Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2016/08/19) */
We regret that you are dissatisfied with your purchase and ownership experience at Moncton Honda to date. After reviewing your letter and discussing the situation with your salesperson and management staff from our Used Car Department I feel...
that there may be some misunderstanding on your part as to the reconditioning level of the [redacted] your purchased back on January 2015.
To clarify, you have referenced in your correspondence that you feel the [redacted] would/should have been reconditioned to the standards of the Honda Certified Used Car Program, which has a very specific and strict set of guidelines for vehicle reconditioning, and minimum tolerances for certain wearable parts on these vehicles before they can be branded as Honda Certified. While I can understand the obvious affiliation between [redacted] and Honda brands, it is important to note that the two brands operate completely separate from one another in all aspects of the sales and service operations at the Dealer level. Therefore there is no way for a Honda Dealer to offer an [redacted] Certified Used Vehicle any more than an [redacted] Dealership can offer a Certified Used Honda. I am assured by [redacted] that you were aware that this vehicle was not a Honda Certified Used Car, and in that case the reconditioning standards would not be as high, which would be reflected in the reduced pricing of this vehicle on our lot when you purchased it.
However, I can assure you that the vehicle was checked over extensively by a factory trained Journeyman Technician, in our service department during reconditioning and would have received any repairs or parts replacements required to ensure it was safe based on the [redacted] Motor Vehicle Act. Any Moncton Honda Certified Used Car undergoes this inspection process ensuring items like tires and brake linings meet or exceed government mandated minimum remaining wear measurement specification. We do this to ensure every customer is receiving a vehicle that is safe to drive when they choose to purchase a vehicle with us.
When you purchased your vehicle it is my understanding, after reviewing your file with [redacted], that you were completely aware of the tire condition and wear levels at that time since you used this point specifically as one of the negotiation points to secure a significant discount from the original asking price for the vehicle. This makes it a concern to me that you feel that you should be provided with new tires based on the fact that our technician stated you should consider replacing your tires in the near future a year after taking delivery of the vehicle. Obviously, the tires still met minimum [redacted] specifications as being safe to continue driving. As I mentioned earlier, you were never told you had new or nearly new tires and in fact you were aware before purchasing that the tires had significant wear despite still being driver safe by Government standards. It is difficult to understand how this could be a surprise to you since you used the wear level on the tires to negotiate a pricing when you purchased. Unfortunately, for this reason I am unwilling to compensate you in any way for your future tire purchase.
When it comes to your TMPS dash warning light illuminating on a regular basis I totally understand your frustration with this issue. However, [redacted] and our technical staff provided you with very relevant and correct information when they explained that extreme temperature changes can impact the pressure in your tires causing the light/s to illuminate in your dash. Unfortunately, we see this condition on a regular basis in both new and used vehicles equipped with TPMS systems. The light simply informs you of a pressure change resulting in lower than ideal tire pressure levels. The sensor light is not sophisticated enough to provide you with the level of pressure deficiency so in many cases the indicator light does not indicate a significant concern such as a flat tire but rather is geared to advise of less than ideal pressure levels, which can range from a flat tire to simply less than optimal fuel consumption or potential uneven tire wear that can result from less than ideal inflation pressure. I know it can be frustrating when, typically extreme cold winter conditions, activate the indicator light despite there being no significant problem as a cause. That being said, it is always good practice to correct the pressure deficiency in a timely fashion, as it will ensure you get optimal fuel economy and even tire wear patterns.
While I regret you experienced a battery failure in your vehicle I do not feel that in any way reflects negligence on behalf of our Technical Staff who performed the check over and reconditioning on your vehicle. It is imperative to note that you purchased a used vehicle and despite diligent check over and reconditioning there is no way to ensure you will not have part failures or service concerns during your ownership. While it is always our hope that problems will not happen early in the ownership experience, wear items like batteries can fail at any time for many reasons so unfortunately, this is simply part of the potential risks of purchasing a used vehicle.
The last item I want to address is related to your quote stating that your Sales person accused you of potentially spinning your tires as the reason for your tire tread being low. This statement concerned me greatly since it would be inappropriate to accuse any customer of this and completely out of character for [redacted] who I have worked with as a Sales person for a number of years now. [redacted]'s recollection of your conversation with him was a little different than what you have presented in your letter. He told me he used the "they don't know if you were spinning your wheels" as an extreme example to drive home the point that assessing factors that cause tire wear are very difficult for our Service Staff because there are so many potential causes including driving style. I regret any miscommunication or misinterpretation his comments may have contributed to but he assures me he never meant to accuse you in any way.
While I have tried to be informative in this response I recognize that you would likely only be satisfied with compensation for a battery and tire replacements. However, for the reasons I have outlined here I do not feel this is a fair and reasonable expectation on your behalf and for that reason I have to decline your offer to resolve your dissatisfaction. I regret you feel we have not lived up to your expectations at Moncton Honda but I sincerely hope we will be able to meet your expectations going forward should you choose to continue servicing your vehicle with us.
[redacted]
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2016/08/22) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I guess I will start off by agreeing with you regarding your explanation of the "Honda Certified Used Car Program" I was wrong to expect Moncton Honda to treat an [redacted] the same way you do a Honda. Obviously an [redacted] is far superior to Honda therefore you probably felt there was no need for the same through inspection you perform on a Honda. However, there was no mention at the time of sale that the car was reduced in price because it wasn't reconditioned the same as a Honda. When I first sat in [redacted]'s' office to negotiate trading my [redacted] for the ** he came back with a $[redacted] trade-in offer for the [redacted], at which point I got up off my chair and began to leave. [redacted] told me to wait, he left and came back with an additional $[redacted] which he said was some kind of rebate. Nothing was said to me regarding the price of the vehicle being reduced because your reconditioning standards were less than that of a Honda's and there was absolutely nothing said to me about the poor condition of the tires or I would not have purchased the car. [redacted]
You say that the vehicle was checked over extensively by a factory trained Journeyman Technician, maybe so, but as you noted as long as it passes the ** safety inspection, [redacted]. As for the battery, it died with-in a few months of me taking ownership of the vehicle. According to the Service Technician at [redacted] where I had the battery replaced, if the battery had been tested in January by a [redacted] Technician it would have been replaced without a doubt. This was also confirmed by a separate Service Technician at a local Tire/Service establishment.
Again, in your response you say that I was aware of the condition of the tires, but I assure you we never discussed the tires during the negotiation. I had no idea of the less than acceptable condition of the tires and they were not part of the so called reduced price.
When it comes to the TMPS warning light coming on every month, I agree that when a tire is filled with "AIR" it tends to fluctuate in cold weather, however my tires were filled with "NITROGEN". [redacted]. Besides the TMPS warning continued throughout the year until I replaced the tires. The temperature was not the issue.
I already discussed the battery, so I guess that leaves the conversation I had with [redacted] when I found out the tires were no good. I assure you my recollection of what he said is totally accurate,[redacted] "HOW DO WE KNOW YOU WEREN'T OUT SPINNING YOUR TIRES IN THE PARKING LOT?" I mean, seriously, I'm [redacted] years old, when someone accuses me of purposely trying to wear out the tires on my car, I'm not going to forget it. There was no miscommunication, just a flat out accusation!!!!
I knew going into this that I would get no satisfaction from Moncton Honda,[redacted]
As for your last paragraph, it's unfortunate that I have had this experience because I really like the Honda/[redacted] line-up. [redacted] Needless to say I will not continue to have you service my vehicle, [redacted]
[redacted]
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2017/06/30) */
While it is accurate that this customer purchased a rust module with her [redacted] when she bought her vehicle in 2011 her claim that she has unconditional rust coverage on her vehicle for 10 years is not accurate. Her contention that her...
salesperson, committed this coverage to her when she took delivery of her vehicle is also not consistent with his actions during delivery based on his 14 year tenure as a salesperson here at Moncton Honda.
However, since there is no way of establishing the exact words of a conversation 5 years ago between two people I must defer to the written contract and terms that were provided to the customer and the time of purchase on September 14, 2011. After reviewing a copy of her warranty coverage document (Cert# [redacted]) from the product provider, [redacted], it clearly states in the terms of Guarantee section of her agreement under the Corrosion Control Module section that:
"Guarantee - should the sheet metal treated with this product perforate due to rust which originated on the inside surface of the metal (must begin from the inside of the panel)"
In addition to the perforation coverage provided by the rust module there was an opportunity to extend the factory three year warranty on surface rust by an extra two years to a total of five years, which required that Platinum Shield Paint Protection be purchased in addition to the Platinum Rust Protection (Rust Module). However, this coverage was declined by the customer as clearly illustrated on her FCPP Coverage document in the Coverage Section and reiterated by her initialing the coverage decline section on our Added Protection Waiver form that we have each customer sign on delivery.
The customer was informed on June 16, 2017 that after speaking with the Warranty Dept. at FCPP there was no coverage in place on her vehicle for surface Rust and therefore she would not be receiving any warranty assistance with the cost of repairing the surface rust on her vehicle.
Obviously, the customer was not satisfied with the decision, as was evidenced by our staff and customers on Saturday June 24th, 2017 when she decided to visit the Dealership to voice her concerns in person. Unfortunately, the customer was not prepared to discuss the matter in a respectful manner with Management personnel but rather chose to make a scene being belligerent to Dealership staff and proceeded to circulate through the Dealership from sales office to sales office, people shopping in our showroom, Customer Lounge and even those on our vehicle lot in an effort to deter those customers from doing business with the Dealership, making wildly unfounded statements that the Dealership was dishonest and does not honor its warranties. Despite repeated requests to discuss the matter privately and to leave the premises [redacted] continued to loudly state that she would not leave the Dealership until it became necessary to contact authorities and have her escorted off site.
In 20 years of business we have never had to resort to such drastic measures to handle a customer issue. While the customer may be frustrated and angry about the conditions and extent of coverage of her rust module warranty the fact is the problem she has with her vehicle is not covered under the terms and conditions of her warranty. Moncton Honda has no intent to discuss this matter further given the circumstances.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2017/07/04) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
When I purchased my vehicle at Moncton Honda the salesperson told me my vehicle would be covered for any rust that would appear on my vehicle in the next 10 years. I was questionable about this rust module and I questioned the salesman to see if it had to be a complete hole for it to be covered for 10 years he said no. He told me any rust that appear on the vehicle would be covered for the next 10 years. He did not mention anything about the paint only be covered for the next 3 years. I also had my dad present with me at the time of the purchase so there is another person who can confirm, what I am saying is true. What really does not make sense to me and was never explained to me is, if the paint on the vehicle was covered under warranty for 3 years when you buy the vehicle, why would a buy a rust module that would give me the coverage you already had under the warranty. They say that a person could buy and extended warranty for an addition 2 years, this would only bring you to 5 years, so where does the 10 years of your vehicle not rusting come into play. I have received an estimate to fix my vehicle from [redacted] Center and the cost is $[redacted]. This is what I want Moncton Honda to pay for to fix my vehicle.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2017/07/08) */
I recommend that the customer review her signed documentation which spells out very clearly the warranty coverage she has with the Rust Module she purchased. The coverage that accompanies the module deals specifically with 10 years of rust perforation warranty. The only other warranty coverage she received at time of purchase came from Honda with her new vehicle coverage. This provided 3 years or 60,000kms of surface rust and rust perforation. Unfortunately, the customer's new vehicle rust warranty has expired and her extended coverage stipulates that coverage only applies to body perforation. Based on these facts there will be no assistance forthcoming.
Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 11, 2017/07/12) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I would like them to explain the warranty in simple terms, what does rust perforation warranty cover for the 10 years. Since they are declining my coverage, I feel it should be easy for them to say what I am covered for.
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2016/08/19) */
We regret that you are dissatisfied with your purchase and ownership experience at Moncton Honda to date. After reviewing your letter and discussing the situation with your salesperson and management staff from our Used Car Department I feel...
that there may be some misunderstanding on your part as to the reconditioning level of the [redacted] your purchased back on January 2015.
To clarify, you have referenced in your correspondence that you feel the [redacted] would/should have been reconditioned to the standards of the Honda Certified Used Car Program, which has a very specific and strict set of guidelines for vehicle reconditioning, and minimum tolerances for certain wearable parts on these vehicles before they can be branded as Honda Certified. While I can understand the obvious affiliation between [redacted] and Honda brands, it is important to note that the two brands operate completely separate from one another in all aspects of the sales and service operations at the Dealer level. Therefore there is no way for a Honda Dealer to offer an [redacted] Certified Used Vehicle any more than an [redacted] Dealership can offer a Certified Used Honda. I am assured by [redacted] that you were aware that this vehicle was not a Honda Certified Used Car, and in that case the reconditioning standards would not be as high, which would be reflected in the reduced pricing of this vehicle on our lot when you purchased it.
However, I can assure you that the vehicle was checked over extensively by a factory trained Journeyman Technician, in our service department during reconditioning and would have received any repairs or parts replacements required to ensure it was safe based on the [redacted] Motor Vehicle Act. Any Moncton Honda Certified Used Car undergoes this inspection process ensuring items like tires and brake linings meet or exceed government mandated minimum remaining wear measurement specification. We do this to ensure every customer is receiving a vehicle that is safe to drive when they choose to purchase a vehicle with us.
When you purchased your vehicle it is my understanding, after reviewing your file with [redacted], that you were completely aware of the tire condition and wear levels at that time since you used this point specifically as one of the negotiation points to secure a significant discount from the original asking price for the vehicle. This makes it a concern to me that you feel that you should be provided with new tires based on the fact that our technician stated you should consider replacing your tires in the near future a year after taking delivery of the vehicle. Obviously, the tires still met minimum [redacted] specifications as being safe to continue driving. As I mentioned earlier, you were never told you had new or nearly new tires and in fact you were aware before purchasing that the tires had significant wear despite still being driver safe by Government standards. It is difficult to understand how this could be a surprise to you since you used the wear level on the tires to negotiate a pricing when you purchased. Unfortunately, for this reason I am unwilling to compensate you in any way for your future tire purchase.
When it comes to your TMPS dash warning light illuminating on a regular basis I totally understand your frustration with this issue. However, [redacted] and our technical staff provided you with very relevant and correct information when they explained that extreme temperature changes can impact the pressure in your tires causing the light/s to illuminate in your dash. Unfortunately, we see this condition on a regular basis in both new and used vehicles equipped with TPMS systems. The light simply informs you of a pressure change resulting in lower than ideal tire pressure levels. The sensor light is not sophisticated enough to provide you with the level of pressure deficiency so in many cases the indicator light does not indicate a significant concern such as a flat tire but rather is geared to advise of less than ideal pressure levels, which can range from a flat tire to simply less than optimal fuel consumption or potential uneven tire wear that can result from less than ideal inflation pressure. I know it can be frustrating when, typically extreme cold winter conditions, activate the indicator light despite there being no significant problem as a cause. That being said, it is always good practice to correct the pressure deficiency in a timely fashion, as it will ensure you get optimal fuel economy and even tire wear patterns.
While I regret you experienced a battery failure in your vehicle I do not feel that in any way reflects negligence on behalf of our Technical Staff who performed the check over and reconditioning on your vehicle. It is imperative to note that you purchased a used vehicle and despite diligent check over and reconditioning there is no way to ensure you will not have part failures or service concerns during your ownership. While it is always our hope that problems will not happen early in the ownership experience, wear items like batteries can fail at any time for many reasons so unfortunately, this is simply part of the potential risks of purchasing a used vehicle.
The last item I want to address is related to your quote stating that your Sales person accused you of potentially spinning your tires as the reason for your tire tread being low. This statement concerned me greatly since it would be inappropriate to accuse any customer of this and completely out of character for [redacted] who I have worked with as a Sales person for a number of years now. [redacted]'s recollection of your conversation with him was a little different than what you have presented in your letter. He told me he used the "they don't know if you were spinning your wheels" as an extreme example to drive home the point that assessing factors that cause tire wear are very difficult for our Service Staff because there are so many potential causes including driving style. I regret any miscommunication or misinterpretation his comments may have contributed to but he assures me he never meant to accuse you in any way.
While I have tried to be informative in this response I recognize that you would likely only be satisfied with compensation for a battery and tire replacements. However, for the reasons I have outlined here I do not feel this is a fair and reasonable expectation on your behalf and for that reason I have to decline your offer to resolve your dissatisfaction. I regret you feel we have not lived up to your expectations at Moncton Honda but I sincerely hope we will be able to meet your expectations going forward should you choose to continue servicing your vehicle with us.
[redacted]
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2016/08/22) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I guess I will start off by agreeing with you regarding your explanation of the "Honda Certified Used Car Program" I was wrong to expect Moncton Honda to treat an [redacted] the same way you do a Honda. Obviously an [redacted] is far superior to Honda therefore you probably felt there was no need for the same through inspection you perform on a Honda. However, there was no mention at the time of sale that the car was reduced in price because it wasn't reconditioned the same as a Honda. When I first sat in [redacted]'s' office to negotiate trading my [redacted] for the ** he came back with a $[redacted] trade-in offer for the [redacted], at which point I got up off my chair and began to leave. [redacted] told me to wait, he left and came back with an additional $[redacted] which he said was some kind of rebate. Nothing was said to me regarding the price of the vehicle being reduced because your reconditioning standards were less than that of a Honda's and there was absolutely nothing said to me about the poor condition of the tires or I would not have purchased the car. [redacted]
You say that the vehicle was checked over extensively by a factory trained Journeyman Technician, maybe so, but as you noted as long as it passes the ** safety inspection, [redacted]. As for the battery, it died with-in a few months of me taking ownership of the vehicle. According to the Service Technician at [redacted] where I had the battery replaced, if the battery had been tested in January by a [redacted] Technician it would have been replaced without a doubt. This was also confirmed by a separate Service Technician at a local Tire/Service establishment.
Again, in your response you say that I was aware of the condition of the tires, but I assure you we never discussed the tires during the negotiation. I had no idea of the less than acceptable condition of the tires and they were not part of the so called reduced price.
When it comes to the TMPS warning light coming on every month, I agree that when a tire is filled with "AIR" it tends to fluctuate in cold weather, however my tires were filled with "NITROGEN". [redacted]. Besides the TMPS warning continued throughout the year until I replaced the tires. The temperature was not the issue.
I already discussed the battery, so I guess that leaves the conversation I had with [redacted] when I found out the tires were no good. I assure you my recollection of what he said is totally accurate,[redacted] "HOW DO WE KNOW YOU WEREN'T OUT SPINNING YOUR TIRES IN THE PARKING LOT?" I mean, seriously, I'm [redacted] years old, when someone accuses me of purposely trying to wear out the tires on my car, I'm not going to forget it. There was no miscommunication, just a flat out accusation!!!!
I knew going into this that I would get no satisfaction from Moncton Honda,[redacted]
As for your last paragraph, it's unfortunate that I have had this experience because I really like the Honda/[redacted] line-up. [redacted] Needless to say I will not continue to have you service my vehicle, [redacted]
[redacted]
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2017/06/30) */
While it is accurate that this customer purchased a rust module with her [redacted] when she bought her vehicle in 2011 her claim that she has unconditional rust coverage on her vehicle for 10 years is not accurate. Her contention that her...
salesperson, committed this coverage to her when she took delivery of her vehicle is also not consistent with his actions during delivery based on his 14 year tenure as a salesperson here at Moncton Honda.
However, since there is no way of establishing the exact words of a conversation 5 years ago between two people I must defer to the written contract and terms that were provided to the customer and the time of purchase on September 14, 2011. After reviewing a copy of her warranty coverage document (Cert# [redacted]) from the product provider, [redacted], it clearly states in the terms of Guarantee section of her agreement under the Corrosion Control Module section that:
"Guarantee - should the sheet metal treated with this product perforate due to rust which originated on the inside surface of the metal (must begin from the inside of the panel)"
In addition to the perforation coverage provided by the rust module there was an opportunity to extend the factory three year warranty on surface rust by an extra two years to a total of five years, which required that Platinum Shield Paint Protection be purchased in addition to the Platinum Rust Protection (Rust Module). However, this coverage was declined by the customer as clearly illustrated on her FCPP Coverage document in the Coverage Section and reiterated by her initialing the coverage decline section on our Added Protection Waiver form that we have each customer sign on delivery.
The customer was informed on June 16, 2017 that after speaking with the Warranty Dept. at FCPP there was no coverage in place on her vehicle for surface Rust and therefore she would not be receiving any warranty assistance with the cost of repairing the surface rust on her vehicle.
Obviously, the customer was not satisfied with the decision, as was evidenced by our staff and customers on Saturday June 24th, 2017 when she decided to visit the Dealership to voice her concerns in person. Unfortunately, the customer was not prepared to discuss the matter in a respectful manner with Management personnel but rather chose to make a scene being belligerent to Dealership staff and proceeded to circulate through the Dealership from sales office to sales office, people shopping in our showroom, Customer Lounge and even those on our vehicle lot in an effort to deter those customers from doing business with the Dealership, making wildly unfounded statements that the Dealership was dishonest and does not honor its warranties. Despite repeated requests to discuss the matter privately and to leave the premises [redacted] continued to loudly state that she would not leave the Dealership until it became necessary to contact authorities and have her escorted off site.
In 20 years of business we have never had to resort to such drastic measures to handle a customer issue. While the customer may be frustrated and angry about the conditions and extent of coverage of her rust module warranty the fact is the problem she has with her vehicle is not covered under the terms and conditions of her warranty. Moncton Honda has no intent to discuss this matter further given the circumstances.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2017/07/04) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
When I purchased my vehicle at Moncton Honda the salesperson told me my vehicle would be covered for any rust that would appear on my vehicle in the next 10 years. I was questionable about this rust module and I questioned the salesman to see if it had to be a complete hole for it to be covered for 10 years he said no. He told me any rust that appear on the vehicle would be covered for the next 10 years. He did not mention anything about the paint only be covered for the next 3 years. I also had my dad present with me at the time of the purchase so there is another person who can confirm, what I am saying is true. What really does not make sense to me and was never explained to me is, if the paint on the vehicle was covered under warranty for 3 years when you buy the vehicle, why would a buy a rust module that would give me the coverage you already had under the warranty. They say that a person could buy and extended warranty for an addition 2 years, this would only bring you to 5 years, so where does the 10 years of your vehicle not rusting come into play. I have received an estimate to fix my vehicle from [redacted] Center and the cost is $[redacted]. This is what I want Moncton Honda to pay for to fix my vehicle.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2017/07/08) */
I recommend that the customer review her signed documentation which spells out very clearly the warranty coverage she has with the Rust Module she purchased. The coverage that accompanies the module deals specifically with 10 years of rust perforation warranty. The only other warranty coverage she received at time of purchase came from Honda with her new vehicle coverage. This provided 3 years or 60,000kms of surface rust and rust perforation. Unfortunately, the customer's new vehicle rust warranty has expired and her extended coverage stipulates that coverage only applies to body perforation. Based on these facts there will be no assistance forthcoming.
Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 11, 2017/07/12) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I would like them to explain the warranty in simple terms, what does rust perforation warranty cover for the 10 years. Since they are declining my coverage, I feel it should be easy for them to say what I am covered for.