Melloy Nissan

Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because:I brought my issue to the attention of the staffI suggested a potential fix to right the wrongs of their sale staffThey admitted fault via phone, informing me that it is not best practice to deceive customers, however it was a "sales tactic" that the do not like to utilize, for situations just as mine I would imagineMelloy Nissan stated that they would provide me with a day no payment, then changed it to a day no paymentI was accepting of the day no payment, however the way that they employed the day payment was days plus my banks day grace periodSo by the 45th day, plus days of transaction I was lateThis is unacceptable Regards, [redacted] [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, the consumer must give a reason why they are rejecting the responseIf the consumer does not provide a reason the complaint will be closed Answered]

We do apologize for any inconvenience you may have had during this processWe inspected the vehicle and found signs of obvious damage which are not covered under the Nissan WarrantyWe are not able to determine when or how the damage was caused but are able to determine it is not warrantableYour insurance company was involved and determined that the damaged to the vehicle was covered as outlined in your insurance planIn the event of a warrantable repair, all insurance companies would object to covering any repair that should be under the manufactures warrantyAs for the installation of the new part, as soon as you approved the ordering of the part, the technician was just trying to get you on the road quicker by installing the new part as soon as it arrivedAs disused with you previously, we would have been willing to swap the parts on the vehicle at no charge to youPlease feel free to contact me with any questions you may haveMike A [redacted]

Mr [redacted] was attempting to purchase a Nissan Titan XD diesel truck At the time Mr [redacted] was here we contracted him at terms and conditions that we anticipated being able to obtain from one of our lending sources At the time of delivery, Mr [redacted] signed a "Spot Delivery Agreement" acknowledging the fact that his loan was not approved, but as a courtesy to him we were delivering the vehicle Unfortunately, due to Mr***'s limited credit history and income we were unable to finalize the transaction on the original vehicle We were able to obtain an approval for Mr [redacted] through Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation on a less expensive Titan Pro4X truck Mr [redacted] accepted the offer of this vehicle and we contracted Mr [redacted] with NMAC for mosat 10.86% with a payment of $ Mr [redacted] took delivery of the vehicle His contract has been funded by NMAC and the vehicle is registered to Mr***.It is our understanding that Mr [redacted] is satisfied with his Titan and this matter is resolved

We are very sorry that this transaction has taken as long as it has Company Policy prevents us from paying off a customer's trade until all down payment funds have been collected from the customer In this case the warranty refund was delayed reaching Melloy Nissan As soon as it was received the process of paying off the trade was put in motion.MS [redacted] did make a payment on her trade before we traded it in Our check in the amount of $30,was sent to her lien holder yesterday, however we have verified that due to the payment her payoff is only 30, She will be receiving a refund of from her bank In addition, we have decreased the cost on the warranty on her current vehicle by MS [redacted] husband was in our store today and resigned at the lower contract amount and she is scheduled to be in this evening after work to complete this transaction.I trust that this will completely satisfy MS [redacted] and close out this matter.Yours truly,Mike L**

This customer visited the dealership on August 19th and expressed a desire to trade his Toyota Camry for a Nissan Titan We negotiated a transaction with the customer in good faith Even though the customer had substantial negative equity in the vehicle he traded we were able to obtain financing through a credit union at very attractive terms Our General Manager has spoken with the customer and explained that the vehicle has been financed and registered and as such, cannot simply be returned and resold as a new vehicle While we are sorry the customer is not happy with his purchase, he made the decision to purchase this vehicle and we should not have to incur a substantial loss as a result of him changing his mind after the fact

RevDex.com 7007 Jefferson St NE Ste A Albuquerque, NM 87109 ... RE: [redacted] 2014 Ford Mustang [redacted] Gentlemen: Mr. [redacted] purchased the above mentioned vehicle from Melloy Nissan as a pre-owned vehicle on November 24, 2017. At the time of sale the vehicle was still covered by the Ford Motor Company Limited Warranty. Shortly after the sale, Mr. [redacted] brought the vehicle back and complained of an oil leak. Since the vehicle was still covered by the factory warranty it was sent to Rich Ford for repairs. The vehicle was repaired under the factory warranty and returned to Mr. [redacted] . Mr. [redacted] subsequently attempted to trade the vehicle for a new Nissan Altima claiming that he was still having problems with the Ford. We presented numbers to Mr. [redacted] which he found to be unacceptable. His reasoning was the negative equity that he was carrying over to purchase the new vehicle. Mr. [redacted] carried a significant amount of negative equity from his original trade to the deal on the Ford. Yesterday, Mr. [redacted] returned to the dealership and demanded that we refund the entire amount financed. Our General Manager informed Mr. [redacted] that his remedy in this matter would be through Ford. Ford Motor Company has offered Mr. [redacted] $2000.00 in trade assistance (which he has declined) to trade into another Ford product. Our position is that if Mr. [redacted] is entitled to relief under the Lemon Law as he claims, that relief would be due from the manufacturer since the vehicle remains under their warranty and their representative has made all of the questioned repairs to the vehicle. We would still be happy to trade Mr. [redacted] under the terms that we presented with the addition that we would require a “release of all liability” for the used vehicle transaction before completing the new transaction.

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response. If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]
Revdex.com: I accept this, however I will let everyone I know and use all social media outlets to tell people to not do buissnes with this companyNo one should ever have to deal with this type of stressFrom the sales man to the managers, this is not how buying a car should be.
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me
Regards,
*** ***

Mr***’s issue is an issue with warranty service from Ford Motor Company. His claim should be addressed to them. As far as we are concerned this matter is closed and our offer to trade for Mr***’s vehicle is rescinded

Complaint: ***I am rejecting this response because:attempts at repair and/or cumulative days in service for same issue is considered as a justifiable "lemon" in the state of New Mexico for a used vehicleI have days or miles to begin a paper trail and can file a lawsuit months from time of first issueThe dealership which sold the car is the dealership held responsible regardless of manufacturer warrantyI have service visits and over days of attempted repair with this vehicle, all documented, AND presented to Melloy Nissan a numerous amount of timesFord offered me nothing except book value for the vehicle because it is not their responsibilityIf we take this to court it will be for a substantially larger amount than what I have requested for the time you will have wasted. Regards,*** ***

Revdex.com 7007 Jefferson St NE Ste A Albuquerque, NM   87109  ...

                                        ...⇄ RE:      [redacted]                                         ...⇄ 2014 Ford Mustang                                         ...⇄ [redacted]   Gentlemen:   Mr. [redacted] purchased the above mentioned vehicle from Melloy Nissan as a pre-owned vehicle on November 24, 2017.  At the time of sale the vehicle was still covered by the Ford Motor Company Limited Warranty.  Shortly after the sale, Mr. [redacted] brought the vehicle back and complained of an oil leak.  Since the vehicle was still covered by the factory warranty it was sent to Rich Ford for repairs.  The vehicle was repaired under the factory warranty and returned to Mr. [redacted].   Mr. [redacted] subsequently attempted to trade the vehicle for a new Nissan Altima claiming that he was still having problems with the Ford.  We presented numbers to Mr. [redacted] which he found to be unacceptable.  His reasoning was the negative equity that he was carrying over to purchase the new vehicle.  Mr. [redacted] carried a significant amount of negative equity from his original trade to the deal on the Ford.   Yesterday, Mr. [redacted] returned to the dealership and demanded that we refund the entire amount financed.  Our General Manager informed Mr. [redacted] that his remedy in this matter would be through Ford.  Ford Motor Company has offered Mr. [redacted] $2000.00 in trade assistance (which he has declined) to trade into another Ford product.   Our position is that if Mr. [redacted] is entitled to relief under the Lemon Law as he claims, that relief would be due from the manufacturer since the vehicle remains under their warranty and their representative has made all of the questioned repairs to the vehicle.  We would still be happy to trade Mr. [redacted] under the terms that we presented with the addition that we would require a “release of all liability” for the used vehicle transaction before completing the new transaction.

We do apologize for any inconvenience you may have had during this process. We inspected the vehicle and found signs of obvious damage which are not covered under the Nissan Warranty. We are not able to determine when or how the damage was caused but are able to determine it is not warrantable. Your insurance company was involved and determined that the damaged to the vehicle was covered as outlined in your insurance plan. In the event of a warrantable repair, all insurance companies would object to covering any repair that should be under the manufactures warranty. As for the installation of the new part, as soon as you approved the ordering of the part, the technician was just trying to get you on the road quicker by installing the new part as soon as it arrived. As disused with you previously, we would have been willing to swap the parts on the vehicle at no charge to you. Please feel free to contact me with any questions you may have. Mike A[redacted]

This customer visited the dealership on August 19th and expressed a desire to trade his 2014 Toyota Camry for a 2017 Nissan Titan.  We negotiated a transaction with the customer in good faith.  Even though the customer had substantial negative equity in the vehicle he traded we were able...

to obtain financing through a credit union at very attractive terms.   Our General Manager has spoken with the customer and explained that the vehicle has been financed and registered and as such, cannot simply be returned and resold as a new vehicle.  While we are sorry the customer is not happy with his purchase, he made the decision to purchase this vehicle and we should not have to incur a substantial loss as a result of him changing his mind after the fact.

I am rejecting this response because the response does not address all the issues. First, for the record, the vehicle in question is not a "truck," as noted in the dealer's response. That the tie rod end was damaged is apparent.  Whatever the origin of the damage, there is a significant outstanding question re when the damage occurred. Melloy Nissan personnel observed that there was rust on the bent portion of the part, and suggested that the part had therefore been damaged for an unknown length of time.  Other superficial damage on the undercarriage of the vehicle also appears to show rust; Melloy/Nissan have indicated the belief that this damage is related to the broken part and is evidence of impact.  A receipt for wheel alignment dated mid-December documents that the tie rod was bent at that time. Nissan/Melloy has not demonstrated that the part was inspected or otherwise known to be intact on the date of purchase (7/18/15).  It has provided two dates of inspection (1/24/15 and 2/4/15). [redacted] at Nissan Consumer Affairs (NCA) has indicated that the 2/4 inspection (which date was provided to me on more than one occasion by NCA) was conducted by "the factory," but he could not confirm the location of the vehicle on that date, or whether it had already been delivered to the dealer.  Melloy provided me with a different date of inspection:1/24/15.  Documentation provided to me on the date of purchase showed an inspection date of 1/27/15.  Nissan/Melloy could not provide any indication that the undercarriage (including tie rod) was inspected in detail on any of those dates.  I asked NCA to clarify the difference in the three dates, but the representative ([redacted]) was unable or unwilling to do so.  He did say that every part cannot be inspected and that "We (Nissan) cannot sell a damaged vehicle."  Regardless, even if there was a documented inspection of the undercarriage as late as 2/4/15, no evidence has been provided of any inspection between then and the date of purchase, at which time the odometer was documented at 17 miles. I am unaware of any impact that could cause bending/breakage of the tie rod since I have owned the vehicle.  It has only been out of my possession and driven by others under two circumstances.  The first was when I returned it to the Melloy Service Department for installation of a sunroof that was part of the purchase agreement.  The second was when I used valet parking service at [redacted] Hospital on several occasions last winter.  I am very familiar with the parking lot used by that service, and there are low speed bumps, but none high enough to have caused the scraping on the undercarriage that may be related to the tie rod damage.  Regarding the date of the damage, there is no clear indication of when it happened, except that it apparently happened prior to 12/13/16, when it was documented at the alignment shop.  There is a significant probability that it occurred prior to my purchase of the vehicle, or when it was returned to Melloy after purchase. Melloy/Nissan's handling of the vehicle and related issues has exacerbated the problem.  First, the dealer removed the part without my authorization.  When NCA suggested that I take the vehicle to another dealer for a second opinion, this action complicated matters.  For reasons explained elsewhere, I took the part rather than the vehicle to another dealer.  I was later told that the second dealer's apparent opinion that the repair could be covered by warranty was probably invalid because the dealer did not inspect the vehicle with the part attached.  NCA also later told me that I could request to have the broken part reattached, but this offer was only made after about a two-week delay in obtaining any substantive response from NCA.  It seemed impractical to request reassembly at that time, especially after discovering that the new part had also been installed without my consent.  There is also the possibility that the removal of the part may have changed its condition in some way. Nissan Consumer Affairs' handling of the issues was very unsatisfactory.  After saying that a second opinion might change the determination that the repair was not covered by warranty, NCA did not substantively respond to numerous communications, including calls and emails, for two weeks, during which I was paying for a rental vehicle. (Details are documented elsewhere.)  When I asked [redacted] at NCA why three different NCA personnel (including himself) had failed to respond in a timely manner, he invoked HIPAA  (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) privacy laws as the reason he could not provide an explanation. While I cannot hold Melloy Nissan completely responsible for the statements and actions of Nissan Consumer Affairs, part of the purchase price and agreement with Melloy Nissan was a warranty offered and documented by Nissan North America Inc.  That warranty included the Nissan Customer Care Program and related procedures, including the statement "Your complete satisfaction with your dealer and your vehicle are our primary concern."  I was familiar with the terms of the warranty before I made a purchase decision, and would not have made the purchase without such a warranty.  To date, in my estimation, Nissan has failed to honor the provisions of its Customer Care Program.  [redacted] at NCA told me that before I was Nissan's customer, the dealer was the customer, since the vehicle is sold to the dealer.  It was clear that Nissan Consumer Affairs' primary loyalty was to the dealer, and not the consumer. At this time, both Melloy Nissan and Nissan Consumer Affairs have declined to cover the repair necessary to return this car to service (although Melloy has repaired the car without required authorization).  In the interest of expediency, and to avoid further expense, I have filed an insurance claim as suggested by Melloy, and I understand that Melloy has been issued an insurance check, even though the repair is not fully completed.  I do not, however, accept the response offered by Melloy Nissan for the reasons stated. In order to accept resolution, I request reimbursement of the insurance claim, including deductible and rental fees.  (This will keep my insurance record clear, as I believe it should be.)

Mr. [redacted] was attempting to purchase a 2016 Nissan Titan XD diesel truck.  At the time Mr. [redacted] was here we contracted him at terms and conditions that we anticipated being able to obtain from one of our lending sources.  At the time of delivery, Mr. [redacted] signed a "Spot Delivery...

Agreement" acknowledging the fact that his loan was not approved, but as a courtesy to him we were delivering the vehicle.  Unfortunately, due to Mr. [redacted]'s limited credit history and income we were unable to finalize the transaction on the original vehicle.  We were able to obtain an approval for Mr. [redacted] through Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation on a less expensive 2017 Titan Pro4X truck.  Mr. [redacted] accepted the offer of this vehicle and we contracted Mr. [redacted] with NMAC for 72 mos. at 10.86% with a payment of $850.78.  Mr. [redacted] took delivery of the vehicle.  His contract has been funded by NMAC and the vehicle is registered to Mr. [redacted].It is our understanding that Mr. [redacted] is satisfied with his 2017 Titan and this matter is resolved.

We are very sorry that this transaction has taken as long as it has.  Company Policy prevents us from paying off a customer's trade until all down payment funds have been collected from the customer.  In this case the warranty refund was delayed reaching Melloy Nissan.  As soon as it...

was received the process of paying off the trade was put in motion.MS [redacted] did make a payment on her trade before we traded it in.  Our check in the amount of $30,575 was sent to her lien holder yesterday, however we have verified that due to the payment her payoff is only 30,171.44.  She will be receiving a refund of 403.56 from her bank.  In addition, we have decreased the cost on the warranty on her current vehicle by 500.00.  MS [redacted] husband was in our store today and resigned at the lower contract amount and she is scheduled to be in this evening after work to complete this transaction.I trust that this will completely satisfy MS [redacted] and close out this matter.Yours truly,Mike L**

It was determined by our dealership that the problem on Mr. [redacted]'s truck was caused by an impact and not a defect.  That diagnosis was confirmed by [redacted] in [redacted], **.  We provided this information to Nissan North America as well.  The New Vehicle Limited Warranty provided...

by Nissan covers defects in materials or workmanship of all parts or components of each new Nissan vehicle supplied by Nissan subject to subject to the exclusions listed under the heading "What Is Not Covered".  Under that heading it states:  This warranty does not cover damage, failures or corrosion resulting from or caused by:  Accident, collision, being towed.  Since this part was obviously damaged by impact it would not be covered by the factory warranty.We will be happy to work with Mr. [redacted] to repair his vehicle at our normal labor rates and parts charges.

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:I brought my issue to the attention of the staff. I suggested a potential fix to right the wrongs of their sale staff. They admitted fault via phone, informing me that it is not best practice to deceive customers, however it was a "sales tactic" that the do not like to utilize, for situations just as mine I would imagine. Melloy Nissan stated that they would provide me with a 60 day no payment, then changed it to a 45 day no payment. I was accepting of the 45 day no payment, however the way that they employed the 45 day payment was 30 days plus my banks 15 day grace period. So by the 45th day, plus 2 days of transaction I was late. This is unacceptable. 
Regards,
[redacted] [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, the consumer must give a reason why they are rejecting the response. If the consumer does not provide a reason the complaint will be closed Answered]

Mr. [redacted] purchased a 2015 Nissan Pathfinder from our dealership on May 2, 2016.  At the time he was presented his finance contract by our Finance & Insurance Manager it was disclosed to Mr. [redacted] that his first payment was scheduled for June 16, 2016.  At that time Mr [redacted] had the...

opportunity to request a different due date (based on certain lender limits).  He did not make a request at that time to adjust the payment date.  Once the contract has been presented to the lending institution we can no longer make adjustments.  Most financial institutions will make due date changes for their customers if they request it.  Had Mr. [redacted] contacted Nusenda Credit prior to June 16 they would have most likely adjusted his due date and charged him only for the additional days interest.