Fox Ford Lincoln of Chicago

Mr [redacted] , We are sorry that the vehicle was sold prior to the commencement of your transactionFox Ford strives for the complete satisfaction of all customers, but occasionally circumstances arise that prevent thatIn this case, we had two different customers, each desiring to purchase the same vehicleWe would be pleased to offer you a similar deal on a similar vehicle, but we do not have an identical vehicle to provideAs a goodwill gesture, I will authorize an additional $dealer discount, should you decide to accept the offer.Again, my apologies for the inconvenienceThank you, Pete [redacted] General Manager

I am an attorney representing Fox Ford Lincoln Midwest, LLC d/b/a Fox Ford Lincoln (“Fox”) Please accept the following in response to the above-referenced Complaint The customer had his Lincoln MKZ towed to Fox on 11/25/ The vehicle was not drivable The customer stated that a ball joint had separated on the vehicle causing him to hit a curb Upon inspection, Fox found that the ball joint had not separated, but, rather, the lower control arm was broken along with other components of the suspension There was also damage to the rim and body, likely from hitting the curb The warranty provided by the manufacturer of the vehicle had expired However, the customer informed Fox that he had purchased an extended service contract that covered the vehicle An extended service contract is a contract with a third party (in this case, Ford ESP) that covers the costs of certain repairs after the manufacturer’s warranty expires With the customer’s consent, Fox submitted a claim to Ford ESP Unfortunately, Ford ESP denied the claim As a result, of the denial, and at the customer’s request, a claim was then submitted to Ford’s Office of General Counsel (OAG) in effort to have the customer’s cost of repair covered OAG requested documentation from Fox regarding the damages to the vehicle, which Fox provided Ultimately, OAG also denied the customer’s claim Fox then advised the customer to call his own insurance company, but the customer declined and left with the vehicle What is critical to understand is that Fox was not the entity that denied the customer’s claims with Ford ESP and OAG Ford ESP and OAG are separate and distinct companies from Fox As a car dealer, Fox helps the customer submit claims to these entities, but plays no role in approving them or denying them Fox kept the customer aware of what was going on at each step of the way Fox strives to provide its customers with best in class service, and Fox submits that this matter was no exception Thank you for considering this response Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of further assistance [redacted] A [redacted] | Associate General Counsel M: [redacted] Notice: The information in this e-mail may be confidential and/or legally privileged It has been sent for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read this message or the attachments or distribute them or act in reliance on them If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify us and delete this message and any attachments Thank you

Complaint: I am rejecting this response because: While I understanding that multiple people may be inquiring on the same vehicles that's common, the issue I have is that I was never made known that this was a possible issue and EVEN WORSE when asking MULTIPLE times on a guarantee that if we proceeded and secured finances and travel plans it would be ours and were repeatedly told definitelyThe sales associate called our bank with information regarding our purchase and knew full well we would arrive the following day to pick it up! It was early evening when a different associate called and said someone leased it an hour earlier We would be willing to accept the same buying price if you order the EXACT same vehicle for us Sincerely, Duane [redacted]

I am an attorney representing Fox Ford Lincoln Midwest, LLC d/b/a Fox Ford Lincoln (“Fox”) Please accept the following in response to the above-referenced Complaint The customer had his Lincoln MKZ towed to Fox on 11/25/ The vehicle was not drivable The customer stated that a ball joint had separated on the vehicle causing him to hit a curb Upon inspection, Fox found that the ball joint had not separated, but, rather, the lower control arm was broken along with other components of the suspension There was also damage to the rim and body, likely from hitting the curb The warranty provided by the manufacturer of the vehicle had expired However, the customer informed Fox that he had purchased an extended service contract that covered the vehicle An extended service contract is a contract with a third party (in this case, Ford ESP) that covers the costs of certain repairs after the manufacturer’s warranty expires With the customer’s consent, Fox submitted a claim to Ford ESP Unfortunately, Ford ESP denied the claim As a result, of the denial, and at the customer’s request, a claim was then submitted to Ford’s Office of General Counsel (OAG) in effort to have the customer’s cost of repair covered OAG requested documentation from Fox regarding the damages to the vehicle, which Fox provided Ultimately, OAG also denied the customer’s claim Fox then advised the customer to call his own insurance company, but the customer declined and left with the vehicle What is critical to understand is that Fox was not the entity that denied the customer’s claims with Ford ESP and OAG Ford ESP and OAG are separate and distinct companies from Fox As a car dealer, Fox helps the customer submit claims to these entities, but plays no role in approving them or denying them Fox kept the customer aware of what was going on at each step of the way Fox strives to provide its customers with best in class service, and Fox submits that this matter was no exception Thank you for considering this response Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of further assistance [redacted] A [redacted] | Associate General CounselM: [redacted] Notice: The information in this e-mail may be confidential and/or legally privileged It has been sent for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read this message or the attachments or distribute them or act in reliance on them If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify us and delete this message and any attachments Thank you

We have been in touch with the customer to address their concerns As part of this discussion, Fox agreed to refund to the client $ We believe this situation has been resolved to the customer's satisfaction

Mr***, We will be happy to order the vehicle for youMy apologies if you were not presented with this option yesterdayI will have Fred *** contact you to arrange the detailsThank you, Pete ***

I felt cheated by this dealership they sold me brand new( mile) car...but broken and they treat me very bad I did my complain to their head quarters alreadybut this was night right .I want all chicago now what a joke this place is

Complaint: 11147575
I am rejecting this response because:  After speaking to the dealership on the phone, although apologetic about what happened they are still not able/willing to create the same type vehicle with the same options and cost to us. They admit they are in the wrong as to how business was conducted and offer an apology for their actions. 
Sincerely,
Duane [redacted]

Mr. [redacted], 
We will be happy to order the vehicle for you. My apologies if you were not presented with this option yesterday. I will have Fred [redacted] contact you to arrange the details. Thank you, Pete [redacted]

Mr. [redacted],
We are sorry that the vehicle was sold prior to the commencement of your transaction. Fox Ford strives for the complete satisfaction of all customers, but occasionally circumstances arise that prevent that. In this case, we had two different customers, each desiring to purchase...

the same vehicle. We would be pleased to offer you a similar deal on a similar vehicle, but we do not have an identical vehicle to provide. As a goodwill gesture, I will authorize an additional $250.00 dealer discount, should you decide to accept the offer.Again, my apologies for the inconvenience.
Thank you,
Pete [redacted]
General Manager

Complaint: 11147575
I am rejecting this response because:   While I understanding that multiple people may be inquiring on the same vehicles that's common, the issue I have is that I was never made known that this was a possible issue and EVEN WORSE when asking MULTIPLE times on a guarantee that if we proceeded and secured finances and travel plans it would be ours and were repeatedly told definitely. The sales associate called our bank with information regarding our purchase and knew full well we would arrive the following day to pick it up! It was early evening when a different associate called and said someone leased it an hour earlier.  We would be willing to accept the same buying price if you order the EXACT same vehicle for us.  
Sincerely,
Duane [redacted]

We have been in touch with the customer to address their concerns.   As part of this discussion, Fox agreed to refund to the client $398.86.   We believe this situation has  been resolved to the customer's satisfaction.

Revdex.com:
From: [redacted]@aol.com [mailto:[redacted]@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 5:06 PM To: Revdex.com Info <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Your complaint has been received   Please remove my claim. It has been resolved  Sent from my [redacted] ...

Mr. [redacted],We are sorry that the vehicle was sold prior to the commencement of your transaction. Fox Ford strives for the complete satisfaction of all customers, but occasionally circumstances arise that prevent that. In this case, we had two different customers, each desiring to purchase the same...

vehicle. We would be pleased to offer you a similar deal on a similar vehicle, but we do not have an identical vehicle to provide. As a goodwill gesture, I will authorize an additional $250.00 dealer discount, should you decide to accept the offer.Again, my apologies for the inconvenience.Thank you,Pete [redacted]General Manager

I am an attorney representing Fox Ford Lincoln Midwest, LLC d/b/a Fox Ford Lincoln (“Fox”).   Please accept the following in response to the above-referenced Complaint.   The customer had his 2014 Lincoln MKZ towed to Fox on 11/25/2016.  The vehicle was not drivable.  The...

customer stated that a ball joint had separated on the vehicle causing him to hit a curb.  Upon inspection, Fox found that the ball joint had not separated, but, rather, the lower control arm was broken along with other components of the suspension.  There was also damage to the rim and body, likely from hitting the curb.    The warranty provided by the manufacturer of the vehicle had expired.  However, the customer informed Fox that he had purchased an extended service contract that covered the vehicle.  An extended service contract is a contract with a third party (in this case, Ford ESP) that covers the costs of certain repairs after the manufacturer’s warranty expires.   With the customer’s consent, Fox submitted a claim to Ford ESP.  Unfortunately, Ford ESP denied the claim.   As a result, of the denial, and at the customer’s request, a claim was then submitted to Ford’s Office of General Counsel (OAG) in effort to have the customer’s cost of repair covered.  OAG requested documentation from Fox regarding the damages to the vehicle, which Fox provided.  Ultimately, OAG also denied the customer’s claim.  Fox then advised the customer to call his own insurance company, but the customer declined and left with the vehicle.   What is critical to understand is that Fox was not the entity that denied the customer’s claims with Ford ESP and OAG.  Ford ESP and OAG are separate and distinct companies from Fox.  As a car dealer, Fox helps the customer submit claims to these entities, but plays no role in approving them or denying them.  Fox kept the customer aware of what was going on at each step of the way.     Fox strives to provide its customers with best in class service, and Fox submits that this matter was no exception.    Thank you for considering this response.   Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of further assistance.   [redacted] A. [redacted]| Associate General Counsel M:[redacted]   Notice:  The information in this e-mail may be confidential and/or legally privileged.  It has been sent for the sole use of the intended recipient(s).  If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read this message or the attachments or distribute them or act in reliance on them.  If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify us and delete this message and any attachments.  Thank you.

I am an attorney representing Fox Ford Lincoln Midwest, LLC d/b/a Fox Ford Lincoln (“Fox”).   Please accept the following in response to the above-referenced Complaint.   The customer had his 2014 Lincoln MKZ towed to Fox on 11/25/2016.  The vehicle was not...

drivable.  The customer stated that a ball joint had separated on the vehicle causing him to hit a curb.  Upon inspection, Fox found that the ball joint had not separated, but, rather, the lower control arm was broken along with other components of the suspension.  There was also damage to the rim and body, likely from hitting the curb.    The warranty provided by the manufacturer of the vehicle had expired.  However, the customer informed Fox that he had purchased an extended service contract that covered the vehicle.  An extended service contract is a contract with a third party (in this case, Ford ESP) that covers the costs of certain repairs after the manufacturer’s warranty expires.   With the customer’s consent, Fox submitted a claim to Ford ESP.  Unfortunately, Ford ESP denied the claim.   As a result, of the denial, and at the customer’s request, a claim was then submitted to Ford’s Office of General Counsel (OAG) in effort to have the customer’s cost of repair covered.  OAG requested documentation from Fox regarding the damages to the vehicle, which Fox provided.  Ultimately, OAG also denied the customer’s claim.  Fox then advised the customer to call his own insurance company, but the customer declined and left with the vehicle.   What is critical to understand is that Fox was not the entity that denied the customer’s claims with Ford ESP and OAG.  Ford ESP and OAG are separate and distinct companies from Fox.  As a car dealer, Fox helps the customer submit claims to these entities, but plays no role in approving them or denying them.  Fox kept the customer aware of what was going on at each step of the way.     Fox strives to provide its customers with best in class service, and Fox submits that this matter was no exception.    Thank you for considering this response.   Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of further assistance.  
[redacted] A. [redacted]| Associate General CounselM:[redacted]
[redacted] [redacted]
  Notice:  The information in this e-mail may be confidential and/or legally privileged.  It has been sent for the sole use of the intended recipient(s).  If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read this message or the attachments or distribute them or act in reliance on them.  If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify us and delete this message and any attachments.  Thank you.