Weber-Harris Ford Lincoln

To whom it may concern,
I am writing in response to a complaint filed by *** *** ID# ***Ms*** contacted me about a month ago regarding a visit that she had while she was at our dealershipShe was complaining because she was here for hours trying to obtain financingShe
contacted me, and I had spoken to her on a few different occasions right after the sale, regarding the "conversations" Ms*** and *** had regarding her trade and the fact that we needed cosigners in order to obtain financingI investigated her concerns and found that we did need a cosigner in order to obtain financingI know that Ms***s Aunt was one individual that was approached to co-sign, and I believe that there were other family members as well
At that time, we were not able to obtain financing for Ms*** due to credit and were not able to obtain a qualified cosigner in order to proceedAs part of our follow up processes, Ms *** was contacted on October 22nd regarding a vehicle purchaseMs*** contacted me wanting to know why I calledI was trying to explain to her that I wasn't the one that tried to call her, it was one of my sales associatesShe insisted I wasShe was yelling at me on the phone, and I simply asked her what could I do to make her happyShe told me that the only thing that would make her happy would be for me to trade her year old Toyota RAVin and put her into a newer Escape and keep her at the same payment she is currently makingShe hung up on me when I told her that I could not do that
At this time, I have removed Ms *** from all follow up correspondences and Weber Harris Ford will no longer initiate contact with her
Please let me know if you have any further questions or need any additional information
*** ***
Sales Manager
Weber Harris Ford
###-###-####
###-###-####

Revdex.com 400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220 Pittsburgh, PA 15220September 14, 2015Complaint [redacted]To whom it may concern,Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the complaint from Mr. [redacted]. Mr. [redacted] purchased a 2014 Ford F150 from our dealership on March 12, 2015. The dealership over...

allowed for his trade which was reflected in the selling price of the vehicle he purchased. I was not aware that Mr. [redacted] didn't receive the window sticker to his vehicle until he was in for his complimentary oil change a few weeks back. He claims he also didn't receive his owner manual either. Which I would imagine the window sticker and the owners manual were probably together. I have ordered a new window sticker for Mr. [redacted], and will forward to him when I receive it.If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me.Thank you,[redacted] General Manager Weber Harris Ford

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.I received your correspondence and the reply from Weber-Harris.  The dealership failed to provide the window sticker when it was requested at the time of sale (could have been generated on the Ford Website).  I was with another purchaser who also requested the original sticker and did not receive it at the time of purchase.  Not the best way to do business.  It still seems they are not sharing the sticker so they can appear to give you a better trade-in by escalating the price. It happened to both of us and I would assume to a lot of other customers.  We ran the sticker prices online and I received the owner's manual by calling Ford direct.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
To whom it may concern,12/02/2015With hours of my sister purchasing a vehicle at Weber-Harris Ford the dealership was contacted, via phone by myself and in person by our brother, informing them that our sister was not in sound mind to make an executive decision. They were also told she could not afford the vehicle as she no longer had a 2nd income nor would her condition allow her to return to the workforce. The dealership informed both of us that even without her additional income she could “more than afford” the car on her SSDI income and they refused to retract the sale.Once the loan information was able to be obtained it was discovered that the loan was in fact based on the combined income, which was $530 more than her actual income. The dealership used questionable/illicit accounting practice to arrive at an overstated and unsubstantiated income in order to meet the needs of the sale despite being informed otherwise. Without these inflated numbers the bank informed us that the loan would have never been approved.Aggressive sales tactics were also used to add accessories and extended warranties bringing the final cost from $18,000 to $25,000. The car payment is approximately 1/3 of her monthly income which does not allow her to cover her monthly expenses.The dealership had no regard for the sanctity of customer relationship and was only concerned with making a sale.Sincerely,[redacted] RE: #[redacted]

Revdex.com:I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
Regards,
[redacted]

Review: On June 9, 2016 my husband and I received a pamphlet in the mail that had the scratch off "lottery" circles saying that they were having cash prizes for those that scratched 3 of the same numbers. These cash prizes were labeled as $20,000, $5,000, $1,000 and $50 cash prizes. At this point my husband decided to scratch off the circles and in each circle the amount of $20,000 appeared in each one - we read over the rules and details of this prize and thought that we had been the 1 in 80,000 that had won $20,000. When we arrived at the dealership on June 10, 2016 to redeem this prize, we went into the main lobby area and asked to speak with the general manager as we thought we had won a significant amount of money. The salesman then said "Do you know who you are looking for" and my husband said, "yes, the general manager". We then were told we could sit at one of 6 long white tables and wait. When we sat down we then read a sheet that had several of those same cash prizes but then at the bottom of this page there was something that read "all other winning numbers - win $5". When the general manager came to talk to us we pulled out our "winning" pamphlet and then he looked at the verification number attached to it and told us that we won $5 even though the 3 numbers that matched said $20,000. When he went to get us this $5 a salesman then sat down and asked us about cars and if we were looking for a new car. My husband and I just sat there with our 9 month old son flabbergasted that this tactic was used. I was not the only one that this affected because I had seen another family with two young girls before my husband showed up that came out and left very upset (I would assume that they also had been mislead by this tactic). I am complaining because this seemed to be a very misleading way to advertise a sale, my husband and I got our hopes up thinking that this was a legitimate winning, and the $5 that we won barely covered the gas to get to the dealership.Desired Settlement: They need to change the way they advertise as this tactic is very misleading and the $5 winner was not disclaimed in the advertising pamphlet that was sent out to consumers. And if any monetary compensation should be allowed we would like this as well.

Business

Response:

Re: [redacted]Reference number: [redacted]To whom it may concern,Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this complaint. The sales promotion referenced in this complaint ran from June 9, 2016 to June 13, 2016. According to the rules of the promotion, the participant was to match 3 like symbols. If there were 3 like symbols, according to the rules, the customer would need to come in and compare their activation code on their flyer to the prize board at the dealership. As stated in the complaint, her activation code did not match the number for the grand prize. Please let me know if you need any additional information.Thank you,[redacted]General Manager Weber Harris Ford

Review: Describe Details: My Sister, who is diagnosed with a mental disorder, purchased a car on 6/8/15. Her mental health has been declining and was recently let go from her part-time job due to memory difficulties. The family was in the lengthy process of deeming her incompetent. I contacted the dealership the same day of purchase addressing her present frame of mind and her inability to afford the car as she was no longer able to work. My brother arrived directly after my conversation and pleaded her case. They refused to void the sale. We later found out that the loan was based on $1,700, not her $1,170.90 SSDI. The car has been repossessed because of my sister’s lengthy hospitalization, her license has been revoked and she will no longer be able to live independently. *I was told that proof of income does not have to be verified.The following day after the purchase my sister had 3 traffic violations, including going through a stop sign. The car has been repossessed because of her lengthy hospitalization (45 days) followed by 2 weeks in a personal care facility. While in that personal care facility she was hit by the side mirror of a truck (in the face) when walking on the road. She is presently hospitalized again, her license has been revoked and she will no longer be able to live independently. *This is not a person who was competent to purchase a car and was unaware that they falsified the income information.Citizen bank refused her loan application of $18,166.00 yet the final purchase price for First National is $25,125.84.Desired Settlement: Resolution: Take the car back, null and void the contract due to the above circumstances, and trade in returned. Contract was based on falsified income numbers as both my brother and myself informed them that she only had her SSDI as income.

Business

Response:

Re: [redacted] # [redacted]To whom it may concern.Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this complaint. Ms. [redacted] purchased a vehicle from us on June 8, 2015. She traded in a 2007 Focus that she had in her possession. The income in question in this complaint was provided to us by Ms. [redacted] it was a combination of gross social security earnings and income she stated that she was averaging with part time work at McDonalds.Regardless of what Ms. [redacted]s circumstance is now, we are not required by our lien holders to verify income with pay stubs, award letters or bank statements and at the time Ms. [redacted] purchased her vehicle, she had a valid drivers license automobile insurance policy and was not hospitalized.Please let me know if you need any additional information.Regards,Frank F[redacted] General Manager Weber Harris Ford.

Consumer

Response:

Review: About one month ago, when Weber Harris Ford was having a "special" event I went into that business to try to purchase a used vehicle. I was told by the salesman that everyone gets financed.Then they told me I need a co-signer. At that time I was ready to leave. They said wait let us try one more avenue. I was then pulled aside by [redacted] and told that if I were to "wreck" my current vehicle, it would be paid off and I could get the financing because I would be out from under that loan. I was also pushed to go to potential co-signers homes with a salesman to speak to them as I couldn't get ahold of them on the phone.Thank heavens the one place that I was pushed into going no one was available. I wanted this vehicle and was promised that "It could happen" so many times that I was there for four hours. I realize that being gullable and without good enough rating to get a car was my fault. What I don't agree with was the way that business was conducted. I spoke with [redacted], The manager and told him this story, He said that he would look into this and get back to me. He never got back to me. I called him and he said he spoke to [redacted]s boss and that he was sorry that they couldn't help. Then tonight, 10/21/2014, I was called from that business at seven pm by someone named [redacted] and my husband answered and I refused to speak, then after I thought for a couple of seconds I called back and spoke to [redacted]. He denied calling and was rude. The caller ID on my cell phone was from that business. These people are liars and their business practices need to be looked into. I was completely over this until tonight.Desired Settlement: I want that used vehicle that I was looking at and I would like to have it for the same thing that I am paying on my current vehicle and I would like them to take the vehicle that I have as a trade.

Business

Response:

To whom it may concern,

I am writing in response to a complaint filed by [redacted] ID# [redacted]. Ms. [redacted] contacted me about a month ago regarding a visit that she had while she was at our dealership. She was complaining because she was here for 4 hours trying to obtain financing. She contacted me, and I had spoken to her on a few different occasions right after the sale, regarding the "conversations" Ms. [redacted] and [redacted] had regarding her trade and the fact that we needed cosigners in order to obtain financing. I investigated her concerns and found that we did need a cosigner in order to obtain financing. I know that Ms. [redacted]s Aunt was one individual that was approached to co-sign, and I believe that there were other family members as well.

At that time, we were not able to obtain financing for Ms. [redacted] due to credit and were not able to obtain a qualified cosigner in order to proceed. As part of our follow up processes, Ms [redacted] was contacted on October 22nd regarding a vehicle purchase. Ms. [redacted] contacted me wanting to know why I called. I was trying to explain to her that I wasn't the one that tried to call her, it was one of my sales associates. She insisted I was. She was yelling at me on the phone, and I simply asked her what could I do to make her happy. She told me that the only thing that would make her happy would be for me to trade her 15 year old Toyota RAV4 in and put her into a newer Escape and keep her at the same payment she is currently making. She hung up on me when I told her that I could not do that.

At this time, I have removed Ms [redacted] from all follow up correspondences and Weber Harris Ford will no longer initiate contact with her.

Please let me know if you have any further questions or need any additional information.

Sales Manager

Weber Harris Ford

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

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

Review: 3-12-15 Bought a vehicle from this dealership asked to see window sticker sales claims it was not there. Several days ago Got the sticker online. weber harrissaid thesticker price was 44,221.00 the actual sticker 41,205.00 the difference is 3,016.00. Also on the sticker it states Federal Auto Information Disclosure Act entitles me to the sticker. Removing the sticker was deceitful dishonestDesired Settlement: To do business honestly improve your sales tactics

Business

Response:

Revdex.com 400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220 Pittsburgh, PA 15220September 14, 2015Complaint [redacted]To whom it may concern,Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the complaint from Mr. [redacted]. Mr. [redacted] purchased a 2014 Ford F150 from our dealership on March 12, 2015. The dealership over allowed for his trade which was reflected in the selling price of the vehicle he purchased. I was not aware that Mr. [redacted] didn't receive the window sticker to his vehicle until he was in for his complimentary oil change a few weeks back. He claims he also didn't receive his owner manual either. Which I would imagine the window sticker and the owners manual were probably together. I have ordered a new window sticker for Mr. [redacted], and will forward to him when I receive it.If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me.Thank you,[redacted] General Manager Weber Harris Ford

Consumer

Response: