I-79 Honda Mazda

On behalf of I-Honda Mazda this office has been asked to respond to the Revdex.com complaint of *** ***. It should be noted that these responses were also provided to Ms***’s personal attorney who investigated this matter on her behalf.At the outset, it should be noted that my client is
disappointed that Ms***’s customer experience did not meet her expectation; however, at no time was the type and quality of this vehicle misrepresented. In support of those facts and conclusions, please note the following: This vehicle was offered for sale on the Internet. At no time did any statements on the Internet advertising the listing of this vehicle indicate that it had the AWD or four WD option. In order to list the vehicle on the Internet, the dealer was required to provide information identifying all equipment on thevehicle. At no time was the AWD or four WD transmission option checked off when the vehicle was listed for sale on the Internet. This vehicle had an FTC sticker on the window at the time that the vehicle was offered for sale at the dealership which listsall of the equipment. At no time did the FTC sticker indicate that the vehicle was equipped with AWD or four WD. In fact, the sole reference to transmission was that it was “automatic.” The vehicle itself had no placards or signage indicating that it was either an AWD or four WD vehicle. Additionally, my client disputes the customer’s contention that this was a door-to-door sale as she personally appeared at the dealership and conducted the transaction. In summary, the disclosure to the Internet listing agency, the listing on the Internet of the vehicle’s equipment, the Buyer’s Order, and the FTC sticker contained no reference or implication that this vehicle was an AWD or four WD. The vehicle itself did not contain anyplacards anywhere on the vehicle or within the vehicle indicating that it was an AWD or four WD.Lastly, at no time did any representative of my client make a representation inconsistent with the numerous public disclosures regarding this vehicle’s equipment. As such, I-Honda Mazda must decline the customer’s request for restitution.*** ** ***Attorney for I-Honda Mazda*** *** ***
*** *** *** *** ***
*** ** ***###-###-#######-###-#### [fax]

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
The dealer is correct that the vehicle was not listed as AWD.  What they don't say is that the advertisement for the vehicle did not clearly disclose whether it was RWD or AWD.  The ad gave no information about that at all.  Because I couldn't figure it out from the ad, I asked the salesman.  I told him specifically on at least two occasions that I wanted an AWD vehicle.  I asked that when I made the deal on the phone with the dealer from my home and asked again when I came to the dealership to sign the papers that had been prepared for the deal we reached one the phone.  Both times I was assured that it was an AWD vehicle.  The price I was charged was for an AWD vehicle.  I did comparisons on Edmunds and Kelly Blue Book for the same vehicle, one RWD and the other AWD.  The price I paid was closer to the price comparison for an AWD version of the vehicle (I paid more than the comparison!).  I was trading in a 4-wheel drive vehicle.  It would make no sense for me to switch from a 4-wheel drive to a RWD vehicle.  I had at least two other problems -- there was no spare tire in the car (the space for it was empty).  The dealer did not tell me about that until AFTER I drove the vehicle off the lot and discovered it myself.  I had a problem with the stereo as well.  I feel that I've been completely taken advantage of by the dealer.   
Regards,
[redacted]

Review: I brought my Honda Pilot to Joe Romeo’s I-79 Honda/Mazda on July 11, 2016 to receive a WV state inspection. I was told that I needed a replacement rear wiper blade and license plate housing light to pass that inspection. I gave Tim D[redacted], the Honda Service Manager, the go ahead to replace both items as I waited in the customer lounge area. After returning home and verifying that the wiper blade and the replaced light bulb were in working order, I noticed a large scratch on the plastic license plate light housing and ding marks on the chrome paneling adjacent to that housing. The auto technician had clearly inserted a flat head screwdriver without wrapping any sort of protection around the screwdriver (the owner’s manual even says to use a cloth or towel when removing the plastic light housing to protect the chrome from being damaged). Obviously, that technician did not heed those warnings. I contacted Tim D[redacted] immediately to notify him of the damage and he told me to bring the car back up to Mt. Morris, PA so he could personally look at it. Upon inspection, he offered to replace the plastic housing (and only the plastic housing, not fix the damaged chrome). After returning home for the second time, I then called Tim D[redacted] again and asked him if I was going to receive a refund on the labor charge of $17.60 since their negligent labor was what caused the damage to begin with. He had the unmitigated gall to say, “Well, we don’t know that WE EVEN caused the damage, so we will not be giving you a refund on the labor”. There are two light bulbs above the license plate; one light bulb on the left side and one light bulb on the right side. The damage occurred on the exact same side (right side) where they replaced that light bulb a mere hour earlier. That is not a coincidence. Also, I am not a liar. I would not be attempting to unjustly blame someone if the blame wasn’t warranted and caused by their staff. Simply put, after being called a liar in so many words, I do not trust them to do any further repairs to my car. They can’t even install a light bulb without fouling it up. Even so, they would still only be fixing half the damage (since the chrome molding was also damaged). I am willing to pay for the replacement rear wiper blade and the installation costs associated with that wiper blade. I am even willing to pay for the replacement light bulb. However, I refuse to pay the labor costs ($17.60) for the installation of that light bulb when the result of that installation damaged my car. After all, it was Joe Romeo’s employee’s gross negligence that damaged my car. I am requesting that the labor fee of $17.60 be refunded. I am kicking myself that I didn’t personally replace those parts (light bulb, rear wiper) prior to the performed state inspection as I would have taken the proper steps to ensure that no damage occurred.Desired Settlement: I want the labor cost of $17.60 refunded to my credit card as their gross negligence while installing the light bulb damaged my vehicle.

Business

Response:

To whom it may concern:Both Tim and myself discussed the situation with Mr. [redacted] and we asked him to bring the vehicle to us so we could get the correct parts and resolve the problem. We also offered to replace the fuel he used bringing it here. We have not heard back from him. We will refund the amount he requested. We will send him a check since we do not have his credit card information on file. Sincerely,John W[redacted]

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.

I purchased my vehicle 1 year ago. The sales rep was polite and not pushy. They did not have the color I wanted so they worked to find the color I wanted and traded with another dealership. They worked with us and explained things very well. I'm the past year I have had good experiences with their service department. And the sales rep still follows up to make sure we are so happy with our purchase.

Review: I took my Mazda5 2006 model to i79 Mazda this Monday for a leaky shock replacement. Since the part needs to be ordered, I was asked to come back today (Friday) and finish the replacement. The car was in the garage for no more than 30 min. but I understand I will be charged on their hourly rate ($76 per hour). What I don't understand is that I got charged TWICE for this replacement job - according to their manager, the Monday appointment was diagnosis only ($76 labor) and the Friday one another $76 labor. This is not acceptable because they simply could not do the job on Monday (without the needed part).Desired Settlement: Give me back the $76 labor fee for the Monday appointment (they did nothing).

Business

Response:

To whom it may concern:

We charge a diagnostic fee to determine the cause of the customers concern. The fee was authorized by the customer or we would not have performed the diagnosis. We did have to order a part and charged to install the part. All the repairs were authorized by the customer or we would not have done the work. We do not perform diagnosis or repairs for free. We have to pay to have expert employees to diagnosis and repair vehicles. If the customer did not want to pay for our expertise they should have fixed it themselves.

Sincerely,

Manager

Consumer

Response:

Review: I purchased a vehicle from I-79 on May 3, 2013. Fifty five days later I still do not have a title. I have called the dealership several times and am always avoided and told they are working on it. The temporary tag is expired and the vehicle is not legally drivable. I returned the vehicle to the dealership and was told this was not their problem that they could not produce a title and not their problem that the tag was expired. I was refused any compensation and was told to leave. I left a letter with them stating I was leaving the vehicle and no longer wanted it since it did not have a title in a timely manner. I left all of the keys with the dealership. I was called and told the vehicle would be towed and put in storage at my expense. This dealership needs to be out of business. Worst customer service ever. Refused any compensation or help and was told it was my problem that they couldn't give me a title and wasn't their problem that the tag was expired.Desired Settlement: Vehicle has been returned since the title was not produced in a timely manner. I was treated so badly I have no desire to have any dealings with them.

Business

Response:

To whom it may concern:

The title for Mr. and Mrs. [redacted]'s [redacted] had an clerical error on the mileage. We sent back to the original dealer and had it corrected as fast as possible. A corrected Pennsylvania title was overnighted to Mr [redacted] on 7/2/13. He was advised of the situation and would not accept the answer he was given. Please call or email me if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

###-###-####

Review: I purchased a used 2014 Dodge Durango R/T from the dealership on 4-15-2014. Their salesperson told me that the vehicle was all-wheel drive when it was, in fact, rear-wheel drive. I told them that I only wanted an AWD vehicle and relied upon their representations in purchasing the vehicle. The price I paid was for an AWD vehicle. I overpaid for the vehicle and did not receive what I thought I was purchasing. The dealership violated the Automotive Industry Trade Practices regulations of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. 301-1, etc. (UTPCPL). The deal for the vehicle was made over the phone from my residence and falls under the provisions of the Door-to-Door Sales provisions of the UTPCPL. I did not receive a 3-day notice of my right to rescind the deal. On 12/9/2014 I notified the dealership that I was cancelling the contract and demanded a full refund. The dealership has refused to refund any portion of my money and said that I should have checked out the VIN number to verify for myself that the vehicle was AWD. I have calculated my actual damages as a result of the dealerships misrepresentations at $21,022.53.Desired Settlement: I would like to receive the actual damages as a result of the dealership's misrepresentations at $21,022.53

Business

Response:

On behalf of I-79 Honda Mazda this office has been asked to respond to the Revdex.com complaint of [redacted]. It should be noted that these responses were also provided to Ms. [redacted]’s personal attorney who investigated this matter on her behalf.At the outset, it should be noted that my client is disappointed that Ms. [redacted]’s customer experience did not meet her expectation; however, at no time was the type and quality of this vehicle misrepresented. In support of those facts and conclusions, please note the following: 1. This vehicle was offered for sale on the Internet. At no time did any statements on the Internet advertising the listing of this vehicle indicate that it had the AWD or four WD option. 2. In order to list the vehicle on the Internet, the dealer was required to provide information identifying all equipment on thevehicle. At no time was the AWD or four WD transmission option checked off when the vehicle was listed for sale on the Internet. 3. This vehicle had an FTC sticker on the window at the time that the vehicle was offered for sale at the dealership which listsall of the equipment. At no time did the FTC sticker indicate that the vehicle was equipped with AWD or four WD. In fact, the sole reference to transmission was that it was “automatic.” The vehicle itself had no placards or signage indicating that it was either an AWD or four WD vehicle. Additionally, my client disputes the customer’s contention that this was a door-to-door sale as she personally appeared at the dealership and conducted the transaction. In summary, the disclosure to the Internet listing agency, the listing on the Internet of the vehicle’s equipment, the Buyer’s Order, and the FTC sticker contained no reference or implication that this vehicle was an AWD or four WD. The vehicle itself did not contain anyplacards anywhere on the vehicle or within the vehicle indicating that it was an AWD or four WD.Lastly, at no time did any representative of my client make a representation inconsistent with the numerous public disclosures regarding this vehicle’s equipment. As such, I-79 Honda Mazda must decline the customer’s request for restitution.[redacted]Attorney for I-79 Honda Mazda[redacted]

[redacted]###-###-#######-###-#### [fax]

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

The dealer is correct that the vehicle was not listed as AWD. What they don't say is that the advertisement for the vehicle did not clearly disclose whether it was RWD or AWD. The ad gave no information about that at all. Because I couldn't figure it out from the ad, I asked the salesman. I told him specifically on at least two occasions that I wanted an AWD vehicle. I asked that when I made the deal on the phone with the dealer from my home and asked again when I came to the dealership to sign the papers that had been prepared for the deal we reached one the phone. Both times I was assured that it was an AWD vehicle. The price I was charged was for an AWD vehicle. I did comparisons on Edmunds and Kelly Blue Book for the same vehicle, one RWD and the other AWD. The price I paid was closer to the price comparison for an AWD version of the vehicle (I paid more than the comparison!). I was trading in a 4-wheel drive vehicle. It would make no sense for me to switch from a 4-wheel drive to a RWD vehicle. I had at least two other problems -- there was no spare tire in the car (the space for it was empty). The dealer did not tell me about that until AFTER I drove the vehicle off the lot and discovered it myself. I had a problem with the stereo as well. I feel that I've been completely taken advantage of by the dealer.

Regards,