Mr [redacted] purchased a Pontiac Gfrom Kia of Muncie on 5/23/We attempted to finance the vehicle and sent his application to banks until we got someone to approve the loan [redacted] approved the loan based off of the credit information we were given from the customerMr [redacted] told us that he worked hours per weekWhen we received pay stubs it was apparent that he only worked approximately hours per week based off of year to date and hours worked on the pay stubWhen the bank called the customer to find out why there are discrepancies in pay, the customer cursed out the lenderThe lender then called Kia of Muncie and told us they had zero interest in funding the loanDaniel B [redacted] , our General Sales Manager, personally went to the customers house to see if the car was thereThe vehicle was sitting wedged between the house and the barn so that it would be hard to towWe then sent a tow truck to the customers house picked up our car (after a lot of arguing with the tow truck driver for aproxan hour)We then had the customers tratowed back miles at our expenseThe customer complained that we hurt his Ford Windstar with 218,miles while it was sitting on our lotHe also accused us of cutting of his exhaust with a plasma cutterKia does not own a plasma cutter nor did we touch his exhaustIt was hanging and almost dragging on the ground when the vehicle was traded inAlthough we did offer to have his exhaust repaired at a exhaust shop in Mr [redacted] 's home town at our expenseThe customer declined the repair and wants us to purchase his vehicle back from himWe have not spoken with the customer since the last request [redacted] , while we strive to do good for all of our customers, this is a case where the customer falsely represented his own income, creating issues for our ability to complete his loan and purchase of his carThe activity and client behavior that ensued upon us trying to recover our property is somewhat telling of how much effort has been required of our entire team, to no availMr [redacted] 's issues with Kia of Muncie are unfounded and without merit and in light of what the consequences would be in falsifying credit information on an application to a lending institution, we feel he'd be better off taking his business elsewhereI will not endorse any additional assistance or communication with him at this time Thank you for understanding Jeff D [redacted] Kia of Muncie
To Whom It May Concern,I am in receipt of the complaint against our Kia dealership in Muncie from one Mr [redacted] As I will articulate below, Mr [redacted] is no stranger to our dealerships and this is not his first attempt to discredit our company with baseless claims about "disceptive practices" at either of the dealerships he's done business with over a number of yearsMr [redacted] purchased his Kia Sorento EX ( [redacted] ) on 9/10/ with miles on the odometer when he took deliveryThat vehicle was invoiced to our Kia dealership from Kia Motors on 1/06/He traded a Ford Escape ( [redacted] ) which he only owned for a short time, with $9,in negative equity, that we believe was also carried forward when he traded another vehicle for it in the months preceding itThe major road block that Mr [redacted] continues to face in the frequent trading of vehicles (at any dealership, not just ours) is the accumulated and carried forward negative equity, well in advance of his ability to pay it down (with cash or monthly payments)Combined with depreciation all vehicles experience, the cumulative impact of this behavior, continues to place him in a very difficult financial position each time he decides he wants a new carUnfortunately as we've experienced at our Toyota dealership earlier in the year, this frustrates Mr [redacted] at each attempt to trade to the point that he will raise baseless claims about our ethics, practices and most concerning, how his disability is the reason we are doing this.Despite these owner-created roadblocksmy team at both dealerships, doing what they are primarily here to do, have still managed to arrange financing on this last purchase to carry the negative equity from the Ford Escape, and did so in terms that Mr [redacted] both agreed to and executed in writing on all contracts and disclosures provided that timeIn the many years of doing business with Mr [redacted] , he's always been accompanied by his wife, ***, who is able to translate some of his speech barriers, but at no time does Mr [redacted] appear to lack the legal or mental capacity to enter in to said agreementsOur team has treated Mr [redacted] with the same level of respect and dignity they would any consumer wanting to do business with usAny insinuation that his disability is motivation for us to act against his (our our) best wishes is baseless and disrespectful of people who face far more significant hurdles with disabilities than Mr [redacted] does when buying carsThe "damage" Mr [redacted] references on the Kia, was the result of an accident reported on 3/16/and reported on the Carfax report as follows - "accident reported, vehicle involved in rear-end collision involving front impact with another motor vehicle front primarily damaged and airbags did not deploy." What my team has advised me is that, the Kia was being moved on our lot and backed into another customer's car, the damage was so minimal to the new Kia it didn't require body work or anything of considerable valueThe others customer's car had a bit more damage and the report that shows up on Car Fax is from their insurance company who filed the reportWe have not been able to locate the accident report that Mr [redacted] says he was able to find on thisRegardless, our duty then, and now, was to repair the vehicle to it's original status since this was a minor accidentGiven this assessment, clearly the repairs made indicate a very minor amount of damage with not enough incursion into the Kia's body structure, major components or safety systems to warrant a "value adjusting" event in its history, much less require documented disclosure to a consumerIt is common for new and used vehicles to incur damage while in inventory at dealerships, on the lot, being driven, sometimes even while in transport to us.To date, Mr [redacted] has raised no issues in his complaints to the Revdex.com or in any other form to us since his purchaseLeaving us to reasonably assume the Kia's operation, aesthetics or durability have not been compromised in any way shape for fashionThis supports our response that the vehicles repair was done properly and has not jeopardized the its quality and inherent value as claimed in his complaints Luckily, we were contacted by another dealership that has also been working with Mr [redacted] to trade vehicles who indicated they did not make any trade value adjustments to the Kia for what appears on the Carfax report, just as we indicated we would do the sameWe even provided interest in buying Mr [redacted] s trade from them if they acquired it, for full trade valueThis means the stated financial "damages" he's claiming is invalid and baselessIronically, however, the $5,he's claiming for settlement of issues with us is the exact amount of down payment we understand he'd need to trade out of the Kia under whatever financing arrangements he's wanting to make, further illustrating the arbitrary nature of his financial "damages." Baring any additional information to the contrary, and after taking a significant look at all of the factors in play, I see nothing that's transpired in Mr [redacted] 's dealings with us to indicate deceptive trade practicesOur history with Mr [redacted] also clearly shows that nobody on my team believes his handicap was a factor in his ability and willingness to make these multiple purchases from our organizationI highly doubt Mr [redacted] would have returned so many times if he also felt our quality of service or resolve to help him (including direct contact with myself) were somehow inadequate Upon request, I have additional documentation, backup information and even email exchanges from earlier in the year about similar baseless claims made to our Toyota dealership should they become relevant and needed Thank you, Jeff D [redacted] , Managing Partner, Muncie Auto Group (Toyota of Muncie/Kia of Muncie)
Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below let me begin with the fact that I'm currently on workers comp in the state of indiana and also let you know that I work a full hour work week when I can they only took weeks worth of paystubs from me however being that I'm injured and had surgery back in February I regularly have had to attend physical rehabilitation witch is the reason why my pay stubs reflected the way they did I am supposed to be getting reimbursements for time off due to appointments from being injured at work however that's a different argument that has no concern ovet this matter I only got rude with the financial institute when they claimed to have called my employer to verify that I did have surgery in February of but proceeded to tell me that my employer told them I did not have surgery and have not had any time off due to recovery and rehabilitation I am still currently on workers comp and work hours a week when I can on restricted duty this can be confirmed anytime kia of muncie has given both my wife and I the run a round for over a month I feel like I'm being medically discriminated against and demand that kia of muncie fix this matter and make it right the exhaust was not hanging on the ground nor was it dragging I have witnessess that can and will contest to this we drove the ford windstar to kia of muncie days in a row before trading it in they deliberately destroyed my trade in I feel Kia of muncie no longer wants to do business with me I feel only because I've called them out on their scam I will take this to the court room if needed this is complete and utter ridiculessness I feel taken advantage of and I want what I deserve not the run arounds
To Whom It May Concern, I have read the details of the complaints from Ms*** and have inquired with my management team at Kia of Muncie to gather some specifics about the source of the customer's dissatisfactionIn every transaction where we are attempting to arrange financing for our
clients, there's often a need to engage more than one lending source to ensure we are getting the best loan structure, terms, and interest rate for our clientsWhile it's common knowledge that each individual lending source will likely want to execute a credit report pull to help assess the credit worthiness of the customer, it can be misunderstood, even miscommunicated at the time of the inquiries by any number people involved in that processTo the extent that any one individual or manager made that statement, we will apologize for any confusion without hesitationHowever, the signatures and acknowledgements we require on credit applications (as mandated by the lenders themselves, credit bureaus and consumer protection laws en force) adequately discloses this regardless of if the client reads or understands it thoroughlyThis particular customer called into our dealership yesterday to voice this complaint and we advised her we'd look into the specifics and respond to herAs of this communication to you, we have attempted to do this twice and have been unable to reach herIf we continue to be unsuccessful in reaching her, we will send a letter under our signature explaining the situation and to the extent that any perceived or real damage to her credit score was incurred, she can at least show that it was isolated to her automotive loan origination at that timeUnfortunately, we would be unable to quantify what damage, if any, was done to her credit since that time without pulling another credit report, which clearly we don't believe the customer will have any interest in doing so. Lastly, despite what is sometimes advised or written by consumer advocates, an isolated number of credit pulls, or multiple pulls in and of themselves, does not necessarily impact the individual's credit scoreHowever, lenders can see the bureau report pull activity and see the client is actively shopping or trying to arrange credit and may make their own assumptions accordingly depending on their lending parameters, risk tolerance or other factorsManeuvering the lending approval process using multiple lenders for "quotes" is precisely the solutions and choice we are attempting to provide the customer, as we likely did in this case. I will update the case with any substantial developments or communication with the customer if I find anything to the contrary of what I've reported above. Thank you, Jeff
Mr. [redacted] purchased a 2010 Pontiac G6 from Kia of Muncie on 5/23/16. We attempted to finance the vehicle and sent his application to banks until we got someone to approve the loan. [redacted] approved the loan based off of the credit information we were given from the customer. Mr....
[redacted] told us that he worked 40 hours per week. When we received pay stubs it was apparent that he only worked approximately 20 hours per week based off of year to date and hours worked on the pay stub. When the bank called the customer to find out why there are discrepancies in pay, the customer cursed out the lender. The lender then called Kia of Muncie and told us they had zero interest in funding the loan. Daniel B[redacted], our General Sales Manager, personally went to the customers house to see if the car was there. The vehicle was sitting wedged between the house and the barn so that it would be hard to tow. We then sent a tow truck to the customers house picked up our car (after a lot of arguing with the tow truck driver for aprox. an hour). We then had the customers trade-in towed back 50 miles at our expense. The customer complained that we hurt his 1999 Ford Windstar with 218,403 miles while it was sitting on our lot. He also accused us of cutting of his exhaust with a plasma cutter. Kia does not own a plasma cutter nor did we touch his exhaust. It was hanging and almost dragging on the ground when the vehicle was traded in. Although we did offer to have his exhaust repaired at a exhaust shop in Mr. [redacted]'s home town at our expense. The customer declined the repair and wants us to purchase his vehicle back from him. We have not spoken with the customer since the last request. [redacted], while we strive to do good for all of our customers, this is a case where the customer falsely represented his own income, creating issues for our ability to complete his loan and purchase of his car. The activity and client behavior that ensued upon us trying to recover our property is somewhat telling of how much effort has been required of our entire team, to no avail. Mr. [redacted]'s issues with Kia of Muncie are unfounded and without merit and in light of what the consequences would be in falsifying credit information on an application to a lending institution, we feel he'd be better off taking his business elsewhere. I will not endorse any additional assistance or communication with him at this time. Thank you for understanding. Jeff D[redacted]Kia of Muncie
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
let me begin with the fact that I'm currently on workers comp in the state of indiana and also let you know that I work a full 40 hour work week when I can they only took 2 weeks worth of paystubs from me however being that I'm injured and had surgery back in February I regularly have had to attend physical rehabilitation witch is the reason why my pay stubs reflected the way they did I am supposed to be getting reimbursements for time off due to appointments from being injured at work however that's a different argument that has no concern ovet this matter I only got rude with the financial institute when they claimed to have called my employer to verify that I did have surgery in February of 2016 but proceeded to tell me that my employer told them I did not have surgery and have not had any time off due to recovery and rehabilitation I am still currently on workers comp and work 40 hours a week when I can on restricted duty this can be confirmed anytime kia of muncie has given both my wife and I the run a round for over a month I feel like I'm being medically discriminated against and demand that kia of muncie fix this matter and make it right the exhaust was not hanging on the ground nor was it dragging I have witnessess that can and will contest to this we drove the 1999 ford windstar to kia of muncie 2 days in a row before trading it in they deliberately destroyed my trade in I feel Kia of muncie no longer wants to do business with me I feel only because I've called them out on their scam I will take this to the court room if needed this is complete and utter ridiculessness I feel taken advantage of and I want what I deserve not the run arounds
To Whom It May Concern,I am in receipt of the complaint against our Kia dealership in Muncie from one Mr. [redacted]. As I will articulate below, Mr. [redacted] is no stranger to our dealerships and this is not his first attempt to discredit our company with baseless claims about "disceptive...
practices" at either of the dealerships he's done business with over a number of years. Mr [redacted] purchased his 2016 Kia Sorento EX ([redacted]) on 9/10/15 with 196 miles on the odometer when he took delivery. That vehicle was invoiced to our Kia dealership from Kia Motors on 1/06/2015. He traded a 2012 Ford Escape ([redacted]) which he only owned for a short time, with $9,450 in negative equity, that we believe was also carried forward when he traded another vehicle for it in the months preceding it. The major road block that Mr. [redacted] continues to face in the frequent trading of vehicles (at any dealership, not just ours) is the accumulated and carried forward negative equity, well in advance of his ability to pay it down (with cash or monthly payments). Combined with depreciation all vehicles experience, the cumulative impact of this behavior, continues to place him in a very difficult financial position each time he decides he wants a new car. Unfortunately as we've experienced at our Toyota dealership earlier in the year, this frustrates Mr. [redacted] at each attempt to trade to the point that he will raise baseless claims about our ethics, practices and most concerning, how his disability is the reason we are doing this.Despite these owner-created roadblocks. my team at both dealerships, doing what they are primarily here to do, have still managed to arrange financing on this last purchase to carry the negative equity from the Ford Escape, and did so in terms that Mr. [redacted] both agreed to and executed in writing on all contracts and disclosures provided that time. In the many years of doing business with Mr. [redacted], he's always been accompanied by his wife, [redacted], who is able to translate some of his speech barriers, but at no time does Mr. [redacted] appear to lack the legal or mental capacity to enter in to said agreements. Our team has treated Mr. [redacted] with the same level of respect and dignity they would any consumer wanting to do business with us. Any insinuation that his disability is motivation for us to act against his (our our) best wishes is baseless and disrespectful of people who face far more significant hurdles with disabilities than Mr. [redacted] does when buying cars. The "damage" Mr. [redacted] references on the Kia, was the result of an accident reported on 3/16/2015 and reported on the Carfax report as follows - "accident reported, vehicle involved in rear-end collision involving front impact with another motor vehicle front primarily damaged and airbags did not deploy." What my team has advised me is that, the 2016 Kia was being moved on our lot and backed into another customer's car, the damage was so minimal to the new Kia it didn't require body work or anything of considerable value. The others customer's car had a bit more damage and the report that shows up on Car Fax is from their insurance company who filed the report. We have not been able to locate the accident report that Mr. [redacted] says he was able to find on this. Regardless, our duty then, and now, was to repair the vehicle to it's original status since this was a minor accident. Given this assessment, clearly the repairs made indicate a very minor amount of damage with not enough incursion into the Kia's body structure, major components or safety systems to warrant a "value adjusting" event in its history, much less require documented disclosure to a consumer. It is common for new and used vehicles to incur damage while in inventory at dealerships, on the lot, being driven, sometimes even while in transport to us.To date, Mr. [redacted] has raised no issues in his complaints to the Revdex.com or in any other form to us since his purchase. Leaving us to reasonably assume the Kia's operation, aesthetics or durability have not been compromised in any way shape for fashion. This supports our response that the vehicles repair was done properly and has not jeopardized the its quality and inherent value as claimed in his complaints. Luckily, we were contacted by another dealership that has also been working with Mr. [redacted] to trade vehicles who indicated they did not make any trade value adjustments to the Kia for what appears on the Carfax report, just as we indicated we would do the same. We even provided interest in buying Mr. [redacted]s trade from them if they acquired it, for full trade value. This means the stated financial "damages" he's claiming is invalid and baseless. Ironically, however, the $5,000 he's claiming for settlement of issues with us is the exact amount of down payment we understand he'd need to trade out of the Kia under whatever financing arrangements he's wanting to make, further illustrating the arbitrary nature of his financial "damages." Baring any additional information to the contrary, and after taking a significant look at all of the factors in play, I see nothing that's transpired in Mr. [redacted]'s dealings with us to indicate deceptive trade practices. Our history with Mr. [redacted] also clearly shows that nobody on my team believes his handicap was a factor in his ability and willingness to make these multiple purchases from our organization. I highly doubt Mr. [redacted] would have returned so many times if he also felt our quality of service or resolve to help him (including direct contact with myself) were somehow inadequate. Upon request, I have additional documentation, backup information and even email exchanges from earlier in the year about similar baseless claims made to our Toyota dealership should they become relevant and needed. Thank you, Jeff D[redacted], Managing Partner, Muncie Auto Group (Toyota of Muncie/Kia of Muncie)
Mr [redacted] purchased a Pontiac Gfrom Kia of Muncie on 5/23/We attempted to finance the vehicle and sent his application to banks until we got someone to approve the loan [redacted] approved the loan based off of the credit information we were given from the customerMr [redacted] told us that he worked hours per weekWhen we received pay stubs it was apparent that he only worked approximately hours per week based off of year to date and hours worked on the pay stubWhen the bank called the customer to find out why there are discrepancies in pay, the customer cursed out the lenderThe lender then called Kia of Muncie and told us they had zero interest in funding the loanDaniel B [redacted] , our General Sales Manager, personally went to the customers house to see if the car was thereThe vehicle was sitting wedged between the house and the barn so that it would be hard to towWe then sent a tow truck to the customers house picked up our car (after a lot of arguing with the tow truck driver for aproxan hour)We then had the customers tratowed back miles at our expenseThe customer complained that we hurt his Ford Windstar with 218,miles while it was sitting on our lotHe also accused us of cutting of his exhaust with a plasma cutterKia does not own a plasma cutter nor did we touch his exhaustIt was hanging and almost dragging on the ground when the vehicle was traded inAlthough we did offer to have his exhaust repaired at a exhaust shop in Mr [redacted] 's home town at our expenseThe customer declined the repair and wants us to purchase his vehicle back from himWe have not spoken with the customer since the last request [redacted] , while we strive to do good for all of our customers, this is a case where the customer falsely represented his own income, creating issues for our ability to complete his loan and purchase of his carThe activity and client behavior that ensued upon us trying to recover our property is somewhat telling of how much effort has been required of our entire team, to no availMr [redacted] 's issues with Kia of Muncie are unfounded and without merit and in light of what the consequences would be in falsifying credit information on an application to a lending institution, we feel he'd be better off taking his business elsewhereI will not endorse any additional assistance or communication with him at this time Thank you for understanding Jeff D [redacted] Kia of Muncie
To Whom It May Concern,I am in receipt of the complaint against our Kia dealership in Muncie from one Mr [redacted] As I will articulate below, Mr [redacted] is no stranger to our dealerships and this is not his first attempt to discredit our company with baseless claims about "disceptive practices" at either of the dealerships he's done business with over a number of yearsMr [redacted] purchased his Kia Sorento EX ( [redacted] ) on 9/10/ with miles on the odometer when he took deliveryThat vehicle was invoiced to our Kia dealership from Kia Motors on 1/06/He traded a Ford Escape ( [redacted] ) which he only owned for a short time, with $9,in negative equity, that we believe was also carried forward when he traded another vehicle for it in the months preceding itThe major road block that Mr [redacted] continues to face in the frequent trading of vehicles (at any dealership, not just ours) is the accumulated and carried forward negative equity, well in advance of his ability to pay it down (with cash or monthly payments)Combined with depreciation all vehicles experience, the cumulative impact of this behavior, continues to place him in a very difficult financial position each time he decides he wants a new carUnfortunately as we've experienced at our Toyota dealership earlier in the year, this frustrates Mr [redacted] at each attempt to trade to the point that he will raise baseless claims about our ethics, practices and most concerning, how his disability is the reason we are doing this.Despite these owner-created roadblocksmy team at both dealerships, doing what they are primarily here to do, have still managed to arrange financing on this last purchase to carry the negative equity from the Ford Escape, and did so in terms that Mr [redacted] both agreed to and executed in writing on all contracts and disclosures provided that timeIn the many years of doing business with Mr [redacted] , he's always been accompanied by his wife, ***, who is able to translate some of his speech barriers, but at no time does Mr [redacted] appear to lack the legal or mental capacity to enter in to said agreementsOur team has treated Mr [redacted] with the same level of respect and dignity they would any consumer wanting to do business with usAny insinuation that his disability is motivation for us to act against his (our our) best wishes is baseless and disrespectful of people who face far more significant hurdles with disabilities than Mr [redacted] does when buying carsThe "damage" Mr [redacted] references on the Kia, was the result of an accident reported on 3/16/and reported on the Carfax report as follows - "accident reported, vehicle involved in rear-end collision involving front impact with another motor vehicle front primarily damaged and airbags did not deploy." What my team has advised me is that, the Kia was being moved on our lot and backed into another customer's car, the damage was so minimal to the new Kia it didn't require body work or anything of considerable valueThe others customer's car had a bit more damage and the report that shows up on Car Fax is from their insurance company who filed the reportWe have not been able to locate the accident report that Mr [redacted] says he was able to find on thisRegardless, our duty then, and now, was to repair the vehicle to it's original status since this was a minor accidentGiven this assessment, clearly the repairs made indicate a very minor amount of damage with not enough incursion into the Kia's body structure, major components or safety systems to warrant a "value adjusting" event in its history, much less require documented disclosure to a consumerIt is common for new and used vehicles to incur damage while in inventory at dealerships, on the lot, being driven, sometimes even while in transport to us.To date, Mr [redacted] has raised no issues in his complaints to the Revdex.com or in any other form to us since his purchaseLeaving us to reasonably assume the Kia's operation, aesthetics or durability have not been compromised in any way shape for fashionThis supports our response that the vehicles repair was done properly and has not jeopardized the its quality and inherent value as claimed in his complaints Luckily, we were contacted by another dealership that has also been working with Mr [redacted] to trade vehicles who indicated they did not make any trade value adjustments to the Kia for what appears on the Carfax report, just as we indicated we would do the sameWe even provided interest in buying Mr [redacted] s trade from them if they acquired it, for full trade valueThis means the stated financial "damages" he's claiming is invalid and baselessIronically, however, the $5,he's claiming for settlement of issues with us is the exact amount of down payment we understand he'd need to trade out of the Kia under whatever financing arrangements he's wanting to make, further illustrating the arbitrary nature of his financial "damages." Baring any additional information to the contrary, and after taking a significant look at all of the factors in play, I see nothing that's transpired in Mr [redacted] 's dealings with us to indicate deceptive trade practicesOur history with Mr [redacted] also clearly shows that nobody on my team believes his handicap was a factor in his ability and willingness to make these multiple purchases from our organizationI highly doubt Mr [redacted] would have returned so many times if he also felt our quality of service or resolve to help him (including direct contact with myself) were somehow inadequate Upon request, I have additional documentation, backup information and even email exchanges from earlier in the year about similar baseless claims made to our Toyota dealership should they become relevant and needed Thank you, Jeff D [redacted] , Managing Partner, Muncie Auto Group (Toyota of Muncie/Kia of Muncie)
Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below let me begin with the fact that I'm currently on workers comp in the state of indiana and also let you know that I work a full hour work week when I can they only took weeks worth of paystubs from me however being that I'm injured and had surgery back in February I regularly have had to attend physical rehabilitation witch is the reason why my pay stubs reflected the way they did I am supposed to be getting reimbursements for time off due to appointments from being injured at work however that's a different argument that has no concern ovet this matter I only got rude with the financial institute when they claimed to have called my employer to verify that I did have surgery in February of but proceeded to tell me that my employer told them I did not have surgery and have not had any time off due to recovery and rehabilitation I am still currently on workers comp and work hours a week when I can on restricted duty this can be confirmed anytime kia of muncie has given both my wife and I the run a round for over a month I feel like I'm being medically discriminated against and demand that kia of muncie fix this matter and make it right the exhaust was not hanging on the ground nor was it dragging I have witnessess that can and will contest to this we drove the ford windstar to kia of muncie days in a row before trading it in they deliberately destroyed my trade in I feel Kia of muncie no longer wants to do business with me I feel only because I've called them out on their scam I will take this to the court room if needed this is complete and utter ridiculessness I feel taken advantage of and I want what I deserve not the run arounds
To Whom It May Concern, I have read the details of the complaints from Ms*** and have inquired with my management team at Kia of Muncie to gather some specifics about the source of the customer's dissatisfactionIn every transaction where we are attempting to arrange financing for our
clients, there's often a need to engage more than one lending source to ensure we are getting the best loan structure, terms, and interest rate for our clientsWhile it's common knowledge that each individual lending source will likely want to execute a credit report pull to help assess the credit worthiness of the customer, it can be misunderstood, even miscommunicated at the time of the inquiries by any number people involved in that processTo the extent that any one individual or manager made that statement, we will apologize for any confusion without hesitationHowever, the signatures and acknowledgements we require on credit applications (as mandated by the lenders themselves, credit bureaus and consumer protection laws en force) adequately discloses this regardless of if the client reads or understands it thoroughlyThis particular customer called into our dealership yesterday to voice this complaint and we advised her we'd look into the specifics and respond to herAs of this communication to you, we have attempted to do this twice and have been unable to reach herIf we continue to be unsuccessful in reaching her, we will send a letter under our signature explaining the situation and to the extent that any perceived or real damage to her credit score was incurred, she can at least show that it was isolated to her automotive loan origination at that timeUnfortunately, we would be unable to quantify what damage, if any, was done to her credit since that time without pulling another credit report, which clearly we don't believe the customer will have any interest in doing so. Lastly, despite what is sometimes advised or written by consumer advocates, an isolated number of credit pulls, or multiple pulls in and of themselves, does not necessarily impact the individual's credit scoreHowever, lenders can see the bureau report pull activity and see the client is actively shopping or trying to arrange credit and may make their own assumptions accordingly depending on their lending parameters, risk tolerance or other factorsManeuvering the lending approval process using multiple lenders for "quotes" is precisely the solutions and choice we are attempting to provide the customer, as we likely did in this case. I will update the case with any substantial developments or communication with the customer if I find anything to the contrary of what I've reported above. Thank you, Jeff
Mr. [redacted] purchased a 2010 Pontiac G6 from Kia of Muncie on 5/23/16. We attempted to finance the vehicle and sent his application to banks until we got someone to approve the loan. [redacted] approved the loan based off of the credit information we were given from the customer. Mr....
[redacted] told us that he worked 40 hours per week. When we received pay stubs it was apparent that he only worked approximately 20 hours per week based off of year to date and hours worked on the pay stub. When the bank called the customer to find out why there are discrepancies in pay, the customer cursed out the lender. The lender then called Kia of Muncie and told us they had zero interest in funding the loan. Daniel B[redacted], our General Sales Manager, personally went to the customers house to see if the car was there. The vehicle was sitting wedged between the house and the barn so that it would be hard to tow. We then sent a tow truck to the customers house picked up our car (after a lot of arguing with the tow truck driver for aprox. an hour). We then had the customers trade-in towed back 50 miles at our expense. The customer complained that we hurt his 1999 Ford Windstar with 218,403 miles while it was sitting on our lot. He also accused us of cutting of his exhaust with a plasma cutter. Kia does not own a plasma cutter nor did we touch his exhaust. It was hanging and almost dragging on the ground when the vehicle was traded in. Although we did offer to have his exhaust repaired at a exhaust shop in Mr. [redacted]'s home town at our expense. The customer declined the repair and wants us to purchase his vehicle back from him. We have not spoken with the customer since the last request. [redacted], while we strive to do good for all of our customers, this is a case where the customer falsely represented his own income, creating issues for our ability to complete his loan and purchase of his car. The activity and client behavior that ensued upon us trying to recover our property is somewhat telling of how much effort has been required of our entire team, to no avail. Mr. [redacted]'s issues with Kia of Muncie are unfounded and without merit and in light of what the consequences would be in falsifying credit information on an application to a lending institution, we feel he'd be better off taking his business elsewhere. I will not endorse any additional assistance or communication with him at this time. Thank you for understanding. Jeff D[redacted]Kia of Muncie
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
let me begin with the fact that I'm currently on workers comp in the state of indiana and also let you know that I work a full 40 hour work week when I can they only took 2 weeks worth of paystubs from me however being that I'm injured and had surgery back in February I regularly have had to attend physical rehabilitation witch is the reason why my pay stubs reflected the way they did I am supposed to be getting reimbursements for time off due to appointments from being injured at work however that's a different argument that has no concern ovet this matter I only got rude with the financial institute when they claimed to have called my employer to verify that I did have surgery in February of 2016 but proceeded to tell me that my employer told them I did not have surgery and have not had any time off due to recovery and rehabilitation I am still currently on workers comp and work 40 hours a week when I can on restricted duty this can be confirmed anytime kia of muncie has given both my wife and I the run a round for over a month I feel like I'm being medically discriminated against and demand that kia of muncie fix this matter and make it right the exhaust was not hanging on the ground nor was it dragging I have witnessess that can and will contest to this we drove the 1999 ford windstar to kia of muncie 2 days in a row before trading it in they deliberately destroyed my trade in I feel Kia of muncie no longer wants to do business with me I feel only because I've called them out on their scam I will take this to the court room if needed this is complete and utter ridiculessness I feel taken advantage of and I want what I deserve not the run arounds
To Whom It May Concern,I am in receipt of the complaint against our Kia dealership in Muncie from one Mr. [redacted]. As I will articulate below, Mr. [redacted] is no stranger to our dealerships and this is not his first attempt to discredit our company with baseless claims about "disceptive...
practices" at either of the dealerships he's done business with over a number of years. Mr [redacted] purchased his 2016 Kia Sorento EX ([redacted]) on 9/10/15 with 196 miles on the odometer when he took delivery. That vehicle was invoiced to our Kia dealership from Kia Motors on 1/06/2015. He traded a 2012 Ford Escape ([redacted]) which he only owned for a short time, with $9,450 in negative equity, that we believe was also carried forward when he traded another vehicle for it in the months preceding it. The major road block that Mr. [redacted] continues to face in the frequent trading of vehicles (at any dealership, not just ours) is the accumulated and carried forward negative equity, well in advance of his ability to pay it down (with cash or monthly payments). Combined with depreciation all vehicles experience, the cumulative impact of this behavior, continues to place him in a very difficult financial position each time he decides he wants a new car. Unfortunately as we've experienced at our Toyota dealership earlier in the year, this frustrates Mr. [redacted] at each attempt to trade to the point that he will raise baseless claims about our ethics, practices and most concerning, how his disability is the reason we are doing this.Despite these owner-created roadblocks. my team at both dealerships, doing what they are primarily here to do, have still managed to arrange financing on this last purchase to carry the negative equity from the Ford Escape, and did so in terms that Mr. [redacted] both agreed to and executed in writing on all contracts and disclosures provided that time. In the many years of doing business with Mr. [redacted], he's always been accompanied by his wife, [redacted], who is able to translate some of his speech barriers, but at no time does Mr. [redacted] appear to lack the legal or mental capacity to enter in to said agreements. Our team has treated Mr. [redacted] with the same level of respect and dignity they would any consumer wanting to do business with us. Any insinuation that his disability is motivation for us to act against his (our our) best wishes is baseless and disrespectful of people who face far more significant hurdles with disabilities than Mr. [redacted] does when buying cars. The "damage" Mr. [redacted] references on the Kia, was the result of an accident reported on 3/16/2015 and reported on the Carfax report as follows - "accident reported, vehicle involved in rear-end collision involving front impact with another motor vehicle front primarily damaged and airbags did not deploy." What my team has advised me is that, the 2016 Kia was being moved on our lot and backed into another customer's car, the damage was so minimal to the new Kia it didn't require body work or anything of considerable value. The others customer's car had a bit more damage and the report that shows up on Car Fax is from their insurance company who filed the report. We have not been able to locate the accident report that Mr. [redacted] says he was able to find on this. Regardless, our duty then, and now, was to repair the vehicle to it's original status since this was a minor accident. Given this assessment, clearly the repairs made indicate a very minor amount of damage with not enough incursion into the Kia's body structure, major components or safety systems to warrant a "value adjusting" event in its history, much less require documented disclosure to a consumer. It is common for new and used vehicles to incur damage while in inventory at dealerships, on the lot, being driven, sometimes even while in transport to us.To date, Mr. [redacted] has raised no issues in his complaints to the Revdex.com or in any other form to us since his purchase. Leaving us to reasonably assume the Kia's operation, aesthetics or durability have not been compromised in any way shape for fashion. This supports our response that the vehicles repair was done properly and has not jeopardized the its quality and inherent value as claimed in his complaints. Luckily, we were contacted by another dealership that has also been working with Mr. [redacted] to trade vehicles who indicated they did not make any trade value adjustments to the Kia for what appears on the Carfax report, just as we indicated we would do the same. We even provided interest in buying Mr. [redacted]s trade from them if they acquired it, for full trade value. This means the stated financial "damages" he's claiming is invalid and baseless. Ironically, however, the $5,000 he's claiming for settlement of issues with us is the exact amount of down payment we understand he'd need to trade out of the Kia under whatever financing arrangements he's wanting to make, further illustrating the arbitrary nature of his financial "damages." Baring any additional information to the contrary, and after taking a significant look at all of the factors in play, I see nothing that's transpired in Mr. [redacted]'s dealings with us to indicate deceptive trade practices. Our history with Mr. [redacted] also clearly shows that nobody on my team believes his handicap was a factor in his ability and willingness to make these multiple purchases from our organization. I highly doubt Mr. [redacted] would have returned so many times if he also felt our quality of service or resolve to help him (including direct contact with myself) were somehow inadequate. Upon request, I have additional documentation, backup information and even email exchanges from earlier in the year about similar baseless claims made to our Toyota dealership should they become relevant and needed. Thank you, Jeff D[redacted], Managing Partner, Muncie Auto Group (Toyota of Muncie/Kia of Muncie)