Farrish of Fairfax Inc

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response. If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: *** ***
Date: Fri, Sep 5, at 10:AM
Subject: Re: You have a new message from the Revdex.com of Metro Washington DC & Eastern Pennsylvania in regards to your complaint #***
To: "[email protected]"
Dear Sir/Madam
In regards to complaint ID ***, I have received a refund for the full amount from Farrish SubaruAlthough they would not return calls to let me know that they were in the process of actually mailing it, the check has been received and deposited and the case may now be considered closed
Thank you for your assistance in this matter
*** ***

[redacted] Thank you for the opportunity to respond after the 10 day period.  As discussed, I was out of town when the cutoff hit and wanted to respond to [redacted]’s. Clearly, **. and [redacted] and I do not agree on the method to repair their vehicle.  That said, if they want our assistance regarding this matter, they will have to permit us to do it our way.  As stated in my previous response, we did not knowingly or intentionally harm them.  If that were the situation, we certainly wouldn’t have permitted a pre-check.  It is extremely frustrating to offer to assist someone by offering to pay for repairs we aren’t legally responsible to repair and be ridiculed because they don’t believe it is enough.  Worse yet that a conclusion is being asserted that because we aren’t agreeing to do exactly what they want it is because we are not trustworthy.  Frankly, this is insulting. In an effort to agree to disagree, I am willing to pay $500 towards their repair cost as this is the amount we believe it will cost us to properly repair the vehicle.  I will extend my previous offer for the balance of March if they wish to permit us to do the repair the way we believe can be done properly and cost effectively.  In conclusion, if I put myself in their shoes, I would want to have a company try and work with me.  I believe I am doing that and have done that.  If **. and [redacted] wish to accept the $500 good will offer, I will require that they sign reasonable paperwork to indicate that this matter is resolved between us. Respectfully,  Kevin *. F[redacted]PresidentFarrish of Fairfax, Inc. W) ###-###-####F) ###-###-####[redacted]@FarrishCars.com

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
 Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
There was an outstanding recall/ lifetime warranty issue. Regardless. There were no warning lights on dash during test drive or prior to purchase. As stated I assumed it was my responsibility since there was A TPMS failure. Unbeknownst to me that all 4 tires had there sensors removed. Reselling a vehicle  without sensors and not disclosing  is a violation. Please notify if this case will be closed if so I'll follow up with the state Representative or NHTA representative. Thank you.  
Regards,
[redacted]

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the responseIf no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because Farrish of Fairfax's offer of $500 would cover less than 25% of the
expenses my wife and I incurred to repair the pre-existing damage that
prevented the vehicle from being properly aligned ($1,630) and cost to replace the
front tires ($507), which were irregularly worn due to the pre-existing damage. Given the facts, my wife and I strongly believe that full
reimbursement, $2,137, is fair, reasonable and legally justifiableIn fact, we
believe Farrish of Fairfax's exposure is potentially much greater in this matter, given
that individuals may be awarded up to three times the actual damages sustained under
current law, Chapter 17- §59.1-of the Virginia Consumer Protection ActPlease NoteOver the past two months, the President of Farrish of Fairfax and I have engaged in fairly extensive negotiations through the Dispute Resolution and Investigations Unit of the Virginia Attorney Generals Office following my filing of a complaint with their office in late JanuaryWe have been unable to reach a mutually agreeable resolutionBelow I have included some of the most relevant details from the written documentation which I believe is pertinent to the complaint filed with the Revdex.com. ------------------On March 4, 2015, we authorized [redacted] of Arlington to
perform the repair stated in their original diagnosis and estimate (RO#[redacted]), dated
December 30, 2014, which consisted of replacing the left front spindle, hub,
and backing plateThis repair was successful in bringing the car back into
alignment without the use of a camber bolt adjuster kit (Farrish of Fairfax's suggested repair method).The alignment measurements attached
prove that replacing the front left spindle and hub was in fact the solution as
the front axle was in proper alignment following replacement of those partsWe
have also retained the damaged spindle and hub (pictures attached)Following replacement of the
left front spindle and hub only minor toe adjustments were needed to complete
the alignment process and bring the car back into proper alignment as the
documentation showsIt is important to
note that no camber bolt adjuster kit was needed to bring the car back into
alignment, which was the only repair method offered by Farrish of Fairfax Inc.,
for which we have written documentation.MrFarrish also stated that he was not informed of any other damage assessment other than a "bent front sub-frame" and claims he did not receive the repair order from [redacted] of Arlington. This is not the case. Farrish of Fairfax was informed, in writing, of other damage assessments on numerous occasions including as far back as December 30, In addition, the Attorney Generals Office forwarded MrFarrish all of the documents I submitted in my initial complaint dated January 26, 2015, which included the repair estimates from [redacted] of Arlington and [redacted] Foreign Car Service.While it is true [redacted] of Alexandria believed the front subframe was bent due to the displacement of the subframe bolts and alignment measurements, we ultimately choose to go with the recommendations of [redacted] of Arlington and [redacted] Foreign Car Service, which coincided with one-another and resulted in the car being brought into proper alignment. Farrish of Fairfax was the only dealership whose sole solution was the installation of a camber bolt adjuster kit. MrFarrish claims that [redacted] of Arlington did the repair as his dealership would have done and that if they determined other parts were necessary "(ieWear items such as the Bushings, Bearings etc.), they would do those as well." That is also inaccurate. We never received a commitment or offer in writing to perform any repairs beyond the installation of a camber bolt adjuster kit. As the written correspondence shows, Farrish of Fairfax would have installed the camber bolt adjuster kit, which in the end was not even needed. MrFarrish referred to the front left spindle/steering knuckle, hub, bearing, as "wear parts," common for a vehicle with 75,milesThe steering knuckle/spindle is a $part (retail cost) and as you will see from the attached picture, which is the actual part that was removed from my car, it is a significant part that effects the operation of the vehicleIt is not merely a "bushing, bearing, etc." and characterizing it as such is misleading and inaccurateA careful review of the repair invoice will detail all of the parts that were damaged and needed to be replacedDamage to the spindle/steering knuckle, specifically bending is not common and not typical with ordinary wear and tearBending of a steering knuckle/spindle typically occurs from damage due to a significant impact. Despite the findings
of [redacted] of Arlington, [redacted] of Alexandria and [redacted]
Foreign Car Service back in December, Farrish of Fairfax has alleged all along
that there was no damage to component parts in the front axle. We believe that the successful repair by
[redacted] of Arlington clearly proves that Farrish of Fairfax's assessment
was wrong and that their repair method would not have addressed the underlying
problem. If there was no damage to
the component parts, as stated by Farrish of Fairfax, then [redacted]'s
replacement of the front left spindle and hub would not have properly aligned
the car. As the repair and data
supports, the repair by [redacted] of Arlington did properly align the car.
The President of Farrish of Fairfax has repeatedly stated
that his dealership is not legally required to perform any repairs or provide
any compensation for the pre-existing damage that was present in the vehicle at
the time of saleWe believe there is sufficient evidence to support otherwiseWe believe that Farrish of Fairfax is at the
very least liable for an unintentional violation (§ 59.1-207) of Chapter 17, § 59.1-
of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act.
Furthermore, it is possible that this transaction could be viewed as a
willful and deliberate misrepresentation and/or selling of a good under
pretenses, and thus, an intentional violation of Chapter 17- § 59.1-200. In either case, whether intentional or
unintentional, liability for damages exists under the current law
Mr
Farrish repeatedly stated that he did not understand why we would not let his dealership
repair the vehicle. In response, we have
several reasons, most of which have been stated previously. We will reiterate those statements again
below:
1) The
repair completed by [redacted] of Arlington on March 4, 2015, proved that
damage to component parts, specifically a bent left front spindle and hub were
the primary reason the car was out of alignment. The car could not be properly aligned without
replacing those damaged parts
2)
[redacted] of Alexandria, [redacted] of Arlington and [redacted] Foreign
Car Service completed independent inspections and all found damage to component
parts in the left front axleFarrish of Fairfax always disputed their findings and proposed repair methods
3) On their own pre-sale inspection
sheet, Farrish of Fairfax stated that they performed an alignment on the
vehicle on July 29, 2014. However, they
are unable or unwilling to produce any paperwork to confirm the vehicle was
brought into proper alignment due to that repairAt the time of delivery the
vehicle was still out of alignment but was never disclosedIt was only after I
discovered the irregular tire wear two weeks later and attempted to have the
car aligned by [redacted] of Alexandria that the underlying damage was
brought to my attention, which proved the primary reason the car was out of
alignment
4) [redacted] Foreign Car Service also
noted that the car appears to have had body and paint work performed on the
front right side of the car near the wheel, indicating there had been a significant
impact that necessitated body and paint workThis was never disclosed to us by
Farrish of Fairfax
5) There was irregular tire wear on the two front tires, indicating that the
car had been out of alignment for at least 5,miles according to
[redacted]. The irregular tire wear
was not disclosed or shared with my wife and I at the time of sale by Farrish
of FairfaxIn fact, the salesmen said the tires were "practically brand new."
6) During the inspection we had performed by [redacted] of
Alexandria prior to the sale, [redacted] found that the car had an
inoperable rear sunshade and a small oil leak from the rear centrifuge
cover. This too was not disclosed to us
by Farrish of Fairfax.
Accordingly,
Farrish of Fairfax has proven ill-equipped to properly inspect and service this
vehicle. We lost confidence and trust in
Farrish of Fairfax, and in conjunction with the list above, were not
comfortable having Farrish of Fairfax make any repair attempts to the
vehicle The successful repair by
[redacted] of Arlington on March 4, 2015, proves that the two [redacted]
dealerships and [redacted] were correct in their diagnosis
Regarding the tires, the irregular tire wear was
due to the car being out of alignment for some time, approximately 5,miles
according to [redacted]The type of irregular wear on the front tires is
known as camber wear due to the camber being significantly out of alignment in
the front axleThis again was due to a bent left front steering
knuckle/spindleWe request reimbursement for the tires as it seems clear that
irregular wear was due to the pre-existing
damage in the vehicle that was unknown to my wife and I at the time of sale and
would have definitely led us to NOT buy this vehicle
On March 21, my wife and I offered to accept $1,as final settlement to this matter, $less than the total expenses incurred, in hopes of resolving this matter promptly without involvement of the courtsMrFarrish declined that offer and stated that, per my sales contract I would need to go through arbitration (with the American Arbitration Association ([redacted])) to pursue resolution. However, on March 26, 2015, we chose to exercise our right to file suit in Small Claims Court for the actual damages sustained, $2,137, per Rule of the [redacted] Consumer Arbitration Rules, amended and effective September 1, 2014, reads as follows:Rule 9 - Small Claims Option for the Parties If a party's claim is within the jurisdiction of a small claims court, either party may choose to take the claim to that court instead of arbitration as follows: (a) The parties may take their claims to small claims court without first filing with the [redacted].I spoke with a vice-president in the [redacted]'s regional office to confirm the above and that the arbitration clause in my sales agreement did not preclude me from filing suit in Small Claims Court. This was confirmed and I was informed of the information to provide the court when filing suit in Small Claims Court. Since the disputed amount, $2,137, falls within the jurisdiction of the Small Claims division of the Fairfax County General District Court, I was within my rights to do per rule of the [redacted]'s Consumer Arbitration Rules.Thank you for your assistance in attempting to facilitate a mutually agreeable resolution to this matter.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

Dear Revdex.com,
I asked [redacted] to include the direct email stream between the two of us regarding this matter. It doesn't appear that he honored that request. I therefore included it below for your review. The short answer is: We are not legally required to do anything for **. & [redacted]...

[redacted]. We offered to repair him alignment, provide a loaner car and take the vehicle after our repair to an Authorized [redacted] Dealership to verify that our repair puts the vehicle within [redacted] specifications. This allows us to make sure that we only pay for what we believe is required and confirm that it is a satisfactory solution. Seems fair and reasonable from a company that doesn't have to legally do anything. Keep in mind that **. & [redacted], conditioned our sale on an inspection at their mechanic. Both companies missed the concern initially and we offered to repair based on our repair method.
In conclusion, it is my opinion that the customer does not want the vehicle repaired and has developed buyer's remorse seeking to use the Revdex.com as a tactic to pressure my company into buying this vehicle back. I do not believe that was the intent of the Revdex.com in assisting consumers.
Feel free to contact me if you have any further questions or concerns.
Respectfully,
Kevin Farrish
Email String:
Sent: Tue 1/20/2015 5:27 PM
[redacted],
I’m sorry to learn of your decision. This was my only offer. As for the dealership, it was my understanding that my GM, Ralph P[redacted], also offered to repair your vehicle.. The only addition to our offer was that we would take your vehicle to an authorized [redacted] Dealership to help verify that our work meets [redacted] specifications because you expressed concern that it couldn’t be done and we thought it would be best to verify it for both of us at our expense.
We gave you a way to go on this at no expense to you. If we were wrong, we would have discussed the possibility of us buying the vehicle back.
Many years ago, our trade association had a consumer protection process they called AutoCap. I chaired that panel for many years. The Revdex.com and Fairfax County Consumer Affairs were also represented. We as a group took a hard line against dealers who attempted to take advantage of consumers. We did not attempt to take advantage of you and your wife. You asked to have your mechanic look at the vehicle as a contingency of your purchase. We permitted it, as we always do, because we had anything to hide. Candidly, we were extremely surprised to learn of the problem but even more surprised to learn of their proposed solution. We investigated ourselves and found their answer to be self-serving and inaccurate. Sure, we don’t sell or service [redacted] every day but having owned and operated a body shop for 50+ years (for which I have personally been here 30 of those years) we see far more alignment concerns than they do on all makes and models (including [redacted]), gives us a great knowledge none the less to apply to this situation. I’m confident that the agencies you listed or any other agency will recognize our Good Faith offer as a means to get this matter resolved. Please make sure that they receive this email string as it provides our rationale etc..
This entire matter frustrates me in that the organization you “Trusted” to do a pre-delivery check of your vehicle missed what they apparently have seen often on other [redacted]. They provided you with their rationale of what it will take to “properly repair your vehicle” and their opinion becomes the only fact worthy of consideration. I offered to repair your vehicle and then take it to a [redacted] dealership to verify thus eliminating any concern you would have on matching our alignment specs to theirs. Your reply to me is that our offer isn’t acceptable. Our offer is fair and furthermore I believe would address your concern. In case you change your mind, our offer is valid for 1 week from today and will not be extended.
In conclusion, I asked you directly what if any rationale you have that would provide a legal requirement for our dealership to buy your vehicle back. You provided none. While the possibility exists that you want us to buy the vehicle back as a result of our unwillingness to repair your vehicle per the [redacted] dealership scope of work, it is more probable that you have buyer’s remorse and wish to get us to buy it back using agencies like the Revdex.com in an attempt to harm our great reputation. I don’t like to draw these types of conclusions except to say that these agencies were not created to be used as a tool to strong arm honorable businesses.
If there was a way to turn this around and satisfy you, other than laying down for your solution, I would consider but absent that, we have nothing further to discuss.
Respectfully,
Kevin Farrish
From: Jonathan Turrisi [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2015 9:37 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Turrisi/Tomaselli [redacted]
**. Farrish,
We do not find your most recent offer acceptable. As we have stated, we do not feel safe in the vehicle and believe that the vehicle should be returned for a full refund. We will be filing a complaint with the Revdex.com and Attorney Generals Office.
Jonathan Turrisi
________________________________________
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Turrisi/Tomaselli [redacted]
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 17:10:58 -0500
[redacted],

Thank you for your response as well. After considerable investigation and consideration, I have the following to report.

The basis for your concern is that you are being told that there is only one way to correct your vehicle’s alignment. We are going to have to agree to disagree on this.

I am prepared to properly align your vehicle to the specifications provided by Alexandria [redacted]. Once aligned (by my staff) to resolve the problem, we will take your vehicle to an authorized [redacted] Dealer and have them verify the alignment meets their specifications. We will do this at no cost to you and provide you with a loaner vehicle while we do it.

While I have comments pertaining to the many items you have expressed below from our vantage point, I do not see the need to express those at this time but rather to stay focused repairing the vehicles alignment quickly and properly.

We do care about you and your family. As I’m sure you are aware, our sales contract does not require that we do anything regarding this matter. If I put myself in your shoes, I would expect that the dealership would make every effort to repair the alignment, therefore have decided to do just that. Our offer is intended to be a goodwill gesture to resolve this matter efficiently for you.

Our offer is to do this work ourselves and go the extra effort and expense to have an authorized [redacted] dealership verify that it was done correctly as evidenced by their alignment printout from their machine. We will not participate in any way, now or in the future should you decide to have others do this work. Concerning your request to buy back the vehicle, I believe it is premature to have that discussion and will only consider if our efforts do not fix the automobile.

Let me know in the next few days if you would like us to fix the alignment so we can purchase the necessary parts and schedule you for a loaner vehicle.

Thank you for your patience and understanding while I properly investigated the situation.

Respectfully,

Kevin Farrish

From: Jonathan Turrisi [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 10:39 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: FW: Turrisi/Tomaselli [redacted]

**. Farrish,

Thank you for your response.

With regards to your question, we have not permitted **. Wynn to attempt to align the vehicle for several reasons:

1) When [redacted] of Alexandria put the vehicle on their alignment machine, the measurements indicated that the vehicle could not be aligned solely with a camber adjuster bolt kit or adjustments to the Toe (**. Wynn's suggested repair) because the caster and camber on the front left side were too negative, as was the camber on the front right side. The front left camber was out of alignment by more than 1 degree, which indicated there was damage to components of the front suspension (see attached "Alignment Invoice" and "Alignment Report"). The displacement of the subframe bolts and gap on the left front spindle [steering knuckle] provided additional evidence of damage to the front suspension.

As I mentioned in my previous email, these facts have been corroborated by [redacted] of Arlington and Kestermann's Foreign Car Service. Based on these assessments, it seems clear there was underlying damage to the front suspension, and that **. Wynn's suggested course of action of a camber bolt adjuster kit and adjustments to the Toe would not correct the pre-existing damage to the front suspension components.

2) The car being significantly out of alignment only 200 miles after Farrish's first alignment on July 29, 2014, provides additional evidence of damage that prevents a proper alignment and/or an inability by Farrish to properly align the vehicle. In either case, these prevents us from being comfortable having **. Wynn and his team attempt to align the vehicle in the manner he suggested. When the vehicle was traded in to Farrish in July of 2014, a two wheel alignment was performed on July 29, 2014. At this time, the vehicle had 74,383 miles. On December 2, 2014, the date of the pre-sale inspection I had performed at [redacted], the vehicle had 74,580 miles. According to [redacted] of Alexandria, it needed an alignment.

During a meeting with **. P[redacted], **. Wynn, **. Hale and **. Johnson on December 26, 2014, I was told by **. Wynn and **. Johnson that the irregular tire wear on the front tires could have caused the car to come back out of alignment during the 200 miles it was driven by prospective customers and/or Farrish employees from late July to December. However, [redacted] of Alexandria, [redacted] of Arlington and Kestermann's Foreign Car Service informed me that irregularly worn tires would not cause a car to come out of alignment in that short of time, especially as far out of alignment as this vehicle was at the time of sale and remains to this day. Note, the salesmen informed my wife and I that the tires were practically brand new.

3) A third reason why we have not permitted **. Wynn and his team to attempt to align the vehicle is that [redacted] vehicles have unique circular shaped openings around the center of the rims that only a [redacted] alignment machine can properly attach to. A [redacted] alignment machine, coupled with the specially designed openings on the rim, provides a more precise and accurate measure of the cars alignment and assists a technician in properly aligning the car to [redacted] specifications.

The alignment measurements taken at Farrish on December 26, 2014, differed in several areas from the [redacted] alignment measurements. [redacted] and Farrish's measurements were significantly different on the front left and front right side camber. [redacted] and Kestermann's informed me that the irregular tire wear reflected camber wear from the camber being so far out of alignment for some time. That is a central issue with the vehicle and Farrish's alignment machine does not appear able to obtain an accurate camber measurement as indicated by the alignment reports.

Also, the range of acceptable tolerance levels is much greater on Farrish's alignment machine (see below). [redacted] has a narrower tolerance range, meaning they have more exact specifications for the vehicle to be considered properly aligned. Based on this, it is possible for the vehicle to show as being in proper alignment on Farrish's alignment machine, but still out of alignment according to [redacted] specifications. I believe these facts provide further support that [redacted] is the most qualified to provide alignment work on a [redacted]. I am sure you would agree that any high end luxury vehicle should be repaired according to manufacture specifications.

Tolerance Range Differences: [redacted] vs. Farrish alignment machine

[redacted] Farrish
Front camber (-.9 to -1.29) / (-.4 to -1.0 range)
Front Caster (7.08 to 7.68) / (no range listed)
Front Toe (.03 to .13) / (.04 to .21)
Total Front Toe (.17 to .31) / (.08 to .42)

Rear camber (-.88 to -1.48) / (-.4 to -1.44)
Rear Toe (.5 to .19) / (.08 to .32)


**Attachments will confirm the above tolerance ranges. Again, the above indicates that [redacted] has more exact specifications for the car to be considered properly aligned. The discrepancies in measurements taken by Farrish on December 26, 2014, and [redacted] on December 22 and 26, 2014, show that the alignment machine at Farrish is not able to obtain accurate camber and caster measurements.

As we have stated from the beginning, our first preference is to return the vehicle for a full refund, because we no longer feel safe in the vehicle. Had we known about the pre-existing damage to the suspension component parts, we would not have purchased this vehicle. While not our first preference, we are open to having repair work completed at [redacted].

It is unfortunate that [redacted] was not able to identify the issues with the suspension component parts during the pre-sale inspection. It was only after putting the vehicle on their alignment machine that they were able to determine the underlying damage. Since then, we have obtained several other professional opinions who strongly believe there is underlying damage to the front suspension. [redacted] of Alexandria is willing to provide a discount on the subframe replacement, but will not complete that repair for free.

As I mentioned previously, it was your solid reputation in the automotive retail business that played a role in our selection of a previously used automobile from your dealership. We appreciate your willingness to work with us to resolve this matter.

Sincerely,



Jonathan Turrisi

________________________________________
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
CC: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Turrisi/Tomaselli [redacted]
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 08:29:33 -0500
[redacted],

Thank you for your email. I am out of town and will respond appropriately upon my return after 1/14/15.

Before I look into this further, you stated that **. P[redacted] and **. Wynn believe we can properly align the vehicle. Is there a particular reason why you are not permitting them to do this? It is my understanding that our agreement with you did not require that we do this work for you but offered to do it free of charge as a good will gesture. If my team is correct, the alignment specs will clearly show that it is in or out of alignment after our repair attempt. If the other shops were right and we are wrong, doing the work would not cause other required work (meaning, you or the vehicle can’t be further harmed if our attempt fails). An unwillingness to try our solution doesn’t demonstrate a willingness on your part to work with us. That said, is there something I am missing as to why you will not permit my team from attempting this repair? We wouldn’t waste our time or money going down this road if we didn’t truly believe that it would solve the concern for you.

Beyond that, I have the following additional questions:

1) Is there a legal reason you believe we should nullify the transaction. (Ie. Do you have anything in writing that provides you the right to a full refund? Are we not abiding by any of the terms of the agreement?)
2) Can you email me a copy of the Inspection invoice you had performed at [redacted] of Alexandria prior to delivery. It was my understanding that you made the sale subject to an independent inspection.
3) What if any, actions/communication have you had with [redacted] of Alexandria to complete the necessary work (they are now saying is required) free of charge to you for missing this at the initial inspection?

Again, I am out of town and will look into this further upon my return. If you could provide the additional information I am requesting, in this email while I am away, it will assist me in properly investigating / responding when I return.

Respectfully,

Kevin Farrish


From: Jonathan Turrisi [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2015 9:39 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Turrisi/Tomaselli [redacted]

Good Evening **. Farrish:

I am contacting you regarding a purchase my wife and I made from your dealership in December of 2014, a previously owned 2008 [redacted] 4matic.

I am asking you to please hear my request.

Prior to our purchase, [redacted] of Alexandria informed us that the vehicle required a four-wheel alignment. A little over a week after the sale, we discovered that the front tires had highly irregular tread wear. We replaced the tires soon thereafter, and attempted to have the alignment performed at [redacted] of Alexandria. It was at this time we were informed that it was not an alignment issue as originally stated, but instead, latent damage to certain components of the front suspension.

Since this purchase in December, we have spoken to several repair shops. We have obtained written opinions/estimates from [redacted] of Alexandria, [redacted] of Arlington and [redacted] Foreign Car Service in Alexandria. All concluded that the vehicle has underlying damage to the suspension that must be repaired before the four camber adjuster bolt kits can be installed and the car properly aligned. The documentation provides more specific details concerning the needed repairs.

It should be further noted that [redacted] Foreign Car Service determined that the black paint on the front passenger side fender and quarter panel is not the original paint and that bodywork appears to have been performed. This would seem to suggest the vehicle suffered damage at one point and according to Kestermanns could possibly be linked to the damaged suspension components.

For the past two and half weeks, I have been speaking with your manager, **. Ralph P[redacted], in an attempt to resolve this issue. Despite the information mentioned above, **. Kevin Wynn and **. P[redacted] remain adamant that the car can be properly aligned solely with the camber adjuster bolt kit and realignment performed by your mechanics. We respectfully disagree given the assessments from the other repair shops and dealerships.

Our first preference is our original request of returning the vehicle for a full refund of purchase price, processing fee and compensation for the front tires we had to purchase due to the underlying damage to some of the suspension component parts. However, while we are not comfortable keeping this vehicle, we are open to having the vehicle repaired at a [redacted] dealership at the expense of Farrish of Fairfax Inc.

Frankly, we are not comfortable keeping this car with the solution offered by **. P[redacted]. Based on the assessments from the above mentioned repair shops, this car requires repair to the front suspension system before the camber adjuster bolt kits can be installed and the car properly aligned. It requires a thorough repair by a highly qualified [redacted] automobile expert.

We spent over $15,000 for the purchase of this vehicle at your dealership, and deserve better than what we received as a solution. We are able to submit documentation to the Revdex.com and a Consumer Protection Complaint through the Attorney General's Office. However, it is our hope that this can be avoided. It was your solid reputation in the automotive retail business that played a role in our selection of a previously used automobile from your dealership. It is in that spirit that I hope you will reconsider **. P[redacted]’ offer.

Sincerely,


Jonathan Turrisi
978-317-8800

I received [redacted]'s 2/26/15 4:48pm email Friday morning. We do care about [redacted] as demonstrated in Mr. P[redacted] (GM)emailed below. What Mr. P[redacted] alluded to but didn't confirm is that disciplinary action was taken with Mr. R[redacted]. It would be inappropriate to discuss our internal actions...

further except to say that our company will not tolerate actions from a member of our staff like this. While I understand the length that Mr. R[redacted] went through on [redacted]s behalf, customers are not required to communicate their decisions with us irrespective of our efforts. I feel confident that this matter has been addressed appropriately and completely. We stand ready to assist [redacted] should she ever desire our assistance. Thank you for the opportunity to respond.
Respectfully,
Kevin F[redacted]
President
Ralph P[redacted] wrote: 3/2/15
[redacted],
I want to start off by apologizing for David’s behavior. He is a very young and passionate salesperson that, at times, takes things very personally. He had spent quite a bit of time working on your behalf to finalize the replacement of your [redacted]. I also, want you to know that David does work for Farrish, but does not speak for Farrish concerning these types of situations. I think you would agree that no company would want their employee to speak out like this, and we are no different. I take situations like this very seriously. I have spoken with David on this matter, and I know he understands that he has made a huge mistake, and if he could turn the clock back, he would.
Moving forward, if I can ever be of assistance with your new [redacted], please let me know.
Sincerely,
Ralph P[redacted]

Thank you for the opportunity to respond.  FYI, this complaint was emailed to my office yesterday however it was registered almost 2 weeks ago based on the info in this file.What is interesting is that the reimbursement check was prepared on 8/16 and it was mailed to the customer on 8/19....

 I suspect it was received the day after or shortly thereafter the day [redacted] registered this complaint.  I apologize that our delay caused the customer and the Revdex.com to spend time on this when I'm sure you have better things to focus on.  One would think that if [redacted] received our reimbursement check he would have been thoughtful to inform the Revdex.com.  Therefore, there is a chance that he did not receive our check.I verified it was sent to the same address as in [redacted] complaint.  If by chance he did not receive our reimbursement check, I will need to be notified so we can take corrective action.  I can be reached at [redacted].  Thank you.Kevin F[redacted]  PresidentFarrish of Fairfax, Inc. DBA Farrish Subaru

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
 Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:The repair Farrish of Fairfax Inc. is offering fails to address the pre-existing defect in the vehicle (damage to suspension component parts) that was unknown to my wife and I at the time of the sale. Additional notesAfter numerous discussions and
attempts to reach a mutually agreeable resolution with the General Manager and
President of Farrish of Fairfax, we reached out to the Revdex.com, a neutral third
party, not as a tool or tactic to pressure, or as the President of Farrish put
it, “strong arm” a business, but rather for their assistance in helping
facilitate a resolution to this matter that is fair and equitable. Given all of
the facts, we believe we deserve better than what Farrish of Fairfax Inc. is offering,
as it fails to address the pre-existing defect in the vehicle (damage to
suspension component parts) that was unknown to my wife and I at the time of
the sale.  For the record, we were unable to attach any files or emails in the initial complaint which includes the email the President of Farrish forwarded
Contrary to what the President of
Farrish claims, we did not condition the sale on an inspection by a third party
mechanic. There were no contingency clauses or agreements. We simply asked
Farrish of Fairfax if we could have [redacted] of Alexandria complete an inspection
on the vehicle to see if this was a vehicle we would be interested in making an
offer on. [redacted] of Alexandria’s inspection
did reveal that the car needed an alignment, spark plugs, an inoperable rear
sunshade and a small oil leak from the rear centrifuge cover.  These needed repairs were never disclosed to
us by Farrish of Fairfax due to either an inadequate inspection on their part when
the vehicle was traded in or inexperience with this vehicle’s make and model.  Having known about the repairs needed, we
were comfortable making an offer to purchase the vehicle. Had we known about
the significant damage to some of the suspension component parts effecting the
drive of the vehicle as well as the irregular and premature tire wear, we would
not have made an offer to purchase the vehicle.
Unfortunately for my wife and I, it
was only through [redacted] of
Alexandria’s attempt to perform the alignment a few weeks after our purchase
that they discovered just how far out of alignment the vehicle was.  This was proven evident by the computerized measurements,
and led to a more thorough examination, beyond that which is typical of a
pre-sale inspection. Through this investigation, [redacted] of Alexandria was
able to discover the underlying damage to the suspension component parts.
Regarding the President’s claim that we
have developed buyers’ remorse and do not want the vehicle repaired: When
the underlying defect was discovered by [redacted] of Alexandria after our
purchase, we contacted Farrish of Fairfax immediately and made our initial
request for them to pay to have the vehicle repaired at [redacted]. The Used Car Manager and General Manager of
Farrish declined, as has the President in our discussions. Per the recent email between the President and
I on January 13, 2015, we have continuously maintained that our first
preference is to return the vehicle to Farrish for a full refund, but we are
also open to having the vehicle repaired at a [redacted] dealer at the
expense of Farrish of Fairfax. If paying
to have the vehicle repaired at a [redacted] dealership is a more viable and
agreeable solution to Farrish of Fairfax, I would be glad to discuss this in
greater depth.
As stated previously, we are not
comfortable having Farrish of Fairfax make any repairs to the vehicle. They previously attempted to align the vehicle
on
July 29, 2014, at the time of trade. When we purchased the vehicle on December 2,
2014, the vehicle was still found to be out of alignment by [redacted] of
Alexandria. The car being out of alignment at the time of sale provides
additional evidence of pre-existing damage that prevents the car from being
properly aligned and/or an inability by Farrish of Fairfax to properly align
the vehicle. In addition, there were a number of items [redacted] of Alexandria
did find during their initial inspection (described above) that Farrish of
Fairfax did not. This illustrates the reasons why a dealership that focuses on [redacted], Subaru, [redacted] and [redacted] vehicles is not well equipped to perform repairs on a [redacted]. Frankly, we have lost confidence in Farrish of Fairfax.Also, to reiterate, [redacted] Foreign
Car Service said the car appears to have had body and paint work on the
front right side near the wheel, indicating there had been significant
impact that necessitated body and paint work.  When we brought the vehicle to CarMax for an inspection, they also stated that the car has had prior paint work on the passenger side fender.  Based on this information, there is a strong possibility that the car may have been in an previous accident.  
As we stated in our original
complaint, [redacted] of Alexandria, [redacted] of Arlington and
[redacted] Foreign Car Service have completed independent inspections on the
vehicle and each found that there is underlying damage to some of the suspension component parts. All three stated that repairs must be made before
a camber bolt adjuster kit could be used to properly align the vehicle. The
method of repair suggested by Farrish (camber bolt adjuster kit) was not recommended
by either of the three repair shops that inspected our vehicle, all of whom
focus almost exclusively on [redacted] vehicles.  Even if Farrish of Fairfax was somehow able
to bring the vehicle back into proper alignment (according to [redacted] specifications)
through their proposed method, we have concerns that this would be merely
masking the underlying damage that exists as indicated by [redacted] of
Alexandria, [redacted] of Arlington and [redacted].  If this were the case, it is highly likely
problems would resurface in the near future including irregular tire wear and
the vehicle pulling to the right as it does now.The President of Farrish also stated
that his offer is valid for 1 week from January 20, 2015, which we believe
demonstrates his attempt to pressure us into accepting his repair approach and
deter us from seeking the assistance of a third party like the Revdex.com to help
facilitate an equitable resolution, as reaching a mutually agreeable resolution
could take longer than one week. Please let us know if you would like copies of any of the alignment diagnostic reports or repair estimates. We are happy to share any documents you would like to see. 
Regards,
[redacted]

March 22, 2015
Re: Case #[redacted]
Dear [redacted],
Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention. As the customer stated the vehicle was purchased “AS IS”. The Buyers Guide, that the customer signed, states on an AS IS purchase “You will pay all cost of any repairs. The dealer assumes...

no responsibility for any repairs regardless of any oral statements about the vehicle”. With this being said Farrish of Fairfax would decline reimbursement for any repairs made by the customer. If the customer can show that the vehicle had been represented to have the equipment he states was missing, I would reconsider my decision.
On another the customer stated that the vehicle had an outstanding recall. I ran an inquiry through [redacted]’s system and all recalls show closed, as well as there were no outstanding recalls at the time of delivery.
Please find the following documents for your file.
• Buyer Guide front and back, signed by the customer.
• Coverage Report from [redacted] showing no recalls.
• Truth in Lending Act showing the declination, by the customer, of any additional coverage’s.
• Initial inspection sheet from the dealership showing no problems with the vehicle.
If you have any further questions, please contact me at ###-###-####.
Respectfully,
Ralph P[redacted]
General Manager
Farrish of Fairfax, Inc.

Review: In August 2012, I took my 2005 Jeep Grand Cherokee to Farrish for brakes and other repairs. After three attempts over a 10 day period and charging me $747.76, Farrish was unsuccessful in repairing the problems. Farrish then provided a rental car while they continued to assess and work on the needed repairs. I was charged an additional $184.71 by [redacted] who Farrish utilizes for rental vehicles for customers whose cars are under their repair.

While under Farrish’s care to fix the above problems, my Jeep was totaled by a Farrish employee who was allowed to use my Jeep as personal transportation to and from his home. While driving my Jeep at 1:00 a.m. on a Saturday morning, the Farrish employee hit another car and was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. The driver of the other vehicle was transported to the hospital and filed a claim against my policy.

Although the accident happened early Saturday morning, I was not notified until Tuesday afternoon, three business days after the accident. Worse, I was not notified by Farrish that my Jeep had been involved in an accident, but by my insurance company who called to ask me if I knew that a claim had been placed against my policy for the accident. No one from Farrish called me about my car until I initiated contact with them the Tuesday after the accident to ask about the status of repairs to my Jeep. After I informed Farrish of the wreck, I went to the dealership to inspect my totaled vehicle. At that time, I discovered a child car seat in the rear seat of my vehicle. That child care seat did not belong to me but to the service technician who had been driving my car as his personal vehicle for the weekend.

I spoke with both the Service Manager and owner of Farrish. As I communicated to both of them, the wreck could have been prevented and should have been more timely communicated.

First, the Farrish employee who took the car home had been employed by Farrish for less than 4 weeks. Entrusting valuable personal property of customers to new employees without an adequate probationary period places the property at risk to an unproven employee for misuse and the incident that occurred.

Second, based on my conversation with the Service Manager, taking cars home is a common business practice. The Service Manage stated that some personal use is permitted such as “stopping by the grocery store to pick up milk”. Clearly, this practice is not acceptable.

Third, management was unaware the accident occurred until I informed them. As confirmed by discussions with the Service Manager and discussions and emails with the owner of Farrish, the dealership did not have a protocol or “check-in/check-out” policy to monitor and track customer vehicles that service technicians drive home. Even though the service technician did not return to work nor call in after he totaled my vehicle, no one at Farrish contacted the technician to ask where my vehicle was, where the technician was and/or when he would return the car. Apparently, no one at Farrish realized my Jeep was gone from the dealership for almost 4 days after the accident, and the realization was only made after I called to inquire about repair status. Further, management should have been monitoring the fact that the technician was apparently using my Jeep as his personal car while continually attempting to repair my vehicle.

I was not reimbursed for the $747.76 I paid for the repairs to my Jeep that were never fully completed by Farrish, nor for the $184.71 I was charged for the rental car. In addition, I was not compensated for my time and out of pocket expense incurred to travel multiple times to Farrish for the repairs, to investigate damage to my Jeep, and to pick up personal items from my totaled vehicle. Further, no consideration was paid for my time or out of pocket expenses associated with the discussions with my insurance company, discussions with my attorney or the search for a new vehicle. I had no intention of purchasing a new vehicle at the time of the accident.

My insurance company reimbursed me for the fair market value my Jeep and I have been informed that my insurance company was reimbursed by Farrish’s insurance provider. Despite my requests, the only other compensation offered by Farrish to address this incident was a discount on a new Jeep. Based on conversations with other dealerships, as well as the deal I received on the purchase of another Jeep, that offer was similar to that given to customers on purchases of new vehicles at month or year-end. The offer was not financially reasonable for the travesty that occurred, but more importantly I did not want to purchase a vehicle from a dealership who engages in practices described above.

In summary, I believe the wreck could have been prevented, should have been better communicated and should have been better remedied by Farrish.

I reported this incident to Chrysler who communicated their shock that this occurred and stated these policies are not acceptable by its dealers. Chrysler investigated the incident and subsequently provided me with a complementary extended warranty and service package. As of the date of this letter, however, I have not received any additional communication from Farrish regarding remedies for this matter.Desired Settlement: Reimbursement for the $747.76 I paid for the repairs to my Jeep that were never fully completed by Farrish and the $184.71 I was charged for the rental car. In addition, compensation for my time and out of pocket expense incurred to travel multiple times to Farrish for the repairs, to investigate damage to my Jeep, and to pick up personal items from my totaled vehicle. Further, consideration for my time and out of pocket expenses associated with the discussions with my insurance company, discussions with my attorney and the search for a new vehicle. I had no intention of purchasing a new vehicle at the time of the accident.

Business

Response:

March 19, 2013

The Revdex.com

Attn: [redacted]

Complaint #[redacted]

Re: [redacted]

Dear [redacted],

Thank you for the opportunity to

address [redacted]’s concerns. I am

unfortunately well aware of the total loss of his vehicle at the hands of one

of my employees. Both [redacted] and

our dealership were harmed by the decision of this ex-employee when he used [redacted]’s vehicle for personal use which was a clear violation of our

employment and caused his termination from our company.

I personally spoke with [redacted] within two days of learning of the incident and took over as the

main point of contact while the insurance company’s determined the loss

etc.. Obviously we provided [redacted] with alternative transportation while he purchased another

vehicle. Rather than take you through

the many emails [redacted] and I had, I have attached a copy of all of them

for your review. In the last email dated

10/1/2012 (and before he returned the rental vehicle) I reiterated my offer to

assist him with the purchase of a new Jeep from our dealership at $2,000 under

net/net (invoice less Hold Back less $2,000) As you are aware, that means I was

willing to lose $2,000 to attempt to keep a valued customer. Since that time, I have not had any further

communication with [redacted]. That

said, [redacted]’s request for reimbursement of the $542.71 (RO #[redacted])

and $201.05 (RO #[redacted]) is a new request that I am only learning of through

Revdex.com and [redacted]. These amounts were for work that [redacted]

continued to have concerns over and we were attempting to fix however the

technician could not duplicate these concerns on 9/13 or 9/14 which

precipitated our Service Advisor to call him to request permission for him to

test drive his vehicle overnight on Friday 9/14/12. That authorization was granted. By no means am I saying this was [redacted]’s fault, but instead to make absolutely sure that your agencies know

that he had authorized our service advisor to provide additional testing. We all know what unfortunately happened

next.

In conclusion, now that I am

aware of [redacted]’s request, I have given it a great deal of thought and

determined that he did not receive the benefit of the work we provided to

him. While I do not believe we are

legally required to refund these monies, I do however believe ethically we

should. We will provide this

reimbursement as a goodwill gesture in hope that we can put this matter behind

each of us. As for the rental expense

that he incurred, I have no record of that on our Repair Order. [redacted] must have rented a vehicle on

his own and was not part of our Repair Order or final invoice. Because we did not realize a financial

benefit from this, I am not inclined to reimburse him for this.

I cannot state this clearer; I am

extremely disappointed that this occurred.

I fully understand why [redacted] was upset as he was clearly harmed

by the events. I understand this because

our company was forever harmed as well.

First and foremost, we appear to have lost [redacted]’s business and

trust. Additionally, we lost financially

for the rental car we provided, the deductible, and a $40,000 loss ([redacted]’s vehicle as well as the other vehicle that was involved in the

accident). That claim will continue to

drive our rates higher for many years to come.

And finally, by the agreement to reimburse the funds [redacted] has

requested.

Both [redacted] and Farrish

of Fairfax, Inc. were harmed by an employee not following and keeping to our

policy. A policy I might add was created

to help us repair more of our customer’s vehicles and is therefore a necessary

process to have in our industry. I hope

that someday [redacted] can appreciate that the many positive experiences

we had together shouldn’t be overshadowed by the act of one individual who’s

actions harmed both of us.

Respectfully,

President

Farrish of Fairfax, Inc.

DBA: Farrish Chrysler Dodge Jeep

Ram

** Please let me k now if my offer is accepted

and I will mail a check out ASAP. Thank

you!!

[redacted],

In response to your points/email

below:

·

“Lack of background

check”: Prior to hiring we require each employee pass a drug test. We

also review DMV driving records of potential drivers to insure that they would

be permitted to drive our vehicles as well as our customers vehicles. Our

insurance company has very stringent requirements. He passed both.

·

“Lack of employee

probationary period” What you didn’t bring up from your conversation with

our Service Manager is that his references checked out exceedingly well.

One indicated that if he had an opening he would have hired him back in a

second. Our Service Manager also worked side by side this individual

daily and observed that he was more than competent in this position. We

had every reason to believe he could be trusted with our vehicles as well as

yours. The point I am attempting to make here is that we didn’t just

blindly allow this individual to drive your automobile. We did so with

the belief that he would honor his commitments that he made to us.

·

“Lack of check-in or

check-out procedure”: We did not have a process that identified that an

employee that didn’t show up for work could have had a vehicle on a test

drive. In my 25 years at our dealership, this hadn’t happened. We

have had an employee call in sick with a customer’s vehicle at their home,

however in this instance he didn’t call. As you are well aware,

this was after the fact of the incident but none the less it is something we

will correct in our process for the future.

I have said this before and I

mean it. We are sorry this occurred. That said, you appear to want

to make this about my dealership and not about the individual that failed to

abide by our standard and reasonable expectation that he would take care of our

dealership vehicles and customer’s vehicles in an appropriate manner. The

bottom line is my dealership was not negligent.

Concerning my good-will offer to

you. You are mistaken in what I offered to you. Following your

statement “is that your final offer”, I offered to sell you a New Vehicle at my

Dealership Net/Net Cost (Invoice less Holdback) less an additional

$2,000. All in an effort to show our appreciation of your past business

and to show you we care about you. That offer continues to stand through

the close of business today.

In closing, you indicated that

you were not happy with the way my company handled the situation. I think

it is fair to point out that this is not a normal situation. As such, I

personally have been in communication with you every step of the way not to

mention the many phone calls to the various insurance agents and

adjusters. I don’t know of many Auto Dealers who would have done

that. In fact, most would turn the matter over to their insurance company

and left it at that. We also put you in a dealership loaner vehicle

throughout the process. Again, typically the insurance company would have

provided you with a rental vehicle for a week. We went beyond that.

We both know the amount paid for your vehicle was more than fair as

evidenced by the multiple vehicles (5) very similar to yours that I found on

the internet with a retail asking price of less than your settlement check of

$11,600. It is apparent to me that you want my dealership to pay over and

above for this situation. To be clear, my insurance company will not pay

anything beyond the property damage. Their statement to me was “We do not

find Farrish of Fairfax negligent and therefore will not entertain any further

financial consideration”.

I hope this clears up any

misunderstandings on where we stand.

Respectfully,

From: [redacted]

Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 7:38 PM

To: [redacted]

Subject: RE: [redacted] Claim# [redacted]

Mr. Farrish,

The situation described in your email fails to

recognize one very important fact - I left my vehicle in the care of your

company – not parked on the street.

I believe that this situation arose in part due

to Farrish policies and procedures that were poorly designed, improperly

implemented, or simply not enforced, including:

The lack of a background check (according to my

conversation with the Service Manager) for an employee who was removing a

customer’s personal property (my Jeep) from Farrish’s location and storing

it overnight at his personal residence and using it for his personal

purposes (as evidenced by the baby seat left in the vehicle).

The apparent lack of an employee probationary or

similar evaluation period to allow assessment of whether a recent employee

should be entrusted with a customer’s vehicle for purposes of driving it

to and storing it at his personal residence. In my case, your

employee was newly-hired and had only worked for the dealership for 3

weeks.

The apparent lack of check-in or check-out procedures

for tracking customer vehicles that employees take home from

Farrish. Although my vehicle was involved in the accident at 1:00 AM

on Saturday morning, Sept. 15th, Farrish did not notify me of

the incident until Tues. Sept. 18th, and then only after I

called the dealership to check into the status of my car. When I

first called on Sept. 18th, the service technician said he

would call me back after he checked on the status. In the interim, I

received a call from my insurance company asking me if I knew that a claim

had been filed against my policy for an accident involving my vehicle

around 1:00 AM Saturday, Sept. 15th and that (as reported to my

insurance carrier) the driver had been arrested for an alleged DUI. Only

after the call from my insurance company did Farrish confirm the

incident. Thus, my insurance company communicated the status and

location of my vehicle to me before Farrish.

My

initial hope after the incident was that Farrish would make a serious effort to

repair the damage done to its reputation and to take care of a loyal customer

of your dealership and of Jeep. Such an effort would have allowed me to

say that you appreciated the absurdity and severity of this situation and the

substantial impact it had on me. I do not, however, consider your offer

of $1,000 off invoice to be a significant attempt to repair your

goodwill. I assure you that I have also spoken

to many people to make sure that I am thinking about this objectively, and none

of them can believe, based on the seriousness of this incident, that this is

your best effort to make amends.

At

this point, I am unhappy with how Farrish has handled this situation and I will

feel free to avail myself of all forums for communicating or registering

consumer concerns.

[redacted]

From: [redacted]

Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 8:47 PM

To: [redacted]

Cc: [redacted]

Subject: RE: [redacted] Claim# [redacted],

I had a conf. call announced for

tomorrow morning around the time we were going to speak. Rather than

delay our conversation I decided to write you this email.

I have thought about this on and

off all day. I have contacted additional people regarding this to get

their take on it to make sure I’m thinking about this objectively.

As we discussed, my offer to you

was for good will. You have been a great customer of ours and we wanted

to help you given the situation. I believe had the scenario been

different you might consider it differently.

For instance, if a driver

totaled your vehicle while parked on the street the individual or his insurance

company is required to provide you with a fair settlement on your

vehicle. I offered to do more because you have been a good

customer. I truly thought you would be happy that I made this offer

without you feeling like you had to fight to be recognized for our longstanding

relationship. Yes, the circumstances were different however in as much as

a company can protect from this, which we did. Therefore this is a

property damage claim only.

I will continue to keep this

offer available to you thru October 1st. If you do not wish to

take advantage of this, we will have to agree to disagree. In either

event, I will need our loaner vehicle back by 10/2/12 thus giving you ample

time to find a replacement vehicle.

Again, I am very sorry that this

occurred.

Please let me know how you wish

to proceed.

Sincerely,

[redacted]

From: [redacted]

Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 11:11 AM

To: [redacted]

Cc: '[redacted]

Subject: RE: [redacted] Claim# [redacted]

Mr. Farrish,

I left a message at the number

you provided below.

Based on discussions with my

insurance company, my Jeep has been totaled. My insurance company needs a

release so that they can take it to a salvage yard. They provided the

information related to the value.

I will be in the office all day

– [redacted]

From: [redacted]

Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 10:28 AM

To: [redacted]

Cc: '[redacted]

Subject: RE: [redacted] Claim# [redacted],

I hope you had a great

weekend. I want to give you an update. Your insurance company and

mine have been communicating in an effort to address the situation.

According to my insurance company, your insurance company will be handling the claim

concerning your automobile and subrogate against our company. Everyone

expects this and this claim will not have any effect on your insurance from a

future rate standpoint moving forward.

Your insurance company already

sent a third party estimator to our Body Shop to complete an estimate. I

suspect the estimate will get communicated today.

As I have said in previous

emails, I suspect the vehicle will be a total loss. I had my Body Shop

Manager, do a preliminary estimate and it was over the typical threshold for a

total loss. I was pushing for your insurance company to handle this

because I suspected they would put the best number on your vehicle from a total

loss standpoint. Let’s face it, they aren’t going to pay the bill, my

insurance company will.. Again, I wanted to see you get the best value.

Call me when you have had a

chance to review this. My direct number is [redacted].

Thank you,

[redacted]

From: [redacted]

Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 4:44 PM

To: [redacted]

Subject: RE: [redacted] Claim# [redacted]

Will you be reissuing the Permission

to Use Dealer License Plate certificate? Appears to be valid for 5

days only, and was issued on September 19.

Thank you.

[redacted]

From: [redacted]

Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 3:48 PM

To: [redacted]

Cc: [redacted]

Subject: RE: [redacted] Claim# [redacted],

Thank you for your email and

voice mail message. I didn’t want to play phone tag so I decided to email

you this time to make sure I’m keeping you in the loop concerning your

vehicle. Your insurance company had an appraisal company review your

vehicle today. We should find out as early as Monday if it will be considered

a total. If you are notified that it is a total, please find out from

them what they are going to pay you for the vehicle. I have done some

research on 2005 Grand Cherokee’s with similar mileage and feel comfortable

that I know what they are worth. Once we get that information, I think we

need to talk.

I wish things would be different

and neither of us were having to go through this but rest assured I am doing my

best to get you taken care of.

I assume we will know more early

next week and will certainly keep you in the loop.

Have a great weekend.

Sincerely,

[redacted]

From: [redacted]

Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 10:09 AM

To: [redacted]

Subject: RE: [redacted] Claim# [redacted]

Gentlemen,

Attached are the documents that

were in my Jeep related to recent service.

Please let me know if anything

else is needed.

[redacted]

From: [redacted]

Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 3:02 PM

To: [redacted]

Cc: [redacted]

Subject: FW: [redacted] Claim# [redacted]

I will be personally handling this matter on behalf of my

dealership. Please direct any questions or concerns directly to me in the

future.

The claim number through [redacted], our garage liability

carrier, is [redacted] has not yet assigned this claim to

an adjuster. The moment we are notified that they have, I will forward

you their contact information.

I received a fax today from an agent of the person who was rear

ended by our employee that indicated that [redacted] did not give our

employee authorization to drive his automobile. We need to clear this up

immediately; we had [redacted]’s authorization to drive his

automobile.

It is our company’s policy that the work order and all paperwork

pertaining to the repair be kept in the vehicle during test drives. As

such it was in the vehicle. [redacted] met my Parts/Service Director,

[redacted], yesterday to review the damage to his vehicle and allowed him to

get his personal belongings out of the vehicle. We checked the vehicle

and believe [redacted] inadvertently has these documents. [redacted]

has been in contact with [redacted] today and he will look for these

documents when he returns home tonight. He will fax us a copy of the work

order tomorrow. We will certainly forward a copy to you.

I feel badly that this occurred and certainly want to do

whatever possible to assist in resolving this matter quickly and efficiently

for [redacted].

Here is my contact info:

[redacted]

Thank you,

cc. [redacted]

Review: On August 4th, 2014 I picked up a part I had previously ordered through Jeff T[redacted] in the Parts Department for my vehicle. Prepaid for $2.76 in cash. Part received was incorrect part, to which it was determined the next day when I returned the clamp harness that the part actually needed was $150. I went ahead and asked to return the clamp they had provided as it was the incorrect part. I was provided with an invoice reflecting a credit due me of $2.76. I was informed when I handed the invoice to the Cashier that Accounting would have to issue me a check as payment was made in cash, but that the check would be mailed within 5 business days. If the check was not received within 10 days, to call and check upon the status.

As the check had not been received by August 14th, I called Accounting and was told that the check was there, but that it was waiting a signature, and that the check would be mailed out by the 16th.

On August 21st, as the check still had not arrived, I again called Accounting at 11am who told me at that point that they could not find the information in the system anymore. They called back a few minutes later asking for the Invoice number: [redacted]. They informed me that they would call back within "a few minutes" with an answer. At 2:30pm, I had not heard anything back, and so called the dealership again to check if they had an update. Left a voicemail message but never heard back.Desired Settlement: Reimbursement of funds paid.

Business

Response:

Thank you for the opportunity to respond. FYI, this complaint was emailed to my office yesterday however it was registered almost 2 weeks ago based on the info in this file.