Keller Motors

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 DepartmentWe 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###-###-####

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 / [redacted] (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 repairThe reason we turned down the claim is that the recall repair we did was not related to his current complaintsWe did a very minor recall on the side of his seatThere was no way that the recall repair we did could have caused the damage he is complaining aboutWe 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 laterIf there was even anything close to being our fault we would have taken care of it and given him the benefit of the doubt

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.