Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2016/10/07) */
Complaint was NOT filled by said customer "*** ***",
complaint was filed by mother, who is not on the loan or car deal in any way, less one of the trades being tied to her credit
Vehicle contact date was 9/19/
There are
TWO trades in this deal,
one of was not brought to dealer until 9/28/
Have all paperwork that states this deal is contingent upon inspection of second trade
Dealer has policy that states trades will NOT be paid off unit deal has fundeddeal funded 10/7/due to deal not being sent in until second trade was inspected and deemed acceptable
Consumers credit is NOT effected at all, as deal is not even close to days old yet
An incorrect account number was provided by the customer for trade in, causing problems with obtaining actual payoff information
I would like this case completely dismissed on grounds of provided information by "customer" being false, and dealer operating within guidelines
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (2000, 7, 2016/10/12) */
(The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)
All loans have been paid off and everything completed
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 17, 2015/08/24) */
Vehicle was purchased as-isWe were not aware of any problems and we're not made aware until customer had repairedVehicle had been checked by our third party mechanic
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 19, 2015/08/25) */
(The
consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I did make company aware and a mechanic checked when I was at the shop and said it was the brakes but that the warranty would not cover itHe said he would let the shop owner knowAlso because of the delay in the company mailing me the state inspection papers I had it inspected and the brakes had to be repaired prior to it passingHowever the mechanic that inspected it at their company ommited that needI can provide that documentationAlso the company did not address in the response the second key can I was promisedSelling something as is and then falsifying documentation is not a good business practiceConsumers need to beware
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 8, 2017/05/23) */
Our records do not show [redacted] as a customer.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 11, 2017/05/24) */
The vehicle was sold to [redacted], I [redacted] had to deal with them to get the title resolved.
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2016/10/07) */
Complaint was NOT filled by said customer "*** ***",
complaint was filed by mother, who is not on the loan or car deal in any way, less one of the trades being tied to her credit
Vehicle contact date was 9/19/
There are
TWO trades in this deal,
one of was not brought to dealer until 9/28/
Have all paperwork that states this deal is contingent upon inspection of second trade
Dealer has policy that states trades will NOT be paid off unit deal has fundeddeal funded 10/7/due to deal not being sent in until second trade was inspected and deemed acceptable
Consumers credit is NOT effected at all, as deal is not even close to days old yet
An incorrect account number was provided by the customer for trade in, causing problems with obtaining actual payoff information
I would like this case completely dismissed on grounds of provided information by "customer" being false, and dealer operating within guidelines
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (2000, 7, 2016/10/12) */
(The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)
All loans have been paid off and everything completed
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 17, 2015/08/24) */
Vehicle was purchased as-isWe were not aware of any problems and we're not made aware until customer had repairedVehicle had been checked by our third party mechanic
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 19, 2015/08/25) */
(The
consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I did make company aware and a mechanic checked when I was at the shop and said it was the brakes but that the warranty would not cover itHe said he would let the shop owner knowAlso because of the delay in the company mailing me the state inspection papers I had it inspected and the brakes had to be repaired prior to it passingHowever the mechanic that inspected it at their company ommited that needI can provide that documentationAlso the company did not address in the response the second key can I was promisedSelling something as is and then falsifying documentation is not a good business practiceConsumers need to beware
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 8, 2017/05/23) */
Our records do not show [redacted] as a customer.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 11, 2017/05/24) */
The vehicle was sold to [redacted], I [redacted] had to deal with them to get the title resolved.