Gateway Classic Cars

A 1965 Chevrolet C10 was purchased from our Gateway Classic Cars Louisville Showroom by [redacted] on April 16th 2015. The vehicle was picked on April 23rd by D&D Auto Transit and delivered to [redacted]. The shipper noticed a small crack in the driver side window. We made note of that, and also...

informed [redacted]. The previous owner had only driven the truck 30 miles in the last 3 years due to his failing health, this is the main reason the truck was brought to our showroom. The previous owner could no longer drive it and enjoy it. The truck had developed a rough idle condition, due to the older gas being in the tank. After several texts from [redacted] to [redacted], another Gateway Salesman, [redacted] was referred to me. Each time [redacted] called I gave him suggestions to try. He would immediately say he had tried those suggestions, which seemed strange to me that he was so fast to reply to them. [redacted] then contacted our director in Florida, [redacted], and he told him to get an estimate for the window and a basic tune up for the engine. [redacted] sent a bill of $1300 that included other items that did not pertain to the window or the tune up. [redacted] assessed the bill and determined that a reimbursement of $250 was fair and equitable. [redacted] agreed to this and I informed him I would need to send him our Standard Agreement and Release Form. [redacted] read the release, called me back and indicated he would not sign the form. I informed [redacted] we could not send out a check until this matter was resolved. At this time [redacted] became border line belligerent and I ended the conversation. [redacted]’s wife then went to our Face Book pages to give Gateway Classic Cars poor reviews. At all times, I ([redacted]), [redacted] and [redacted] conducted ourselves in a professional manner with [redacted]. The $250 settlement was offered as customer goodwill and was based on the estimate of $100 to fix the window, and that left $150 for spark plugs and a carburetor tune. The estimate he sent also had wheel cylinders, a transmission flush and filter, brakes and other items that are basic maintenance that the buyer wanted to have done. Everything we sell is AS IS, WHERE IS, and we are not going to pay for the first 30,000 miles of basic maintenance. We agreed to fix the problems that he had asked us about and $250 should cover that just fine. The release simply says that IF he agrees to take the $250, he cannot ALSO go on websites leaving negative reviews, sue us, or ask us for more money in the future. It is a standard release. No company will settle with you by reimbursing you, and then allow you to do damage with negative reviews, lawsuits etc. If you are able to do that, what was the point in settling in the first place?    The video did show a running and driving vehicle and it was running and driving when we shipped it. We offered $250 to be helpful when we very easily could have stuck firm to the AS IS, WHERE IS contract and offered nothing. Now, our offer of $250 is off the table since the negative feedback has already been left. We consider this sale final and will offer no reimbursements or refunds.
 
 
                      [redacted]@Gatewayclassiccars.com

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.Although I agree with everything stated by Mr. [redacted] response, the issue of "False Advertisement" was not responded to.  As stated in my original complaint, they have shown proper advertisement for a AC equipped NON-WORKING vehicle, but this one was NOT advertised as such.  This was advertised as an AC car!  And although I discovered the issue prior to the sale, they have a 1K Non-Refundable deposit.  I am requesting the 1K refund as their advertisement of AC car was the deciding factor with this car amongst many others.  If not resolved, I have intentions of continuing action with Consumer Affairs as well as offering my negative review a very large Military network including associates at BOEING St. Louis.
Regards,
[redacted]