The customer purchase the first vehicle on 8/28/14. It wasn't until 11/07/14 that the vehicle was brought in with concerns. The repair was covered under factory warranty. On 11/28/14 the customer decided to execute a sales agreement to trade in the vehicle for a more expensive and...
completely different model. The first sale was a 2014 [redacted] with a sales price of $14,939The second sale was a 2015 [redacted] with a sales price of $22,765Regardless of negative equity, the second car was $7,826 more expensive of a model. It is also subject to higher tax.The customer simply purchased a more expensive car with a little but of negative equity and higher taxes. There were no issues or concerns brought up during the sale, signing of contracts, or to management at anytime.
It is not in our policy to refund cash to customers. We offered a complete refund and the customer declined. [redacted] General Manager | Mark KiaDirect [redacted]sent from my macbook pro
Bureau:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted]. Mark Kia of Scottsdale promptly took actions to resolve this issue shortly after I filed my initial Revdex.com complaint. Please consider this complaint resolved and no further actions are required/needed. Thank you for support!
Regards,
[redacted]
The loan was canceled by request of the customer. We agreed to unwind the deal to promote customer satisfaction and are awaiting the customer to come in to complete the transaction.
The customer purchased a vehicle on 06/21/15 with an amount financed of $25,170.28 The bank approval came back the next day at only $22,000. Without having the additional cash down, the customer choose to take advantage of a new contract removing optional insurance such as Gap to keep...
the total cost below $22,000. The updated signed and executed contract reflects a new total price of $21,976.17. We are certainly upset to hear of any of our customers in distress and would be happy to see if we can offer any assistance on special pricing for a replacement vehicle.
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by...
the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.While the amount that we paid for the [redacted] does fall within the range of what an individual might pay for this car (as claimed by the company), this is ultimately not the point of the complaint. The dealership purported to us that the car was an [redacted] Premium, and used sales tactics of comparing our car to other [redacted] Premiums in the area to make us comfortable with the price that we were paying. The salesman was adamant that the price being offered was the lowest in town, which may have been true of the car was in fact a Premium. In the end, this is what made us feel comfortable purchasing this car. Mark Kia was willing to sell us an [redacted] Premium for the agreed upon price, and therefore it should be inferred that the dealership would be willing to sell us an [redacted] (without the premium trim) for a lesser amount. However, even though Mark Kia was dishonest (knowingly or unknowingly) about the car that they were selling to us, the means by which they tried to rectify their mistake was to have us just bring the car back, after all of the headache we had already been through. This is unacceptable. We had already had the car serviced at the [redacted] dealership and purchased other items to personalize the vehicle. In addition, by returning the car we would be sacrificing a significant amount of our personal time and added stress to continue our search for another car. The car will meet our needs as is, even though it will always remind me of the poor experience of purchasing it and the feeling of being taken advantage of by the car salesmen at Mark Kia.It wouldn't have taken much for the people of Mark Kia to rectify their mistake. If they had made us a good faith offer $500, we would have accepted it and been satisfied.
Regards,
[redacted]
Thank you for your response. As stated before with the correction of April, Mr. [redacted] purchased a used Mazda in April of 2015. As stated before He expressed concerns due to the fact that the car had aftermarket performance parts, as traded by the previous owner. Mr. [redacted] was offered a full refund if he wished, unwinding the transaction completely and returning his trade in to him, to which he refused, and decided to keep the car. He claimed at the time, he liked this particular car, as we also offered to find another car if he didn’t want a refund. After which, we have helped numerous times with paying for parts, towing charges, diagnosis, ect.In September 2015, we paid at Mr. [redacted]’s father's request, for towing to the dealership to diagnose a NEW issue. The car was not running, and it was determined that the motor was in need of replacement due to being ran heavily and without oil. The technician believes that this was due to the car being driven very hard therefore, burning though oil. Without tearing down however, this is just a hypothesis. Again, Mr. [redacted] was offered financial assistance at dealer cost to which he also refused. Mark Mitsubishi paid for towing both ways and the diagnoses, and gladly towed the Mazda back to his residence, incurring a cost of over $300 to promote customer service. Mr. [redacted] agreed at the time of his visit, that he should not be making such rash accusations toward a company that has always tried to help him, and agreed that what we have offered to help with was honest and more than fair. Mr. [redacted]’s father who was helping with communication also agreed completely. It has come to a shock that we are revisiting resolutions to this issue for a 3rd time as we have already deemed it resolved with other institutions including the Arizona Attorney General. We are again certainly sorry for any inconvenience, however are not obligated to participate any further in repairs.
Mr. [redacted] has already been taken care of by our General Sales Manager, Jack B[redacted]. We and the customer consider this issue closed and satisfied.
We were made aware of this issue and handed immediately. We took a loaner car to the customer 2 hours away and completed the emissions testing and title work. We also reimbursed the customer for their troubles and expenses. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below. Regardless of the price difference of the car: I would not be paying a 37,000 loan had they not sold me a defective car. They never verbally told me I would still be paying the negative equity for the car. I could have sold the car to a private buyer for a higher price than you even offered even for selling me a defective car.
Regards,
[redacted]
We do sincerely apologize for the delay in title work. It is certainly not normal business practice. The customer was provided temporary registration until the permanent registration was completed. The title and registration was completed in April.
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint...
ID [redacted], and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me. I will wait until 7 days have passed for the business to perform this action and, if it does, will consider this complaint resolved.
Regards,
[redacted]
In response to the complaint, we of course do not use “Forgery” in our business. To forge a document would be a very serious problem. Simply, the customer could not get a loan approval for the amount requested, therefore the price and options were adjusted to meet the loan amount required. The customer acknowledged this by signing a retail installment contract along with the co-buyer, reflecting the costs associated with the loan, as well as the lack of GAP insurance. Please let me know how else I can help.
We submitted a response a couple of weeks ago. Long story short, we identified the accounting error and cut the customer a check for the discrepancy. She is very happy.
The bank approval from [redacted] clearly states a term of 72 months, not 60. 75 months is an option they give dealers to help achieve the payment budget a customer is trying to hold too. The $300 down payment has been returned to the debit card ending in [redacted].
The car was sent to Cadillac who also determined there is nothing wrong with the car. Since then, the customer has sold it back to us.Joshua S[redacted] General ManagerMark Kia | Mark Mitsubishi
Thanks for reaching out to us. The issue has been brought to the attention of the bank, Kia Motor Finance and is being resolved. They asked us for his purchase documents, to which we happily provided. The billing is an issue with Kia Motor Finance, not Mark Kia, though we are happy...
to help. The $25 gift card was sent via email with the customer on the phone previously. If it has not yet been received, we can reissue.
[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.]
Better Business...
Bureau:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID[redacted], and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me. Mark Kia of Scottsdale has provided me with the warranty and reimbursed me for my repair. I consider this complaint satisfied. It took a bit of persistence but eventually the dealership took care of everything. Thank you for your assistance as well.
Regards,
[redacted]
The customer purchase the first vehicle on 8/28/14. It wasn't until 11/07/14 that the vehicle was brought in with concerns. The repair was covered under factory warranty. On 11/28/14 the customer decided to execute a sales agreement to trade in the vehicle for a more expensive and...
completely different model. The first sale was a 2014 [redacted] with a sales price of $14,939The second sale was a 2015 [redacted] with a sales price of $22,765Regardless of negative equity, the second car was $7,826 more expensive of a model. It is also subject to higher tax.The customer simply purchased a more expensive car with a little but of negative equity and higher taxes. There were no issues or concerns brought up during the sale, signing of contracts, or to management at anytime.
It is not in our policy to refund cash to customers. We offered a complete refund and the customer declined. [redacted] General Manager | Mark KiaDirect [redacted]sent from my macbook pro
Better Business...
Bureau:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted]. Mark Kia of Scottsdale promptly took actions to resolve this issue shortly after I filed my initial Revdex.com complaint. Please consider this complaint resolved and no further actions are required/needed. Thank you for support!
Regards,
[redacted]
The loan was canceled by request of the customer. We agreed to unwind the deal to promote customer satisfaction and are awaiting the customer to come in to complete the transaction.
We have resolved the complaint with the customer while also terminating the party involved.
The customer purchased a vehicle on 06/21/15 with an amount financed of $25,170.28 The bank approval came back the next day at only $22,000. Without having the additional cash down, the customer choose to take advantage of a new contract removing optional insurance such as Gap to keep...
the total cost below $22,000. The updated signed and executed contract reflects a new total price of $21,976.17. We are certainly upset to hear of any of our customers in distress and would be happy to see if we can offer any assistance on special pricing for a replacement vehicle.
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by...
the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.While the amount that we paid for the [redacted] does fall within the range of what an individual might pay for this car (as claimed by the company), this is ultimately not the point of the complaint. The dealership purported to us that the car was an [redacted] Premium, and used sales tactics of comparing our car to other [redacted] Premiums in the area to make us comfortable with the price that we were paying. The salesman was adamant that the price being offered was the lowest in town, which may have been true of the car was in fact a Premium. In the end, this is what made us feel comfortable purchasing this car. Mark Kia was willing to sell us an [redacted] Premium for the agreed upon price, and therefore it should be inferred that the dealership would be willing to sell us an [redacted] (without the premium trim) for a lesser amount. However, even though Mark Kia was dishonest (knowingly or unknowingly) about the car that they were selling to us, the means by which they tried to rectify their mistake was to have us just bring the car back, after all of the headache we had already been through. This is unacceptable. We had already had the car serviced at the [redacted] dealership and purchased other items to personalize the vehicle. In addition, by returning the car we would be sacrificing a significant amount of our personal time and added stress to continue our search for another car. The car will meet our needs as is, even though it will always remind me of the poor experience of purchasing it and the feeling of being taken advantage of by the car salesmen at Mark Kia.It wouldn't have taken much for the people of Mark Kia to rectify their mistake. If they had made us a good faith offer $500, we would have accepted it and been satisfied.
Regards,
[redacted]
Thank you for your response. As stated before with the correction of April, Mr. [redacted] purchased a used Mazda in April of 2015. As stated before He expressed concerns due to the fact that the car had aftermarket performance parts, as traded by the previous owner. Mr. [redacted] was offered a full refund if he wished, unwinding the transaction completely and returning his trade in to him, to which he refused, and decided to keep the car. He claimed at the time, he liked this particular car, as we also offered to find another car if he didn’t want a refund. After which, we have helped numerous times with paying for parts, towing charges, diagnosis, ect.In September 2015, we paid at Mr. [redacted]’s father's request, for towing to the dealership to diagnose a NEW issue. The car was not running, and it was determined that the motor was in need of replacement due to being ran heavily and without oil. The technician believes that this was due to the car being driven very hard therefore, burning though oil. Without tearing down however, this is just a hypothesis. Again, Mr. [redacted] was offered financial assistance at dealer cost to which he also refused. Mark Mitsubishi paid for towing both ways and the diagnoses, and gladly towed the Mazda back to his residence, incurring a cost of over $300 to promote customer service. Mr. [redacted] agreed at the time of his visit, that he should not be making such rash accusations toward a company that has always tried to help him, and agreed that what we have offered to help with was honest and more than fair. Mr. [redacted]’s father who was helping with communication also agreed completely. It has come to a shock that we are revisiting resolutions to this issue for a 3rd time as we have already deemed it resolved with other institutions including the Arizona Attorney General. We are again certainly sorry for any inconvenience, however are not obligated to participate any further in repairs.
Mr. [redacted] has already been taken care of by our General Sales Manager, Jack B[redacted]. We and the customer consider this issue closed and satisfied.
We were made aware of this issue and handed immediately. We took a loaner car to the customer 2 hours away and completed the emissions testing and title work. We also reimbursed the customer for their troubles and expenses. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below. Regardless of the price difference of the car: I would not be paying a 37,000 loan had they not sold me a defective car. They never verbally told me I would still be paying the negative equity for the car. I could have sold the car to a private buyer for a higher price than you even offered even for selling me a defective car.
Regards,
[redacted]
We do sincerely apologize for the delay in title work. It is certainly not normal business practice. The customer was provided temporary registration until the permanent registration was completed. The title and registration was completed in April.
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint...
ID [redacted], and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me. I will wait until 7 days have passed for the business to perform this action and, if it does, will consider this complaint resolved.
Regards,
[redacted]
In response to the complaint, we of course do not use “Forgery” in our business. To forge a document would be a very serious problem. Simply, the customer could not get a loan approval for the amount requested, therefore the price and options were adjusted to meet the loan amount required. The customer acknowledged this by signing a retail installment contract along with the co-buyer, reflecting the costs associated with the loan, as well as the lack of GAP insurance. Please let me know how else I can help.
We submitted a response a couple of weeks ago. Long story short, we identified the accounting error and cut the customer a check for the discrepancy. She is very happy.
The bank approval from [redacted] clearly states a term of 72 months, not 60. 75 months is an option they give dealers to help achieve the payment budget a customer is trying to hold too. The $300 down payment has been returned to the debit card ending in [redacted].
The car was sent to Cadillac who also determined there is nothing wrong with the car. Since then, the customer has sold it back to us.Joshua S[redacted] General ManagerMark Kia | Mark Mitsubishi
We have added the CPO warranty and refunded the customer for the repair costs. We consider this matter satisfied.
Thanks for reaching out to us. The issue has been brought to the attention of the bank, Kia Motor Finance and is being resolved. They asked us for his purchase documents, to which we happily provided. The billing is an issue with Kia Motor Finance, not Mark Kia, though we are happy...
to help. The $25 gift card was sent via email with the customer on the phone previously. If it has not yet been received, we can reissue.
[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.]
Better Business...
Bureau:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID[redacted], and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me. Mark Kia of Scottsdale has provided me with the warranty and reimbursed me for my repair. I consider this complaint satisfied. It took a bit of persistence but eventually the dealership took care of everything. Thank you for your assistance as well.
Regards,
[redacted]