Fitzgerald's Lakeforest Toyota

"width: 624px; margin: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 8px; text-align: left;">
[redacted]
Case# [redacted]
Facts in this case are as follows:
1. Vehicle is a [redacted] LX
2. [redacted] purchased vehicle on Feb 9th
3. Vehicle was sold "AS IS" with no type of warranty
4. Mileage at time of sale 118,
5. [redacted] declined to purchase extended warranty coverage
6. On March 18th vehicle returned at 120,miles (driven miles)
7. Complaint noise from vehicle
a. Found CV boot had fresh tear – grease on brake rotors
b. Found hair line crack in exhaust manifold
8. Dealer offered 50% goodwill assistance toward repairs – owner declined repairs
9. On July 29th vehicle returned with 127,miles (driven 8,miles)
10. Complaint vehicle over heats/hard to start/check engine light is on
a. Found engine damage due to server overheating – recommend engine replacement
b. Found substance in radiator that has restricted coolant flow
c. Found CV boot still torn
d. Found exhaust manifold still cracked
11. Vehicle has been reposed by lien holder – Aug 29th
12. Fitzgerald has made a goodwill offer to assist in repair if owner is able to regain procession of vehicle
13. [redacted] Office of Consumer Affairs has inspected the vehicle prior to repossession
a. Investigator [redacted] is handling this case for [redacted]
In closing:
This vehicle was sold AS IS with no warrantiesThe owner has driven the vehicle for a total of 8,miles from purchaseOwner has still not repaired needed items brought to her attention over 7,miles agoFitzgerald Auto Mall has offered to assist twice but [redacted] has not accepted assistance on the AS IS vehicle she purchased and declined to purchase any extended warranty coverage[redacted] has unit September 12th to accept assistanceAgain this vehicle was sold AS IS with no warranties
Please feel free to contact me directly at ###-###-#### or [redacted]
Gil B[redacted]
Fitzgerald Auto Malls

[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 business continues to refuse to address the facts of the matter. Please refund the money paid for the fraudulent assessment for the automobile. It did not have a bent control arm. Please pay back the customer you charged or pay me to pass along the funds to the customer who paid.  The information was provided in multiple responses in the file, including the name of the customer and the inspection results that shows no bent control arm.This is the FOURTH time the company wrote without replying to any of the charges. How many more chances are they going to get to ignore the facts and be non-responsive?
Regards,
[redacted]

[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:
They are the ones who suggested that the vehicle may have had a recall not me. I am not the confused one and neither are they.  They gave me the loaner car because they knew they were at fault and this gave them time to do their own investigations, that's what I was told by the service manager. He had me wait for 7 days while he consulted with [redacted] on a possible recall or [redacted] defect. So how am I confused? I have limited knowledge on that issue so how could I have known about it if they had not brought it to my attention?
Also, they took the loaner back after I rejected their offer of a 3 years lease on a 2014 [redacted] (only). Their offer was leasing a 2014 [redacted] which cost $19000 plus $3300 added for the remaining loan balance, plus tax & tags. From this they would get a $2000 rebate from [redacted] which they say is their gift to me for the damaged car.  Very clever Fitzgerald.
So after I traded my Car for $3500, bought a car from them in good faith for $7500.  I paid $1500 in car payments, now I have a balance of $3300 left and no car because of their negligence. Now they are trying to force me into a $500 month lease and telling me I can walk away from the lease after 3 years as if they are doing me some big favor.
This is how these big company's trick and scam the small consumers and get away with it because we don't have a string of lawyers and mega bucks to fight in court.
The fact is that Fitzgerald sold me a car which was defective and they choose to overlook it and prepare a certified Inspection certificate regardless, just because they can. Now they are waving a waiver in my face. As I said before, I signed the waiver because I thought they were telling the truth. But they are scammers and this is what many used car dealerships do. Forge their Maryland Inspection Certificates. Their mechanic said that if they had at any point place this car on a lift during inspection, they would known that it would only last for a short time because of the level of corrosion on the bottom frame. At least he said they would have looked a bit further because corrosion happen over time.
Mr. Rose needs to consult with his salesman Axel, the service advisor Chris, the mechanic at Fitzgerald [redacted] Service, Gill, and all the other personnel that spoke with me.  I honestly don't think he has a clue what transpired with this vehicle he is just a representative of Jack F[redacted] trying to weasel the company out of a bad situation. Where was he when I was going back and forth with all the managers both sales and service trying to get this resolved? Why was he not involved? why has he just now surfaced?
Regards,
[redacted]

[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 [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.  Regards, [redacted]

August 5, 2014
To whom it may concern,I am responding on behalf of complaint [redacted] in reference to the customers service visit. I personally drove with the customer, so that he could point out the specific noise that he wanted fixed. The customer asked me to drive as he felt the...

noise was coming from the left rear brake assembly. I asked what kind of noise it was and he replied that I would hear it as soon as I accelerated and again when I applied the brakes. I did indeed hear the noise several times while accelerating and stopping. I was assured by the customer the noise we had experienced was the noise he was concerned with.I asked the customer to drive the vehicle so that I could sit in the back seat, and possibly hear the noise better. I did hear the noise and told the customer that I believed the noise he was complaining about was coming from under the driver seat area and sounded like something rolling back and forth on the floor. I told the customer that we would have to remove the back seat bottom and possibly the driver's seat to find the source of the noise and he agreed to leave the vehicle with us for the day and take a loaner vehicle.The technician that worked on the vehicle did experience the noise and started the diagnostic process by removing all of the loose items in the car and placing them in one of four labeled boxes. The technician then started disassembling of the interior and found the source of the noise (a pen under the carpet rolling back and forth on the metal floor pan, when accelerating and braking.) There was also a pen inside the passenger floor air duct under the front seat. The removal of the pens was the end of our noise, and was test driven by the technician and the customer to verify the repair. The customer did pay for some time and material charges for the repair but not all. The service department at the discretion of the service director internally charged two hours of labor to machine the front brake rotor as a goodwill gesture for the customer. The front rotors had alight rust ring but did not make any noise and as the customer said he knew the noise was from the back of the vehicle.I believe are charges where justified and the vehicle is fixed.Brett D
Service Director

May 29, 2014
Dear [redacted]This is in response to customer complaint; [redacted]. On May , 2014, [redacted] purchased a 2002 [redacted] from our dealership. It was a one owner vehicle with 116,750 miles on the odometer. The [redacted] vehicle was sold with an "As-Is” warranty that only...

requires the dealer to perform a Maryland Safety Inspection (MSI). Under the MSI guidelines, we are not required to inspect the engine.During the processing of the sale, we offered [redacted] the option to purchase an extended warranty. [redacted] declined the purchase of the warranty. If [redacted] had purchased the extended warranty the engine problem would have been covered.At some point after the sale of the car, [redacted] took the [redacted] to his personal mechanic. After talking to his mechanic, [redacted] then contacted his salesman at our dealership, [redacted] explained the problem. [redacted] told [redacted] that the engine problem was not covered under our As-Is warranty. However, we did tell him that we would possibly be able to help him, but he needed to bring the car to our shop. No financial commitment of any amount was discussed. [redacted] at that time told [redacted] that he would take care of the problem himself.Upon receiving your letter, we have made another attempt to [redacted] to bring the car to our location. [redacted] brought the car to us last night and our shop is currently in the process of inspecting the damage to the engine.According to the guidelines of the "As-Is” warranty, and our initial request to [redacted] to bring the car in, we do not feel we were negligent in the sale of this car. However, in our good faith attempt, we will work with the customer toward a resolution. Please let me know if you have any further questions.Sincerely,

2/18/2016
Gil B[redacted]
Fitzgerald
Auto Malls
18707 N.
Frederick Ave.
Gaithersburg, MD
20879
[redacted]
The
Revdex.com
 
[redacted],
This letter
is in response to the complaint by [redacted] with the ID number [redacted]. I
will make this very brief. This customer has not done business with us to date.
His complaint is with Toyota Motor Sales USA. He has opened a complaint case
with multiple agencies but I would like to assist him in offering to cover the
cost of his oil and filter change as an opportunity to gain his business.
I therefore
would like the opportunity to provide at no charge to the consumer the oil and
filter change require during the beginning of the Toyota oil consumption test. He
can contact me directly at [redacted]@fitzmall.com
or call during normal weekday hours at ###-###-####.
 
Gil B[redacted]
Fitzgerald
Auto Malls
18707 N.
Frederick Ave.
Gaithersburg,
MD 20879

[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:
I did tell Mat and the other incompetent mx tech
that I don’t care what you think you heard I'm telling you it’s a
grinding noise in the breaks and that’s all I authorized to fix that.....
and not anything else.
I even told Linda the service
advisor it’s the breaks grinding and authorized them to fix that
only,
After they ran there bill up doing
what I NEVER AUTHORIZED them to do (they found and fixed what I originally
intended and authorized them to fix RUST ON THE BREAK ROTOR. {which causes a
grinding noise when stopped}
  
Just the fact that they saw and
fixed THE RUST ON THE BREAK ROTOR, WHICH CAUSED THE GRINDING BUT THAN deleted
THAT PART from there files as if to hide the fact that they screwed up(and they
also never Noted that on the bill either as they credited the bill out) the
RUSTED ROTOR that caused the grinding proves that all the other actions
were just there unfair tries to bus the customer, try to run the bill up and
there made up BS to add hours of labor.
(also I would request that you
notified the Md State ASC authorities that these two mechanics can even think of
telling a customer and trying to get him to believe that tearing out carpets and
seats because of two pens causes GRINDING WHEN YOU STOP which shows how
incompetent and uncaring they really are, this customer deception CAN NOT AND
MUST NOT BE TOLERATED.
Regards,
[redacted]

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID
[redacted], I agreed that [redacted] contacted me and was to set up an appointment for
me to bring in the car, I asked him to email me the appointment reminder.
However, when I received the reminder, I saw someone else's name on it which
was the name of the same man that I checked in/checked out my car with on (who was
very rude), so it brought back unpleasant memories; and after  reading
other customer complaints about Fitz  I decided not to take my car back to
Fitzgerald Toyota. I took my car to my God father's mechanic, who checked my
car and will continue to service it going forward. 
 
Regards, 
[redacted]

[redacted]>




4:00 PM (34 minutes ago)










tome,[redacted],[redacted],[redacted]




 
 
 
June 5, 2014
11411 K Street, 10th Floor
Washington DC 20005-3404
Re: [redacted] Complaint
Complaint: [redacted]
Anita Horne,
I am writing to you in reference to complaint ID# [redacted]. I am requesting you please consider the facts in this case of:
1.       **. [redacted] was not our customer.
2.       **. [redacted] did not receive any services from our dealership
3.       **. [redacted] did not pay any monies to Fitzgerald [redacted] for the alleged services.
The alleged transaction was requested by a third party purchasing a used vehicle from **. [redacted]. This third party brought the vehicle to our dealership and requested a Maryland State Inspection. This inspection was performed under the guidelines of Maryland. The vehicle had several failed components. The third party and our customer left with the vehicle and list of failed components. **. [redacted] was not present or requested any service from our dealership.
This complaint did not have to be responded to due to the facts above. We request the complaint be removed from our records with the Revdex.com.
 
Thank you,
 
[redacted]
Fitzgerald Auto Malls

[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]8/24/14
Dear [redacted],Thank you for forwarding the response to me from FitzAutoMall.
The dealership has stated that I made “false and misleading statements.”
Just to remind the dealership, the documentation I was provided prior to sale asserted that the [redacted] did not need engine repair work at the time of sale despite the fact that the engine light was on. I was told that the issue surrounding the light would be “taken care of as “we cannot legally sell you a car with the engine light on.”
After the engine failed several months into the loan, I asked the dealer what actions had been taken to turn off the engine light which flickered on the moment I drove the vehicle off the lot. Did the dealer simply reset the light or had work actually been done on the car? In response to my query, the dealer provided an invoice (from Al B[redacted]) representing that the dealer had undertaken $341 worth of engine repair work between the time the car was presented to me and before the car was driven off the lot in direct contradiction to the dealer's written representation that the car did not require engine work. I have seen no proof that any engine work was even done beyond the dealer's representations that this work was undertaken. Two months into the loan, the engine failed.
As stated, the [redacted] is currently undrivable. As for what work needs to be done....Engine failure is a structural defect associated with the make/model of this vehicle (2002 [redacted] LW 200). In fact, the North Carolina Consumers Council “advises consumer to avoid the [redacted] L-series vehicles.” According to the NCCC, the most persistent issue is engine and transmission failures. “Complaints of engine failure due to a defective timing chain design persist to this day,” the NCCC reports, issuing the first recommendation in its 40-year history against the purchase of this vehicle due to timing chain defects.This is a statement from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that appears in public records:
ONJUNE 6, 2006, ODI OPENED AN INVESTIGATION OF TIMING CHAIN FAILURE RESULTING IN ENGINE STALL WHILE DRIVING WITH NO RESTART IN APPROXIMATELY 20,514 MODELYEAR (MY) 2001 [redacted]L-SERIES VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH 2.2L ENGINES (L61) BUILT FROM NOVEMBER 2000 THROUGH FEBRUARY 2001 (EA06-009). THE VEHICLES BUILT DURING THOSE MONTHS EXHIBITED HIGHER FAILURE RATES THAN SIMILARLY EQUIPPED VEHICLES BUILT BEFORE AND AFTER. GM INTRODUCED A NEW TIMING CHAIN DESIGN IN PRODUCTION IN MAY 2002. ODI CLOSED ITS INVESTIGATION AFTER GM INITIATED ASAFETY RECALL ON NOVEMBER 7, 2007 (RECALL07V-519). ON MAY 22, 2008, THE NORTH CAROLINA CONSUMERS COUNCIL (NCCC) SUBMITTED A DEFECT PETITION TO ODI REQUESTING THE EXPANSION OF RECALL 07V-519 TO INCLUDE ALL MY 1999 THROUGH 2003 [redacted] L-SERIES VEHICLES WITH 2.2L ENGINES USING THE SAME TIMING CHAIN DESIGN AS THE RECALLED POPULATION. THE PETITION STATES THAT THE NCCC CONTINUES TO RECEIVE COMPLAINTS FROM CONSUMERS THAT HAVE HADATIMING CHAIN FAILIN VEHICLES BUILT OUTSIDE THE PRODUCTION RANGE COVERED BY THE RECALL THE PETITION ALSO NOTES THAT ODI HAS CONTINUED TO RECEIVE COMPLAINTS. SINCE THE CLOSING OF EA06-009 ODI HAS RECEIVED 80 NEW COMPLAINTS FROM CONSUMERS WHO HAD A TIMING CHAIN FAIL IN A MY 2000 THROUGH 2002 [redacted] L-SERIES WITH THE 2.2L ENGINE THAT WERE NOT COVERED BY RECALL [redacted] AND WERE BUILT PRIOR TO THE TIMING BELT CHANGE IN MAY 2002. THE COMPLAINTS DESCRIBE THE SAME FAILURE MODE AS THE RECALLED POPULATION WHERE THE TIMING CHAIN CAN BREAKSUDDENLY AND WITHOUT WARNING, RESULTING IN ENGINE DAMAGE AND LOSS OF MOTIVE POWER. THE DEFECT PETITION HAS BEEN GRANTED. A PRELIMINARY EVALUATION ([redacted]) HAS BEEN OPENED.Note: this car could have potentially claimed my life — sudden timing chain breakage could cause the engine to fail in traffic.The car has been assessed by [redacted] and a local repair shop ([redacted]), both of which cited the engine as the reason the car won't start, but said they could not determine the cause or nature of the issues absent tests. I also called a [redacted] recall line, which has offered to pay for part of the repairs since the make/model car was part of a recall.The dealer falsely represented in paperwork that this car had not been part of a recall, further misleading me about the quality of this car. Had I known about this and the other aforementioned issues, I would not have purchased this vehicle which was presented to me as “reliable.” This [redacted] has been discontinued. [redacted] recalled the make and model up to the year prior to 2002, the year of this car. Yet, consumer groups have appealed for an expansion of the recall to incorporate 2002 given that the same issues persist in this model. The make and model of his car is known to have chronic, structural engine issues, which were not disclosed to me at the time of sale. This is all documented in records.The dealer further misled me by advertising this car on its webpage as a “one owner vehicle.” However, a [redacted] report reveals that this car has had NUMEROUS prior owners. I expect the multitude of owners reflects the fact that this car is a lemon, and that the dealer knew this vehicle to be a lemon but willfully withheld this material fact from me.Further substantiating my belief that the dealer knew about these preexisting conditions is that the dealer aggressively tried to foist a $2,500 car warranty on me, telling me “if you don't take it, you will be left with expensive repairs,” a representation I contested given that the car was described to me as “reliable.” The dealer further tried to force me to finance a car repair plan for $500, with the dealer's banker ([redacted] Finance) flying into a rage when I declined this plan. She demanded the salesman force to me to buy it. (I still declined.) I documented my discomfort over her outburst in an email to the salesman, who observed her conduct.[redacted] Finance, in concert with the dealer's F&I office further attempted to slip $700 worth of unauthorized repair fees into the closing documents. This can be confirmed by the dealer's salesman with me independently that it had not authorized or requested the fees that the dealer had attempted to slip in. He provided repair invoice to FitzAutoMall, which attached another $700 onto the final bill, and only removed it when I brought the error to the representative's attention.
In addition, the dealer never provided the tags or registration, as required, failing therefore to fulfill its basic obligations to me.There were numerous other improprieties that I shall not get into here.This malfunctioning car has interfered with my ability to drive to work and generate income through my commissions-based job. As a result, I have lost valuable business opportunities. The car has not been taken in for servicing as I have wanted to resolve this issue with the dealer. I also expect that repairing this car would have amounted to throwing good money after bad given that the engine issues are structural. I purchased the [redacted] to have a reliable car for work, as the dealer represented to me, but instead was left with a lemon that hindered my progress.I elected to work with the Revdex.com as opposed to negotiating directly with the dealer so that I could be on equal footing with the opposing party to ensure that I would not be further taken advantage of further.The FitzAutoMall has engaged in “lemon laundering” – that is, hiding the vehicle's history and condition and is required by law therefore to repurchase the defective car. I am glad to see that the dealer has honored this request, as it is required to do. :According to section 1988a of the Motor Vehicle Information and Lost Savings Act, I can request and a judge can award me treble fraud damages and attorney fees if this case were to go to court – particularly when a car dealership displays “reckless indifference” to the rights of the consumer in which its conduct was fraudulent, malicious, or deliberately violent or oppressive or committed such gross negligence as to indicate the wanton disregard for others.”As discussed, the car sold to me was a death trap and could have failed on the freeway, as per consumer reports on the make/model of this vehicle, potentially claiming my life. Having the car break down prevented me from driving to client meetings and closing accounts. I was unable to drive to one client, whose commission value was $20,000, causing me to lose that account, as my manager can confirm.Reprehensibility is also a factor in awarding treble fraud damages—that is, whether the target was financially vulnerable at the time of sale. The dealer knew that I had just emerged from a bankruptcy and was therefore in a financially vulnerable position, which the dealership aggressively and willfully exploited, attempting to undervalue my trade in while selling me a car that was arguably only worth $1,000 for a huge, unjustifiable mark up that was destined to fail. The car's appraisal value of $1000 was determined by a Mercedes/[redacted] salesman who has been in the business for 20 years. He reviewed the [redacted] report and researched the car. He noted that this model had been recalled/discontinued. Parts are no longer even being made for this car, rendering repairs next to impossible. This car is only good for harvesting parts, he affirmed.Another factor in determining treble fraud damages is whether the harm was generated from intentional malice, trickery, or deceit. Clearly the dealer had advance knowledge of the [redacted] report but proceeded to misrepresent the number of owners. Clearly the dealer knew that the engine needed to be repaired, contrary to written representations prior to sale, as records reveal that the dealership undertook engine repair work prior to releasing the car to me. I was not informed of these pre-existing conditions. In fact, despite selling me the car “as is,” the car was given a clean bill of health. A quick Google search would also have revealed that the make/model of this car was cited repeatedly by consumer groups for chronic, structural engine issues and recalls. Yet, the car was represented to me as “reliable” and not to have been subjected to recalls, as per paperwork and verbal reassurances. I trusted in these representations to my detriment. !In sum, the dealership attempted to exploit my financial vulnerability, passing off a worthless Car tO Hle at an exorbitant price, expecting I would not be in a position to fight back while generating excessive profits for the dealership. !Even worse, this dealership requested I leave positive feedback in social media after sale, raising questions about the integrity of the reviews attached to the FitzAutoMall. I am glad to see that the dealership did not need much prompting to do right by me.Resolution:1. I would like to agree to the dealer's offer to reverse sale, and reclaim my [redacted] car. In light of my inconvenience and the dealer's misrepresentations, whether intentional or otherwise, I request that the dealer absorb the expenses associated with [redacted] car's engine repair ($2999), so that I can be made whole and not have further obligations to FitzAutoMall and its associates.2. If I were to take this case to court, the judge would likely reward me treble fraud damages and attorney fees. The paperwork supports my claim. The dealership would also have to absorb its own attorney fees. I would like to ask for half of conservatively assessed damages, or $15,825.33, which I apply towards a reliable car for work.The total price of the [redacted] was $7,287.93. Adding treble fraud damages ($21,863.76) and that amount comes to $29,151.66. Add reasonable attorney fees onto that to prosecute this case in court ($2,500) and the total amount owed by the dealership is at least $31,651.66. Half of this amount is $15,823.33.I believe the paperwork strongly supports my claim. I also note the inconvenience to me and lost business opportunities, directly attributable to the dealership's deceptive practices, which I have not calculated into this amount. I believe the proposed offer reflects fair resolution in light of the dealer's willful and callous disregard for me and my safety through its misrepresentations along with the losses I sustained. Resolution now would also preclude long, protracted, and expensive litigation. .Thank you in advance, and I look forward to hearing from you.
Regards,
[redacted]

January 29, 2015
Dear [redacted]:
I received a copy of the complaint ID#[redacted]. I am also working with the Toyota Motor Sales USA. State of Maryland Investigation Division Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration, and Toyota of Fort Meyers Florida on this issue currently effecting [redacted]...

[redacted]. The error causing the issues with [redacted] was caused by Toyota of Fort Meyers an Auto Nation owned dealership.This dealership made a clerical error in their system and reported repairs under the incorrect vehicle identification number (VIN).Today (January 29, 2015) I spoke with Shawn the service manager of Toyota of Fort Meyers and he indicated he had spoken to both [redacted] and the Maryland State investigator [redacted]. He is currently working with Toyota Motor Sales USA and [redacted] on correcting the errors so | they no longer show up under the incorrect VIN. It is not clear how quickly this all will be resolved but all parties involved that can correct the error are showing effort in resolving the issue.
I also contacted [redacted] and she confirmed Toyota of Fort Meyers with monitoring by investigator [redacted] (investigator for the State of Maryland Investigation Division Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration) are working on the correction currently. She thanked me for our efforts but confirmed she now understands we (Fitzgerald Auto Malls) can’t fix the error due to we were not part of the error. I advised [redacted] that I appreciated her acknowledging we did not do anything wrong and that we have been helpful in pressuring the dealership involved to act on correcting their error.
In closing it is clear this complaint after the true facts have been found, was opened against the incorrect business, I am formally requesting this complaint be removed from Gut Revdex.com record and transferred to Toyota of Fort Meyers.
Sincerely,
Gil B.

May 28th, 2014
Dear **.In regards to complaint # [redacted], Service Manager [redacted] contacted [redacted] on May 15th, 2014 and spoke to her about her concerns. **. [redacted] requested she bring the vehicle in for an Inspection and to start an oil consumption test, they agreed to an...

appointment time on Monday May 19th, [redacted] did not show for that appointment.I have reviewed the documents and found that [redacted] brought her 2006 Toyota [redacted] into our facility on March 31st, 2014 at 7:41am to have 2 factory recalls performed. The recalls included a reprogramming of the computer and also the inspection and potential replacement of the rear suspension arm with a 4 wheel alignment. The inspection and potential replacement of the rear suspension arm requires the alignment be done 1st and an epoxy cast placed over the adjusters on the arm and a period of time to dry. This recall is performed by a specific team of technicians and there is prep time and dry time required. Due to the timing this recalls takes; we were unable to complete the recall on March 31st. We offered [redacted] a loaner to keep from inconveniencing her. The recall was completed on April 1st and the Repair Order was Invoiced at 10:05am as shown on the attached invoice. The technician also did a Multi Point Inspection as shown on the attached sheet. The oil level was not marked on the sheet, I have spoken to the technician and he does not remember the vehicle due to the amount of time that's gone by arid the amount of similar vehicles he works with each day.The mileage was recorder correctly on the initial write up sheet and then transposed when the Service Advisor typed it onto the Repair Order. This was done in error on our behalf. The mileage has been documented on our records to reflect the correct mileage.There would have been no reason for the technician to drain the oil from this vehicle. We were not requested to perform any maintenance service, so I am assuming the oil is burning thru the engine. The engine in this vehicle is prone to oil consumption as shown in Technical Service Bulletin # T-SB-[redacted] (attached) Since this is the customer 1st and only visit to us, we are not sure how long it was since her last oil change and how much oil is actually burning (i,e. 1 qt per 1,200 miles etc.) or how fast, it's burning. I am proposing that we do an oil consumption test (as shown on page 6 of the attached TSB) on this vehicle and if it is found that the oil Is being consumed internally, we will contact Toyota on the customers behalf about possibly assisting in the repair needed to correct the problem. The customer would need to provide maintenance records showing the oil has been changed on a regular basis to receive this possible assistance.
The oil light was not on when the vehicle left our store and as stated in the customer's complaint 'The oil light started flashing the next day" which at that point the oil level may have been slightly low, but the customer did not address this warning light until 6 weeks later on May 12th. How much oil was consumed in those 6 weeks? It is the customer's responsibility to occasionally inspect their fluid levels including the oil, as stated on page 385 in the manufactures owner's manual (attached). There are also instructions for checking the oil on page 398 (attached).In closing, I do not feel we have performed our duties in a negative manner. I have not been in touch with the customer since receiving this letter, but would be happy to contact her to further discuss the possibility of Toyota assisting her. Please let me know if you would like me to do so. Also please let me know if you have any further questions. Our goal is to assist our customer in resolving this concern.Thank you,

December 3, 2014Dear [redacted]:I am sorry that the consumer is unhappy with our response, but there appears to be some confusion on her part about whether this vehicle has been recalled. Our service Manager checked with [redacted] and found that there has been no recall of this [redacted] for rust problems.I would also point out that we gave the consumer a loaner car at no charge while we checked into her complaint, even though we were under no obligation to do so.Again, I’m sorry she experienced this problem but that is not the fault of our company.Sincerely yours,George R.Vice President Customer Relations

[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 it does not address the issue or support the conclusion that the diagnosis the business provided was true.
For example, it argues that I was not the customer; which is irrelevant to whether the repair list was an honest appraisal. The car was my responsibility, the buyer wanted to buy it, the buyer insisted on taking it to this business in advance, and the unsupported list of needed repairs led the buyer to not only not buy it, but to stalk me until I had to threaten to call police. 
In addition to interfering with this sale, the response spends more time on its objection to my reviews than it does supporting that the repairs were properly diagnosed. This mean-spirited, off-topic, unresponsive letter is more proof that the business has no support for this list of needed repairs, not less.
The business has a history of this behavior. I note that other reviews of this business have had the same experience of listing unneeded repairs.  There are 15 poor reviews, including one reviewer on Google who reported the exact same thing - a diagnosis of a "bent control arm" that was not really bent by a reviewer named [redacted]).
The business complains the car is not available. I telephoned the business when I received the list of repairs. The car was available then. No one was available to explain this to me when I called. Since the car was for sale, it should be no surprise that it is no longer in my possession. The car was sold to a person who lives in another county, and Fitzgerald lost its opportunity to respond when it was provided to them.  The slow response is no reason to bring it back.
There was no evidence of a bent control arm. This problem is generally accompanied by noticeable out-of-alignment issues and problems with the bushings. The list of needed repairs does not mention any alignment issues or issues with bushings, and none were noted by any of three drivers, including the potential buyer of the car.
There is already independent evidence that the list of needed repairs is inaccurate or false. The car has passed inspection elsewhere in Maryland after this incident without the need for any of the repairs listed by the business.
If the business can support the repair list that the control arm was bent, it should do so. This response does not.
Regards,
[redacted]

[redacted]




Sep 19 (3 days ago)










tome




 [redacted]:
Please find amended  final resolution proposal. I am updating to request any profits the dealer made in the resale/auction of my trade in vehicle. If the dealer is to reverse sale and refund the difference of what I am owed, the dealer must include profits it acquired from the auction/resale of the vehicle and should not be allowed to claim that equity for itself. Since it cannot return the car, it must pay me the difference in value of what I am owed.  I invested $15,000 (+) in this vehicle, which was worth about $8,500 at resale/auction it. 
Please find amended resolution attached.
Please also note that I have contacted and requested oversight of Revdex.com counsel in light of irregularities in the hopes of achieving fair and honest resolution and to avoid further dealer dirty tricks.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

August 12, 2014Dear [redacted]:I am writing on behalf of our subsidiary, Fitzgerald Buick, Inc., in response to your letter to [redacted]. On April 17, 2014, [redacted] agreed to purchase a 2002 [redacted] from our dealership for $6,548.78 including tax, tags, and other fees....

She promised to pay the purchase price by assigning title to her 2009 [redacted] to us with the balance to be paid pursuant to retail installment sales contract. At the time, her trade-in was in the shop at [redacted] Center of Tysons Comer and there was bill for parts and labor of $2,999.76. [redacted] executed a written waiver of the "Fitzway 5-day Used Vehicle Return Policy" and purchased the [redacted] "as is" without any representation or warranty of the vehicle's condition by Fitzgerald Auto Mall.Throughout June and July, several employees and executives of the dealership have been barraged by hostile, malicious, and false communications from [redacted]. It became so excessive that our best alternative was to grant [redacted]'s request to repurchase the [redacted] from her and resell the [redacted] to her. Essentially, unwinding the transaction in hopes of cutting off any reason for [redacted] to continue communicating with us. But not, to be clear, because we mislead her in anyway or because the vehicle was not what it appeared to be, we made this offer only as a gesture of good will to stop [redacted]'s email campaign. For the record, [redacted] has never specified any mechanical problem with the [redacted], allowed the dealership to inspect the vehicle, or provided an inspection report from another shop.On July 16, we provided [redacted] a written offer to repurchase the [redacted] including a request to provide her response to the offer in writing. Despite receiving the letter by certified mail, [redacted] has not even acknowledged receiving the letter much less given her response to the offer. (See enclosure). We also warned [redacted] to stop communicating with our employees and to direct all future communication to me. On July 19, [redacted] informed us that she had retained her own attorney so we stopped further communication with her pending contact from her attorney.Despite all of the above, we are still willing to honor the offer set forth in my July 16 offer, depending on the condition of the [redacted]. If the [redacted] is in essentially the same condition that it was when [redacted] accepted delivery on April 14 then we will repurchase it as stated otherwise we can not honor the agreement on the same terms.Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter.Sincerely,
Gregg S
General Counsel

April 2, 2015[redacted], I am writing this letter in response to the complaint submitted by [redacted] (complaint# [redacted]). I was able to speak with [redacted] last night (April 1st) and I gave him an apology for the alleged stolen CD. I offered to refund him the replacement cost in full upon him...

sending me a paid invoice or he could provide me the CD name and I would have one of our staff members research and purchase a replacement for him. I followed up our telephone conversation with an email and he agreed to review the two options and get back to me in the near future. We do not have a theft problem and we have very tight security measures in place to protect owner's property when their cars are in for service. [redacted] confirmed he waited for his vehicle on February 23rd and the vehicle was in our possession for just under 60 minutes. We are truly sorry for the issue and again are willing to provide [redacted] a full refund for the cost of the CD behind our apology already given. Please feel free to contact me directly if I can add any more details that will assist in bring this concern to closure, [redacted]@fitzmall.com or ###-###-####.Thank you,Gil B.

Review: On Monday, March 30 2014, I took my car to be serviced by Fitzgerald Auto Mall for a [redacted] recall. My appointment was for 7:30AM, I was told by the service assistant manager ([redacted].) that it would be in all day, that it should be ready in the evening and that he’ll call me when it’s ready. However, when I returned to pick up my car around 6:00pm that day, I spoke to [redacted]. and he informed me that they had not serviced my car, and that he didn’t know when it they’ll get done.

[redacted]’s attitude towards me was very dismissive and rude. I expressed to him that I had an appointment and for him not to even call me to give me the status ridiculous on his part. He then asked me if I wanted my car back and would I be leaving it there, I told him that I wanted my car back and wanted to speak to the service manager. Apparently the service manager was in a meeting and someone else came out to talk to me. He explained that they were backed up over the weekend, and are having a meeting to discuss the backload. I told him that I could not afford to live my car there another day, I had to go to work , so the gentleman offered me a loaner car (free of charge) until they service my car, (which he promised would be ready on April 1, the next day).

My car was not ready until 3 days later, and I was the one that kept calling to receive the status. No one called me when my car was ready. I noticed that on the 1st page of the print out ticket, [redacted]. recorded the wrong mileage(148,541), instead it was to be (74,854) as handwritten on the multipoint inspection form; during that service according to the paper work they " checked the fluids" and said everything was ok, they didn't even recommend or schedule me for maintenance routine. The day after taking my car from them, I noticed the oil flashing light, but I didn't have the time to take it back, however, on the survey they emailed me I wrote it on there and expressed my concerns; however no one called me to follow up.

So yesterday, May 12 I called my Godfather’s mechanic because my car had a blinking light and a funny noise coming from the engine. He advised me not to drive and take it to the nearest auto place. After work, I stopped at an auto center near my job, and after checking my car, they discovered that there was no oil and that when I pulled up they said it sounded like my engine was about to blow up, they were wondering how I was able to keep driving without oil, the engine should have blown up by now...smh Nothing BUT GOD hmmhmmhhm I was likeWHATT? so, they looked at the last time I did the oil change which was in mid December, synthetic oil was used (my car should still have oil), should have lasted me at least 5 to 7 thousand miles.

They looked under to see if anything was leaking, Nothing was/is leaking. The gentleman asked me if someone has looked under the hood of my car and I said yes, Fitzgerald, when I took my car there for the recall service. He then asked me to show him the paper work from Fitz, he saw that whoever checked off having done a 22 point inspection , did not record abnormalities; how did Fitzgerald not find that my car was missing over 4 plus quarts of oil???? Did they even check the fluids or service my car?

I need answers, because my children and I’s lives were in danger. What happened, that all of a sudden I no longer have oil in my engine? I mean NOTHING, that tank was dry. Scary, I don’t even want to think about going back to Fitzgerald for anythin.

On 05/13/2014 I called Fitzgerald's corporate office###-###-#### and wanted to report the issues, but they redicted me to Fitzgerald in [redacted] to speak to [redacted]. I asked to be transfered to him, but was unable to talk to him. However, I left a message on his voicemail @ 01:14pm-05/13/2014.Desired Settlement: I need an explanation and answers !

what exactly was done to my car, when I took it in for a service recall, and how come the day after picking up my car the oil light came on? Did one of their mechanics drain out the oil without replacing it? Why did [redacted]. record the wrong mileage on my vehicle? Whoever completed the multipoint Inspection checked off that a 22point inspection was performed, but it doesn’t seem like it was done; why didn’t they recommend maintenance to be scheduled? My car is not leaking oil, so where did the oil go? There was enough oil in my car when I took it to Fitzgerald, why is it that right after the day I take my car from them, the oil light started flashing?

An HONEST explanation and resolution is needed.

I Thank you in advance for your thorough investigation and response.

Business

Response:

May 28th, 2014Dear **.In regards to complaint # [redacted], Service Manager [redacted] contacted [redacted] on May 15th, 2014 and spoke to her about her concerns. **. [redacted] requested she bring the vehicle in for an Inspection and to start an oil consumption test, they agreed to an appointment time on Monday May 19th, [redacted] did not show for that appointment.I have reviewed the documents and found that [redacted] brought her 2006 Toyota [redacted] into our facility on March 31st, 2014 at 7:41am to have 2 factory recalls performed. The recalls included a reprogramming of the computer and also the inspection and potential replacement of the rear suspension arm with a 4 wheel alignment. The inspection and potential replacement of the rear suspension arm requires the alignment be done 1st and an epoxy cast placed over the adjusters on the arm and a period of time to dry. This recall is performed by a specific team of technicians and there is prep time and dry time required. Due to the timing this recalls takes; we were unable to complete the recall on March 31st. We offered [redacted] a loaner to keep from inconveniencing her. The recall was completed on April 1st and the Repair Order was Invoiced at 10:05am as shown on the attached invoice. The technician also did a Multi Point Inspection as shown on the attached sheet. The oil level was not marked on the sheet, I have spoken to the technician and he does not remember the vehicle due to the amount of time that's gone by arid the amount of similar vehicles he works with each day.The mileage was recorder correctly on the initial write up sheet and then transposed when the Service Advisor typed it onto the Repair Order. This was done in error on our behalf. The mileage has been documented on our records to reflect the correct mileage.There would have been no reason for the technician to drain the oil from this vehicle. We were not requested to perform any maintenance service, so I am assuming the oil is burning thru the engine. The engine in this vehicle is prone to oil consumption as shown in Technical Service Bulletin # T-SB-[redacted] (attached) Since this is the customer 1st and only visit to us, we are not sure how long it was since her last oil change and how much oil is actually burning (i,e. 1 qt per 1,200 miles etc.) or how fast, it's burning. I am proposing that we do an oil consumption test (as shown on page 6 of the attached TSB) on this vehicle and if it is found that the oil Is being consumed internally, we will contact Toyota on the customers behalf about possibly assisting in the repair needed to correct the problem. The customer would need to provide maintenance records showing the oil has been changed on a regular basis to receive this possible assistance.The oil light was not on when the vehicle left our store and as stated in the customer's complaint 'The oil light started flashing the next day" which at that point the oil level may have been slightly low, but the customer did not address this warning light until 6 weeks later on May 12th. How much oil was consumed in those 6 weeks? It is the customer's responsibility to occasionally inspect their fluid levels including the oil, as stated on page 385 in the manufactures owner's manual (attached). There are also instructions for checking the oil on page 398 (attached).In closing, I do not feel we have performed our duties in a negative manner. I have not been in touch with the customer since receiving this letter, but would be happy to contact her to further discuss the possibility of Toyota assisting her. Please let me know if you would like me to do so. Also please let me know if you have any further questions. Our goal is to assist our customer in resolving this concern.Thank you,

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID

[redacted], I agreed that [redacted] contacted me and was to set up an appointment for

me to bring in the car, I asked him to email me the appointment reminder.

However, when I received the reminder, I saw someone else's name on it which

was the name of the same man that I checked in/checked out my car with on (who was

very rude), so it brought back unpleasant memories; and after reading

other customer complaints about Fitz I decided not to take my car back to

Fitzgerald Toyota. I took my car to my God father's mechanic, who checked my

car and will continue to service it going forward.

Regards,

Review: I had what sounded to me like my brakes grinding. I called Linda S** (the service advisor) and (“asked her to look at the brakes)”.

The mechanic (Manny) that looked at the car (he said he looked at the brakes and they were fine) never looked at the whole brakes system because if he did he would have found the RUST.

Today 7-12 I went back up to Fitzgerald Hyundai but first I call Jack F[redacted] I saw (BRET D[redacted]) about my issue and he and I test drove the car

Linda Sin called me at 2:30pm and told me he BRET D[redacted] had a different mechanic pull up the seats and rugs and glove compartment and by the way this is not under warranty and will cost like 450.00 BUT he did find the Rotor with rust on it.

he can resurface the rotor for 250.00. “(THAT’S WHAT I TOLD LINDA IN THE FIRST PLACE IF SHE LISTENED”)Desired Settlement: I paid 498.31 and all I asked for is the BRAKES and an oil change.

The brakes were $250.00 and the Oil change was like $40.00 so my totle should have been $300.00.

I want a refund of the remainder of $198.31

Business

Response:

August 5, 2014To whom it may concern,I am responding on behalf of complaint [redacted] in reference to the customers service visit. I personally drove with the customer, so that he could point out the specific noise that he wanted fixed. The customer asked me to drive as he felt the noise was coming from the left rear brake assembly. I asked what kind of noise it was and he replied that I would hear it as soon as I accelerated and again when I applied the brakes. I did indeed hear the noise several times while accelerating and stopping. I was assured by the customer the noise we had experienced was the noise he was concerned with.I asked the customer to drive the vehicle so that I could sit in the back seat, and possibly hear the noise better. I did hear the noise and told the customer that I believed the noise he was complaining about was coming from under the driver seat area and sounded like something rolling back and forth on the floor. I told the customer that we would have to remove the back seat bottom and possibly the driver's seat to find the source of the noise and he agreed to leave the vehicle with us for the day and take a loaner vehicle.The technician that worked on the vehicle did experience the noise and started the diagnostic process by removing all of the loose items in the car and placing them in one of four labeled boxes. The technician then started disassembling of the interior and found the source of the noise (a pen under the carpet rolling back and forth on the metal floor pan, when accelerating and braking.) There was also a pen inside the passenger floor air duct under the front seat. The removal of the pens was the end of our noise, and was test driven by the technician and the customer to verify the repair. The customer did pay for some time and material charges for the repair but not all. The service department at the discretion of the service director internally charged two hours of labor to machine the front brake rotor as a goodwill gesture for the customer. The front rotors had alight rust ring but did not make any noise and as the customer said he knew the noise was from the back of the vehicle.I believe are charges where justified and the vehicle is fixed.Brett DService Director

Consumer

Response:

[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]

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because:I did tell Mat and the other incompetent mx tech

that I don’t care what you think you heard I'm telling you it’s a

grinding noise in the breaks and that’s all I authorized to fix that.....

and not anything else.