Hudson Valley Motorcar

Review: [redacted]13 purchased 2004 vw Golf with 152,000 miles on it. Book value of $5660, I paid $7995 a 41% markup on book value. I was told the dealer stands by a 6000 mile / 6month warranty. On the ride home the engine light came on and the door key was malfuctioning. Called dealer next day he said the engine light would be fixed and to drive it a few weeks and bring back.[redacted]13 I was pulled over by a NYS Trooper and was told that the drivers side tail light was out. He gave me a break after I told him I just bought the car.[redacted]13 returned car for service; engine light, no dashboard lights ( could not drive the car at night );door key not fuctioning properly; and the roof liner was hanging down, almost ready to fall into the car. Dealer kept car from [redacted]13 - [redacted]13. Spoke to dealer and he said the car was still not ready! Said he drove the car over 200 miles! Added up the bills at over $1600 and said I would be responsible for half! [redacted]13 sent dealer an email stating to stop driving the car and to send me the paperwork in regards to all these bills. Dealer parked car at his attorneys office. Dealer /attorney now claim the bills total $991 that he will pay and that I should pay $300 for the roof liner. They want me to sign all kinds of paperwork reliquishing my right to free spreech and voiding the warranty. I refused. The car is still not in my possession while I have to pay, insurance, loan and interest. I sent the attorney a letter requesting that I would like to return the car for a refund due to the fact that I can not trust the car or the dealer at this point. The car is still at the attorneys office on [redacted]13.Desired Settlement: I paid the dealer over $2300 to book value for a 10 year old car with 150,000 miles on it based on a warranty that is not being honored. I do not want the car. I have not heard from either party in almost 2 weeks.

Business

Response:

To Whom It May Concern:

Hudson Valley Motorcar (hereinafter "HVM") received notice from the Revdex.com of a complaint (Id #[redacted]) filed by [redacted] (hereinafter "[redacted]") regarding New York State Dealer Used Passenger Vehicle Limited Warranty (hereinafter

"The Ltd. Warranty").

[redacted] purchased a 2004 Volkswagen Golf (vehicle identification number [redacted]) from HVM on [redacted] 2013 for $7,995.

The vehicle purchased was a prior one-owner vehicle with a 152,769 odometer reading. HVM performed extensive reconditioning (Exhibit 1 – Vehicle Reconditioning). The wholesale cost of all reconditioning work performed was in excess of $3,900.

[redacted] test-drove the vehicle two (2) times before deciding to move forward with purchasing the vehicle. [redacted] inquired if HVM would be willing to extend additional discounts against the asking price; it was explained that approximately 50% of sale price was associated with reconditioning and that additional discounts would not be considered. However, in consideration of the extensive reconditioning work performed on the vehicle, HVM would be willing to offer an extension on the standard 90-day or 4,000 mile The Limited Warranty, at no additional cost. More specifically, HVM offered to honor the same The Limited Warranty coverage for 180 days or until the vehicle had been driven 6,000 (see Exhibit 3 - Sales Agreement). [redacted] inquired if HVM would be willing to include a set of floor mats, to which HVM agreed. Thus, [redacted] stated he would move forward to purchase the vehicle.

After making the necessary financing arrangements, [redacted] returned to complete his purchase and take possession of his vehicle. At the time of delivery [redacted] made a request of HVM related to another vehicle and an entirely different matter. [redacted] had a 2010 Mazda 6, lease return coming due and inquired if HVM would be willing to take that vehicle to its detailer to have it cleaned so that [redacted] would not be charged by his lease company. HVM agreed to assist with this work and explained to [redacted] that the cost of such would be between $150-$175. [redacted] agreed to the cleaning cost quoted (see Exhibit 4 – Car Cleaning).

Several weeks passed before [redacted] called to inquire when he could drop off his 2010 Mazda 6 for detailing. [redacted] was advised that he could drop off his Mazda anytime that was convenient. Several days after he dropped off the vehicle, [redacted] called to inquire if the Mazda was ready, and he was advised that it was. [redacted] stated that he wanted to make arrangements to drop off the VW to address a few minor issues that he stated he had with the vehicle. Upon arrival at HVM [redacted], presented a hand-written envelope listing several items he wanted to have addressed (see Exhibit 5 –Issue List). The list was as follows:

· Engine light currently on

· Roof liner

· Car key “locking”

· Dash lights

· Mats

· Owner’s manual

When asked what [redacted] meant by roof liner, he stated that the headliner is hanging down in the car. Upon inspection, it was noted that some of the adhesive had delaminated and the headliner was drooping down approximately ½-1 in. some areas, but the majority of the headliner was still intact. [redacted], was advised that the headliner replacement would cost between $200-$300 to have the company that does all of this type of work for HVM but that it was not covered under The Limited Warranty (see Exhibit 6 – Headliner Replacement). [redacted] requested for HVM to split the cost for the headliner replacement; he was advised HVM would not share in the cost as it was cosmetic. [redacted] stated that he wanted the work completed. [redacted] was advised that it could take a week to ten days to get the headliner replaced. [redacted] stated that his lease return was not due for another 3 weeks, so there would be ample time to get this and the other work he had requested completed.

HVM took [redacted]’s vehicle to Bart Embelton to evaluate the dash light issue. It was determined that the vehicle required, a new light switch as well as a rheostat (dimmer switch). The issue with inconsistent locking and unlocking of the doors required a door latch actuator be replaced. These repairs were sublet to Bart Embelton Auto Body at the following expense to HVM:

· Light switch $46.40

· Rheostat: $41.60

· Door latch actuator: $189.05

· Labor: $40

HVM then took [redacted] vehicle to Triebel’s Garage to evaluate the issue with the check engine light. Upon inspection, it was determined that the check engine light was the result of an exhaust leak, brought about by a broken motor mount. The broken motor mount caused exhaust flange to crack near the header. Repairs were completed at the following cost to HVM:

· Engine mount: $53.68

· Labor: $40

Triebel’s Garage recommended that the vehicle be driven for a couple of hundred miles to ensure that the problem was caused soley by the exhaust leak in the cracked flange. After driving the car approximately 130 miles, the check engine came back on. The vehicle was returned to Triebel’s Garage for further diagnosis. Triebel’s Garage found that the catalytic converter had failed and needed replacement.

I met with [redacted] to explain that many of the issues had been repaired but that the vehicle would require the replacement of the catalytic converter and oxygen sensor. It was reiterated to [redacted] that The Limited Warranty did not cover the repairs. [redacted] asked “how much money am I going to owe you?” [redacted] was advised that my bookkeeper would be putting together a detailed accounting of expenses but that a rough estimate would be approximately $1,400 - $1,500, broken down as follows:

· Detail of 2010 Mazda 6 - $175

· Headliner replacement - $300

· Catalytic converter and O2 sensor $500-$600

· Light switch, rheostat, and door latch actuator - $300.

Upon being provided these cost estimates [redacted] stood up and said, “You have to be kidding me” and proceeded to walk out. The next morning, I received a vulgar voicemail from [redacted], cursing and swearing about his outstanding debt for the repairs that he had requested. [redacted]’s voicemail message was followed with an email (see Exhibit 7 – [redacted]’s Email).

Upon receipt of [redacted]’s email HVM retained the assistance of outside counsel and issued [redacted] a letter, dated [redacted], 2013 (Exhibit 8 – HVM Letter) documenting the fact that HVM had incurred expenses for the repair of his vehicle at [redacted]’s request, none of which were covered under The Limited Warranty. In an effort to bring the matter to closure and as a gesture of goodwill, HVM proposed to pay for 50% of the expenses incurred, even though they were outside of The Limited Warranty, with two (2) exceptions:

· The cost incurred for having [redacted]’s 2010 Mazda 6 detailed - $175

· The cost incurred to have [redacted]’s headliner replaced - $300.00

HVM required reimbursement at 100% of the actual expenses incurred for these costs as they are non negotiable.

Outside of the cost for detailing [redacted]’s Mazda and the replacement of the headliner, HVM’s proposal equated to [redacted] and HVM paying equal payments of $495.42. As a condition of the proposed financial arrangement, [redacted] would be required to sign a General Release, to release HVM from any future liability or dealings under the New York State Limited Used Car Warranty, or any future claims. An additional condition of the agreement was that [redacted] would commit to not disparage, criticize or file any complaint against HVM, in any manner including, but not limited to: complaints made on the Internet; complaints made to the Revdex.com, or similar bureaus, the Attorney General’s Office, or to any other Agency of the Government. Under the terms of the agreement, [redacted] was provided until [redacted] 2013 at 4:00 PM to accept the written term as outlined in the letter.

As [redacted] did not respond to the [redacted]th letter a subsequent letter was sent to him by HVM’s attorney dated[redacted] 2013 (Exhibit 9 – HVM Follow-up Letter). To date, [redacted] has been unresponsive.

In closing, [redacted] paid what he felt was a fair price for his vehicle. [redacted] was provided floor mats, at no additional cost, and he was provided with an extension of the "The Ltd. Warranty", increasing coverage to 180 days or 6,000 miles. [redacted] never once brought up the headliner as a concern.

New York State requires all licensed Retail Dealers selling any vehicle with over 100,000 miles and more than $1,500.00 dollars to cover said vehicle under The Limited Warranty for a period of thirty (30) days or 1,000 miles whichever occurs first. HVM has stood behind The Limited Warranty that he states in his complaint was not honored. [redacted] also states, that he purchased a vehicle that was 10 years old with 150,000 on it. This was clearly understood by him the day that he purchased the vehicle. [redacted] states that he does not want the car, but he is the lawful owner as it is registered and titled to him.

HVM has been in business operating from the same location for nearly nine (9) years and has delivered over 450 vehicles. HVM has enjoyed an A+ rating with the Revdex.com for many of these years. The Attorney General’s office has never received a complaint against HVM, and the Department of Motor Vehicles has never been required to intervene in any client matter.

HVM has gone above and beyond its legal and ethical obligations, in an effort to satisfy [redacted] and has incurred significant expense at [redacted]’s own request to repair issues that are clearly stated in the "The Ltd. Warranty" as not being covered. While HVM strongly believes it is entitled to a full reimbursement, in an effort to resolve this matter expeditiously and amicably, HVM proposed reasonable financial accommodations. [redacted]’s actions, inaction and unreasonable expectations persist. While HVM would have preferred to have resolved this matter directly and independently with [redacted], HVM is prepared to take the necessary legal actions required to bring this matter to closure in a court of law.

Sincerely,

Hudson Valley Motorcar

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me and the matter has been resolved.

Sincerely,