Hampden Trading Company

I purchased a 2003 [redacted] from Hampden Trading Company a little over 2 months ago and it has broken down 5 times in that time. Within the first week of getting the car the check engine light came on. I brought the car for servicing to Hampden Trading Company twice and both times they claimed to fix the problem, were able to get it running, and then the same problem occurred multiple times since. The car stalls out frequently and without reason, it is very inconsistent and unreliable. When I brought this issue up they told me this is what I should expect from an older car and often brought up that I was a "young girl, who does not know a lot about cars." I understand the liability of getting an older car but did expect the car to last more than a few months.Product_Or_Service: 2003 [redacted]Desired SettlementI would like to take my money to a dealership who will sell me a reliable car.Business Response Contact Name and Title: [redacted]Contact Phone: XXXXXXXXXXContact Email: [redacted]To Whom it May Concern,In the case of [redacted], Case # XXXXXX, Hampden Trading Company sold her a 2003 [redacted] on [redacted] 2014. The vehicle passed [redacted] at a third-party inspection location. About a week and a half later, Ms. [redacted] called regarding the check engine light - noting that it had come on but that the car was still running fine. We told her to come in at her earliest convenience and we would scan the "check engine light code" to see what was going on, to which she noted she would come by "as soon as she had a chance." Ms. [redacted] proceeded to call about a week later (on or around the week of [redacted] saying that she had, "no time to come by," and was "wondering if it was safe for her to drive the car, since it was running fine" - she was just concerned about the check engine light. We explained to Ms. [redacted] that she could come by whenever she wanted to in terms of convenience for her. Ms. [redacted] then took this opportunity to note that she was concerned about coming by before the 30 day warranty was up. We said that the 30 day warranty didn't matter in this case since she brought the issue to our attention before the 30 days was up, so even if she brought the car in after the 30 day warranty was up, we would still honor the warranty. Ms. [redacted] had the car towed to our place of business on our around [redacted] 2015. We inquired as to why the car was towed, and she said that "it was the easiest way for me to get the car here, since I have Triple A, it was towed for free," and she had no one to pick her up at the dealership if she dropped the car off herself. The car ran the whole time - when the tow truck driver dropped it off we started it up and drove it into the shop.We scanned the vehicle and found a fault code "PO-442-evap emission control detected (small leak)." This problem is usually caused by one of two things - either the gas cap needing to be replaced or the filler neck - where the gas cap actually screws into - needing to be replaced. [redacted] recommends replacing the gas cap first, and if that doesn't work, to then replace the gas neck. Hampden Trading Company followed instructions, as per [redacted] and replaced the gas cap. We then informed Ms. [redacted] that it was one of the two things that could cause the problem, and if the problem wasn't resolved by the gas cap, all she had to do was give us a call and we would get the part for the filler neck and put it in for her. Ms. [redacted] called us to let us know that the gas cap had not solved the problem, and then Ms. [redacted] brought the car back on around [redacted] 2015 - and we replaced the filler neck, test drove car and after extensive diagnostic review, it was solidified that fault for code PO-442 was successfully repaired. Ms. [redacted] picked up her car on Wednesday night [redacted] after hours, called on Friday afternoon [redacted] around [redacted] PM and said that there was a light on in her car. We proceeded to ask her if it was a check engine light - and she said "No." We proceeded to explain to her that if it wasn't the check engine light, more than likely, the problem was unrelated to what we just had fixed. Despite that, and despite the fact that her 30 day warranty had expired, we told Ms. [redacted] that if she had an opportunity to bring the car by, we would certainly take a look at it and take care of it for her. On Saturday morning, we received numerous [redacted] complaints from Ms. [redacted]'s mother noting that we refused to fix the vehicle. [redacted]: BOUGHT A LEMON FROM THIS DEALERSHIP AND HE WILL NOT FIX IT!!! BE WARNED!!!" We responded to this saying we had fixed the original problem and that we'd be happy to take a look at the different light that came on the previous day, and we would still be happy to honor that. A self-proclaimed friend of Ms. [redacted]'s then took it upon himself to post slanderous reviews on numerous review sites, noting that we were trying to "postpone fixing the car and doing half [redacted] repairs until the warranty is up." We did not wait until the warranty was up, and have never once communicated to Ms. [redacted] that she needed to worry about the warranty. There are a few inaccuracies in Ms. [redacted]'s claim, as listed below:The Facebook posts by Ms. [redacted]'s mother note that the vehicle's check engine light came on within 2 weeks of the purchase time, vs. the "within first week" accusation made in Ms. [redacted]'s claim to the Revdex.com. We are happy to submit these posts for you to review.Per Ms. [redacted]'s Revdex.com claim, she implies that Hampden Trading was "able to get the car running" after she brought it in - when the car was never not running. As noted previously, one of the two times she brought it in, she had it towed in due to the fact that she was unable to make time to get the car here herself, and since it was of no cost to her to have [redacted] tow it, she opted for that route. The vehicle - during the duration of [redacted] - never once did not run, according to Ms. [redacted]. "...it has broken down 5 times in that time." This is inaccurate in that a) during the timeframe when we were working with Ms. [redacted] - [redacted] the vehicle had never broken down; and b)there were two problems. One for code PO-442 (which the vehicle was brought in two times for) and one additional problem which Ms. [redacted] chose not to bring to us to look at, instead noting on our Facebook page via her mother, [redacted] that she would be "going the Revdex.com route."We never once told her she should expect this from an older car, as she notes in her claim. In our Facebook response to her post, we replied, " We're not sure how telling her to bring the car in so we can check it out means we won't fix it, we never said that." Under no circumstance does that imply that we are blaming the cars age and refusing to take care of it for her. Again, we're happy to submit these posts for review.As for resolution, if Ms. [redacted] wants to bring her car by we would certainly not go back on our word to take a look at the problem she called about on [redacted] but according to [redacted] law, the car is not a lemon. We're obligated by the state of [redacted] to stand behind our cars, and we consistently go above and beyond warranty as we're located in a small town and word of mouth is a key driver of our business. We've been in business for over 30 years - we've never had this type of complaint. There are some people that you just can't make happy and it appears that Ms. [redacted] is one of them, as she has resorted to fallacies in her claims and had friends and family write slanderous reviews of our business. We're happy to provide copies of the reviews and [redacted] posts mentioned as an addendum for this. Consumer Response (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)I am writing in response to the comments made by Hampden Trading Company regarding my Revdex.com complaint.It can confirm it is true that the dealership fixed the gas cap and was able to get the check engine light off. However, though they were able to fix the gas cap and get the light off the fact is this car has broken down and stalled out multiple times and is unreliable. I realized this is an old car and tried to negotiate the price when looking at the car as I know the potential risks. The dealer told me the price was firm and gave my a false sense of security claiming that their cars are reliable and they stand behind their cars. This is not true. Hampden Trading Company commented that they never blamed the problems of the car on it's age however, in the Facebook posts the company referred to in their own response they replied to my mother post "sometimes things pop up with an 11 year old car." This statement insinuates that the problems with the car are due to it's age, contradicting their claim. Similar to Hampden Trading Company, I am happy to submit proof of their comment. In response to them stating that it was inaccurate that the car has broken down 5 times. To clarify my statement, I refused to take my car to Hampden Trading Company after my experience and took it to a local Certified [redacted] dealership where they had to work on the car 3 different times. I have all the bills that I paid for these repairs and all of the work that has been done on the car. This is in addition to the 2 times I had to get the car towed to Hampden Trading Company within the first 2 months of purchase. My statement was not inaccurate - when I submitted my Revdex.com claim my car had broken down 5 separate times.It seems this company is quick to point out fallacies in my own claim and create their own in response. First of all, I am not [redacted] member as I was quoted saying in their response. Additionally, I never told this company my towing was free. In fact, I have multiple receipts showing payment for the times I had to have the car towed because it was unable to start. I would not pay the amount I payed to have it towed if the car was running. Hampden Trading Company did not communicate to me that the car had run when it arrived at the mechanic - I received a call when they had finished the job. My assumption was that the mechanic got the car running (quoted from their response) as the last I knew about the car was that it was not running - this is how I saw it last.They pointed of the fact that I was inaccurate on the timing of when the check engine light came on. The timing was off by a week - the fact is the light still came on within the month of purchase. They state that they have not had a complaint like this in 30 years yet delete bad reviews from their social networking sites. The comments the Company keeps referring to are now deleted from their [redacted] page.Finally, I do not think it is appropriate to make comment about my character in response to my claim - stating I am someone who can not be made happy and made my friends and family post poor reviews. I did not encourage anyone to write a bad review on any site (though they have every right to), in fact you'll notice I have not posted a bad review about the company myself as that type of response is in fact greatly out of character for me. I was patient after the check engine light came on within the first month, I was patient when I had to get it towed there a second time when the light came on after they worked on it. I trusted this company to sell me the reliable car they said it was but the multiple towing and mechanic bills show that they did not. I would not have wasted my time submitting this complaint had I not felt like I had a case. If I am not eligible for a refund under the lemon law I believe I am owed the money I spent towing and fixing this car I have had for only 3 and a half months. I will gladly submit all receipts from the money I've put into this unreliable car.

I purchased a 2003 [redacted] from Hampden Trading Company a little over 2 months ago and it has broken down 5 times in that time. Within the first week of getting the car the check engine light came on. I brought the car for servicing to Hampden Trading Company twice and both times they claimed to fix the problem, were able to get it running, and then the same problem occurred multiple times since. The car stalls out frequently and without reason, it is very inconsistent and unreliable. When I brought this issue up they told me this is what I should expect from an older car and often brought up that I was a "young girl, who does not know a lot about cars." I understand the liability of getting an older car but did expect the car to last more than a few months.Product_Or_Service: 2003 [redacted]Desired SettlementI would like to take my money to a dealership who will sell me a reliable car.Business Response Contact Name and Title: [redacted]Contact Phone: XXXXXXXXXXContact Email: [redacted]To Whom it May Concern,In the case of [redacted], Case # XXXXXX, Hampden Trading Company sold her a 2003 [redacted] on [redacted] 2014. The vehicle passed [redacted] at a third-party inspection location. About a week and a half later, Ms. [redacted] called regarding the check engine light - noting that it had come on but that the car was still running fine. We told her to come in at her earliest convenience and we would scan the "check engine light code" to see what was going on, to which she noted she would come by "as soon as she had a chance." Ms. [redacted] proceeded to call about a week later (on or around the week of [redacted] saying that she had, "no time to come by," and was "wondering if it was safe for her to drive the car, since it was running fine" - she was just concerned about the check engine light. We explained to Ms. [redacted] that she could come by whenever she wanted to in terms of convenience for her. Ms. [redacted] then took this opportunity to note that she was concerned about coming by before the 30 day warranty was up. We said that the 30 day warranty didn't matter in this case since she brought the issue to our attention before the 30 days was up, so even if she brought the car in after the 30 day warranty was up, we would still honor the warranty. Ms. [redacted] had the car towed to our place of business on our around [redacted] 2015. We inquired as to why the car was towed, and she said that "it was the easiest way for me to get the car here, since I have Triple A, it was towed for free," and she had no one to pick her up at the dealership if she dropped the car off herself. The car ran the whole time - when the tow truck driver dropped it off we started it up and drove it into the shop.We scanned the vehicle and found a fault code "PO-442-evap emission control detected (small leak)." This problem is usually caused by one of two things - either the gas cap needing to be replaced or the filler neck - where the gas cap actually screws into - needing to be replaced. [redacted] recommends replacing the gas cap first, and if that doesn't work, to then replace the gas neck. Hampden Trading Company followed instructions, as per [redacted] and replaced the gas cap. We then informed Ms. [redacted] that it was one of the two things that could cause the problem, and if the problem wasn't resolved by the gas cap, all she had to do was give us a call and we would get the part for the filler neck and put it in for her. Ms. [redacted] called us to let us know that the gas cap had not solved the problem, and then Ms. [redacted] brought the car back on around [redacted] 2015 - and we replaced the filler neck, test drove car and after extensive diagnostic review, it was solidified that fault for code PO-442 was successfully repaired. Ms. [redacted] picked up her car on Wednesday night [redacted] after hours, called on Friday afternoon [redacted] around [redacted] PM and said that there was a light on in her car. We proceeded to ask her if it was a check engine light - and she said "No." We proceeded to explain to her that if it wasn't the check engine light, more than likely, the problem was unrelated to what we just had fixed. Despite that, and despite the fact that her 30 day warranty had expired, we told Ms. [redacted] that if she had an opportunity to bring the car by, we would certainly take a look at it and take care of it for her. On Saturday morning, we received numerous [redacted] complaints from Ms. [redacted]'s mother noting that we refused to fix the vehicle. [redacted]: BOUGHT A LEMON FROM THIS DEALERSHIP AND HE WILL NOT FIX IT!!! BE WARNED!!!" We responded to this saying we had fixed the original problem and that we'd be happy to take a look at the different light that came on the previous day, and we would still be happy to honor that. A self-proclaimed friend of Ms. [redacted]'s then took it upon himself to post slanderous reviews on numerous review sites, noting that we were trying to "postpone fixing the car and doing half [redacted] repairs until the warranty is up." We did not wait until the warranty was up, and have never once communicated to Ms. [redacted] that she needed to worry about the warranty. There are a few inaccuracies in Ms. [redacted]'s claim, as listed below:The Facebook posts by Ms. [redacted]'s mother note that the vehicle's check engine light came on within 2 weeks of the purchase time, vs. the "within first week" accusation made in Ms. [redacted]'s claim to the Revdex.com. We are happy to submit these posts for you to review.Per Ms. [redacted]'s Revdex.com claim, she implies that Hampden Trading was "able to get the car running" after she brought it in - when the car was never not running. As noted previously, one of the two times she brought it in, she had it towed in due to the fact that she was unable to make time to get the car here herself, and since it was of no cost to her to have [redacted] tow it, she opted for that route. The vehicle - during the duration of [redacted] - never once did not run, according to Ms. [redacted]. "...it has broken down 5 times in that time." This is inaccurate in that a) during the timeframe when we were working with Ms. [redacted] - [redacted] the vehicle had never broken down; and b)there were two problems. One for code PO-442 (which the vehicle was brought in two times for) and one additional problem which Ms. [redacted] chose not to bring to us to look at, instead noting on our Facebook page via her mother, [redacted] that she would be "going the Revdex.com route."We never once told her she should expect this from an older car, as she notes in her claim. In our Facebook response to her post, we replied, " We're not sure how telling her to bring the car in so we can check it out means we won't fix it, we never said that." Under no circumstance does that imply that we are blaming the cars age and refusing to take care of it for her. Again, we're happy to submit these posts for review.As for resolution, if Ms. [redacted] wants to bring her car by we would certainly not go back on our word to take a look at the problem she called about on [redacted] but according to [redacted] law, the car is not a lemon. We're obligated by the state of [redacted] to stand behind our cars, and we consistently go above and beyond warranty as we're located in a small town and word of mouth is a key driver of our business. We've been in business for over 30 years - we've never had this type of complaint. There are some people that you just can't make happy and it appears that Ms. [redacted] is one of them, as she has resorted to fallacies in her claims and had friends and family write slanderous reviews of our business. We're happy to provide copies of the reviews and [redacted] posts mentioned as an addendum for this. Consumer Response (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)I am writing in response to the comments made by Hampden Trading Company regarding my Revdex.com complaint.It can confirm it is true that the dealership fixed the gas cap and was able to get the check engine light off. However, though they were able to fix the gas cap and get the light off the fact is this car has broken down and stalled out multiple times and is unreliable. I realized this is an old car and tried to negotiate the price when looking at the car as I know the potential risks. The dealer told me the price was firm and gave my a false sense of security claiming that their cars are reliable and they stand behind their cars. This is not true. Hampden Trading Company commented that they never blamed the problems of the car on it's age however, in the Facebook posts the company referred to in their own response they replied to my mother post "sometimes things pop up with an 11 year old car." This statement insinuates that the problems with the car are due to it's age, contradicting their claim. Similar to Hampden Trading Company, I am happy to submit proof of their comment. In response to them stating that it was inaccurate that the car has broken down 5 times. To clarify my statement, I refused to take my car to Hampden Trading Company after my experience and took it to a local Certified [redacted] dealership where they had to work on the car 3 different times. I have all the bills that I paid for these repairs and all of the work that has been done on the car. This is in addition to the 2 times I had to get the car towed to Hampden Trading Company within the first 2 months of purchase. My statement was not inaccurate - when I submitted my Revdex.com claim my car had broken down 5 separate times.It seems this company is quick to point out fallacies in my own claim and create their own in response. First of all, I am not [redacted] member as I was quoted saying in their response. Additionally, I never told this company my towing was free. In fact, I have multiple receipts showing payment for the times I had to have the car towed because it was unable to start. I would not pay the amount I payed to have it towed if the car was running. Hampden Trading Company did not communicate to me that the car had run when it arrived at the mechanic - I received a call when they had finished the job. My assumption was that the mechanic got the car running (quoted from their response) as the last I knew about the car was that it was not running - this is how I saw it last.They pointed of the fact that I was inaccurate on the timing of when the check engine light came on. The timing was off by a week - the fact is the light still came on within the month of purchase. They state that they have not had a complaint like this in 30 years yet delete bad reviews from their social networking sites. The comments the Company keeps referring to are now deleted from their [redacted] page.Finally, I do not think it is appropriate to make comment about my character in response to my claim - stating I am someone who can not be made happy and made my friends and family post poor reviews. I did not encourage anyone to write a bad review on any site (though they have every right to), in fact you'll notice I have not posted a bad review about the company myself as that type of response is in fact greatly out of character for me. I was patient after the check engine light came on within the first month, I was patient when I had to get it towed there a second time when the light came on after they worked on it. I trusted this company to sell me the reliable car they said it was but the multiple towing and mechanic bills show that they did not. I would not have wasted my time submitting this complaint had I not felt like I had a case. If I am not eligible for a refund under the lemon law I believe I am owed the money I spent towing and fixing this car I have had for only 3 and a half months. I will gladly submit all receipts from the money I've put into this unreliable car.