Wantagh Mitsubishi

Attached please see the order form signed by the customer, *** ***, showing the price of the traas $3000. The lender on this auto loan, *** *** *** ***, does not accept a finance contract showing negative equity on a trade-in. Therefore, as evidenced by the attached bill of sale, we inflated the traprice to reflect the amount the customer owed to *** *** on his travehicle, the Mitsubishi Lancer. We also inflated the selling price of the new vehicle, the Mitsubishi Lancer Evo, by the same amount ($1797.19) that we inflated the trade-in. The customer, as evidenced by the signed buyer's order, absolutely knew and had a written document displaying the travalue of $3000. By inflating the travalue and the selling price of the new car by the exact same amount, $1797.19, the amount the customer financed did not change. For this customer to demand a refund of $is totally without justification.Best regards,*** *** ***Wantagh Mitsubishi

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# ***, and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because:
I will address each statement made by Wantagh Mitsubishi: 1. “…the vehicle was titled and registered solely to *** ***…” Incorrect. Title and Registration are in my name, *** ***; therefore, *** *** is the sole buyer. 2. “Raising the used car price by $1,and raising the selling price of the new car by the same amount did not change the amount owed by the customer.” Incorrect. Amount owed was increased by $1,797.19. I will restate that neither *** *** nor I authorized Wantagh Mitsubishi to combine the previous loan payoffbalance ($4,797.19) minus their traoffer ($3,000) with the new loan, resulting in owing the same amount. The agreement was that Wantagh Mitsubishi would pay off the entire pay off balance of $4,797.19; thereby leaving buyer free and clear of any money owed on the previous vehicle. I will restate that the Lancer was well worth over $3,000; especially since it was recently serviced, including new tires and new front/rear brakes Further, the attached Buyer’s Order andItemized List were not shown to me. The reason I now have these documents is due to a request I made after receiving my loan document and noticing the loan amount was incorrect. As you can see, Buyer’s Order and Itemized List clearly show the selling pricing difference $35,vs$37.060.19.3. “Customer is attempting to obtain money they have no right to.” Incorrect. I am a hardworking citizen and have every right to money that is owed to me
In order for the Revdex.com to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above
Sincerely,
*** ***

The complainint, *** ***, has stated in her last response that ** ***, the buyer of the vehicle (titled and registered to ** ***), did sign the buyer's order which stated very clearly that the traamount was $3000. *** ***, the cosigner of the auto loan, did not sign the buyer's order because she was not the buyer of the new vehicle in question. The vehicle was titled and registered solely to ** *** who quite properly was the only one to sign the buyer's order. Cosigners of auto loans who are not on the title or registration do not sign buyer's orders because they are not the buyer of the automobile. As I stated in my previous response, raising the used car price by $and raising the selling price of the new car by the same amount did not change the amount owed by the customer. We feel this complaint has absolutely no justification and this customer is attempting to obtain money they have no right to.Best regards,*** *** ***Wantagh Mitsubishi

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# [redacted], and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because:

I have read the business response and completely disagree with their response.  Wantagh Mitsubishi...

absolutely did not make it clear to [redacted] that they have inflated the selling price on new vehicle to offset the trade-in balance on the old vehicle.  My son, [redacted], was lead to believe that Wantagh Mitsubishi agreed to pay off the balance on the trade-in, leaving him free and clear of any other money owed.   Also, although [redacted] signed the purchase agreement, I as the co-signer on the loan agreement, did not sign the purchase agreement.  In addition, I as the co-signer on the loan agreement,  I was not made aware of this inflated price increase to the purchase of the new vehicle.  Please let me know if I can contact you directly by phone as I would like to resolve any questions as quickly as possible.Respectfully,[redacted]

Review: I/We agreed to purchase a 2015 Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution at the price of $35,263.00. Wantagh Mitsubishi (Dealership) offered a trade-in on old vehicle, a 2010 Mitsubishi Lancer, in the amount of $3,000. I/We verbally indicated that I/We would not trade-in 2010 Lancer at this $3,000 amount, especially since the Kelly Book value of the vehicle is over $5,000; and more importantly, the loan payoff balance on the 2010 Lancer was $4,797.19. I/We verbally mentioned to the Dealership that if they did not agree to a trade-in amount which was equal to the amount of the loan payoff balance, the purchase of the new 2015 vehicle would not and cannot occur. Regardless of this verbal statement, the sales contract was written in such a way that was misleading. That is, the Dealership increased the price of the new 2015 Mitsubishi by $1,797,19. This price increase is the difference between their original trade-off offer of $3,000 and the payoff balance of $4,797.19 on the 2010 Lancer. The car cost is now $37,060.10 instead of original cost of $35,263.00. The Dealership contract was written in such a way that was hidden, confusing, and was not clearly communicated to I/Us at the time of contract signing. Instead, I/We were lead to believe by Wantagh Mitsubishi that they did in fact pay the payoff balance of $4,797.19 on the 2010 vehicle. Unfortunately, I/We took notice of this when the loan document arrived. I/We then proceeded to ask Wantagh Mitsubishi for an itemized invoice. I am the co-signer on the 2015 vehicle loan and would like to receive a reimbursement from Wantagh Mitsubishi for $1,797.19. Thank you!Desired Settlement: I am the co-signer on the 2015 vehicle loan and would like to receive a reimbursement from Wantagh Mitsubishi for $1,797.19. Thank you!

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# [redacted], and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because:

I have read the business response and completely disagree with their response. Wantagh Mitsubishi absolutely did not make it clear to [redacted] that they have inflated the selling price on new vehicle to offset the trade-in balance on the old vehicle. My son, [redacted], was lead to believe that Wantagh Mitsubishi agreed to pay off the balance on the trade-in, leaving him free and clear of any other money owed. Also, although [redacted] signed the purchase agreement, I as the co-signer on the loan agreement, did not sign the purchase agreement. In addition, I as the co-signer on the loan agreement, I was not made aware of this inflated price increase to the purchase of the new vehicle. Please let me know if I can contact you directly by phone as I would like to resolve any questions as quickly as possible.Respectfully,[redacted]

Business

Response:

Attached please see the order form signed by the customer, [redacted], showing the price of the trade-in as $3000. The lender on this auto loan, [redacted], does not accept a finance contract showing negative equity on a trade-in. Therefore, as evidenced by the attached bill of sale, we inflated the trade-in price to reflect the amount the customer owed to [redacted] on his trade-in vehicle, the 2010 Mitsubishi Lancer. We also inflated the selling price of the new vehicle, the 2015 Mitsubishi Lancer Evo, by the same amount ($1797.19) that we inflated the trade-in. The customer, as evidenced by the signed buyer's order, absolutely knew and had a written document displaying the trade-in value of $3000. By inflating the trade-in value and the selling price of the new car by the exact same amount, $1797.19, the amount the customer financed did not change. For this customer to demand a refund of $1797.19 is totally without justification.Best regards,[redacted]Wantagh Mitsubishi

Business

Response:

The complainint, [redacted], has stated in her last response that [redacted], the buyer of the vehicle (titled and registered to [redacted]), did sign the buyer's order which stated very clearly that the trade-in amount was $3000. [redacted], the cosigner of the auto loan, did not sign the buyer's order because she was not the buyer of the new vehicle in question. The vehicle was titled and registered solely to [redacted] who quite properly was the only one to sign the buyer's order. Cosigners of auto loans who are not on the title or registration do not sign buyer's orders because they are not the buyer of the automobile. As I stated in my previous response, raising the used car price by $1797.17 and raising the selling price of the new car by the same amount did not change the amount owed by the customer. We feel this complaint has absolutely no justification and this customer is attempting to obtain money they have no right to.Best regards,[redacted]Wantagh Mitsubishi

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# [redacted], and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because:

I will address each statement made by Wantagh Mitsubishi: 1. “…the vehicle was titled and registered solely to [redacted]…” Incorrect. Title and Registration are in my name, [redacted]; therefore, [redacted] is the sole buyer. 2. “Raising the used car price by $1,797.19 and raising the selling price of the new car by the same amount did not change the amount owed by the customer.” Incorrect. Amount owed was increased by $1,797.19. I will restate that neither [redacted] nor I authorized Wantagh Mitsubishi to combine the previous loan payoffbalance ($4,797.19) minus their trade-in offer ($3,000) with the new loan, resulting in owing the same amount. The agreement was that Wantagh Mitsubishi would pay off the entire pay off balance of $4,797.19; thereby leaving buyer free and clear of any money owed on the previous vehicle. I will restate that the 2010 Lancer was well worth over $3,000; especially since it was recently serviced, including 4 new tires and new front/rear brakes. Further, the attached Buyer’s Order andItemized List were not shown to me. The reason I now have these documents is due to a request I made after receiving my loan document and noticing the loan amount was incorrect. As you can see, Buyer’s Order and Itemized List clearly show the selling pricing difference $35,263.00 vs. $37.060.19.3. “Customer is attempting to obtain money they have no right to.” Incorrect. I am a hardworking citizen and have every right to money that is owed to me.

In order for the Revdex.com to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above.

Sincerely,