Oroville Toyota

In response to the customers complaint regarding a salesperson who made the suggestion concerning the value of his trade and optionsThis complaint and concern is unacceptable and we apologizes for any such comment that may have been made to the customerWe have reached out to the customer to discuss this complaint and is waiting for a return call

The company states that they are no longer in need for this consumers vehicleThe company goes on to say that they have already provided a picture of the specifications which was placed on the window of the vehicle which states that the vehicle is All Wheel Drive

The purchase price was agreed by both partiesAt anytime the customer could have said no to the SALE PRICE offered to herThe customer received her second copy of the purchase agreement when she came in with her banking agent seven days after the purchase dateThe banking institution the customer wish to use was not available in our finance system so her choice was to bring a check from her bank or use the financing that we offered at the time of the saleThere was never a second key promised to the customer at the time of or after the saleAgain, we are sorry for any confusion this may have caused the customer

The dealership states that the Toyota RAVwas originally represented as an "All Wheel Drive"Along with this response we are mailing a copy of the sticker that was placed in the window that will prove thisOnce Mr [redacted] provided us with the VIN# to the vehicle we determined it was a front wheel driveWith the correct information a revised offer on a front wheel drive RAVwas made by Oro Dam Auto CenterThe customer originally rejected the revised offerThis correspondence between both parties happened on June 22,

To begin with, the dealership would like to apologize for any inconvenience or confusion you may have experienced during your recent purchase of the Hyundai SonataBank financing was offered at the time of the purchase at agreed upon terms and selling priceThe unusual length of time to
complete the purchase was due to bank required documents needed to secure your loanThose required documents resulted in the sales transaction having to be complete on the following day once the documents were provided and obtained by youThe Ford Taurus that you tradwas in the service department at the Ford dealership at the time due to major mechanical issuesYou were given the option to trayour Taurus or keep it at the time of purchase and you decided to trade it inAlso, our policy is to provide every customer with a copy of all contracts signed by them at the time of signingAgain, we apologize for any inconvenience that may have been caused you during the purchase of your vehicle

We filed a complaint with the Revdex.com regarding this company and the purchase of our RavThe company responded with an outright lie, and the Revdex.com never contacted us to respond to the lie or attempted to resolve the matter, and closed the case saying consumer didn't respondHow can I respond, when I'm not notified in any wayWe will take the dealers alleged reduction of 16,for thepurchase of our carChances are, this won't be addresses by the Revdex.com or the dealership will say they can no longer honor itThe fact is they lied in their response, and the Revdex.com did nothing g but close the case

We extended an offer to purchase their Toyota RAVbased on the information provided on the window label which was placed on the vehicle at Sierra CollegeIt stated the vehicle was an all wheel driveLater after
receiving the VIN number and discovering it was actually a front wheel drive we reduced our offer by $which upset the customersWe regret any misinformation which was provided to us that changed our offer

The dealership states that the 2010 Toyota RAV4 was originally represented as an "All Wheel Drive". Along with this response we are mailing a copy of the sticker that was placed in the window that will prove this. Once Mr. [redacted] provided us with the VIN# to the vehicle we determined it was a front wheel drive. With the correct information a revised offer on a front wheel drive RAV4 was made by Oro Dam Auto Center. The customer originally rejected the revised offer. This correspondence between both parties happened on June 22, 2014.

The company states that they are no longer in need for this consumers vehicle. The company goes on to say that they have already provided a picture of the specifications which was placed on the window of the vehicle which states that the vehicle is All Wheel Drive.

In response to the customers complaint regarding a salesperson who made the suggestion concerning the value of his trade and options. This complaint and concern is unacceptable and we apologizes for any such comment that may have been made to the customer. We have reached out to the customer to...

discuss this complaint and is waiting for a return call.

To begin with, the dealership would like to apologize for any inconvenience or confusion you may have experienced during your recent purchase of the 2014 Hyundai Sonata. Bank financing was offered at the time of the purchase at agreed upon terms and selling price. The...

unusual length of time to complete the purchase was due to bank required documents needed to secure your loan. Those required documents resulted in the sales transaction having to be complete on the following day once the documents were provided and obtained by you. The 1993 Ford Taurus that you traded-in was in the service department at the Ford dealership at the time due to major mechanical issues. You were given the option to trade-in your Taurus or keep it at the time of purchase and you decided to trade it in. Also, our policy is to provide every customer with a copy of all contracts signed by them at the time of signing. Again, we apologize for any inconvenience that may have been caused you during the purchase of your vehicle.

The purchase price was agreed by both parties. At anytime the customer could have said no to the SALE PRICE offered to her. The customer received her second copy of the purchase agreement when she came in with her banking agent seven days after the purchase date. The banking institution the customer wish to use was not available in our finance system so her choice was to bring a check from her bank or use the financing that we offered at the time of the sale. There was never a second key promised to the customer at the time of or after the sale. Again, we are sorry for any confusion this may have caused the customer.

I am rejecting this response because:
 
Company was provided with the VIN prior to giving us an offer.  Furthermore, company visually inspected the vehicle inside and out prior to extending an offer and we verbally conveyed the specs of the vehicle to the salesman.  Several times after the offer was extended, my husband confirmed that salesman had checked the VIN, etc.  In writing, we have that the salesman ran the VIN and knew what they were getting.
 
However, the offer was $17,200.00, and based on the response of $400 less which would be $16,800 - we will take that offer to have the company purchase our 2010 Rav4.

In response to the customers complaint regarding a salesperson who made the suggestion concerning the value of his trade and options. This complaint and concern is unacceptable and we apologizes for any such comment...

that may have been made to the customer. We have reached out to the customer to discuss this complaint and is waiting for a return call.

Review: bait and switch? These prices were negotiated via email. I was quoted a price for a new vehicle and a price for my trade in and they did not honor the trade in price when I showed up at the dealership. They said they "mistakenly entered the vin number by 1 digit". This occurred after divulging many forms of personal information and signing credit and advertising documents. They also did not honor the military incentive that I felt I qualified for. Bottom line I would of never set foot on the premises unless I had an agreement on sale and trade in prices. Desired Settlement: I want the agreed on price for new vehicle and trade in.

Business

Response:

During the trade-in evaluation process we try diligently to provide accurate information 100% of the time. Unfortunately in this instance the VIN# was incorrectly input in the blue book system which in turn populated the model field with a higher trim level than the vehicle actually is. This caused the trade-in value to be based off a vehicle with a blue book value that was approximately $2000 higher than the correct VIN# later proved to be. We greatly apologize for any inconvenience and lack of trust this may have caused. It was an isolated incident and procedures have been put in place so as to not repeat this mistake. It was a lose-lose situation for both parties. As for the necessary personal information given as part of a vehicle purchase, the customer can rest assured that all information is private and kept in a locked file with minimal personnel access to it. In regards to the military rebate, the customers military status did not fall within the guidelines Toyota has in place in order to qualify for it. This information was given to the customer. Providing this incentive to anyone who qualifies would only aid us in selling a vehicle therefore it would make no sense for us to not honor it.

Review: I was at oroville Toyota around March 2015 and was attempting to purchase a 2015 [redacted] Silverado 1500. I was working with a salesman, whom I forget his name. He is an older gentleman, and always wears a marines corps lanyard or hat. The deal was not going well, the sales

Numbers wouldn't add up to an agreeable amount. After I was told I couldn't get enough money from the dealership for my trade-in vehicle. I was told by the salesman that I should just have someone steal my car and claim it. Asked if I had gap insurance. He said ," if you have gap insurance, you just could you know have someone steal it, and it would be paid off that way, and you could come back and get a truck." I was appalled at the fact that a representative of your company would so freely instruct a person to commit insurance fraud to buy a vehicle from your business.Desired Settlement: I was hesitant to file a claim, but I could not hold back any longer, as I went back to the business to look at vehicles and was treated poorly once more. I would like the owner to contact me, and explain why such practices are in place. I am ready to purchase a vehicle now, but I am doubtful it would be from this dealership as I cannot trust anyone who works in this facility, if this kind of behavior is tolerated.

Business

Response:

In response to the customers complaint regarding a salesperson who made the suggestion concerning the value of his trade and options. This complaint and concern is unacceptable and we apologizes for any such comment that may have been made to the customer. We have reached out to the customer to discuss this complaint and is waiting for a return call.

Review: We placed our 2010 Rav4 up for sale on Craigslist and put it at Sierra College Auto Sales. We received a telephone call from the dealership offering to purchase our car. [redacted] indicated that his boss had seen the vehicle, looked inside, and that they wanted to buy it from us. He asked us various questions about the car, i.e. year, mileage, lien info, how many owners, if it had been wrecked, mechanical info, drivetrain, transmission, if it were 4 or 6 cyl, etc. We answered each question. He also asked us to provide him with the VIN so that he could get all the specifics on the vehicle to make us a valid offer. We gave it to him. He sent us his offer. We double checked, triple checked. He indicated that it was a bona fide offer and that since they had already seen the vehicle it was not going to change. We accepted. Lo and behold a few hours before we were to take the vehicle in, he called and said that their offer needed to be lowered to well below their original offer because it was not 4WD. We never said it was, furthermore, he was told it was 2WD, he had the VIN, and his boss visually inspected the vehicle. Also, on the vehicle, we had the KBB listings and NADA listings which showed that it wasn't. The printout Sierra Auto College provided was a basic form which provides some information on the vehicle. It is not an exhaustive or specific form. They say it is and that it says 4 Wheel Drive. It does not. Nor did we put that it was. Furthermore, they had more than adequate information showing it was not. They made their offer higher than what they knew we had for the car knowing that we would go with their offer then retract it. We lost out on three sales, and they refuse to honor their contract with us.Desired Settlement: They would pay us in accordance to the contract we have. The offer of $17,200 based upon the VIN we gave them as well as their visual inspection. Our acceptance, and now they have a duty to perform accordingly. They are breaching their contract.

Business

Response:

We extended an offer to purchase their 2010 Toyota RAV4 based on the information provided on the window label which was placed on the vehicle at Sierra College. It stated the vehicle was an all wheel drive. Later after receiving the VIN number and discovering it was actually a front wheel drive we reduced our offer by $400 which upset the customers. We regret any misinformation which was provided to us that changed our offer.

Consumer

Response:

We filed a complaint with the Revdex.com regarding this company and the purchase of our Rav4. The company responded with an outright lie, and the Revdex.com never contacted us to respond to the lie or attempted to resolve the matter, and closed the case saying consumer didn't respond. How can I respond, when I'm not notified in any way. We will take the dealers alleged reduction of 16,800 for thepurchase of our car. Chances are, this won't be addresses by the Revdex.com or the dealership will say they can no longer honor it. The fact is they lied in their response, and the Revdex.com did nothing g but close the case.

Business

Response:

The dealership states that the 2010 Toyota RAV4 was originally represented as an "All Wheel Drive". Along with this response we are mailing a copy of the sticker that was placed in the window that will prove this. Once Mr. [redacted] provided us with the VIN# to the vehicle we determined it was a front wheel drive. With the correct information a revised offer on a front wheel drive RAV4 was made by Oro Dam Auto Center. The customer originally rejected the revised offer. This correspondence between both parties happened on June 22, 2014.

Consumer

Response:

I am rejecting this response because: