Sinclair Buick GMC Truck, Inc.

Ms*** brought her vehicle to us and dropped it off on 3-21; her repair order was written on 3-22; as directed on her note, we took the spare tire from the trunk, and mounted it, and and balanced it; during the course of our work on the tires, we also looked for the cause of the front end noise
as directed, and diagnosed the cause, and while doing so, diagnosed that the front struts were not operational, and control arm bushings were cracked and the steering gear was leaking.we informed Ms*** of our diagnosis, and our recommendations for repair, and the costs to do them; she declined all but the tire mounting and the diagnosis of the noise in the front of the carBased on her note, the diagnosis about the rack and pinion was correct, but the next shop disagreed Based on the information that we have, we stand by our initial diagnosis.Since our diagnosis could involve the drive-ability of the vehicle, I would be happy to re-inspect Ms***' car to confirm our diagnosis, and if we were in error, I will gladly refund her monies to her.Regards,*** ** ***Dave Sinclair Buick GMC

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 8, 2016/01/06) */
We spoke with Mr***, and he has disposed of the vehicle in questionNo further action to be taken by us

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/04/27) */
Ms*** came to our dealership on March 12, 2015, and purchased a Chevy Avalanche, with 100,milesAs she stated, she had been interested in a vehicle that she had seen online, but evidently it had been sold prior to her arrival, and
the process of considering, and driving, other alternative vehicles consumed several hoursConsidering the number of vehicles that we have in stock, and the cost and importance of a vehicle purchasing decision, this seems like a reasonable amount of time
Due to the age and mileage of the vehicle that she ultimately selected, we sold the vehicle "AS IS", which means that as part of the purchase price, we were unable to extend any special guarantees or warranties, other than that the vehicle had successfully passed Missouri's safety and emissions tests
During the course of the selection process, Ms*** did say that she was pre-approved by a credit union but we did not understand that to mean that she wanted to deal with that credit union exclusivelyOur understanding was that she would consider other financing sources, and that belief was supported by the fact that she signed a credit application authorizing us to seek other financing sources on her behalf
Given her occupation in real estate property management, her income level, and her completion of a credit application, she would have understood that
When we did ask our finance sources, we were able to obtain offers of credit that offered longer loan terms, at lower interest rates, and therefore lower monthly payment, than her credit union had offered
In addition, as we do with all of our customers, our financial professional reviewed the credit offerings that we had obtained on her behalf, pursuant to her authorization, as well as all of the products available to her to help protect her vehicle and/or her financial security and/or increase its utility or appearance to her
He did this via a written menu, outlining the options, and he did it for her, not because of the vehicle that she bought, but because we do it for all of our customers what we do for one, we do for all, as we are obliged to do
Ms*** told him that she believed that our offering of the vehicle service contract to her indicated that the truck was not a good quality vehicleShe states that she believed that he was coercing her, but we offered the contract because we offer that to all purchasers who are eligible to purchase on the vehicle that they are buying, whether new or used vehicle
And I categorically deny that she was coerced to do anythingShe could have chosen any lender, and as many, or as few, or none, of the products offered to her - as she didIn addition, once she indicated that she no longer wished to purchase the vehicle in question, the deal was rescinded, and her vehicle was returned to her without any resistance
Since she authorized the credit inquiries, we can not say that they were mistakenly issued
We can ask the lenders to not use them in their scoring decisions, but that would be up to the individual lenders

Customer was told of the problem with his car found during our completion of the Recall repair; although he pled poverty, he authorized the work to be done; He has now called to try to finance his repair amount.Therefore, we did as authorized by the legal owner of the vehicle; his mother is
now protesting that.If you have any questions , please call me.*** ***

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2016/01/29) */
Contact Name and Title: *** ***, Presiden
Contact Phone: XXX-XXX-XXXX
Contact Email: ***@davesinclairauto.com
January 29,
To whom it may concern:
Ms*** purchased her car on October 19, 2015, with 75,milesThe
vehicle was provided with a Limited Lifetime Power Train warrantyIn addition, Ms*** purchased an additional warranty that "wraps around", or covers more than, her power train warranty
Since her purchase, Ms*** has visited our Service Department with concerns about the brakes and intermittent stoppagesEach time, we have made repairs to her vehicle which seemed to solve those concerns, at no charge to her
She has not returned for repeat repairs, nor informed our repair facility of the need for additional repairs; but instead attempted to trade her vehicle for another oneWe had agreed to the terms of a purchase of a different vehicle, but she was not satisfied with the terms offered to her by her financial institution, which I believe were approximately $higher than her goal
We had not heard anymore from Ms*** until we received your noteAs we said at the time, we stand ready to take any of the following actions:
Evaluate and diagnose and repair any concerns that she may have about her Milan, subject to the terms of the extended warranties that we provided with her purchase and/or the additional coverage that she purchased;
Attempt to find her a different vehicle that will satisfy her driving and financial needs; or
Offer her a buy out of her vehicle, at its current Fair Market Value, and execute a refund of any monies due her on the cancellation of any financial products that she purchased in addition to the vehicle
Please have her contact me at ***
Regards,
*** ***
Dave Sinclair Buick GMC

I have received Mr***'s complaint today, (it was initially misdirected to Dave Sinclair Ford, Inc.), and have spoken to Mr***. He indicated that he had authorized the purchase of the Paint and Fabric protection package, which we then applied to his vehicle. AFter the application, which is irreversible, Mr*** states that he asked the used car manager to rescind the purchase. Unfortunately, once applied, the material can not be removed, or cancelled, as floor mats or an extended service policy can be.I am investigating further to see what other options there are, and will give you and Mr*** an answer, hopefully no later than close of business tomorrow.Regards,*** ** ***President

Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:
They are lying about the prices they quoted me for the initial repairThey originally told me way more for the throttle body that's why I declined the servicesThey keep changing their prices everydayLast week they purge valve cost went up to now it's when it was originally I have called several shops to get quotes on how much the purge valve and throttle body are and none of them were as high as their quotes They tried to get over on me thinking that I was another dumb black womanWell they thought wrongAt this point I have gotten both repairs done elsewhere where I wasn't judged on my appearanceI want my $back for the inconvenience they have put me throughI have never seen anything like this before I will never ever go their again and will let everyone know they are racist that will Try to get over on people I feel my kindI have since talked to a lawyer about them as well
Sincerely,
*** ***

We received the customer's response, and have reviewed her documents Based on my review, it looks like the following occurred:Car Smart agreed with our diagnosis on the struts and the rack & pinon steering items, performed the repairs, and the repair costs appear to have exceeded our estimates;the documents that I have are silent on the Tire pressure monitors (TPM's); so they do not contradict our diagnosis;we stand behind our diagnosis on the bushings, and if Ms*** brings her vehicle to us, we will gladly put in on a hoist, and show her the evidence to support our diagnosis.the documents show that the second repair facility did rebalance the tires; if upon reinspection, we determine that such was done, and Ms*** says that her ride is now better, I will gladly refund that portion of our fees.Since the costs she incurred were to mount the tire and balance as she had directed us to do; and our diagnosis was matched by the next store, the only refund to which she may be entitled would be the tire balancing, which as I said, I am ready to do following our inspection.Regards,*** ***

Here is my response.I apologize for the delay.Regards,*** ***

TO: Revdex.comI have received your note, dated August 11, 2016, regarding the *** They agreed to provide a registration for a vehcle that they owned, in order to document their eligibility for a rebate which they used as part of the purchase price of the vehicle that they acquired
They initially provided a registration which did not meet the requirements for the rebate, and when asked to provide the registration for another vehicle that they owned, would have been the proper doccumentation to show that they were eligible for the rebate, they unreasonably refused to do so The delay in their receipt of their paperwork, occurred while we sought out the information from another source The delay was solely due to their refusal to cooperate.Since the elements of the purchase which they had agreed to complete were not completed due to their delay, we were not able to complete our portion, until, and unless, we were able to find another source for the required informantion When we were able to generate the document from another source, we did so, but since it was from another source, there was a delay while the alternate documentation was secured When we received the registration information from that source, we mailed the paperwork to the ***, certified mail, return receipt requested, on August 10, 2016.That should conclude the ***' issue.Very truly yours,*** ** ***PresidentDave Sinclair Buick GMC

it appears I got this complaint in error. I own and operate Dave Sinclair Ford this customer name does not appear in my customer data base. there are multiple Dave Sinclair dealerships .buick gmc ?nisan?chrysler?Lincoln?Tell us why here...

I have a member of my staff contacting Ms. [redacted] to arrange a rental vehicle and inspection of her vehicle as soon as possible to resolve the matter.

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response...

because: I knew I  wasn't crazy so I called around to different shops in the city to see how much the purge valve replacement would be and it was around $110 fromm3 different shops. So like I saod originally they doubled the price they quoted me for the repair, because I  was asking for my $155 towards the repair that I  paid for the diagnosis. They are very shady abd think they are dealing with a dummy.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: the next shop didn't disagree about the rack and pinion. In fact, that was fixed. I was told by Dave Sinclair shop that I needed front arm bushings that would cost $727.24. I didn't need those. The reading of the supposed balanced tires were wrong. Attached are the documents from the other shop. 
Sincerely,
[redacted]

To the Revdex.com:   Our service records indicate the following visits, mileage at the time of the repair, and repairs done: 1.       6-22-15, 109860 miles: a.       Check engine light, traction control light, and power door locks not working...

properly. Customer had his vehicle diagnosed at another shop, which stated that the vehicle required a Body Control Module (“BCM”), which that shop bought from us, but which Mr. [redacted] then brought to us for installation. When the customer brought the vehicle from us, he declined our offer to double check the first diagnosis, so that we would guarantee the effectiveness and completeness of the repair, and he declined.  So we installed the BCM and programmed it as directed. 2.       9-28-15, 111978 miles: a.       Customer stated that speedometer would randomly sweep on its own, the reading for the trip odometer will randomly go through all the readings, the locks will randomly go up and down. At the time of the visit, we were unable to duplicate any concerns, nor was customer able to do so while the vehicle was with us. No charge to the customer. 3.       11-10-15, 112685 miles: a.       Customer stated that the car would not crank or start. Just before the failure to start, the power windows were going up and down. We diagnosed the cause as a bad theft module, and recommended its replacement. That replacement included two new ignition keys, which are required so that they can be synchronized with the new module.  We did the repairs at the pre-repair estimated cost of $523. 4.       11-17-15, 112984 miles: a.       Customer stated have to push hard to activate remote start. Found failure code for engine oil pressure switch, which triggers a check engine light, which disables the remote start feature for safety purposes.  Suggested that we install a new oil pressure switch, and after checking the remotes, recommended new remotes, due to their failure to operate, despite new batteries. Customer declined repair. 5.       11-20-15, 112984 miles (mileage not updated in our system) customer returned and authorized: a.       Installed oil pressure sending unit;           b.      Installed new key fob; c.       Remote start resumed operation; d.      Billed as agreed -- $269.99. 6.       08-03-16, 119633 miles: a.       Customer stated having key/fob issue; b.      Tested keyless entry operation, and it was inoperative; c.       Tested key fob transmitter, and it is working; d.      Further diagnosis needed to isolate cause; e.      Depending on the cause, repair may be covered by Parts warranty if one of the parts installed in prior repairs has failed, in which case the diagnostic charge would also be covered. f.        Customer declined.   Dealership Response Mr. [redacted] owns an older car, with high miles, that has had a series of independent electronic issues that we have repaired, for the agreed-upon price, which he has authorized each time before the repairs.  His current problem may or may not be related to his earlier repairs, and until we diagnose it, we won’t know the cause.  I understand why he believes that they are related, and I don’t blame him for thinking so, because it is a reasonable assumption to make.  If he likes, I will offer the following good will adjustment:   We will perform the diagnostic effort at no charge to him, and obviously, if it is related to a prior repair, we will not charge him for that either; and If the cause of the current concern is unrelated to the prior repairs, I will offer him a 50% discount on parts and labor, for whatever repair is required to fix the problem.    And I will note that he could have saved himself a lot of time by calling me directly.   Regards, [redacted] President Dave Sinclair Buick GMC

Mr [redacted] purchased his vehicle, which was covered by a limited lifetime powertrain warranty (“LLPW”), from us on June 17, 2016, for $9,888.  At the time of the purchase, he also purchased an interior/exterior cosmetic appearance protection for $595, and added $1,064 in the finance office for...

etch theft deterrent, key replacement, and tire and wheel warranty, but declined the opportunity to purchase an additional mechanical repair coverage. We also have a $199 admin fee. Total purchase price including everything was $11,751, not $13,000. Shortly after the purchase, Mr. [redacted] brought it to us with some concerns with the transmission and engine.  Due to the complimentary LLPW provided on Mr. [redacted]’s vehicle, we were able to provide him with a brand-new transmission. At the time of diagnosing the transmission, we advised the engine motor mounts and brakes need to be replaced.  Mr. [redacted] could not afford to do both so as a good will adjustment, we performed the motor mount repair and Mr. [redacted] paid for the new brake pads. At the time of purchase, the odometer was 97,231.  Just over three months later, the odometer is 105,625 miles and a problem occurred with the acceleration of the vehicle and the heater.  Based on the condition of the vehicle inside and out, and the evidence of extreme driving behavior, we advised Mr. [redacted] that the problems may not be covered by the warranty, which was a power train warranty, and that if the repairs were not, he would be responsible for our $155 diagnostic charge to identify the cause of the vehicle’s problem.  At his request, we waived the diagnostic charge and provided Mr. [redacted] with a free loaner vehicle while we worked on his car. Once again, as a good will adjustment, we repaired the heater concern without charge.  The acceleration concern required a $108 part and $257 in labor. It was not a powertrain item, so it would be Mr. [redacted] responsibility, as we told him.  He refused to pay that so we have released the vehicle to him. In summary, Mr. [redacted] purchased a vehicle with a limited lifetime power train warranty, as well as some other protections.  Those concerns which were covered by the warranty were repaired at no charge, as well as some other concerns clearly not covered by the warranty.  Based on the evidence of an extreme driving style being used by the driver(s) of the vehicle, we feel that we have been reasonable in our service to him, considering the use and mileage that he has incurred on the vehicle since its purchase.  We will not make any further Good Will Adjustments.

The total charges for Ms. [redacted] were $795, composed of: Diagnostic fee                                      �...⇄ $155;Repair purge valve                                      $217; andRepair throttle body                                   $423. As we indicated, Ms. [redacted] can apply her diagnostic to either or both of the recommended repairs, which would result in additional fees for her of $61, or $268, respectively for the purge valve repair, or the throttle body repair, if she only did one. If she chose to do both, her fees would be 217 + 423 less 155, or $485 additional fees.  That was the offer that [redacted], our service manager made to Ms. [redacted] at the time.  That reflects the discount that Sean offered.  We are sorry if we did not explain that clearly to Ms. [redacted], but there was no change to the prices before or after she chose one of the repairs That offer still stands, and will remain open to the end of the month of January 2017.  If she wishes to have either or both repairs done, she should call [redacted] to schedule a time. Thank you.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/10/27) */
Contact Name and Title: [redacted]
Contact Phone: XXX-XXX-XXXX
Contact Email: [redacted]@davesinclairauto.com
October 27, 2015
Revdex.com
Revdex.com Case: #XXXXXXX
To whom it may concern,
On September 16, 2015, Mr. [redacted]...

purchased a 2015 Sierra, VIN [redacted]XXXXXX. During the course of the purchase, he and the salesperson discussed navigation options, and his salesperson told him, correctly, that the vehicle was equipped with OnStar, which provides, among other services, turn-by-turn navigation. Mr. [redacted] asked no further questions about the matter, through the course of the sale, or delivery of the vehicle.
After delivery, on the 16th, on or about September 25, 2015 Mr. [redacted] called to say he thought that his vehicle should have had touch screen navigation as well as OnStar, based on his reading of the information on his vehicle's window sticker and his reading of GM's website. He felt that he had been deceived by the GM information, and our window stickers.
We explained to Mr. [redacted] that that was not the case, and that Onstar navigation was provided with all Sierras, but that the touch screen navigation option was an additional option, available for an additional charge. We offered Mr. [redacted] the opportunity to bring in his vehicle and exchange it for a different Sierra, which did have the touch screen navigation, for the exact dollar difference between any two such vehicles. Mr. [redacted] did not wish to do so.
Therefore as a final good will offer, we offered Mr. [redacted] the opportunity to buy the additional equipment needed for touch screen navigation on his vehicle at our cost for that equipment, and we would install such equipment at no charge.
He declined that offer as well. Subsequently, he complained to GM, again alleging deceitful information. GM's rep who called us to tell us said that they had also said that his understanding of the information on the GM website was incorrect.
In summary, we answered all questions that Mr. [redacted] asked at the time of the sale, and made no representations of equipment present that wasn't on the vehicle. When we were notified by Mr. [redacted] of his concern about the vehicle's equipment, based on his erroneous reading of GM's website, we offered to correct it at the exact same terms as if he had made the change during the course of his initial purchase visit. Finally we offered to let him upgrade the vehicle he had purchased for less than he would have paid, had he bought a vehicle equipped as he desired. He declined all offers. Further, GM declined any assistance based on his erroneous reading.
Due to the passage of time, we can no longer offer Mr. [redacted] an exchange of vehicles at the same terms that we offered him when he called in September. We will honor our second Good Will Adjustment offer to Mr. [redacted] to add the equipment for him for $0 Labor, and our cost for the equipment will be valid for another 30 days from today's date (October 27, 2015).
Regards,
[redacted]
President
Dave Sinclair Buick GMC

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: [redacted] promised me at the time of the incident at his service department, that he would replace my vehicle at no cost to me. I will not accept his conditions under his insurance company. Mr. [redacted] is a liar and had tried from the instant this happened to cover this up, and keep things quiet. Lying about the amount of damages to my vehicle and his promise to replace my truck at NO cost to me, to me a happy customer. 
Sincerely,
[redacted]

Ms. [redacted], Thank you for letting me know about your concern.  I am sorry that you are not happy with our service, and I will investigate last year's repair to determnine the refund status and call you back.Very truly yours, [redacted]