Harriet Salley Auto Sales

Review: On 11/09/2013 I closed a deal on the [redacted] The sale price of the vehicle at that time was $17,995.00. I began making payment on the vehicle to Credit Acceptance Corp in December 2013. In March of 2014 I was informed by Credit Acceptance Corp that they were rejecting my loan due to failure of the dealership to produce the vehicle title in a timely manner.

Credit Acceptance refunded my payments in the amount of $1937.32 and closed the loan.

Upon returning to the dealership the loan was then resubmitted to CIG Financial and approved. The price given to me at this time was $16,180.64. Harriet Salley indicated that she had reduced the sale price from the original price because the car was now considered six years old and to compensate for any inconvenience. On April 7, 2014 I went into a new contract with [redacted]. The check for $1937.32 was applied as the down payment for the new loan. I began making payments on the new loan to [redacted] Financial in May 2014.

In February of 2015 I was informed by King and Queen County that I did not have a tax bill for the [redacted] In viewing my contact I found that the vehicle was registered in Essex County in error. This error has caused me to pay a late fee for non-payment of taxes. I also discovered at that time that my original down payment of $2500 had not been applied to the contract.

I contacted Harriet Salley regarding the matter of the deposit I was given several inconsistent stories.

I was told by Harriet Salley that the refund was written in the new loan. which is not found in the contract. Harriet Salley stated the only monies that was owed to my by the dealership was $696.36. I then contacted the other owner [redacted] and he

informed me that since the new loan gave me a cheaper rate and saved me money I was not entitled to the $2500.00 refund or credit for it on the new loan. Both said that I was responsible for an additional processing fee and title because the first loan rejectedDesired Settlement: The desired outcome is that I receive a refund of the first deposit in the amount of $2500 cash. Also I have referred to customers to the dealership and they both purchased vehicles. I was promised a gas card for each of the referrals in which I never received. I also expect that the dealership apologize and accept responsibility for the mistake that they have made.

Please note that I have an email response from Harriet Salley apologizing for the misinformation. I also contacted the dealership via certified letter. No response to date.

Business

Response:

DEAR MRS. [redacted]: I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT GITTING BACK WITH YOUSOONER, HOWEVER, IN AN EFFORT NOT TO HAND OUT ANYMORE INCORRECT INFORMATION TOYOU, I NEEDED TO MAKE SURE THE INFORMATION GIVEN WAS BOTH ACCURATE AND CORRECT.ACCORDING TO YOUR ORIGINAL PAPERWORK DATED NOVEMBER 09, 2013, THE FIRST LOAN ONTHE [redacted] HAD A SALES PRICE OF $17,995. AFTER ALL DMV FEES,PROCESSING FEE, GAP INSURANCE AND YOUR DOWN PAYMENT OF $2,500 YOU WEREFINANCING $17,290.11 (THIS FIGURE IS ACTUALLY INCORRECT. THE CORRECT FIGURE IS$17,315.88, WHICH Reflects BOTH THE AMOUNT SHOWING ON YOUR BUYERS ORDER AND THEAMOUNT WE PAID TO DMV ON YOUR BEHALF). THIS LOAN RESULTED IN A MONTHLY PAYMENTAMOUNT OF $484.33 FOR SIXTY-SIX (66) MONTHS. WHILE IN THIS LOAN, YOU MADE FOUR(4) PAYMENTS WHICH RESULTED IN A TOTAL AMOUNT PAID OF $1,937.32 $17,315.88 -$1,937.32 = $15,378.56 BECAUSE OF YOUR CREDIT, THE BANK THAT HELD THE ORIGINALLOAN WAS NOT OFFERING THE SAME TERMS AS THEY HAD IN THE BEGINNING; AND AS YOUHAVE STATED, NONE OF THIS WAS YOUR FAULT. HOWEVER, ANOTHER LOAN HAD TO BESECURED FOR YOU. ON APRIL 7, 2014, THE NEW LOAN PAPERWORK FROM A NEW BANK WASSIGNED WITH AN AMOUNT TO FINANCE OF $15,379 . THE PRICE OF THE CAR WASDISCOUNTED TO ALLOW FOR THE AMOUNT TO FINANCE. IF WE WERE TO USE THE ORIGINALNUMBERS THAT WERE USED IN THE ORIGINAL LOAN, $17,995.00, ADDED ALL THE FEESTHEN SUBTRACTED $4,437.32 (YOUR ORIGINAL DOWNPAYMENT OF $2500 PLUS THE$1,937.32 WHICH IS THE AMOUNT YOU PAID FOR THE FOUR MONTHS) THE AMOUNT TOFINANCE WOULD HAVE BEEN THE SAME, $15,378.56. COUPLE THIS WITH A LOWER RATE OF18.99% (OPPOSE TO THE 24.99% RATE ON THE ORIGINAL LOAN), BETTER TERMS OF 48MONTHS (OPPOSE TO 66 MONTHS ON THE ORIGINAL LOAN), LOWER PAYMENTS OF $459.78 (OPPOSETO $484.33 ON THE ORIGINAL LOAN) AND FINANCE CHARGES OF $6,690.44 (OPPOSE TO$14,675.67 ON THE ORIGINAL LOAN) AND IT FELT LIKE A WINNING SITUATION FOR THECONSUMER. MRS. [redacted], THE GOAL WAS TO PUT YOU IN THE SAME OR A BETTER POSITIONTHAN YOU WERE ORIGINALLY IN. AGAIN, WE FELT WE DID THAT. BY NO MEANS WOULD WEJEOPARDIZE OUR REPUTATION OR THE REPUTATION OF THIS COMPANY FOR ANY AMOUNT OFMONEY LET ALONE, $2500; HOWEVER, IF YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ORCONCERNS YOU CAN GIVE ME A CALL OR YOU CAN COME BY, l'D LOVE THE OPPORTUNITY.

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the offer 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.The reason that I do not accept the offer is because [redacted] has failed to state the entire truth of the second contract. In her response she has stated that if she used the figures from the contract that was dismissed by Credit Acceptance due to dealer negligence and deduct all fees and the total down payment of $4437.32 I would still have a financing of 15,378.56. When calculating the figures I have in the contract I find this to not be true. Also at the time of the 2nd contract [redacted] never mentioned that the price adjustment was due to securing of the second loan. My first loan was not dismissed due to my credit. It was due to failure of the dealership to produce the title. I feel that the dealership is attempting to benefit from the fact that my second loan was signed at a lower rate. As stated to me by a supervisor for CIG Financial the percentage rate that I was offered was based on my credit score. i