Subaru Superstore

December 7, 2013



 

 

 

Revdex.com

4428 N. 12th Street

Phoenix, AZ 85014-4585

 

 

 

 

RE: Complaint #[redacted] - [redacted]  [redacted]

 

 

 

 

Dear Ms. [redacted]:

 

 

This letter serves as a Subaru  Superstore's response  to Revdex.com Complaint #[redacted] filed by Mr. [redacted] on December 4, 2013. Please allow me the opportunity to address the facts and provide insight into the inaccuracies of Mr. [redacted]'s Revdex.com correspondence and his attached letter received  by the dealership on December 6, 2013 (See Attachment A- [redacted] Inbound  Correspondence).

 

Mr. [redacted] purchased a used 2009 Mini Cooper S with  Ill ,805 miles from Subaru

Superstore on May 31, 2013. Due to the dealership's policy associated with higher mileage vehicles, the unit was represented and sold as an "As-Is" Conditional  Sale unit. This "As-Is" Conditional Sale representation does not mean the vehicle failed to undergo a complete used vehicle reconditioning process... to the contrary, Subaru Superstore spent

$1 ,999.37 in total  used car reconditioning prior to offering  the vehicle for sale (See Attachment B - Used Car Reconditioning Summary). Our "As-Is" Conditional Sale process provides a 100% completely transparent and fully disclosed understanding between the client and dealership that higher mileage  vehicles are sold with a 15 Day I

500 Mile (whichever comes  first) merchantability warranty  only. Furthermore, Subaru Superstore fully discloses all repair information to a buyer, any known  non-conformities, plus, advises  and encourages a client to have the vehicle  inspected  by a third party prior to purchase  (See Attachment C - Conditional Sale Documentation).

 

As part of the purchase  transaction, Mr. [redacted]  was formally  informed  of the vehicle's merchantability warranty  represented on numerous documents (See Attachment D - Purchase  Agreement; Attachment E- Finance Contract; Attachment F- Buyer's Guide; and Attachment G - Disclosure Statement). In addition, Mr. [redacted]  was provided an opportunity to purchase  an extended warranty  Vehicle  Service  Contract  on the car however he declined to do so and acknowledged  this accordingly on the above stated documents. In summary, the Subaru Superstore sales process for this vehicle;

 

1)  Provided a fully reconditioned vehicle for sale with no known non­

conformities or issues.

2)   Was completely transparent in the vehicle's  representation as an "As-Is" Conditional Sale vehicle with a 15 Day I 500 Mile merchantability warranty.

3)  Reviewed the service history and encouraged a third party vehicle inspection which the client declined.

4)   Offered an extended warranty Vehicle Service Contract for purchase which the client declined.

5)  Fully disclosed all Purchase, Finance, and Warranty coverage multiple times, on numerous documents, which Mr. [redacted] reviewed and accepted with his signature.

 

The vehicle Subaru Superstore sold to Mr. [redacted] was not a "Lemon" as he has indicated. The issue with  the vehicle occurred 27 days and 1,246 miles after purchase when the client experienced a "Check Engine" and "Oil  Lite" indicator illumination situation and self-admittedly, continued driving the vehicle until  the vehicle would  no longer  operate and  bad to be towed. Subaru Superstore inspected the vehicle and discovered an empty coolant reservoir due to a cracked thermostat housing and coolant pipe. The vehicle was found to have no engine coolant  remaining, either internally in the engine or in the reservoir tank. Furthermore, the vehicle was found to have been operated in an "extreme overheat situation" thereby, doing unknown internal damage to the engine (See Attachment H -[redacted] Repair Order 06_26_2013). Again, the client admittedly stated the vehicle was operated with no regard to the indicator lights illuminated and without any notification to the dealership. Subaru Superstore performed

the thermostat housing and coolant pipe repair for the client at a charge of $598.26. At that

time, the client was verbally advised by [redacted], Subaru Superstore's Service & Parts Director, that the extreme overheat situation which the vehicle endured may have or will lead to internal engine damage. As a gesture of goodwill, Subaru Superstore did offer

a trade-in valuation of the vehicle and subsequently, offered to trade the client into another

vehicle at an additional cost on his part. The client refused and took the vehicle as repaired.

 

On October 25, 2013, four months and 4,765 miles after the repair indicated above, the vehicle was once again brought into Subaru Superstore for a mechanical evaluation.  It was determined at that time the engine had experienced a major catastrophic failure, more than likely as a direct result of the extreme overheating situation from June 26, 2013. The client was provided a repair estimate, declined services, and towed the vehicle out at his discretion. Subaru Superstore had no further interaction with the client until notified by

the Revdex.com on December 4, 2013.

 

In closing, Mr. [redacted] is alleging Subaru Superstore sold him a vehicle that was riddled with problems, a "Lemon" per his letter. That statement is entirely untrue and not based on fact. There is no dealership that I'm aware of who reconditions used vehicles to the high degree of quality that our establishment represents. Mr. [redacted] purchased a high mileage (111,805 miles) vehicle that operated without fail until decidedly driven into an extreme overheat situation with complete dis-regard of the

indicator lights advising otherwise. The client needs to accept responsibility for his actions

that led to the catastrophic engine failure, and refrain from painting Subaru Superstore as an un-reputable firm who fails to stand behind their products.

 

Although we recognize this matter as an unfortunate situation for Mr. [redacted], it's one where Subaru Superstore has no financial responsibility. Given the course of events and vehicle history, Subaru Superstore seeks to be released from any liabilities and judgments pertaining to Mr. [redacted]'s claim. Thank you in advance for your prompt attention and response to this matter.

 

 

 

 

Best Regards,

 

Owner Subaru Superstore

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response.  If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me.  I will wait until for the business to perform this action and, if it does, will consider this complaint resolved.

Regards,

To whom it may concern:
After speaking with all of the dealership individuals involved

plus, reviewing client contact times involved with this particular vehicle

(there were no less than four clients looking at the same vehicle since it was

made ready for the lot) its...

unfortunately a situation where one client came

into the dealership earlier in the morning, drove the vehicle, was in process of

working with another salesperson and elected to purchase the vehicle before Mr. [redacted] had the opportunity. Mr. [redacted] did indicate he wanted to purchase the vehicle, requested Subaru Superstore to obtain financing for him however, his offer to purchase was contingent on test driving the vehicle and no security deposit was provided/collected. Furthermore, Subaru Superstore offers all used vehicles on first come, first serve basis... in this situation, another client was willing to purchase the vehicle without any contingencies and did so accordingly.The last thing I ever want is an unhappy client. Given we have

multiple dealerships and receive used car products daily, we would be more than happy to try

and find Mr. [redacted] a suitable replacement vehicle (I explained this to the client) however, we cannot duplicate the identical vehicle he wanted to purchase. I have asked Mr. [redacted] to monitor our website and communicate directly with me if in fact he sees another vehicle that may meet his needs and price point. Subaru Superstore can do nothing more to rectify this matter.
Regards,Richard C[redacted] Subaru Superstore

Dear Ms. [redacted]:

Subaru Superstore's response for Complaint #[redacted] ([redacted]) will be sent via Fed-Ex to your attention due to the size of the file and its inability to be uploaded into the Revdex.com's system. I have tried no less than three times to upload a response without...

success. Should you have any questions, please contact me at your convenience. Thank you.

Owner - Subaru Superstore

###-###-####

I had begun working with Subaru Superstore on 11/21/2015 when I began the process of obtaining credit to purchase the '04 Trail Blazer.  On 11/24/2015 at 9:25 A.M., I spoke to a Subaru Salesperson [redacted]) and I requested "[p]lease do not sell

the car until I’ve had a chance at it" per the attached email.  The reply from Mr. Otero at 9:57 A.M. that same day was "I will do everything

possible to have you look at the car before anyone else can once its ready."  At no time was I apprised by the dealership of a "first-come, first-served" policy on used cars, nor was I apprised that a security deposit would be required to hold the car.  Instead, I was promised that everything possible would be done so that I could test drive the vehicle before anyone else had an opportunity.
My credit was approved to purchase the '04 Trail Blazer on Wednesday, 11/25/2015, but the car was not available for test drive on Wednesday contrary to Mr. [redacted] originally suggestion because Mr. Richard C[redacted] of Subaru Superstore, had rejected the original detailing performed on the car and had sent it back for additional detailing.  Accordingly, the car was not available on the lot for purchase until Friday, 11/27/2015, at 9 A.M. due to the closure of the dealership on Thanksgiving Day, 11/26/2015.
Mr. [redacted] and I had a discussion on the phone where Mr. [redacted] was going to check "first thing on Friday morning" to ensure the Trail Blazer's readiness for a test drive and then call me to discuss.  However, Mr. [redacted] failed to call as promised.  Nevertheless, I made the journey to Subaru Superstore from my home in Payson starting at around 9:15 A.M. on Friday morning in hope of finding the Trail Blazer ready for test drive despite Mr. [redacted] failure to communicate.  
Upon arrival at the dealership at approximately 10:30 A.M., my wife and I found the car with a warm engine as it had been test driven by an interested buyer prior to my arrival at the dealership who ultimately purchased the vehicle despite my attempt to perform on the agreement with Mr. [redacted] and purchase the vehicle at that time.
Accordingly, Subaru Superstore deprived me of an opportunity to perform on the agreement made between myself and Mr. [redacted] and, therefore, breached their agreement with me.  I have demanded that the dealership specifically perform on that contract by offering me a replacement vehicle, but they have declined to do so.

To whom it may concern:
 
The Subaru Superstore dealership policy is and always has been (the same at our other dealerships) that used vehicles are on a first come, first serve basis and "subject to prior sale" as indicated in the disclaimer on the dealership website. We do not hold used vehicles for the simple reason they are one of a kind vehicles, mass marketed, and we provide every client the right to purchase a vehicle if they are willing to do so without contingencies. Mr. [redacted] did want to purchase the vehicle and asked us to obtain financing however, had a contingency that he wanted to drive the vehicle prior to finalizing a purchase. No formal purchase documentation was ever executed nor signed by Mr. [redacted] due to his contingency request. Unfortunately, another client arrived to the dealership earlier in the morning, test drove the vehicle, agreed to the price and had no contingencies to completing a sale... the vehicle was ultimately sold to the other client via another salesperson and sales manager.
Although Subaru Superstore regrets that the client missed out on a vehicle he desired, there is nothing more than can be done to assist Mr. [redacted] regarding this transaction. We have offered and recommended to Mr. [redacted] if he sees another vehicle that may interest him on our website, I would be more than willing to speak with him directly regarding a purchase option. Subaru Superstore has stated its position and offer to assist in finding another suitable vehicle for the client multiple times... no further action regarding this specifically referenced vehicle purchase will be addressed by the dealership.
Regards,Richard C[redacted] - Subaru Superstore

Review: An offer and acceptance of an oral contract had been formed between Subaru Superstore ("the dealership") and myself. My end of the bargain was to submit my credit to scrutiny at the risk of a decreased credit score and then to purchase the car upon approved credit and successful test drive. The dealership's end of the bargain was to hold the car for my test drive, which I had intended to purchase due to my pre-approval of credit pending a successful test drive.

The dealership contends that since no money was deposited, they had no obligation to hold the car. My contention is that a contract had already been formed without the need to lay down a deposit due to the exchange of promises made between the dealership and myself.

As a bona fide purchaser who was ready, willing and able to purchase the car, my performance under the contract was completed. The dealership, however, breached the contract by selling the car to another purchaser who was presented after I had been pre-approved.Desired Settlement: I wish to be made whole by the dealership's specific performance to the oral contract formed.

Business

Response:

To whom it may concern:After speaking with all of the dealership individuals involved

plus, reviewing client contact times involved with this particular vehicle

(there were no less than four clients looking at the same vehicle since it was

made ready for the lot) its unfortunately a situation where one client came

into the dealership earlier in the morning, drove the vehicle, was in process of

working with another salesperson and elected to purchase the vehicle before Mr. [redacted] had the opportunity. Mr. [redacted] did indicate he wanted to purchase the vehicle, requested Subaru Superstore to obtain financing for him however, his offer to purchase was contingent on test driving the vehicle and no security deposit was provided/collected. Furthermore, Subaru Superstore offers all used vehicles on first come, first serve basis... in this situation, another client was willing to purchase the vehicle without any contingencies and did so accordingly.The last thing I ever want is an unhappy client. Given we have

multiple dealerships and receive used car products daily, we would be more than happy to try

and find Mr. [redacted] a suitable replacement vehicle (I explained this to the client) however, we cannot duplicate the identical vehicle he wanted to purchase. I have asked Mr. [redacted] to monitor our website and communicate directly with me if in fact he sees another vehicle that may meet his needs and price point. Subaru Superstore can do nothing more to rectify this matter.Regards,Richard C[redacted] Subaru Superstore

Consumer

Response:

I had begun working with Subaru Superstore on 11/21/2015 when I began the process of obtaining credit to purchase the '04 Trail Blazer. On 11/24/2015 at 9:25 A.M., I spoke to a Subaru Salesperson [redacted]) and I requested "[p]lease do not sell

the car until I’ve had a chance at it" per the attached email. The reply from Mr. Otero at 9:57 A.M. that same day was "I will do everything

possible to have you look at the car before anyone else can once its ready." At no time was I apprised by the dealership of a "first-come, first-served" policy on used cars, nor was I apprised that a security deposit would be required to hold the car. Instead, I was promised that everything possible would be done so that I could test drive the vehicle before anyone else had an opportunity.My credit was approved to purchase the '04 Trail Blazer on Wednesday, 11/25/2015, but the car was not available for test drive on Wednesday contrary to Mr. [redacted] originally suggestion because Mr. Richard C[redacted] of Subaru Superstore, had rejected the original detailing performed on the car and had sent it back for additional detailing. Accordingly, the car was not available on the lot for purchase until Friday, 11/27/2015, at 9 A.M. due to the closure of the dealership on Thanksgiving Day, 11/26/2015.Mr. [redacted] and I had a discussion on the phone where Mr. [redacted] was going to check "first thing on Friday morning" to ensure the Trail Blazer's readiness for a test drive and then call me to discuss. However, Mr. [redacted] failed to call as promised. Nevertheless, I made the journey to Subaru Superstore from my home in Payson starting at around 9:15 A.M. on Friday morning in hope of finding the Trail Blazer ready for test drive despite Mr. [redacted] failure to communicate. Upon arrival at the dealership at approximately 10:30 A.M., my wife and I found the car with a warm engine as it had been test driven by an interested buyer prior to my arrival at the dealership who ultimately purchased the vehicle despite my attempt to perform on the agreement with Mr. [redacted] and purchase the vehicle at that time.Accordingly, Subaru Superstore deprived me of an opportunity to perform on the agreement made between myself and Mr. [redacted] and, therefore, breached their agreement with me. I have demanded that the dealership specifically perform on that contract by offering me a replacement vehicle, but they have declined to do so.

Business

Response:

To whom it may concern: The Subaru Superstore dealership policy is and always has been (the same at our other dealerships) that used vehicles are on a first come, first serve basis and "subject to prior sale" as indicated in the disclaimer on the dealership website. We do not hold used vehicles for the simple reason they are one of a kind vehicles, mass marketed, and we provide every client the right to purchase a vehicle if they are willing to do so without contingencies. Mr. [redacted] did want to purchase the vehicle and asked us to obtain financing however, had a contingency that he wanted to drive the vehicle prior to finalizing a purchase. No formal purchase documentation was ever executed nor signed by Mr. [redacted] due to his contingency request. Unfortunately, another client arrived to the dealership earlier in the morning, test drove the vehicle, agreed to the price and had no contingencies to completing a sale... the vehicle was ultimately sold to the other client via another salesperson and sales manager.Although Subaru Superstore regrets that the client missed out on a vehicle he desired, there is nothing more than can be done to assist Mr. [redacted] regarding this transaction. We have offered and recommended to Mr. [redacted] if he sees another vehicle that may interest him on our website, I would be more than willing to speak with him directly regarding a purchase option. Subaru Superstore has stated its position and offer to assist in finding another suitable vehicle for the client multiple times... no further action regarding this specifically referenced vehicle purchase will be addressed by the dealership.Regards,Richard C[redacted] - Subaru Superstore

Review: PURCHASED A USED 2009 MINI COOPER, WHICH WAS ALLEGLLY CERTIFILED MECHANICALLY SOUND, IN LESS THEN ONE MONTH AFTER PURCHASE THE CAR STARTED REQUIRING MAJOR REPAIR ISSUES. CRACKED THEMOSTAT HOUSING, $598.26, REPLACEMENT OF ENTIRE ENGINE, $6,400.00, AND FINALLY REPLACEMENT OF CLUTCH AND FLY WHEEL AT A REDUCED PRICE OF $862.31. AMOUNTING TO A GRAND TOTAL OF $7860.57. THESE ISSUES WERE OBVIOUS TO THE PROFESSIONAL EYE ACCORDING TO OTHER PROFESSIONAL MECHANICS WHO COMPLETED THE REPAIRS. THIS DEALER KNOWNLY MISPRESENTED THE AUTOS TRUE CONDITION UPON SELLING ME THE CAR. I HAVE OWN THE CAR LESS THEN FIVE MONTHS, AND ONLY DRIVEN VERY FEW MILES. SUFFERED SEVERAL WEEKS WITHOUT THE USE OF THE CAR. HAD I KNOWN THE CARS TRUE CONDITION I WOULD HAVE NEVER PURCHASED THE AUTO.Desired Settlement: THE PUBLIC SHOULD BE MADE AWARE THIS SUBARU SUPERSTORE OF CHANDLER SELLS INFERIOR PRODUCTS, WHICH THEY DON'T STAND BEHIND AND PREYS ON UNAWARE CUSTOMERS. BUYERS BEWARE SHOULD CLEARLY BE A REQUIREMENT WHEN DEALING WITH AUTO DEALERSHIPS WHO PREY ON THE INNOCENT. A CASH REFUND OF AT LEAST HALF THE COST OF REPAIRS

WOULD BE AN ACCEPTABLE AND FAIR SETTLEMENT.

Business

Response:

Dear Ms. [redacted]:

Subaru Superstore's response for Complaint #[redacted] ([redacted]) will be sent via Fed-Ex to your attention due to the size of the file and its inability to be uploaded into the Revdex.com's system. I have tried no less than three times to upload a response without success. Should you have any questions, please contact me at your convenience. Thank you.

Owner - Subaru Superstore

###-###-####

Business

Response:

December 7, 2013

Our 2015 Subaru Outback developed a blind spot sensor issue after 3,000 miles. The dealership has now had the car for seven calendar days. I have just been informed (through a third party if you can believe it) that they have decided to order a new sensor which will not arrive until Four days from now.

Prior, I received a call from the service manager who claimed no knowledge of a vehicle that had been in his shop for a week that they were either unwilling or unable to fix. He promised to get to the bottom of it and call me back; nothing. So, after hearing from the third party I called the service manager and left a message but he has yet to return my call.

Nor has my complaint to Subaru Corporate Customer Service even been acknowledged. Not even an auto reply. The issue of a service manager not knowing about a vehicle they can't fix is incredible but I'm simply astounded that the part is not being shipped priority overnight to arrive tomorrow.