied to.Desired Settlement: I would like them to fix their mistake and go back to change it to put the vehicle under the company credit.

Business

Response:

At no point did we know the Customer wanted in the company name alone. The Bank had approved his loan with a co-signer as you can see on all the documents. We would have submitted to the bank differently had he indicated that he wanted the company to stand alone and didn’t have to sign as a co-singer. He has the option to negotiated this with Toyota Financial as they are the governing source of his loan. I have also attached the Finance mangers comments that completed the paperwork. Hi [redacted] Please see the enclosed copies of the transaction mentioned by the Customer and All Pure Pools, Inc. As can be clearly seen the Customer Signed as Cosigner in all forms, including the Business Credit Application Notice to Co-signer, Addendum to the credit application, Corporate Resolution, the Contract Itself and the Registration Documents. If he was under the impression he was simply signing for the business, he would have questioned having to sign the above mentioned documents as both the company and the guarantor, furthermore as part of my customary procedure I always state the importance of these documents in the way they make both parties 100% liable for the loan. During the transaction he never brought the subject up, the transaction was very cordial and he purchased an extended service contract from our finance department menu of products. If I can be of further assistance in resolving this matter please let me know [redacted] Finance Manager DCH Toyota Simi Valley

Review: Purchased a vehicle on 6/15/15 that included a trade-in; dealer sold the trade without paying me and continues to withhold funds citing an internal policy. Dealer paid the $6,538 loan balance on the trade but has yet to deliver the additional $7,212 equity payment to me personally. After repeated demands for payment, dealer cites internal policy preventing them for releasing the equity payment until a paper title is received from my bank. My bank electronically released the lien and title through California DMV's Electronic Lien and Title Program on 6/23/15. No paper title is then necessary for the vehicle to be transferred to a new owner by the dealer, nor will a paper title be issued my bank as it can only come from the DMV by specific request from the dealer, if dealer so requires.However, the dealer has in-fact sold the vehicle and is still withholding my equity funds. This is in direct violation of CVC 11709.4(4), prohibiting the dealer to sell, consign for sale, or transfer any ownership interest in the vehicle until all balances are paid. They are in further violation of CVC 11709.4(1) by not agreeing to pay my equity funds within 21 days (7/5/15).If this claimed internal policy is correct, this appears to be a deliberate business practice for unjust enrichment by withholding of funds that should have otherwise been released.Desired Settlement: 1) Immediate payment of the approximately $7,212 + 12% interest per annum for all withholding time that extends beyond 7/5/15. 2) Change to the internal policy that is in direct violation of California Law.

Business

Response:

As Stated by the Business. When the customer was purchasing the newer vehicle and trading his car, we communicated ourcompany policy of not being able to release any excess pay off monies due to a customer until wereceive a paper title with lien release from the lien holder. The customer acknowledged our policy anddid not communicate an objection at that time. The customer emailed for a status update on his excess payoff monies being released on Monday06/29/2015 at 5:03 pm which was after our business office had closed. I was schedule off Tuesday andWednesday. When I returned to work on Thursday 07/02/2015, the customer emailed again for statusupdate and we replied with our company policy for releasing excess payoff monies that wecommunicated when he signed his agreements. We do follow the legal timelines for lien payoff to thenoted lien holders for vehicles that our customers trade in. Our records show that we mailed a check topay off this customer’s lien holder on 06/23/2015 which is 7 days after he bought his vehicle and well inadvance of the 21 day legal timeline. The overage of monies can only be released after we receive thepaper title from the customer’s lien holder along with release of their lien. The claim this customer ismaking of his lien holder not sending a paper title is NOT correct. We confirmed with his lien holder thatthey DO mail a paper title with a signature on the front releasing their lien. They also have a 15 daytimeline to verify funds have cleared their account before they mail the paper title to us which expiredon 07/08/2015. We are still waiting on the paper title to arrive and are ready to release the excess payoff monies to this customer as soon as it arrives. We have communicated updates to this customer asthey arise and hope to have this resolved as soon as the title to his traded vehicle arrives. Thank you,[redacted]FINANCE MANAGER

Consumer

Response:

Review: 2011 Sienna LE AC blower went out and I took it into DCH and explained how turning the AC on would cause a loud noise followed by the A/C turning off within seconds. 10/07/2015 - D[redacted] from service greeted me and heard my situation and said it should all be covered under warranty and I would not be out of pocket. I received a phone call later that day from D[redacted] who explained there was a rat's nest in the blower. Which would void the warranty. I asked for a picture as I park the vehicle in the garage and would not expect a rat/mouse to ever get into the car. D[redacted] sent the picture of the part with a rat's nest and the part number. He also quoted me $550 to replace the part due to its high price of $230 and difficulty in getting to ($320 in labor). I decided that was too expensive for the part and the labor and that I would go elsewhere. I was charged a $100 fee for looking at the car. 10/08/2015 I bought the part and decided to try to replace it myself. A/C worked immediately and has worked fine since then. I was happy until I looked at the old part I removed from the car. It did not have rat's nest and was perfectly clean, no scratches on the plastic that I would expect to see if a rat had been in there. I then compared it to the picture I received from D[redacted] on my phone. It was not the same part! Later I searched online for "AC blower rat's nest" and found the same picture I was sent from D[redacted]! 10/09/2015 - Spoke to F[redacted]. (general manager). I asked him for a refund of the $100 daignostic fee as well as payment for the part($230) as it should have all been covered under warranty. He said he would have his service director look into it and get back to me. 10/14/2015 - No word. Left VM for F[redacted].10/22/2015 - Still no word. Spoke to [redacted] P(service director). Explained situation. He said he would look into it and get back to me.10/27/2015 - Still no word. Spoke to [redacted] P. He said refund on the $100 service charge and would call me back in a few minutes about the part.Desired Settlement: Refund of the $100 service diagnostic fee which they have already agreed to.Payment of $230 for the part that should have been covered under warranty.Payment of $0 for the time spent dealing with buying the part, installation, and trying to contact DCH.Total Refund/Payment : $330

Business

Response:

Technician found rat damage and rats nest lodged in A/C blower motor. Customer Authorized the Diagnostics to identify what the problem was for the blower motor. We have since agreed to refund the $100.00 and have done so. This vehicle does not qualify for any type of warranty in regards to the blower motor because it is out of 3 years or 36 k miles that Toyota Offers and the failure was caused by outside influence (Rats). What the customer is referring to online, is a service bulletin from Toyota that only covers the vehicle for 3 years or 36 k miles. The Customer may Wish to seek reimbursement from Toyota Motor Company if he feels this issue is a Manufacture defect. Dealerships are not liable for manufacturing or design of any of the products.

Check fields!

Write a review of DCH Toyota of Simi Valley

Satisfaction rating
 
 
 
 
 
Upload here Increase visibility and credibility of your review by
adding a photo
Submit your review

DCH Toyota of Simi Valley Rating

Overall satisfaction rating

Description: AUTO DEALERS - NEW CARS

Address: 2380 First Street, Simi Valley, California, United States, 93065

Phone:

Show more...

Web:

This website was reported to be associated with DCH Toyota of Simi Valley.



Add contact information for DCH Toyota of Simi Valley

Add new contacts
A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | New | Updated