Fitzgerald's Lakeforest Toyota

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.

Review: I purchased a 2005 [redacted] vim [redacted] on 11/11/2013. I also purchased an extended Premium elite extended service agreement for 5 yrs 100,000 miles. At that time I

was told that agreement covered things such as repair or replacement of the engine among other things if needed with a $100.00 payment. The car has been at the dealership for

almost 2 weeks. We have been told that it needs a new engine and that the service department will not provide the services previously agreed upon.Desired Settlement: That they will honor the extended 5 year 100.000 miles contract

Business

Response:

July 23, 2014Dear [redacted],With regards to ID [redacted], we have been working with the customer to come to a conclusion regarding the necessity of repairs and if they will then be covered by the customer’s extended warranty. We may have been excessive in our January recommendation to replace the motor. The customer has driven the vehicle over 9,000+ miles since we made the assessment. When the oil level in the engine is good, none of the symptoms are present, When the vehicle was here last we checked the engine, per the warrarity company and the general manager, for signs of excessive oil consumption. While we saw some crusting on the valve seats and pistons, we did not find anything that would signify excessive consumption. We performed an oil change and asked the customer to complete an oil consumption test so we could identify the exact amount that the motor is consuming. We are currently awaiting the tustomers return to evaluate the actual oil consumption. Önce we have the öil consumptIon established, we tari determine the correct course of action.Sincerely,Shaun J[redacted]Service Manager, Fitzgerald’s AutoMall

Review: In October of 2013 I purchased a 2005 [redacted] from Fitzgerald Automotive. I was assured that the vehicle was in perfect working condition and fully Maryland Certified Inspected. On October 3 2014 driving home from work I heard a loud bang and a piece of corroded metal fell from underneath the car, I took the car in to Fitzgerald Service department. I was told by the service advisor Christopher B[redacted]( ###-###-####) that the vehicle should not have been sold in the first place. He told me that the mechanic who looked at the car stated that the bottom panel of the car was so badly corroded it should have been noticed prior to the sale if a proper Maryland Inspection had occurred. He also stated that whoever did the Maryland Inspection on the vehicle overlooked it. He went on to say that the level of corrosion happened overtime and should have been noticed by the dealership prior to sale, it was not something which happened within the last 12 months it just deteriorated even more and could have caused us our lives if the bottom panel had broken off on the highway. He further stated that the mechanic told him that the car is not drivable and Fitzgerald Automotive should do the right thing and give me a full refund or do their best to get me into another vehicle. After being told this I called the Salesman Axel *. B** that had assisted me with the sale in 2013 and reported to him what the service advisor told me. Axel went to the service department to see the vehicle and informed me that the personnel there told him the same thing, that the car should not have been sold to anyone, and how could they pass a car with such bad corrosion as a valid Maryland inspected vehicle. The car is no longer drivable the wheel well broke due to the severe corrosion. I have been waiting for 2 weeks for Fitzgerald to come up with a possible solution to the issue at hand and all I have been getting is the run around and no suitable assistance.Desired Settlement: I would like for Fitzgerald to take responsibility for the remaining loan balance at [redacted] Motor credit a payoff amount of $3400 and refund me my $3500 for the vehicle I traded in order to purchase the 2005 [redacted] Tribute.

Business

Response:

November 20, 2014Dear [redacted]:I am writing in response to ID [redacted], regarding the September 11, 2013 purchase of a 2005 [redacted] from the Fitzgerald [redacted], Maryland location. [redacted] claims that the vehicle needs repairs that she believes Fitzgerald should be responsible for.This vehicle was sold to [redacted] “As Is” with no implied warranties. [redacted] and her co-buyer signed the MVA Notice of Exclusive or Modification of Implied Warranty form (form attached). Under Maryland law we have no obligation to perform any repairs. We attempted to try and reach an agreement to repair her car at a reduced cost, however our efforts were unsuccessful.I am sorry that we can offer no further assistance to [redacted]. Should you have any further questions, please give me a call.Sincerely yours,George R.Vice President Customer Relations

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: How would I ask for them to repair the vehicle when they told me the Vehicle is not repairable. Their service manager at the [redacted] Service Department was even looking to see if [redacted] would pay them for the car because he thought there might have been a recall on it that they missed. He even told me that a lot of [redacted] vehicles have this problem. So, if you know that [redacted]'s tend to have this problem why not do a thorough inspection before selling it to the consumer. I did not ask them to repair the car, I asked for a refund. Simply because they sold me a car that should not have passed Maryland Inspection, they know this and their mechanics know this and my salesman now knows this. Yes. I signed the waiver because I though they were being truthful when they said that the car was properly inspected. They falsified their inspection certificate and sold me a damaged car filled with rust and corrosion which they choose to overlook. They did not even check for possible recalls until I took the broken vehicle in for them to look at. Shame on Fitzgerald Automotive for the way in which they have handled this situation. They gave me a loaner car for two weeks while they investigated how they could have missed this issue with the car, then they told me to turn in the loaner because I refused to accept a $500 a month lease for 3 years plus the cost of the remaining loan on the [redacted] tribute. . How is a $500 a month lease for 3 years plus $3300 that I still owe the finance company beneficial to me? Now they have found a way to weasel themselves out of it so the consumer is left bearing the loss. All I asked of Fitzgerald is that they refund me the cost of my trade $3500 and pay off the remaining balance on the loan. That is not too much to ask considering the situation. Fitzgerald dealership told me it was useless to repair the car, so why would I ask them to pay for repairs. That alone shows that in the response they gave they are not telling the truth. and where was this customer service manager that is named on the letter when I was going back and forth with Gill , F[redacted], Scott A[redacted] and all the other Managers at the dealership? This is cruel and unfair dealings on their part, shame on them.

Regards,

Business

Response:

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

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: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,