South Coast Subaru

Client's co-signer spoke with South Coast Subaru days prior and explained concernsWe felt issue was resolved with current conversation but will explain again as customer agrees to source loans through dealer to secure credit we submit to various lenders to source the most competitive ratesLenders who do not approve loan in its specific configuration by Federal Law must disclose a notice of denialThis was explained to clients and also that the credit rating systems understands the loan sourcing occurs with multiple lenders and if at different dealerships or different dates multiple timesCredit rating was explained to client via phone conversation with co-signer and I was under the impression both were listeningAny adverse decline in rating is due to additional debt incurred Rating systems understand multiple inquiries so long as only one loan is obtained and credit inquiries are in the same nature (exapartment leasing, car loans, or cosmetic surgeries) they understand for example you would buy several cars or lease several apartments at the same time but may inquire at several locationsI also explained that after several months of consistent current payment ratings will increase as they review each monthI hope this explanation is sufficient to resolve concern

Mr*** is well aware that *** ** *** received payment of his payoff as he has spoken to several employees. We have also explained that * ** * did receive our payoff check, as evidence by tracking number, but did not apply it to his loanThey will send him the refund of his last
payment and have requested us to send a new check for payoffThey did acknowledge receipt of payment and are unsure of why they did not apply our check to his accountWe have open a claim for Mr***, and they have stated their apology to us for loss of check and asked for hours to locate. Our check was sent and accepted at *** ** *** May 20th he will be sent a check from *** ** *** for June payment when they complete the transactionHe has all documentation showing the payoff to *** ** *** including their receipt and the tracking number and his claim number from *** ** *** for the June refundWe truly apologize for any miscommunications but we have informed him continually of our research with *** ** *** their failure to find the check the reissue of payoff, their claim to resolve his payment of JuneWe will update you as to completion of total payments but we can not at this time give Mr*** any monies

We did not destroy FICO score by checking credit. We have customer fill out application, we run credit, it does not matter if it was run somewhere elseWe are sorry customer is upset but concern needs to be with reporting sources and not dealership

Contacted customer by phone resolved issue

Client's co-signer spoke with South Coast Subaru 3 days prior and explained concerns. We felt issue was resolved with current conversation but will explain again as customer agrees to source loans through dealer to secure credit we submit to various lenders to source the most competitive rates....

Lenders who do not approve loan in its specific configuration by Federal Law must disclose a notice of denial. This was explained to clients and also that the credit rating systems understands the loan sourcing occurs with multiple lenders and if at different dealerships or different dates multiple times. Credit rating was explained to client via phone conversation with co-signer and I was under the impression both were listening. Any adverse decline in rating is due to additional debt incurred.  Rating systems understand multiple inquiries so long as only one loan is obtained and credit inquiries are in the same nature (ex. apartment leasing, car loans, or cosmetic surgeries) they understand for example you would buy several cars or lease several apartments at the same time but may inquire at several locations. I also explained that after several months of consistent current payment ratings will increase as they review each month. I hope this explanation is sufficient to resolve concern.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below. Dealership seems to have forgotten that even with the engine modification the Subaru Technician determined those modifications did not cause the problem. It was determined to be a manufacture defective part. Therefore the original problem with the motor was covered under warranty by Subaru of America. So the one time good will scenario is not true.Dealership also seems to have forgotten that they are the ones who performed the last modification to my vehicle when they sold me those suspension parts, installed them and lowered the vehicle. They say that those parts caused the failure. Are they now saying that they do not trust their own employees work. That their service mechanics do not perform competent or complete work on customers vehicles.Either the parts are defective or South Coast Subaru fraudulently sold me those parts and then installed them in a manner that caused this problem with my vehicle and also caused my warranty to be void without advising me beforehand.
Regards,
[redacted]

Revdex.com:I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.I reject this response first and foremost because it makes absolutely no sense! In addition it's poorly written, the grammar is terrible and I have absolutely no idea if they even understood my complaint because I do not understsand one word of it. It was regarding their business practices. I think they did a very poor job of trying to respond. Maybe they should turn this over to someone with much better writing and comprehension skills so we can get a resolution. The response is unacceptable as is.
Regards,[redacted]

Client is advised during initial issue with factory support on vehicle that any modifications may cause warranty to be voided. Subaru of America repaired vehicle under the one time goodwill scenario as client is well aware of that any and all future warranty concerns may not have factory...

support. Client also did additional modifications, the modifications may void warranty, we can not be responsible for the completeness or competency of work performed by others. We will assist in asking for factory warranty exception but believe with the additional modifications that have caused the problems that it is the client's responsibility for any and all costs for repair.

Client request to review credit data, we must have signed approval, and we must source independently of any previous reports. Reporting systems can separate when client is in review for same product (ex apartment leasing, gym membership or car shopping) and adverse crediting scores do not occur over inquires as reporting systems know you will not buy multiple cars or memberships  and certainly not lease more than one apartment. We are sorry if any belief of our review causes client mistrust but we must review to make sure there is no identity problems.

Client's co-signer spoke with South Coast Subaru 3 days prior and explained concerns. We felt issue was resolved with current conversation but will explain again as customer agrees to source loans through dealer to secure credit we submit to various lenders to source the most competitive rates. Lenders who do not approve loan in its specific configuration by Federal Law must disclose a notice of denial. This was explained to clients and also that the credit rating systems understands the loan sourcing occurs with multiple lenders and if at different dealerships or different dates multiple times. Credit rating was explained to client via phone conversation with co-signer and I was under the impression both were listening. Any adverse decline in rating is due to additional debt incurred.  Rating systems understand multiple inquiries so long as only one loan is obtained and credit inquiries are in the same nature (ex. apartment leasing, car loans, or cosmetic surgeries) they understand for example you would buy several cars or lease several apartments at the same time but may inquire at several locations. I also explained that after several months of consistent current payment ratings will increase as they review each month. I hope this explanation is sufficient to resolve concern.

Review: I purchased my 2013 Subaru Impreza Wrx in April 2013. I purchased an extended warranty for the vehicle at that time. One year later the motor blew up. Even though there were after market parts installed on the motor Subaru warranteed the motor and fixed the motor. Now the front differential has failed and needs replacing. I am being told that since the vehicle has been lowered the warranty has been voided. The service manager told me that by lowering the vehicle it put too much pressure on the front differential causing it to break. Now the problem I have is that South Coast Subaru sold me the suspension parts, installed them on my car and lowered it at the dealership. They did not tell me at the time that this would cause my warranty to be voided. I did not sign any paper work acknowledging that my warranty would be voided. If They would have informed me that the installation of those parts was going to void my warranty I would never have purchased them and had them installed. Now I am being told that the cost to fix my vehicle is approximately $3,000.00.Desired Settlement: Since I feel that South Coast Subaru was not completely honest with me regarding the purchase and installation of the parts that they claim caused this problem, My desired outcome is that Subaru honor the warranty and fix or replace any and all parts covered by the manufacturers warranty. I am willing to pay for any parts not covered including a reasonable service fee.

Business

Response:

Client is advised during initial issue with factory support on vehicle that any modifications may cause warranty to be voided. Subaru of America repaired vehicle under the one time goodwill scenario as client is well aware of that any and all future warranty concerns may not have factory support. Client also did additional modifications, the modifications may void warranty, we can not be responsible for the completeness or competency of work performed by others. We will assist in asking for factory warranty exception but believe with the additional modifications that have caused the problems that it is the client's responsibility for any and all costs for repair.

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

Review: As a part of 60,000 mile service; Technicians were supposed to do the services per manufacturer's recommendation. This was not done in my service, After I reviewed the report for inspection the 2 main items like (ATF exchange and cabin air filter) was not replaced.Also on the report it said customer declined service which I did not. This raised concerns and I was trying to get an answer back for the same but responses were very slow and it's been more than 10 days I didn't get any solution. I'm concerned about the dealership and it's integrity with it's service. It's already been very poorly reviewed in google and yelp.Desired Settlement: Need to perform both the services that are not done or need money back for the same

Business

Response:

The client purchase the stated service and it was a coupon price that he was quoted. The 60,000 mile service which was completed did get a transmission fluid service done. Please see the highlighted copy of the repair invoice which shows the transmission fluid was replaced. As for the cabin filter, the coupon that was used did not get the filter because it was not part of the coupon price. I would be happy to replace it for the client at no charge. He was not charged for it during the service he received.

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

Guys first I need to see what attachment they are referring to. Could you send that to my email as I couldn't see it here on the transcript? I have attached specifically which transmission service that they have failed to perform. 7th one on inspection recommendation. I'am afraid to go back to this dealership anymore at the same time I have taken care of the services which dealer did not complete somewhere outside

Regards,

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

Guys

Again I’am not disputing over

the service that is done; my dispute is over replacing the transmission fluid

as shown in the coupon(attachment) that was not done. I have highlighted the

inspection record(attachment) from the dealer for which the service status says

not performed or fail

Failure to do the automatic

transmission fluid exchange service and replacement of cabin air filter as

promised in the coupon was the reason for dispute

Regards,

Business

Response:

We have contacted customer previously and as appeared on service repair order vehicle received fluid change on transmission. Air filter was replaced at service also, cabin filter was not in previous coupon but is now added at an additional cost. Spoke with customer who will look up his paperwork to confirm. Gesture of goodwill if provided coupon will replace cabin filter at no charge or at cost for part no labor charge with out coupon.

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

Guys

Someone named Mathew called me on Friday and asked who did I speak to previously in regards to this complaint, I told him I'll have to get back with the name after checking the records but the business has stated what they think they might have spoken with me. No goodwill or any options was discussed. Again I would like to insist to the business not to jump to any conclusion and go back to pull the records that was submitted to Revdex.com

Regards,

Review: I went to see if this dealer could get me into a new car with my trade in. I took paperwork from a previous dealer that I went to a few days prior to, to show them the dealer tried but couldn't do it. The manager [redacted], told me they had more banks. I asked him to review the paperwork first, tell me what they could do with my trade in & specifically asked that he not run my credit with [redacted]. I also asked not to run it with more than 3 banks, because I wanted to keep my hard earned FICOs up for home buying. He said he understood, promised he wouldn't but ran it with more than 10 banks, never asking me. He requested to try a 2nd time, I was reluctant & told him so but agreed, again not more than 3 banks. He assured me that he could do it because he had better banks. He lied. He was simply using me. I wasn't aware he never honored my original request until 2 weeks later when I was bombarded with decline letters from banks including [redacted]. The previous dealer tried & couldn't, I'm not sure what made him think he could when they use the same banks which turned me down at the prior dealer or wanted huge down payments. This could've been avoided had he just looked at the previous dealers paperwork first. Instead he single handedly took my highest score from 680 to 586 in 1 day making it almost impossible for me to refinance. I was very upset when the refi bank told me they were hesitant due to my reduced scores. Anything under 600 is bad! Because of that my rate ended up higher instead of the 1.99% I would've qualified for had he not lied. He costs me a great deal which made my payments just as high as before too. My intent was to lower my payments with the refi. Dealers should not be allowed to destroy consumers hard earned FICOs. They should be limited to 3 bank attempts. If they can't make it work, then the consumer should give written authorization to deplete their FICO, that shouldn't be the dealers choice. They destroy credit scores.Desired Settlement: I want the majority of the inquiries placed on my credit by them removed especially the one's I told them not to solicite my credit with.

Business

Response:

Client's co-signer spoke with South Coast Subaru 3 days prior and explained concerns. We felt issue was resolved with current conversation but will explain again as customer agrees to source loans through dealer to secure credit we submit to various lenders to source the most competitive rates. Lenders who do not approve loan in its specific configuration by Federal Law must disclose a notice of denial. This was explained to clients and also that the credit rating systems understands the loan sourcing occurs with multiple lenders and if at different dealerships or different dates multiple times. Credit rating was explained to client via phone conversation with co-signer and I was under the impression both were listening. Any adverse decline in rating is due to additional debt incurred. Rating systems understand multiple inquiries so long as only one loan is obtained and credit inquiries are in the same nature (ex. apartment leasing, car loans, or cosmetic surgeries) they understand for example you would buy several cars or lease several apartments at the same time but may inquire at several locations. I also explained that after several months of consistent current payment ratings will increase as they review each month. I hope this explanation is sufficient to resolve concern.

Business

Response:

Client's co-signer spoke with South Coast Subaru 3 days prior and explained concerns. We felt issue was resolved with current conversation but will explain again as customer agrees to source loans through dealer to secure credit we submit to various lenders to source the most competitive rates. Lenders who do not approve loan in its specific configuration by Federal Law must disclose a notice of denial. This was explained to clients and also that the credit rating systems understands the loan sourcing occurs with multiple lenders and if at different dealerships or different dates multiple times. Credit rating was explained to client via phone conversation with co-signer and I was under the impression both were listening. Any adverse decline in rating is due to additional debt incurred. Rating systems understand multiple inquiries so long as only one loan is obtained and credit inquiries are in the same nature (ex. apartment leasing, car loans, or cosmetic surgeries) they understand for example you would buy several cars or lease several apartments at the same time but may inquire at several locations. I also explained that after several months of consistent current payment ratings will increase as they review each month. I hope this explanation is sufficient to resolve concern.

Business

Response:

Client's co-signer spoke with South Coast Subaru 3 days prior and explained concerns. We felt issue was resolved with current conversation but will explain again as customer agrees to source loans through dealer to secure credit we submit to various lenders to source the most competitive rates. Lenders who do not approve loan in its specific configuration by Federal Law must disclose a notice of denial. This was explained to clients and also that the credit rating systems understands the loan sourcing occurs with multiple lenders and if at different dealerships or different dates multiple times. Credit rating was explained to client via phone conversation with co-signer and I was under the impression both were listening. Any adverse decline in rating is due to additional debt incurred. Rating systems understand multiple inquiries so long as only one loan is obtained and credit inquiries are in the same nature (ex. apartment leasing, car loans, or cosmetic surgeries) they understand for example you would buy several cars or lease several apartments at the same time but may inquire at several locations. I also explained that after several months of consistent current payment ratings will increase as they review each month. I hope this explanation is sufficient to resolve concern.

Business

Response:

Client request to review credit data, we must have signed approval, and we must source independently of any previous reports. Reporting systems can separate when client is in review for same product (ex apartment leasing, gym membership or car shopping) and adverse crediting scores do not occur over inquires as reporting systems know you will not buy multiple cars or memberships and certainly not lease more than one apartment. We are sorry if any belief of our review causes client mistrust but we must review to make sure there is no identity problems.

Business

Response:

Client request to review credit data, we must have signed approval, and we must source independently of any previous reports. Reporting systems can separate when client is in review for same product (ex apartment leasing, gym membership or car shopping) and adverse crediting scores do not occur over inquires as reporting systems know you will not buy multiple cars or memberships and certainly not lease more than one apartment. We are sorry if any belief of our review causes client mistrust but we must review to make sure there is no identity problems.

Business

Response:

Client request to review credit data, we must have signed approval, and we must source independently of any previous reports. Reporting systems can separate when client is in review for same product (ex apartment leasing, gym membership or car shopping) and adverse crediting scores do not occur over inquires as reporting systems know you will not buy multiple cars or memberships and certainly not lease more than one apartment. We are sorry if any belief of our review causes client mistrust but we must review to make sure there is no identity problems.

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.I reject this response first and foremost because it makes absolutely no sense! In addition it's poorly written, the grammar is terrible and I have absolutely no idea if they even understood my complaint because I do not understsand one word of it. It was regarding their business practices. I think they did a very poor job of trying to respond. Maybe they should turn this over to someone with much better writing and comprehension skills so we can get a resolution. The response is unacceptable as is.

Regards,[redacted]

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.I reject this response first and foremost because it makes absolutely no sense! In addition it's poorly written, the grammar is terrible and I have absolutely no idea if they even understood my complaint because I do not understsand one word of it. It was regarding their business practices. I think they did a very poor job of trying to respond. Maybe they should turn this over to someone with much better writing and comprehension skills so we can get a resolution. The response is unacceptable as is.

Regards,[redacted]

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.I reject this response first and foremost because it makes absolutely no sense! In addition it's poorly written, the grammar is terrible and I have absolutely no idea if they even understood my complaint because I do not understsand one word of it. It was regarding their business practices. I think they did a very poor job of trying to respond. Maybe they should turn this over to someone with much better writing and comprehension skills so we can get a resolution. The response is unacceptable as is.

Regards,[redacted]

Business

Response:

We did not destroy FICO score by checking credit. We have customer fill out application, we run credit, it does not matter if it was run somewhere else. We are sorry customer is upset but concern needs to be with reporting sources and not dealership.

Business

Response:

We did not destroy FICO score by checking credit. We have customer fill out application, we run credit, it does not matter if it was run somewhere else. We are sorry customer is upset but concern needs to be with reporting sources and not dealership.

Business

Response:

We did not destroy FICO score by checking credit. We have customer fill out application, we run credit, it does not matter if it was run somewhere else. We are sorry customer is upset but concern needs to be with reporting sources and not dealership.

Review: When I purchased my car, I requested to purchase it through my business as the vehicle is a business vehicle. The finance manager said I had to purchase it through my personal finance, not the business and that my tax advisor could help me make it a business vehicle. I trusted it was normal, and proceeded with the purchase through my personal finance/credit. I have since contacted my tax advisor, who stated in order to deduct the vehicle expense as a business vehicle, it needed to be purchased through my business credit and entity and that the dealer would need to write a letter stating they would only accept personal credit/purchase. I initially spoke with my sales rep, Chet, who was great the whole way through - and he relayed the message to the finance manager, who in turn said they wouldn't write the letter because they didn't want to get legally involved. I requested to speak with the finance manager, but was told he was in a meeting, and proceeded to I reach out several times over the course of a week attempting to reach a finance manager. I eventually reached John, who explained to me they won't write the letter because they don't want to be held legally responsible for what they told me and that I need to have Chase Bank write the letter, that Subaru is just the middleman - (the middleman who said what they had to say to get the sale). I am now left without a letter from the dealer and asked to track down an unknown department at Chase that would write a letter on behalf of the dealership. I felt this was handled very non-transparently and unprofessionally. If you tell someone they need to do it a certain way, stand behind it in writing!Desired Settlement: I am requesting that the dealership write a letter stating that they told me I had to purchase the vehicle with personal credit, not business so I can take my tax deductions for my business vehicle.

Consumer

Response:

To whom it may concern,

You can drop the complaint # [redacted]

I have worked out an agreement with the company that satisfies my complaint.

Review: I went to South Coast Subaru dealership to purchase a vehicle with the intent of having my personal bank (NFCU) pay for the car as a cash sale. I did not have the check that day because it was Sunday and the bank was closed. I told them on multiple occasions that they did not have permission to check my credit as I had already decided on what bank would. They provided me a form to sign that I assumed was for the purpose of the car sale the following day. I also specifically asked if that form allowed them to check my credit, and I was told no. Had I not been pressured to sign the form quickly maybe I would have known. The company checked my credit from at least two different financial institutions maybe more. I went to the dealership to ask them what had happened and they again lied to me by telling me I was extremely concerned about interest rates and that it was my fault that this had happened, immediately shifting the blame to me for having poor credit, when my original concern was that multiple credit checks would adversely affect my credit, the main reason they were not supposed to check my credit in the first place. I also plan to speak with a lawyer to assess any further steps needed legally.Desired Settlement: The ramifications to my credit can not be quantified and thus there is no set amount of money that will make this situation any "better". No single employee ever even expressed any amount of remorse for the situation, every person tried to shift the blame on me. I would like an apology first and foremost and a monetary settlement for all of the time I've wasted with the deceitful acts that have occurred. $1000 seems like enough for them to realize that this is a big deal and it shouldn't occur again.

Business

Response:

In review of said complaint from [redacted] #[redacted] client did sign and give authorization for dealership to run credit and find appropriate lender to secure funding of vehicle. Client did receive funds from a credit union that were more favorable than any lending intuitions we were in process with to secure a loan and he proceeded with his credit union. I feel we did not cause any unfavorable credit rating as lenders can see attempts were made in a short time frame. Client’s concern about running credit check is only one factor in many to a credit rating. South Coast did normal business procedure with client and any issue of adverse credit rating can be resolved with reporting bureau. Our experience shows that when a inquire is performed a few or several times in a short period the rating status look shortly after to see if a loan is secured unfavorable rating usually occur if several inquiries are sporadic so they are unsure if additional debt has occurred. We do apologize for any misunderstanding but do not feel that we need to compensate for normal business procedure. As a gesture of good will South Coast will offer one free oil change at our location.

Sincerely,

G. [redacted]

President

South Coast Subaru

Review: This is a complaint about South Coast Acura and its finance department, and management. The dealership filed in error, with the DMV, a change of owner name on the title to my car. This caused a RDF to be placed on my car registration, so I cannot register my vehicle. Both the lending institution and I have asked the dealer to reverse this transaction and remove the RDF, since august 2015. I last spoke with [redacted], in person, at the dealership on 9/23/2015, and she assured me that she will reverse the transaction and remove the RDF with the DMV on 9/24/2015.

On 10/7/2015, I spoke with the DMV and was informed that the dealership had not done the reversal, and that I still cannot register my car. I called and left messages with [redacted] and the general manager, [redacted]. I still have not gotten a call back.Desired Settlement: The dealership needs to do what they promised to do. The dealership needs to contact the DMV, and reverse the owner name change (made in error), and remove the RDF. The dealership needs to do this ASAP and also stop ignoring my requests for a call back. I cannot register my vehicle until the dealership does what they promised to do, since august 2015, and latest contact was in 9/23/2015. I would like to be contacted by the dealership after they have done the DMV transaction.

Business

Response:

Contacted customer by phone resolved issue.

Review: I had my 2003 Acura TL towed to South Coast Acura after hours, leaving a note saying that I believed my transmission had gone out. The next day, I was told via telephone that there would possibly be a $130 fee to troubleshoot the transmission (applicable to the cost of any repair), but I would not be charged that fee if it appeared that I needed a new transmission, just on the basis of "goodwill". I was called again later and told that the problem was more advanced than it appeared, and that the fee would apply. I consented to this. Later, I was told that I did need to have the transmission replaced. I was quoted prices for two alternatives, both of which were outrageously high, so I declined and said I would arrange to have the vehicle removed.

When I went in to pay for the diagnosis, I was given a 3-page document explaining various "inspections" and findings, and recommending additional work on my car. One line item said "Replace timing belt package (Found timing belt to be in poor condition)." The document also suggested that my brake fluid was dirty, my power steering pump was leaking, I needed all spark plugs replaced, I needed all valves to be adjusted (due to an alleged misfire condition), and that my "air induction system" was found to be dirty. There were also two "previously declined recommendations" to have both lower ball joints replaced and a 4-wheel alignment. Those two recommendations were made on 10/30/12.

I had already had both an independent mechanic and a suspension shop verify that the lower ball joints were in perfect condition, and not in need of replacement. I knew my brake fluid had been replaced not long ago, I had just replaced my air filter less than a month ago, my valves were adjusted and spark plugs replaced on 4/1/13, and my timing belt "package" was replaced on 7/17/11, approximately 40,000 miles ago.

I asked the service manager about these obviously bogus recommendations, and he admitted that many of them were based purely on the mileage of my vehicle and the fact that I had not performed the work there, so they assumed it had not been done. I knew the technician had not gone to the effort to physically inspect my timing belt, as claimed by South Coast Acura, and the service manager said that it was just a wording error caused by a third party that caused them to claim my timing belt was found to be in poor condition. When I asked if his first troubleshooting effort in solving a misfire would be to adjust all valves and replace all spark plugs ($750), he said that that would just be the starting point of a conversation. After I told them that that work had been done 15 months ago, they would recommend some other approach. As for the lower ball joints, he claimed that that was nearly two years ago, the technician that recommended the replacement no longer worked there, and he knew nothing about it. Well, his name is right there on my invoice for that visit (for an airbag recall) as service adviser, and the e-mail with that recommendation came from him. I can still remember him asking for my e-mail address so he could send me the results of their "courtesy inspection".

Since South Coast Acura and its employees have demonstrated that they have little to no regard for the truth, and are perfectly willing to attempt to defraud me by claiming inspections that weren't made and recommending work that isn't necessary, I seriously doubt that they performed the claimed diagnosis on my transmission. In short, they have zero credibility as far as I'm concerned.Desired Settlement: As the "result" of their supposed diagnosis is the same as the information I provided them - the transmission is bad - I have no evidence that any work was done on my car beyond possibly reading the engine fault code, which I had already had done for free elsewhere. I have essentially paid them to lie to me about inspections that admittedly weren't done, to recommend unnecessary work that they would like to perform on my car.

Business

Response:

Yes we resolved client’s concerns during contact at service drive. Refunded him and he cashed check on 9/15/14

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. The business did eventually refund the amount in question, but did so only after I had filed a complaint with the Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR), and after they were contacted by an investigator from that agency. I consider this complaint resolved.

Regards,

Review: On May 18th I traded my car into south coast subaru and leased a new car with them They agreed to purchase my car for 23,000 and I had 12,200 remaining on my loan. Leaving me roughly 10,800 to use as trade. I used 4500 and asked for a check for the remainder. it took them 2 weeks, one of which I called every day and showed up in person 2 days before they finally gave me my check for 6300$. A week later I got billed for my car payment on the car I had traded in. They never paid off the old loan as agreed. It is now 6/17, 4 1/2 weeks later and they still havent payed off the loan. They do not return my calls or have any information when I do manage to get a hold of their business department. I contacted Subaru of America over a week ago and they seem to be unable to get any information from South coast Subaru aswell.Desired Settlement: My old Loan paid off, my full reimbursement for the car payment I was forced to pay so I didn't get dinged for a late/no payment in my name.

Business

Response:

Mr. [redacted] is well aware that [redacted] received payment of his payoff as he has spoken to several employees. We have also explained that [redacted] did receive our payoff check, as evidence by tracking number, but did not apply it to his loan. They will send him the refund of his last payment and have requested us to send a new check for payoff. They did acknowledge receipt of payment and are unsure of why they did not apply our check to his account. We have open a claim for Mr. [redacted], and they have stated their apology to us for loss of check and asked for 24 hours to locate. Our check was sent and accepted at [redacted] May 20th he will be sent a check from [redacted] for June payment when they complete the transaction. He has all documentation showing the payoff to [redacted] including their receipt and the tracking number and his claim number from [redacted] for the June refund. We truly apologize for any miscommunications but we have informed him continually of our research with [redacted] their failure to find the check the reissue of payoff, their claim to resolve his payment of June. We will update you as to completion of total payments but we can not at this time give Mr. [redacted] any monies.

Review: I purchased a 2011 Subaru Legacy 2,5i Limited from South Coast Subaru of Costa Mesa, California about one month ago (I haven't even received the first bill). I understand that they're trying to sell cars, fine, but after one month of driving the car my seats are starting to show a dark bluish color. After taking a closer look, I can see parts where it seems like the leather is rubbing off (leather doesn't just rub off by sitting on it).

I called the dealership to find out they put a shoe polish on the seats to hide the problem, and without informing me they let me purchase the car. That's like selling me a "silver" ring, later to find out my finger is green because the ring is only made up of a little silver, but mostly crappy metals.

They said the only way they would fix the problem is if I paid for it. I've also found other BAD scratches that would be hard to see unless you go on your hands and knees to search the car (I was washing mine when I found them). I just wanted to inform you of what I see as "shady" practices.

Thank you for your time.

- Austin

Product_Or_Service: 2011 Subaru Legacy 2.5i LimitedDesired Settlement: DesiredSettlementID: Replacement

Preferably I'd liked my seats fixed (not covered up as they did in the first place). If that can't happen, I want others to know of their practices at least.

Business

Response:

I spoke with the sales department regarding Mr. [redacted]’s complaint. The vehicle was sold as a used car in 2013. Used cars are exactly that “used” as a dealer we do reconditioning on the vehicles for safety and functionality and appearance. Used cars are not without small flaws, that is why we go through a rigorous inspection and repair procedure. When a used vehicle is taken in at the dealer level the interiors have stains and flaws that get reconditioned by various means, such as re-dying the leather, cloth and interior components. This is also done under the factory warranty if dictated by the automobile manufacturer. The vehicle in question has never been back for any service and has no documentation regarding any of the complaints brought forward.

Our sales management team will not be making any adjustments on the used vehicle for it was sold “as is”.