McLoughlin Chrysler Jeep Fiat

Dear Revdex.com,Please let this serve as the Dealership's Response to the Complaint filed with the Bureau by Ms [redacted] *** The Dealership would open by apologizing to Ms [redacted] for any miscommunication or inconvenience that may have occurred However, they do not feel as though they have acted inappropriately or improperly.The Dealership would like to open by addressing Ms***'s claim of discrimination The Dealership does not condone or accept discrimination towards any customer, prospective customer, employee, prospective or former employee, or any other individual for that matter To this end, the Dealership would adamantly deny that they have in any way discriminated against Ms***.At the root of Ms***'s problem is a national back order that is going on for a part that is required to complete the repair Ms [redacted] requires On May 14, when Ms [redacted] was initially told that the part would be there the next day that was because the Fiat Parts Tracking ETA was in fact the next day (ei the 15th) However, when the part did not arrive the system was checked and it had changed At that time the system had updated with the national back order Again, though the Dealership would apologize for any inconvenience this has caused the Dealership hopes that both the Bureau and Ms [redacted] can see that this is not their fault and in fact is entirely beyond their control In fact, the Dealership made two attempts to get Fiat to speed up the process; however, both of these attempts have been unsuccessful Please know that as soon as the part becomes available, the Dealership will gladly perform the repairs at no out of pocket expense to Ms [redacted] as the matter is covered under her warranty.Given the above, it is the Dealership's hope and desire that this matter be closed with a finding of no fault on either Party's behalf.Sincerely, [redacted] ***For the Dealership

Complaint: ***I am rejecting this response because:
The noise was not an indication that severe damage to the vehicle was occurring, therefore the need to tow was not consideredThe question from our son in law was if the noise was something we were aware of, as we were not, thought maybe it was something new, never thinking that it was because of error on behalf on the repair work just completed Just a side note, if the van would have required towing in the middle of the night, hundreds of miles from a nearby town in a snow storm on a Sunday night, incurring also lodging costs, the total costs for reimbursement would have been similar and if McLoughlin Chrylser say they would have reimbursed the costs then it is really no different. The fact that the work done by McLoghlin was not done without a quality control check not only put my family at serious safety risk but also caused the damage that resulted I an additional $plus dollars in repairs. The work was initially completed only because we in good faith trusted them when they said the work needed to be done if the vehicle was being driven to ***. The technician also advised Mr*** that all work was warrantied. The fact that the car was driveable to *** disputes the statement that it wouldn't have made it a short distance, this is an interesting comment since no one at McLoughlin has even talked with the driverEven though they put my family safety risk, I find it interesting they won't warranty their work. The fact that the work done by McLoughlin Chrylser was not done correctly caused the problem regardless of when the problem occurred.Sincerely,*** ***

Mrand Mrs*** both spoke with McLoughlin Auto Mall Client Relations Manager on 1/28/and 1/29/and confessed that the person driving the vehicle heard a noise while driving in the state of *** in the middle of the night and during a snow stormUpon hearing the noise, the driver
called Mrand Mrs*** and Mr*** told the driver to continue driving to ***, ***, a couple of hours and a couple of hundred miles away from where he originally discovered the problem with the vehicleContinuing to drive a vehicle that is not working properly will cause further damage to occur
The customer claims that the resulting damage to the vehicle was the fault of McLoughlin Chrysler JeepWe contest that if they had stopped driving (towed the vehicle, gotten a hotel maybe, waited out the snow storm) and addressed the issue when they heard the suspicious noise, catastrophic damage would have been preventedHad the driver of the vehicle inspect the noise, or have it inspected, he may have discovered loose or missing boltsAt that point, a simple fix of putting in any bolts that might have been missing or tighten any that may have come loose would have occurredSince the customer did not do their due diligence in investigating the safety of their vehicle when they had reason to believe something might be wrong, McLoughlin cannot take responsibility for damage caused by negligence of the vehicle operator
After multiple attempts to explain to Mrand Mrs*** their obligation to operate their vehicle only when in good working order, they both said it does not matter that more damage was caused by continuing to driveThe customer insists the damage all stemmed from a mistake they claim we made and therefore we should have to pay for all the damage that would have been prevented had they stopped driving upon discovery of the problem
McLoughlin Jeep Chrysler Service Manager B*** spoke to Mr*** and he admitted to that his step-son called him when it started to make a noise and he advised his step-son to continue to drive to *** which was a few hours away. It is B***’s professional assessment that there is no way that the car would have ever left the McLoughlin service lot with three bolts missing and the other finger tight, which is the state the vehicle was in when it arrived at the service center in ***. The vehicle wouldn't have made it a dozen miles or so down the road from McLoughlin before causing a noise and disruption to the operation of the vehicleThe car certainly would not have made it the hundreds of miles it takes to get from ***, ** to *** where the noise was heard first by the driver. The dealership in *** sent B*** pictures, and the car would not have made it beyond the test drive from the McLoughlin tech if the bolts were in the condition in which the photos demonstrate. B*** explained to Mr*** that if he had chosen to have the vehicle towed when it first started making noise, that none of the resulting damage would have been done. It was the vehicle operator’s negligence that caused the damage to Mr*** car

The company has contacted me and mailed me a check. This matter has been resolved. Thank you.

Dear Revdex.com,Please let this serve as the Dealership's Response to the Complaint filed with the Bureau by Ms. [redacted].  The Dealership would open by apologizing to Ms. [redacted] for any miscommunication or inconvenience that may have occurred.  However, they do not feel as though they have acted...

inappropriately or improperly.The Dealership would like to open by addressing Ms. [redacted]'s claim of discrimination.  The Dealership does not condone or accept discrimination towards any customer, prospective customer, employee, prospective or former employee, or any other individual for that matter.  To this end, the Dealership would adamantly deny that they have in any way discriminated against Ms. [redacted].At the root of Ms. [redacted]'s problem is a national back order that is going on for a part that is required to complete the repair Ms. [redacted] requires.  On May 14, when Ms. [redacted] was initially told that the part would be there the next day that was because the Fiat Parts Tracking ETA was in fact the next day (ei the 15th).  However, when the part did not arrive the system was checked and it had changed.  At that time the system had updated with the national back order.  Again, though the Dealership would apologize for any inconvenience this has caused the Dealership hopes that both the Bureau and Ms. [redacted] can see that this is not their fault and in fact is entirely beyond their control.  In fact, the Dealership made two attempts to get Fiat to speed up the process; however, both of these attempts have been unsuccessful.  Please know that as soon as the part becomes available, the Dealership will gladly perform the repairs at no out of pocket expense to Ms. [redacted] as the matter is covered under her warranty.Given the above, it is the Dealership's hope and desire that this matter be closed with a finding of no fault on either Party's behalf.Sincerely,[redacted]For the Dealership

Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because:It's extremely vague, addresses zero of my points, and does not address the root of the issue or any specific facts brought up in the initial complaint, and instead attempts to deflect and make myself out to be the unreasonable party. Also let the timeliness of the response (over a month later) be evidence of how unimportant and unaccountable their employees “honest mistake” in their scheme to turn a profit.I'll again reiterate to point out the facts directly related to the incident that were entirely unaddressed in McLoughlin Chrysler Jeep’s response.I'm in agreement with the unrelated statement that an honest mistake would be to incorrectly publish a lower price on any merchandise, even though this one was published in two places, and I buy cars all the time for over 25yrs, and have never had dealers say we accidentally published a higher price, only lower price countless times. This however is not an issue of publication. I did not offer the "mistakenly" advertised price of $25,995 which I screen captured on two different websites. Instead I have long email chain open as my reference when I write the following.I offered lower, $24,800 and their employee (Gary O[redacted]) did what every car salesman does and discussed with his Director of Sales twice. This is all captured in the email chain - Once to say they do not accept my offer of 24800. To that I replied I'll increase my offer to a final $25,400. The 2nd time Gary replied was to say he again discussed with his Director of Sales and that we had a deal if I came down today, quoting the full retail price of $35,995  and "That's a Discount of over $10,000.00 !!"Within the above, which I have complete written email record of, it is abundantly clear that that Gary and his Director of Sales are fully aware of retail price, price I offered and they agreed, and the difference in value. I now ask the following questions, which need to answered. I and am fully prepared to show all the evidence I have which is undisputable record, since no one can hack google and edit email trails.Why not say no to my offers from the start when they clearly knew the difference in value?Why call me an hour later after I’ve sold my stocks and driven all the way from Hillsboro, OR and almost arrived in Salem, OR to tell me they’ve discovered their "error" in logic on the price?Why should I be the one to pay for their employee’s Gary’s & his Sales Director’s mistake? in that the value of my stock I sold would have increased since, the commissions and now taxes I will have to pay of a needless sale, and time and gas away from my job better spent with my family instead, while all they have to do is make a phone call at the very end of my drive over and say OOPS! Honest mistake! After all, I did not hire and employ either Gary or the Sales Director.Can anyone other than me see the illegality and lack of ethics in McLoughlin Chrysler Jeep’s practice with regards to this non-sale? Perhaps the DOJ might when all evidence and twice advertised price and agreed upon price are presented?What has McLoughlin Chrysler Jeep done to make this tremendous dishonest or “honest” mistake right at any point in this conflict? Zero in so many words, and even less in action.The next step if this is not resolved via the Revdex.com, and it’s most certainly going in that direction based on the last response is to bring it up with the DOJ and present all evidence.Sincerely,[redacted]

Dear [redacted],
 
Please let this letter serve as the Dealership's Response to the Complaint filed by Mr. [redacted].
 
At the root of Mr. [redacted]'s Complaint is his belief that the Dealership somehow maliciously and intentionally misquoted the price of a specific vehicle to him.  The...

Dealership is saddened by this.  Though the Dealership admits that they made a mistake by misquoting a price to Mr. [redacted], the Dealership vehemently denies that they did as much with any intent.  The Dealership made a mistake.  They are sorry for the mistake, have apologized many times for the mistake, and even tried to stop Mr. [redacted] from acting on such mistake by calling him immediately upon learning of the mistake.  Unfortunately, the Dealership's employees are human and so mistakes are inevitable.  As an honest and reputable business, all the Dealership can do upon learning of these employee mistakes is to correct them and apologize.  That is exactly what the Dealership did in this instance.  
Again, the Dealership is apologetic that they made a mistake, but does not feel as though they should be punished for an employee's honest mistake.  Given the above, it is the Dealership's belief that this mater should be closed with a finding of no fault on either Party's behalf.
Sincerely,
 
John M. H[redacted]
For the Dealership

Complaint: [redacted]Dealerships response regarding discrimination:"The Dealership would like to open by addressing Ms. [redacted]'s claim of discrimination.  The Dealership does not condone or accept discrimination towards any customer, prospective customer, employee, prospective or former employee, or any other individual for that matter.  To this end, the Dealership would adamantly deny that they have in any way discriminated against Ms. [redacted]."Though the corporate philosophy may not "condone or accept discrimination towards any customer" does not mean that it did not occur.  I was indeed mistreated and it is not their right nor the Revdex.com to state or infer otherwise as I was present in the situations that occurred.  The service advisor spoke to me in a condensing tone, did not believe my vehicle issues, and wasted my time by waiting when he clearly knew there would be a time consuming repair.Regarding the status of delay, it would have been most appropriate for the dealership to keep in contact instead of waiting for me to reach out for an update.  If it did not arrive, it would have been courtesy to reach out.  I have lost so much time and effort in troubleshooting these issues and the resolve has not been provided.My case stands for the discrimination as a female patron, disregard for urgency and unresolved technical issues with the vehicle.