Luther Auto Group Reviews (%countItem)
Luther Auto Group Rating
Address: 3701 Alabama Ave S, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States, 55416-5156
Phone: |
Show more...
|
Fax: |
+1 (763) 222-2201 |
Web: |
www.jaguarlandroverminneapolis.com
|
E-mails: |
Sign in to see
|
Add contact information for Luther Auto Group
Add new contacts
I have been in contact with Jaguar, Land Rover Golden Valley, MN and Luther Automotive Group since June of 2019 attempting to resolve issues related to my purchase of an “assumed” CPO (Certified Pre-owned)2014 Jaguar XF.
Upon taking possession of the vehicle, I noticed the interior wood trim was cracked, there was a chip in one of the wood trim pieces and the leather dash had indentations that could not be repaired and later noted there was exterior chrome trim that was bent; all which was reported to the dealer and asked for replacement as all should have been noted (and replaced)after a 165 point CPO inspection which should have been completed (per the Jaguar CPO inspection warranty)and if not being replaced, should have been disclosed/ reported to the new owner prior to purchase of the vehicle (see below).
No inspection report was (or has at this time) been provided to me (even after multiple requests). I was told the inspection report is NOT given to the buyer.
MN Statute Minnesota Statutes Trade Regulations, Consumer Protection (Ch. 324-341) § 325F.662. Sale of used motor vehicles:
Subd. 8a. Certified motor vehicle. (a) It is unlawful for a dealer to advertise for sale or sell a used motor vehicle as “certified” or use any similar descriptive term in the advertisement or the sale of a used motor vehicle that implies the vehicle has been certified to meet the terms of a used motor vehicle certification program if any of the following apply:
(6) prior to sale, the dealer fails to provide the buyer with a completed inspection report indicating all the components inspected;
In addition, the Jaguar Approved Certified Pre-Owned Certification and Inspection Checklist document included in my warranty has not been completed or signed off as required. This implies no inspection was performed (which makes sense as the items noted were very obvious).
I met, emailed or spoke on the phone on numerous occasions to the General Manager of Jaguar Land Rover, CPO Manager of Jaguar Land Rover, Customer Relations Manager of Jaguar Land Rover, Jaguar Corporate and a representative from Luther Automotive Group to resolve these issues to no avail.
The dealer ascertains to this day that I should have noticed the discrepancies reported to them and they have chosen not to replace the parts. Per the above, I never received an inspection report and if they actually did complete a 165 point inspection, is it my responsibility to check their work? If I didn’t have a report, I would not have known what and what was not inspected nor what they would or would not replace so I could make a definitive decision on the purchase of the vehicle.. Clearly, the interior wood trim, dashboard and exterior chrome trim were part of that inspection that were missed….only know that now since I needed to research the inspection. Since these obvious imperfections were not noticed or replaced, am I to believe (and trust) the mechanicals were inspected as well? I have my doubts.
Since the following were not completed:
• MN Statute Trade Regulations ch 324-341 and 325F.662, subdivision 8a. (6) was not provided prior to sale or to this date (after numerous requests)… required by law!
• Pre-owned certification and inspection checklist has not been checked off and signed
The dealer should complete the following:
• Replace the entire leather dashboard
• Replace all cracked and chipped interior wood trim
• Replace the exterior bent chrome piece
Customer purchased a Used Certified Jaguar took delivery and returned two months latter to complain about the faded wood grain on the interior. Customer was told it was not covered under the CPO warranty. The customer then opened a case with Jaguar and was given a goodwill amount of 50% of the repair. Customer wanted dealership to pay the other amount but was denied. Customer as continued to ask for 100% of the repair to be covered but Jaguar has held firm on their goodwill offer of to pay 50% of the repair.
Ted *** G.M.
I am rejecting this response because:
CPO certification is unsigned and is required to be a CPO vehicle - see attached
How would I be sure I purchased a CPO vehicle without this signed,? Required by Jaguar to be a CPO vehicle.
Per MN State State to be a certified vehicle - never received a copy of components that were inspected - asked on numerous occasions. Should have been given to me without asking and prior to purchase.
Reported the cracked trim and indentations immediately upon taking possession of the vehicle. See attached. The dash was followed up on after I found out what should have been reported during the 165 point inspection and after I received the attached work that was completed on the car (after requesting around week of June 17th) which is when I received.
Per Jaguar reconditioning; the dash should have been replaced, not repaired to the best of someone's ability.
I can't attach additional information due to the limitation of your website, but have additional information that is pertinent to this case. Please let me know how I can add. Thank you.
I have been in contact with Jaguar, Land Rover Golden Valley, MN and Luther Automotive Group since June of 2019 attempting to resolve issues related to my purchase of an “assumed” CPO (Certified Pre-owned)2014 Jaguar XF.
Upon taking possession of the vehicle, I noticed the interior wood trim was cracked, there was a chip in one of the wood trim pieces and the leather dash had indentations that could not be repaired and later noted there was exterior chrome trim that was bent; all which was reported to the dealer and asked for replacement as all should have been noted (and replaced)after a 165 point CPO inspection which should have been completed (per the Jaguar CPO inspection warranty)and if not being replaced, should have been disclosed/ reported to the new owner prior to purchase of the vehicle (see below).
No inspection report was (or has at this time) been provided to me (even after multiple requests). I was told the inspection report is NOT given to the buyer.
MN Statute Minnesota Statutes Trade Regulations, Consumer Protection (Ch. 324-341) § 325F.662. Sale of used motor vehicles:
Subd. 8a. Certified motor vehicle. (a) It is unlawful for a dealer to advertise for sale or sell a used motor vehicle as “certified” or use any similar descriptive term in the advertisement or the sale of a used motor vehicle that implies the vehicle has been certified to meet the terms of a used motor vehicle certification program if any of the following apply:
(6) prior to sale, the dealer fails to provide the buyer with a completed inspection report indicating all the components inspected;
In addition, the Jaguar Approved Certified Pre-Owned Certification and Inspection Checklist document included in my warranty has not been completed or signed off as required. This implies no inspection was performed (which makes sense as the items noted were very obvious).
I met, emailed or spoke on the phone on numerous occasions to the General Manager of Jaguar Land Rover, CPO Manager of Jaguar Land Rover, Customer Relations Manager of Jaguar Land Rover, Jaguar Corporate and a representative from Luther Automotive Group to resolve these issues to no avail.
The dealer ascertains to this day that I should have noticed the discrepancies reported to them and they have chosen not to replace the parts. Per the above, I never received an inspection report and if they actually did complete a 165 point inspection, is it my responsibility to check their work? If I didn’t have a report, I would not have known what and what was not inspected nor what they would or would not replace so I could make a definitive decision on the purchase of the vehicle.. Clearly, the interior wood trim, dashboard and exterior chrome trim were part of that inspection that were missed….only know that now since I needed to research the inspection. Since these obvious imperfections were not noticed or replaced, am I to believe (and trust) the mechanicals were inspected as well? I have my doubts.
Since the following were not completed:
• MN Statute Trade Regulations ch 324-341 and 325F.662, subdivision 8a. (6) was not provided prior to sale or to this date (after numerous requests)… required by law!
• Pre-owned certification and inspection checklist has not been checked off and signed
The dealer should complete the following:
• Replace the entire leather dashboard
• Replace all cracked and chipped interior wood trim
• Replace the exterior bent chrome piece
Customer purchased a Used Certified Jaguar took delivery and returned two months latter to complain about the faded wood grain on the interior. Customer was told it was not covered under the CPO warranty. The customer then opened a case with Jaguar and was given a goodwill amount of 50% of the repair. Customer wanted dealership to pay the other amount but was denied. Customer as continued to ask for 100% of the repair to be covered but Jaguar has held firm on their goodwill offer of to pay 50% of the repair.
Ted *** G.M.
I am rejecting this response because:
CPO certification is unsigned and is required to be a CPO vehicle - see attached
How would I be sure I purchased a CPO vehicle without this signed,? Required by Jaguar to be a CPO vehicle.
Per MN State State to be a certified vehicle - never received a copy of components that were inspected - asked on numerous occasions. Should have been given to me without asking and prior to purchase.
Reported the cracked trim and indentations immediately upon taking possession of the vehicle. See attached. The dash was followed up on after I found out what should have been reported during the 165 point inspection and after I received the attached work that was completed on the car (after requesting around week of June 17th) which is when I received.
Per Jaguar reconditioning; the dash should have been replaced, not repaired to the best of someone's ability.
I can't attach additional information due to the limitation of your website, but have additional information that is pertinent to this case. Please let me know how I can add. Thank you.
We sent a letter to Jaguar Land Rover Minneapolis and have received no response. We overpaid at least 15% for a Range Rover Sport in 2016 because they certified a vehicle that was not eligible for certification due to the vehicle sustaining structural damage prior to our purchase and without our knowledge. The dealership pretended not to know about the damage to the vehicle, even though their sister company performed the repair work.
Fast forward to 2018, my husband and I tried to trade this vehicle in to purchase a vehicle at a different dealership, but the dealership indicated to us that they would not accept our vehicle on trade-in because of the prior structural damage to it, which didn't appear on the CarFax report until July 2017, after we had owned the vehicle for over a year. This is how we found out about the damage to our vehicle, which took place prior to our purchase of the vehicle.
Jaguar Land Rover Minneapolis had no business selling this vehicle with a "Certified Pre-Owned" warranty, as they knew about the structural damage to the vehicle prior to selling it, since their company performed the work.
In Minnesota, it is unlawful for a dealer to advertise for sale or sell a used motor vehicle as "certified" or use any similar descriptive term in the advertisement for the sale of a used motor vehicle that implies the vehicle has been certified to meet the terms of a used motor vehicle certification program if any of the following apply: (5) the dealer knows or should know that the vehicle has sustained frame damage.
This dealership has broken the law, frauded us, and now we are stuck paying for a vehicle that we can't sell, but we still have a loan on. We have attempted to sell the vehicle back to them for our original purchase price, but have received no response.
Revdex.com NOTE: Received e-mail from GM Ted ***, forwarding copy of previous e-mail sent to consumer, and adding additional comments on where situation stands currently:
Case ID
I am forwarding you my reply that I emailed the *** last July. They also opened a case with Land Rover that has been closed. As I stated in my email to the *** I have no control over when or what Carfax reports.
We did obtain, from the body shop, a copy of the repair bill and pictures of the damage. We then forwarded that information to the ***. In the repair bill there was no mention of frame or structural damage to the vehicle.
We did a Factory CPO inspection to the vehicle and after passing that it received a Certified Pre-Owned 100,000 factory warranty. That warranty is still intact and will expire May of next year or 100,000 miles whichever comes first. The *** have over 80,000 miles on their Rover and from what I can see have had little or no problems.
As I stated earlier I have no control over Carfax and how, what or when the report. If there is anything else I can provide please don’t hesitate to ask.
Thanks,
Ted ***
Jaguar Land Rover Minneapolis
***
Golden Valley, MN, 55426
Main
Cell
From: Ted *** Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2018 2:54 PM To: '***@homedepot.com' <***@homedepot.com> Cc: '***' <***> Subject: 2013 Range Rover Sport
*** and ***:
My name is Ted *** and I am the General Manger of Jaguar Land Rover of Minneapolis. Today I received a copy of the Letter you sent and a call from the Corporate office regarding it. I have been aware of your situation since you reached out to Rick *** in May, 2018. I have attached four pictures of the 2013 RR Sport showing the damage it sustained exiting the owners garage. I see that you also have a copy, that Rick sent you, of the body shop repair bill from the Collision Center. You need to look at the pictures of the damage on the Rover and the breakdown of the repair bill. You will see that it doesn’t take much to get a repair bill of $8,000 on these vehicles. If you also look at the repair bill you will note that there is no mention of structural damage. Why Carfax would state there is structural damage is beyond me but I can’t speak for them. Your vehicle was inspected, passed the inspection and was then issued a Certified Pre Owned warranty. That expires next May or when the miles hit 100,000, whichever comes first.
I understand that you now have 80,000 miles on your Rover and have experienced little or no problems. Which I’m glad to hear and to echo Ricks statement we would be happy to take it back in on trade.
With regards to your letter in which you freely used the word fraud. Let me remind you that the dealership never mention Carfax at time of sale, delivered to you a CPO vehicle with a CPO Warranty and you have been covered on that vehicle for the past 36,000 miles. Nothing has changed since you took delivery of the Rover over two years ago, other than the Carfax, of which I have no control.
So as I stated if you would like for us to take your Rover back in on trade we will. Just let Rick know what you’re looking for and he will go to work. We will give fair market for your Rover and try to locate a vehicle that meets your criteria.
Regards,
Ted ***
Jaguar Land Rover Minneapolis
***
Golden Valley, MN, 55426
Main
Cell
We sent a letter to Jaguar Land Rover Minneapolis and have received no response. We overpaid at least 15% for a Range Rover Sport in 2016 because they certified a vehicle that was not eligible for certification due to the vehicle sustaining structural damage prior to our purchase and without our knowledge. The dealership pretended not to know about the damage to the vehicle, even though their sister company performed the repair work.
Fast forward to 2018, my husband and I tried to trade this vehicle in to purchase a vehicle at a different dealership, but the dealership indicated to us that they would not accept our vehicle on trade-in because of the prior structural damage to it, which didn't appear on the CarFax report until July 2017, after we had owned the vehicle for over a year. This is how we found out about the damage to our vehicle, which took place prior to our purchase of the vehicle.
Jaguar Land Rover Minneapolis had no business selling this vehicle with a "Certified Pre-Owned" warranty, as they knew about the structural damage to the vehicle prior to selling it, since their company performed the work.
In Minnesota, it is unlawful for a dealer to advertise for sale or sell a used motor vehicle as "certified" or use any similar descriptive term in the advertisement for the sale of a used motor vehicle that implies the vehicle has been certified to meet the terms of a used motor vehicle certification program if any of the following apply: (5) the dealer knows or should know that the vehicle has sustained frame damage.
This dealership has broken the law, frauded us, and now we are stuck paying for a vehicle that we can't sell, but we still have a loan on. We have attempted to sell the vehicle back to them for our original purchase price, but have received no response.
Revdex.com NOTE: Received e-mail from GM Ted ***, forwarding copy of previous e-mail sent to consumer, and adding additional comments on where situation stands currently:
Case ID
I am forwarding you my reply that I emailed the *** last July. They also opened a case with Land Rover that has been closed. As I stated in my email to the *** I have no control over when or what Carfax reports.
We did obtain, from the body shop, a copy of the repair bill and pictures of the damage. We then forwarded that information to the ***. In the repair bill there was no mention of frame or structural damage to the vehicle.
We did a Factory CPO inspection to the vehicle and after passing that it received a Certified Pre-Owned 100,000 factory warranty. That warranty is still intact and will expire May of next year or 100,000 miles whichever comes first. The *** have over 80,000 miles on their Rover and from what I can see have had little or no problems.
As I stated earlier I have no control over Carfax and how, what or when the report. If there is anything else I can provide please don’t hesitate to ask.
Thanks,
Ted ***
Jaguar Land Rover Minneapolis
***
Golden Valley, MN, 55426
Main
Cell
From: Ted *** Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2018 2:54 PM To: '***@homedepot.com' <***@homedepot.com> Cc: '***' <***> Subject: 2013 Range Rover Sport
*** and ***:
My name is Ted *** and I am the General Manger of Jaguar Land Rover of Minneapolis. Today I received a copy of the Letter you sent and a call from the Corporate office regarding it. I have been aware of your situation since you reached out to Rick *** in May, 2018. I have attached four pictures of the 2013 RR Sport showing the damage it sustained exiting the owners garage. I see that you also have a copy, that Rick sent you, of the body shop repair bill from the Collision Center. You need to look at the pictures of the damage on the Rover and the breakdown of the repair bill. You will see that it doesn’t take much to get a repair bill of $8,000 on these vehicles. If you also look at the repair bill you will note that there is no mention of structural damage. Why Carfax would state there is structural damage is beyond me but I can’t speak for them. Your vehicle was inspected, passed the inspection and was then issued a Certified Pre Owned warranty. That expires next May or when the miles hit 100,000, whichever comes first.
I understand that you now have 80,000 miles on your Rover and have experienced little or no problems. Which I’m glad to hear and to echo Ricks statement we would be happy to take it back in on trade.
With regards to your letter in which you freely used the word fraud. Let me remind you that the dealership never mention Carfax at time of sale, delivered to you a CPO vehicle with a CPO Warranty and you have been covered on that vehicle for the past 36,000 miles. Nothing has changed since you took delivery of the Rover over two years ago, other than the Carfax, of which I have no control.
So as I stated if you would like for us to take your Rover back in on trade we will. Just let Rick know what you’re looking for and he will go to work. We will give fair market for your Rover and try to locate a vehicle that meets your criteria.
Regards,
Ted ***
Jaguar Land Rover Minneapolis
***
Golden Valley, MN, 55426
Main
Cell
Auto parts purchased from Jaguar Land Rover Minneapolis were not parts needed. Returned parts to Jaguar Land Rover. Unable to collect refund promised by Harold for parts that remained in package and unable to collect parts out of package that were not able to be returned. Efforts to complete refund/exchange include telephone conversations with parts department, personal visit to parts department, emails to parts department and general manager, Ted ***, as well as letter to Ted ***. All efforts to conclude this matter have failed to produce any results with the last effort a letter to Ted *** on June 27, 2018 that remains unanswered as of this date. Total value of parts involved is $187.04.
Response received via e-mail to Revdex.com:
I am emailing you concerning the complaint from ***.
I spoke to *** on Monday 8/27/18 about his concerns, we came to the agreement that I would send the nonreturnable part that we have here back to him. When I provide him with a tracking number from the shipper, he said that he would notify you that the issue was settled. I had asked him to notify you of our agreement right away but he wanted proof that the part was being returned to him first. We will be sending out the part to his home address today via spee dee delivery service, he should have it on 8/30 or 8/31.
This should resolve this issue to both of our satisfaction.
Mike ***
JLR Minneapolis
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
I have received the part as promised and verified a credit was made to my account for the parts that were accepted for return.
Thank you for your assistance as this matter was resolved in a timely manner once you began assisting me with this problem.
*** D.
Auto parts purchased from Jaguar Land Rover Minneapolis were not parts needed. Returned parts to Jaguar Land Rover. Unable to collect refund promised by Harold for parts that remained in package and unable to collect parts out of package that were not able to be returned. Efforts to complete refund/exchange include telephone conversations with parts department, personal visit to parts department, emails to parts department and general manager, Ted ***, as well as letter to Ted ***. All efforts to conclude this matter have failed to produce any results with the last effort a letter to Ted *** on June 27, 2018 that remains unanswered as of this date. Total value of parts involved is $187.04.
Response received via e-mail to Revdex.com:
I am emailing you concerning the complaint from ***.
I spoke to *** on Monday 8/27/18 about his concerns, we came to the agreement that I would send the nonreturnable part that we have here back to him. When I provide him with a tracking number from the shipper, he said that he would notify you that the issue was settled. I had asked him to notify you of our agreement right away but he wanted proof that the part was being returned to him first. We will be sending out the part to his home address today via spee dee delivery service, he should have it on 8/30 or 8/31.
This should resolve this issue to both of our satisfaction.
Mike ***
JLR Minneapolis
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
I have received the part as promised and verified a credit was made to my account for the parts that were accepted for return.
Thank you for your assistance as this matter was resolved in a timely manner once you began assisting me with this problem.
*** D.