Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/06/09) */
At the time that of their purchase on November 3, 2014 the names we have on file are [redacted] and [redacted]. I am assuming that they have married since then. Attached you will find the credit applications signed by both parties...
and dated the day of the transaction. In the clear disclosure on the applications it states that by signing the applications the applicant is authorizing the dealer to submit the applications to financial institutions on behalf of themselves. Also attached you will find an online article from MyFICO stating how inquiries affect FICO scores. In the article it states in paragraph 3: Hard inquiries are inquiries where a potential lender is reviewing your credit because you've applied for credit with them. These include credit checks when you've applied for an auto loan, mortgage or credit card. Each of these types of credit checks count as a single inquiry. One exception occurs when you are "rate shopping". That's a smart thing to do, and your FICO score considers all inquiries within a 45 day period for a mortgage, and auto loan or a student loan as a SINGLE INQUIRY. This same guideline also applies to a search for a rental property such as an apartment. These inquiries are usually recorded by the credit bureau as a type of real estate-related inquiry, so the FICO Score will treat them the same way. You can avoid lowering your FICO Score by doing your apartment hunting within a short period.
When the [redacted]'s applied for credit through us we submitted to several lenders shopping for the best rate of interest for the customer just as the article recommends. Our sales people are also aware of the fact that multiple inquiries from shopping for best rate count as one inquiry as long as the purchase is made within 45 days of the first inquiry. The [redacted]'s loan was contracted on the same day as the inquiries.
Now I do understand that their credit score may still have dropped some points after the purchase of the vehicle but it was not due to the inquiries it would be due to them taking on the additional debt of the vehicle loan and the fact that early in the loan the remaining balance is still very close to the high credit available on the account. Youngblood Auto did not do anything wrong or out of normal business practice when shopping for the loan for the [redacted]'s as they authorized us to do. Even if we wrote letters to the lenders requesting for the inquiries to be removed (which in 30 years in the business I have never been asked to do) the inquiries would still not be removed and the FICO Score would not be affected. Please refer to all attached documents for verification of the facts stated above.
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 9, 2016/07/20) */
Back on February XX XXXX Ms. [redacted] purchased a 2008 Mitsubishi Eclipse with 114,996 miles on it. At the time of her purchase she had concerns about the air being charged and a cosmetic repair to the dash of the vehicle as you can see on...
the attached We-Owe document we promised to charge her Air and check her system in addition to the dash repair. With-in a couple weeks of the purchase she brought the vehicle in and our technician performed these services. What Ms. [redacted] fails to state in her complaint is that she clearly understood that other than the repairs promised on the We-Owe this vehicle was purchased AS-IS with no warranties of any kind expressed or implied. Attached you will see the document with her signature acknowledging this. After the A/C was charged by us 4 months later with numerous 90+ degree days documented over that period she reached out and said her Air was not performing well. Due to the vehicle being sold as is we informed her that we would look at it for no charge but if it needed any repairs she could be charged depending on what we found wrong and she chose to not even allow us to look at the car and chose to take the vehicle somewhere else and pay them $93.00. Whenever a customer buys a vehicle that is over 7 years old with 115K miles there is a risk of things breaking or not operating properly. Even when she had an issue 4 months later we offered to look at her car for no charge and quite frankly if all it needed was more freon we would have done that for her at no charge. Instead she chose to not trust us and pay someone else $93.00. For her to expect us to now pay any money on a vehicle that was clearly sold AS-IS over 4 months after the purchase we feel is out of line. Please see all attached documents clearly signed by Ms. [redacted].
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (2000, 11, 2016/07/21) */
(The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)
Clearly, [redacted] feels no remorse in the sale. The AC was not performing to standard. What I fail to understand is that if the AC was checked and serviced, why within four months would the Freon be low in the car? If the AC was serviced and found to have no leaks, then the AC should still be charged in June/July. Maybe charging the Freon in March wasn't such a good idea. It doesn't matter at this point. I do realize this was an AS-IS sale. I do not fail to see that as implied in the response. That is not the point to this complaint. I stand by my original complaint. Clearly, [redacted] will not stand by the cars that they sell. I'm finished with this complaint and I did receive the reply I expected from the dealership.
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/04/22) */
From reading this complaint it sounds like Mr. [redacted] had three issues with this transaction. 1)He did not like the fact that the co-signer on his loan or security agreement with the lender was also listed on the title. 2)The inspection...
sticker sent to him with his title work was expired. and 3)He felt his vehicle could have been detailed better. As far as the title is concerned we are required to have whomever is on the loan contract on the title by the lending institution for obvious reasons. Anytime there are two signers on a loan agreement they are definitely both equally responsible for the debt again for obvious reasons. There is nothing that we can do as a dealer to change this. These are normal requirements from lending institutions. As far as the inspection sticker being expired and the detailing of the vehicle being subpar for this I sincerely apologize. As far as the customers request I find it to be extremely unreasonable especially taking into consideration that they only paid [redacted] for the car and I really don't understand what stress was caused other than maybe having to make one additional trip to the DMV due to the inspection sticker. I am willing to offer this customer a complete and full detail on his vehicle at no charge for his inconvenience.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2015/04/23) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
The fact about the co-signor being on the title. It does not bother me in regards it being business policy. However, what bothers me about this is that the finance officer when asked about this directly lied to us, telling us it was not the case and anyone could be listed on the title (meaning our co-signor would not be there).
I do accept an apology about the inspection slip. This caused a 3 hours of missed work, due to [redacted] taking that long to reinspect it.
Stress was caused in a variety of ways. When receiving the title I spoke with the finance officer, who changed his story to suit the situation at the time. His lying came after I refused to accept additional warranties. Buying a car is stressful, yes. However, being lied to and having to repeatedly come back to the dealership causes extra stress. Along with being sent emails (to my personal email address) referencing the co-signor instead of myself. Extreme insult! Many other things attribute to stress, especially when my wife already has a anxiety problem.
Detailing. Why would I want a free detailing? If the detailers did not detail it correctly the first time when the car was being sold, what would it look like after the car has been sold? It seems it would result in the same kind of detailing.
I understand the argument of the asking settlement to be steep; however, I feel like I am entitled to a financial settlement of some kind. The reason for this is because if the finance officer would have told us the truth in the beginning we might have not wasted. numerous hours, and [redacted] on a vehicle from [redacted]. I would accept [redacted] to cover the taxes and titling, and missed work due to bad business practices.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2015/05/01) */
We very successfully detail cars at our dealership both for internal and outside customers daily without complaints. If this particular car slipped through the cracks and was not cleaned prior to delivery to their satisfaction we would be glad to detail his vehicle again at no charge as offered in the last reply. We feel that any kind of a financial demand based on this customers minor inconveniences is simply not fair or reasonable.
Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 11, 2015/05/04) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I am sad that we could not work out a fair settlement for both parties where trust could be restored.
The detailing of the vehicle is a minor inconvenience; however, it was not just the vehicle I purchased that had an issue with detailing. The two of the three vehicles I test drove had the same detailing problems. With 66% of the vehicles I drove having a detailing problem, I would not say that the detailing of the cars are "very successful."
The detailing is not the only issue I had with the service of [redacted]. The major issue I have had was the failure to tell the truth during the financing portion of the sale. A point at which you, [redacted], has failed to respond to. If it was only a problem with the detailing this complaint through the Revdex.com would not have happened. This is the major point I would like addressed by [redacted].
I understand you offered a settlement for the detailing, the likes of which I cannot trust [redacted] to fully and completely (without bias) complete. I also understand [redacted] offered an apology for the inconvenience of an out-of-date inspection slip, which I accept that apology. The one thing that has never been mentioned is the neglect to disclose accurate, and honest, information during the financing portion of the sale. From this point I cannot trust [redacted] to fulfill any reasonable settlement.
The last thing I would ask [redacted] to do is to not contact myself or my co-signor of the vehicle again. I would appreciate no more phone calls or emails sent to either of us. Our loan has been paid in full, and I do not see a benefit of being contacted again. If you would please respond to this reply when that has been accomplished.
Thank you
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/06/09) */
At the time that of their purchase on November 3, 2014 the names we have on file are [redacted] and [redacted]. I am assuming that they have married since then. Attached you will find the credit applications signed by both parties...
and dated the day of the transaction. In the clear disclosure on the applications it states that by signing the applications the applicant is authorizing the dealer to submit the applications to financial institutions on behalf of themselves. Also attached you will find an online article from MyFICO stating how inquiries affect FICO scores. In the article it states in paragraph 3: Hard inquiries are inquiries where a potential lender is reviewing your credit because you've applied for credit with them. These include credit checks when you've applied for an auto loan, mortgage or credit card. Each of these types of credit checks count as a single inquiry. One exception occurs when you are "rate shopping". That's a smart thing to do, and your FICO score considers all inquiries within a 45 day period for a mortgage, and auto loan or a student loan as a SINGLE INQUIRY. This same guideline also applies to a search for a rental property such as an apartment. These inquiries are usually recorded by the credit bureau as a type of real estate-related inquiry, so the FICO Score will treat them the same way. You can avoid lowering your FICO Score by doing your apartment hunting within a short period.
When the [redacted]'s applied for credit through us we submitted to several lenders shopping for the best rate of interest for the customer just as the article recommends. Our sales people are also aware of the fact that multiple inquiries from shopping for best rate count as one inquiry as long as the purchase is made within 45 days of the first inquiry. The [redacted]'s loan was contracted on the same day as the inquiries.
Now I do understand that their credit score may still have dropped some points after the purchase of the vehicle but it was not due to the inquiries it would be due to them taking on the additional debt of the vehicle loan and the fact that early in the loan the remaining balance is still very close to the high credit available on the account. Youngblood Auto did not do anything wrong or out of normal business practice when shopping for the loan for the [redacted]'s as they authorized us to do. Even if we wrote letters to the lenders requesting for the inquiries to be removed (which in 30 years in the business I have never been asked to do) the inquiries would still not be removed and the FICO Score would not be affected. Please refer to all attached documents for verification of the facts stated above.
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 9, 2016/07/20) */
Back on February XX XXXX Ms. [redacted] purchased a 2008 Mitsubishi Eclipse with 114,996 miles on it. At the time of her purchase she had concerns about the air being charged and a cosmetic repair to the dash of the vehicle as you can see on...
the attached We-Owe document we promised to charge her Air and check her system in addition to the dash repair. With-in a couple weeks of the purchase she brought the vehicle in and our technician performed these services. What Ms. [redacted] fails to state in her complaint is that she clearly understood that other than the repairs promised on the We-Owe this vehicle was purchased AS-IS with no warranties of any kind expressed or implied. Attached you will see the document with her signature acknowledging this. After the A/C was charged by us 4 months later with numerous 90+ degree days documented over that period she reached out and said her Air was not performing well. Due to the vehicle being sold as is we informed her that we would look at it for no charge but if it needed any repairs she could be charged depending on what we found wrong and she chose to not even allow us to look at the car and chose to take the vehicle somewhere else and pay them $93.00. Whenever a customer buys a vehicle that is over 7 years old with 115K miles there is a risk of things breaking or not operating properly. Even when she had an issue 4 months later we offered to look at her car for no charge and quite frankly if all it needed was more freon we would have done that for her at no charge. Instead she chose to not trust us and pay someone else $93.00. For her to expect us to now pay any money on a vehicle that was clearly sold AS-IS over 4 months after the purchase we feel is out of line. Please see all attached documents clearly signed by Ms. [redacted].
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (2000, 11, 2016/07/21) */
(The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)
Clearly, [redacted] feels no remorse in the sale. The AC was not performing to standard. What I fail to understand is that if the AC was checked and serviced, why within four months would the Freon be low in the car? If the AC was serviced and found to have no leaks, then the AC should still be charged in June/July. Maybe charging the Freon in March wasn't such a good idea. It doesn't matter at this point. I do realize this was an AS-IS sale. I do not fail to see that as implied in the response. That is not the point to this complaint. I stand by my original complaint. Clearly, [redacted] will not stand by the cars that they sell. I'm finished with this complaint and I did receive the reply I expected from the dealership.
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/04/22) */
From reading this complaint it sounds like Mr. [redacted] had three issues with this transaction. 1)He did not like the fact that the co-signer on his loan or security agreement with the lender was also listed on the title. 2)The inspection...
sticker sent to him with his title work was expired. and 3)He felt his vehicle could have been detailed better. As far as the title is concerned we are required to have whomever is on the loan contract on the title by the lending institution for obvious reasons. Anytime there are two signers on a loan agreement they are definitely both equally responsible for the debt again for obvious reasons. There is nothing that we can do as a dealer to change this. These are normal requirements from lending institutions. As far as the inspection sticker being expired and the detailing of the vehicle being subpar for this I sincerely apologize. As far as the customers request I find it to be extremely unreasonable especially taking into consideration that they only paid [redacted] for the car and I really don't understand what stress was caused other than maybe having to make one additional trip to the DMV due to the inspection sticker. I am willing to offer this customer a complete and full detail on his vehicle at no charge for his inconvenience.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2015/04/23) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
The fact about the co-signor being on the title. It does not bother me in regards it being business policy. However, what bothers me about this is that the finance officer when asked about this directly lied to us, telling us it was not the case and anyone could be listed on the title (meaning our co-signor would not be there).
I do accept an apology about the inspection slip. This caused a 3 hours of missed work, due to [redacted] taking that long to reinspect it.
Stress was caused in a variety of ways. When receiving the title I spoke with the finance officer, who changed his story to suit the situation at the time. His lying came after I refused to accept additional warranties. Buying a car is stressful, yes. However, being lied to and having to repeatedly come back to the dealership causes extra stress. Along with being sent emails (to my personal email address) referencing the co-signor instead of myself. Extreme insult! Many other things attribute to stress, especially when my wife already has a anxiety problem.
Detailing. Why would I want a free detailing? If the detailers did not detail it correctly the first time when the car was being sold, what would it look like after the car has been sold? It seems it would result in the same kind of detailing.
I understand the argument of the asking settlement to be steep; however, I feel like I am entitled to a financial settlement of some kind. The reason for this is because if the finance officer would have told us the truth in the beginning we might have not wasted. numerous hours, and [redacted] on a vehicle from [redacted]. I would accept [redacted] to cover the taxes and titling, and missed work due to bad business practices.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2015/05/01) */
We very successfully detail cars at our dealership both for internal and outside customers daily without complaints. If this particular car slipped through the cracks and was not cleaned prior to delivery to their satisfaction we would be glad to detail his vehicle again at no charge as offered in the last reply. We feel that any kind of a financial demand based on this customers minor inconveniences is simply not fair or reasonable.
Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 11, 2015/05/04) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I am sad that we could not work out a fair settlement for both parties where trust could be restored.
The detailing of the vehicle is a minor inconvenience; however, it was not just the vehicle I purchased that had an issue with detailing. The two of the three vehicles I test drove had the same detailing problems. With 66% of the vehicles I drove having a detailing problem, I would not say that the detailing of the cars are "very successful."
The detailing is not the only issue I had with the service of [redacted]. The major issue I have had was the failure to tell the truth during the financing portion of the sale. A point at which you, [redacted], has failed to respond to. If it was only a problem with the detailing this complaint through the Revdex.com would not have happened. This is the major point I would like addressed by [redacted].
I understand you offered a settlement for the detailing, the likes of which I cannot trust [redacted] to fully and completely (without bias) complete. I also understand [redacted] offered an apology for the inconvenience of an out-of-date inspection slip, which I accept that apology. The one thing that has never been mentioned is the neglect to disclose accurate, and honest, information during the financing portion of the sale. From this point I cannot trust [redacted] to fulfill any reasonable settlement.
The last thing I would ask [redacted] to do is to not contact myself or my co-signor of the vehicle again. I would appreciate no more phone calls or emails sent to either of us. Our loan has been paid in full, and I do not see a benefit of being contacted again. If you would please respond to this reply when that has been accomplished.
Thank you