Please see attached correspondence to/from [redacted] and [redacted] pertaining to this case In their complaint, as shown in the various correspondence, the [redacted] 's acknowledge that this is an issue with General Motors and Miller However, we are bound by our contractual agreements with General Motors to follow theirs service procedures and recommendations Using third party articles and forums found on the internet will not allow or convince General Motors to pay or deny a warranty claim Also, we do not set the standards for oil consumption - that is the job of General Motors, and those standards must be adhered to, regardless of whether the [redacted] 's or Miller deem them reasonable We tried on several occasions to help and urge the [redacted] 's to contact General Motors to resolve this issue, as shown in the correspondence We feel that had the [redacted] 's taken our advice, General Motors likely would have helped out with the cost of this repair Furthermore, the assertion that Miller waited until the [redacted] 's warranty expired to replace the engine is counter-intuitive General Motors pays very well on warranty work, and the original repair may have been more profitable than the engine replacement.In summary, Miller was simply following the procedures prescribed by General Motors We made several attempts to get the [redacted] 's to open a case with General Motors to get some kind of reimbursement, but they refused This was the only way to remedy this situation, because it was a manufacturer part failure
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to meWe had a few correspondents back and forth and they were able to research, give me understanding, and resolve the issue to the best of their ability. Thank you.Complaintant, *** ***
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 6, 2015/12/28) */
In response to Consumer's complaint, please note the following:
Our dealership has had several communications on this matter; however, very little with Consumer - the majority of conversations have been with Consumer's spouseDeal was
consummated with Consumer's spouse
We have email correspondence from Consumer's spouse, further corroborated by conversations with our staff, that Consumer's spouse knew that the vehicle had no third row before she arrived at our dealershipIn addition, we have similar correspondence from Consumer's spouse that she knew that the vehicle was FWD, not AWD, before she purchased the vehicle
Consumer's spouse was offered $19,as a trade for a vehicle in which they paid $20,750, a difference of $1,(not $3,as stated in complaint)
We have offered to refund Consumer's spouse for any service bills they have incurred related to an oil change, air filter and cutting of a second key
We sell around vehicles per month, and our complaint record is evidence to show that we do all we can to keep customers happy (This includes cases of Buyer's Remorse, such as this)We have tried to negotiate a deal that is fair to both sides; however, we unfortunately have not been able to do so in this case
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 8, 2015/12/29) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
As with their prior correspondence, Miller's response to the pending Revdex.com complaint fails to address the main issues and is filled with misrepresentations and completely irrelevant pointsMiller's response consists of total paragraphs and I will address each one below
In their first paragraph, Miller takes issue with the irrelevant fact that my husband submitted the Revdex.com complaint on my behalfWhile Miller states that they "had very little communications with" him, that is only because Miller refused to respond to his voice mails and emailsHe is a financial services attorney who wanted to help resolve the issue, but Miller refused to return his callsAgain, this issue is ultimately irrelevant and shouldn't have even been raised by Miller
In response to their second paragraph, as I stated before, I was told that the vehicle had a third row before I left Minneapolis on the mile trip to StCloudAt some point I received a call stating it did not have a third row, but I finished the drive to see if there was any other optionsUpon my arrival, Miller applied consistent pressure to purchase the Journey, including misrepresenting that it had just been serviced, was very safe, and could accommodate my space needs despite the fact it lacked what they had initially promised in a third rowMy initial point remains that Miller promised something and didn't deliver on that promiseIf they didn't even service the vehicle or put oil or gas in it, how am I supposed to be satisfied as the customer that this car will last? It had less than 20k miles, so I had hoped to have it for at least years, but after uncovering all of these deficiencies, I have no confidence in the vehicle and demand an exchangeMiller's actions constitute deceptive business practices and their lies and accusations are undeserved
In their third paragraph, Miller wrongly attempts to discredit my calculation that I would be taking a nearly $3,loss under their proposed resolutionMiller admits in their response that I would incur a $1,loss, however that figure must be supplemented with the accompanying tax, title and license fees, which bring the total to nearly $3,loss after only owning the vehicle for less than two monthsI have explained this to Miller on numerous occasions but they continue to throw insults at me while they misrepresent the lossAgain, this issue highlights their misrepresenting the truth--or at the very least--not trying to find common ground
In their fourth paragraph, Miller asserts that they have "offered to refund any service bills incurred," but this is yet another example of Miller misrepresenting the truthI have informed them on numerous occasions of the costs associated with their failure to service the vehicle and they have made no effort to pay these costs
In their fifth and final paragraph, Miller attempts to support their credibility by stating that they "sell around vehicles per month," and that that somehow justifies their wrongful actions in this case and calls my credibility into questionHowever, the number of vehicles they sell per month is completely unrelated to my specific circumstancesCertainly Miller is aware that any such information would be completely irrelevant if this were to continue to litigation (under the Rules of Evidence)Also, Miller's accusations that I have "buyer's remorse" are but another example of the way in which they have mistreated meInstead of trying to reach a fair resolution, they insult me with disrespectful and accusatory statementsI do not have buyer's remorseI have a complete lack of trust in the product I purchased based on deficiencies I uncovered after making the purchase and based on the way in which they have treated me throughout the process
In sum, this is a case where Miller continuously made promises about the qualities and characteristics of the vehicle (e.goil change, second key, tank of gas, air filter, third row, front wheel drive, good gas mileage, etc.) in order to influence me to make the purchaseI did not know that the Journey existed before the day I mistakenly drove out to StCloud and was pressured into buying itMiller cannot deny that their only effort at resolution is for me to take a nearly $3,loss for less than months of owning the vehicleThis is unacceptable and does not resolve my claimIt should be noted as well that while Miller boasts of trying to help me resolve the claim, we brought the Journey to another local dealer who offered the same amount for the trade-inSo how can Miller say they are trying their best to resolve this when a neutral party that is not at fault is offering the same terms? Clearly, Miller thinks they do not have to negotiate any terms and should just impose a huge loss on me and my familyI am still hopeful you can assist in this regard
I am rejecting this response because: My issue still is that being they are a certified General Motors repair dept they should have known that there was in issue with the Terrain and they failed to inform us of that issue. They are partially responsible in their negligence to do this. The reason we bought and brought our vehicles to them was because of their "expertise" (as indicated in their reply). In response to the great pay on warranty work that General Motors gives them, I then question what General Motors gives them when they keep the warranty work low. And finally - I have never ever said nor documented that I refused to go to General Motors file a complaint. I have just recently put together all my documents and resources to start this whole process and will be filing complaints with them and about them. Not sure where that comment came from. Thank you,[redacted]
Chance [redacted], General Manager, called customer on Tuesday, 10/24/2017, to discuss the situation. Chance emailed customer, and customer agreed to email Chance as much of the correspondence as possible so that he can be properly opted out and unsubscribed from future mailings. Customer...
Please see attached correspondence to/from [redacted] and [redacted] pertaining to this case. In their complaint, as shown in the various correspondence, the [redacted]'s acknowledge that this is an issue with General Motors and Miller. However, we are bound by our contractual agreements with...
General Motors to follow theirs service procedures and recommendations. Using third party articles and forums found on the internet will not allow or convince General Motors to pay or deny a warranty claim. Also, we do not set the standards for oil consumption - that is the job of General Motors, and those standards must be adhered to, regardless of whether the [redacted]'s or Miller deem them reasonable. We tried on several occasions to help and urge the [redacted]'s to contact General Motors to resolve this issue, as shown in the correspondence. We feel that had the [redacted]'s taken our advice, General Motors likely would have helped out with the cost of this repair. Furthermore, the assertion that Miller waited until the [redacted]'s warranty expired to replace the engine is counter-intuitive. General Motors pays very well on warranty work, and the original repair may have been more profitable than the engine replacement.In summary, Miller was simply following the procedures prescribed by General Motors. We made several attempts to get the [redacted]'s to open a case with General Motors to get some kind of reimbursement, but they refused. This was the only way to remedy this situation, because it was a manufacturer part failure.
Please see attached correspondence to/from [redacted] and [redacted] pertaining to this case In their complaint, as shown in the various correspondence, the [redacted] 's acknowledge that this is an issue with General Motors and Miller However, we are bound by our contractual agreements with General Motors to follow theirs service procedures and recommendations Using third party articles and forums found on the internet will not allow or convince General Motors to pay or deny a warranty claim Also, we do not set the standards for oil consumption - that is the job of General Motors, and those standards must be adhered to, regardless of whether the [redacted] 's or Miller deem them reasonable We tried on several occasions to help and urge the [redacted] 's to contact General Motors to resolve this issue, as shown in the correspondence We feel that had the [redacted] 's taken our advice, General Motors likely would have helped out with the cost of this repair Furthermore, the assertion that Miller waited until the [redacted] 's warranty expired to replace the engine is counter-intuitive General Motors pays very well on warranty work, and the original repair may have been more profitable than the engine replacement.In summary, Miller was simply following the procedures prescribed by General Motors We made several attempts to get the [redacted] 's to open a case with General Motors to get some kind of reimbursement, but they refused This was the only way to remedy this situation, because it was a manufacturer part failure
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to meWe had a few correspondents back and forth and they were able to research, give me understanding, and resolve the issue to the best of their ability. Thank you.Complaintant, *** ***
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 6, 2015/12/28) */
In response to Consumer's complaint, please note the following:
Our dealership has had several communications on this matter; however, very little with Consumer - the majority of conversations have been with Consumer's spouseDeal was
consummated with Consumer's spouse
We have email correspondence from Consumer's spouse, further corroborated by conversations with our staff, that Consumer's spouse knew that the vehicle had no third row before she arrived at our dealershipIn addition, we have similar correspondence from Consumer's spouse that she knew that the vehicle was FWD, not AWD, before she purchased the vehicle
Consumer's spouse was offered $19,as a trade for a vehicle in which they paid $20,750, a difference of $1,(not $3,as stated in complaint)
We have offered to refund Consumer's spouse for any service bills they have incurred related to an oil change, air filter and cutting of a second key
We sell around vehicles per month, and our complaint record is evidence to show that we do all we can to keep customers happy (This includes cases of Buyer's Remorse, such as this)We have tried to negotiate a deal that is fair to both sides; however, we unfortunately have not been able to do so in this case
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 8, 2015/12/29) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
As with their prior correspondence, Miller's response to the pending Revdex.com complaint fails to address the main issues and is filled with misrepresentations and completely irrelevant pointsMiller's response consists of total paragraphs and I will address each one below
In their first paragraph, Miller takes issue with the irrelevant fact that my husband submitted the Revdex.com complaint on my behalfWhile Miller states that they "had very little communications with" him, that is only because Miller refused to respond to his voice mails and emailsHe is a financial services attorney who wanted to help resolve the issue, but Miller refused to return his callsAgain, this issue is ultimately irrelevant and shouldn't have even been raised by Miller
In response to their second paragraph, as I stated before, I was told that the vehicle had a third row before I left Minneapolis on the mile trip to StCloudAt some point I received a call stating it did not have a third row, but I finished the drive to see if there was any other optionsUpon my arrival, Miller applied consistent pressure to purchase the Journey, including misrepresenting that it had just been serviced, was very safe, and could accommodate my space needs despite the fact it lacked what they had initially promised in a third rowMy initial point remains that Miller promised something and didn't deliver on that promiseIf they didn't even service the vehicle or put oil or gas in it, how am I supposed to be satisfied as the customer that this car will last? It had less than 20k miles, so I had hoped to have it for at least years, but after uncovering all of these deficiencies, I have no confidence in the vehicle and demand an exchangeMiller's actions constitute deceptive business practices and their lies and accusations are undeserved
In their third paragraph, Miller wrongly attempts to discredit my calculation that I would be taking a nearly $3,loss under their proposed resolutionMiller admits in their response that I would incur a $1,loss, however that figure must be supplemented with the accompanying tax, title and license fees, which bring the total to nearly $3,loss after only owning the vehicle for less than two monthsI have explained this to Miller on numerous occasions but they continue to throw insults at me while they misrepresent the lossAgain, this issue highlights their misrepresenting the truth--or at the very least--not trying to find common ground
In their fourth paragraph, Miller asserts that they have "offered to refund any service bills incurred," but this is yet another example of Miller misrepresenting the truthI have informed them on numerous occasions of the costs associated with their failure to service the vehicle and they have made no effort to pay these costs
In their fifth and final paragraph, Miller attempts to support their credibility by stating that they "sell around vehicles per month," and that that somehow justifies their wrongful actions in this case and calls my credibility into questionHowever, the number of vehicles they sell per month is completely unrelated to my specific circumstancesCertainly Miller is aware that any such information would be completely irrelevant if this were to continue to litigation (under the Rules of Evidence)Also, Miller's accusations that I have "buyer's remorse" are but another example of the way in which they have mistreated meInstead of trying to reach a fair resolution, they insult me with disrespectful and accusatory statementsI do not have buyer's remorseI have a complete lack of trust in the product I purchased based on deficiencies I uncovered after making the purchase and based on the way in which they have treated me throughout the process
In sum, this is a case where Miller continuously made promises about the qualities and characteristics of the vehicle (e.goil change, second key, tank of gas, air filter, third row, front wheel drive, good gas mileage, etc.) in order to influence me to make the purchaseI did not know that the Journey existed before the day I mistakenly drove out to StCloud and was pressured into buying itMiller cannot deny that their only effort at resolution is for me to take a nearly $3,loss for less than months of owning the vehicleThis is unacceptable and does not resolve my claimIt should be noted as well that while Miller boasts of trying to help me resolve the claim, we brought the Journey to another local dealer who offered the same amount for the trade-inSo how can Miller say they are trying their best to resolve this when a neutral party that is not at fault is offering the same terms? Clearly, Miller thinks they do not have to negotiate any terms and should just impose a huge loss on me and my familyI am still hopeful you can assist in this regard
I am rejecting this response because: My issue still is that being they are a certified General Motors repair dept they should have known that there was in issue with the Terrain and they failed to inform us of that issue. They are partially responsible in their negligence to do this. The reason we bought and brought our vehicles to them was because of their "expertise" (as indicated in their reply). In response to the great pay on warranty work that General Motors gives them, I then question what General Motors gives them when they keep the warranty work low. And finally - I have never ever said nor documented that I refused to go to General Motors file a complaint. I have just recently put together all my documents and resources to start this whole process and will be filing complaints with them and about them. Not sure where that comment came from. Thank you,[redacted]
Chance [redacted], General Manager, called customer on Tuesday, 10/24/2017, to discuss the situation. Chance emailed customer, and customer agreed to email Chance as much of the correspondence as possible so that he can be properly opted out and unsubscribed from future mailings. Customer...
has not responded as of 4:30 PM on 10/25/2017.
Please see attached correspondence to/from [redacted] and [redacted] pertaining to this case. In their complaint, as shown in the various correspondence, the [redacted]'s acknowledge that this is an issue with General Motors and Miller. However, we are bound by our contractual agreements with...
General Motors to follow theirs service procedures and recommendations. Using third party articles and forums found on the internet will not allow or convince General Motors to pay or deny a warranty claim. Also, we do not set the standards for oil consumption - that is the job of General Motors, and those standards must be adhered to, regardless of whether the [redacted]'s or Miller deem them reasonable. We tried on several occasions to help and urge the [redacted]'s to contact General Motors to resolve this issue, as shown in the correspondence. We feel that had the [redacted]'s taken our advice, General Motors likely would have helped out with the cost of this repair. Furthermore, the assertion that Miller waited until the [redacted]'s warranty expired to replace the engine is counter-intuitive. General Motors pays very well on warranty work, and the original repair may have been more profitable than the engine replacement.In summary, Miller was simply following the procedures prescribed by General Motors. We made several attempts to get the [redacted]'s to open a case with General Motors to get some kind of reimbursement, but they refused. This was the only way to remedy this situation, because it was a manufacturer part failure.