Keller Motors, Inc.

Contact Name and Title: *** Keller Dealer
Contact Phone: ***
Contact Email: ***@kellerdeal.net
First of all I would like to apologize for the inconvenience you were caused by this transactionUnfortunately in the automobile business dealers get approvals on applicants such as in your
case and the bank approves a loan and then when it gets sent in to the bank it gets r**ected and returned for numerous reasonsA lot of banks do phone due diligence such as interviews, check employment, etc to make sure everything matches as to what the customers credit app has saidWhen banks r**ect the loan we do our best to get them to change there mind but in some cases it doesn't happen as in your caseIts definitely a bad situation for all involved as we put in a lot of time to get things approved and send it in and we end up having to take the car back and we have to go thru the safety and detail all over again to put it back on the lot along with having a disappointed customerIf we find a pattern happening with certain banks we stop doing business with themBanks change the buying status and perimeters all the time so its always something we have to stay up withI investigated the down payment return issue and we got stuck in the middle and couldn't do anything at one point and the weekend caused a or day delay alsoI thoroughly went thru the process that happened and I think you know most of it but here is what I found outIan was filling in for *** and ask you how to refund your money or how you wanted it refunded and you said your debit cardUnfortunately you paid with a check so when our bank transferred the credit to your debit card your bank would not accept it because it was never charged on the cardAt one point on Monday we couldn't do anythingWe were stuck in the middle waiting for your bank to accept the credit on your debit cardIf we cancelled, it would of charged your acct as we were told the $Eventually your debit card company finally processed and r**ected the credit and that's when *** and ** found this out and was able to just cut a check and bring it too youIn my years of business I had never had this issue ever beforeYour debit card company would not take the $credit from us because we never had been paid $via the cardI am not sure why they would care but they would not accept itAgain I am truly sorry for the frustration on your part and we understand why you were frustrated but both issues were unfortunate and out of our hands and was delayed and decided by a couple banksWe would of love to of been able to keep you in the Elantra

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/08/11) */
Customer brought in a coupon for an additional $on their trade inThe coupon was issued by Keller Ford Lincoln our sister storeWe agreed to honor itThe value of the vehicle was placed at $1500, customer rec'd $for trade inNot
sure why there is confusion here, this was thouroghly explained before the customer purchased the vehicleThe vehicle selling price was raised originally because the customer wanted the dealership to pay a service repair bill for her daughter's vehicleThe price was reduced back down when the customer decided not to have that included in the deal
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2015/08/11) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I was originally quoted $for my trade inIn order for them to say they "honored" the coupon they lowered the price of my trade in value to $1500, therefore in actuality it was not honoredThey originally increased the cost of the vehicle I was buying than what it was originally advertised (isn't that illegal for advertisement)at and then when I noticed that is when they they lowered the trade in value of my carEither way they were very underhanded with their serviceDefinitely advertisement, DID NOT honor their very own voucher that THEY distributed publicly and was very dishonest in their sales managingWill never be going back (and I have bought our last cars there
Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2015/08/18) */
I would like to schedule a time next week to talk with customer and discuss transaction furherIt seems that this transaction occurred over a couple days and I would like to clarify where the communication broke downWe do not advertise falselyOnce again the coupon was not distributed by Keller Motors where the vehicle was purchasedHowever, I would like to resolve this matter amicablyI can be reached at XXX-XXX-XXXXI will be back in the office Monday August 24thThank You, E.JMuir, General Sales Manager

In reference to complaint ID 12203344, I spoke to [redacted]. I explained to her what took place, and apologized for the breakdown in communication between her and our Finance Department. We have since made the payoff on her previous vehicle, and have funded her new loan on her Silverado.She seemed...

happy with the resolution, and I offered her a complimentary oil change and tire rotation at her first service interval.Thank you Matthew MeyerGeneral ManagerKeller Auto Center###-###-####

While looking at the new vehicle, and negotiating his purchase, [redacted]  never asked if the vehicle could operate on the E85 fuel. 2 days after purchasing the vehicle home, [redacted] contacted us and asked if it could operate on the E85 fuel. We notified him that it did not operate on the E85...

fuel. He also advised us that he owns a F150 truck that operates on the E85 fuel. He informed us that his truck had visual markers indicating it's ability to operate on the E85 fuel (yellow areas/markings on or near the fuel filler area)...and his new vehicle did not.  The missing visual indicators should have alerted him to his new vehicles inability to operate on E85, since he already owns a vehicle that has the capability to use E85. There were no deceptive practice(s) involved here.  Please let me know if you have any further questions.   Thank You      [redacted], General Manager

I am rejecting this response because:The Business' General Manager's statement that I "... never asked if the vehicle could operate on E85 fuel" is irrelevant because the Business' own advertisement makes the claim that the vehicle will run on E85. Attached is a copy of the advertisement of the vehicle (Exhibit I) that led to my contacting the Business. Please note that the banner on the advertisement is, "2017 Ford Focus Titanium Hatchback Ti-VCT GDI 1-4 Engine with Flex Fuel Capability". Also the advertisement lists "2L Ti-VCT GDI 1-4 Engine with Flex Fuel Capability" further down in the advertisement. Based on these advertised features I contacted the Internet Sales Manager on the morning of October 20, 2017 regarding this Ford Focus (Bait Car) and arranged for a test drive. Later, the Internet Sales Manager called me and advised me that the car was no longer available. However, the Internet Sales Manager said that he could get the identical car, without the "Active Park Assist" feature, for me to look at. I asked, "Is the park assist the only difference in the car that you can get". The Internet Sales Manager replied, "Yes, it is the same color and everything." Based on the Internet Sales Manager's statement my wife and I agreed to visit the Business and test drive the car. To confirm the Internet Sales Manager's assurances I located the car at Tracy Ford (Switch Car). Attached is Exhibit II, the advertisement from Tracy Ford that shows "Engine: 2.0L I-4 GDI Ti-VCT Flex Fuel" is shown as a part of "Equipment Group 300 A" on the first page of the Exhibit. On the second page of Exhibit II the narrative for the car includes the statement, "The standard 2.0L Ti-VCT 1-4 engine is flex-fuel capable, so you can use either unleaded, E85 or any combination of the two" and also the second page includes a second description of "RapidSpec: 300A" and the phrase "Engine: 2.0L Ti-VCT GDI 1-4 Engine with Flex Fuel Capability". The printed advertisements related to both the Bait Car and the Switch Car included specific, written statements that both cars were capable of running on E85 fuel. Moreover, the Internet Sales Manager stated that both cars were identical, except that the Switch Car did not include the "Active Park Assist" feature that was included on the Bait Car. The General Manager was not present when the purchase of the car was negotiated. The only people in the room were the Internet Sales Manager, my wife, and I. During our discussion we discussed the importance of E85 on the car purchase. In fact, I showed the Internet Sales Manager a chart that I put together comparing the fuel cost savings between the various vehicles that I was considering. The chart that I showed the Internet Sales Manager is attached as Exhibit III. Additionally, during the conversation after showing the chart to the Internet Sales Manager he mentioned that "... Hanford didn't have an E85 station..." and that there was quite a difference in fuel cost shown on my chart. The General Manager was never a • art of that ne: otiation and has no direct • ersonal knowled e of what was said. Therefore, any statement that the General Manager makes in that regard is, at best, second-hand information and, at worse, a lie. In summary, although I never actually posed the question, "Does this car run on E85", the written advertisements of both the Bait Car and the Switch Car included claims that they could run on E85 and the Internet Sales Manager made no statement to that affect when directly asked about the difference in features between the Bait and Switch Cars. There was definitely deceptive advertising and  misrepresentation used by the Business in this transaction. My experience in this transaction has all the hallmarks of a Bait and Switch selling ploy. The Customer (me) is lured into the Business based on the features and benefits of a specific product (Bait Car) and after expressing interest in the product it is taken away and another product with similar, but fewer Page 1 of 3  features (Switch Car) is offered. In this case a vehicle that operated on E85 fuel and had Active Park Assist was offered and it was switched to a car that could run on unleaded gasoline only and lacked the Active Park Assist feature. This transaction meets the definition of a Bait and Switch sales tactic.The statements of the General Manager related to my other E85 vehicle are preposterous and irrelevant. The F150 truck that the General Manager refers to is eight (8) years older than the Switch Car that I purchased. The F150 pick-up is not even remotely related to the Switch Car and it is unreasonable to expect that the same technology used in an eight-year old pick-up would be identical to that in a new economy car. The recognition of that fact is why I consulted the Owner's Manual on the Switch Car to determine how to operate the features on the vehicle and to determine whether there were any differences in using E85 between an eight year-old pick-up and a new economy car. I'm glad I did check because if I would have relied exclusively on the written and oral representations of the Business I would have put E85 fuel into the car and damaged the engine and related operating systems. The damage would not have been covered by the warranty.Finally, I have been disappointed by the General Manager's handling of this issue. As noted, purchased the vehicle on Saturday, October 21,2017 and reported the discrepancy between the Owner's Manual and the representations made by the Business on Monday, October 23,2017. The General Manager did not correspond with me in this matter until November 20,2017. Below is listed the correspondence that I have had with this Business, related to this matter:[Details Attached]I have retained hard copies of all of the correspondence and exhibits for review by current and potential third-parties.Finally, during my telephone conversation with the General Manager on December 8, 2017 the General Manager advised me that it was not possible to meet my initial request for either modification of the Switch Car to run on E85 or replace the Switch Car with an identical vehicle that would run on E85. He asked me to provide an estimate of the increased costs that I would incur as a result of not having the E85 capability. That information was sent on December 8,2017 by certified mail and e-mail. To date, the Business has not responded to challenge the estimate that the General Manager requested.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID 12203344, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/11/30) */
I am not sure why he feels that we damaged his dash and now his window is not working properly months after our recall repair. The reason we turned down the claim is that the recall repair we did was not related to his current complaints. We did...

a very minor recall on the side of his seat. There was no way that the recall repair we did could have caused the damage he is complaining about. We never worked on the door where his window complaint is and did not work on the dash or any where near his dash panel that he noticed being damaged months later. If there was even anything close to being our fault we would have taken care of it and given him the benefit of the doubt.