Re: Complaint filed by [redacted] (Revdex.com ID# [redacted] )Dear [redacted] :Victor Chevrolet (the "Dealership") is in receipt of your correspondence, and the attachedcomplaint, filed by the above named claimant, under date of May 8,We have reviewedthe complaint and we are reporting the following to you:IOn or about September 30, 2014, Claimant purchased from the Dealership, and tookdelivery of, a Dodge Journey SX (the "Vehicle")This was a "used" vehicle that, attime of delivery, had a mileage of73, Prior to the sale of the Vehicle, our dealership performed certain inspections and repairs,the subject and extent of which are described in the "Pre-Sale" Service records aI/achedheretoOn or about October 7, 2014, the claimant brought the Vehicle to the Dealership forservice, complaining, at that time, that the windshield was "cracked in and needed newwipers" when sold to her, that the vehicle "needed new rear rotors", that the Vehicleneeded "new front brakes" and that the Vehicle needed a "wheel balance"In responsethereto, the Dealership replaced the front brakes, performed a wheel balancing, replacedthe windshield and wipers, even though the Dealership had no obligation to replace thewindshield, all at NO COST to the ClaimantFurther, at this time the Dealershipinformed the Claimant that the rear brakes and rotors were replaced by the Dealershi pprior the sale of the Vehicle to herA copy of the October 10, Service Invoice#53844, and the invoice for the repair of the windshield (which was paid for by theDealership to its subcontractor) is attached hereto for your reviewOn or about December 2, 2014, claimant brought the Vehicle to the Dealership foradditional service workAt this time, claimant stated that the Vehicle brakes were still"making noises"The claimant and the Dealership's Service Manager conducted a testdrive in an attempt to duplicate the issues of which she complainedFollowing the testdrive, the Dealership resurfaced the front and rear rotors, cleaned both hubs from anyresidual rust build up and re-test drove the Vehicle to ensure that there was no longer anybrake noisesIn addition, the Service Department topped off the coolant and verified thatthe heat was working as designedAll to the above work was performed, again, at NOCOST to the claimantAttached hereto is a copy of the December 2,ServiceInvoice # [redacted] documenting the above informationOn or about January 14, 2015, the claimant returned the Vehicle to the Dealership, onceagain, complaining the Vehicle "makes a loud sharp noise every time starting up" andthought it might be the serpentine beltUpon inspection of the Service Department, itwas determined that the noise could not be duplicated and that the Vehicle wasfunctioning properly and as designedNevertheless, the Dealership performed anotheroil change and filter replacement, at NO COST to the claimantThe January 14, 2015Service Invoice # [redacted] is attached hereto, which documents the above informationSubsequent to January 14, 2015, claimant returned to the Dealership, with the Vehicle,once again with a damaged windshield, demanding that the Dealership replace it onceagain at no cost to the claimantIt was at this juncture that we informed the claimant thatthe Vehicle was operating mechanically as designed, that we would not replace herwindshield again, and that she needed to call her insurance company to file a claim for itsrepair.Clearly, from the above narrative, and the attached documentation, Victor Chevrolet hastaken remedial measures above and beyond that which it is legally required to do in an effort toappease the claimantThe Vehicle is functioning as designedIt should be noted, that at thetime the Vehicle was purchased, the claimant was unable to qualify for a used car loan withoutthe aid of a co-purchaserIn fact, the title to the Vehicle is in the joint names of the claimant and [redacted] and the auto loan secured to purchase the Vehicle is under the names of bothindividualsIt is with this fact in mind that we believe, given the extent of the "rescissionremedy" that the claimant is demanding (i.eshe is demanding recover of her entire purchaseprice for the Vehicle), we believe that the claimant may be incurring financial issues as a resultof the Vehicle payments and therefore may be grasping at straws in an attempt to void thepurchase and avoid any further payments therefor.We hope that this fully resolves this matter with your organizationVictor Chevroletstrives for the highest levels of customer satisfaction, unfortunately this goal is sometimeshampered by circumstances beyond that which it can control.Thank you for your attention to this matter and please do not hesitate to contact me withfurther questions.Sincerely,Camen I [redacted] Dealer Principaladditional information in attachment
Thank you for taking the time to speak with me today regarding the above matter. As we discussed, we reviewed the above complaint and we have determined that we agree, in part, with the complainant's grievance.You will recall that I informed you that we give a budget to our advertisers and,
while we normally amend our internal systems to reflect the advertised sale prices of such vehicles so advertised, in this instance, our system was not updated by the time the complaintant visited our dealership to purchase the vehicle in question. As a result, the complaintant was over charged by the sum of $3,(difference in the advertised price and the price as set out on the deal sheet), plus the tax on that amount. Therefore, by our calculation, the complaintant is due the sum of $3,337.20, which is different from the amount that he is claiming.In light of the above, we would ask you inform the complaintant of this response and ask him to contact Jerry *** to arrange for payment of the above sum. Jerry can be reached at ***Thank you for your assistance in this matter.Best regards,Sincerely,Richard * *** **., Esq.Vice President and General Counsel
Revdex.com:I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. Regards, [redacted]
Re: Complaint filed by [redacted] (Revdex.com ID# [redacted])Dear [redacted]:Victor Chevrolet (the "Dealership") is in receipt of your correspondence, and the attachedcomplaint, filed by the above named claimant, under date of May 8,2015. We have reviewedthe complaint and we are reporting the following to...
you:I. On or about September 30, 2014, Claimant purchased from the Dealership, and tookdelivery of, a 2010 Dodge Journey SX (the "Vehicle"). This was a "used" vehicle that, attime of delivery, had a mileage of73, 177.2. Prior to the sale of the Vehicle, our dealership performed certain inspections and repairs,the subject and extent of which are described in the "Pre-Sale" Service records aI/achedhereto.3. On or about October 7, 2014, the claimant brought the Vehicle to the Dealership forservice, complaining, at that time, that the windshield was "cracked in and needed newwipers" when sold to her, that the vehicle "needed new rear rotors", that the Vehicleneeded "new front brakes" and that the Vehicle needed a "wheel balance". In responsethereto, the Dealership replaced the front brakes, performed a wheel balancing, replacedthe windshield and wipers, even though the Dealership had no obligation to replace thewindshield, all at NO COST to the Claimant. Further, at this time the Dealershipinformed the Claimant that the rear brakes and rotors were replaced by the Dealershi pprior the sale of the Vehicle to her. A copy of the October 10, 2014 Service Invoice#53844, and the invoice for the repair of the windshield (which was paid for by theDealership to its subcontractor) is attached hereto for your review.4. On or about December 2, 2014, claimant brought the Vehicle to the Dealership foradditional service work. At this time, claimant stated that the Vehicle brakes were still"making noises". The claimant and the Dealership's Service Manager conducted a testdrive in an attempt to duplicate the issues of which she complained. Following the testdrive, the Dealership resurfaced the front and rear rotors, cleaned both hubs from anyresidual rust build up and re-test drove the Vehicle to ensure that there was no longer anybrake noises. In addition, the Service Department topped off the coolant and verified thatthe heat was working as designed. All to the above work was performed, again, at NOCOST to the claimant. Attached hereto is a copy of the December 2,2014 ServiceInvoice #[redacted] documenting the above information.5. On or about January 14, 2015, the claimant returned the Vehicle to the Dealership, onceagain, complaining the Vehicle "makes a loud sharp noise every time starting up" andthought it might be the serpentine belt. Upon inspection of the Service Department, itwas determined that the noise could not be duplicated and that the Vehicle wasfunctioning properly and as designed. Nevertheless, the Dealership performed anotheroil change and filter replacement, at NO COST to the claimant. The January 14, 2015Service Invoice #[redacted] is attached hereto, which documents the above information.6. Subsequent to January 14, 2015, claimant returned to the Dealership, with the Vehicle,once again with a damaged windshield, demanding that the Dealership replace it onceagain at no cost to the claimant. It was at this juncture that we informed the claimant thatthe Vehicle was operating mechanically as designed, that we would not replace herwindshield again, and that she needed to call her insurance company to file a claim for itsrepair.Clearly, from the above narrative, and the attached documentation, Victor Chevrolet hastaken remedial measures above and beyond that which it is legally required to do in an effort toappease the claimant. The Vehicle is functioning as designed. It should be noted, that at thetime the Vehicle was purchased, the claimant was unable to qualify for a used car loan withoutthe aid of a co-purchaser. In fact, the title to the Vehicle is in the joint names of the claimant and[redacted] and the auto loan secured to purchase the Vehicle is under the names of bothindividuals. It is with this fact in mind that we believe, given the extent of the "rescissionremedy" that the claimant is demanding (i.e. she is demanding recover of her entire purchaseprice for the Vehicle), we believe that the claimant may be incurring financial issues as a resultof the Vehicle payments and therefore may be grasping at straws in an attempt to void thepurchase and avoid any further payments therefor.We hope that this fully resolves this matter with your organization. Victor Chevroletstrives for the highest levels of customer satisfaction, unfortunately this goal is sometimeshampered by circumstances beyond that which it can control.Thank you for your attention to this matter and please do not hesitate to contact me withfurther questions.Sincerely,Camen I[redacted]Dealer Principaladditional information in attachment
Re: Complaint filed by [redacted] (Revdex.com ID# [redacted] )Dear [redacted] :Victor Chevrolet (the "Dealership") is in receipt of your correspondence, and the attachedcomplaint, filed by the above named claimant, under date of May 8,We have reviewedthe complaint and we are reporting the following to you:IOn or about September 30, 2014, Claimant purchased from the Dealership, and tookdelivery of, a Dodge Journey SX (the "Vehicle")This was a "used" vehicle that, attime of delivery, had a mileage of73, Prior to the sale of the Vehicle, our dealership performed certain inspections and repairs,the subject and extent of which are described in the "Pre-Sale" Service records aI/achedheretoOn or about October 7, 2014, the claimant brought the Vehicle to the Dealership forservice, complaining, at that time, that the windshield was "cracked in and needed newwipers" when sold to her, that the vehicle "needed new rear rotors", that the Vehicleneeded "new front brakes" and that the Vehicle needed a "wheel balance"In responsethereto, the Dealership replaced the front brakes, performed a wheel balancing, replacedthe windshield and wipers, even though the Dealership had no obligation to replace thewindshield, all at NO COST to the ClaimantFurther, at this time the Dealershipinformed the Claimant that the rear brakes and rotors were replaced by the Dealershi pprior the sale of the Vehicle to herA copy of the October 10, Service Invoice#53844, and the invoice for the repair of the windshield (which was paid for by theDealership to its subcontractor) is attached hereto for your reviewOn or about December 2, 2014, claimant brought the Vehicle to the Dealership foradditional service workAt this time, claimant stated that the Vehicle brakes were still"making noises"The claimant and the Dealership's Service Manager conducted a testdrive in an attempt to duplicate the issues of which she complainedFollowing the testdrive, the Dealership resurfaced the front and rear rotors, cleaned both hubs from anyresidual rust build up and re-test drove the Vehicle to ensure that there was no longer anybrake noisesIn addition, the Service Department topped off the coolant and verified thatthe heat was working as designedAll to the above work was performed, again, at NOCOST to the claimantAttached hereto is a copy of the December 2,ServiceInvoice # [redacted] documenting the above informationOn or about January 14, 2015, the claimant returned the Vehicle to the Dealership, onceagain, complaining the Vehicle "makes a loud sharp noise every time starting up" andthought it might be the serpentine beltUpon inspection of the Service Department, itwas determined that the noise could not be duplicated and that the Vehicle wasfunctioning properly and as designedNevertheless, the Dealership performed anotheroil change and filter replacement, at NO COST to the claimantThe January 14, 2015Service Invoice # [redacted] is attached hereto, which documents the above informationSubsequent to January 14, 2015, claimant returned to the Dealership, with the Vehicle,once again with a damaged windshield, demanding that the Dealership replace it onceagain at no cost to the claimantIt was at this juncture that we informed the claimant thatthe Vehicle was operating mechanically as designed, that we would not replace herwindshield again, and that she needed to call her insurance company to file a claim for itsrepair.Clearly, from the above narrative, and the attached documentation, Victor Chevrolet hastaken remedial measures above and beyond that which it is legally required to do in an effort toappease the claimantThe Vehicle is functioning as designedIt should be noted, that at thetime the Vehicle was purchased, the claimant was unable to qualify for a used car loan withoutthe aid of a co-purchaserIn fact, the title to the Vehicle is in the joint names of the claimant and [redacted] and the auto loan secured to purchase the Vehicle is under the names of bothindividualsIt is with this fact in mind that we believe, given the extent of the "rescissionremedy" that the claimant is demanding (i.eshe is demanding recover of her entire purchaseprice for the Vehicle), we believe that the claimant may be incurring financial issues as a resultof the Vehicle payments and therefore may be grasping at straws in an attempt to void thepurchase and avoid any further payments therefor.We hope that this fully resolves this matter with your organizationVictor Chevroletstrives for the highest levels of customer satisfaction, unfortunately this goal is sometimeshampered by circumstances beyond that which it can control.Thank you for your attention to this matter and please do not hesitate to contact me withfurther questions.Sincerely,Camen I [redacted] Dealer Principaladditional information in attachment
Thank you for taking the time to speak with me today regarding the above matter. As we discussed, we reviewed the above complaint and we have determined that we agree, in part, with the complainant's grievance.You will recall that I informed you that we give a budget to our advertisers and,
while we normally amend our internal systems to reflect the advertised sale prices of such vehicles so advertised, in this instance, our system was not updated by the time the complaintant visited our dealership to purchase the vehicle in question. As a result, the complaintant was over charged by the sum of $3,(difference in the advertised price and the price as set out on the deal sheet), plus the tax on that amount. Therefore, by our calculation, the complaintant is due the sum of $3,337.20, which is different from the amount that he is claiming.In light of the above, we would ask you inform the complaintant of this response and ask him to contact Jerry *** to arrange for payment of the above sum. Jerry can be reached at ***Thank you for your assistance in this matter.Best regards,Sincerely,Richard * *** **., Esq.Vice President and General Counsel
Revdex.com:I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. Regards, [redacted]
Re: Complaint filed by [redacted] (Revdex.com ID# [redacted])Dear [redacted]:Victor Chevrolet (the "Dealership") is in receipt of your correspondence, and the attachedcomplaint, filed by the above named claimant, under date of May 8,2015. We have reviewedthe complaint and we are reporting the following to...
you:I. On or about September 30, 2014, Claimant purchased from the Dealership, and tookdelivery of, a 2010 Dodge Journey SX (the "Vehicle"). This was a "used" vehicle that, attime of delivery, had a mileage of73, 177.2. Prior to the sale of the Vehicle, our dealership performed certain inspections and repairs,the subject and extent of which are described in the "Pre-Sale" Service records aI/achedhereto.3. On or about October 7, 2014, the claimant brought the Vehicle to the Dealership forservice, complaining, at that time, that the windshield was "cracked in and needed newwipers" when sold to her, that the vehicle "needed new rear rotors", that the Vehicleneeded "new front brakes" and that the Vehicle needed a "wheel balance". In responsethereto, the Dealership replaced the front brakes, performed a wheel balancing, replacedthe windshield and wipers, even though the Dealership had no obligation to replace thewindshield, all at NO COST to the Claimant. Further, at this time the Dealershipinformed the Claimant that the rear brakes and rotors were replaced by the Dealershi pprior the sale of the Vehicle to her. A copy of the October 10, 2014 Service Invoice#53844, and the invoice for the repair of the windshield (which was paid for by theDealership to its subcontractor) is attached hereto for your review.4. On or about December 2, 2014, claimant brought the Vehicle to the Dealership foradditional service work. At this time, claimant stated that the Vehicle brakes were still"making noises". The claimant and the Dealership's Service Manager conducted a testdrive in an attempt to duplicate the issues of which she complained. Following the testdrive, the Dealership resurfaced the front and rear rotors, cleaned both hubs from anyresidual rust build up and re-test drove the Vehicle to ensure that there was no longer anybrake noises. In addition, the Service Department topped off the coolant and verified thatthe heat was working as designed. All to the above work was performed, again, at NOCOST to the claimant. Attached hereto is a copy of the December 2,2014 ServiceInvoice #[redacted] documenting the above information.5. On or about January 14, 2015, the claimant returned the Vehicle to the Dealership, onceagain, complaining the Vehicle "makes a loud sharp noise every time starting up" andthought it might be the serpentine belt. Upon inspection of the Service Department, itwas determined that the noise could not be duplicated and that the Vehicle wasfunctioning properly and as designed. Nevertheless, the Dealership performed anotheroil change and filter replacement, at NO COST to the claimant. The January 14, 2015Service Invoice #[redacted] is attached hereto, which documents the above information.6. Subsequent to January 14, 2015, claimant returned to the Dealership, with the Vehicle,once again with a damaged windshield, demanding that the Dealership replace it onceagain at no cost to the claimant. It was at this juncture that we informed the claimant thatthe Vehicle was operating mechanically as designed, that we would not replace herwindshield again, and that she needed to call her insurance company to file a claim for itsrepair.Clearly, from the above narrative, and the attached documentation, Victor Chevrolet hastaken remedial measures above and beyond that which it is legally required to do in an effort toappease the claimant. The Vehicle is functioning as designed. It should be noted, that at thetime the Vehicle was purchased, the claimant was unable to qualify for a used car loan withoutthe aid of a co-purchaser. In fact, the title to the Vehicle is in the joint names of the claimant and[redacted] and the auto loan secured to purchase the Vehicle is under the names of bothindividuals. It is with this fact in mind that we believe, given the extent of the "rescissionremedy" that the claimant is demanding (i.e. she is demanding recover of her entire purchaseprice for the Vehicle), we believe that the claimant may be incurring financial issues as a resultof the Vehicle payments and therefore may be grasping at straws in an attempt to void thepurchase and avoid any further payments therefor.We hope that this fully resolves this matter with your organization. Victor Chevroletstrives for the highest levels of customer satisfaction, unfortunately this goal is sometimeshampered by circumstances beyond that which it can control.Thank you for your attention to this matter and please do not hesitate to contact me withfurther questions.Sincerely,Camen I[redacted]Dealer Principaladditional information in attachment