Montrose Ford Lincoln Mercury, Inc.

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:Revdex.com#[redacted]
This
“non-customer” (Grandfather) became involved in this situation first and
foremost to help reduce any additional stress or negative karma on his son,
grandson and daughter-in-law as they were preoccupied with her surgery on June
4th and recovery due to a cancerous double mastectomy. 
From the
very beginning we were very clear that the A/C unit functioned intermittently –
guess it worked during the inspection and drive as it did sometimes for my
grandson, but not always.
The
dealership was contacted concerning the issue before the end of June and an
appointment was not available until July 3rd.  That day debris
was found in the A\C condenser (guess an oversight during the pre-owned vehicle
inspection) for which he was charged $55 to clean out. The vehicle was then
driven around Montrose and the A/C stopped working again, so it was immediately
returned that same day, not several days later.  At staff’s recommendation
the vehicle was taken to a Grand Junction Hyundai dealer to check it out. They
found that sealant had been put in the unit (obviously to correct an ongoing
issue) and to repair it would cost $4,000.
There was
nothing contradicting about the cooler weather, as initially it did not require
the continuous use of the A/C and eventually my grandson discovered that the
unit worked irregularly – the climatological data for June 2015 also shows
minimums and averages, not just the maximums.
Staff then
confirmed that the sealant was the problem with the A/C unit and that they were
not interested in taking on the cost of repairing it and would have to locate
another vehicle of equal value to make an exchange.  My grandson then
found a 2011 Nissan Rogue on the dealership’s web site and after checking it
out with its salesman (Erik E[redacted]), they were all in agreement that it would
work for an even exchange.
When they
returned to complete the agreed-upon exchange, the manager and his staff
reneged and were determined to push the Rogue on them at a higher cost,
actually increasing the monthly payment from $154 to $254, as his original
trade-in and cash down payment were no longer part of the deal – so much for
keeping the agreement of an even exchange! After this incident my family
members preferred not to have any further conflict with the manager or his staff.
Reference
was mentioned about excellent customer service numerous times, but not once
during the time period from July 3rd to the purchase of the 2007
Murano on September 10th did anyone from the dealership contact my grandson
with any suggested exchanges.
The
Murano was located on the dealer’s web site by my grandson at a price of $11,000.
With another $1,000 down and trade-in of the Sonata, an exchange was made,
leaving him with a vehicle that was four years older with 20,000 additional
miles, travel and service expenses, a new $10,249 loan and the loss of his
trade-in valued at $1,300 and his $4,000 cash down payment.
I also
checked values after the purchase of the Murano just to compare my grandson’s
book value losses compared to retail prices and found the values as follows:
2011 Hyundai
Sonata with 76,993 miles had a Kelly Blue Book value of $10,522 and NADA of
$10,250 -- the dealer’s retail price was $14,500.
2007 Murano
with 96,630 miles had a Kelly Blue Book value of $7,979 and NADA of $8,600 --
the dealer’s retail price was $11,000.
It appears
that Montrose Ford-Nissan made some money on the Murano and in the end actually
came out on the sale of the defective Hyundai:  $9,295 + $1,300 vehicle
trade-in and cash down payment of $4,000 all added up to $14,595 on the
defective Sonata.
The
customers (my son, grandson and daughter-in-law) were all involved in the
complaint and had full knowledge of the actions and written documents. Yes, I
do believe that my grandson and his family were taken advantage of, and that
this injustice needs to be corrected.
Let’s also
be clear about our ending telephone conversation where the manager assured me
that the dealership was not obligated to do anything and that I was not to
write any more letters or communicate with them again – to which, I assured him
that he would be hearing from me -- nothing was ever mentioned about any
attorneys or I undoubtedly would have requested a name and phone number.
In Summary:
1.     My grandson purchased a 2011 Hyundai
Sonata with 76,993 miles from the dealership for $14,500, traded in his 1998
Toyota ($1,300 value), put a $4,000 cash down payment, took out a $10,188 loan
and left the dealership with a $154 monthly payment.
Mistakes made by grandson: 1) he didn’t thoroughly check
everything out – said he used the heater but not the A/C; 2) he assumed
everything was working as he was assured by the sales staff; and 3) he trusted
what he had been told.
   
2.     Grandson did not use the A/C on a
regular basis due to temperature variations and eventually discovered that the
unit worked sporadically blowing out hot air. Calls for an appointment were
made in June to have it checked out, earliest available time July 3rd. 
Vehicle was inspected by the service department and found to have debris in the
A/C condenser which they cleaned out ($55 charge) and was told that would solve
the problem. A/C again stopped working and the vehicle was returned that same
day to the dealership and staff recommended the vehicle be taken to a Hyundai
dealer to be checked, as they believed it was an electrical problem.
3.     Vehicle was checked at Grand West
Hyundai on July 15th and found to have sealant in the A/C (obviously
to correct an existing issue) with repair cost estimated at $4,000.
4.     The Hyundai was returned to the dealership
in Montrose and staff concurred that sealant was the issue and that they would
have to locate another vehicle to make an exchange as they were not willing to
incur the repair cost of the A/C.
5.     Grandson then found a 2011 Rogue
listed on the dealer’s web site, so he and his father returned to the
dealership to check it out and together with salesman E[redacted], they all
agreed that it would work for an even exchange.
6.     Again they returned to the dealership
to make the exchange. At that time, the manager and his staff reneged on the
deal of an even exchange and were determined to push the Rogue on them at a
higher cost, actually increasing the monthly payment from $154 to $254, since
the original down payment of $4,000 and the Toyota $1,300 trade-in were no
longer part of the deal, so any replacement vehicle would have to be at a value
less than the original sale.  My son and his wife have made it very clear
to me that they were extremely upset with the non-compliance of the agreed-upon
exchange, the reasons given for the loss of the trade-in and cash down payment
and in fact my son even had to leave the meeting room to avoid any further
conflict.
7.     My grandson then found a 2007 Nissan
Murano with 96,630 miles on the dealer’s web site for $11,000, so now with
another $1,000 down payment and a new loan of $10,249, he has a vehicle that is
four years older with an additional 20, 000 miles, additional travel expenses,
service cost and the loss of his $1,300 trade-in and his cash down payment of
$4,000.
8.     The manager claims a loss on the
Hyundai when it was sold at auction for $9,295, yet pocketed the trade-in and
down payment, all adding up to a $14,595 deal for the dealership and a $5,300
loss for my grandson - so tell me who the real bully is?  Yes, I
know, as the manager stated, “The dealership had absolutely no legal obligation
whatsoever to provide assistance to the customers.”
9.     Management and staff at Montrose
Ford-Nissan created this conflict by not staying true to their word and honoring
the agreed-upon exchange.
Regards,
** And [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 if he complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]