Maita Toyota

The original response stands.  Toyota has rejected the customer's request for goodwill assistance as the damage is from a source that cannot be controlled by Toyota.

Review: IN 10/2014 I PURCHASED A BRAND NEW TOYOTA CAMRY FROM ROSEVILLE TOYOTA. SINCE I LIVE CLOSER TO SACERAMENTO, I TAKE THE CAR TO THE SERVICE DEPARTMENT AT THE MAITA TOYOTA IN SACRAMENTO. ON 9/24 I HAD MY 15,000 MILE SERVICE. I WAS TOLD MY CAR HAD NO ISSUES UPON LEAVING. THAT NIGHT ON 9/24 MY TIRE PRESSURE LIGHT WENT OFF SAYING LOW PRESSURE IN MY TIRES. I FILLED THE TIRES UP AND THE LIGHT WENT OFF. ON 9/28 MY TIRE PRESSURE LIGHT WENT OFF AGAIN. I DID A MORE THOROUGH SEARCH AROUND MY TIRES AND FOUND A 1 INCH GASH IN MY FRONT LEFT TIRE. I CALLED MAITA TOYOTA EXPLAINING THAT MY CAR WAS FINE COMING IN BUT NOW HAS A DAMAGED TIRE COMING OUT. THE PERSON I SPOKE TO TOLD ME MY TIRE WAS NOT COVERED DUE TO OUTSIDE CIRCUMSTANCES DAMAGING THE TIRE. SO IN SHORT, AFTER PAYING 25,000 CASH FOR A CAR THAT ISNT EVEN A YEAR OLD, AND HAVING JUST PASSED 15,000 MILES ON IT, I TAKE MY CAR WHICH IS PERFECTLY FINE TO HAVE IT SERVICED. AND NOW I COME OUT OF THE SERVICE WITH A DAMAGED TIRE THAT NO ONE CAN EXPLAIN HOW IT BECAME DAMAGED, AND HAVE TO COME OUT OF POCKET $200.00 PLUS DOLLARS TO GET ONE TIRE FIXED THAT AGAIN DOESNT EVEN HAVE OVER 15,000 MILES ON IT. VERY FISHY AND SAD CUSTOMER SERVICE AND I WILL NEVER TAKE MY CAR TO ANY TOYOTA SERVICE DEPARTMENT AGAIN.Desired Settlement: I WANT THE COST OF MY REPLACEMENT TIRE COVERED. IM TAKING MY VEHICLE TO AMERICAS TIRE OFF OF ARDEN WAY IN SACRAMENTO 10/1/15 TO HAVE IT REPLACED AND THE COST IS $201.00 DOLLARS.

Business

Response:

I apologize for any inconvenience that Toyota's tire pressure monitoring system may have caused. The system picks up not only leaks (which we didn't find any signs of during the service), but temperature change differentials as well. The tires were removed and reinstalled during the service to accomplish the tire rotation and brake inspection and no damage was noted to any of the inside or outside sidewalls of the vehicle's four tires. Any damage that occurred to the tire after it left our shop isn't something that we can cover, but we can help the customer with the tire installation. The physical tire would be the responsibility of the customer and the service department would absorb the labor as a goodwill gesture due to the young age of the vehicle.

Consumer

Response:

I am rejecting this response because: if you really think an employee is going to report that they damaged a tire than you are naive in todays world. Im not saying it was done on purpose, or if it was even noticed, but hours after my service my tire is damaged to where it needs to be replaced. There is no nail, screw, debris, etc sticking in the tire. There are no scratches, dents, paint being chipped, etc anywhere on the car that would have come from me hitting something as your employee on the phone tried to imply. Thank you for confirming that I will or anyone I know to not give you business again.

Review: Horrible customer treatment by a General Sales Manager [redacted]

I just had a HORRIBLE experience with your Maita Toyota Dealer. While the salesman was trying to help, the issue is with the GSM [redacted]. He's not only a horrible a GSM, but also a horrible person. His listening skills are next to nothing and he will start attacking your intelligence by having complete disregard for anything you have to say. In conversation, he never once looked up from his paperwork to speak to us and treated me as if I didn't even exist. When I politely asked if he could look at me while speaking, he looked up, pointed, and firmly said, "YOU, look at me."

I walked out after. As the salesman was walking out with me, assessing the situation (and apologizing), [redacted] walked out, half heartedly apologized, then started pointing fingers and started the argument AGAIN. Some of his incredibly rude statements:

1. Put yourself in my shoes. Do you know how many people I have had to deal with today?

2. I don't have to sell you a car and I don't want to sell you the car.

3. I actually would be happier if you left, but I want this girl to be happy and leave with the car. You, might not be happy. But her, she will be. Is she worth it?

REALLY? That's your job, Mr. [redacted]. If you don't want to deal with people, I guess you can line up in the unemployment line. If you don't want to sell cars, I guess Toyota should rethink having you as a GENERAL SALES MANAGER because they need to sell cars, that's what they do!Desired Settlement: A public apology by the GSM in front of his Sales Office and Employees. May be recorded.

Business

Response:

Contact Name and Title: [redacted], GSM

Contact Phone: [redacted]

Contact Email: [redacted]

I am sorry that you not only feel this way but also feel the need to take it to this level. I have a completely different account of the events that occurred. As you know you were on our internet special advertised Prius that was dicounted over $4000. We had informed you over the phone 2-3 times prior to you coming in that we would not discount the advertised model, as it was our "Best Price" and also the lowest advertised price of its kind in the area. When you chose to come in after being told this numerous times and wanted to meet with the manager, I invited you in even though I was assisting other customers. I dropped what I was doing and asked you a few questions and intentley listenned to what you said. I reasserted our stance that we would not lower the price. You continued pressing of wanting to save more money, acknowledging that you knew we already had the best price around? I felt sorry for the young lady that you were assisting with her purchase and eventually relinquished a $150 more savings to you. At that point the decision was yours as to whether you wanted to accept the deal. I allowed you the time to make that decision and proceeded to finalize the paperwork for 2 other customers that were patiently waiting as I attempted to assist you. You than became very indignant and because you could not get what you want another $755 off the advertised price made some derrogatory comments and unexpectantly left the office. I finished up my paperwork and saw you were still outside. So I walked outside to apologize that we could not meet your demands and reiterated why. I was sad that you allowed your ego to get in the way of us not making a deal with your friend on the car she wanted and a price she felt was fine. The car is still available and I will continue to provide you the additional $150 savings. My goal is to earn every sale possible with competitive pricing and to achieve 100% satisfation of our all customers. I am sorry that I did not meet your expectations but continue to hope that we can put this event behind us and make your friend a happy Prius owner and Maita customer.

Review: I currently own a 2010 Toyota Prius Mark VI. On 4/26 I was driving the vehicle and a bottle of liquid that was being stored in the storage compartment of the car right behind one of the back seats spilled. The liquid flowed through a crack and into the hybrid battery system destroying both the hybrid battery and shorting out a couple of the circuits. According to Toyota these repairs aren't covered because there was an outside cause that caused the issue. I don't think that this was an abnormal usage (transporting liquids in the storage compartment of the car), and think this is more of a design defect that should be covered by Toyota.As it stands Meta Toyota is telling me the estimated repair is $5800.00 which is not covered under the warranty. I have filed an auto insurance claim and they are investigating if this will be covered (with a $1000 deductible). I think this should be covered by the warranty and the design should be adjusted to prevent this kind of thing from happening in future models of the Prius.Desired Settlement: I would like the repairs to be covered by the warranty and Toyota should fix the design defect.

Business

Response:

Unfortunately, the Prius was presented with spilled liquid in the cargo area. We contacted Toyota Motor Sales for assistance and had the assistnace denied due to the incident having been caused by an outside influence beyond Toyota's control. We contacted the customers' insurance company and the vehicle has been inspected and approved for repair by the insurance company and the customer.

Consumer

Response:

I am rejecting this response because:I think transporting liquid in a container in the designated storage area of the car is reasonable use, and I think it's unacceptable that a random spill from a liquid in the designated storage area can cause a catastrophic and potentially dangerous failure with the car. I think this is a design flaw with this model of the car and I think it should be covered under warranty. I also think a plan should be made for how to prevent this kind of failure in the future.

Business

Response:

The original response stands. Toyota has rejected the customer's request for goodwill assistance as the damage is from a source that cannot be controlled by Toyota.

Consumer

Response:

I am rejecting this response because:Toyota can control the source of the damage by shielding the components that were damaged from liquid and providing a way for the liquid to escape so it doesn't build up and overtake the electrical components. Spills are going to happen in the storage area of a car and steps need to be taken to prevent damage to the cars sensitive electronics.

Took my car in to have it checked out. Was told one price to fix it. When I made an appointment to have it fixed they changed the price on me by $600. I told them that was not the price they told me. It was changed back. Called customer service and was told I would get the original price. A third person called me back saying my car was ready for pick up and I owed them xyz amount. It was not the amount I was originally told. I've been talking to 4 different staff members each time assuring me the original amount and later on they try to bump it up again. This is not good business practice. Bought this car and was told about many features. After owning the car I'm sure it was all lies and false promises. I will not buy another car or have my car fixed at this location ever again. They are not trust worthy and have no business ethics.

Review: I bought my Toyota Camry LE car from Maita Toyota in Dec. 2008. They sold us it as a certified & unaccidental car. Now I am willing to buy another car. I went to another dealership. I selected a vehicle to buy & asked them to adjust the value of my present vehicle towards the new one.

The dealer pulled up the Carfax report and calculated the value of my present car much less than the Kelly Book Value saying us that my present car was involved in an accident back in 2006. I was never told for this accident. One of the salesman told us that this is a fraud certified. We talk to General Manager of Maita Toyota ([redacted]) about the incident and he told us on phone that most of the cars are involved in some kind of accidents and he told us to come to Maita Toyota and he will take care of us.Desired Settlement: We want Maita Toyota to take their car back and give us the same amount of money that we paid for buying.

Business

Response:

Initially I talked with the customer on the phone and told them I saw no reason we could not find a way to get them a good trade in value on their Camry. When they arrived they picked out a vehicle and we attempted to find a way to make the deal. I paid them considerably more for their trade-in than they received elsewhere but unfortunately the price they were offering for the replacement vehicle was to far below cost and we were unable to make a deal. I am still interested in their vehicle and see no loss in value for the minor accident that happenned 8 years ago to that car. We offer Carfax on all used cars at the time of purchase and this vehicle's accident did not cause frame damage and/or met with all Toyota certified specifications.

Consumer

Response:

According to sales manager most of the cars are involved in some kind of accidents. Maita Toyota must tell their customers about the vehicle history. I am an immigrant,I did not know about carfax in 2008. I bought the car in blind faith from Maita Toyota, but they took the benefit from it and cheated me by selling a accidental car about 22% below its MSRP.

Today I can not sell my car saying it has a clean carfax.

On 02/22/14 me and my wife went to Maita Toyota. I asked one of their employee why we were not told about the car accident. Same time he asked us quickly! Before you got married, did you tell each other about your past. Same thing with the cars.

Then we selected a certified vehicle and asked the salespersons what best he can do. He went to the sales manager and then they all start playing games saying

-we can sell it $100 above our cost.

-we can sell it $3000 below MSRP but without certified warranty.

-At last they were ready to it $3000 below MSRP with certified warranty.

I would be satisfied if Maita Toyota sells me a certified vehicle (with clean Carfax) 22% below MSRP as they did in 2008

OR

If Maita Toyota takes their already sold vehicle (Toyota Camry LE 2005) back & return the money it was sold for. It does not matter, 5 years are passed.

Review: My significant other and I decided to buy Toyota Tundra and was looking through many website and car dealer to find the best price. On the night of February 13, 2016, we went through [redacted] to shop for good deals. We found one at Maita Toyota in Sacramento. As advertise for the price of MSRP $25,865 for a brand new Toyota Tundra. Since it was late we waited until the next day to call the dealer. The next day we contacted the dealer , gave them the stock and vin# . They still have the truck but the price was $10,000 more. I mention about the ad I found online. The sales representative told me he will talk to his manger and call me back. 5hour pass no answer. So I decided to call back and got another person. Sale rep said "I will have my manager call u back. "The manager return my call and offer me there deal $750 off on any Toyota Tundra but he can give me $4,408 off.He stated that it might be an error but if we can show proof then it's a different story. I texted picture, vin# and stock number. He then reply it's $10,000 off and his offer stand. After exchanging a few text back and fourth he then stated"you want 6000 more off for free. Clearly the MSRP on a 3rd party site is not the same MSRP on the Site of the people actually selling the car, I know you smarter then that". I felt like he calling me a cheap scape and dumbass. I got offended. It was very unprofessional especially he's a sales manager. If he was nice about it I might of just let it go, but it was very demeaning and disrespectful. I also feel like this is a false advertisement to lure people in.Desired Settlement: I am a honest hard working person who was looking for a vehicle. I do not desire conflict. I work hard for my money and I was looking for a good deal. I felt very disrespected. I felt like I was lied too. I want the truck for the price that was listed.

Business

Response:

Response:Apologized to [redacted] for the miscommunication between her and the sales department. Offered her exclusive pricing on a 2016 Toyota Tundra. She accepted and will be picking up her new truck 2/23/16[redacted]

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to my concern, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.

Review: I went to the dealer for a maintenance service of my Toyota RAV4, year 2008, 60,000 miles and a safety recall. The car needed to be there half day, a shuttle drop me at home. [redacted] the service adviser that took the car at 7:45am called me at 11:11 am to let me know that the car needed front brakes. That it was 1mm left and needed replacement. The cost was $394.XX. It was a surprise due that at previous services I asked the adviser to check the brakes because sometimes it was a metal noise when I braked but they said always that it was no problem.Been at home I pulled invoices from previous services to check the stage of the brakes.I had as follows:1/17/2013 - Brakes:LF=5 mm RF=5 mm LR=7 mm RR=7 mm7/25/2013 - BrakesLF=6 mm RF=6 mm LR=7 mm RR=7 mm7/9/2014LF=7 mm RF=7 mm LR=7 mm RR=7 mmLike you can see. The front brakes were getting better with the time until today that was 1 mm.I took the invoices to Maita Toyota asked Mr [redacted] for an explanation. He took the papers to talk with the manager. He said that the measure were taking from different pads due that there are 4 front pads.The paper work showed that the CABINET AIR FILTER was not changed because the compartment was locked. [redacted] said that it was not charge but the invoice had the charge. The post explanation was that the filter was on the passenger seat for me to change. I went to a service not to buy parts and installed in my ownAfter these conversation Mr [redacted] accuse me of been unprofessional and he became very rude towards me.I gave the key to unlock the compartment to change the cabin air filter. Two minutes latter[redacted] gave me my keys and said that they change the cabinet air filter. So fast and not old filter was inside my car.I got a discount price on the brakes.I went to my car and there were not old parts. Dealers do not give th ereplaced parts to the owners? It use to be that the old parts were in the carDesired Settlement: I receive from the Police Department advice regarding car maintenance to include, brakes, tires, more often now that is the raining season, flood areasI pay dealer premium. There prices are higher but I was thinking that the car was well served. But in the end the dealer charges without providing the service. There are lairs, the take advantage of the ladies. Do they understand that my life is in the car?, that is not better insurance that keeping the car in perfect conditions.

Consumer

Response:

Resolution:Mr [redacted] said that the cabin air filter was changedThe invoice shows that it was not change. It was on the passenger seat.Nothing was on the passenger seat.If what not change refund the money.

Business

Response:

This isn't the way we do business. Communication is key and we broke down during this exchange. We will reach out to the customer this afternoon to bring the vehicle back in for inspection and remediation of the concerns.[redacted]Service Director

Consumer

Response:

I am rejecting this response because:They always "brake the communication" though screams and intimidation, or "non professional" as last SaturdayI got a message call from [redacted] at 5:21 pmI returned the message - as requested - at 6:02 pm after waiting I was disconnected.I call again and reached a massage "The service department is close our hours are 7:00 am to 7:00 pmThinking that 6:02pm was between the hours of operation I figure they were not interested in pickup the phone neither talking with me.Thank you[redacted]

Business

Response:

Company states: We inspected and removed the floor mats and placed them in the rear of the vehicle. We inspected the 60K service which was performed. All the fluids were good and the cabin air filter are both new. The rest of the servicing items were all checked.

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to my concern, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.

The dealer checked the 60,000 miles service. Does Maita Toyota knows that the service needs to be done as specified on the maintenance manual the 1st time? Thank you for your intervention and help in this matterSincerely,[redacted]

Review: 7/22/14I, [redacted], was given a credit check at Maita Toyota with sales person named [redacted]and 2 managers at 5:30pm with the promise to bring down payment of $5000 and promised to purchase a 2008 Scion XB vehicle and when I returned with a down payment they said they would clean up and gas up the car for my purchase and then they sold the car right under my nose after 5 hours of negotiating. This car was for a graduation gift to my son. They gave me a bad time. Managers called me three days in a row to purchase the car and when I arrived less than 24 hours I came back with the money and they sold the car. They told me it was just too bad and that things happen. I went to [redacted] to take out the $5000 loan with interest for no reason. I would like them to treat me with respect and dignity. I would like them to make this up to me by offering another vehicle of the same kind and equivalent to the deal I had. I am saddened and disturbed by their actions. I took a loan that I did not have to take out from the [redacted] because of this. Their persistence brought me back in and they dropped the ball when I returned. Even after filling out applications and obtaining a credit report. It was not professional and I don't enjoy playing games. Thank You,[redacted]Desired Settlement: I would like them to treat me with respect and dignity. I would like them to make this up to me by offering another vehicle of the same kind and equivalent to the deal I had.

Business

Response:

[redacted] came in and found a vehicle that he liked. We attempted to sell it to him that day but he said he wanted to got to his bank. We then told him we would deliver the vehicle to him that night and we would give him time on his money. He refused both attempts to take the delivery of the vehicle that day. We asked him if he wanted to put a deposit on the vehicle to hold it....he even refused that? The following day in the morning, another customer came in and purchased the vehicle. Unfortunatley this type of thing can happen and we regret that Mr.[redacted] passed up the opportunity to purchase the vehicle when he should have. I also know that Mr. [redacted] was frustrated as I attempted to calm him down the following day when he came in and realized he should have purchased it the day before. [redacted]

Review: I bought a new Toyota Corolla from Maita Toyota a little over a year ago and the front driver side tire formed a bulge with less than 25,000 miles on it. Under the Goodyear warranty it says that any tire manufacturer defect will be covered and to bring it back to the place of purchase. Maita Toyota informed me that the bulge was due to driving conditions such as possibly hitting a curb or pothole and that it would not be covered under warranty. I tried calling Goodyear, but their call center is only open Monday through Friday. I decided to drive to Sams Club off of El Camino and spoke with their tire technicians. The Sams Club technician told me that Maita should have honored the warranty because there was no damage to the sidewall and the tire was defective. If I had bought the tires from them, they would have honored the Goodyear warranty. The Sams Club technician also advised me that I was at risk of a tire blowout. After hearing his response, I immediately decided to purchase a tire from them because of safety concerns. I believe Maita should have honored the Goodyear's warranty and that I should not have had to purchase a tire that is clearly outlined in GoodYear's warranty contract.Desired Settlement: As a result of Maita Toyota not honoring Goodyear's warranty, I was forced to buy a new tire when the bulge was caused by a manufacturer defect, as stated by the Sams Club technician. Moreover, I could not reach Goodyear because their call center was closed and I was forced to buy a new tire for safety concerns. I have photo proof that the bulge in the tire was caused by any driver error in hitting a curb or pothole. I would like to be reimbursed for my tire purchase from Sams Club.

Business

Response:

Customer's concern is with Goodyear Tire Warranty. Recontacted customer to understand that Sam's Club employee stated that tire would have been replaced if purchased at Sam's Club (under road hazard warranty- not applicable to new vehicle tires.) Maita Toyota has similar road hazard warranty that applies to tires purchased from Maita Toyota (not applicable to new vehicle tires.) Customer has been contacted and Maita has apologized for the lack of communication.

Review: Purchased a certified used vehicle from maita toyota of sacramento on 7/25/13 a dodge grand caravan sxt. 1 week after purchase I took the car in due to complaints of the car having a vibranting sound when steering and pushing down on the brakes, and problems with the brakes squelling. I was told that they couldn't find anything wrong with the vibration sound and that the brakes were sounding like that due to new brakes and to give it some time. In august not sure of the date, they kept it for about a few hours gave me a rental due to my business and still said nothing was wrong. Then on October 18 I took the vehicle back again they advised me that my radiator and alternator had went out and was trying to have us pay for the repairs. I spoke with the service manager named [redacted] not sure of his last name has refused to give me his name, he was very disrespectful and downgrading. They waived the fee but the problems still remained with my car. My husband then today on 1/3/14 took the car to dodge and they called to advised me of the motor mounts being out. I then called maita to advised them that was problem all along and and that they have failed to do accurate repairs and letting things roll over to cause more problems I was then told there was nothing they can do and that it was a used vehicle. I feel like this vehicle is a lemon and not having it for less than 6 months has had too many problems. The customer service is not up to par and the service manager carlos needs to lose his job.Desired Settlement: DesiredSettlementID: Replacement

I have three children that has to be transported in this vehicle didn't feel safe or felt they were going to do a good job since they have failed to make complete and accurate repairs. I am waiting a new vehicle with less problems and will make a lemon law complaint.

Consumer

Response:

Today 1/07/14 I received the carfax from maita and was not told during the sale that this car had been a previous rental.

Consumer

Response:

Today 1/07/14 I received the carfax from maita and was not told during the sale that this car had been a previous rental.

Business

Response:

customer came in to inspect pulsation in steering wheel on july 31 2013, so we test drove vehicle felt no brake pulsation nor any steering wheel wobble, we inspected both front and rear brakes, new 10mm on brake pads, inspected steering rack no signs of concerns, the rods tight and no leakage. also provided customer with a free loaner car while her vehcile was inspected. customer came in on 10.14.13 to inspect when a/c is on vibration is heard though out inside of vehicle, inspected vehicle and found when a/c is on alternantor by clutch is noisy, replaced alternantor. retested ok. customer states transmission fluid leaking, inspected and found transmission not leaking but did find radiator leaking coolant, replaced radiator and top off coolant. test drove ok . customer states that hose under vehicle is secured with tape and not a clamp, the tape found under neath is for gleeve around hose no clamp necessary. free loaner was provided to customer while vehicle was repaired. there is a $100.00 deductible applies to each repair vist that customer was not charge for.

thank you [redacted]

Business

Response:

customer came in to inspect pulsation in steering wheel on july 31 2013, so we test drove vehicle felt no brake pulsation nor any steering wheel wobble, we inspected both front and rear brakes, new 10mm on brake pads, inspected steering rack no signs of concerns, the rods tight and no leakage. also provided customer with a free loaner car while her vehcile was inspected. customer came in on 10.14.13 to inspect when a/c is on vibration is heard though out inside of vehicle, inspected vehicle and found when a/c is on alternantor by clutch is noisy, replaced alternantor. retested ok. customer states transmission fluid leaking, inspected and found transmission not leaking but did find radiator leaking coolant, replaced radiator and top off coolant. test drove ok . customer states that hose under vehicle is secured with tape and not a clamp, the tape found under neath is for gleeve around hose no clamp necessary. free loaner was provided to customer while vehicle was repaired. there is a $100.00 deductible applies to each repair vist that customer was not charge for.

thank you [redacted]

Consumer

Response:

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because: the amount of times I've had to bring this vehicle in and it was suppose to been a certified used vehicle and still under dealership warranty . I feel that they did not inspect the vehicle properly when we purchased it.

Sincerely,

Consumer

Response:

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because: the amount of times I've had to bring this vehicle in and it was suppose to been a certified used vehicle and still under dealership warranty . I feel that they did not inspect the vehicle properly when we purchased it.

Sincerely,

Business

Response:

The [redacted] vehicle first arrived in our Used Car Reconditioning process on Jul 16, 2013. Our Used Car Reconditioning team performed the standard inspections and services to make ready the vehicle for sale and included a front brake replacement service with new front disc pads and machined front rotors as well as new fog light bulbs. The vehicle was quality control checked by our Used Car Reconditioning team leader and deemed ready for sale.

The vehicle was purchased on Jul 25, 2013 and then returned to our service department with a request to "check front and rear brake linings and measure rotors due to the customer feeling a pulsation in the steering wheel" and a handwritten note to check the steering rack. We supplied the customer with a loaner and performed the above inspections. We were unable to duplicate the customer's concern of pulsation nor find any fault with the steering rack during the inspection (the brakes were found to be new in the front with machined rotors and 8mm life remaining in the rear.)

The vehicle was then returned to us on Oct 14, 2013 with a vibration concern during use of AC, fluid leak from under the vehicle and a hose that appeared to be secured with tape. During this visit, we found an alternator that needed replacement, a radiator that needed replacement and a sleeve encompassing the hose in question that required no clamp. We sold the above mentioned items to the Vehicle Service Agreement and waived the $100.00 deductible owed by the customer as well as supplying the customer with a loaner vehicle.

It is our stance that the vehicle was thoroughly inspected and is road worthy and the customer has received value from the purchase of the vehicle and the Vehicle Service Agreement. There is nothing further for our company to respond.

Business

Response:

The [redacted] vehicle first arrived in our Used Car Reconditioning process on Jul 16, 2013. Our Used Car Reconditioning team performed the standard inspections and services to make ready the vehicle for sale and included a front brake replacement service with new front disc pads and machined front rotors as well as new fog light bulbs. The vehicle was quality control checked by our Used Car Reconditioning team leader and deemed ready for sale.

The vehicle was purchased on Jul 25, 2013 and then returned to our service department with a request to "check front and rear brake linings and measure rotors due to the customer feeling a pulsation in the steering wheel" and a handwritten note to check the steering rack. We supplied the customer with a loaner and performed the above inspections. We were unable to duplicate the customer's concern of pulsation nor find any fault with the steering rack during the inspection (the brakes were found to be new in the front with machined rotors and 8mm life remaining in the rear.)

The vehicle was then returned to us on Oct 14, 2013 with a vibration concern during use of AC, fluid leak from under the vehicle and a hose that appeared to be secured with tape. During this visit, we found an alternator that needed replacement, a radiator that needed replacement and a sleeve encompassing the hose in question that required no clamp. We sold the above mentioned items to the Vehicle Service Agreement and waived the $100.00 deductible owed by the customer as well as supplying the customer with a loaner vehicle.

It is our stance that the vehicle was thoroughly inspected and is road worthy and the customer has received value from the purchase of the vehicle and the Vehicle Service Agreement. There is nothing further for our company to respond.

Review: Oct 7, I went to Maita Toyota to perform maintenance on my Van, Maita crash my vehicle on the lot.Oct 10, I talk to a sales Rep. [redacted] and we tried to sell a car for me and trade in the Van for 5K, I did not agree and I asked to get my car fixed. Oct 24th I got a call from [redacted] (Maita auto group) and he ask if I wanted the money or get my car repair, I ask how much money and he did not have an amount ready. Oct 27 I called [redacted] and ask for 8K to 10K to replace my vehicle because I Maita has treated my case poorly and I don't want to deal with them anymore. Oct 28 [redacted] called me, being abusive and aggressive over the phone he told me to come over and get my car from the lot damage and pick up the check, I told him I was not going to pick up my car damage from the LOT and that they should send it to a 3rd party ([redacted]'s) to get it repair and call me when it was done. At this point it has been 21 days since the damage my car, I told them the third day that I wanted fix and after 15 day Maita asked me the same question. Now [redacted] was abusive and aggressive over the phone mistreating the customer.Desired Settlement: I need to replace my 2005 Toyota Sienna, to do that I need $10,000 to get a similar car.

Business

Response:

We have been in contact with Mr.and Mrs. [redacted] and, after discussions regarding insurance, liability and vehicle value, they have requested that we have their van repaired in our body shop. They further stated that this complaint would be rescinded by them.

Review: On Tuesday February 24th I stopped in to Maita Toyota to buy a battery hold down. My car was running perfectly and did not need any major repairs done. I had just had an oil change a couple of weeks before and the only issue was a check engine light that I was informed was electrical and was not related to the mechanical functioning of the car. I decided to have the battery hold down installed at Maita to ensure it was done correctly. Maita charged me 58 dollars to install the battery hold down and clean the battery of corrosive debris. When I tried to start my car immediately after the service at the Maita lot, it would not immediately turn over. I thought it had something to do with the battery having been disconnected so I didn't take it back in since it did start on the second try. The next few days my car would not turn over on the first try. It would take two or three turns of the ignition before it would start. I never ever had this problem prior to bringing it in to Maita. Finally on March 2, while trying to leave a Target parking lot, my car would not start at all. I had to tow my car back to Maita where a representative named Randy told me I had to tow my car somewhere else because they won't fix it for free. I explained the issue and requested that they fix the problem they caused. It wasn't until I spoke with a manager that they agreed to look at my car instead of turning me away with an inoperative vehicle. After running a diagnostic I was told the starter needs to be replaced for a cost of 400 dollars. I believe the mechanics damaged my car so that they can charge me more for repairs. I planned to take my car in for a full diagnostic to a trusted repair person but instead was forced to have Maita repair the car so I can at least drive it again. I think it would be fair for Maita to pay the cost to tow and for the starter since they caused the damage.Desired Settlement: $90 dollars tow service$400 replace starter

Business

Response:

Ms. [redacted] came in Feb 24 asking us to install a battery hold down and a positive battery cable end that she purchased over our front parts counter. We found that she needed a negative battery cable as well, but she declined the service. Her vehicle was towed in in early March and she refused to sign an estimate for inspection or for the negative battery cable end that we had previously recommended. She and the ASM were not able to come to a mutual decision regarding the vehicle inspection and my service manager got involved. He inspected the vehicle for no charge and reiterated that she needed a negative battery cable still and that the starter was drawing excessive amperage. We installed the cable at no charge and replaced the starter for a reduced rate. We've only seen the vehicle two times and we haven't been involved in the lack of care that it had seen for the previous 174,000 miles. I'm not inclined to offer any recompense as I don't see any part of our interaction that would warrant such.

Consumer

Response:

I am rejecting this response because:The manager did not have the car inspected for free. My car had recalls on it and they were able to charge Toyota for the inspection but it was not free. Also, the negative cable was not the reason it did not start. The starter was sabotaged by the mechanics when they installed the battery hold down during the first visit.

Review: Maita Toyota refuses to remove my name and my address from their junk mail mass mailing list and to stop sending me junk mail. I have requested over and over by postal mail, online, my email, and by phone that they cease and desist, but to no avail. This is the equivalent of spam. Desired Settlement: Remove my name and my address from their junk mail mass mailing list and stop sending me junk mail.

Business

Response:

Initial Business Response

We have completely removed Mr. [redacted]'s information from our mailing list as administered by Maita Toyota and our vendors. Mr. [redacted]'s information is also registered with Toyota Motor Sales and is out of our control with regards to any mailings that may be made by or on the behalf of Toyota Motor Sales. Mr. [redacted] can request the cessation of mailings from Toyota Motor Sales at 800.331.4331.

Final Consumer Response

(The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)