We are in receipt of your 12-8-correspondence, ref# [redacted] and appreciate the opportunity to offer our side of the storyWe sincerely regret that [redacted] was disappointed with the vehicle she purchased from us, however I can assure both you and [redacted] there was absolutely no intent on our part to misrepresent the condition of the vehicle in any wayI believe the crux of the matter is that Jamie views a " [redacted] " vehicle history report to be superior to an [redacted] " vehicle history report when the situation is just the oppositeIn our opinion, [redacted] has done a marvelous job in advertising and marketing their product, however many parties have determined that many [redacted] reports are not only grossly inaccurate, but in many cases, actually state that the vehicle has been involved in an accident when, in fact, it has notConversely, many aspects of auto industry, including many insurance companies, auto auctions, auto dealerships, and automobile manufacturers, etc, have come to rely on [redacted] because it has proven to be much more accurate and reliable [redacted] is also the recognized source of history reports for [redacted] certified used vehicle program*** will not accept a [redacted] historyNo need to take my word on the issue of [redacted] being unreliableAll one has to do is [redacted] something such as "is [redacted] being sued" and find several pages of consumer complaints and lawsuits against [redacted] The following is just one of many typical complaints: [redacted] from Orange, CA writes that a potential buyer ran a [redacted] report based on the VIN number on a car she is trying to sell"The report stated that my vehicle was involved In an accidentMy car has never been involved in any accidentI spoke to my insurance company and got a report from the DMV based on the VIN number and it showed a clean history." She says upon calling [redacted] she learned that "the company does not get the VIN report from the DMV, but rather from 'anonymous third parties." [redacted] concludes, "They are making me jump through hoops to clear my vehicle historyI believe that this is misrepresentation of innocent victims for money-" Because of so many negative reports about [redacted] , the popular TV show "20/20" had an investigative report on [redacted] on March that raised many questions about the accuracy of [redacted] vehicle history reportsKeep in mind it wasn't that many years ago that vehicle history reports were nonexistent and when we were initially in trying to determine which vehicle history report to use in our business, [redacted] we discovered the following explanation of the differences between the two companies: - [redacted] provides Accident Data in 5-Business Days; [redacted] takes days! [redacted] works with all states as far as the DOTs & local government offices; ***x does not even work with over states! [redacted] works exclusively with the nationwide auction houses and we provide their data on our reports; [redacted] *oes not and does not even have access to this information! [redacted] will only put information that can be verified; [redacted] will put information on assuming an incident occurred! (For example: if a car goes to a collision center, [redacted] will post this information so that it appears the vehicle was in an accident per their service history section of the report!) I would like to offer a real life example relative to the differences between [redacted] and [redacted] Last summer I attended an auto auction at [redacted] when a very nice looking Chrysler came to the blockI ran an [redacted] report on my data phone which showed that the vehicle had been involved in three separate accidents, one on 9-4-2010, another on 6-18-and another on 6-22-was no longer interested in buying it but I was curious as to what it would bring, so I watched it sellThe dealer who was selling the vehicle didn't offer any announcements relative to the vehicle sustaining previous damage and the vehicle sold under the green lightAfter it sold, I chatted with the buyer and made the comment that it was a nice car but that I didn't bid on it because the previous damageHis face turned white as a sheet and he said "what previous damage?" He then showed me the [redacted] report that he had ran on his data phone that indicated the vehicle was cleanThis wasn't the first time I had ran into that situation so when I returned home, I ran a both a [redacted] and an [redacted] *eport on the same vehicle on the same day to show customers who question why we use [redacted] instead of [redacted] , both vehicle history reports are attached for your reviewBy virtue of purchasing the vehicle from us, we consider [redacted] our customer, and as such, if she would contacted us before she traded the vehicle off, we would have been happy to offer her the above explanation and perhaps some advice before she traded the vehicleEven if the vehicle did have previous damage, it's hard to believe that a condition report would effect the trade in value to this great of a degreeit's rare to see a trade in value affected more than $1000-$for previous damageI've never seen such a vehicle's value to be affected anywhere close to $unless it had been totaled and the title had been designated "previous salvage"Obviously, that's not the case with this vehicleitems such as current mileage, overall vehicle condition, needed repairs and vehicle maintenance, though, will affect the travalue of the vehicleWe've been in business for a long time and fully understand that we cannot sell every customer every vehicle they purchase and have found that if we can assist them in any way we can, even if they intend to purchase their next vehicle from another dealer, that they will be inclined to return to us in the futureConversely, if a customer expresses intent to trade their vehicle to another dealer, and we give them a hard time, they will never return to us in the futureAccordingly, we would have been happy to work with [redacted] if she had expressed her concerns to usOne other small discrepancy in [redacted] complaint is that the purchase price for the vehicle was $24,plus tax and title fees, and not $25,The state gets the sales tax and it's not considered part of the purchase priceIt's no different than if you agree to buy a new color TV for a purchase price of $and are then forced to pay sales tax in addition to the $To sum up, we did not misrepresent the vehicle in any way and had absolutely no information that would have led us to believe the vehicle had previous damage
We are in receipt of your 12-8-2014 correspondence, ref# [redacted] and appreciate the opportunity to offer our side of the story. We sincerely regret that [redacted] was disappointed with the vehicle she purchased from us, however I can assure both you and [redacted] there was absolutely no intent on... our part to misrepresent the condition of the vehicle in any way. I believe the crux of the matter is that Jamie views a " [redacted] " vehicle history report to be superior to an [redacted] " vehicle history report when the situation is just the opposite. In our opinion, [redacted] has done a marvelous job in advertising and marketing their product, however many parties have determined that many [redacted] reports are not only grossly inaccurate, but in many cases, actually state that the vehicle has been involved in an accident when, in fact, it has not. Conversely, many aspects of auto industry, including many insurance companies, auto auctions, auto dealerships, and automobile manufacturers, etc, have come to rely on [redacted] because it has proven to be much more accurate and reliable [redacted] is also the recognized source of history reports for [redacted] certified used vehicle program. *** will not accept a [redacted] history. No need to take my word on the issue of [redacted] being unreliable. All one has to do is [redacted] something such as "is [redacted] being sued" and find several pages of consumer complaints and lawsuits against [redacted] The following is just one of many typical complaints: [redacted] from Orange, CA writes that a potential buyer ran a [redacted] report based on the VIN number on a car she is trying to sell. "The report stated that my vehicle was involved In an accident. My car has never been involved in any accident. I spoke to my insurance company and 1 got a report from the DMV based on the VIN number and it showed a clean history." She says upon calling [redacted] she learned that "the company does not get the VIN report from the DMV, but rather from 'anonymous third parties." [redacted] concludes, "They are making me jump through hoops to clear my vehicle history. I believe that this is misrepresentation of innocent victims for money-" Because of so many negative reports about [redacted] , the popular TV show "20/20" had an investigative report on [redacted] on March 17 2013 that raised many questions about the accuracy of [redacted] vehicle history reports. Keep in mind it wasn't that many years ago that vehicle history reports were nonexistent and when we were initially in trying to determine which vehicle history report to use in our business, [redacted] we discovered the following explanation of the differences between the two companies: - [redacted] provides Accident Data in 5-10 Business Days; [redacted] takes 180 days! [redacted] works with all 50 states as far as the DOTs & local government offices; ***x does not even work with over 20 states! [redacted] works exclusively with the nationwide auction houses and we provide their data on our reports; [redacted] *oes not and does not even have access to this information! [redacted] will only put information that can be verified; [redacted] will put information on assuming an incident occurred! (For example: if a car goes to a collision center, [redacted] will post this information so that it appears the vehicle was in an accident per their service history section of the report!) I would like to offer a real life example relative to the differences between [redacted] and [redacted] Last summer I attended an auto auction at [redacted] when a very nice looking 2010 Chrysler 300 came to the block. I ran an [redacted] report on my data phone which showed that the vehicle had been involved in three separate accidents, one on 9-4-2010, another on 6-18-2011 and another on 6-22-2013.1 was no longer interested in buying it but I was curious as to what it would bring, so I watched it sell. The dealer who was selling the vehicle didn't offer any announcements relative to the vehicle sustaining previous damage and the vehicle sold under the green light. After it sold, I chatted with the buyer and made the comment that it was a nice car but that I didn't bid on it because the previous damage. His face turned white as a sheet and he said "what previous damage?" He then showed me the [redacted] report that he had ran on his data phone that indicated the vehicle was clean. This wasn't the first time I had ran into that situation so when I returned home, I ran a both a [redacted] and an [redacted] *eport on the same vehicle on the same day to show customers who question why we use [redacted] instead of [redacted] , both vehicle history reports are attached for your review. By virtue of purchasing the vehicle from us, we consider [redacted] our customer, and as such, if she would contacted us before she traded the vehicle off, we would have been happy to offer her the above explanation and perhaps some advice before she traded the vehicle. Even if the vehicle did have previous damage, it's hard to believe that a condition report would effect the trade in value to this great of a degree. it's rare to see a trade in value affected more than $1000-$1500 for previous damage. I've never seen such a vehicle's value to be affected anywhere close to $7000.00 unless it had been totaled and the title had been designated "previous salvage". Obviously, that's not the case with this vehicle. items such as current mileage, overall vehicle condition, needed repairs and vehicle maintenance, though, will affect the trade-in value of the vehicle. We've been in business for a long time and fully understand that we cannot sell every customer every vehicle they purchase and have found that if we can assist them in any way we can, even if they intend to purchase their next vehicle from another dealer, that they will be inclined to return to us in the future. Conversely, if a customer expresses intent to trade their vehicle to another dealer, and we give them a hard time, they will never return to us in the future. Accordingly, we would have been happy to work with [redacted] if she had expressed her concerns to us. One other small discrepancy in [redacted] complaint is that the purchase price for the vehicle was $24,334.39 plus tax and title fees, and not $25,900. The state gets the sales tax and it's not considered part of the purchase price. It's no different than if you agree to buy a new color TV for a purchase price of $2000 and are then forced to pay sales tax in addition to the $2000.. To sum up, we did not misrepresent the vehicle in any way and had absolutely no information that would have led us to believe the vehicle had previous damage.
We are in receipt of your 12-8-2014 correspondence, ref# [redacted] and appreciate the opportunity to offer our side of the story. We sincerely regret that [redacted] was disappointed with the vehicle she purchased from us, however I can assure both you and [redacted] there was absolutely no intent on...
our part to misrepresent the condition of the vehicle in any way. I believe the crux of the matter is that Jamie views a "[redacted]" vehicle history report to be superior to an [redacted]" vehicle history report when the situation is just the opposite. In our opinion, [redacted] has done a marvelous job in advertising and marketing their product, however many parties have determined that many [redacted] reports are not only grossly inaccurate, but in many cases, actually state that the vehicle has been involved in an accident when, in fact, it has not. Conversely, many aspects of auto industry, including many insurance companies, auto auctions, auto dealerships, and automobile manufacturers, etc, have come to rely on [redacted] because it has proven to be much more accurate and reliable[redacted] is also the recognized source of history reports for [redacted] certified used vehicle program. [redacted] will not accept a [redacted] history. No need to take my word on the issue of [redacted] being unreliable. All one has to do is [redacted] something such as "is [redacted] being sued" and find several pages of consumer complaints and lawsuits against [redacted] The following is just one of many typical complaints: [redacted] from Orange, CA writes that a potential buyer ran a [redacted] report based on the VIN number on a car she is trying to sell. "The report stated that my vehicle was involved In an accident. My car has never been involved in any accident. I spoke to my insurance company and 1 got a report from the DMV based on the VIN number and it showed a clean history." She says upon calling [redacted] she learned that "the company does not get the VIN report from the DMV, but rather from 'anonymous third parties." [redacted] concludes, "They are making me jump through hoops to clear my vehicle history. I believe that this is misrepresentation of innocent victims for money-" Because of so many negative reports about [redacted], the popular TV show "20/20" had an investigative report on [redacted] on March 17 2013 that raised many questions about the accuracy of [redacted] vehicle history reports. Keep in mind it wasn't that many years ago that vehicle history reports were nonexistent and when we were initially in trying to determine which vehicle history report to use in our business, [redacted] we discovered the following explanation of the differences between the two companies: - [redacted] provides Accident Data in 5-10 Business Days; [redacted] takes 180 days! [redacted] works with all 50 states as far as the DOTs & local government offices; [redacted]x does not even work with over 20 states![redacted] works exclusively with the nationwide auction houses and we provide their data on our reports; [redacted]oes not and does not even have access to this information! [redacted] will only put information that can be verified; [redacted] will put information on assuming an incident occurred! (For example: if a car goes to a collision center, [redacted] will post this information so that it appears the vehicle was in an accident per their service history section of the report!) I would like to offer a real life example relative to the differences between [redacted] and [redacted] Last summer I attended an auto auction at [redacted] when a very nice looking 2010 Chrysler 300 came to the block. I ran an [redacted] report on my data phone which showed that the vehicle had been involved in three separate accidents, one on 9-4-2010, another on 6-18-2011 and another on 6-22-2013.1 was no longer interested in buying it but I was curious as to what it would bring, so I watched it sell. The dealer who was selling the vehicle didn't offer any announcements relative to the vehicle sustaining previous damage and the vehicle sold under the green light. After it sold, I chatted with the buyer and made the comment that it was a nice car but that I didn't bid on it because the previous damage. His face turned white as a sheet and he said "what previous damage?" He then showed me the [redacted] report that he had ran on his data phone that indicated the vehicle was clean. This wasn't the first time I had ran into that situation so when I returned home, I ran a both a [redacted] and an [redacted]eport on the same vehicle on the same day to show customers who question why we use [redacted] instead of [redacted], both vehicle history reports are attached for your review. By virtue of purchasing the vehicle from us, we consider[redacted] our customer, and as such, if she would contacted us before she traded the vehicle off, we would have been happy to offer her the above explanation and perhaps some advice before she traded the vehicle. Even if the vehicle did have previous damage, it's hard to believe that a condition report would effect the trade in value to this great of a degree. it's rare to see a trade in value affected more than $1000-$1500 for previous damage. I've never seen such a vehicle's value to be affected anywhere close to $7000.00 unless it had been totaled and the title had been designated "previous salvage". Obviously, that's not the case with this vehicle. items such as current mileage, overall vehicle condition, needed repairs and vehicle maintenance, though, will affect the trade-in value of the vehicle. We've been in business for a long time and fully understand that we cannot sell every customer every vehicle they purchase and have found that if we can assist them in any way we can, even if they intend to purchase their next vehicle from another dealer, that they will be inclined to return to us in the future. Conversely, if a customer expresses intent to trade their vehicle to another dealer, and we give them a hard time, they will never return to us in the future. Accordingly, we would have been happy to work with [redacted] if she had expressed her concerns to us. One other small discrepancy in [redacted] complaint is that the purchase price for the vehicle was $24,334.39 plus tax and title fees, and not $25,900. The state gets the sales tax and it's not considered part of the purchase price. It's no different than if you agree to buy a new color TV for a purchase price of $2000 and are then forced to pay sales tax in addition to the $2000.. To sum up, we did not misrepresent the vehicle in any way and had absolutely no information that would have led us to believe the vehicle had previous damage.
We are in receipt of your 12-8-2014 correspondence, ref# [redacted] and appreciate the opportunity to offer our side of the story. We sincerely regret that [redacted] was...
disappointed with the vehicle she purchased from us, however I can assure both you and [redacted] there was absolutely no intent on our part to misrepresent the condition of the vehicle in any way. I believe the crux of the matter is that Jamie views a "[redacted]" vehicle history report to be superior to an [redacted]" vehicle history report when the situation is just the opposite. In our opinion, [redacted] has done a marvelous job in advertising and marketing their product, however many parties have determined that many [redacted] reports are not only grossly inaccurate, but in many cases, actually state that the vehicle has been involved in an accident when, in fact, it has not. Conversely, many aspects of auto industry, including many insurance companies, auto auctions, auto dealerships, and automobile manufacturers, etc, have come to rely on [redacted] because it has proven to be much more accurate and reliable[redacted] is also the recognized source of history reports for [redacted] certified used vehicle program. [redacted] will not accept a [redacted] history. No need to take my word on the issue of [redacted] being unreliable. All one has to do is [redacted] something such as "is [redacted] being sued" and find several pages of consumer complaints and lawsuits against [redacted] The following is just one of many typical complaints:
[redacted] from Orange, CA writes that a potential buyer ran a [redacted] report based on the VIN number on a car she is trying to sell. "The report stated that my vehicle was involved In an accident. My car has never been involved in any accident. I spoke to my insurance company and 1 got a report from the DMV based on the VIN number and it showed a clean history." She says upon calling [redacted] she learned that "the company does not get the VIN report from the DMV, but rather from 'anonymous third parties." [redacted] concludes, "They are making me jump through hoops to clear my vehicle history. I believe that this is misrepresentation of innocent victims for money-"
Because of so many negative reports about [redacted], the popular TV show "20/20" had an investigative report on [redacted] on March 17 2013 that raised many questions about the accuracy of [redacted] vehicle history reports. Keep in mind it wasn't that many years ago that vehicle history reports were nonexistent and when we were initially in trying to determine which vehicle history report to use in our business, [redacted] we discovered the following explanation of the differences between the two companies: - [redacted] provides Accident Data in 5-10 Business Days; [redacted] takes 180 days!
[redacted] works with all 50 states as far as the DOTs & local government offices; [redacted]x does not even work with over 20 states!
[redacted] works exclusively with the nationwide auction houses and we provide their data on our reports; [redacted]oes not and does not even have access to this information!
[redacted] will only put information that can be verified; [redacted] will put information on assuming an incident occurred! (For example: if a car goes to a collision center, [redacted] will post this information so that it appears the vehicle was in an accident per their service history section of the report!) I would like to offer a real life example relative to the differences between [redacted] and [redacted] Last summer I attended an auto auction at [redacted] when a very nice looking 2010 Chrysler 300 came to the block. I ran an [redacted] report on my data phone which showed that the vehicle had been involved in three separate accidents, one on 9-4-2010, another on 6-18-2011 and another on 6-22-2013.1 was no longer interested in buying it but I was curious as to what it would bring, so I watched it sell. The dealer who was selling the vehicle didn't offer any announcements relative to the vehicle sustaining previous damage and the vehicle sold under the green light. After it sold, I chatted with the buyer and made the comment that it was a nice car but that I didn't bid on it because the previous damage. His face turned white as a sheet and he said "what previous damage?" He then showed me the [redacted] report that he had ran on his data phone that indicated the vehicle was clean. This wasn't the first time I had ran into that situation so when I returned home, I ran a both a [redacted] and an [redacted]eport on the same vehicle on the same day to show customers who question why we use [redacted] instead of [redacted], both vehicle history reports are attached for your review. By virtue of purchasing the vehicle from us, we consider[redacted] our customer, and as such, if she would contacted us before she traded the vehicle off, we would have been happy to offer her the above explanation and perhaps some advice before she traded the vehicle. Even if the vehicle did have previous damage, it's hard to believe that a condition report would effect the trade in value to this great of a degree. it's rare to see a trade in value affected more than $1000-$1500 for previous damage. I've never seen such a vehicle's value to be affected anywhere close to $7000.00 unless it had been totaled and the title had been designated "previous salvage". Obviously, that's not the case with this vehicle. items such as current mileage, overall vehicle condition, needed repairs and vehicle maintenance, though, will affect the trade-in value of the vehicle. We've been in business for a long time and fully understand that we cannot sell every customer every vehicle they purchase and have found that if we can assist them in any way we can, even if they intend to purchase their next vehicle from another dealer, that they will be inclined to return to us in the future. Conversely, if a customer expresses intent to trade their vehicle to another dealer, and we give them a hard time, they will never return to us in the future. Accordingly, we would have been happy to work with [redacted] if she had expressed her concerns to us. One other small discrepancy in [redacted] complaint is that the purchase price for the vehicle was $24,334.39 plus tax and title fees, and not $25,900. The state gets the sales tax and it's not considered part of the purchase price. It's no different than if you agree to buy a new color TV for a purchase price of $2000 and are then forced to pay sales tax in addition to the $2000.. To sum up, we did not misrepresent the vehicle in any way and had absolutely no information that would have led us to believe the vehicle had previous damage.
I am very sorry that [redacted]r is upset with the performance of her vehicle and with repairs we have made on the vehicle. There many components to a vehicles suspension that...
can cause noises, clunks and rattles, especially under certain road conditions. I have attached repair order [redacted] with descriptions of the recent work we have performed on [redacted] 2008 GMC Acadia yin [redacted] On June 20, 2016 repair order [redacted]— we replaced the vehicle's front struts and sway bar bushings. We also performed a 4 wheel alignment. The vehicle had 91,998 miles on it at that time. About 2 month later [redacted] called complaining of a clunking noise in her vehicle and felt that her vehicle was not repaired correctly. We invited her to come to our service department so we could drive her vehicle with her and verify her concerns. Our service manager, [redacted] rode/drove with [redacted] over 20 minutes and the vehicle performed property with no suspension noises. [redacted] made the comment that the noise occurred on gravel roads. They then drove the vehicle on a gravel road and [redacted] could hear slight suspension noise. [redacted] an appointment so we could get the vehicle on a lift to inspect the suspension and the work we had previously performed. On July 28, 2016 repair order [redacted] , the vehicle registered 95,418 miles, customer's concern was slight clunking noise on right side on gravel roads. Technician inspected the vehicle's undercarriage and suspension components. The vehicle's struts, front sway bar links, etc. that we had replaced were all in good working order and in proper working order, other suspension components were tight and in proper working order. He did notice that both rear stabilizer link bushings were worn and starting to split. [redacted], service manager explained to [redacted] that suspension components were all in proper working order and that struts and front stabilizer bushings that we replaced were in good condition. [redacted] did explain that the rear stabilizer link bushings were showing wear and beginning to split. [redacted] explained that this may or may not cause noise on gravel roads but that it is a suspension component that could be needing replaced. [redacted] told [redacted] that cost to replace these links would be $200.92 plus tax but that he could not guarantee this would correct the noise. [redacted] commented that she would take it somewhere else for repairs—reference comments on repair order [redacted] These links are on the rear suspension, and the struts and stabilizer links we replaced in June were on the front suspension. We would be happy to replace the rear stabilizer links for [redacted] at the price we quoted if she so desires. Please have her call our service department for an appointment to do this job. we would have to order the parts and they are not a normal part that we stock. We have been in business over 25 years in Dover and we stand behind the work we do. The struts were installed by a certified technician and they have been installed properly and are functioning properly, along with a four wheel alignment set to manufacturers specifications, a copy of which is also attached. [redacted] vehicle is now 8 years old and has over 95,000 miles on it. Normal wear and tear, age and use will effect this vehicle and unfortunately maintenance and repair costs on this vehicle now and in the future will be necessary to keep it operating properly.
Thank you for the opportunity to address [redacted] concern and this Revdex.com complaint. Please have [redacted] contact our service department if she would like us to perform the noted repair.
[redacted]
General Manager
We are in receipt of your 12-8-correspondence, ref# [redacted] and appreciate the opportunity to offer our side of the storyWe sincerely regret that [redacted] was disappointed with the vehicle she purchased from us, however I can assure both you and [redacted] there was absolutely no intent on our part to misrepresent the condition of the vehicle in any wayI believe the crux of the matter is that Jamie views a " [redacted] " vehicle history report to be superior to an [redacted] " vehicle history report when the situation is just the oppositeIn our opinion, [redacted] has done a marvelous job in advertising and marketing their product, however many parties have determined that many [redacted] reports are not only grossly inaccurate, but in many cases, actually state that the vehicle has been involved in an accident when, in fact, it has notConversely, many aspects of auto industry, including many insurance companies, auto auctions, auto dealerships, and automobile manufacturers, etc, have come to rely on [redacted] because it has proven to be much more accurate and reliable [redacted] is also the recognized source of history reports for [redacted] certified used vehicle program*** will not accept a [redacted] historyNo need to take my word on the issue of [redacted] being unreliableAll one has to do is [redacted] something such as "is [redacted] being sued" and find several pages of consumer complaints and lawsuits against [redacted] The following is just one of many typical complaints: [redacted] from Orange, CA writes that a potential buyer ran a [redacted] report based on the VIN number on a car she is trying to sell"The report stated that my vehicle was involved In an accidentMy car has never been involved in any accidentI spoke to my insurance company and got a report from the DMV based on the VIN number and it showed a clean history." She says upon calling [redacted] she learned that "the company does not get the VIN report from the DMV, but rather from 'anonymous third parties." [redacted] concludes, "They are making me jump through hoops to clear my vehicle historyI believe that this is misrepresentation of innocent victims for money-" Because of so many negative reports about [redacted] , the popular TV show "20/20" had an investigative report on [redacted] on March that raised many questions about the accuracy of [redacted] vehicle history reportsKeep in mind it wasn't that many years ago that vehicle history reports were nonexistent and when we were initially in trying to determine which vehicle history report to use in our business, [redacted] we discovered the following explanation of the differences between the two companies: - [redacted] provides Accident Data in 5-Business Days; [redacted] takes days! [redacted] works with all states as far as the DOTs & local government offices; ***x does not even work with over states! [redacted] works exclusively with the nationwide auction houses and we provide their data on our reports; [redacted] *oes not and does not even have access to this information! [redacted] will only put information that can be verified; [redacted] will put information on assuming an incident occurred! (For example: if a car goes to a collision center, [redacted] will post this information so that it appears the vehicle was in an accident per their service history section of the report!) I would like to offer a real life example relative to the differences between [redacted] and [redacted] Last summer I attended an auto auction at [redacted] when a very nice looking Chrysler came to the blockI ran an [redacted] report on my data phone which showed that the vehicle had been involved in three separate accidents, one on 9-4-2010, another on 6-18-and another on 6-22-was no longer interested in buying it but I was curious as to what it would bring, so I watched it sellThe dealer who was selling the vehicle didn't offer any announcements relative to the vehicle sustaining previous damage and the vehicle sold under the green lightAfter it sold, I chatted with the buyer and made the comment that it was a nice car but that I didn't bid on it because the previous damageHis face turned white as a sheet and he said "what previous damage?" He then showed me the [redacted] report that he had ran on his data phone that indicated the vehicle was cleanThis wasn't the first time I had ran into that situation so when I returned home, I ran a both a [redacted] and an [redacted] *eport on the same vehicle on the same day to show customers who question why we use [redacted] instead of [redacted] , both vehicle history reports are attached for your reviewBy virtue of purchasing the vehicle from us, we consider [redacted] our customer, and as such, if she would contacted us before she traded the vehicle off, we would have been happy to offer her the above explanation and perhaps some advice before she traded the vehicleEven if the vehicle did have previous damage, it's hard to believe that a condition report would effect the trade in value to this great of a degreeit's rare to see a trade in value affected more than $1000-$for previous damageI've never seen such a vehicle's value to be affected anywhere close to $unless it had been totaled and the title had been designated "previous salvage"Obviously, that's not the case with this vehicleitems such as current mileage, overall vehicle condition, needed repairs and vehicle maintenance, though, will affect the travalue of the vehicleWe've been in business for a long time and fully understand that we cannot sell every customer every vehicle they purchase and have found that if we can assist them in any way we can, even if they intend to purchase their next vehicle from another dealer, that they will be inclined to return to us in the futureConversely, if a customer expresses intent to trade their vehicle to another dealer, and we give them a hard time, they will never return to us in the futureAccordingly, we would have been happy to work with [redacted] if she had expressed her concerns to usOne other small discrepancy in [redacted] complaint is that the purchase price for the vehicle was $24,plus tax and title fees, and not $25,The state gets the sales tax and it's not considered part of the purchase priceIt's no different than if you agree to buy a new color TV for a purchase price of $and are then forced to pay sales tax in addition to the $To sum up, we did not misrepresent the vehicle in any way and had absolutely no information that would have led us to believe the vehicle had previous damage
We are in receipt of your 12-8-2014 correspondence, ref# [redacted] and appreciate the opportunity to offer our side of the story. We sincerely regret that [redacted] was disappointed with the vehicle she purchased from us, however I can assure both you and [redacted] there was absolutely no intent on... our part to misrepresent the condition of the vehicle in any way. I believe the crux of the matter is that Jamie views a " [redacted] " vehicle history report to be superior to an [redacted] " vehicle history report when the situation is just the opposite. In our opinion, [redacted] has done a marvelous job in advertising and marketing their product, however many parties have determined that many [redacted] reports are not only grossly inaccurate, but in many cases, actually state that the vehicle has been involved in an accident when, in fact, it has not. Conversely, many aspects of auto industry, including many insurance companies, auto auctions, auto dealerships, and automobile manufacturers, etc, have come to rely on [redacted] because it has proven to be much more accurate and reliable [redacted] is also the recognized source of history reports for [redacted] certified used vehicle program. *** will not accept a [redacted] history. No need to take my word on the issue of [redacted] being unreliable. All one has to do is [redacted] something such as "is [redacted] being sued" and find several pages of consumer complaints and lawsuits against [redacted] The following is just one of many typical complaints: [redacted] from Orange, CA writes that a potential buyer ran a [redacted] report based on the VIN number on a car she is trying to sell. "The report stated that my vehicle was involved In an accident. My car has never been involved in any accident. I spoke to my insurance company and 1 got a report from the DMV based on the VIN number and it showed a clean history." She says upon calling [redacted] she learned that "the company does not get the VIN report from the DMV, but rather from 'anonymous third parties." [redacted] concludes, "They are making me jump through hoops to clear my vehicle history. I believe that this is misrepresentation of innocent victims for money-" Because of so many negative reports about [redacted] , the popular TV show "20/20" had an investigative report on [redacted] on March 17 2013 that raised many questions about the accuracy of [redacted] vehicle history reports. Keep in mind it wasn't that many years ago that vehicle history reports were nonexistent and when we were initially in trying to determine which vehicle history report to use in our business, [redacted] we discovered the following explanation of the differences between the two companies: - [redacted] provides Accident Data in 5-10 Business Days; [redacted] takes 180 days! [redacted] works with all 50 states as far as the DOTs & local government offices; ***x does not even work with over 20 states! [redacted] works exclusively with the nationwide auction houses and we provide their data on our reports; [redacted] *oes not and does not even have access to this information! [redacted] will only put information that can be verified; [redacted] will put information on assuming an incident occurred! (For example: if a car goes to a collision center, [redacted] will post this information so that it appears the vehicle was in an accident per their service history section of the report!) I would like to offer a real life example relative to the differences between [redacted] and [redacted] Last summer I attended an auto auction at [redacted] when a very nice looking 2010 Chrysler 300 came to the block. I ran an [redacted] report on my data phone which showed that the vehicle had been involved in three separate accidents, one on 9-4-2010, another on 6-18-2011 and another on 6-22-2013.1 was no longer interested in buying it but I was curious as to what it would bring, so I watched it sell. The dealer who was selling the vehicle didn't offer any announcements relative to the vehicle sustaining previous damage and the vehicle sold under the green light. After it sold, I chatted with the buyer and made the comment that it was a nice car but that I didn't bid on it because the previous damage. His face turned white as a sheet and he said "what previous damage?" He then showed me the [redacted] report that he had ran on his data phone that indicated the vehicle was clean. This wasn't the first time I had ran into that situation so when I returned home, I ran a both a [redacted] and an [redacted] *eport on the same vehicle on the same day to show customers who question why we use [redacted] instead of [redacted] , both vehicle history reports are attached for your review. By virtue of purchasing the vehicle from us, we consider [redacted] our customer, and as such, if she would contacted us before she traded the vehicle off, we would have been happy to offer her the above explanation and perhaps some advice before she traded the vehicle. Even if the vehicle did have previous damage, it's hard to believe that a condition report would effect the trade in value to this great of a degree. it's rare to see a trade in value affected more than $1000-$1500 for previous damage. I've never seen such a vehicle's value to be affected anywhere close to $7000.00 unless it had been totaled and the title had been designated "previous salvage". Obviously, that's not the case with this vehicle. items such as current mileage, overall vehicle condition, needed repairs and vehicle maintenance, though, will affect the trade-in value of the vehicle. We've been in business for a long time and fully understand that we cannot sell every customer every vehicle they purchase and have found that if we can assist them in any way we can, even if they intend to purchase their next vehicle from another dealer, that they will be inclined to return to us in the future. Conversely, if a customer expresses intent to trade their vehicle to another dealer, and we give them a hard time, they will never return to us in the future. Accordingly, we would have been happy to work with [redacted] if she had expressed her concerns to us. One other small discrepancy in [redacted] complaint is that the purchase price for the vehicle was $24,334.39 plus tax and title fees, and not $25,900. The state gets the sales tax and it's not considered part of the purchase price. It's no different than if you agree to buy a new color TV for a purchase price of $2000 and are then forced to pay sales tax in addition to the $2000.. To sum up, we did not misrepresent the vehicle in any way and had absolutely no information that would have led us to believe the vehicle had previous damage.
We are in receipt of your 12-8-2014 correspondence, ref# [redacted] and appreciate the opportunity to offer our side of the story. We sincerely regret that [redacted] was disappointed with the vehicle she purchased from us, however I can assure both you and [redacted] there was absolutely no intent on...
our part to misrepresent the condition of the vehicle in any way. I believe the crux of the matter is that Jamie views a "[redacted]" vehicle history report to be superior to an [redacted]" vehicle history report when the situation is just the opposite. In our opinion, [redacted] has done a marvelous job in advertising and marketing their product, however many parties have determined that many [redacted] reports are not only grossly inaccurate, but in many cases, actually state that the vehicle has been involved in an accident when, in fact, it has not. Conversely, many aspects of auto industry, including many insurance companies, auto auctions, auto dealerships, and automobile manufacturers, etc, have come to rely on [redacted] because it has proven to be much more accurate and reliable[redacted] is also the recognized source of history reports for [redacted] certified used vehicle program. [redacted] will not accept a [redacted] history. No need to take my word on the issue of [redacted] being unreliable. All one has to do is [redacted] something such as "is [redacted] being sued" and find several pages of consumer complaints and lawsuits against [redacted] The following is just one of many typical complaints: [redacted] from Orange, CA writes that a potential buyer ran a [redacted] report based on the VIN number on a car she is trying to sell. "The report stated that my vehicle was involved In an accident. My car has never been involved in any accident. I spoke to my insurance company and 1 got a report from the DMV based on the VIN number and it showed a clean history." She says upon calling [redacted] she learned that "the company does not get the VIN report from the DMV, but rather from 'anonymous third parties." [redacted] concludes, "They are making me jump through hoops to clear my vehicle history. I believe that this is misrepresentation of innocent victims for money-" Because of so many negative reports about [redacted], the popular TV show "20/20" had an investigative report on [redacted] on March 17 2013 that raised many questions about the accuracy of [redacted] vehicle history reports. Keep in mind it wasn't that many years ago that vehicle history reports were nonexistent and when we were initially in trying to determine which vehicle history report to use in our business, [redacted] we discovered the following explanation of the differences between the two companies: - [redacted] provides Accident Data in 5-10 Business Days; [redacted] takes 180 days! [redacted] works with all 50 states as far as the DOTs & local government offices; [redacted]x does not even work with over 20 states![redacted] works exclusively with the nationwide auction houses and we provide their data on our reports; [redacted]oes not and does not even have access to this information! [redacted] will only put information that can be verified; [redacted] will put information on assuming an incident occurred! (For example: if a car goes to a collision center, [redacted] will post this information so that it appears the vehicle was in an accident per their service history section of the report!) I would like to offer a real life example relative to the differences between [redacted] and [redacted] Last summer I attended an auto auction at [redacted] when a very nice looking 2010 Chrysler 300 came to the block. I ran an [redacted] report on my data phone which showed that the vehicle had been involved in three separate accidents, one on 9-4-2010, another on 6-18-2011 and another on 6-22-2013.1 was no longer interested in buying it but I was curious as to what it would bring, so I watched it sell. The dealer who was selling the vehicle didn't offer any announcements relative to the vehicle sustaining previous damage and the vehicle sold under the green light. After it sold, I chatted with the buyer and made the comment that it was a nice car but that I didn't bid on it because the previous damage. His face turned white as a sheet and he said "what previous damage?" He then showed me the [redacted] report that he had ran on his data phone that indicated the vehicle was clean. This wasn't the first time I had ran into that situation so when I returned home, I ran a both a [redacted] and an [redacted]eport on the same vehicle on the same day to show customers who question why we use [redacted] instead of [redacted], both vehicle history reports are attached for your review. By virtue of purchasing the vehicle from us, we consider[redacted] our customer, and as such, if she would contacted us before she traded the vehicle off, we would have been happy to offer her the above explanation and perhaps some advice before she traded the vehicle. Even if the vehicle did have previous damage, it's hard to believe that a condition report would effect the trade in value to this great of a degree. it's rare to see a trade in value affected more than $1000-$1500 for previous damage. I've never seen such a vehicle's value to be affected anywhere close to $7000.00 unless it had been totaled and the title had been designated "previous salvage". Obviously, that's not the case with this vehicle. items such as current mileage, overall vehicle condition, needed repairs and vehicle maintenance, though, will affect the trade-in value of the vehicle. We've been in business for a long time and fully understand that we cannot sell every customer every vehicle they purchase and have found that if we can assist them in any way we can, even if they intend to purchase their next vehicle from another dealer, that they will be inclined to return to us in the future. Conversely, if a customer expresses intent to trade their vehicle to another dealer, and we give them a hard time, they will never return to us in the future. Accordingly, we would have been happy to work with [redacted] if she had expressed her concerns to us. One other small discrepancy in [redacted] complaint is that the purchase price for the vehicle was $24,334.39 plus tax and title fees, and not $25,900. The state gets the sales tax and it's not considered part of the purchase price. It's no different than if you agree to buy a new color TV for a purchase price of $2000 and are then forced to pay sales tax in addition to the $2000.. To sum up, we did not misrepresent the vehicle in any way and had absolutely no information that would have led us to believe the vehicle had previous damage.
We are in receipt of your 12-8-2014 correspondence, ref# [redacted] and appreciate the opportunity to offer our side of the story. We sincerely regret that [redacted] was...
disappointed with the vehicle she purchased from us, however I can assure both you and [redacted] there was absolutely no intent on our part to misrepresent the condition of the vehicle in any way. I believe the crux of the matter is that Jamie views a "[redacted]" vehicle history report to be superior to an [redacted]" vehicle history report when the situation is just the opposite. In our opinion, [redacted] has done a marvelous job in advertising and marketing their product, however many parties have determined that many [redacted] reports are not only grossly inaccurate, but in many cases, actually state that the vehicle has been involved in an accident when, in fact, it has not. Conversely, many aspects of auto industry, including many insurance companies, auto auctions, auto dealerships, and automobile manufacturers, etc, have come to rely on [redacted] because it has proven to be much more accurate and reliable[redacted] is also the recognized source of history reports for [redacted] certified used vehicle program. [redacted] will not accept a [redacted] history. No need to take my word on the issue of [redacted] being unreliable. All one has to do is [redacted] something such as "is [redacted] being sued" and find several pages of consumer complaints and lawsuits against [redacted] The following is just one of many typical complaints:
[redacted] from Orange, CA writes that a potential buyer ran a [redacted] report based on the VIN number on a car she is trying to sell. "The report stated that my vehicle was involved In an accident. My car has never been involved in any accident. I spoke to my insurance company and 1 got a report from the DMV based on the VIN number and it showed a clean history." She says upon calling [redacted] she learned that "the company does not get the VIN report from the DMV, but rather from 'anonymous third parties." [redacted] concludes, "They are making me jump through hoops to clear my vehicle history. I believe that this is misrepresentation of innocent victims for money-"
Because of so many negative reports about [redacted], the popular TV show "20/20" had an investigative report on [redacted] on March 17 2013 that raised many questions about the accuracy of [redacted] vehicle history reports. Keep in mind it wasn't that many years ago that vehicle history reports were nonexistent and when we were initially in trying to determine which vehicle history report to use in our business, [redacted] we discovered the following explanation of the differences between the two companies: - [redacted] provides Accident Data in 5-10 Business Days; [redacted] takes 180 days!
[redacted] works with all 50 states as far as the DOTs & local government offices; [redacted]x does not even work with over 20 states!
[redacted] works exclusively with the nationwide auction houses and we provide their data on our reports; [redacted]oes not and does not even have access to this information!
[redacted] will only put information that can be verified; [redacted] will put information on assuming an incident occurred! (For example: if a car goes to a collision center, [redacted] will post this information so that it appears the vehicle was in an accident per their service history section of the report!) I would like to offer a real life example relative to the differences between [redacted] and [redacted] Last summer I attended an auto auction at [redacted] when a very nice looking 2010 Chrysler 300 came to the block. I ran an [redacted] report on my data phone which showed that the vehicle had been involved in three separate accidents, one on 9-4-2010, another on 6-18-2011 and another on 6-22-2013.1 was no longer interested in buying it but I was curious as to what it would bring, so I watched it sell. The dealer who was selling the vehicle didn't offer any announcements relative to the vehicle sustaining previous damage and the vehicle sold under the green light. After it sold, I chatted with the buyer and made the comment that it was a nice car but that I didn't bid on it because the previous damage. His face turned white as a sheet and he said "what previous damage?" He then showed me the [redacted] report that he had ran on his data phone that indicated the vehicle was clean. This wasn't the first time I had ran into that situation so when I returned home, I ran a both a [redacted] and an [redacted]eport on the same vehicle on the same day to show customers who question why we use [redacted] instead of [redacted], both vehicle history reports are attached for your review. By virtue of purchasing the vehicle from us, we consider[redacted] our customer, and as such, if she would contacted us before she traded the vehicle off, we would have been happy to offer her the above explanation and perhaps some advice before she traded the vehicle. Even if the vehicle did have previous damage, it's hard to believe that a condition report would effect the trade in value to this great of a degree. it's rare to see a trade in value affected more than $1000-$1500 for previous damage. I've never seen such a vehicle's value to be affected anywhere close to $7000.00 unless it had been totaled and the title had been designated "previous salvage". Obviously, that's not the case with this vehicle. items such as current mileage, overall vehicle condition, needed repairs and vehicle maintenance, though, will affect the trade-in value of the vehicle. We've been in business for a long time and fully understand that we cannot sell every customer every vehicle they purchase and have found that if we can assist them in any way we can, even if they intend to purchase their next vehicle from another dealer, that they will be inclined to return to us in the future. Conversely, if a customer expresses intent to trade their vehicle to another dealer, and we give them a hard time, they will never return to us in the future. Accordingly, we would have been happy to work with [redacted] if she had expressed her concerns to us. One other small discrepancy in [redacted] complaint is that the purchase price for the vehicle was $24,334.39 plus tax and title fees, and not $25,900. The state gets the sales tax and it's not considered part of the purchase price. It's no different than if you agree to buy a new color TV for a purchase price of $2000 and are then forced to pay sales tax in addition to the $2000.. To sum up, we did not misrepresent the vehicle in any way and had absolutely no information that would have led us to believe the vehicle had previous damage.
I am very sorry that [redacted]r is upset with the performance of her vehicle and with repairs we have made on the vehicle. There many components to a vehicles suspension that...
can cause noises, clunks and rattles, especially under certain road conditions. I have attached repair order [redacted] with descriptions of the recent work we have performed on [redacted] 2008 GMC Acadia yin [redacted] On June 20, 2016 repair order [redacted]— we replaced the vehicle's front struts and sway bar bushings. We also performed a 4 wheel alignment. The vehicle had 91,998 miles on it at that time. About 2 month later [redacted] called complaining of a clunking noise in her vehicle and felt that her vehicle was not repaired correctly. We invited her to come to our service department so we could drive her vehicle with her and verify her concerns. Our service manager, [redacted] rode/drove with [redacted] over 20 minutes and the vehicle performed property with no suspension noises. [redacted] made the comment that the noise occurred on gravel roads. They then drove the vehicle on a gravel road and [redacted] could hear slight suspension noise. [redacted] an appointment so we could get the vehicle on a lift to inspect the suspension and the work we had previously performed. On July 28, 2016 repair order [redacted] , the vehicle registered 95,418 miles, customer's concern was slight clunking noise on right side on gravel roads. Technician inspected the vehicle's undercarriage and suspension components. The vehicle's struts, front sway bar links, etc. that we had replaced were all in good working order and in proper working order, other suspension components were tight and in proper working order. He did notice that both rear stabilizer link bushings were worn and starting to split. [redacted], service manager explained to [redacted] that suspension components were all in proper working order and that struts and front stabilizer bushings that we replaced were in good condition. [redacted] did explain that the rear stabilizer link bushings were showing wear and beginning to split. [redacted] explained that this may or may not cause noise on gravel roads but that it is a suspension component that could be needing replaced. [redacted] told [redacted] that cost to replace these links would be $200.92 plus tax but that he could not guarantee this would correct the noise. [redacted] commented that she would take it somewhere else for repairs—reference comments on repair order [redacted] These links are on the rear suspension, and the struts and stabilizer links we replaced in June were on the front suspension. We would be happy to replace the rear stabilizer links for [redacted] at the price we quoted if she so desires. Please have her call our service department for an appointment to do this job. we would have to order the parts and they are not a normal part that we stock. We have been in business over 25 years in Dover and we stand behind the work we do. The struts were installed by a certified technician and they have been installed properly and are functioning properly, along with a four wheel alignment set to manufacturers specifications, a copy of which is also attached. [redacted] vehicle is now 8 years old and has over 95,000 miles on it. Normal wear and tear, age and use will effect this vehicle and unfortunately maintenance and repair costs on this vehicle now and in the future will be necessary to keep it operating properly.
Thank you for the opportunity to address [redacted] concern and this Revdex.com complaint. Please have [redacted] contact our service department if she would like us to perform the noted repair.
[redacted]
General Manager