Premier Subaru

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: This does not correct my issues at all...response is untruthful. In 2014, [redacted] was conveniently UNAVAILABLE and I was forced to deal the the sales Manager, [redacted] and [redacted] was condescending and very unhelpful from day one. Every single time I came in for Express service, they inspected my cabin air filter resulting in a damaged glove box. NO WAY do I want this dealership toi touch my car. Too many mistakes.  MY SOLUTION, I go to another dealership and PREMIER can take care of the repairs to damage / incomplete work that THEY CAUSED. I want both the glove box as well as the mirror working perfectly and PREMIER SUBARU has shown me that they are not capable of doing these repairs correctly. They can not be trusted to even tell a customer the truth. On day ONE the salesman LIED about the features on the car that I was about to purchase and after these lies came to the surface, their sales manager, [redacted] refused to assist me. How can I trust this dealership ? They lied to me on day one As I stated, I want a trustworthy SUBARU DEALERSHIP to correct these issues. Simple, Premier pays the cost of fixing their errors and it is done and we move on. 
Sincerely,
[redacted]

Review: I purchased a new [redacted] on 2/21/2014. When I decided to pay for the navigation system that was already installed in the vehicle I was not told that this system with phone integration/Bluetooth (Alpine) was not what Subaru usually installs in its vehicles. The evening I took possession of the vehicle and after going over some features in the car, the consultant needed more time to find out how to use the system because he was not familiar with it and didnt know how to set up the feature to make calls directly from the steering wheel using voice command. To make the story short, I was told Regarding the Nav System, that system has no connectivity to the steering wheel and unfortunately there is nothing I can do about that. I cannot say why that particular system was put in the car, but I can assure you were not charged for anything you did not receive.I paid over 28K for the vehicle, including $1600.00 for a system that will help me navigate wherever I was going and that would afford me phone integration without having to get my hands off the steering wheel. I've tried to work with Premier and they picked up my car on 3/27/2014 to have it fix (more than a month after my purchase and several emails trying to get this resolved). The person came back with my car but it was still not working, and again I was told the voice command will never work because the system that was installed was an aftermarket product. When you pay for something you expect it to work, and this feature does not work. I sent a letter to the owner and general manager. The Manager Rich Johnson contacted me, and told me he could take out the navigation system and put back the factory radio but could only return $875.00. I tried to get him to explain how he got to that price but all he could say is that I didnt pay the whole amount on the car ticket. The total price was $30,049.00. The price was dropped to $28,251.00 (thats 5.9% of the total MSRP). I asked [redacted] how he could say $875.00 is the difference of 5.9% on the price of the navigation system which was $1600.00. He got really offended and told me I was being unreasonable and was holding him hostage when he was trying to help me with MY problem. Basically telling me I could take a check for $875.00 or shut up because that was all his company was willing to do and I had no recourse. Please help me resolve this matter, Im looking for a fair amount if they are going to take the navigation system out, which would be $1505.00 (5.9% off the $1600). Its sad that these car dealerships perpetuate what customers try to avoid; unfair practices (since I dont believe that they didnt know that functionality was lost by installing an aftermarket product) and no accountability (since they want to make me feel like this is my problem and not theirs). If you need further information I have all emails, invoice for the transaction, and car sticker price showing MSRP. Thanks for your assistanceDesired Settlement: Refund in the amount stated above or replacement for a system that works and does not lose functionality.

Business

Response:

To whom it may concern;

I received Ms. Colon's complaint and sincerely tried to resolve the problem. Unfortunately this customer became argumentative and insisted on talking over me when she wasn't hearing what she wanted to hear. She feels she paid $1600 for the Navigation system and that would be correct if she paid full sticker price. Sticker was $30,049 and she paid $28,251, so determining how much of that discount was for navigation is fairly impossible. Also of note is the fact that we installed a full leather interior , all weather floor mats and remote start, all included in the purchase price. It is therefore impossible to determine how much was paid toward the navigation system as the discount applied to the car was for the car and the entire package. I thought my original offer of $875 plus tax was equitable considering that exceeds the total profit we received for this transaction. I then offered to increase this offer to $1225 and Ms Colon still "scoffed."

I will extend this offer through the week ending Friday 4/4/2014. If she accepts this offer I will go to her place of business or home, drop off a loaner vehicle and bring her Forester here to make the exchange. When completed, I will return the car to her with the check for $1225. If Ms Colon does not accept my offer by the end of business (6PM) on Friday, 4/4/2014, this offer will be retracted.

Richard Johnson

General Sales Manager

Consumer

Response:

Review: 9993144

I am rejecting this response because:

Unfortunately, as I stated before this company is the epitomy of unfair practices and no accountability. The fact that he’s lying about my response, since I didn’t respond to his email, is more than indicative of their lack of honesty and integrity. He states it’s impossible to determine how much was paid for the navigation system, I believe it is simple math (you divide; you learn to do this in elementary school). This complaint was not about the money as he wants to make it look. I bought a product and paid for it, and as such expected it to work. After waiting for over a month for a response I told them that since I had already paid for this, all I wanted was for them to replace with a system that worked. Their response was that they could put me in another car but I would have to pay a difference of $2500.00 more. Since I said that was not going to happen, he came up with the $875.00 deal. The added features that he mentioned in his response are more lies. This is the email I received from premier when I asked about the price breakdown: $1600.00 nav system, $1250 leather seats and other features were already included in the price of the car (see email below in red). After I made this complaint online with Revdex.com he came back with an offer of $1225.00, yet another arbitrary number that clearly demonstrates their dishonesty and lack of math skills, not sure how you work with numbers all day but when it is convenient you can’t make a simple subtraction and division.

Review: Purchased an auto part from this establishment, part #[redacted] which their website assured me was the proper part. After making contact with an employee named Rob, I was instructed to mail the part back, which I have done and have a [redacted] receipt to confirm delivery. I was told by Rob he would get right back to me to either send the right part or give me a credit or refund of money. I never heard back from Rob again. I contacted establishment again to be told that Rob is out having surgery. No one else I've talked to at this establishment has been cooperative in helping me. Every time I call, I am told somebody will call me back and they do not , or my phone call is transferred to an extension where I get an answering machine to leave message and no one returns my call. I have also tried to resolve this via email and get no reply. My order total is $50.33. The part I mailed back cost $27.48. The part I kept cost $12.90. The shipping cost was$9.95. It cost me an additional $5.75 [redacted] fee to mail the part back. Also their invoice states a 15% restocking fee which I feel I should not have to pay because the wrong part was their error and the employee Rob told me over the phone that they would wave that fee. Thankyou.Desired Settlement: I would simply like my money refunded for the part and a proper adjustment of the original freight charge and a refund of my $5.75 postage for mailing back the wrong part.

Business

Response:

Called this gentleman there was a misunderstanding how this was working, Rob B[redacted] (Parts Manager) did have a part in the works that he and Rob discussed, Rob did ask him to return the incorrect part ,which he agreed to. Rob settled with him to ship out the correct part and he will back out the dispute, Rob did let him know how this was working but he felt it was taking to long, we spoke for some time today and he agreed the information became unclear. The customer indicated that this matter was satisfactory now. We want him happy.

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.

Sincerely,

Review: I would like to share an experience with Premier Subaru on Wednesday February 11, 2015. I had a scheduled appointment to update a recalled part and at the same time scheduled an oil change. After 1.5 hours of waiting they came out and told me I have a cracked head gaskets, tears in my alternator belt and 4 marker lights out. They quoted me $2100 for the repairs on a 2010 [redacted]. I needed to get back to work so I said I’d take care of it next time. I have a trusted mechanic of 18 years that I brought the car to on February 13, 2015. After hours of looking throughout the engine, the mechanic said the only thing I needed was wipers. There was no leak in the head gasket, maybe a little oil dripped from changing the oil. There were no tears in any belts and no lights were out. I was shocked but relieved that I didn’t have a $2000+ car repair bill. The customer before me was in her 60s and they came out to her saying she needed new tires and since it was winter it’s major to get them changed rather than if it was summer. It may have been a valid argument/suggestion but after what they said to me it seems they are all about hiking up the fees of repairs. Please share with other people so they are aware to think twice about the reports of the mechanics at Premiere Subaru!Desired Settlement: Spread awareness to people who go here for repairs.

Business

Response:

Premier Subaru has been in business for more than 14 years and recognized for customer excellence. In addition, our service department is approved by the [redacted] for Automotive Repair and Service. We appreciate the concerns of the customer. Premier Subaru has knowledge of the subject vehicle. This vehicle was sold to the original owner by our dealership and serviced by us, up until the vehicle was traded into another dealership, of which the current owner purchased it from. Under the vehicle's second owner, Premier Subaru has seen this car twice. The most recent time being on 02/11/2015. During that visit (denoted by repair order #[redacted], we completed a brake line recall, oil change service and a multipoint inspection. During this inspection, it was noted by the technician that the head gaskets are leaking oil. Our technician also noted that the drive belts were cracked and four market light bulbs were out. As a part of this complimentary inspection, we also checked the alignment (all good) and the health of the battery (all good). The technician that completed the work on the vehicle and noted the potential issues is fully Subaru Master Certified and is [redacted]. He is current with all Subaru factory training, as is all of our staff. We understand that [redacted] has different opinion from another mechanic. We would welcome [redacted] and, even her mechanic, to visit our facility and allow us to collectively view the vehicle and the deficiencies we noted. As a [redacted] Approved and Revdex.com A+ rated business, we are keenly concerned with our reputation and quality of service. So, we would welcome this opportunity to show [redacted] what we found - and, why we found it. We note that [redacted] is not a member of the Revdex.com. Premier Subaru cares about our reputation. Our owner is on site every day. We don't ever jeopardize our reputation by selling needless services to customers. We stand open to inviting [redacted] and even her mechanic into our facility for a collective review of her vehicle.

Review: I brought my [redacted] in for a 60,000 mile service on Thursday, May 7, 2015. When I made the appointment I told them I had a small-1/2" crack in my windshield and could they repair it. They referred me to my insurance company who made an appointment for it to be repaired on Friday, May 8. I told them at drop off I thought I needed new tires.

When I picked the car up, they had not addressed the tire concern but one I has 4 months previously regarding my wiper blades. Upon arriving at my car, I noticed my windshield was now shattered with a visible gouge in the glass. They never told me about this. I brought it to the sales manager's attention and he seemed surprised, said maybe happened while it was sittin in the lot in the sun. When I called the next morning to follow up he denied responsibility because I had an existing crack in my windshield. I asked to speak with the owner who never called back. I then posted a negative review on [redacted] and [redacted] which is what people do when they have poor service. The owner keeps responding with defensive comments via [redacted] but I have never received a call back.

Their service failed on a few accounts: 1. when they saw the crack they should have called to let me know there was a chance it could become worse while they were working on it; 2. They should have notified me when I paid for the service that my windshield was severely damaged (instead of hoping I wouldn't notice and leave the lot); 3. Thinking it is okay for a customer to drive from the lot in a dangerous vehicle; 4. Never getting a call back from the owner who instead answered via social media.

I called [redacted] corporate and they are hesitant to address this because the owner is a speaker at their convention next week.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. [redacted]Desired Settlement: They said the car was videotaped during service. I asked to see the video and they posted on [redacted] they will not pursue the issue further which I assume means they will not let me see it.

I would like them to own up to the fact that they did something to shatter my windshield and apologize for the failure to notify me that my car was dangerously damaged. I would also like an apology for the rude and condescending treatment I have been receiving.

Is it okay to treat a customer this way just because you sell a lot of cars?

Business

Response:

The client brought the vehicle into [redacted] with a pre-existing condition being a cracked windshield. This crack was noted and videotaped via our vehicle inspection system. When the customer picked up the vehicle, they indicated that the crack was larger then when they dropped off. As we indicated to the customer, and, through the client's execution of the repair order, [redacted] cannot be responsible for matters of an existing condition. The crack wasn't caused by a warranty related item, but, was related to an exterior impact, of which we noted. Furthermore, as we indicated to the customer, cracks in the windshields tend to grow. For our mutual protection, we videotape all vehicles in our service department during their entire tenure at our dealership. We indicated, to the customer, that it was a pre-existing crack and that we could not be held responsible for the same. As a courtesy to the customer, our service manager scheduled a meeting with our owner in order to see if some sort of assistance could be provided to the customer - not a requirement - but as a matter of customer satisfaction.

The client indicates that she had posted a review on Facebook/[redacted] - we acknowledge that. This review was posted during the time in which we were considering a policy adjustment for her of some sort. Given the negative comments, we opted not to proceed.

The customer also called [redacted] Customer Service who indicated that the matter was closed as [redacted] acted responsibly.

This matter should be closed as the customer is blaming [redacted] for an acknowledged pre-existing condition. It isn't reasonable to place blame when damage such as was on the vehicle, exists. The customer executed a repair order and [redacted] completed the service work pursuant to the terms of that repair order.

For a very long time, [redacted] has been a member in good standing of the Revdex.com. We are a reasonable company with a track record of helping our clients. Since this customer's vehicle was dropped off with a cracked windshield, we cannot be held responsible for the same.

Consumer

Response:

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because: my issue is with the lack of professionalism, customer care, and customer follow up. I have never denied I had a small crack in my windshield. I am not asking for them to take responsibility for my windshield. I want it on record that their customer service is sub par.1. If they noticed a crack in my windshield upon doing a 360 degree inspection of the car prior to service, they should have called to notify me and I would have rescheduled the service until after it was repaired the next day. He posted "it was noted and acknowledged by all parties." Not all parties, not me. Again, why was I not notified? This is standard practice with much more professional service departments my family has delt with in the past. They were responsible for doing this.

Review: The following describes a dispute between the vehicle’s purchasers ([redacted]) and the Premier Subaru dealership of [redacted], CT. In brief, we the purchasers believe the car was sold to us with a tire that had a hole in it, and were assured by the dealership that the vehicle was inspected and the tires were fine at the time of the purchase.

We first interacted with Premier Subaru on Thursday, October 2nd, 2014 when taking the car for a test drive, which we found through the company’s website. The car was being offered as a red tag special, and had an option of a Subaru [redacted] warranty, or a lifetime [redacted] warranty offered through the dealership. [redacted], our sales rep, brought the vehicle around the building for us to take a ride. Upon first getting into the car, we were told there was a TPMS (Tire Pressure Monitoring System) light illuminated on the dash, but the tires were just filled by the service center, and the light would go off when the car was driven a little. It was postulated at this time by [redacted] that the tires may have been a little low from the vehicle sitting in the parking lot for a time. Once our test drive was complete, we knew we were interested in the car, but wanted to think the decision over. We let Premier know on Friday, October 3rd, that we would be returning the next day to purchase the car.

On Saturday morning, October 4th, 2014, we went down to Premier Subaru to complete our purchase. The vehicle had been in the shop the day before to be prepped for delivery, and we were taking our final look at the car before signing the papers. At this time, we noticed the TPMS light was still on in the vehicle, and inquired as to why this was the case, and see if it could be checked out again. We also found that the passenger side sideview mirror was not functioning, and requested this be fixed as well before we sign the papers. We were told both issues would be looked into, and we could move forward with the purchase process while the 2 issues were investigated. We were again assured the tires are all set, the TPMS system was working correctly, and the light would shut off after a few miles of driving. The mirror was also fixed at this time. We took delivery of the car that day, trusting the word of the dealership that there was in fact, no problem with the tires. The light went off on our trip home from [redacted], just as the dealer said it would.

Approximately 4 or 5 days later, the light came back on in the dash. [redacted] actually misidentified the light as an oil pressure warning light, which caused some alarm to us coming on so soon after the purchase of the vehicle, and is one of the reasons we are so sure the light came on within the first week after purchasing the car. Once I assured her it was the TPMS light back on, and not an engine problem, our fears were at least a little calmed. I decided to just top the tires off again, as we were thinking maybe a drop in temperature or some external factors were at work. I noticed all the tires were off a little from the factory spec, so I filled to the suggested pressure. The light once again went off, for a few days. When the light came back on, we realized there was probably a problem that was missed by the dealership, and we would need to return to have it looked at. If we are guilty of anything throughout this ordeal, it’s that we should have returned to the dealership promptly when we realized there was a problem, but it is actually my understanding after talking with several people at Premier that we would have received the same response from them no matter when we brought the car back. Due to scheduling conflicts, the distance of the dealership, and procrastination, we did not make it back into Premier until December 2nd, 2014. [redacted] brought the car into the Premier service department on the morning of December 2nd, 2014. She told the technicians that she bought the car with the TPMS light on, was told there was no problems, and the light continued to come on since the day we bought the car, even after refilling the front drivers side wheel multiple times. We believed the car was misdiagnosed with a wheel problem at the time of purchase. The car was inspected at this time, and [redacted] was told there was a piece of metal in one of the tires, and that she would need to purchase 4 new tires starting at around $700 and going up with different models. She let them know that we did not feel this was our financial responsibility, as the car seemed to us to obviously have a tire problem since before we purchased it. The service department began discussions with management about this issue, and [redacted] was told that a) the tire that was the problem now (driver side front) was a different tire than the one causing the light to go on when we bought the car (driver side rear), and b) that we likely picked up this piece of metal AFTER leaving the dealership with the car, and that this was not their problem. [redacted] requested the service records that indicated the initial problem tire was the driver side rear, but her request was not accommodated. She was then offered a single new tire which would need to be shaved down to size for $250. She refused these service options.

At this time, I ([redacted]) called into the dealership to discuss the options presented, and why we felt the dealership was responsible for the tire. Over the next 3 days, I talked multiple times with [redacted] and [redacted] over the phone and through email. It was clear from my discussions with them that Premier was not budging from their stance that the tire we were having problems with was a different tire from the initial cause of the light, and that we likely picked up the piece of metal after we took delivery of the vehicle. I requested from both of them to be sent any documentation from the service initially performed on the car that indicated the driver side rear tire was causing the light to be on back in October, but all of my requests went unanswered. In my final discussions with [redacted], we were offered a $75 credit for the service department that could be used towards the shaved tire, effectively bringing the cost of a single tire down to $175. I let [redacted] know that if this was the final offer from Premier, that we had no interest in continuing to give Premier any of our business, and the service credit was useless to us. I saw that continuing to pursue this issue with Premier would be fruitless, and if any reparations were wanted, we would need to go down other avenues. I decided to email the owner of the Premier [redacted], through an email I found on the website, to just make sure he was aware of the issues we were facing and was comfortable with the resolution his business was offering us. [redacted] emailed me back promptly, and it was clear he was aware of the issues and was comfortable with the offer they gave us. I would not be getting any resolution working with Premier exclusively.

At this time, I reached out [redacted]) customer service through the telephone number on their website. Upon telling them the above story, they were disappointed to hear of the details and wanted to help us resolve our issue. It was working with them that I found out some additional troubling details to my story. First, upon giving [redacted] the vehicle’s VIN, we were informed there was an outstanding recall for our car for the brake lines. The recall was issued in July 2014, and it was troubling to me to find out that we were sold a vehicle that had an active recall on it. Through [redacted], we later learned that Premier claimed the car was sold this way because the initial inspection was completed in June 2014 before the recall was issued. In our eyes, this does not forgive selling a car with an active recall, and I feel that other consumers would feel this way too. Next, since the car was offered online as a Certified Pre-Owned vehicle, we were told there had to of been a 150 point inspection done on the car before it could be offered as such. Premier informed [redacted] that we would have received a copy of the 150 point checklist in the glove box when we accepted the vehicle, but this was not the case, and I requested to be sent a copy of this checklist from [redacted]. Included with this letter is a copy of the checklist, which clearly states that as of the date of this inspection, in June 2014, the TPMS light was on in the dashboard. Certainly this does not prove that our driver side front tire was causing this light to come on in June 2014, but it does show that this light was on at the date of the inspection (06/2014), the day of our test drive (10/02/2014), the day after our test drive (10/05/2014, according to Premier, when the light was deemed to be caused by the driver side rear tire) and the day of delivery (10/04/2014), and multiple times in the following weeks after purchasing the car. It seems to me to be clear that this was not simply a case of low tire pressure due to sitting on the lot. [redacted] expressed to me that they were disappointed in the experience we had with Premier, and wanted to be sure that this did not taint our overall experience with the brand. They suggested we bring the car into another dealership, where a “goodwill” service could be performed to remedy our problem. At their suggestion, we scheduled a service appointment with [redacted] in [redacted], CT. We received further disturbing news from the service technicians at [redacted]. We were told that there was actually no piece of metal found in the driver side front tire, and that there was actually a failed patch attempt on this tire. We were appalled. Why would Premier tell us there was a piece of metal in the tire instead of the truth, which was a failed patch? [redacted] offered to patch the tire correctly from the inside (as opposed to the external patch which failed) under the “goodwill service” promised to us by [redacted], and assured us that with the patch in place the tire was as good as new. I cannot be sure why Premier would tell us there was a piece of metal in the tire, but I can only find one explanation in my head that makes sense, and in my opinion it was because they were trying to “pull a fast one on us” and sell us the 4 new tires they initially pitched to us. According to [redacted], my understanding is that Premier’s explanation for the discrepancy was explained as not wanting to patch a tire so close to the sidewall ([redacted] told us the hole was in the center of the tread), but that explanation does not account for the lack of any metal being found.

To say the very least, we are very disappointed in every aspect of our interaction with Premier Subaru. I have since chosen to share my story as a review of Premier Subaru. I have been challenged on every online post (which is their right to do) by who I assume is the owner, [redacted], yet he, or anyone else, have ever made an attempt to discuss this problem with me in person, even after I have suggested they do several times and provided them my cell phone number. I have asked [redacted] on multiple occasions for a service record detailing the driver side rear tire causing the TPMS light to come on, and that request has gone ignored more than a dozen times. I have also been told there is no record of the car being serviced the day we purchased the vehicle when we asked that the mirror and tires be checked. This shows negligence and incompetence in my opinion in their service department, and even hints of some very disgusting business practices. I am writing this story today to share my story, findings and opinions with the outlets I feel are afforded to me as a consumer, which is likely why you are reading this now.

I understand that tires are a volatile commodity on an automobile and are subject to various road hazards, but it is our opinion along with the evidence above that we were sold a tire that was unfit for the road at the time of purchase. Any contradiction to this suggestion by Premier Subaru would be a matter of extraordinary circumstances, yet it seems to be the stance they have chosen to take. They continue to fall back on our declination of a road hazard and tire protection plan as the reason why we find ourselves in these circumstances, but they do not address our assertion that this tire hazard happened before we purchased the vehicle. As consumers, we cannot get under the car and make sure that every detail is in line with what is being promised to us, and can only rely on finding a trusted partner to deal with who will be honest about the condition of the tires they were asked to inspect, and we feel this is where Premier Subaru of Branford let us down.Desired Settlement: This is mostly a complaint to inform the Revdex.com of what we view as unscrupulous business practices. This business is constantly pushing it's Revdex.com rating in all of its materials to consumers, and based on the experiences we have had, we just cannot see how this rating was earned. We have witnessed multiple questionable business practices that have me believing this is not some kind of customer service exception, it is just a practice that does not get called out by consumers who get burned by it. At this point, we have repaired the tire in question because it was a safety, and if we were to be compensated by this business, I would want an appropriate refund off the purchase price of the value of 4 quality tires on the car. Certainly if this car were sold with at least 1 tire known to be defective, that would discount the car by at least the $250 the dealership wanted to charge us for a single new/shaved tire.

Business

Response:

Premier Subaru is well aware of Mr. [redacted]'s issue, as Mr. [redacted] threatened us with ongoing complaints and negative reviews if he didn't get a satisfactory resolution, as interpreted by him, - which is effectively a free tire. We have a voluminous file in this regard. [redacted] was contacted and closed the matter without adjustment.

A copy of my email to the client is listed below. We can provide any additional information you may require. You will see that Premier Subaru attempted to make a resolution to the matter, but, the client refused. This resolution wasn't required, as the tire failure was not a matter for warranty as there was a nail in it.

Mr. [redacted]/

Thanks for your note and I am sorry for your difficulties. I have been involved with [redacted] and our Service Department on this issue.

With our computerized TPMS system, we can identified the tire that had the issue – that identification is noted. It is done so that we can see if there is a duplicative problem with the same tire. The most recent tire causing the TPMS light to illuminate is not related to the first tire that evidenced the illumination. The previous TPMS light was illuminated due to tire pressure in the left rear tire on 10-03-2014. On 12-02-2014, and approximately 2,000 miles later, the car was examined by our certified technician and it was identified that there was a piece of metal in the left front tire and that tire would need replacement. Since the Subaru vehicles require a certain circumference and under for all four tires, our [redacted] Manager managed to procure the special services of a tire company to take a new tire and “shave it” to meet the circumference of the existing three tires – so that you wouldn’t need to acquire all four tires. They agreed to do that, including the mounting and balancing, at cost . [redacted] and I spoke and he further offered you a $75 service credit.

I am sorry for your issues, but, Premier Subaru cannot be held responsible for tire damage. When you picked your car up, you were offered products that would have covered road hazards, of which your tire sustained. Through your execution of a document – that product was declined. We do that since tires (and their failures due to road hazards), are not covered under any warranty - including the State of Connecticut used car warranty. Tires are the one part of a brand new car that are not covered – with the exception of a manufacture defect – and that comes from the tire manufacturer – not the car company nor dealer.

Our service department, at no cost to you, examined the situation and even facilitated an accommodation to have a new tire – shaved to the correct circumference, installed on the vehicle. After the $75 service credit, your net charge would have been $175+tax.

The vehicle you purchased had the full 30,000 mile maintenance service performed – something that most dealers would not have done. The mirror issue was related to a plug that had fallen out.

We care very much about our customers and our business. You will see, as you noted from your use of online reviews, that our reviews are very strong. We are [redacted] Approved and Revdex.com A+ Rated. Our customer feedback is strong and in no way have we ever performed a service in exchange for a good review – something that you have proposed in writing. We don’t operate that way. We provide customers with an outstanding value on a car – which is why you came from [redacted] to purchase it. We service them and back them. As you noted, our staff has been professional and we maintain the highest level of professionalism. You had an unfortunate incident – your tire was impacted by a road hazard. Of which there are products that protect you – that were not selected at the time of sale.

Our file is well documented and we are able to answer any questions that any organization you contact may have.

I am sorry you feel the need to “threaten” us with a bad review. In all cases, we try to err on the side of the customer. That is why we even provided you a service credit to assist to offset the cost of the tire that we proposed. We just cannot be held responsible for road hazards.

Thank you.

Robert J. Alvine

President

Premier [redacted] Premier Subaru, LLC

Premier [redacted], LLC d/b/a Premier [redacted] Premier Subaru [redacted] SECOND EMAIL FOLLOWING A NEGATIVE CLIENT RESPONSE TO THE FIRST EMAIL:

Mr. [redacted]/

You weren’t lied to. Our company has very sophisticated equipment designed to match these type of error codes. Air does expand and contract within a tire. So, if the tire pressures on the vehicle you were looking at – and, ultimately purchased, were set to specifications on a warmer day – then, it became colder – quite possibly the tire pressure monitor lights would illuminate. During times in which weather changes from warm to cold, we see a battery of clients that come in with TPMS lights illuminated. We reset those pressures and the light does go out after a circuit resets. Obviously, this situation is different from the situation in which the vehicle was presented to our service department with a piece of metal in it. I believe my previous email outlined what our company was able to do to assist you through this situation.

Again, we did the 30,000 mile factory service – something above and beyond most dealers- prior to making this vehicle available for retail sale. We do that since we don’t want the customer’s first oil change to result in a need for them to do that $500+ service. It is customer satisfaction. So, if we needed to do a tire for $250 on the lot, it would have been done. Your problem is just different. The vehicle sustained a road hazard, something of which products to protect you are available.

I do believe that your email, including the separate one you sent to [redacted], does contain a threat of social media. As we indicated, we have nothing to hide. We provided you with an opportunity to have this unfortunate situation remedied for $175, incorporating a service discount and a special “shaving service” for your tire. We simply cannot be held responsible for a tire road hazard – something not even included on new vehicles.

Thank you. [redacted] Premier [redacted] Premier Subaru, LLC

Premier [redacted], LLC d/b/a Premier [redacted] Premier Subaru [redacted]

Consumer

Response:

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because:

Review: On 8/18/2013 I WENT TO THE SUBARU DEALERSHIP ON 150 NORTH STREET BRANFORD CT. TO PURCHASE A CAR. BEFORE GOING I WENT TO THEIR WEBSITE AND PRINTED OUT INFORMATION ON FOUR USED CARS I WAS INTERESTED IN BUYING.THE WEBSITE PROVIDED THE MILAGE AND THE FINANCE PARTICULARS FOR EACH VEHICLE. I TEST DROVE TWO VEHICLES AND AFTER SEEING THE CARFAX FOR THEM BOTH I CHOSE ONE. DURING MY INTERACTION WITH THE SALESMAN I WAS TOLD THAT EXTENDED WARRANTIES WERE NEVER OFFERED FOR CARS THAT OLD. AND AFTER BEING REASSURED BY THE SALESMAN [redacted] THAT FINANCING WAS AVAILABLE I WAS INFORMED BY THE FINANCE PERSON [redacted] THAT THEY DO NOT FINANCE CARS OVER 80,000 MILES. I ASKED WHY HIS WEBSITE HAS THE FINANCE INFORMATION FOR ALL FOUR VEHICLES (ALL OVER 80,000 MILES) HE SAYS THAT "HIS WEBSITE PEOPLE DROPPED THE BALL ON THIS ONE". HE ALSO SAID THAT I NEEDED TO GO TO A BANK AND GET MY OWN FINANCING IF I WANTED THE CAR. I FEEL THEY USED FALSE ADVERTISING ON THEIR WEBSITE TO LURE ME IN . THE SALESMAN AND FINANCE GUY WENT INTO THE OFFICE AND SPENT OVER 10 MINUTES DISCUSSING MY QUESTION ABOUT THEM PROVIDING WARRANTIES WHICH THEIR WEBSITE ALSO SAID WAS INCLUDED IN THE PURCHASE.I HAVE A FEELING THAT THEY RAN MY CREDIT AND SAW THE POTENTIAL OF SELLING ME A MORE EXPENSIVE CAR SO THEY CHANGED THE RULES AS WE WERE GOING. I WAS TOLD THE WARRANTY INFORMATION ON THE WEBSITE WAS FOR NEW CARS ONLY BUT IT WAS CLEARLY INCLUDED IN THE INFORMATION ON THE USED CAR . 2006 SUBARU OUTBACK 2.5I STOCK #SXXXXXX----ALSO 2006 SUBARU OUTBACK 2.5I STOCK #SXXXXXX.

Product_Or_Service: SUBARU OUTBACK 2.5i

Desired Settlement: DesiredSettlementID: Other (requires explanation)

I FEEL THEY SHOULD HONOR THE WEBSITE CLAIMS OF FINANCING A USED CAR OVER 80,000 MILES OR CHANGE THE WEBSITE NTO ACCURATELY REFLECT THEIR BUSINESS PRACTICES AND THEY SHOULD APOLOGIZE FOR WASTING MY TIME AND LYING TO ME ONLINE

Business

Response:

Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2013/08/20) */

Contact Name and Title: [redacted] GSM

Contact Phone:[redacted]

Contact Email: [redacted]@premiersubaru.com

While we try to maintain each webpage as completely accurate, some of the offerings are generic. Mr [redacted] seems to be looking at the finance "example" and possibly taking it literally. There are always stipulations attached to financing and as we can only arrange for finance, the ultimate decisions with respect to finance are determined by the bank providing the service. The payment calculator attached to each page is there as a service and does not imply that all terms are available for all cars. However, if[redacted] told Mr [redacted] that these 2 cars in question were not financeable, then that would be an error. While most banks do not offer financing on cars over a certain mileage, some do and we do work with 1 credit union that would not stipulate mileage. With respect to warranty, the generic verbiage does state that an extended warranty might be available. These cars have 131K and 159K for mileage. We do have a Service Provider that offers warrantees on cars having up to 150K miles. Perhaps an outside vendor may offer a product for cars having mileage in excess of this. As stated on the website, stock #[redacted] is being offered "as is" as part of our "wholesale to the public collection." Stock number [redacted] is being sold with a 6month/6000 mile limited warranty which does go above and beyond the State of Connecticut's guidelines. If My [redacted] is interested I would be happy to personally assist him in any way possible. We really do try to provide the best possible experience for our customers and yes, sometimes a situation falls through the cracks. In these rare cases I'm happy they brought to may attention and would like to try to "make it up" to Mr [redacted] any way I can.

Consumer Response /* (2110, 7, 2013/08/22) */

(The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the partial settlement response from the business.)

If the payment calculater is only a service and does not imply ALL terms are available then it should clearly state that to avoid confusion. [redacted] did indeed tell me that they don't finance cars with mileage over 80,000 and that statement was corroberated with a phone call to [redacted] subaru in watertown. They told me exactlt the same thing so its possible its a subaru policy and not just preimier dealership policy . I have accepted the dealerships offer to reduce the price by $350 but would have been happier with a larger reduction ... $ 500 to $800 would really show remorse on their part ..

Review: I had purchased a preowned car from Premier Subaru on Saturday February 15, 2014. On Monday February 17, 2014 The cars dashboard lights came on including the check engine light, cruise control, oil temp light, and ABS light and there was smoke coming out from under the hood that smelled of burning rubber.Then I tried to put it in gear to back the car into my parking spot and it would go into gear, so I was told by the man pushing my car that it was my transmission.Tuesday I was given a ride to work where I spent all day on the phone with the dealership. The manager would not return my call so I only spoke to the women who sold me the car. She started blaming me for the problems of the vehicle, asking me if I did something to it, even though I have only owned it for less then 3 days. The car is under a 60 day warranty but I told her I want a refund regardless if they fix it because who would want to own something that broke after only having it 3 days. The sales women said the deal is done, I can only use it as a trade in. I had to fight them to pay for it to be towed from [redacted] to [redacted] and due to the fact that I am not 25 they would not lend me a car. I should also add that now the car wont start. Not only was the product useless but so were the people who worked at the dealership, not accommodating they only understood."Desired Settlement: All I want is my money back, I no longer wish to do business with this shady dealership.

Business

Response:

We are confused by the receipt of this complaint. We acknowledge that the customer picked up her new car on Saturday, February 15, 2015. She contacted us around 11:30am regarding a problem with her vehicle and spoke with [redacted]. Our Management team was involved to ascertain the extent of the problem. We immediately contacted [redacted] in both [redacted] and [redacted] in order to facilitate alternative transportation (these facilities are proximate to the customer's home). The customer has [redacted] and we also indicated that, as we typically do in a warranty situation, we would cover any additional dollars over and above the customers [redacted] in order to have the car brought to us. [redacted], from our office spoke with both the customer, [redacted], and her father.

The car was test driven by our company for more than 50 miles before the delivery of the car to the customer, so, we are equally interested in ascertaining why the customer had a problem with the car.

As of today, we continue to await receipt of the vehicle, via [redacted] towing, so that we can determine the problem the customer had.

I am not sure why this matter has resulted in a complaint since, we immediately worked with the customer upon learning of an issue and worked to provide a tow of the vehicle to our dealership and alternative transportation, since the customer does not live proximate to the dealership.

I am also clearly confused by the customer's use of the word "shady dealership". The client purchased a car, with a limited [redacted] warranty in effect, and we have immediately acted upon the provisions of the warranty. Once the vehicle has arrived at our dealership we will be able to ascertain the reason for the vehicle problem and complete a strategy for repair.

I was having problems with my Blue tooth. So I went to this dealer since I moved into this area. My [redacted] is a 2014, and they replaced my whole communcations unit. My son discovery that instead of having a 2014 unit, They put in a worst functioning unit with a 2012 sim card.[2012 UNIT] I worked with Gary, and he found that the blue hung up repeatedly, and the blue would get struck in "please repeat". However, he would not replace the radio,blue tooth, GPS unit{ all in one]. So now I have no blue tooth, and I work all over the state. Called [redacted] corp number, and they did nothing too. Losing faith in [redacted]. I got screwed, as I don't have time to Keep going their, 2 years old car with no blue tooth.

Review: I bought a new 2012 Impreza from dealer. I drove it for a few months and decided I did not like it because I felt there was a "blind spot" while driving. I went back to dealer and traded it in for a new 2013 Forester. I called the dealer for my first oil change. They could not find any information on either car transaction in their system.They asked if I "bought the car under another name such as [redacted]."?I did not and did not know that name.They said they would straighten it out.I had my oil changed.I mentioned to Subaru that I was concerned about my warranty since they had no record with my name even with the VIN #.They never called me back with any information on problem.Yesterday, July 13, I had a nail in my tire while out shopping. I called Subaru and asked what should I do. [redacted] in service said to call Subaru Roadside assistance and gave me the number.I called and a repair person came to my location to repair the tire.While he was doing the repair($40),I called Subaru because I felt it odd that repairman was a man in a Mercedes with all repair equipment in his trunk. [redacted] said it was fine and it didn't surprise her that Subaru would send a Mercedes to fix it. The repair looked odd to me, I went to tire repair store and was told my tire was ruined/ unsafe. Need new $185. tire. I called Subaru for help with this and was told call company who fixed tire.I said it was Subaru's roadside assistance; she said no, they just contract out and I have no tire coverage, which I asked how she know's this since they have no record of selling me the car. I am very concerned about Subaru having no record of my sale. Something seems very wrong about that.How will the car's warranty be covered for me if they have no record of me. Neither car was financed and all I have is my paperwork from Subaru and the Forester's title.I was spoken to in a very rude manner on July 13 and was not helped in any form of customer friendly manner.I am extremely unhappy with Subaru's attitude and lack of assistance.

Product_Or_Service: Impreza and Forester

Desired Settlement: DesiredSettlementID: Other (requires explanation)

I would like Subaru to find my information in their system regarding the purchases of both cars. They have no record whatsoever of either transaction. I want my warranty in writing. I want them to pay for the new $185 tire + $40 for repair from Subaru's Roadside assistance company, which ruined the tire. I do not want to use that Subaru dealer for any of my service and want to be able to go elsewhere for warrantied service without any penalty to me.

Business

Response:

Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2013/07/17) */

Contact Name and Title: [redacted], GSM

Contact Phone: XXX-XXX-XXXX

Contact Email: [redacted]@premiersubaru.com

We have all the documents pertaining to the October 26, 2012 sale to [redacted]. The sale was of a 2013 Subaru Forester with VIN [redacted]XXXXXX. MS [redacted] has a full Subaru Of America warranty (good at ANY Subaru Dealer in USA) as documented in her New Owner's Packet that includes Owners manuals and all warranty information. The Subaru warranty does not include road hazard coverage for tires. Her confusion may be due to the fact that while she chose an extended coverage warranty with her first purchase, she declined that coverage on this Forester. Documents are here that show the declination. She received a rebate that equaled the refund of the prior warranty. Since she did not select coverage that covers tires damaged in such a way, there would be no refund due her for the damaged tire. If MS [redacted] has any further questions I would be happy to answer them. I'm sorry she is not happy with us as all documents are certainly in order and Subaru Of America has all pertinent information.

Consumer Response /* (3000, 7, 2013/07/23) */

(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT ACCEPT the response from the business.)

Apparently, the Subaru company takes no responsibility for issues.Each time I contacted Premier Subaru, I was told they had no record of my purchase and was I connected to [redacted].Also that they "would correct this/ get back to me". Never heard from them.The date they NOW give Revdex.com of my purchase is incorrect.I know, (and am not confused as they state), that I had purchased extended warranty on Impreza but not on Forester. That is not in question.Problem is Subaru roadside assistance damaged the tire beyond repair by putting plug in outside collar area, and process/repair should have been done differently, if at all, not to cause irreversible damage. After their fix, tire was ruined and had to be replaced. I feel Subaru should reimburse me for the tire "repair" and replacement.Their customer service leaves much to be desired.

Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2013/07/25) */

Premier Subaru has accurate sales information regarding the client's purchase of a new vehicle. In addition, we have the clients signature on matter declining coverage to the vehicle, inclusive of the tire. If the client needs a new tire, we are happy to offer her a client discount on the installation of a tire at our facility. However, this is being done as a customer courtesy and not as an obligation of the company.

Business Response /* (-10, 10, 2013/07/25) */

Premier Subaru has copies of the executed agreements, as well as the declinations by the client, and are happy to provide them to the Revdex.com.

Consumer Response /* (-5, 13, 2013/07/31) */

I also have my records of Forester purchase and the date you now give is inaccurate. As I have said, the reason for me needing a new tire was due to the faulty service from your Subaru Roadside Assistance. Also, your records are still inaccurate for the purchase date, as I also have my original paperwork. I am very unhappy with the service/resolution I have received from Subaru. I will not buy another Subaru. In addition, I won't hesitate to tell others of this bad experience and your condescending tones used in our personal transactions over the telephone. You have lost a good customer.

Business Response /* (4000, 16, 2013/08/02) */

We have provided the Revdex.com with customer executed copies of the purchase order and the menu offering "tire and wheel coverage" and the customers written acknowledgement of the declination of the same. As we indicated on July 25, 2013, through a response to the Revdex.com, if the client requires a new tire, we are happy to offer her a discount on the installation of a tire at our facility. This is being done as a customer consideration. The client refers to "roadside assistance". That is completed through Subaru of America and NOT Premier Subaru. If the customer had a problem with the quality of work from Roadside Assistance, they should more appropriately contact the actual vendor/service provider.

Premier Subaru has been respectful to the customer. The customer is requesting a resolution (new tire) that would have been covered under the tire & wheel coverage that they declined. Premier Subaru does not operate nor control the manufacturer's roadside assistance program. They should contact that service provider - whomever came out and actually facilitated the repair.

All records in our company are accurate and have been forwarded to the Revdex.com.

Should the customer require a new tire, we would, as a customer consideration, be more than willing to provide her with a discount on the tire and the corresponding installation.

Consumer Response /* (4200, 19, 2013/08/09) */

(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)

My date of purchase is listed incorrectly in your Revdex.com response. I already had to pay Subaru Roadside and also for new tire plus installation. Branford Subaru apparently doesn't need my business. I will never buy another Subaru. End of story.

Review: Premier Subaru refused to honor its discount coupon for a 15% discount on parts & repair service labor. They only gave me the standard 10% discount for Subaru cars with over 100,000 miles. They claimed since I was reimbursed for the repairs by my insurance company, they would not give me the 15% discount. The coupon which was emailed directly to me states the following requirements to qualify for the 15% discount:

• A Subaru with over 100,000 miles

• Expiration Date – The date was illegible on a high resolution monitor & high resolution printer. I received the email 7/1/2015.

• Coupon must be presented at the time of invoice.

Nowhere on the coupon does it stat that if part of the repair is reimbursable by insurance, the coupon/discount is not valid. I presented the coupon at the time of invoice and met all of the other criteria. It should not matter where I got the money to pay for the repair. I paid $ 500.00 out of pocket for the repair and my insurance company paid for part of the repair. My insurance company told me I have the right to take my car to the repair shop of my choice. I was Premier Subaru’s customer and they should not be basing their discounts on the source of my funds. Especially, when it was never stated on the coupon that this was a requirement to get the 15% discount !Desired Settlement: Provide a 15% discount. The additional 5% at $ 68.53

Business

Response:

Customer has been explained regarding coupon on several occasions. Vehicle arrived and service workorder was written up on 06/16/2015 as the vehicle was towed into the dealership. On 06/18/2015, customer called in for an insurance claim and adjustor was to be dispatched. Original estimate was on 06/20/2015. On 06/22/2015, the job was reviewed with the adjustor and work was authorized.

On July 1, 2015, in the ordinary course of business, Premier sent coupons to all customers indicating that coupon needed to be presented at the time of "write up" and cannot be combined.

Clients vehicle was written up on 06/16/2015 and pre-dated coupon. As a consideration to the customer, a courtesy 10% discount was provided to him on all labor and parts, even though this matter was passed through to his insurance company.

Since the vehicle write up occurred when the work order was opened on 06/16/2015 and, the coupon issued on 07/01/2015 indicated "must be presented at the time of vehicle write up", the coupon is not valid nor applicable. As a courtesy, Premier Subaru provided the customer with a discount of 10% off of parts and labor.

Review: Purchased a used vehicle from Premier Subaru in the end of September. Two weeks after purchasing the car it had problems. The check engine light was on and the cruise control light was blinking. Loss of power, hesitating with a slight grinding noise. Brought car in and was told it was a loose wire connecting to the cruise control. It was covered under the 6000 mile warranty. Now it is seven months later the same exact problem accurred. Brought the car in again and was told it was a cracked head gasket that was leaking oil to the 4th cylinder and that was why it was loosing power and hesitanting with the grinding noise. They are saying that it will cost us 1800 dollars to repair. We spent over 13,000 dollars on a car that is broken. The car was a certified car and should be fixed without any out of pocket costs because its the same problem. We believe they did a temporary fix when we had the problem 2 weeks after we purchaced the car because the manager said "You can still drive the car because we can do a temporary fix until you get the money to fix it." I told him that this is exactly what you did with my car before knowingly that it will happen again AFTER the 6000 mile warranty has expired. The car has been there for 10 days now and they only called twice and now they are not calling us back that we had to go in person to speak to the manager. We said that we would trade in the car for what we owe on the loan and they refused. We are only asking to fix the car like they were supposed to from the beginning without it costing us a penny. We believe they are trying to take advantage of their customers by "saying" the car is fixed and knowing that the "temporary" fix will last until after the warranty expires. Please help us with this situation because who knows how many other people are going through the same thing with this business. We put trust in them and they we overly kind when we signed the papers and now they are refusing to call or even work something out with us.Desired Settlement: Either fix the car like it was supposed to be done from the get go. Or trade the car in for another car for what we owe on our loan. Or completely take back the car and pay the lender off for what we owe because they can fix it on their own and sell it and still make money off the car.

Business

Response:

The client purchased a car on 10/01/2013 at 95,501 miles. While the State of Connecticut requires a 3 month,3,000 mile powertrain warranty, Premier Subaru provided the customer with a 6 month/6,000 mile nationwide powertrain warranty through [redacted] for additional piece of mind. At the time of sale, On 11/18/2013 at 97,873 miles, the customer dropped off the vehicle with the complaint that the car had a drivability issue and that the check engine light/cruise control light was on. (Repair order attached). The Certified Subaru technician diagnosed that the #3 ignition wire had come loose. The technician re-connected the wire and cleared the check engine light and no problems surfaced.

The customer (per the CarFax) took their car to [redacted] on 01/30/2014 @ 101,361 miles for a routine oil change.

On 07/07/2014 at 108,548 miles, the customer dropped the vehicle off for a check engine light. Our technician diagnosed that the vehicle has a head gasket failure. This is an unrelated problem to the issue that the client had at 97,873 miles.

The car is outside of the 6 month/6,000 mile warranty. Premier Subaru had offered the customer a 15% discount on any work performed, including any of the maintenance work required at the current miles. The client spoke with our service department, as well as [redacted], a manager at the dealership.

We have been awaiting the customers direction on this at this time. Should the customer decide not to proceed with the work, the vehicle is available for pick up. The customer does need to make a decision since the vehicle needs to be picked up at this juncture if the customer doesn't authorize the repairs, as we have quoted to the client, with the 15% discount.