Donald Jenks, Surveyor

I am writing in response to a complaint filed by [redacted] Mr [redacted] visited Monroeville Kia on Saturday April 2, to look at a vehicle advertised on the our mobile website Several thing occurred to get us to this pointFirst of all, a misprint on the mobile site stated that stock #Kwith vin: [redacted] was aAll Wheel Drive Sorentowhen you click on the special link, you were redirected to the vehicle for sale I enclosed a screen shot showing the same stock number and vin as the car in question clearly showing it is a front wheel drive Sorento Second mistake we made was one of our incoming phone representatives stated we would honor the advertised price days after the special expired I told Mr [redacted] we would honor the price on the said vehicle in the ad but there was a misprint in production of the website slide He insisted and argued that he should be able to purchase the car he wanted, a specific all wheel drive Sorento Lx for the Base L model that was advertisedThe website slide was proofread by several people but somehow the heading was not corrected before it went live to the website Thirdly, when we deleted the expired ad at the end of last month, the ad should have deleted off the mobile site also Mr [redacted] was able to view the expired ad for almost days before it finally came down off the mobile site When I spoke with Mr [redacted] after the incident the following weak on the phone, he stated we intentionally lied and we should honor the priceHe also stated we did not even offer him any pricing on the All Wheel Drive LX Sorento he was looking for I pulled the records and that was an untrue statement Both a buy and a lease offer was extended to Mr [redacted] but he chose not to purchase the vehicle Before the conversation ended, Mr [redacted] stated he worked for a major bank in the area and he knew numbers He stated that unless we did the deal he wanted for the car he would blast us on every review site he could When he state this, I told him he was not going to hold us hostage over reviews and we could agree to disagree on the situation I tried to talk to Mr [redacted] when he was here, along with one of our Sales-managers, and on the phone, and Mr [redacted] was unable to be reasoned with As far as an intentional lie, As Mr [redacted] had stated, somehow a misprinted ad headline was not removed when it should have been If there are any additional questions I can answer for you, please do not hesitate to contact me.Thank you,Michael P [redacted] General Manager Monroeville Kia

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID 11307296, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.I have elected to reject MrP***’s response as he has
done nothing but prove my point, lie to me and continually avoid owning up to a
series of “mistakes” to which he should honor the price that was promisedI
would like to address the many issues that MrP*** has brought up and will
do so in the order they appear in his responseUnfortunately this is a very
long response but I feel it is necessary to elaborate on all the issues so that
a true picture can be painted and not the one sided version MrP*** has
delivered in his response to try to save face
I would first like to address the fact that this “typo”
wasn’t only made on the mobile site but also on their main page when looking
via computerThis ad was still visible on Friday April 1st at
o’clock pm after it apparently ended on the day beforeI find it more than
curious that this banner was left up leading into the weekend (when the
majority of people would come into the showroom)Whether or not they did this
intentionally to try to bring in customers can’t be proven but coupled with the
rest of the events, I wouldn’t put it past themThis whole situation occurred due to
the incompetence of Monroeville Kia’s marketing team, internet sales department
and management and by anything that I have doneI could accept this car being incorrectly advertised on their
main site and still visible on the mobile site two days later but I cannot
accept that I was told this ad was correct and that it would still be honored
even though it technically expiredI also find it very hard to accept that I
was the only person to inquire about this price considering it was such a good
price (we will address this statement later on)
The second issue I would like to address is the “typo” as
MrP*** refers to it relentlesslyMy issue with hiding behind the fact
that this was a “typo” is that how is a customer to determine if the “typo” is
in the giant banner or in the information provided in size font that is
barely visible? Is it impossible to assume that maybe someone put the wrong
information in the fine print rather than the massive eye catching ad as soon
as you open their website? Since either data could be incorrect, you can’t make
a determination one way or the other unless you speak to someone at the
dealership which leads me into my third point
My third point is I can’t understand how MrP*** can
argue the circumstances surrounding this situation when he himself has admitted
that when I called to ask about the price and vehicle in question, one of his
representatives confirmed that the AWD Sorento banner was correct and that
the price would be honoredI was promised a price by a member of his
dealership but apparently they don’t honor the promises made by employeesIf
they have no intentions of honoring things their online representatives say,
why do they even have these people employed? When I was at the dealership I
asked my sales associate, “Why would the girl on the phone tell me it would be
honored if she had no idea and didn't have the authority to do so?” As he walked away he murmured under his breath
“because that’s how they get people in the door.” So am I to understand that I
was intentionally lied to so that they could get me in the door? Lying and
omitting facts is apparently what they are in the business of doing rather than
selling cars
Speaking of omitting facts, that brings me to the comment
MrP*** made in regards to me being untruthful when I stated that I was not
even offered any other pricing on the Sorento I went in to look atIf Mr
P*** would like to provide the documents, it will show that I was offered a
lease option for this car; however, the price of the car on the lease was still
close to $30,Would MrP*** like to explain how offering me a lease at
full price is in anyway an offer in good faith to make the issue better? I
could have walked into any dealership and gotten the same priceSo to me, this was in
no way an attempt to make things right but more of an attempt to pull a fast
oneNice trySecondly, they offered me another deal but it wasn’t for the AWD Rather he offered me a used with 30k miles for the
same price as the AWD I was originally promisedYet again, he never offered
to lower the price on the AWD but rather he just tried sell me a used carIf he can explain
how either of these options are supposed to be accepted as good faith attempts
to resolve the issue, I would be all ears because to me, it seems that he was
willing to try anything he could to avoid making good on the AWD I was
promised
For my fourth point I would like to address the comment Mr
P*** made in regards to my comment about working for a major bank and
knowing numbersThis is a 100% true factI made this statement because when
trying to discuss the “lease option” as discussed above, he tried to hide
behind the fact that there are "many variables" that go into the pricing for a
leaseWhen I questioned him about the variables, he stated that most people
have down payments or positive trade equityI informed him that I did have
positive trade equity to which he replied, “Well it’s typically based off of
$positive equity”This is when I informed him that he had offered me
$for my car and since I only owed $on my current loan, I had roughly
$in positive trade equityThis is the point when I informed him that I
worked for a bank and that I wasn’t going to listen to him try to confuse me by
throwing out financing terms hoping I would just accept what he was sayingAs
I expected, he didn’t have a response to my statement but rather stated that he
wanted to know the name of bank so he knew never to business with them againAgain,
just another example of how MrP*** is trying to use classic car salesman
tactics to avoid making good on what was undoubtedly their “mistakes”
Now, addressing my comment made to MrP*** regarding
writing negative reviewsThis was not an attempt to “hold them hostage” (nice
use of dramatics) but rather just to inform him that he could fully expect for
me to let people know what their dealership is like from my perspective and
that he wasn’t going to sweep this all under the rugIt is obvious that Mr
P*** is trying to attack my character making me seem to be a person who
would say, if you don’t give me what I want, I’m going to do something
unethical like spread rumorsThis is not the caseI just wanted to inform him
that I was not the type of person who will be taken advantage of and that there
are ways for individuals to stand up against corporations/businesses who think
that they are untouchable
Next, I would like to address MrP***’s comments in
regards to me speaking with another sales manager on the phone and also the various
lies that I have caught him in during this entire debacleThe comment of me
talking to another sales manager over the phone is interesting because the only
two people I have spoken to on the phone are MrP*** and the original
internet representativeThis begs the questions, if his sales manager wasn’t
talking to me, who was he talking to? Obviously I wasn’t the only person to
inquire about this ad which is a lie that MrP*** told me the day I was at
the dealership and the day of our phone conversationI asked him if anyone
else had asked about the price to which he replied noI then asked again, “Are
you sure I’m the only single person to ask about this price?” Again, he stated
that I was the only oneI know this to be an absolute lie because a co-worker
of mine (who was also looking for a car) called on Friday the 1st
and was promised the same car for the same priceWhen I told him what happened
to me, he cancelled his appointmentA week or so later he was reached out to
by Monroeville Kia (this is who his other sales manager was talking to, not me)
and after stating that he only wanted to talk to someone if they were willing
to honor the price, he was connected to the sales manager who told him they
wouldn’t honor the priceHe continued to waste my co-workers time at which
point according to MrP***, again, no resolution was found (just for the
sake of timeline, this occurred a week or so before my phone conversation with
MrP***)Another lie that I was told during this whole situation was that
the price couldn’t be honored because the prices are set by Kia corporate and
the dealers aren’t allowed to sell a car for an amount below what the company
setsI called Kia corporate who then verified that this was falseThe
gentleman I spoke to at Kia corporate informed me that by federal law they are
not allowed to control prices on their carsThey can only give the MSRP and
what the dealer does after accepting the vehicle is up to them. Again, I have been misled by MrP***
Finally I would like to take a minute and visit the comment
made about me being unable to be reasoned withI am failing to understand how
after I was promised a price on a car (typo or not) that the dealership feels
they are under no obligation to honor this promise/priceInstead, I was
offered a lease (at full cost minus factory rebates) and then a used car for
what I was told I would pay for a brand new oneTo me, Monroeville Kia at no
point made any good faith effort to make the situation rightTo be completely honest, if at any point in time MrP*** would have showed me even a shred of respect, this may have all been avoidedHe has been nothing but disrespectful and he himself has been the unreasonable oneHis whole approach to this situation has been if I didn't pay full price for the AWD 2016, he wasn't selling me that carAfter I told Mr
P*** that it was a minute drive out to them and I didn’t appreciate them
wasting my time, he told me that my drive/time wasn’t worth the hit he would
take on the carObviously this dealership doesn’t care about the service they
deliverInstead they use shady ad tactics, bullying and excuses/lies to try to
coerce customers into buying their vehiclesAt no point did MrP*** offer
to reduce the price of the AWD Sorento but rather decided that it was
worth it to let this turn into a big to do involving the Revdex.com
In conclusion, I will not accept MrP***’s response
because I find it completely ridiculous and a total waste of timeIn his
response he completely made my point so I do not understand what he had hoped
to accomplishHe admitted that their ad was incorrect (and was left up for two
days after it ended) and he also admitted that I was promised a price by a
member of his staff which he will not honorYet again, whether or not this was
a “typo” or a “misprint” (which I still believe it wasn’t due to his employee
admitting things are promised “just to get people in the door”), I feel that
Monroeville Kia has been nothing other than dishonest and in no way has made
any attempt to rectify the situation but rather continues to fight in hopes
that I will leave the situation aloneIf there are any questions or concerns
about the above please feel free to reach out
Regards,
*** ***

Dear Ms***: I am writing in response to a complaint filed by Ms*** ***, ID #*** On June 20, Ms*** purchased a Kia Optima During her transaction, she wrote us a check for $and financed the balance
through *** *** Auto Finance That check was deposited on a date agreed by Ms*** and Monroeville Kia The check was returned to the dealership for a stop payment from the customer On August 3, Monroeville Kia was finally able to get a hold of Ms*** and the debit card information and authorization was given to David P***, Sales Manager MrP*** agreed to charge $to the card on August 3, and the remaining balance on August 13, On August 13, Ms***'s card was declined by the card processing company Paul W***, Finance Manager for Monroeville Kia, and David P*** made numerous attempts to contact Ms*** concerning the balance still due from her vehicle purchase/check There were no returned calls until after payment was posted to Ms***'s debit card We were given the authorization and debit card information to collect payment for the returned check Without MS***'s consent, Monroeville Kia would have not had the information to process her card Attached is the copy of the returned check to verify that the funds collected were actually the same that were owed as part of Ms***'s transaction Please do not hesitate to call me if you need any additional information.Thank you,Michael P***General ManagerMonroeville Kia

From: Michael P***Date: Thu, May 5, at 3:PMSubject: Response for Complaint TD# ***To: ***Ms*** *** MS*** *** purchased a used Kia Optima from us with the standard aluminum wheels.
During the negotiation process, Ms*** pointed out the was a scratch on one of the wheels. She was originally told that Monroeville Kia would be able to put a "wheel-skin" or a hubcap cover on all wheels. During the ordering process of the wheel-skins, it was discovered they do not manufacture the covers for the Optima due to clearance issues with the breaking system. This issue could cause a potential safety issue while driving the carThere are several vehicles in stock at Monroeville Kia with these wheel-skins or hubcaps on the vehicles, although none are Optima's. The salesperson and sales manager informed the customer about the issue and offered to either repair or replace the scratched wheel. This option would cost Monroeville Kia additional monies versus just putting hubcaps over the factory aluminum wheels. This would also help retain resale value down the road by retaining the original equipment in good condition. The offer was made to Ms*** without any additional charges or cost. I believe the offer to Ms*** is an improved fix versus just covering the scratch on the vehicle as first stated. I would still like to extend the offer to Ms*** to replace the factory Kia wheel with a matching reconditioned factory wheel to preserve the appearance and functionality of her vehicle. Please let me know if Ms*** will accept our compromise.Thanks you,Michael P***General ManagerMonroeville Kia###-###-####***

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below
I will not accept Monroeville Kia's response. I will not support a business that uses dishonest business practices. They even lied in their response.
Regards,
*** ***

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear belowThe company lied, I have all of my documents of what date the tried to cash the check for 1000.00, this company tried to cash the check after I made a partial payment to them on 8/I called David on 8/and initiated the paymentThis company never tried to contact me I made all of the contact to the companyI have been there on numerous occasions since I purchased the car and they sold it to me knowing that it had bad breaksThey even told me on 7/that I owed my first car payment that wasn't due until 7/20, I wrote a check and they cashed it and it cleared with no problem, however I informed the company that ibspoke with my financing company and they were responsible for an additional 200-dollars in interest I was charged on my loan because they made a payment on the contract on 6/the day that I purchased the vehicleDavid stated he would contact the finance company to get things straightened out I never heard back from him until the call I initiated on 9/for them taking an unauthorized payment of 500.00, I never agreed to him taking a payment on 8/as they stated they tried to process then as well as 9/Why would I agree for them to take the money on 8/and I don't get paid until the 14th of every month?
Regards,
*** ***

In response to the enclosed complaint, I am attaching the correspondence form our Service Manager to myself.  Even though we are not required to re-test for the state inspection at no-charge, we will honor Ms. [redacted]s request for a complimentary re-inspection.  We will honor the...

complimentary re-inspection for 30 days from the original inspection date.This customer has also contacted the state; I got a call from them yesterday by a gentleman named [redacted]. He went over the customer’s concern and I explained to him what happened. There are no repercussions/reprimands, he simply provided me with information which I passed on to the advisors.  John filled me in yesterday morning about this customer and the events that transpired on Saturday. Customer came in for an inspection, and Mat P[redacted] got the car. He went through the inspection process and annotated on the back of the repair order everything that he found. What he didn’t do was differentiate between what was needed and what was recommended. John took it as everything was needed and presented it to the customer. Customer complained about the cost of the exhaust and was told by another shop that it did not require replacement. Exhaust pipe was broken at the flange and would pull apart. When customer questioned vehicle faults, John went back to Mat to verify what was required and recommended. He learned that wipers and exhaust pipe were required, and tires and brakes were at passing minimum, but they did pass. He explained this to the customer and apologized for the miscommunication. At this point, customer became argumentative over the necessity of replacing exhaust pipe, which fails inspection as per Vehicle Equipment and Inspection Regulations, Section 175.80 (e)(6)(ii). He also explained that the brakes and tires needed replacement very soon, but they would pass inspection at this time. Customer declined repairs on the vehicle and was informed that she would be responsible for the inspection less sticker and also the cost for the passing emission inspection. Customer then paid for services rendered and took possession of her vehicle. John annotated on the repair order deficiencies for safety inspection and recommendations for future maintenance requirements.There was an initial lack of communication between advisor and technician with regard to the repairs needed to complete the safety inspection process. This matter has been addressed with the advisors to have clarity when talking with customers. Thank you,Michael P[redacted]General Manager

I DONT REMEMBER THE SITUATION BUT WILL REFUND THE LAST PAYMENT MONEY. WILL GET IN THE MAIL ASAP. THANKS

I am responding about a complaint, ID [redacted] filed by [redacted] on May 2, 2016.  I spoke with Ms. [redacted] mom on Saturday April 30, 2016 at Monroeville Kia Sales Desk.  Ms. [redacted] was with her mother when we spoke.  She stated her daughter purchased a pre-owned Jeep off of us on...

March 7, 2016.  She stated we took advantage of her daughter by selling her a car without a warranty and we should fix whatever is wrong.  She stated the Jeep was making a noise but the were not interested in taking it to a Jeep dealership or paying to have it diagnosed here at Monroeville Kia.  The vehicle was sold with a 30 day or 1000 mile power-train only warranty with the availability of purchasing an extended service contract to cover the vehicle longer or cover more items than just the power-train.  When Ms. [redacted]'s mom asked her if she was offered an extended warranty, [redacted] replied she was not.  We explained that all customers who purchase an eligible vehicle are given the opportunity to purchase an extended service contract when the are signing their paperwork in the Business Office.  Being the vehicle was 1 month and 3 weeks from being purchased and not knowing the miles on the Jeep, it was out of the warranty that was included with the purchase.  Even if the vehicle was still under warranty, the customer may have been responsible for a diagnostic fee to determine if the problem was covered by that warranty.  To my knowledge, we were never given the opportunity to even diagnose the noise heard.  I have enclosed the Bill of Sale, FTC Label,Monroeville Kia Due Bill and a copy of the Waiver of extended service contract for your review.   Ms. [redacted] and her Mom did not understand that all vehicles, including those which are sold brand new, may have some defect or adjustment that may have to be made close to the time of sale. This is a normal cost of owning a vehicle.   I believe we have followed through with the promises made with the sale to Ms. [redacted].

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

Complaint # [redacted] has been resolved for [redacted]. The problem with Miss [redacted]'s car had to do with an oil pump failure not related to anything the dealership did. There has been an authorization for a new engine for Miss [redacted]'s car, the work should be completed shortly. The customer is...

in a rental and is fine with the work being done.Thanks You-- KEVIN S[redacted]General ManagerMonroeville Kia[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]

I am writing in response to a complaint filed by [redacted].  Mr. [redacted] visited Monroeville Kia on Saturday April 2, 2016 to look at a vehicle advertised on the our mobile website.  Several thing occurred to get us to this point. First of all, a misprint on the mobile...

site stated that stock #K17053 with vin: [redacted] was a2016 All Wheel Drive Sorento. when you click on the special link, you were redirected to the vehicle for sale.  I enclosed a screen shot showing the same stock number and vin as the car in question clearly showing it is a front wheel drive Sorento.  Second mistake we made was one of our incoming phone representatives stated we would honor the advertised price 2 days after the special expired.  I told Mr. [redacted] we would honor the price on the said vehicle in the ad but there was a misprint in production of the website slide.  He insisted and argued that he should be able to purchase the car he wanted, a specific all wheel drive Sorento Lx for the Base L model that was advertised. The website slide was proofread by several people but somehow the heading was not corrected before it went live to the website.  Thirdly, when we deleted the expired ad at the end of last month, the ad should have deleted off the mobile site also.  Mr. [redacted] was able to view the expired ad for almost 2 days before it finally came down off the mobile site.  When I spoke with Mr. [redacted] after the incident the following weak on the phone, he stated we intentionally lied and we should honor the price. He also stated we did not even offer him any pricing on the All Wheel Drive LX Sorento he was looking for.  I pulled the records and that was an untrue statement.  Both a buy and a lease offer was extended to Mr. [redacted] but he chose not to purchase the vehicle.  Before the conversation ended, Mr. [redacted] stated he worked for a major bank in the area and he knew numbers.  He stated that unless we did the deal he wanted for the car he would blast us on every review site he could.  When he state this, I told him he was not going to hold us hostage over reviews and we could agree to disagree on the situation.  I tried to talk to Mr. [redacted] when he was here, along with one of our Sales-managers, and on the phone, and Mr. [redacted] was unable to be reasoned with.  As far as an intentional lie, As Mr. [redacted] had stated, somehow a misprinted ad headline was not removed when it should have been.  If there are any additional questions I can answer for you, please do not hesitate to contact me.Thank you,Michael P[redacted]General Manager Monroeville Kia

Compensation/refund