BBB Logo

Better Business Bureau ®
Start With Trust®
In Dallas and Northeast Texas

BBB Business Review

Is this your Business?

Consumer Complaints

BBB Accredited Business since 07/12/2010

Volvo Of Dallas

Phone: (972) 963-9700Fax: (972) 963-9738

BBB Business Reviews may not be reproduced for sales or promotional purposes.

BBB began including the text of consumer complaints and business responses in BBB Business Reviews on 07/01/2013 for complaints filed on 01/01/2013 and thereafter. This includes all complaints that meet our reporting guidelines and that are filed electronically. We also report on the resolution of the complaint, as determined by BBB.

Customer Complaints Summary

11 complaints closed with BBB in last 3 years | 4 closed in last 12 months
Complaint TypeTotal Closed Complaints
Advertising / Sales Issues4
Problems with Product / Service7
Billing / Collection Issues0
Delivery Issues0
Guarantee / Warranty Issues0
Total Closed Complaints11

Complaint Breakdown by ResolutionAbout Complaint Details

Complaint Resolution Log (11)BBB Closure Definitions
06/02/2014Problems with Product / Service | Read Complaint Details

Additional Notes

Complaint Category: Defective, damaged, or incorrect product received

Complaint: 3 year old tires, not rated to support the weight of the car
On 1/28/13 I purchased a 2013 XC60 from Volvo of Dallas. The dealer had put custom wheels and tires on the car which were apart of the purchase. I went to Discount tire to have my tires rotated and the store manager stated the tires were made in 2010, ny card is a 2013. They also informed me the tires were not rated for the weight of the car. I learned too the lug wrench provided with the car does not fit the wheels.I have called on 3 seperate occassions to Volvo of Dallas and left a message for the general manager Pedro to discuss the issue, I have not received a call back. Old tires are bad business practices, tires not rated to support the weight of the car is unethical.

Initial Business Response
Contact Name and Title: ***** ******* SERVICE DI
Contact Phone: XXX XXX XXXX
Contact Email: **********

Complaint Resolution: Company resolved the complaint issues. The consumer acknowledged acceptance to BBB.

02/11/2013Advertising / Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details

Additional Notes

Complaint Category: Sales presentation used dishonest sales practices

Complaint: Car Salesman quoted $19,000 & sales manager retracted offer to $19,650. Manager then agreed that the salesman didn't have authority and wrong wording
No purchase made due to deceptive practices. Sales conversation with Tae An and Sales manager Chris on 1/9/13. The sales person Tae An then proceeded to show me the Certified Pre-Owned Volvo V50 that they had in stock. It was an excellent car with most of the option we were looking for but the price was a little higher than the V70 I found at CarMax. The CarMax one has 20k more miles and was one year older but had all of the options we were looking for. The price of the cars once you add the warranty to CarMax's was neck in neck. The tradeoff was the age, model, and options. I made an offer of $18,500 for the $19,999 car ($19,750 once you use the web pricing coupon) and Tae said that he would check with the sales manager and get back to me, I asked him to get me the price total with the fees and tax/title. That morning I sent an email to Tae outlining both vehicles, the prices and options/age. I also stated my price, he said that he didn't receive it. He didn't get back to me until I called back and left a message. I received a call back stating that the manager refused the offer of $18,500 and I asked what his bottom price was and Tae said $19,000. I asked that he check with him to meet halfway at $18,750. I received a call back from Chris (Sales Manager) stating that the best price is $19,750. I asked does that mean that they are backtracking from the previous $19,000 that Tae offered and he said that Tae doesn't have the authority to make offers and I explained that I don't know their protocol and is not my business. He said that Tae didn't make that offer and I stated that he did. Chris then offered to play back the call but then couldn't locate that call but only the previous call. Chris raised his voice as did I, but there was not any name calling or profanity. He was stern that Tae didn't make the offer. After much debate I stated that I would not buy this car from Volvo of Dallas even if it was $5 due to the way I was treated/handled. Chris stated that he is the manager for this branch but I could talk to Larry who I guess is over the local Volvo of Dallas dealers. Chris agreed to locate the recorded call and play it back for me. I explained that I would love to hear it just to verify my conversation with Tae. Chris called back and apologized as the wording Tae used could have been misconstrued and interpreted as an offer for $19,000. Chris stated that he wished that he could make that deal for me but his best price is $19,650 and I explained that even if I wanted to I would not as it compromises my prior statement of not buying the car for $5 if offered. I mentioned that my other option was the V70 at CarMax and then Chris slipped into the conversation that they work on quite a few cars sold by CarMax and all they do is basically an oil change before selling. I almost could have forgotten all of the previous conversation but once you decide to throw your competition under the bus it seems needy/desperate. Chris did verify that they could deliver the car to my house which is 45 minutes away if was interested.

Business' Initial Response
Contact Name and Title: Jack Shanks
Contact Phone: XXX-XXX-XXXX
Contact Email: *****
Mr. ****** visited our dealership and was interested in a particular vehicle. He had offered a price below our asking price and the salesperson had attempted to extract an offer from him. In the processs, Mr.****** feels the salesperson implied he could accept the offer Mr. ****** had made, this not being the case. We have offered Mr. ****** to let us find another vehicle that will suit him and are awaiting his response. We will continue to have ongoing contact with Mr. ****** and seek his satisfaction in a vehicle purchase. I have apologized for the misunderstanding and look forward to speaking with him further.

Complaint Resolution: Company addressed the complaint issues. The consumer failed to acknowledge acceptance to BBB.

12/05/2012Advertising / Sales Issues
09/20/2012Advertising / Sales Issues
08/01/2012Problems with Product / Service
Page 1 of 2
04/09/2014Problems with Product / Service | Read Complaint Details

Additional Notes

Complaint Category: None of the Above - Repair Complaint Issue

Complaint: The dealership provided me a false statement about the need for parts, replacement or repair service
I took my 2007 Volvo S40 to "Volvo of Dallas at Frisco, TX" on Monday, January 20, 2014 with check engine light on. I was told by the service advisor "****** ********* that I will be charged $145.00 to diagnose the problem, but if I get the repair done after diagnoses, I will only pay for the repair. I agreed and left the car at the dealership.
On Tuesday, January 21, 2014, I was informed that the technician found water intrusion in the accelerator pedal connector creating communication problems. The technician cleaned and di-electric grease the connector to resolve the issue and if the check engine light comes back, I will need a new accelerator pedal.
On the same day, I paid $160.70 (Labor charges $145 + Misc. charges $14.50 + Sales tax $1.20) and picked up my car.
Next day, on Wednesday, January 22, 2014, I started my car in the morning and found the check engine light on again. I emailed my service advisor "****** ********* who advised me that to get the car fixed I will need a new accelerator pedal and since the part is currently not available, the part department will order it from New Jersey and let me know when it is here.
On Thursday, January 27, 2014, ****** emailed me saying he received the part for the check engine light and I can bring the car in tomorrow to get the part installed.
I took my car back to the dealership on January 30, 2014 and paid $321.14 (Labor charges $235.88 + Parts charges $189.12 + Misc. charges 23.59 - previous labor charges $145 + Sales tax $17.55) for the new pedal.
On Saturday, February 01, 2014, I email ****** again to inform him the check engine light is back. ****** replied me back on Tuesday, February 04, 2014 saying he is sorry to hear that light is back on and if I can drop it off with him, he can look at it as early as tomorrow; I dropped the car at the dealer the same day.
On Wednesday, February 05, 2014, I was told that they will need to replace the engine control module or ECM because they found the signal from the accelerator pedal to the engine control module is not being received and monitored properly by the engine control module and they believe it is due to water. This time I was given an estimate of $2285.33 (Estimate subtotal $2100.88 + Shop fee $63.59 + Sales tax $120.86).
By now, I was already very upset because this was the third time I went to the dealership for the same issue. "Volvo of Dallas at Frisco, TX" is more than 30 miles from my work and every time I had to ask someone to pick and drop me to the dealership.
When I asked ****** if the fault was in the ECM, why did you charge me for a new the accelerator pedal? He replied because they have to start from least expensive item. This did not make any sense to me.
I picked up my car from "Volvo of Dallas at Frisco, TX" On Wednesday, February 05, 2014 and dropped it at a local auto shop "Simon Auto Repair" which is located close to my house in Lewisville TX. I told the technician about the services done at the dealership due the same issue and what was recommended before I brought my vehicle to his shop. The next day I received a call from the shop with an estimate of $96.91 including parts and labor and the technician assured me there is absolutely nothing wrong with the ECM. Also, he said there are signs of water inside the car due to the rain water coming from the broken rear window (rear window is replaced) and he did not find any water damage under the hood. I picked up my car the same day and I have not experienced any problems since then.

Initial Business Response
Contact Name and Title: ***** ******* SERVICE DIR
Contact Phone: XXX XXX XXXX
Contact Email: **********
mr ******* should contact service director at dealer and we will review this issue with him and resolve the problem including a refund if necessary.

Initial Consumer Rebuttal
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
Volvo of Dallas has not provided any resolution to the complaint.

Business Response
Volvo of Dallas refunded Mr. ******* $321.14 on 04/11/2014 to keep our good standing with the BBB and as a good faith gesture to him. we could no verify or deny his complaint due to his lack of co-operation in letting us see his vehicle again and verifying his complaint, all documentation we had verifies the work that was done.

Consumer Response
I consider this case resolved since the business has agreed to issue me a refund of $321.14 on Friday, April 11, 2014.

Complaint Resolution: BBB determined that while the company addressed the complaint issues, the complainant was dissatisfied and the matter was outside BBB Rules of Arbitration.

08/01/2013Problems with Product / Service | Read Complaint Details

Additional Notes

Complaint Category: Work performed outside the terms of the contract or agreement

Complaint: Dealership sent my car to auction prior to deal being funded by bank and unable to return car to customer.Dealership didnt have auth to sell car prior
on 5/18/2013 i purchased a 2008 mercedes benz and traded in my 2003 porsche boxster. on Tuesday i had asked salesman to check car for lost work id badge..he stated car sent to auction and that deal was already funded. at 4:30 pm, salesman calls back and stated that deal not funded and approved only with $1500 down, unable to return my porsche cause already sent to auction for sale. I advised if deal not funded why was car taken to auction w/o authorization since deal not funded. deal was already approved with zero down.

Business' Initial Response
Volvo of Dallas had entered into a purchase agreement with Mr. ********. We had agreed to terms with Mr. ******** provided he could provide proof of income to match the credit application that he had signed. Mr. ******** was unable to provide proof of the income he had stated. Volvo of Dallas was unable to secure financing on the original terms due to the fact income could not be verified as stated. We gave the customer other options but we were unable to come to agreeable terms for the customer. Volvo of Dallas returned the customers vehicle. We offered to honor the original terms if the customer could provide the needed proof- the customer stated he may be able to do this at a later date, but may wait till summer is over to trade his convertible.

Consumer's Final Response
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
the true owner is my girlfriend whom i live with and has the same complaint and we are filing a joint complaint against Volvo of Dallas. She can be reached at XXX-XXX-XXXX to confirm joint complaint.

Business' Final Response
As a matter of record- Mr. ******** is not the true owner of the vehicle being traded- we have been in contact with that individual and have had no issues with the true owner- they are aware the vehicle had been returned to Mr. ********.

Complaint Resolution: BBB determined that while the company addressed the complaint issues, the complainant was dissatisfied and the matter was outside BBB Rules of Arbitration.

06/17/2014Advertising / Sales Issues
12/09/2011Problems with Product / Service
07/13/2011Problems with Product / Service

Industry Comparison| Chart

Auto Dealers - New Cars, Auto Repair & Service, Auto Dealers - Used Cars


What is a BBB Business Review?

We offer free reviews on businesses that include background, licensing, consumer experience and other information such as governmental actions that is known to BBB. These reviews are provided for businesses that are BBB accredited and also for businesses that are not BBB accredited.


BBB Reporting Policy

As a matter of policy, BBB does not endorse any product, service or business.

BBB Business Reviews are provided solely to assist you in exercising your own best judgment. Information in this BBB Business Review is believed reliable but not guaranteed as to accuracy.

BBB Business Reviews generally cover a three-year reporting period. BBB Business Reviews are subject to change at any time.