Thank you to the Revdex.com for the opportunity to respond to the case filed by [redacted] (Case ID [redacted]). On 8/1/16, Ms. [redacted] originally came to our Service Department with a concern of a water leak from the right front door area and dripping from the headliner. We diagnosed the leak and repaired the seal around the right side of the sunroof. Ms. [redacted] was charged a total of $171.56 for this repair. On 8/4/16, Ms. [redacted] returned to our Dealership because her airbag light was illuminated. We performed a diagnosis, at no additional charge to her, and determined that the water from the original leak had entered part of the harness to the air bag system. To completely diagnose the extent of the water intrusion, it would be necessary for us to remove the headliner. We explained to Ms. [redacted] that she would need to authorize 3.0 hours of labor time to remove the headliner and diagnose the extent of the water intrusion. We offered to perform this diagnosis at a discounted labor rate. Ms. [redacted] declined to have any further diagnosis or repairs performed. It is our contention that the water intruded the headliner during the initial water leak (water was leaking from the headliner when we first diagnosed the leak), and several days later made its way to the airbag harness system, causing the illumination of the airbag warning light. The initial repair paid for by Ms. [redacted] repaired the leak and prevented further water from entering her system, but did not necessarily solve problems that might arise due to water that had already infiltrated her system prior to the repair. At the time her vehicle was in for the initial repair, there was no airbag light and therefore it was not possible to determine the extent (if any) that water enters a system if there is no prior sign of a concern. If the airbag light had been illuminated at that time, we could have at that time advised the customer of the need to further diagnose the concern. The initial repair Ms. [redacted] paid for repaired the leak. It did not repair anything that might arise as a result of water that entered her systems prior to the leak being repaired. Therefore, we maintain that Ms. [redacted] is not owed free repairs from our Dealership. However, in the spirit of Revdex.com compromise and to help resolve Ms. [redacted] situation, we would like to offer to perform further diagnosis of her water damage at a discounted labor rate. The retail rate of the 3 hour diagnosis we is $358.88 plus tax. We already offered to perform the diagnosis for $330 plus tax, which did not satisfy her. In an effort to compromise and help her, we are willing further drop the price to perform the diagnosis to $225.00 plus tax. Once the headliner is dropped and the diagnosis is complete, any additional parts and labor needed to complete the repair will also be offered at a discounted rate set simply to cover Dealership costs.
Thank you to the RevDex.com for the opportunity to respond to the case filed by [redacted] (Case ID
[redacted]).
The vehicle referenced in the
claimant’s complaint was brought to our Service Department by Ms. [redacted] in
November 2014 for repairs. At that time,
Ms. [redacted] had...
many stated concerns with the vehicle. In addition to a General Motors recall that
needed to be performed, Ms. [redacted] also indicated that the car sometimes would
not start and that the check engine light was illuminated. After a complete diagnosis, our technicians
determined that the car needed a new battery, water pump, oil pan gasket, oil
pressure sensor, and front brakes. Ms.
[redacted] was given an estimate for $2,162.24 to complete all of the repairs, which
she approved. (See attached
documentation, showing Ms. [redacted]’s signature in two different places on the
Preliminary Estimate paperwork.)
When Ms. [redacted] brought the
vehicle to our Dealership, she told us it was her vehicle. She gave us her contact information. We communicated only with her regarding the
necessary repairs to the vehicle. The
license plate of the vehicle has a vanity plate with Ms. [redacted]’s name on
it. There is no reason for our
Dealership to believe that she was not authorized to approve repairs to the
vehicle. Our Dealership obtained proper
authorization for vehicle repairs.
After repairs to the vehicle
were complete, our Dealership made numerous contacts and attempts to contact
Ms. [redacted] to come pay for the repairs and retrieve her vehicle. At one point, we were asked to change the
name on the paperwork to “[redacted],” so that a claim could be made with the
VA to obtain payment. In August of 2015,
our Service Manager Glenn H[redacted] called the [redacted]s to discuss the status of the VA
case and while on the phone with Mr. [redacted], Ms. [redacted] could be heard in the
background yelling “Don’t talk to those people!” and then the phone was hung
up. We have other documented unanswered
phone calls and voicemails throughout the 15 months that the vehicle remained
at our Dealership awaiting payment and pickup.
The vehicle sat in our
Dealership’s secure lot for over 15 months.
Near the end of March 2016, the vehicle’s lien holder repossessed the vehicle
from our lot. In his complaint, Mr. [redacted]
states that “General Motors and Glenn” repossessed his vehicle. This is not true. Our Dealership did not order the repossession
and has no responsibility for the repossession of a vehicle by a lending
institution. The reasons for and the
timing of the repossession are solely between the [redacted]s and their lending
institution.
In summary, it is our Dealership’s
position that: 1) We obtained proper
authorization to complete repairs on the vehicle in question, 2) The [redacted]s must work through their concerns
regarding the vehicle’s repossession with their lending institution, and 3) As described above, our Dealership made
numerous efforts to work with the [redacted]s to bring resolution to this matter;
therefore, we respectfully disagree with any statements that indicate that we “didn’t
have the character to call and tell me what happened” and “took advantage of an
elderly man.”
Thank you to the Revdex.com for the opportunity to respond to the case filed by [redacted] (Case ID [redacted]). We have spoken to the claimant and installed the new rim on her vehicle since she filed this complaint and we believe the issue to be resolved. We explained to...
her that the reason her tire pressure monitoring system was showing an error was because she had a spare tire on her vehicle, not because there was no air in the tire and not because the system was broken or malfunctioning. We also showed the claimant a photograph of her bent rim so she could visually see why the tire wasn’t holding air and therefore we recommended a replacement rim. She stated in her complaint that the tow truck driver told her nothing was wrong with her tire, which is the truth. However, we didn’t find anything wrong with the tire and did not recommend a tire replacement; we recommended that the bent rim be replaced. On 1/24/18, We replaced the claimant’s rim, put her original tire back on her car, and recalibrated the tire pressure monitoring system so that all tire pressures are now reading correctly. All of this work was explained to the claimant, and she was satisfied. We also explained this situation to her son on the telephone, who was accepting of the explanation. The claimant’s new rim and tire pressure monitoring system should be operating correctly. In the event that she has any questions or issues, she is welcome to contact our Service Manager.
I reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find the resolution is satisfactory to me. I appreciate the attempts from Dave Gill to work with GM to make this right.
Regards,
[redacted]
We respectfully disagree with the claimant’s contention that her vehicle did not need a new wheel rim. To the contrary, the rim was bent and that is the reason that the tire was losing air when she came to our Dealership on January 17th. The attached photograph shows her bent wheel rim. This photograph was shared with the claimant when she was in our Dealership and she agreed to proceed with the repair. Furthermore, her tire is no longer losing air, as she reported normal tire pressures on February 2 and February 6th. We contend that this is because the bent rim was replaced and is no longer causing the tire to lose air. We regret that this situation is causing the claimant stress and that she no longer wishes to discuss it with us (as she hung up on our Service Manager yesterday); however, we do not feel that we owe her a refund for the rim we replaced, as the rim replacement has solved the problem of her tire losing air.
Hello, Im writing you to let you know that Im still having issues with Dave Gill. My air conditioner is still very loud and they claimed they've fixed it. What else can I do about this? My customer complaint number is: [redacted]. Please email me at [redacted] Thanks
Since receiving claimant’s complaint, Dave Gill Chevrolet has been working directly with her to resolve any remaining concerns she may have with her vehicle. We regret that the claimant has experienced various noise and driveability issues with her vehicle but we feel confident that we have...
resolved any remaining concerns at this time. We also regret that the claimant has spoken to so many people in our Service Department and felt that she was not given clear answers regarding what we diagnosed and repaired on her vehicle. In order to streamline communications and ease her concerns, our Service Manager Glenn Hise has been communicating personally and directly with the claimant since she filed her Revdex.com complaint.
The concern that prompted the claimant’s complaint was with the air conditioning. Since the complaint was filed, we have diagnosed and repaired that noise and returned the vehicle to the claimant. Mr. Hise followed up with her to ensure that she was no longer experiencing noises or driveability issues. She indicated that there was another noise she was hearing, so Mr. Hise arranged for her to drop her vehicle off at our Dealership this morning (June 9). Mr. Hise rode in the vehicle with the claimant so he could hear the same noise she was hearing. After re-checking her vehicle as well as comparing the noise to noises made by other stock vehicles on our lot, we have determined that the current noise the claimant is hearing is a normal noise of vehicle operation. Her vehicle is operating normally at this time. Mr. Hise has explained this information to the claimant, and she plans to come pick her vehicle up on Wednesday June 10.
We would like to note that all of the repairs performed on the claimant’s vehicle were performed at no charge to her. They were all covered either by her Certified Pre-Owned factory warranty or internally by Dave Gill Chevrolet. This is also true for replacement loaner vehicles the claimant drove each time we worked on her vehicle. Furthermore, because of the engine work that was performed on the claimant’s vehicle in April, Dave Gill Chevrolet worked to secure a goodwill warranty from General Motors that covers her engine component for an additional 2 years or 24,000 miles (until April 2017 or 103,282 miles). This coverage extends beyond the Powertrain Warranty that came with the purchase of her vehicle.
We regret the claimant’s frustrations with regards to our communication and her vehicle repairs. However, we feel that we have taken the necessary steps to resolve this complaint:
- A single point of contact (Service Manager Glenn H.) for voicing her remaining concerns
- Driving the vehicle with Mr. H. this morning to ensure we could address a remaining noise concern
- Confirmation that repairs have been completed properly and any remaining noises are part of normal vehicle operation
- All diagnoses and repairs performed at no charge to claimant
- Free loaner vehicle to drive at all times while we worked on her vehicle
- Procurement of additional engine warranty coverage
Since the consumer reopened this complaint 10 days ago, we have left her three voicemail messages in an attempt to determine a two things: First, is she experiencing different noises than when she last picked up her vehicle? When she picked it up, it was explained to her by our Service Manager Glenn H. that although she feels that the A/C noises she is hearing are loud, they are normal for her vehicle make, model, and year. Mr. H. demonstrated that on one of our stock units at the time and the claimant accepted this. Second, if she is experiencing different noises, we need to arrange a time for her to bring her vehicle in to meet with Mr. Hise so we can diagnose those noises.
Each of our three voicemail messages to the claimant have gone unreturned. Mr. H. needs to receive a call back from the consumer in order for us to proceed. Until we hear back from the consumer, we stand by our original response to this complaint and all of the different measures we took to resolve the consumer's concerns. We respectfully request that this complaint be closed once again.
We are so sorry about this mistake. In error, we submitted a vehicle loan inquiry that listed Mr. [redacted]' name and address on a joint application with his mother. We understand the level of concern and anxiety associated with an unexpected credit inquiry. Moreover, correcting...
errors on credit reports requires a great deal of time and trouble, and we deeply regret having subjected Mr. [redacted] to this. Accordingly, we have already taken steps to rectify the matter. On Tuesday, September 6, following Mr. [redacted]' visit to the dealership to notify us of the problem, we contacted the four lenders to whom the application was sent and formally requested assistance in removing the inquiry for Mr. [redacted]. Additionally, the dealership opened a case with [redacted] the same day through its business account and submitted an application to remove the inquiry. At this point, we know only that one lender inquiry has appeared on the [redacted] report to date, and that one of the lenders did not post an inquiry in response to the loan application. We agree with Mr. [redacted] that we should be the ones to fix the problem we created. The only caveat is that we may require Mr. [redacted]' assistance to fully execute the correction process with all affected bureaus. We anticipate asking for his assistance only as a last resort, knowing he has already been inconvenienced far too much. From the beginning of the process, all parties understood that Mr. [redacted] was helping his parents to purchase a vehicle and that he was not planning to participate as a signer or buyer. The dealership did not take a credit application from Mr. [redacted], did not ask for or acquire his social security number, and, as a result, did not directly submit his credit information for a credit bureau report. However, the dealership did enter information from his driver's license (name, address, and date of birth) in our customer relationship management software system in order to generate the test drive agreement necessary for him to drive a vehicle of interest on behalf of his parents. We believe it was that information which became confused with his father's credit information when both the sales consultant and sales manager were working in the [redacted]' family record at the same time in our system. The result was a rare instance in which the dealership correctly and accurately pulled credit bureaus for Mr. [redacted]' parents (but not him), while mistakenly transmitting a loan application with Mr. [redacted], not his father, as co-buyer. The description of how we believe the mishap occurred is offered for context, not as an excuse. We made the mistake. As we are professionals -- and this is our business -- we are, frankly, embarrassed by it. We wish we could say that we execute perfectly all the time, but we are humans working with each other and with technology -- so we definitely make mistakes. That is what this was; we had no intent to somehow commit Mr. [redacted] to a car loan he clearly did not want. We take this matter seriously, and we know we must work hard to make things right for Mr. [redacted]. Our objective is to remove the inquiry as soon as possible, and we will update Mr. [redacted] with our progress toward that end.
Thank you to the Revdex.com for the opportunity to respond to the case filed by [redacted] (Case ID [redacted]). On 8/1/16, Ms. [redacted] originally came to our Service Department with a concern of a water leak from the right front door area and dripping from the headliner. We diagnosed the leak and repaired the seal around the right side of the sunroof. Ms. [redacted] was charged a total of $171.56 for this repair. On 8/4/16, Ms. [redacted] returned to our Dealership because her airbag light was illuminated. We performed a diagnosis, at no additional charge to her, and determined that the water from the original leak had entered part of the harness to the air bag system. To completely diagnose the extent of the water intrusion, it would be necessary for us to remove the headliner. We explained to Ms. [redacted] that she would need to authorize 3.0 hours of labor time to remove the headliner and diagnose the extent of the water intrusion. We offered to perform this diagnosis at a discounted labor rate. Ms. [redacted] declined to have any further diagnosis or repairs performed. It is our contention that the water intruded the headliner during the initial water leak (water was leaking from the headliner when we first diagnosed the leak), and several days later made its way to the airbag harness system, causing the illumination of the airbag warning light. The initial repair paid for by Ms. [redacted] repaired the leak and prevented further water from entering her system, but did not necessarily solve problems that might arise due to water that had already infiltrated her system prior to the repair. At the time her vehicle was in for the initial repair, there was no airbag light and therefore it was not possible to determine the extent (if any) that water enters a system if there is no prior sign of a concern. If the airbag light had been illuminated at that time, we could have at that time advised the customer of the need to further diagnose the concern. The initial repair Ms. [redacted] paid for repaired the leak. It did not repair anything that might arise as a result of water that entered her systems prior to the leak being repaired. Therefore, we maintain that Ms. [redacted] is not owed free repairs from our Dealership. However, in the spirit of Revdex.com compromise and to help resolve Ms. [redacted] situation, we would like to offer to perform further diagnosis of her water damage at a discounted labor rate. The retail rate of the 3 hour diagnosis we is $358.88 plus tax. We already offered to perform the diagnosis for $330 plus tax, which did not satisfy her. In an effort to compromise and help her, we are willing further drop the price to perform the diagnosis to $225.00 plus tax. Once the headliner is dropped and the diagnosis is complete, any additional parts and labor needed to complete the repair will also be offered at a discounted rate set simply to cover Dealership costs.
Thank you to the RevDex.com for the opportunity to respond to the case filed by [redacted] (Case ID
[redacted]).
The vehicle referenced in the
claimant’s complaint was brought to our Service Department by Ms. [redacted] in
November 2014 for repairs. At that time,
Ms. [redacted] had...
many stated concerns with the vehicle. In addition to a General Motors recall that
needed to be performed, Ms. [redacted] also indicated that the car sometimes would
not start and that the check engine light was illuminated. After a complete diagnosis, our technicians
determined that the car needed a new battery, water pump, oil pan gasket, oil
pressure sensor, and front brakes. Ms.
[redacted] was given an estimate for $2,162.24 to complete all of the repairs, which
she approved. (See attached
documentation, showing Ms. [redacted]’s signature in two different places on the
Preliminary Estimate paperwork.)
When Ms. [redacted] brought the
vehicle to our Dealership, she told us it was her vehicle. She gave us her contact information. We communicated only with her regarding the
necessary repairs to the vehicle. The
license plate of the vehicle has a vanity plate with Ms. [redacted]’s name on
it. There is no reason for our
Dealership to believe that she was not authorized to approve repairs to the
vehicle. Our Dealership obtained proper
authorization for vehicle repairs.
After repairs to the vehicle
were complete, our Dealership made numerous contacts and attempts to contact
Ms. [redacted] to come pay for the repairs and retrieve her vehicle. At one point, we were asked to change the
name on the paperwork to “[redacted],” so that a claim could be made with the
VA to obtain payment. In August of 2015,
our Service Manager Glenn H[redacted] called the [redacted]s to discuss the status of the VA
case and while on the phone with Mr. [redacted], Ms. [redacted] could be heard in the
background yelling “Don’t talk to those people!” and then the phone was hung
up. We have other documented unanswered
phone calls and voicemails throughout the 15 months that the vehicle remained
at our Dealership awaiting payment and pickup.
The vehicle sat in our
Dealership’s secure lot for over 15 months.
Near the end of March 2016, the vehicle’s lien holder repossessed the vehicle
from our lot. In his complaint, Mr. [redacted]
states that “General Motors and Glenn” repossessed his vehicle. This is not true. Our Dealership did not order the repossession
and has no responsibility for the repossession of a vehicle by a lending
institution. The reasons for and the
timing of the repossession are solely between the [redacted]s and their lending
institution.
In summary, it is our Dealership’s
position that: 1) We obtained proper
authorization to complete repairs on the vehicle in question, 2) The [redacted]s must work through their concerns
regarding the vehicle’s repossession with their lending institution, and 3) As described above, our Dealership made
numerous efforts to work with the [redacted]s to bring resolution to this matter;
therefore, we respectfully disagree with any statements that indicate that we “didn’t
have the character to call and tell me what happened” and “took advantage of an
elderly man.”
Thank you to the Revdex.com for the opportunity to respond to the case filed by [redacted] (Case ID [redacted]). We have spoken to the claimant and installed the new rim on her vehicle since she filed this complaint and we believe the issue to be resolved. We explained to...
her that the reason her tire pressure monitoring system was showing an error was because she had a spare tire on her vehicle, not because there was no air in the tire and not because the system was broken or malfunctioning. We also showed the claimant a photograph of her bent rim so she could visually see why the tire wasn’t holding air and therefore we recommended a replacement rim. She stated in her complaint that the tow truck driver told her nothing was wrong with her tire, which is the truth. However, we didn’t find anything wrong with the tire and did not recommend a tire replacement; we recommended that the bent rim be replaced. On 1/24/18, We replaced the claimant’s rim, put her original tire back on her car, and recalibrated the tire pressure monitoring system so that all tire pressures are now reading correctly. All of this work was explained to the claimant, and she was satisfied. We also explained this situation to her son on the telephone, who was accepting of the explanation. The claimant’s new rim and tire pressure monitoring system should be operating correctly. In the event that she has any questions or issues, she is welcome to contact our Service Manager.
I reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find the resolution is satisfactory to me. I appreciate the attempts from Dave Gill to work with GM to make this right.
Regards,
[redacted]
We respectfully disagree with the claimant’s contention that her vehicle did not need a new wheel rim. To the contrary, the rim was bent and that is the reason that the tire was losing air when she came to our Dealership on January 17th. The attached photograph shows her bent wheel rim. This photograph was shared with the claimant when she was in our Dealership and she agreed to proceed with the repair. Furthermore, her tire is no longer losing air, as she reported normal tire pressures on February 2 and February 6th. We contend that this is because the bent rim was replaced and is no longer causing the tire to lose air. We regret that this situation is causing the claimant stress and that she no longer wishes to discuss it with us (as she hung up on our Service Manager yesterday); however, we do not feel that we owe her a refund for the rim we replaced, as the rim replacement has solved the problem of her tire losing air.
Hello, Im writing you to let you know that Im still having issues with Dave Gill. My air conditioner is still very loud and they claimed they've fixed it. What else can I do about this? My customer complaint number is: [redacted]. Please email me at [redacted] Thanks
Since receiving claimant’s complaint, Dave Gill Chevrolet has been working directly with her to resolve any remaining concerns she may have with her vehicle. We regret that the claimant has experienced various noise and driveability issues with her vehicle but we feel confident that we have...
resolved any remaining concerns at this time. We also regret that the claimant has spoken to so many people in our Service Department and felt that she was not given clear answers regarding what we diagnosed and repaired on her vehicle. In order to streamline communications and ease her concerns, our Service Manager Glenn Hise has been communicating personally and directly with the claimant since she filed her Revdex.com complaint.
The concern that prompted the claimant’s complaint was with the air conditioning. Since the complaint was filed, we have diagnosed and repaired that noise and returned the vehicle to the claimant. Mr. Hise followed up with her to ensure that she was no longer experiencing noises or driveability issues. She indicated that there was another noise she was hearing, so Mr. Hise arranged for her to drop her vehicle off at our Dealership this morning (June 9). Mr. Hise rode in the vehicle with the claimant so he could hear the same noise she was hearing. After re-checking her vehicle as well as comparing the noise to noises made by other stock vehicles on our lot, we have determined that the current noise the claimant is hearing is a normal noise of vehicle operation. Her vehicle is operating normally at this time. Mr. Hise has explained this information to the claimant, and she plans to come pick her vehicle up on Wednesday June 10.
We would like to note that all of the repairs performed on the claimant’s vehicle were performed at no charge to her. They were all covered either by her Certified Pre-Owned factory warranty or internally by Dave Gill Chevrolet. This is also true for replacement loaner vehicles the claimant drove each time we worked on her vehicle. Furthermore, because of the engine work that was performed on the claimant’s vehicle in April, Dave Gill Chevrolet worked to secure a goodwill warranty from General Motors that covers her engine component for an additional 2 years or 24,000 miles (until April 2017 or 103,282 miles). This coverage extends beyond the Powertrain Warranty that came with the purchase of her vehicle.
We regret the claimant’s frustrations with regards to our communication and her vehicle repairs. However, we feel that we have taken the necessary steps to resolve this complaint:
- A single point of contact (Service Manager Glenn H.) for voicing her remaining concerns
- Driving the vehicle with Mr. H. this morning to ensure we could address a remaining noise concern
- Confirmation that repairs have been completed properly and any remaining noises are part of normal vehicle operation
- All diagnoses and repairs performed at no charge to claimant
- Free loaner vehicle to drive at all times while we worked on her vehicle
- Procurement of additional engine warranty coverage
Since the consumer reopened this complaint 10 days ago, we have left her three voicemail messages in an attempt to determine a two things: First, is she experiencing different noises than when she last picked up her vehicle? When she picked it up, it was explained to her by our Service Manager Glenn H. that although she feels that the A/C noises she is hearing are loud, they are normal for her vehicle make, model, and year. Mr. H. demonstrated that on one of our stock units at the time and the claimant accepted this. Second, if she is experiencing different noises, we need to arrange a time for her to bring her vehicle in to meet with Mr. Hise so we can diagnose those noises.
Each of our three voicemail messages to the claimant have gone unreturned. Mr. H. needs to receive a call back from the consumer in order for us to proceed. Until we hear back from the consumer, we stand by our original response to this complaint and all of the different measures we took to resolve the consumer's concerns. We respectfully request that this complaint be closed once again.
We are so sorry about this mistake. In error, we submitted a vehicle loan inquiry that listed Mr. [redacted]' name and address on a joint application with his mother. We understand the level of concern and anxiety associated with an unexpected credit inquiry. Moreover, correcting...
errors on credit reports requires a great deal of time and trouble, and we deeply regret having subjected Mr. [redacted] to this. Accordingly, we have already taken steps to rectify the matter. On Tuesday, September 6, following Mr. [redacted]' visit to the dealership to notify us of the problem, we contacted the four lenders to whom the application was sent and formally requested assistance in removing the inquiry for Mr. [redacted]. Additionally, the dealership opened a case with [redacted] the same day through its business account and submitted an application to remove the inquiry. At this point, we know only that one lender inquiry has appeared on the [redacted] report to date, and that one of the lenders did not post an inquiry in response to the loan application. We agree with Mr. [redacted] that we should be the ones to fix the problem we created. The only caveat is that we may require Mr. [redacted]' assistance to fully execute the correction process with all affected bureaus. We anticipate asking for his assistance only as a last resort, knowing he has already been inconvenienced far too much. From the beginning of the process, all parties understood that Mr. [redacted] was helping his parents to purchase a vehicle and that he was not planning to participate as a signer or buyer. The dealership did not take a credit application from Mr. [redacted], did not ask for or acquire his social security number, and, as a result, did not directly submit his credit information for a credit bureau report. However, the dealership did enter information from his driver's license (name, address, and date of birth) in our customer relationship management software system in order to generate the test drive agreement necessary for him to drive a vehicle of interest on behalf of his parents. We believe it was that information which became confused with his father's credit information when both the sales consultant and sales manager were working in the [redacted]' family record at the same time in our system. The result was a rare instance in which the dealership correctly and accurately pulled credit bureaus for Mr. [redacted]' parents (but not him), while mistakenly transmitting a loan application with Mr. [redacted], not his father, as co-buyer. The description of how we believe the mishap occurred is offered for context, not as an excuse. We made the mistake. As we are professionals -- and this is our business -- we are, frankly, embarrassed by it. We wish we could say that we execute perfectly all the time, but we are humans working with each other and with technology -- so we definitely make mistakes. That is what this was; we had no intent to somehow commit Mr. [redacted] to a car loan he clearly did not want. We take this matter seriously, and we know we must work hard to make things right for Mr. [redacted]. Our objective is to remove the inquiry as soon as possible, and we will update Mr. [redacted] with our progress toward that end.