The dealership regrets that Mr*** is dissatisfied with its detailed response to his concerns. The dealership understands that it fully has addressed those concerns. Additionally, Mr*** has received and cashed the dealership's check for $320. The dealership's check was sent in fulfillment of a proposal Mr*** accepted to resolve his concern. The check clearly indicated that it was being sent as a goodwill resolution of the concern. Mr*** cashed the check on April 20, 2015. *** *** ***General Counsel
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.
Apparantly one wrong part came in, so this is still not resolved. Will wait until both parts are fixed.
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.This was the first time I had ever leased and returned a car so I was unfamiliar with the process. There were no signed documents for the return of the lease because they did not give me any to sign. I was just doing what I was told. I do however have a witness that heard [redacted] say that Earnhardt Ford would have paid off the remaining payments of the lease on the day of the Mustang sale. His name is [redacted] and his number is ###-###-####, email [redacted] if you want to hear his side of the story."Mr. [redacted] had received an early lease termination solicitation from Ford. Ford offered to make the final three payments on his lease as an incentive for his purchase of certain vehicles designated by Ford. The 2015 Mustang Mr. [redacted] ordered and purchased was not one of the vehicles eligible for the Ford incentive. The fact that the 2015 Mustang was not one of the models designated by Ford was clear from the solicitation Mr. [redacted] received, and was explained at the dealership. extIn an effort to mitigate the absence of the inapplicable Ford incentive, the dealership identified a $750 rebate for which Mr. [redacted]'s transaction qualified. That rebate was applied to his purchase of the 2015 Mustang."The statement above is completely false. In November 2014 [redacted] told me I could return the Focus early if I upgraded to a 2015 Mustang. I thought about it and ordered the 2015 Mustang GT Premium (a $40k+ car) one week later. Funny enough, his incompetency started to reveal from that point since he got the order of my car wrong. The files attached shows the emails between [redacted] and I for the order of the Mustang. The 'mustang order info' document is the emails for the order of the mustang. The 'mustang order-signed' is the order with the packages I wanted for the 2015 Mustang that I signed and approved. The .tif file is the document with the VIN of the mustang he ordered for me. I looked up the window sticker for that VIN and it showed that it had a different package from what I ordered. The window sticker is [redacted]. I ended up buying a different car in January 2015 because of his mistake.On the day of the sale January 20th 2015, [redacted] did not mention that purchasing the Mustang did not qualify me for the early lease termination. He told me and [redacted] that Earnhardt will make the remaining four payments of the lease. The $750 rebate they mentioned had nothing to do with the inapplicable Ford incentive. It was a negotiation of the MSRP price and nothing more. If they had made it clear to me that I would have pay the remaining 4 payments on the lease, I would have either kept the Focus or waited till the end of the lease in May 2015 to buy the Mustang. [redacted] would have advised the same thing as well if that condition was made clear. They themselves do not have any documentation to prove that it was made clear to me. Who would return a car with over 4000 miles left and still make payments on it? Nobody. [redacted] took the opportunity to take the Focus back with low mileage and excellent condition so that Earnhardt could sell it at a premium. The attached '[redacted] @ Earnhardt Ford' document shows the emails between [redacted] and me after the purchase of the Mustang. As you can see in the March 2nd email, he does not deny that Earnhardt was paying the remaining lease payments after I told Amber from Ford Credit that they would. He replied that he was "working on it". The general manager gave me $320 because he knew [redacted] was at fault but would not admit it. I know I don't have official documentation to prove my complaint. However those emails and my witness can assure you that [redacted] did make that promise. I will stress this question to you like I did to the general manager at Earnhardt Ford who could not answer. Who would return a car with over 4000 miles left and still make payments on it??? Nobody! If for some reason I did agree to make that horrible decision, [redacted] would have stopped me. [redacted] withheld that vital information from us to land the sale and then lied to his managers that he did make it clear. Please help me.
Regards,
[redacted]
Earnhardt Ford appreciates Mr. [redacted]'s frustration. Unfortunately, Ford has not provided Earnhardt with the parts to complete the recall repair. Service management has spoken with Mr. [redacted] and let him know that Ford neither has provided any parts, nor provided a...
timetable for when parts might be available. Mr. [redacted] was advised to be in touch with the dealership in the event he notices any fuel odor, as an interim repair may be available. Information on contacting Ford directly is available in the owner's manual for Mr. [redacted]'s vehicle. Mary [redacted]General Counsel
I agreed to purchase the truck and was told it was a done deal and the paperwork was began on my behalf. I waited for a ride to pick me up for 5 hours before someone called to let me know it was sold. I never gave any permission for my credit to be ran and I would like to see that credit inquiry reversed and my lost wages refunded to me. I had committed to purchase this vehicle. The dealer agreed to terms the following day and that truck should have never been sold due to the agreement that was made. Most importantly. My credit should have never been ran without my permission. How many times was my credit ran? I need to be refunded for the wages I lost due to the inconsideration of this dealer ship. The vehicle should never of been shown after the agreement was made, my credit was run, and a ride from the dealership was set up by Ron "Q". I need these issues taken care of.
The car has a transmission problem that is recalled by FORD. The dealership is failing to mention that ford was sued for this and is settling out with the individuals effected by this. The car is currently at San Tan Ford being worked on. It was taken in Monday for an oil change and look over to find out if there was a reason as to why the vehicle broke down on Saturday. As mentioned the car is under a recall and I have consulted and hired an attorney to represent me on October 2nd in a lawsuit settlement with Ford. I have another rental car at the moment I am paying for and my parents bought a second vehicle with cash so I could use their car to drive when I return the rental car. This gives me a safe reliable vehicle to drive while we figure out how long of a process it will be to either have ford buy back my car or trade it in. The dealership is failing to acknowledge or mention that they are part of a class action lawsuit in regards to the ford focus due to bad transmissions. The lawyer who I consulted told me the car in fact does fall under lemon laws due to ford already acknowledging that the car should never have been sold. The dealership is trying to take no blame in this while they already have admitted blame on a corporate level. Also, the salesperson who processed my first application in June falsified my documents and the approval I was given was not valid. I was informed of this last week. The person who falsified my information should be reprimanded and held responsible because he gave me false hope of getting the car traded in. Earnhardts GM has contacted me also on numerous occasions. The person responding this is uneducated to the entire scenario and is not the correct person to be responding to this as she is covering up and not stating accurate facts. She omitted many details.
Earnhardt Ford made only one inquiry into Ms. [redacted] credit and that was made after Ms. [redacted] signed a credit application authorizing the dealership to shop for a loan on her behalf. The other inquiries, the precise number of which is unknown to the dealership, were made by the lenders...
to whom the application was submitted for financing for her purchase. When Ms. [redacted] added her mother as a potential co-signer, the application was again submitted to potential financing companies, who likely made a second round of inquiries. Requests for removal of those inquiries would need to be directed to those financing companies.
Internet sources on the impact of concentrated inquiries on credit scores indicate that there is little, if any, impact on credit scores from multiple inquires for auto credit in brief period of time.
Earnhardt Ford sincerely apologizes if its discussion of the credit available to Ms. [redacted] was perceived as impolite, however denies that any of its personnel were rude to Ms. [redacted] or her mother.
Mary L[redacted]/General Counsel
[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.]
Revdex.com:
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,
[redacted]
The dealership contacted Ms. [redacted] and has set an appointment to have the part installed. It appreciates Ms. [redacted] permitting it to remedy her concern. [redacted]General Counsel
Mr. [redacted] gave express permission for his credit report to be accessed, at a minimum, when he signed the credit application. As previously has been explained, Mr. [redacted] and the dealership did not agree in writing to terms for the purchase/sale of the truck. The demand for reimbursement of unspecified "lost wages" is denied. Mary L[redacted]/General Counsel
Earnhardt Ford regrets that Ms. [redacted] is not satisfied with its response. It should be clarified, however, that the action to which Ms. [redacted] refers involves Ford Motor Company and is not based on the Lemon Law. Earnhardt Ford is not a party to the action. Mary LaRue W[redacted]/General Counsel
The dealership pulled Mr. [redacted] credit on September 21, with Mr. [redacted] express permission, while Mr. [redacted] was in the dealership. He had come to the dealership to purchase a truck based on negotiations that occurred via email. However, after Mr. [redacted] had agreed to the price for...
the truck, had completed the credit application, and provided his driver's license and his insurance card, he continued to negotiate for items to be added to the deal for "free." The dealership declined and Mr. [redacted] left without buying the truck or leaving a deposit to secure the truck. When the salesperson called Mr. [redacted] the following day, he agreed to come in to purchase the truck. Without the salespersons' knowledge, however, another salesperson was negotiating to sell the truck to a different customer who was in the dealership and had agreed to terms. The truck was sold to the other customer.Mr. [redacted] had the opportunity to purchase the truck, however, he and the dealership and could not agree to terms. The truck was sold to the customer who agreed to terms acceptable to the dealership. Mary L[redacted]/General Counsel
Of course a big company would not care about one customer and would give a political response like they did so they dont look bad to the public but its far from the truth I have phone calls of thier employees admitting thier fault in having pulled the credit to many times I have witnesses of how I was treated I have my damage credit to prove. Yes so easy for them to try to push the blame on someone else they submitted the applications multiple times as admitted by thier employee that is not standard procedure. And still avoid my wishes its to much to ask for my personal information back to destroy is it to much to ask for them to take the inquires off that they admitted to having over pulled. Understand I was thinking I was buying a new car the deal was done I signed and then they changed it what seemed to just try to make a profit they raised but then when I walked were all of a sudden ready to give me the original deal not only did I not get a new car but damaged credit. I dont think I'm asking for alot some compassion and custome service. What happened to helping and caring about the customer isn't that what drives business
The dealership denies that it represented to Mr. [redacted] that it would make the four remaining payments on his lease for the 2012 Ford Focus. None of the documents signed in connection with Mr. [redacted]'s transaction included a promise to make the remaining payments on the lease. Mr. [redacted]...
had received an early lease termination solicitation from Ford. Ford offered to make the final three payments on his lease as an incentive for his purchase of certain vehicles designated by Ford. The 2015 Mustang Mr. [redacted] ordered and purchased was not one of the vehicles eligible for the Ford incentive. The fact that the 2015 Mustang was not one of the models designated by Ford was clear from the solicitation Mr. [redacted] received, and was explained at the dealership. In an effort to mitigate the absence of the inapplicable Ford incentive, the dealership identified a $750 rebate for which Mr. [redacted]'s transaction qualified. That rebate was applied to his purchase of the 2015 Mustang. Mr. [redacted] contacted the dealership after Ford's demand for the balance due on the lease. The facts were again explained to Mr.[redacted] and he was offered the value of one lease payment , or $320, as a goodwill gesture. Mr. [redacted] expressed an interest in the return of the Focus, since he was going to be making the final payments. The general manager offered to see if he could facilitate that for Mr. [redacted], but Mr. [redacted] changed his mind and just asked for the $320 goodwill payment to be mailed, which it was. The dealership considers this matter to be resolved. [redacted]General Counsel
[redacted] Company no longer makes parts for the convertible top on Mr. B[redacted] 2001 [redacted]. When Mr. B[redacted] brought the vehicle to Earnhardt Ford the hydraulic cylinders for the convertible top were visibly leaking. Earnhardt Ford had to place a special order for non-OEM...
parts for the repair. When the parts arrived and were installed, the cylinders were not in sync, resulting in the top not rising evenly. A top shop specialist was consulted and it was determined that the new cylinders were defective. Replacements for the defective cylinders were ordered. When the replacement cylinders were installed, it became clear that the leaking cylinders were not the only challenge with the 15 year old convertible top. The pump also was leaking. After the pump was replaced, the top shop was able to make the convertible top functional. The top cannot be raised with the window up, however, and was not designed to be raised with the windows up. In fact, the directions in the owner's manual for raising the top expressly state that the front and rear side windows are to be lowered. The time Mr. B[redacted] vehicle was in service was impacted by the fact that the parts had to be special-ordered, the work required specialists at another shop and the fact that Mr. B[redacted] asked to store the vehicle at the dealership while he was out of town. Earnhardt denies that the frame for the top was bent during any of the repairs. It also denies that the initial cylinders were incorrect. The cylinders were defective, but not incorrect. Mary [redacted] W[redacted]/General Counsel
The dealership regrets that Mr*** is dissatisfied with its detailed response to his concerns. The dealership understands that it fully has addressed those concerns. Additionally, Mr*** has received and cashed the dealership's check for $320. The dealership's check was sent in fulfillment of a proposal Mr*** accepted to resolve his concern. The check clearly indicated that it was being sent as a goodwill resolution of the concern. Mr*** cashed the check on April 20, 2015. *** *** ***General Counsel
This concern involves Rodeo Ford, Inc., not Earnhardt Ford Sales Company. A response was timely filed under no. [redacted] on January 14, 2016.
Mary L[redacted]General Counsel
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.
Apparantly one wrong part came in, so this is still not resolved. Will wait until both parts are fixed.
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.This was the first time I had ever leased and returned a car so I was unfamiliar with the process. There were no signed documents for the return of the lease because they did not give me any to sign. I was just doing what I was told. I do however have a witness that heard [redacted] say that Earnhardt Ford would have paid off the remaining payments of the lease on the day of the Mustang sale. His name is [redacted] and his number is ###-###-####, email [redacted] if you want to hear his side of the story."Mr. [redacted] had received an early lease termination solicitation from Ford. Ford offered to make the final three payments on his lease as an incentive for his purchase of certain vehicles designated by Ford. The 2015 Mustang Mr. [redacted] ordered and purchased was not one of the vehicles eligible for the Ford incentive. The fact that the 2015 Mustang was not one of the models designated by Ford was clear from the solicitation Mr. [redacted] received, and was explained at the dealership. extIn an effort to mitigate the absence of the inapplicable Ford incentive, the dealership identified a $750 rebate for which Mr. [redacted]'s transaction qualified. That rebate was applied to his purchase of the 2015 Mustang."The statement above is completely false. In November 2014 [redacted] told me I could return the Focus early if I upgraded to a 2015 Mustang. I thought about it and ordered the 2015 Mustang GT Premium (a $40k+ car) one week later. Funny enough, his incompetency started to reveal from that point since he got the order of my car wrong. The files attached shows the emails between [redacted] and I for the order of the Mustang. The 'mustang order info' document is the emails for the order of the mustang. The 'mustang order-signed' is the order with the packages I wanted for the 2015 Mustang that I signed and approved. The .tif file is the document with the VIN of the mustang he ordered for me. I looked up the window sticker for that VIN and it showed that it had a different package from what I ordered. The window sticker is [redacted]. I ended up buying a different car in January 2015 because of his mistake.On the day of the sale January 20th 2015, [redacted] did not mention that purchasing the Mustang did not qualify me for the early lease termination. He told me and [redacted] that Earnhardt will make the remaining four payments of the lease. The $750 rebate they mentioned had nothing to do with the inapplicable Ford incentive. It was a negotiation of the MSRP price and nothing more. If they had made it clear to me that I would have pay the remaining 4 payments on the lease, I would have either kept the Focus or waited till the end of the lease in May 2015 to buy the Mustang. [redacted] would have advised the same thing as well if that condition was made clear. They themselves do not have any documentation to prove that it was made clear to me. Who would return a car with over 4000 miles left and still make payments on it? Nobody. [redacted] took the opportunity to take the Focus back with low mileage and excellent condition so that Earnhardt could sell it at a premium. The attached '[redacted] @ Earnhardt Ford' document shows the emails between [redacted] and me after the purchase of the Mustang. As you can see in the March 2nd email, he does not deny that Earnhardt was paying the remaining lease payments after I told Amber from Ford Credit that they would. He replied that he was "working on it". The general manager gave me $320 because he knew [redacted] was at fault but would not admit it. I know I don't have official documentation to prove my complaint. However those emails and my witness can assure you that [redacted] did make that promise. I will stress this question to you like I did to the general manager at Earnhardt Ford who could not answer. Who would return a car with over 4000 miles left and still make payments on it??? Nobody! If for some reason I did agree to make that horrible decision, [redacted] would have stopped me. [redacted] withheld that vital information from us to land the sale and then lied to his managers that he did make it clear. Please help me.
Regards,
[redacted]
Earnhardt Ford appreciates Mr. [redacted]'s frustration. Unfortunately, Ford has not provided Earnhardt with the parts to complete the recall repair. Service management has spoken with Mr. [redacted] and let him know that Ford neither has provided any parts, nor provided a...
timetable for when parts might be available. Mr. [redacted] was advised to be in touch with the dealership in the event he notices any fuel odor, as an interim repair may be available. Information on contacting Ford directly is available in the owner's manual for Mr. [redacted]'s vehicle. Mary [redacted]General Counsel
I agreed to purchase the truck and was told it was a done deal and the paperwork was began on my behalf. I waited for a ride to pick me up for 5 hours before someone called to let me know it was sold. I never gave any permission for my credit to be ran and I would like to see that credit inquiry reversed and my lost wages refunded to me. I had committed to purchase this vehicle. The dealer agreed to terms the following day and that truck should have never been sold due to the agreement that was made. Most importantly. My credit should have never been ran without my permission. How many times was my credit ran? I need to be refunded for the wages I lost due to the inconsideration of this dealer ship. The vehicle should never of been shown after the agreement was made, my credit was run, and a ride from the dealership was set up by Ron "Q". I need these issues taken care of.
The car has a transmission problem that is recalled by FORD. The dealership is failing to mention that ford was sued for this and is settling out with the individuals effected by this. The car is currently at San Tan Ford being worked on. It was taken in Monday for an oil change and look over to find out if there was a reason as to why the vehicle broke down on Saturday. As mentioned the car is under a recall and I have consulted and hired an attorney to represent me on October 2nd in a lawsuit settlement with Ford. I have another rental car at the moment I am paying for and my parents bought a second vehicle with cash so I could use their car to drive when I return the rental car. This gives me a safe reliable vehicle to drive while we figure out how long of a process it will be to either have ford buy back my car or trade it in. The dealership is failing to acknowledge or mention that they are part of a class action lawsuit in regards to the ford focus due to bad transmissions. The lawyer who I consulted told me the car in fact does fall under lemon laws due to ford already acknowledging that the car should never have been sold. The dealership is trying to take no blame in this while they already have admitted blame on a corporate level. Also, the salesperson who processed my first application in June falsified my documents and the approval I was given was not valid. I was informed of this last week. The person who falsified my information should be reprimanded and held responsible because he gave me false hope of getting the car traded in. Earnhardts GM has contacted me also on numerous occasions. The person responding this is uneducated to the entire scenario and is not the correct person to be responding to this as she is covering up and not stating accurate facts. She omitted many details.
Earnhardt Ford made only one inquiry into Ms. [redacted] credit and that was made after Ms. [redacted] signed a credit application authorizing the dealership to shop for a loan on her behalf. The other inquiries, the precise number of which is unknown to the dealership, were made by the lenders...
to whom the application was submitted for financing for her purchase. When Ms. [redacted] added her mother as a potential co-signer, the application was again submitted to potential financing companies, who likely made a second round of inquiries. Requests for removal of those inquiries would need to be directed to those financing companies.
Internet sources on the impact of concentrated inquiries on credit scores indicate that there is little, if any, impact on credit scores from multiple inquires for auto credit in brief period of time.
Earnhardt Ford sincerely apologizes if its discussion of the credit available to Ms. [redacted] was perceived as impolite, however denies that any of its personnel were rude to Ms. [redacted] or her mother.
Mary L[redacted]/General Counsel
[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.]
Revdex.com:
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,
[redacted]
The dealership contacted Ms. [redacted] and has set an appointment to have the part installed. It appreciates Ms. [redacted] permitting it to remedy her concern. [redacted]General Counsel
Mr. [redacted] gave express permission for his credit report to be accessed, at a minimum, when he signed the credit application. As previously has been explained, Mr. [redacted] and the dealership did not agree in writing to terms for the purchase/sale of the truck. The demand for reimbursement of unspecified "lost wages" is denied. Mary L[redacted]/General Counsel
Earnhardt Ford regrets that Ms. [redacted] is not satisfied with its response. It should be clarified, however, that the action to which Ms. [redacted] refers involves Ford Motor Company and is not based on the Lemon Law. Earnhardt Ford is not a party to the action. Mary LaRue W[redacted]/General Counsel
The dealership pulled Mr. [redacted] credit on September 21, with Mr. [redacted] express permission, while Mr. [redacted] was in the dealership. He had come to the dealership to purchase a truck based on negotiations that occurred via email. However, after Mr. [redacted] had agreed to the price for...
the truck, had completed the credit application, and provided his driver's license and his insurance card, he continued to negotiate for items to be added to the deal for "free." The dealership declined and Mr. [redacted] left without buying the truck or leaving a deposit to secure the truck. When the salesperson called Mr. [redacted] the following day, he agreed to come in to purchase the truck. Without the salespersons' knowledge, however, another salesperson was negotiating to sell the truck to a different customer who was in the dealership and had agreed to terms. The truck was sold to the other customer.Mr. [redacted] had the opportunity to purchase the truck, however, he and the dealership and could not agree to terms. The truck was sold to the customer who agreed to terms acceptable to the dealership. Mary L[redacted]/General Counsel
Of course a big company would not care about one customer and would give a political response like they did so they dont look bad to the public but its far from the truth I have phone calls of thier employees admitting thier fault in having pulled the credit to many times I have witnesses of how I was treated I have my damage credit to prove. Yes so easy for them to try to push the blame on someone else they submitted the applications multiple times as admitted by thier employee that is not standard procedure. And still avoid my wishes its to much to ask for my personal information back to destroy is it to much to ask for them to take the inquires off that they admitted to having over pulled. Understand I was thinking I was buying a new car the deal was done I signed and then they changed it what seemed to just try to make a profit they raised but then when I walked were all of a sudden ready to give me the original deal not only did I not get a new car but damaged credit. I dont think I'm asking for alot some compassion and custome service. What happened to helping and caring about the customer isn't that what drives business
The dealership denies that it represented to Mr. [redacted] that it would make the four remaining payments on his lease for the 2012 Ford Focus. None of the documents signed in connection with Mr. [redacted]'s transaction included a promise to make the remaining payments on the lease. Mr. [redacted]...
had received an early lease termination solicitation from Ford. Ford offered to make the final three payments on his lease as an incentive for his purchase of certain vehicles designated by Ford. The 2015 Mustang Mr. [redacted] ordered and purchased was not one of the vehicles eligible for the Ford incentive. The fact that the 2015 Mustang was not one of the models designated by Ford was clear from the solicitation Mr. [redacted] received, and was explained at the dealership. In an effort to mitigate the absence of the inapplicable Ford incentive, the dealership identified a $750 rebate for which Mr. [redacted]'s transaction qualified. That rebate was applied to his purchase of the 2015 Mustang. Mr. [redacted] contacted the dealership after Ford's demand for the balance due on the lease. The facts were again explained to Mr.[redacted] and he was offered the value of one lease payment , or $320, as a goodwill gesture. Mr. [redacted] expressed an interest in the return of the Focus, since he was going to be making the final payments. The general manager offered to see if he could facilitate that for Mr. [redacted], but Mr. [redacted] changed his mind and just asked for the $320 goodwill payment to be mailed, which it was. The dealership considers this matter to be resolved. [redacted]General Counsel
[redacted] Company no longer makes parts for the convertible top on Mr. B[redacted] 2001 [redacted]. When Mr. B[redacted] brought the vehicle to Earnhardt Ford the hydraulic cylinders for the convertible top were visibly leaking. Earnhardt Ford had to place a special order for non-OEM...
parts for the repair. When the parts arrived and were installed, the cylinders were not in sync, resulting in the top not rising evenly. A top shop specialist was consulted and it was determined that the new cylinders were defective. Replacements for the defective cylinders were ordered. When the replacement cylinders were installed, it became clear that the leaking cylinders were not the only challenge with the 15 year old convertible top. The pump also was leaking. After the pump was replaced, the top shop was able to make the convertible top functional. The top cannot be raised with the window up, however, and was not designed to be raised with the windows up. In fact, the directions in the owner's manual for raising the top expressly state that the front and rear side windows are to be lowered. The time Mr. B[redacted] vehicle was in service was impacted by the fact that the parts had to be special-ordered, the work required specialists at another shop and the fact that Mr. B[redacted] asked to store the vehicle at the dealership while he was out of town. Earnhardt denies that the frame for the top was bent during any of the repairs. It also denies that the initial cylinders were incorrect. The cylinders were defective, but not incorrect. Mary [redacted] W[redacted]/General Counsel