Deals On Wheels, Inc.

I have been asked to review and respond to a complaint received in our office on May 9, 2014 that was assigned your ID #of [redacted].
The vehicle in question was purchased on November 4, 2013 and was sold with a 6-month 7,500 mile limited warranty administered by the [redacted]...

[redacted].  Under the terms of the warranty the customer is responsible for a deductible of $100.00 for every covered repair occurrence. There is no charge to the customer  for this warranty.  The vehicle passed Delaware Dep[redacted]ment of Motor Vehicle inspection and the recorded mileage at purchase was 95,859.  The customer test drove the vehicle and did not express any concerns with its functionality.
The customer indicated that on November 8, 2013 the check engine light came on and that the vehicle was increasingly hard to st[redacted] as the weather got colder. Almost two months later, on January 6, 2014 the vehicle was brought to Deals On Wheels Service Corporation for evaluation.
One of the most vital signals of an improperly functioning vehicle is the check engine light. When illuminated it alerts the driver to a variety of existing potential problems. The problem could be something as simple as the gas cap being improperly seated to a serious emission problem.  Ignoring the check engine light will not make it go away; it will just  make the underlying problem more complex and more expensive to fix later on.
The vehicle was diagnosed as needing a st[redacted]er.  Our service manager, [redacted] indicated that the st[redacted]er motor had most likely burned out due to the engine being cranked over and over in order to get the vehicle to st[redacted] as the customer  indicated in her complaint.  The st[redacted]er was replaced on January 6, 2014 under the terms of the provided warranty. The total bill was $288.00.  The customer paid the previously mentioned deductible of
$100.00 and the remainder was paid by [redacted]. The recorded mileage at the time of repair was
97,798 indicating a total of 1,939 miles were put on the vehicle from the date of purchase.
On January 23, 2014 the customer had the vehicle towed to our Service Center indicating that it would not st[redacted]. The Cam Shaft Sensor was replaced at no charge to the customer and the vehicle was returned to her on January 24, 2014.
The vehicle continued to experience the no st[redacted] problem from that point.  It was towed again to our Service Center on January 27, 2014.  Our service technicians were unable to diagnose the problem. At that point our Service Manager recommended the vehicle be taken to a [redacted] service center so that their factory trained technicians could evaluate the problem. On February 13, 2014 the customer picked up the vehicle from our Service Center and according to her, had it towed to [redacted] on February 24, 2014.
On February 28, 2014 [redacted] issued an estimate recommending the replacement of the Engine Control Module and Wire Harness at a cost of $2,289.00. These items are considered "high tech" electrical system components and are not a covered item under [redacted].
[redacted] provides a list of components that are covered under their program. Basically, if a p[redacted] or component is not mentioned on this list, it is not covered.  A copy of this list, which is given to the customer, is included with this correspondence.  The customer mentions an "as-is warranty" in her complaint and indicated that our Service Manager had advised her to speak to our General Manager about this "as-is" coverage. There is no other warranty offered other than the free [redacted] previously mentioned.  There appears  to be some confusion regarding the buyer's guide that we are required to display on all vehicles offered for sale. This guide describes whether or not a vehicle is being sold with a limited warranty (which would be the [redacted]) as opposed to being sold "as-is" with no warranty whatsoever. A copy of the buyer's guide that was displayed on the customer's vehicle is attached.
Even though Deals On Wheels was under no obligation whatsoever, in the interest of customer service it was determined that if the customer would pay for the necessary p[redacted]s to repair the vehicle, Deals On Wheels Service Corporation would perform those repairs at no charge to the customer.  On March 6, 2014 the customer paid
$1,348.00 for the p[redacted]s to repair the vehicle.  In order to provide additional assistance to the customer, we waived our company's policy with regard to the lending of vehicles and provided her with a courtesy vehicle to drive while her vehicle was being repaired. A copy of our no loaner vehicle policy, which we have every customer sign, is included.
Any vehicle that we would lend to a customer is p[redacted] of our sale inventory. We do not purchase vehicles for sale that are in need of body work, paint, or costly visible replacement p[redacted]s.  It would not be economically feasible to repair vehicles like this as the cost would eventually be passed on to the buyer.
The vehicles that we sell are used. Deals On Wheels Service Corporation examines all of our retail vehicles for safety issues. Any items found are repaired prior to being offered for sale. Additionally, prior to purchase, the customer may pre-arrange to have the vehicle examined by the mechanic/repair facility of their choice for evaluation and purchase consideration.  I do not know if the customer elected to exercise that option.  Used vehicles as well as new vehicles are subject to mechanical failure at any given moment for any number of reasons. If no indicators are present during the initial inspection, a component's future failure cannot be predicted.
The first courtesy vehicle loaned to the customer to use was returned by her two days after it was issued. The customer advised that the vehicle's engine was overheating and by her own judgment had a bad transmission. Before lending this vehicle to the customer it had previously been through our shop for its safety check. The engine temperature registered well within normal range and no transmission issues were detected.  Additionally, the vehicle had recently been test driven as well as taken back and forth to Delaware DMV for inspection with no problems reported. When our Service Center examined the vehicle after its return, it was found that the thermostat had failed causing the overheat problem. No transmission problems were detected. This is an example of how it is impossible to predict the failure of a component as mentioned above.
We immediately issued the customer another courtesy vehicle (our stock# 21101, a 2007 Hyundai Accent). The customer mentions several times that there was basically little to no communication between her and our
Service Manager when she would call for information on the status of the repair. I spoke to [redacted] after
he read the entire complaint.  He indicated that he spoke to her numerous times, but did not think it was necessary to record the date and time of each conversation.  Frankly, there would be very little repair work completed within reason if every single phone conversation between our Service Center and each customer were required to be noted.
The work to be done to the customer's vehicle was labor intens•lve and obviously could not commence until the p[redacted]s needed were ordered and received. The customer was informed by phone on March 7, 2014@ 11:02 a.m. that the p[redacted]s were ordered and the estimated arrival was March 14, 2014. They arrived on March 13, 2014.  Once the repair work was completed the vehicle needed to go back to the [redacted] Dealership so that it could be re­ programmed; someth'mg that could only be completed by [redacted]. We did not feel it was necessary to notify the customer of this as it was included in the original repair for which we had permission to perform. There
programming took place on March 21, 2014. Once completed we sent our lot attendant to [redacted] to pick the vehicle up.  When he arrived there he found that the vehicle would st[redacted] but would not stay running.  He contacted the Service Manager who advised him to leave the vehicle there.  [redacted] spoke to the service advisor at [redacted] who advised him that there was additional work that needed to be done to the vehicle, which was not diagnosed by [redacted] during the original evaluation. [redacted] declined any additional work since no pre-approval had been made by either the customer or Deals On Wheels Service Corporation.  [redacted] decided that he would personally take care of the vehicle, until he was satisfied that it was operating as it should.  He did not want the customer to have further costs to contend with.  The repairs were completed on April 2S, 2014.
On AprilS, 2014 the customer contacted our office stating that the clutch in the courtesy vehicle became inoperable.  Prior to this happening, the customer did speak to our Service Manager and mentioned to him that the clutch seemed to be slipping.  Although her rendition of the conversation was that she received no response from him, he remembers advising her to bring it in to be checked. He recalled that the customer responded that
she did not want to be out of a car to use.  Had she returned the vehicle when first noticing the problem she would most likely have received another courtesy vehicle.  Evidentially she decided to continue to drive the vehicle until the clutch was no longer operational.   We dispatched one of our lot personnel to pick the customer up and bring her to our office. She spoke with [redacted], our Sales Manager and requested another courtesy vehkle. Regina advised her that she would be unable to do so based on what just occurred with the vehicle she was currently driving.  Unfortunately, the customer chose to handle the malfunctioning clutch as she did the check engine light in her vehicle.  The customer was offered a ride to her residence which she refused indicating that she would walk.  One of our lot personnel followed her outside of the show room and offered to take her home a second time. She refused the offer.
We arranged for the disabled courtesy vehicle to be towed here. Upon its arrival we were stunned at the appearance of the vehicle. Aside from the clutch issue, the vehicle had numerous scratches and dents all over it. The back driver's side taillight was broken, the rear bumper was dented and had two puncture type holes in it, the front bumper was hanging off and the rear passenger side wheel rim was bent and damaged as though it had hit a curb. A little over 700 miles had been put on the vehicle. As previously mentioned, Deals On Wheels would never purchase a vehicle in this condition. I have included a photo of this vehicle taken from our web site as it looked prior to loaning it to the customer. Also attached are photos that were taken of this vehicle after it arrived here on AprilS, 2014 showing the damages. The estimate for the repairs came to $1,118.00. A copy is attached.
At no time during the meeting held on April 25, 2014 did the customer indicate to either our General Manager or to [redacted] that she received this vehicle in the condition which it was returned to us in. She claimed that she did not return the vehicle to us when she noticed the clutch beginning to slip because the felt there was still some miles left on it before it would cease to operate.  This is obvious that there was a conscious choice made to continue driving the vehicle without regard for its condition.  When asked about the taillight and rear bumper damage, the customer claimed to not have noticed it, stating that she did not get off her job until midnight and since it is dark at that time, she could see nothing.  It is rather hard to perceive that this vehicle was driven over 700 miles in approximately one month and all the damages that occurred were never noticed. The customer is
now intimating that this damage could have occurred after the vehicle was disabled on the side of the road prior to it being towed to our facility.  She was asked to pay for the clutch because had the vehicle been returned to us when the problem first occurred, the repair could have possibly been an adjustment as opposed to a complete replacement. Just as with the check engine light in the vehicle she purchased, operating a clutch continuously
after noticeable slippage can only result in further damage to the point of replacement.  This is not wear and tear, it is the disregard of an obvious situation that required immediate attention.
The meeting ended with the General Manager and the customer agreeing that the clutch repair and the damage to the taillight and rear bumper would be paid for by the customer. The customer stated that she wished to speak to her mother to see if she would be able to help her in any way. The General Manager offered to allow the
customer to make payments on a weekly basis against the repair costs rather than try to come up with a large amount of money at one time.  At no time was the customer's vehicle "held hostage".   She stated in her complaint that she was late for work; the General Manager assumed that she had to get to her job and would return on
Monday April 28th to finalize the arrangements for the courtesy vehicle repairs and to pick up her vehicle when more time was available to her. Her repaired vehicle was available then as it is now. She is free to come and pick it up anytime during our normal business hours. There was never any intention to keep her repaired vehicle for any reason whatsoever.
On Monday April 28, 2014 instead of the customer returning to our office, a letter was hand delivered to us in the morning directed to both our General Manager and Sales Manager. In the letter the customer denies any responsibility for the condition of the courtesy vehicle she was using. She further demands the return of all of her money for the vehicle she purchased.  If we did not agree to the terms outlined in the letter, further actions would be taken against us which included copies of the letter the 888 received being sent to various state agencies, local political figures and the news media. There are veiled threats of litigation as well. A copy of this document is included with this correspondence.
Deals On Wheels and Deals On Wheels Service Corporation was certainly not un-sympathetic to the customers issues with her vehicle, otherwise we would not have gone above and beyond what any other dealership/repair facility would have done given the same set of circumstances.  We had expected that when we extended the various courtesies to this customer, the same would be reciprocated in the form of the care and consideration of the vehicle that we loaned her to use even though we were under no obligation whatsoever to do so.  Instead the customer has elected to take absolutely no responsibility for the actions, decisions and judgment she chose to make in this entire situation.
Deals On Wheels, Inc. has repaired the damaged vehicle at our expense so that we may be able to offer it for sale. The matter is currently under review by our attorney. No decision has been made as of yet regarding what, if any, actions may be taken.
Deals On Wheels, Inc. and Deals On Wheels Service Corporation is under absolutely no obligation to comply with the customers desired settlement and will not be doing so. This decision is firm and will not change.  Further correspondence regarding the damages to the courtesy vehicle will not be addressed unless it involves repayment for the repairs. As previously mentioned, the customer may pick up her vehicle during our regular business hours

This place is horrible. They sell cars that are basically lemons. We got a vehicle through them had it a year and it crapped out. Had our mechanic look at it and they told us the things that were wrong had been wrong for years and that he was surprised the car hadn't killed us yet. Literally everything was rusted out and hanging on by a thread. The tires were dry rotted when we bought the truck and were actually 4 different sizes. We had to finance the repairs through them(we had no other option as my husband had missed some work due to us losing a baby). We called to find out our balance and they said we owed like 4400. 6 months later we called again and asked the balance and it miraculously went up to 4600. So finally in May we ask for a print out because these is kept taking our funds and not putting any toward repairs and threatening to repo(they finally realized what happened and there went another 300+ dollars) and it says our balance is 2300. Here we are in August after many debit and cash payments(which we have statements and receipts for) and we call to get the balance and they try to tell us it is still 2300. How is it possible that after over 1000 dollars in payments since the last print out that our balance is the still the same? It is pretty easy how.....they are scam artist who try to screw people. We are currently waiting on print outs from our bank and such to take to them and clear up their sy book keeping. I will never ever go to this place again. They will do anything to screw you over. 3 times they have raised our balance to be almost double what it should be so add in repairs and we have paid probably close to 20,000 on a vehicle that isn't worth more then 5000. I honestly hope that they get put out of business. I am not sure how the people that work there can even sleep at night knowing how unethical that place is.

Review: I purchased a 2003 Kia Sorento in late March. When I purchased the car, [redacted], the manager, advised me that they had just purchased the car the day before I came to the lot and had not had a chance to run the car through the service center for inspection, but that I could take delivery of the vehicle in 3-4 days. When I came back to get the car, they advised it had been inspected and everything was great. When I got home I noticed the tires were so bald they white threads were showing. I knew used cars came with minor updates so I had the tires replaced though I was surprised they would sell a car with such a dangerous hazard. On June 13, 2014 my battery died. I immediately purchased a new battery and installed in myself. As soon as I plugged the cables a car alarm started to go off. I was never given a remote or made aware in my purchase that that car had an alarm system. I made arrangements to have the car towed to the service center to have the alarm disabled or be given the remote because the car would not start without the remote. When I went to pick up the car I was advised of a $45 charge for labor. I explained to the manager [redacted] that it was wrong to charge me for labor on an alarm I didn't know I had. She stated I had to pay for labor because it was an after factory alarm. The explanation made no sense. It was a used car, a lot of things could be after market, however if I never had to change the battery, which was obviously half dead to die within 2 months of buying the car, I would not have known there was an alarm. She stated she have no way of knowing either. When I asked what the purpose of the inspection was, and why I had to wait 3-4days to take delivery of the car, if they didn't look it over, all she could say was I still have to pay for their labor. This is not a good business practice. There was clearly an incomplete delivery of this car. Upon inspection, their trained mechanics should have seen there was an alarm system that they didn't not have a remote for and at that time should have advised me I could pay to order a remote or just have it disabled before I took the car. Not charge the customer for an oversite on their part.Desired Settlement: I would not only like my $45 refunded and I feel the company should review their policy. I did not buy the car AS IS. I purchased with warranty, however, even if I did buy as is. This was clearly an instance of an incomplete delivery. I was not provided with everything needed to ensure I could operate the car with the exception of a mechanical failure. I replaced the battery and completed my own labor, which was the mechanical error. Having a car alarm that was already installed, but not disabled or provided a remote for was an incomplete delivery on their part and their mechanics should be trained to look for devices that could effect the operation of the car. Much like the kill switch they install if I neglect to pay my bill.

Business

Response:

This letter is written in reference to the above complaint, which has been referred to me for review and response.

On March 12, 2014 the customer purchased a 2003 Kia Sorrento that had just arrived at our dealership and had not been general (safety) checked by our service center. In addition the vehicle had not yet been inspected by Delaware Division of Motor Vehicle as required in order to obtain the license plate and registration.

Deals On Wheels guarantees that all vehicles (except those sold "as-is") will pass Delaware Inspection. Without a valid inspection, we would be unable to properly tag and title the vehicle. In addition, all vehicles offered for sale by Deals On Wheels (except those sold "as-is") are general checked by our Service Center for any safety issues that may be present. Any items that require attention are taken care of. Apparently even before the vehicle was checked by our service center and taken to Delaware DMV for inspection, the customer was satisfied with the condition of the vehicle as evidenced by the enclosed, signed We-Owe indicating that there were no items that needed attention.

The vehicle was taken through the Delaware Department of Motor Vehicle inspection lane on March 13, 2014 and passed. Part of the State Vehicle Inspection includes the tires. If there were any reason the tires should not have been on the vehicle, it would have failed the inspection process.

I spoke with our Service Center Manager regarding the customer's complaint involving the after-market device that caused an alarm to sound after she replaced the battery. There is no way that the service technician conducting the inspection would have been aware that there was any kind of an after-market product installed in the vehicle unless we were supplied with the remote device that operated it when we acquired the vehicle, or if the battery were in need of replacement at the time of inspection. Most of these devices are installed where they cannot be easily detected in order to avoid tampering with by potential thieves. There is no one central location where alarms or other devices are installed on a vehicle. If we are given the remote or fob for an installed aftermarket product the unit would have been checked to see if operational. If not operational, it would have been disconnected to avoid any possible future problems. We would not repair the unit or would we order the mechanism to operate the unit. Since we did not install the device in the vehicle we cannot guarantee the installation, function or operation of it. The owner of the vehicle would be responsible to have the unit repaired, replaced, or removed at their discretion and expense. Additionally, the warranty that was sold with the vehicle does not cover any item that is not factory installed. Items that are covered are listed on the customers copy of the warranty contract received at the time of purchase.

In this particular case, the customers vehicle did not come to us with anything other than the key/fob used to operate the vehicles doors/ignition. When the customer's vehicle was brought to the Service Center, the technician had to locate where the device was installed in order to disable it. The device was a combination remote start/alarm unit. The charge of $45 was for the time expended by the Service Technician to diagnose and resolve the problem. Again, there is no way to know whether a non-factory item like an alarm or remote start device is installed in a vehicle when no indicators are present at the time of the initial inspection.

The $45.00 charge for the service work is a legitimate charge and we do not feel that a refund is warranted.

Consumer

Response:

Review: I purchased a vehicle from deals on wheels in 2013 and at that time the converter blew than the engine and then in 2014 my car was totaled the insurance paid it off and when I called to get remaining balance they told me 1511 I asked why when in December it was just under a 1000 the man said a tracking device when I countered what he said he advise me no one told the insurance company nor did they dispatch anyone to go remove the unit. So I asked was it stated in the letter of guarantee to the insurance so they could have someone go remove it and began to get smart and stated that's your problem not ours

Business

Response:

On January 31, 2015, our General Manager, [redacted] spoke directly to the consumer by phone regarding the issue described in the complaint. The miscommunication that occurred on our behalf was cleared up and the consumer is satisfied with [redacted]'s resolution.

Review: I bought my car from dow in February and by June, I was having issues with the tranmission. When I accelerated the car would hesitate. My boyfriend suggested that it could be the transmission getting ready to go. I scheduled a time to bring the car to the dow service center so they could look at it; they told me I only needed new spark plugs. I did not have this repair done by them. Now it is september and I am right out of my 6 month warranty my car breaks down. The car starts but does not shift into gear, my local pepboys service center said it was my transmission. I had the car towed to dow after speaking to the service center manager art who said they were capable of fixing my car. Dow then calls me and tells me I have to take the car to a transmission shop. At this point I am confused and ask to speak to the manager who I was told was busy but he said they can replace transmissions notrebuild them. I asked the guys on the phone is that what I need, a rebuilt transmission and he said he wasnt sure but to replace the transmission might be cheaper. I asked him for a price and he gave me a resonable price. I was also told that I would be able to finance this service so then I had to contact Amy the finance manager. I expressed to her that I was upset that I have to pay for this repair that should have been under my warrany when I brought it in back in june. She said back in june they had no way to tell if was my transmission because it showed no codes (which it is still showing no codes). I told her that I was not able to afford the cost of the repair and she said they could finance $1000 and I would have to pay the remainder before they could start the repair on may car. I asked if she could finance the entire amount. I have payment for my car wothdrawn from my bank account biweekly and have never been late or missed a payment. She said the best she could do is finance $1300 leaving me to come up with a little more than $1300. Im still upset that I have to pay this amount and told her Iwas disgusted with everything. She told me that I put too many miles in my car and a few other unprofessional comments and hung up on me. I called back twice and left messages and have not heard back from her yet.Desired Settlement: I would like the repaid done under warranty like it should have back in june but if that is not possible I would like them to finance thr entire amount so I could get it fixed and have my car back asap.

Business

Response:

This letter will address the issues as outlined in the complaint referenced above.

On February 26, 2014 the consumer purchased a used 2005 Cadillac SRX from Deals On Wheels. The mileage at the time of purchase was 119,680 miles. This vehicle was sold with a 6•month/7,SOO mile powertrain warranty. The warranty is administered by GWC Corporation. Deals On Wheels purchases the warranty on behalf of the buyer. We are not affiliated with GWC Corporation; they are a separate corporation. Deals On Wheels Service, Inc. is a preferred GWC Corporation warranty Repair Facility, however there is no obligation whatsoever for the holder of the warranty to bring their vehicle to Deals on Wheels Service for repairs. As outlined in the Warranty Contract, a phone call to [redacted] will provide assistance in finding a GWC Preferred Repair Facility. A copy of the warranty contract is included with this correspondence.

The way the warranty works is that once a covered/approved item is repaired, the repair facility that performed the work is reimbursed by GWC Corporation for the cost of the repair, minus any deductible that the customer is required to pay. For this very reason, it would have been economically unwise for our service department to purposefully state that the customer's vehicle did not need a transmission replacement if in fact it did. This would have resulted in lost revenue for our company. Our Service department has never and will never advise a customer that work should be performed on their vehicle when there is no indication that justifies the need.

On June 19, 2014 the vehicle was brought to our service center due to hesitation on acceleration. The mileage at that time was 126,069 miles. A total of 6,389 miles had been driven in approximately three and one-half months. The check engine light was on at the time. We do not know how long the light was that way. The vehicle was placed on a diagnostic machine and the return code was P0301 which indicates multiple misfires. No codes with respect to the transmission were returned. An estimate to replace the Ignition Coil, Coil Pack, Plenum Gasket and Spark Plugs for a total of $501.20 was supplied to the customer, by phone on the same day at 1:38 p.m. by our Service Writer, [redacted]. None of these items are covered under the customer's warranty. She advised that she had to speak to her boyfriend and would call back to let someone know if the work was to be done or not. At 1:47 p.m. she returned the call to [redacted] and advised that she could not have the work done at this time. The customer was informed of the $45.00 diagnostic fee (which would have been waived if the work was authorized). The fee was paid and the vehicle was picked up from service. I have attached a copy of both invoices.

The next time the vehicle was brought to Deals On Wheels Service was on September 12, 2014. The vehicle was towed in, after, as outlined in the customer's complaint, it was diagnosed by [redacted] as needing a transmission. Once again, our technicians placed the vehicle on the diagnostic and no

transmission codes were detected. The customer requested a quote to rebuild the transmission based on [redacted] diagnosis. She was advised that we do not perform that service and would have to consult another repair facility for a rebuild. Our service manager suggested that perhaps replacing the transmission would be more economical than rebuilding it, and offered to quote a price on replacement. It should be known that the mileage on the vehicle was 131,997 miles. This is 5, 928 miles since the

June 19, 2014 visit to Service and a total of 12,371 miles since purchase. The customers warranty was for 6/months or 7,500, therefore the vehicle was over the mileage by 4,871 miles and no longer covered.

The quote to replace the transmission was for $2,611.39 and the customer was advised of this. She indicated that she could not afford to pay this, so our Service department referred the quote to the finance manager, Tina Avallone, to see if the customer would qualify for any type of help.

DOW Finance Corporation is a licensed finance company for auto loans only. Any assistance offered to a customer on a repair bill is done solely as a courtesy. It is not an indication or an admission of an error, and we are under no obligation to provide this assistance; it is just a way to try and help the customer with a large unexpected repair bill. It is also not a loan of any kind. The customer is allowed to pay a portion of their repair bill in small installments overtime with no interest, and no fees involved. Based on the amount of the repair, the customer is asked to put a portion of the repair cost down up front. Once the down payment is made, the work is started on the vehicle. When the work is completed, the customer picks up their vehicle and begins to make payments on the remaining balance of the repair bill. [redacted] advised the customer that of the $2,611.39, she would need to put down $1,611.39 and she would be allowed to pay the remaining $1,000.00 in installments each time she MADE a payment on her auto loan. The customer indicated that she could not afford the $1,611.39 down; [redacted] advised the very best she could do to help her further was to reduce the down payment portion to $1,311.39 leaving the unpaid portion to be paid back at $1,300.00 which would be paid in

$50.00 installments with every bi-weekly loan payment. The customer requested to be able to pay the entire repair cost in installments and was advised that it was not possible. It was at this point that the conversation began to deteriorate. It appears that the customer feels that we are somehow liable for the vehicle needing repairs and that we willfully held back on diagnosing her vehicle until the warranty was no longer valid.

Auto industry standards set the average yearly mileage on a personal vehicle at 15,000 miles. This average is used by insurance companies and by many auto leasing firms. [redacted] mentioned to the customer that the 12,371 miles put on her vehicle in approximately six and one-half months was rather high mileage, and that perhaps this excessive mileage may have been a contributing factor to the issues the vehicle was experiencing. In addition she asked the customer why she did not take the vehicle to another repair shop for a second opinion if she was not happy with the diagnosis she received from us in June of 2014. [redacted] was unsure why three months went by before the vehicle was taken somewhere else. These questions were considered unprofessional by the customer, however they really are legitimate concerns. The call was ended by [redacted] when the customer began speaking negatively about the company.

As mentioned before, we will not state that a vehicle needs a particular repair unless the indictors are present at the time of examination. This would not be fair to the customer morally or monetarily. If a person is intent on receiving a particular diagnosis whether necessary or not, Iam sure that a repair facility can be found that will be happy to oblige, but it will not be our facility. Our Service Manager is not positive that an entire transmission is needed in this vehicle, and will not state so unless completely sure. Without permission from the customer to further investigate he cannot move forward

Apparently the customer has decided that she no longer wishes to do business with Deals On Wheels Service, Inc., as the vehicle was removed from the premises today, September 18, 2014.

We are unable to provide any further assistance in this particular matter

Review: History: From March of 2010 until October 25, 2013 I had been driving a 2001 Hyundai, Accent. The insurance company totaled the car when someone rear-ended me on August 5th damaging my back driver’s side area so much that it was more to repair the car than the car was worth. The car was still in good running condition at that time but was not legal to drive.

On November 4, 2013, I bought a 2007 Nissan Versa from Deals on Wheels after a short test drive and seeing that it seemed to run well. The following is the timeline of my experience with the vehicle and Deals On Wheels.

November 8 -the check engine light came on and I said something to my mom who mentioned this to [redacted] Worrell (the sales manager) when she spoke to her on an unrelated issue. [redacted] stated that the check engine light may be from the gas cap not being on securely and to check that first. After I checked that, I brought it to [redacted] on Kirkwood Highway in Wilmington, DE for a diagnostic reading. The computer read an issue with the Cam Shaft.

December – in the first week or two of the month the car st[redacted]ed having trouble st[redacted]ing when it was cold, but would st[redacted]. At that point it was the Christmas season where I work and we were very busy. I did not have time to bring the car in and did not have a back-up vehicle while it was in the shop.

January 6 - it would not st[redacted] and I had the car towed by JTC Towing to the Deals on Wheels mechanic shop on Centerville, Road across from the dealership. The dealership shop replaced the st[redacted]er and spark plugs and since it st[redacted]ed for them, they gave it back to me the same day.

January 22 – The car would not st[redacted] again, so I had it towed back to the Deals On Wheels’ mechanic shop on January 23rd. The shop replaced the cam shaft sensor and gave me the car back on January 24th. The check engine light was not on at that time, but when I tried to st[redacted] it on the 25th the light was back on and the car would not st[redacted].

January 27 – I had the car towed back into the shop for them to fix. I called the shop every day for three weeks, and sometimes multiple times when I could not get ahold of [redacted], the Shop Manager. During that time, the shop could not find the answer to the issue. Finally after three weeks the dealership shop gave up on it and said to take it to a Nissan dealership.

February 13 – I picked up the car after hours (it did st[redacted], with coaxing, but ran very rough) and parked it at home. When I tried to st[redacted] it on February 14th it would not st[redacted]. I went into the office on February 14th and spoke to [redacted] who stated that if Nissan could not fix it, they would do an accommodation deal where they would swap the car out for another.

February 14 – I spoke to [redacted] at [redacted] and explained to him what my warranty was and what I thought it covered. I asked them if a diagnostic fee would be covered and he stated yes if they did work on the vehicle and the issue pertained to the drive train that was covered by warranty.

February 24 – (I had to wait for a pay day in case I needed to pay for the diagnostic) I had the car towed to the [redacted] dealership on Rt. 13 in New Castle, DE. I called on the 26th and spoke to [redacted] in the service dep[redacted]ment. He stated that the issue was a wiring harness and a control module. [redacted] gave me an estimate of 2289.00 to fix it. When I spoke to [redacted], he stated I would need to talk to [redacted] about the “as is warranty” that covers, electrical systems from Deals On Wheels. After numerous attempts to contact her, [redacted] from the shop called me and said that [redacted] stated she would pay for half of the repair. The as is warrantee states this repair is covered as it was an electrical issue and that was covered under the warranty. I repeatedly tried to contact [redacted], but she was out of the office or unavailable. The last time I tried to contact her, I was told that she called the shop and that I should give [redacted] a call back. I made numerous attempts to contact [redacted] that day.

February 25 – I called Deals on Wheels and spoke to [redacted], he asked for a copy of the estimate, so I had [redacted] from Sheridan fax it over to him on February, 26th.

February 28- I attempted to contact Deals on Wheels 7 times, and was unable to get ahold of either [redacted] or [redacted].

March 4 - I had the car towed back to my house near Deals on Wheels. I also met with [redacted] and [redacted] and they stated that the p[redacted]s that needed to be replaced were high tech electrical p[redacted]s and were not covered under the as is electrical warranty. We decided that I would pay for p[redacted]s and that Deals on Wheels would pay for labor.

March 6- I paid $1000.00 in cash and $348.00 on my debit card to have them fix the issues [redacted] had found. They also lent me a 1993 Toyota Corolla which I returned on the 8th because it was overheating and the transmission was bad. They replaced it with a 2007 Hyundai Accent. I left the office with [redacted] assuring me that he would call me when the work was completed.

March 25 - since I had yet to hear from them I called to find out what the status of my car was and one of the shop personnel stated that my car had been towed to a Nissan dealership but the person did not know which dealership. This was done without my knowledge or consent.

March 27 - I drove to [redacted] to see if it was there and it was. I spoke to the receptionist, but she did not have much information because the shop personnel had already left for the day.

March 28 - I went back to Sheridan and spoke to [redacted]; he stated that they were just waiting for Deals on Wheels to come get the vehicle. [redacted] also stated that there was a timing chain issue with the vehicle. While I was at Sheridan, I called [redacted] and asked him what was going on with my car to hear what he had to say. He stated that there was a little work that Deals On Wheels had to do and that it would be towed to their shop that day.

April 3 - I went down to the shop and discovered that my car had not been towed and was told that the tow truck that I saw leaving the shop was going to pick up my car from [redacted]. I also mentioned to [redacted] that the clutch in the loaner Accent was slipping; there was no response from him about that issue. Jessie the salesman who had sold me my car, was looking at the sagging front bumper of the loaner Accent. I told him that it was like that when I received it. As far as I knew everything was going to be handled.

April 5 - On my way home from dropping my sister at her music group, the clutch on the Accent stopped working. It was in a neighborhood close to Deals On Wheels. I called them just after the clutch died to let them know. They sent Neal to come pick me up to bring me back to the office. I spoke to [redacted] and she stated that I would have to pay for the clutch and she would talk to [redacted] about that. She also stated that I was not going to be able to get another loaner and offered me a ride home. She was very unprofessional about the whole situation, so I decided to walk home. My mother then loaned me her 1997 Ford Econoline Van as she had just purchased another vehicle so thankfully they had one to spare.

April 8 – I received a phone message from [redacted] stating that there was a lot of damage I caused to the vehicle and that I would be obligated to pay for the damages. Once she received an estimate she would contact me. They did not call me back in reference to that matter.

April 9 - I called twice and spoke to [redacted] with no answer on how my car was doing.

April 10 - I finally spoke to [redacted] on my fourth attempt to reach him. He stated that the timing chain was bad, we discussed the issues and he stated that they would replace the motor to avoid future issues. He also said that he would call me back with a status and instructions on what to say to the warranty company, Guardian, if they called me about replacing the motor.

April 16 - I called again with no answer

April 21 – I called and spoke to [redacted] about the ignition switch and stated that my car would st[redacted], but if it was turned off I would have to wait for about a half hour to try to rest[redacted] it. He was going to continue working on it.

April 22 - I called with no answer.

April 23 - I called and spoke to [redacted]. She stated that [redacted] was still working on it and that she did not have any answers for me other than that.

April 24 - I spoke to [redacted] and he stated he thought he had it fixed but that he wanted to keep it another day to make sure everything was good.

April 25 – There was a phone message that [redacted] wanted to talk to me which I did not see until after I showed up at the shop where they let me know she wanted to talk to me. Along with my boyfriend, I went over to the office to talk to [redacted] went into her office and called [redacted], who came over. We went into her office where they both immediately st[redacted]ed yelling/screaming at us. They kept asking why I didn’t bring in the loaner as soon as I knew that it had clutch issues and why I didn’t let them know about the damage to the back of the car that I was, up until that point unaware of. They asked me why I didn’t notice the damage to which I stated that I get out of work at midnight and it was rather dark to see anything, but had not noticed anything wrong with the car. [redacted] stated that apparently, I did not know how to drive a manual transmission vehicle to which I stated I have always driven manual. My former car was a manual and the car I recently purchased from them was a manual. Both [redacted] and [redacted] kept yelling. “How are you going to pay for this?!?” over and over. [redacted] yelled “How could you drive a million and one miles on a bad clutch?” To which I stated “Hold on where are you getting a million and one from” [redacted] asked how many miles I had driven, I stated about 600. [redacted] stated that you could not drive even 20 miles on a bad clutch. Then they st[redacted]ed to ask my boyfriend how I drove the car to which he stated that I drove fine and that I don’t stall out or rev the engine. They then asked how he would know how I drove the car, was he with me 24/7 to which he answered we live in the same place and work at the same place with similar hours, so yes. They kept asking why I didn’t bring it in? I stated that I thought it was just st[redacted]ing to go and still had some miles on it. [redacted] stated that she felt like I had no remorse the day the clutch died about the damage and that I had an attitude about not getting another loaner. At time in question, I was not upset about not getting another loaner, I was more upset about [redacted]’s unprofessional demeanor towards me and that I had yet to get a car that would actually run from Deals On Wheels. [redacted] stated that the estimate she received from the shop was $1118.00, but that she would give me a copy of their estimate. She also said she would only charge me for the clutch, the back pumper damage and the tail light. She said she was not going to charge me for the dings and scratches here and there or the front bumper because it was just clips. She showed us after pictures from when I returned it and stated she had before pictures, but did not show us. [redacted] stated that this is a female run business and that she felt sorry for me when I came on March 4th and did not want to leave me high and dry even though I had been without a car since January 22nd. [redacted] stated that I would get my car back Monday April 28th after we had come to a payment agreement for the damage to the Accent. In effect holding my car hostage until I agreed to pay for damages I did not incur. She stated that she would be amenable to me paying an extra 50.00 on each car payment until it was paid off if I could not make a lump sum payment. At that point we had to wrap things up because we were already running late for work. I spoke to my mother about this and we both decided that it was time to take action against Deals on Wheels and the lack of service and professionalism provided. The loaner car in question is 7 years old and has over 90,000 miles on it. The clutch going out should be considered wear and tear. As for the other damage, Once Deals On Wheels picked me up from where it died, it was left there for well over 3 hours and anything could have happened while it was there.

At this point, I would like to sever all ties with Deals on Wheels. I have lost confidence in their ability to provide me with a car that will run and be professional about it.

I feel that their treatment of my boyfriend and me was completely uncalled for and unprofessional. I have and will continue to make timely payments for the vehicle they have had for more time than I have, since I purchased it in November of 2013 until an agreement is reached.Desired Settlement: I would like to terminate my contract and for Deals On Wheels to pay me back any money I had spent on the vehicle thus far, so I could purchase a reliable vehicle elsewhere and not try to charge me for the alleged loaner vehicle damage and chalk it up as a tax write off.

Below are all the costs incurred for this vehicle. I am only asking for these and not for the additional costs I have had to put out for insurance on a vehicle I could not drive and the extra gas for larger vehicles I had to borrow from my parents.

2007 Nissan Versa Expenses

Expense Date Amount

Down Payment 11/1/2013 $1,500.00

Tax, Title, and Fees 11/4/2013 $609.00

Car Payment 11/15/2013 $141.04

Car Payment 11/29/2013 $141.04

Car Payment 12/13/2013 $141.04

Car Payment 12/27/2013 $141.04

Deductible 1/6/2014 $100.00 (for repairs)

Car Payment 1/10/2014 $141.04

Car Payment 1/24/2014 $141.04

Car Payment 2/7/2014 $141.04

Car Payment 2/21/2014 $141.04

Diagnostic Fee to [redacted] 3/4/2014 $129.95

Parts to Deals on Wheels 3/6/2014 $1,348.00

Car Payment 3/7/2014 $141.04

Car Payment 3/21/2014 $141.04

Car Payment 4/4/2014 $141.04

Car Payment 4/18/2014 $141.04

Car Payment 5/2/2014 $141.04

Total Expenses $5,520.47

Business

Response:

I have been asked to review and respond to a complaint received in our office on May 9, 2014 that was assigned your ID #of [redacted].

The vehicle in question was purchased on November 4, 2013 and was sold with a 6-month 7,500 mile limited warranty administered by the [redacted]. Under the terms of the warranty the customer is responsible for a deductible of $100.00 for every covered repair occurrence. There is no charge to the customer for this warranty. The vehicle passed Delaware Dep[redacted]ment of Motor Vehicle inspection and the recorded mileage at purchase was 95,859. The customer test drove the vehicle and did not express any concerns with its functionality.

The customer indicated that on November 8, 2013 the check engine light came on and that the vehicle was increasingly hard to st[redacted] as the weather got colder. Almost two months later, on January 6, 2014 the vehicle was brought to Deals On Wheels Service Corporation for evaluation.

One of the most vital signals of an improperly functioning vehicle is the check engine light. When illuminated it alerts the driver to a variety of existing potential problems. The problem could be something as simple as the gas cap being improperly seated to a serious emission problem. Ignoring the check engine light will not make it go away; it will just make the underlying problem more complex and more expensive to fix later on.

The vehicle was diagnosed as needing a st[redacted]er. Our service manager, [redacted] indicated that the st[redacted]er motor had most likely burned out due to the engine being cranked over and over in order to get the vehicle to st[redacted] as the customer indicated in her complaint. The st[redacted]er was replaced on January 6, 2014 under the terms of the provided warranty. The total bill was $288.00. The customer paid the previously mentioned deductible of

$100.00 and the remainder was paid by [redacted]. The recorded mileage at the time of repair was

97,798 indicating a total of 1,939 miles were put on the vehicle from the date of purchase.

On January 23, 2014 the customer had the vehicle towed to our Service Center indicating that it would not st[redacted]. The Cam Shaft Sensor was replaced at no charge to the customer and the vehicle was returned to her on January 24, 2014.

The vehicle continued to experience the no st[redacted] problem from that point. It was towed again to our Service Center on January 27, 2014. Our service technicians were unable to diagnose the problem. At that point our Service Manager recommended the vehicle be taken to a [redacted] service center so that their factory trained technicians could evaluate the problem. On February 13, 2014 the customer picked up the vehicle from our Service Center and according to her, had it towed to [redacted] on February 24, 2014.

On February 28, 2014 [redacted] issued an estimate recommending the replacement of the Engine Control Module and Wire Harness at a cost of $2,289.00. These items are considered "high tech" electrical system components and are not a covered item under [redacted].

[redacted] provides a list of components that are covered under their program. Basically, if a p[redacted] or component is not mentioned on this list, it is not covered. A copy of this list, which is given to the customer, is included with this correspondence. The customer mentions an "as-is warranty" in her complaint and indicated that our Service Manager had advised her to speak to our General Manager about this "as-is" coverage. There is no other warranty offered other than the free [redacted] previously mentioned. There appears to be some confusion regarding the buyer's guide that we are required to display on all vehicles offered for sale. This guide describes whether or not a vehicle is being sold with a limited warranty (which would be the [redacted]) as opposed to being sold "as-is" with no warranty whatsoever. A copy of the buyer's guide that was displayed on the customer's vehicle is attached.

Even though Deals On Wheels was under no obligation whatsoever, in the interest of customer service it was determined that if the customer would pay for the necessary p[redacted]s to repair the vehicle, Deals On Wheels Service Corporation would perform those repairs at no charge to the customer. On March 6, 2014 the customer paid

$1,348.00 for the p[redacted]s to repair the vehicle. In order to provide additional assistance to the customer, we waived our company's policy with regard to the lending of vehicles and provided her with a courtesy vehicle to drive while her vehicle was being repaired. A copy of our no loaner vehicle policy, which we have every customer sign, is included.

Any vehicle that we would lend to a customer is p[redacted] of our sale inventory. We do not purchase vehicles for sale that are in need of body work, paint, or costly visible replacement p[redacted]s. It would not be economically feasible to repair vehicles like this as the cost would eventually be passed on to the buyer.

The vehicles that we sell are used. Deals On Wheels Service Corporation examines all of our retail vehicles for safety issues. Any items found are repaired prior to being offered for sale. Additionally, prior to purchase, the customer may pre-arrange to have the vehicle examined by the mechanic/repair facility of their choice for evaluation and purchase consideration. I do not know if the customer elected to exercise that option. Used vehicles as well as new vehicles are subject to mechanical failure at any given moment for any number of reasons. If no indicators are present during the initial inspection, a component's future failure cannot be predicted.

The first courtesy vehicle loaned to the customer to use was returned by her two days after it was issued. The customer advised that the vehicle's engine was overheating and by her own judgment had a bad transmission. Before lending this vehicle to the customer it had previously been through our shop for its safety check. The engine temperature registered well within normal range and no transmission issues were detected. Additionally, the vehicle had recently been test driven as well as taken back and forth to Delaware DMV for inspection with no problems reported. When our Service Center examined the vehicle after its return, it was found that the thermostat had failed causing the overheat problem. No transmission problems were detected. This is an example of how it is impossible to predict the failure of a component as mentioned above.

We immediately issued the customer another courtesy vehicle (our stock# 21101, a 2007 Hyundai Accent). The customer mentions several times that there was basically little to no communication between her and our

Service Manager when she would call for information on the status of the repair. I spoke to [redacted] after

he read the entire complaint. He indicated that he spoke to her numerous times, but did not think it was necessary to record the date and time of each conversation. Frankly, there would be very little repair work completed within reason if every single phone conversation between our Service Center and each customer were required to be noted.

The work to be done to the customer's vehicle was labor intens•lve and obviously could not commence until the p[redacted]s needed were ordered and received. The customer was informed by phone on March 7, 2014@ 11:02 a.m. that the p[redacted]s were ordered and the estimated arrival was March 14, 2014. They arrived on March 13, 2014. Once the repair work was completed the vehicle needed to go back to the [redacted] Dealership so that it could be re­ programmed; someth'mg that could only be completed by [redacted]. We did not feel it was necessary to notify the customer of this as it was included in the original repair for which we had permission to perform. There

programming took place on March 21, 2014. Once completed we sent our lot attendant to [redacted] to pick the vehicle up. When he arrived there he found that the vehicle would st[redacted] but would not stay running. He contacted the Service Manager who advised him to leave the vehicle there. [redacted] spoke to the service advisor at [redacted] who advised him that there was additional work that needed to be done to the vehicle, which was not diagnosed by [redacted] during the original evaluation. [redacted] declined any additional work since no pre-approval had been made by either the customer or Deals On Wheels Service Corporation. [redacted] decided that he would personally take care of the vehicle, until he was satisfied that it was operating as it should. He did not want the customer to have further costs to contend with. The repairs were completed on April 2S, 2014.

On AprilS, 2014 the customer contacted our office stating that the clutch in the courtesy vehicle became inoperable. Prior to this happening, the customer did speak to our Service Manager and mentioned to him that the clutch seemed to be slipping. Although her rendition of the conversation was that she received no response from him, he remembers advising her to bring it in to be checked. He recalled that the customer responded that

she did not want to be out of a car to use. Had she returned the vehicle when first noticing the problem she would most likely have received another courtesy vehicle. Evidentially she decided to continue to drive the vehicle until the clutch was no longer operational. We dispatched one of our lot personnel to pick the customer up and bring her to our office. She spoke with [redacted], our Sales Manager and requested another courtesy vehkle. Regina advised her that she would be unable to do so based on what just occurred with the vehicle she was currently driving. Unfortunately, the customer chose to handle the malfunctioning clutch as she did the check engine light in her vehicle. The customer was offered a ride to her residence which she refused indicating that she would walk. One of our lot personnel followed her outside of the show room and offered to take her home a second time. She refused the offer.

We arranged for the disabled courtesy vehicle to be towed here. Upon its arrival we were stunned at the appearance of the vehicle. Aside from the clutch issue, the vehicle had numerous scratches and dents all over it. The back driver's side taillight was broken, the rear bumper was dented and had two puncture type holes in it, the front bumper was hanging off and the rear passenger side wheel rim was bent and damaged as though it had hit a curb. A little over 700 miles had been put on the vehicle. As previously mentioned, Deals On Wheels would never purchase a vehicle in this condition. I have included a photo of this vehicle taken from our web site as it looked prior to loaning it to the customer. Also attached are photos that were taken of this vehicle after it arrived here on AprilS, 2014 showing the damages. The estimate for the repairs came to $1,118.00. A copy is attached.

At no time during the meeting held on April 25, 2014 did the customer indicate to either our General Manager or to [redacted] that she received this vehicle in the condition which it was returned to us in. She claimed that she did not return the vehicle to us when she noticed the clutch beginning to slip because the felt there was still some miles left on it before it would cease to operate. This is obvious that there was a conscious choice made to continue driving the vehicle without regard for its condition. When asked about the taillight and rear bumper damage, the customer claimed to not have noticed it, stating that she did not get off her job until midnight and since it is dark at that time, she could see nothing. It is rather hard to perceive that this vehicle was driven over 700 miles in approximately one month and all the damages that occurred were never noticed. The customer is

now intimating that this damage could have occurred after the vehicle was disabled on the side of the road prior to it being towed to our facility. She was asked to pay for the clutch because had the vehicle been returned to us when the problem first occurred, the repair could have possibly been an adjustment as opposed to a complete replacement. Just as with the check engine light in the vehicle she purchased, operating a clutch continuously

after noticeable slippage can only result in further damage to the point of replacement. This is not wear and tear, it is the disregard of an obvious situation that required immediate attention.

The meeting ended with the General Manager and the customer agreeing that the clutch repair and the damage to the taillight and rear bumper would be paid for by the customer. The customer stated that she wished to speak to her mother to see if she would be able to help her in any way. The General Manager offered to allow the

customer to make payments on a weekly basis against the repair costs rather than try to come up with a large amount of money at one time. At no time was the customer's vehicle "held hostage". She stated in her complaint that she was late for work; the General Manager assumed that she had to get to her job and would return on

Monday April 28th to finalize the arrangements for the courtesy vehicle repairs and to pick up her vehicle when more time was available to her. Her repaired vehicle was available then as it is now. She is free to come and pick it up anytime during our normal business hours. There was never any intention to keep her repaired vehicle for any reason whatsoever.

On Monday April 28, 2014 instead of the customer returning to our office, a letter was hand delivered to us in the morning directed to both our General Manager and Sales Manager. In the letter the customer denies any responsibility for the condition of the courtesy vehicle she was using. She further demands the return of all of her money for the vehicle she purchased. If we did not agree to the terms outlined in the letter, further actions would be taken against us which included copies of the letter the 888 received being sent to various state agencies, local political figures and the news media. There are veiled threats of litigation as well. A copy of this document is included with this correspondence.

Deals On Wheels and Deals On Wheels Service Corporation was certainly not un-sympathetic to the customers issues with her vehicle, otherwise we would not have gone above and beyond what any other dealership/repair facility would have done given the same set of circumstances. We had expected that when we extended the various courtesies to this customer, the same would be reciprocated in the form of the care and consideration of the vehicle that we loaned her to use even though we were under no obligation whatsoever to do so. Instead the customer has elected to take absolutely no responsibility for the actions, decisions and judgment she chose to make in this entire situation.

Deals On Wheels, Inc. has repaired the damaged vehicle at our expense so that we may be able to offer it for sale. The matter is currently under review by our attorney. No decision has been made as of yet regarding what, if any, actions may be taken.

Deals On Wheels, Inc. and Deals On Wheels Service Corporation is under absolutely no obligation to comply with the customers desired settlement and will not be doing so. This decision is firm and will not change. Further correspondence regarding the damages to the courtesy vehicle will not be addressed unless it involves repayment for the repairs. As previously mentioned, the customer may pick up her vehicle during our regular business hours

Review: I called Deals on Wheels after I found out that they were garnishing my wages to see if there was something that could be worked out. I got on the phone with a gentle man that was VERY RUDE, INSULTING, DEAMINING, DISRESPECTFULL, and many other words I would prefer not to say. He would not let me get a word in AT ALL. He ended hanging up on me because " I was talking over him" Before he hung up on me he explained that many attempts where made to collect the debt, it is true up to the middle of 2011. after that I received no notices until now. My address had changed maybe 4 time since 2011 and my phone number was changed once since then. its been almost 4 years. I called again and the person who answered the phone transferred me to him and it went directly to his voice mail, EVEN THO I was just talking to him 2 mins before. I called 20 mins later and I was transferred again to him and he finally answered his phone and again continued to be rude and disrespectfull, I kept asking for a way to remove this garnish and he said no not unless its paid in full or a lump sum. he again got loud after I asked how much would a "lump sum" would be and he laughed and said make me and offer and continued to talk and not let me put a word in. at some point he hung up again. I called again ad he said "are you kidding me!!" after I said my name. I asked how much the lump some would be and he kept saying make me an offer and call me when you have cash in your hands. he went on to say " please repeat what I am saying to you so I know that you comprehend" why would you talk to someone that is trying to pay something off and move on. I finally got a word in and I offered 1900 dollars and he put me on hold, when he came back he said "they" countered with 3400 and to call him back when I have the money and he hung up. I am appalled to be treated like this. I was 18 when I purchased this car, I payed it down to 1800 or so.Desired Settlement: All I want is to be able to pay off the remaining balance on the Principal of the car that I owed, The court order that was granted has a 30% interest rate a year, the garnishment is for 15% of my pay to be taken out after taxes..... if they keep the 30% interest per year it will take me well over 3 years to pay off a balance of 1800 dollars. I have a Son now he is 10 months old I have to pay child care to be able to work I cant afford child care and other expensed needed to care for my baby on my wage and the amount that's going to be taken away. I have 1900 dollars and I can pay 1900 dollars that's all I want. I will be willing to pay 1900 dollars I just want to pay this and move on and continue fixing my life and provide and save for my child. I do agree that in the past I was irresponsible but now things have changed, all I need is a chance to and the opportunity to move on and grow and become a good role model for my son. so all I want is to pay 1900 dollars and have this dropped. They will never hear from me EVER again. Please I beg, help.

Business

Response:

Our office is in receipt of the above referenced complaint. 1 have been asked to review the concerns and respond accordingly.

On March 27, 2014 our office received.a phone call from the complainant after he apparently was notified by his employer that they were to begin deducting a portion of his salary based on a wage garnishment order Issued by Justice of the Peace Court No. 13.

The consumer claiimed to have no knowledge of purchasing a vehicle from Deals On Wheels or of financing this purchase through DOW Finance Corporation. After advising him of the type of vehicle purchased (1999 Hyundai Accent) and the date of purchase (July 14, 2007) he ended up recalling the transaction.

A review of our records shows that the consumer had previously Informed us that the vehicle was involved In an accident and subsequently declared a total loss. Because there was no valid Insurance coverage on the vehicle the consumer was responsible to pay the full remaining balance of the loan.

On September 22, 2008, the consumer contacted us upon his receipt of a Summons and Complaint from the Court. At that time, he promised to have a payment in our office of $350.00 on the following Tuesday. This payment was never received so the court proceedings moved forward. The case was heard In court and due to the fact that the defendant did not show up for the trial a default judgment was granted on January 221 2009. The judgment included continuing interest at the contract rate which was 30%. I would like to mention that the Court sends all Summons & Complaints via certified mall. If the mail is returned "unclaimed" the Court considers that service was effective and the address is valid. If the consumer changed addresses, it was his responsibility to inform us of the change.

In April of 2009, in order to try and retrieve the money owed to us, we attempted a levy on the consumer's personal belongings. The levy would result in the Sheriff Sale of all allowable Inventoried belongings. On May 8, 2009 the consumer contacted us after being served the levy and made a payment arrangement with us so that we would not execute on the levy. The arrangements were $100.00 to be received on or before May 20, 2009 and then $250.00 per rnonth until paid in fuI1. With this arrangement we agreed to stay the Sheriff Sale as long as these payments were maintained. On May 9, 2009 we received the $100.00 from the consumer. Just as we promised, we contacted the Court and cancelled the Sheriff Sale. On June 22, 2009 we received $150.00 in office. We waited until the final day of the month for the remaining $100.00 of the agreed upon $250.00 to be received or for a phone call from the consumer. We did not receive any more money.

In January 2011, we were able to ascertain valid employment on the consumer. We filed a request for a wage garnishment from this employer began receiving disbursements on May 25,2011. We received a total of$80.66 with the last disbursement received on June 13, 2011. Upon contact with the employer we were informed that the consumer was employed with them, but not currently working. We were advised that once he returned to work, the disbursements would resume. We never received any further disbursements from this employer

On October 10, 2012 the consumer contacted our office and inquired if we would accept a settlement for less than the full balance owed. A one-time lump sum settlement was offered of $2,000.00. The consumer advised that he did not have that much money. When he was asked about his employment, he advised that he worked for a friend who owned a construction company and was paid "under the table". Again the consumer was offered a payment arrangement of $200.00 per month until paid in fulL We never received any payments.

In June 2013, we again located valid employment on the consumer. We again filed for a garnishment on the consumers wages.

On March 26, 2014 we received a phone call from this consumer. He stated that he had been notified of the pending garnishment. Once we got past the fact that he did not recollect the purchase, the consumer was advised that in order to stop the wage attachment the entire balance due plus court costs would need to be paid in full.

The consumer offered to pay $1,900.00 as a settlement which was refused as the balance as of the date of this writing is $4,351.52. We offered a settlement of $3,400.00 which would have to be paid in one lump sum and then the loan would be considered settled for less than the full balance. Unfortunately, there are' no other . arrangements that can be made at this time. The company has spent a great deal of money in costs, fees and man hours to try and recover the monies due. We are a small business that employs individuals that have children and the same expenses that the consumer outlines in his complaint. We depend on the prompt and timely repayment of loans so their salaries can be paid to enable them to meet those obligations.

DOW Finance Corporation in good faith lent this consumer money to purchase a vehicle in 2007 with the expectation of being paid back within approximately three years. Seven years •later we ar•e still attempting to be reimbursed. As you can see from the time line above, we have made several attempts to resolve this with the consumer. With each attempt we were more than willing to co-operate with the consumer and try to help him resolve this matter, however it seems that once the consumer has our co•operation, he is unable to return the favor by maintaining his agreement. Because of this, the settlement offer of $3,400.00 is firm and the conditions of the settlement offer will not be changed. The offer remains good until April 30, 2014 at 12:00 p.m. and is not negotiable. If the consumer is able to meet the settlement offer, he can call our office to make the arrangements and he can contact us at any time for updated balances a!'ld general information about the loan but as previously stated, we will not be able to negotiate any other repayment arrangements at this time.

If there are any further questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at [redacted]