BBB Accredited Business since

Downtown Auto Center

Additional Locations

Phone: (510) 547-4436 View Additional Phone Numbers 4145 Broadway, Oakland, CA 94611 View Additional Email Addresses http://www.downtowntoyota.com/


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

Description

This company offers new and used Toyota, Saab and Subaru cars. Also, offer service and parts for vehicles.


BBB Accreditation

A BBB Accredited Business since

BBB has determined that Downtown Auto Center meets BBB accreditation standards, which include a commitment to make a good faith effort to resolve any consumer complaints. BBB Accredited Businesses pay a fee for accreditation review/monitoring and for support of BBB services to the public.

BBB accreditation does not mean that the business' products or services have been evaluated or endorsed by BBB, or that BBB has made a determination as to the business' product quality or competency in performing services.


Reason for Rating

BBB rating is based on 13 factors. Get the details about the factors considered.

Factors that raised the rating for Downtown Auto Center include:

  • Length of time business has been operating
  • Complaint volume filed with BBB for business of this size
  • Response to 13 complaint(s) filed against business
  • Resolution of complaint(s) filed against business


Customer Complaints Summary Read complaint details

13 complaints closed with BBB in last 3 years | 7 closed in last 12 months
Complaint Type Total Closed Complaints
Advertising/Sales Issues 1
Billing/Collection Issues 2
Delivery Issues 3
Guarantee/Warranty Issues 1
Problems with Product/Service 6
Total Closed Complaints 13

Customer Reviews Summary Read customer reviews

0 Customer Reviews on Downtown Auto Center
Customer Experience Total Customer Reviews
Positive Experience 0
Neutral Experience 0
Negative Experience 0
Total Customer Reviews 0

Additional Information

BBB file opened: January 01, 1991 Business started: 01/01/1982 Business started locally: 01/01/1982 Business incorporated 04/17/1984 in CA
Type of Entity

Corporation

Business Management
Ms. Julie Sanchez, Office Manager
Contact Information
Principal: Ms. Julie Sanchez, Office Manager
Number of Employees

90

Business Category

Auto Dealers - New Cars Auto Dealers - Used Cars

Service Area
This company services the bay area and Northern California.
Alternate Business Names
Downtown Saab Of Oakland Downtown Subaru of Oakland Downtown Toyota Of Oakland R.A. F. Inc.

Additional Locations

X

BBB Customer Review Rating plus BBB Rating Overview


BBB Customer Reviews Rating represents the customers opinions of the business. The Customer Review Rating is based on the number of positive, neutral and negative customer reviews posted that are calculated to produce a score.

Customer Review Experience Value
Positive Review 5 points per review
Neutral Review 3 points per review
Negative Review 1 point per review

BBB letter grades represent the BBB's opinion of the business. The BBB grade is based on BBB file information about the business. In some cases, a business' grade may be lowered if the BBB does not have sufficient information about the business despite BBB requests for that information from the business.
Details

BBB Letter Grade Scale

BBB Rating Value
A+ 5
A 4.66
A- 4.33
B+ 4
B 3.66
B- 3.33
C+ 3
C 2.66
C- 2.33
D+ 2
D 1.66
D- 1.33
F 1
NR -----
Star Rating scale

  Average Score
5 stars 5.00
4.5 stars 4.50-4.99
4 stars 4.00-4.49
3.5 stars 3.50-3.99
3 stars 3.00-3.49
2.5 stars 2.50-2.99
2 stars 2.00-2.49
1.5 stars 1.50-1.99
1 star 0-1.49

BBB Customer Review Rating plus BBB Rating is not a guarantee of a business' reliability or performance, and BBB recommends that consumers consider a business' BBB Rating and Customer Review Rating in addition to all other available information about the business. If the BBB Rating is NR then only Customer Reviews are used for the Star Rating.

Complaint Detail(s)

4/1/2016 Delivery Issues
3/11/2016 Problems with Product/Service
2/12/2016 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: Sold my vehicle to Downtown Subaru of Oakland November 1, 2015 but 82 days later they have not paid me for it I sold my vehicle (a 2014 Subaru Forester) to Downtown Subaru of Oakland on Sunday, November 1, 2015. I had originally bought the car new at Eastside Subaru in Kirkland, WA, in June of 2013. In purchasing the car I took out a loan with Wells Fargo Dealer Services (WFDS). I moved to California in May of 2015 and eventually decided to sell the car because I found it impractical to own a car while living in downtown San Francisco. At the time of sale, I was still paying off the loan on my car with WFDS, so WFDS was in possession of the car title. Downtown Subaru of Oakland purchased the car from me for $19,000. The remaining balance of my loan with WFDF was $13,209.03. Therefore, Downtown Subaru of Oakland owes me $5,790.97 for the equity in my car. I was told on the day of the sale (both on the phone in advance of my visit and in person at the time of the sale) that because it was not a business day the finance department members were not in the office to process the paperwork and issue me a check immediately. Instead, they would do so first thing the next week. I was perfectly happy with this arrangement. When I did not receive the check during the next week, I called them on Friday November 6, 2015 to inquire as to the delay and was told that their policy on buying used vehicles was actually not to issue the check until the title was received from the holder (in this case, WFDS). Therefore, when WFDS finished processing the loan repayment and Downtown Subaru of Oakland received the car title, then I would receive my check. This was not what I had been told originally, and this policy is not stated on my copy of the paperwork that documents the vehicle sale. However, I had no reason not to believe them, and I did not have a copy of every document I had signed during the sale process. It also seemed a perfectly reasonable policy to me, so I was happy to wait a few more days or weeks for my check. I received a letter from WFDS dated November 16, 2015 informing me that my loan had been fully repaid by Downtown Subaru of Oakland and that I was now released from any further obligations to them. Based on what I was told by Downtown Subaru of Oakland, I should have received my check a few days after that. However, it is now January 22, 2016, and Downtown Subaru of Oakland has yet to issue me the check. Beginning on December 4, 2015, I began pursuing this matter in earnest by contacting the business regularly. I have exchanged multiple calls and text messages about this matter with a Downtown Subaru of Oakland representative named David. He insists that the title has not yet been received by Downtown Subaru of Oakland due to a series of mishaps and miscommunications between Downtown Subaru of Oakland, the DMV, and the United States Post Office. Because the title has allegedly not been received, they are still withholding my check. The current situation may indeed be the fault of the DMV and USPS, or it may be incompetence on the part of of Downtown Subaru of Oakland. In either case, this situation is not my concern or responsibility to resolve, and there should be no reason for Downtown Subaru of Oakland to continue to refuse to pay me for the car I sold to them 82 days ago. As described above, I have been attempting to resolve this situation directly with Downtown Subaru of Oakland since the sale of the vehicle, and I have records of all of my numerous communications with them. I have repeatedly been told to continue waiting patiently until they resolve the situation with the DMV and receive the title, but clearly they appear incapable of doing so in a reasonable timeframe, if at all. I am therefore seeking the help of the Better Business Bureau in resolving this situation.

Desired Settlement: I want Downtown Subaru of Oakland to immediately issue me a check in the amount that they owe me for the sale of my vehicle, which is $5,790.97. I want this check mailed to me immediately at my home address, as was originally discussed at the time of the sale.

Business Response: Initial Business Response /* (1000, 8, 2016/02/10) */ Business owner called and said the check has been sent. Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (2000, 10, 2016/02/11) */ (The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.) Yes, the business FINALLY released the check to me last week, so this matter is resolved.

2/5/2016 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: Repairs were inappropriate and did not work and overpriced. I felt like I was conned. Customer XXXXXX date 1/28/14 vechcle4s4bp61cXXXXXXXXX 2005 Subaru Outback Paid 293.22$ Salesman **** ********** **** Invoice sucsXXXXXX

Desired Settlement: Full refund

Business Response: Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2016/01/20) */ This is in reference to a complaint that was filed two years ago on January 27, 2014; there was a dispute in regard to Repair Order # XXXXXX. We have tried to contact the customer at the phone number provided, (XXX)XXX-XXXX, but the phone number is inoperable. We want to come to an appropriate resolution and need more information on the customer,

1/20/2016 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: Took vehicle in for brake inspection. Was told that brakes were fine. I do not believe they even inspected brakes. May 2015 I took my 2007 Toyota FJ cruiser into the service department for a brake inspection as it was shaking when the brakes were applied. The service department indicated that they did a 27 point inspection and that the brakes had 6 mm of brake pads which meant that I did not need any brake service. The indicated that the shaking may be that the tires needed to be balanced which they indicated they did. So at this point I was under the impression that my brakes were fine as that is what I was told. My alternator went out and I took my vehicle to Dublin Toyota for repair. They contacted me immediately and advised that my vehicle was not safe for driving as it had absolutely no brakes. The Dublin Toyota service department advised me that there is no way that the brakes could have gone from 6mm to zero in less than a month and a half. This has caused me a great hardship not to mention put myself and my family in grave danger. I would like the Oakland Toyota Service department to be held liable. They put my family's lives at risk.

Desired Settlement: I would like Oakland Toyota to reimburse me for the entire brake service which cost me $299 per axle for a total of $598.00 not including tax. In an alternative I would request that Oakland Toyota make an offer of resolution.

Business Response: Initial Business Response /* (1000, 9, 2015/08/26) */ Downtown Toyota will offer $200.00 as a goodwill gesture to the customer ****** ******. Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (2000, 11, 2015/08/27) */ (The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.) Final Business Response /* (4000, 32, 2015/12/29) */ We will issue a check to Ms. ****** ****** for the amount of $299.00 as per settlement. The check will be mailed out today. Sorry for the delay. *** ****** Service Manager Downtown Autocenter Final Consumer Response /* (2000, 43, 2016/01/20) */ Payment received

7/19/2015 Delivery Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I purchased a car from the dealer on Sept 1, 2014. The dealer has failed to follow through on due bill repair commitments. I purchased a used **** **** ******** Limited from the referenced dealer on Sept 1, 2014. As part of the sales agreement, the dealer committed in contract ("Due bill") to perform the repair of dents on the passenger **** of the vehicle and an interior defect on the driver's door panel. Upon execution of our agreement, the finance manager advised that "someone will call you within a week to schedule the repairs". Since then, I have called the dealer constantly to complete the contracted work, reaching the sales man often but getting zero follow-through from him. I have sent notification via email to the dealership that I wanted to resolve this without escalation and have them to complete the work, but nobody has contacted me since I left the message. My goal was to simply have them fulfill their portion of the sales agreement as I have my portion, but this seems to be a case where they have not intention of following through.

Desired Settlement: Complete the work per the sales agreement.

Business Response: Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2014/12/15) */ Contact Name and Title: ***** ******* Bus Mgr Contact Phone: XXX-XXX-XXXX We received the complaint in the mail today - the salesperson has spoke to Mr. ***** already and has made an appointment for this Friday at Dentpro for him. Mr. ***** had an appt before at the dealership and the salesperson assumed the work had been done. Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 11, 2015/05/08) */ Continuation of BBB Case #XXXXXXXX. Dealer has still neglected to complete due bill work promised at vehicle purchase in Sept 2014. Dealer has neglected to complete Due Bill work as committed to at vehicle purchase. I have attempted to contact person (******* at XXX-XXX-XXXX x***)assigned to the case following the initial BBB filed complaint (#XXXXXXXX) but to no avail. I am only interested in having the party complete the repairs and fulfill the contract. 9 months is a ridiculous amount of time to wait for this to happen

5/29/2015 Billing/Collection Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: My dad brought his car to Downtown Toyota of Oakland for an oil change last week and the service was never performed on the car. He checked the oil level a few days after getting the car back and it was really low and dark, a clear indication that it hasn't been changed. Something was off when they didn't put the sticker on the top left windshield indicating when the next oil change should be and at what mileage. Of course they didn't know, because they never did anything with the car. They even gave him a check off list of things they claimed they did with the car. It was all a lie because the water wasn't topped off and the oil was never changed. It was confirmed when he brought it back today and had the service consultant check the levels. Without argument, they changed his oil because they got caught up. This place is charging customers for services they are not performing and should be investigated. This is bad business and a misrepresentation of a company that strives to be the best. We will no longer be coming here and want to warn others of this place.

Desired Settlement: DesiredSettlementID: Refund $60.00 is not a big deal, but paying $60.00 for dishonesty and absolutely nothing is. We want the BBB to look into this business because we want to prevent others from getting screwed like we did. People bring their vehicles in trusting it will be serviced on and would like to leave with a peace of mind. This business needs to be investigated.

Business Response: Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/04/30) */ The business called and said they need more information before they can respond to the complaint. Do you have a service order number, date you brought the car in and/or your father's name? Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2015/05/02) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) Invoice date: ******** Invoice number: TOCSXXXXXX Name of customer: **** ***** Service advisor: ******* ***** **** Vehicle info: **** black ****** ***** Total invoice $59.95 **** brought the car back to get it rechecked by the advisor who checked the oil level. He didn't say much when he saw that the level was low, but said they'd take care of it. That was on 04/23/15 at 10:30am. An invoice wasn't generated for that service. **** called and left messages for a manager to call him back, but didn't get a response. Final Business Response /* (4000, 10, 2015/05/27) */ 1. The ASM no longer works for the dealership so we can't ask. We can only read what is written on the repair order. 2. We wrote an apology letter and offered a free oil and filter service voucher for the next visit. Final Consumer Response /* (2000, 12, 2015/05/28) */ (The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.) We'll accept this apology and thank the BBB for mediating in order to come up with a resolution.

3/20/2015 Guarantee/Warranty Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: In 2011 I purchased a new Subaru Forrester car.In 2014 April I only had 27,205 mi. & dealership replaced the engine. Still having problem with engine July 5, 2014 To: Subaru of America Corporate Headquarters **** ******* **** W ****** Hill, *** ****** XXXXX From: ******* ****** RE: 2011 Subaru ForresterDefective ********* JF2SHACC2BHXXXXXX In 2011 I purchased a new Subaru Forrester. I am writing this memo because I have been trying to get my car repaired since January 2014. In April of this year the mileage on my car was 27, 209 miles, and the Subaru Dealership, Auto Town Center in Oakland, California replaced or rebuilt the engine in April. A week after driving the car (as instructed by the dealership) at different speeds on the freeway the same noise began again, that had occurred before the engine was repaired/replaced. I took the car back in May with the noise problem and was told to continue to drive the car, because it was a new engine and needed to be driven at least 3,000 miles. I haven't driven 3,000 and the noise in the car is getting worse. I scheduled another appointment for July 10, 2014. You advertise Subaru as being a highly rated car for quality and performance on your television commercials, and in your printed materials. Due to the engine problem I have not experienced the high performance ratings. After four attempts to have the engine repaired it's time for Subaru to refund my money or replace this LEMON. I become stressed out when I drive this car, because I don't know if or when this engine is going to give out on me. I should feel safe in this car, but I don't feel safe hearing this noise while driving. The Subaru Forrester has become a headache and a big disappointment. I need your help to resolve this problem. Please respond to this memo immediately. I can be contacted at XXX-XXX-XXXX cell or ******@aol.com. cc: Downtown Auto Center Better Business Bureau 7 On Your Side ADDITIONAL DETAILS: Case is being handled by another organization: 7 On Your Side

Desired Settlement: I am retired and on a fixed income. I have less than twelve months left and before the car is paid in full. This car presently has less than 30,000 miles on it. Even after the engine has been repaired, it's not repaired. The engine is still making noises..it's a bad engine. I would like to settle with Subaru paying me $15,000, so I can put a down payment on another car.

Business Response: Initial Business Response /* (1000, 8, 2014/07/23) */ Concerning Ms. ******* ****** car was inspected by Subaru tech ****** on repair order #XXXXXX on July 10, 2014 @ 29,020 miles for a rattle type noise on acceleration. I *** ****** (service manager) and 2 Subaru technicians determined that the noise from the engine is normal. Also Ms. ****** road tested the vehicle with the technician ****** and showed him the noise which again he explained that it was a normal condition. I tried to contact Ms. ****** and could not reach her for these concerns. If uyou have further quesstions or concerns, you can reply back or give me a call at XXX-XXX-XXXX ext ***. Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 10, 2014/07/31) */ I am writing with an update regarding my claim. Things have not been resolved and I don't want my claim closed until this is resolved. UPDATE! I was contacted by the Downtown Auto Center (Subaru) on Saturday, July 26, 2014 . Mr. ** said that he would be communicating with someone at Subaru America (manufacturer) about looking at my car. I told him I was driving, on my way out of own, and that I would be back in town on Thursday, July 31, 2014. I told him that I needed my car, and that I couldn't keep bringing it in and leaving it , and having no results with getting rid of the noise. July 31, 3014 I received a phone call from Mr. ** this morning. He told me that he wanted me to come in and let another mechanic listen to the noise. I told him that I had done that four times already and the noise was still the same. He assured me that he wasn't trying to give me the run around. Mr. ** said that the representative at Subaru America informed him that they were back logged. Mr. ** said that he was going to call Subaru America again, and get back to me. Nothing has been resolved to date.

9/11/2014 Billing/Collection Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: Urgent Safety Recall was not preformed after 7 weeks of promising the part was being ordered. I was issued an "Urgent Safety Recall" on my Toyota Rav4 (#CSJ) involving Rear lower suspension Arms. I called this business and they informed me they needed to order the part and to call back in two weeks. I called back in two weeks and they said to call back in two weeks again with no explanation as to why the delay (Spoke to ****** in parts department). I called back in three weeks and again the parts department said for the thirs time to "call back in two weeks." I spoke to Ast Manager *********** ***** and explained there is a "lock out" from other Toyota's over ordering the parts. He explained how they have a list backed up of recalls of people who are waiting and that cannot get done because of this. I was never placed on list in the seven weeks I was waiting nor was I ever told they cannot preform the service in a timely manner.

Desired Settlement: Thankfully no injury has occurred, however it is an important issue to have resolved if Toyota cannot follow through on their Urgent Saftey Recall notifications.

Business Response: Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2014/08/22) */ *** from Downtown Auto called and said this consumer is not in there database and he has not number to call her. There is no number on the complaint so he asked the consumer call him. He does have parts for her. Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2014/08/25) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) I no longer choose to do business here and have already completed my recall with another business. The point of this report isn't to get my car fixed, it is to remedy a problem of customer service and safety. Not being able to attend to urgent safety recalls due to being "locked out" from ordering (per asst manager), and not having the system in place where the company never gathers my name or number either. If your business cannot provide Urgent Safety Recalls you should let the consumer know right away and or remedy the issue with Toyota immediately so that you can. Failing to gather customer info and failing to tell the customer you cannot preform the Recall after seven weeks and three phone calls is poor business practice and unsafe. Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2014/09/09) */ Case# XXXXXXXX Customer: ***** ********** , The recall that the customer is referring to is the CSJ recall for the Rav 4 which is the lower control arm recall. We have no control on when Toyota releases the parts to our dealership. As a dealership, we would love to get all the necessary parts from Toyota and perform/correct any open recalls for the customer at a timely matter. If you have any questions, you can call X-XXX-XXX-XXXX, this is the phone number of Toyota of America. Final Consumer Response /* (2000, 11, 2014/09/10) */ (The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.) Even though this dealership is still not taking responsibility for its role in the delay and communication and passing the responsibility to Toyota of America, I believe both play a part.

9/4/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: This is about customer service from the owners of this company. I purchased a 2008 Chevrolet Avalance from this dealership and became a lemon from the start. The first problem was the driver side door handle broke and in order to get out I had to roll the window down. That cost me $267.04 on 4/11/2014 It was purchased on 3/18/2014 and was in the Chevrolet dealership in concord again on 5/19/2014 for 2 weeks. The purchased price was over $20k with a vehicle payment of $505.66 a month. I feel half the payment for that month should be paid by them the reason being Downtown Auto Center never did a complete auto inspection when they put it on the lot. The reason I know this is because I contacted them over a dozen times to get an inspection report from them which to this day never received. When I brought the vehicle to Concord Chevrolet their conclusion of the problem was the Transmission was damaged and needs to be replaced as soon as possible. If I didn't purchase the extended warranty it would have cost me $3.906.57 to have it replaced. I feel the sales manager ****** ********** sold the vehicle to me, put his best sales tactic to work on me and pushed this vehicle to lessen his inventory. I have this feeling Concord Chevrolet hasn't seen the last of me and I feel I have been taken by this Downtown Auto Center of Oakland, Ca.

Desired Settlement: I would like to see this vehicle refunded an amount to be under blue book value because of the issues it has that Downtown Auto Center never looked into.

Business Response: Initial Business Response /* (1000, 13, 2014/07/14) */ Received company response via email on 7/14/14: thank you for your time on this matter. Mr. **** purchased the Chevrolet Avalanche from us on 03/16/2014. Close to a month later the transmission went out on this truck. All of the parts and labor were covered 100% by the warranty that Mr. **** purchased. The rental car that was given to him while the repairs were being performed was also paid for by the warranty company. We did perform an inspection on this vehicle at Daves Complete Auto Repair in Oakland. We use this shop for all of our non-Toyota and non-Subaru vehicles that we sell pre-owned. In addition, we forwarded this document to Mr. ****. Since all of the repairs were paid and he did not have to pay for a rental vehicle while it was being performed, Downtown Auto Center does not feel we need to provide any further compensation to Mr. ****. I hope this helps resolve this matter. Please contact me if you have any further questions. Best, *** ** ** **** Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 15, 2014/07/15) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) It is not resolved, in fact it was over blue book value because of the issues it has. It not only went in for just the transmisson for the second time but the first time was driver inside door handle broke in the door ( which is mechanical ) . Having the vehicle in my possession, I have it detailed every week, and other issues within this automobile arise. So this is why I say it's value should be under blue book value. If I pay over $20,000 I should receive $20,000 worth. If this is reputable company they should stand by what they sell you, not rip you off. Final Business Response /* (4000, 17, 2014/07/31) */ The business stands by their original response with nothing to add. Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 19, 2014/08/11) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) This company and most company's are supposed to look at a buyer with customer satisfaction. Well that did not to pertain to me. So now I have to make sure all buyers beware of purchasing from this dealership. I will have to make sure they have a negative review every week, every month, every year, till I'm satisfied. Even if I have to stand out in front of this establishment with a sign saying this company is owned by crooks and Liars. The greatest thing about it is I can go right up to the customers and tell them exactly what they need to look out for. Bad customer service, strong arm you into purchasing, lies upon lies when asking certain questions. I'm not going to be done with this company till I'm satisfied.

6/4/2014 Problems with Product/Service
7/22/2013 Delivery Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: This company has breached Numerous Uniform Commercial Codes as well as their own contract agreement. They refuse to communicate with me any further. According to Article 3-502 of the National Conf. of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, and The American Law Institute; ''1. If the note is payable on demand, the note is dishonored if presentment is duly made to the maker and the note is not paid on the day of presentment.'' On June 21, 2013, the bill of sale was appropriately signed by both parties and the vehicle (a white, 2013 Crosstrek) was paid for in full. The vehicle was not delivered to us on that date, which, according to Subaru's contract agreement (located on the back of the bill of sale) should have occurred at the time the purchase was completed. A three day courtesy grace period was provided to Downtown Subaru for our vehicle to be delivered. While our payment was to be processed, no communications were made or attempted to update us on the status of our purchase, contrary to what we were told to expect. As stated in U.C.C Article 3-603(b):''If tender of payment of an obligation to pay an instrument is made to a person entitled to enforce the instrument and the tender is refused, there is discharge, to the extent of the amount of the tender, of the obligation of an indorser or accommodation party having a right of recourse with respect to the obligation to which the tender relates.'' Up to and including this point in time, we have yet to receive any valid or relevant responses in regard to this claim. Given the dishonorable lack of response to our inquiries as well as a lack of response to the previous enforcement notice, we were left with no choice and held our right to present a notice of dishonor. The dealership has yet to provide proof of claim on several accounts; such as that the negotiable instrument transferred as payment was or was not able to be tendered or was incomplete. Failure to provide us with our payment along with evidence that our negotiable instrument could not be processed, again results in the dishonoring of payment. As stated in U.C.C Article 3-416 (6)b:''A person to whom the warranties under subsection (a) are made and who took the instrument in good faith may recover from the warrantor any damages for breach of warranty an amount equal to the loss suffered as a result of the breach, but not more than the amount of the instrument plus expenses and loss of interest incurred as a result of the breach.''As well as U.C.C Article 3-417 (4)b:''A drawee making payment may recover from any warrantor damages for breach of warranty equal to the amount paid by the drawee less the amount the drawee received or is entitled to receive from the drawer because of the payment. In addition, the drawee is entitled to compensation for expenses and loss of interest resulting from the breach. The right of the drawee to recover damages under this subsection is not affected by any failure of the drawee to exercise ordinary care in making payment. If the drawee accepts the draft, breach of warranty is a defense to the obligation of the acceptor. If the acceptor makes payment with respect to the draft, the acceptor is entitled to recover from any warrantor for breach of warranty the amounts stated in this subsection.'' When we first entered Downtown Subaru and communicated with both the sales representative and finance manager, we made it blatantly clear that any delay in the delivery and processing of this purchase would result in a major inconvenience for us, as we are currently in the process of moving out of state and also live 3 hours away from the dealership. We have already commuted approximately twenty hours on behalf of this claim, and are still without possession of our purchase. Downtown Subaru has dishonored our payment, has breached their fiduciary duty by failing to respond to all claims and inquires, has breached warranty by refusing to tender the instrument. They have also violated their own contract by refusing to deliver the vehicle on the declared date. Please contact me ASAP for the rest of our communications and my copy of my bill of sale.

Desired Settlement: This company has breached warranty according to UCC Article 3-416 and 417, violated their employee responsibilities according to UCC Article 3-405, breached their fiduciary duty repeatedly (in which I gave notice of according to UCC Article 3-307) throughout the week, dishonored my notices and payment, has yet to return my payment with proper legal regard and has also violated their own contract agreement on the back of the bill of sale for not delivering the vehicle on the date signed. I am seeking the vehicle that I have legally purchased, and compensation for my time, energy and resources spent attempting to contact the heads of the establishment, writing out legal notices, researching and proving my claims, as well as commuting to and from the business several times (a 3 hour commute 1 way). By all rights this car was paid for in full on June 21 and therefor should have been delivered on that day. We have provided more than enough courtesy for their timeliness regarding this claim and have only been lied to and disrespected in the process. I have made it clear to this company several times that my significant other and I are in the process of moving across country and any delay will be a major inconvenience. Given that this claim is in fact holding up our move, I am demanding compensation for the delay.

Business Response: Business' Initial Response /* (1000, 12, 2013/07/20) */ Contact Name and Title: Joe Doan - SM Contact Phone: 510 547 4436 Contact Email: jdoan@dtacoakland.com To: Ms. Griffith In response to Mr. Jurca's complaint above: Downtown Subaru of Oakland attempted to obtain a loan for Mr. Jurca's on behalf of his authorization. 1/.We were unable to obtain the financing for an automobile loan for him. 2/. Mr. Jurca could not bring in the balance in cash or obtained loan to pay for the proposed vehicle. 3/. Those two forms of payments are the only acceptible in our business. Therefore Downtown Subaru of Oakland had no way of collecting payments in full for his proposed purchase. Please feel free to contact us should you have any further concerns or questions. Consumer's Final Response /* (-5, 17, 2013/07/22) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) **THIS COMPANY IS VIOLATING MULTIPLE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODES, UNITED STATES CODES AND CODES OF FEDERAL REGULATION. I HAVE PROVIDED THIS COMPANY WITH SEVERAL NOTICES WITH PROOF OF CLAIM REFERRING TO THESE CODES DIRECTLY.** I will gladly accept the dealership's response as soon as I see physical evidence with a SWORN STATEMENT that their statements are true, but until then it is just here say and lacks any legal credibility. Mr. Doan's response is AGAIN irrelevant and lacks PROOF OF CLAIM. He has not provided any federal nor company regulation, or contract statement specifically describing that the instrument provided to them as payment was not just as good as cash or a check made out for the full amount. **ACCORDING TO 31 UNITED STATES CODE § 5118 - GOLD CLAUSES AND CONSENT TO SUE** "(a) In this section- (1) ''gold clause'' means a provision in or related to an obligation alleging to give the obligee a right to require payment in- (A) gold; (B) a particular United States coin or currency; or (C) United States money measured in gold or a particular United States coin or currency. (2) ''public debt obligation'' means a domestic obligation issued or guaranteed by the United States Government to repay money or interest. (b) The United States Government may not pay out any gold coin. A person lawfully holding United States coins and currency may present the coins and currency to the Secretary of the Treasury for exchange (dollar for dollar) for other United States coins and currency (other than gold and silver coins) that may be lawfully held. The Secretary shall make the exchange under regulations prescribed by the Secretary. (c) (1) The Government withdraws its consent given to anyone to assert against the Government, its agencies, or its officers, employees, or agents, a claim- (A) on a gold clause public debt obligation or interest on the obligation; (B) for United States coins or currency; or (C) arising out of the surrender, requisition, seizure, or acquisition of United States coins or currency, gold, or silver involving the effect or validity of a change in the metallic content of the dollar or in a regulation about the value of money. (2) Paragraph (1) of this subsection does not apply to a proceeding in which no claim is made for payment or credit in an amount greater than the face or nominal value in dollars of public debt obligations or United States coins or currency involved in the proceeding. (3) Except when consent is not withdrawn under this subsection, an amount appropriated for payment on public debt obligations and for United States coins and currency may be expended only dollar for dollar. (d) (1) In this subsection, ''obligation'' means any obligation (except United States currency) payable in United States money. (2) An obligation issued containing a gold clause or governed by a gold clause is discharged on payment (dollar for dollar) in United States coin or currency that is legal tender at the time of payment. This paragraph does not apply to an obligation issued after October 27, 1977." Mr. Doan, as well as every manager I sent notice to, has violated contracting statutes by not forwarding my payment and notices to an employee of honor and competence. Furthermore, No one in the establishment made any mention of the limitations of payment before I accepted the bill of sale for value. In any case, they would not be able to provide a LEGAL PROOF OF CLAIM, because the payment THEY ACCEPTED from me is in fact AS GOOD AS CASH. What part of "I paid you" is not understood here? Even UNITED STATES FEDERAL STATUTORY LAW PROVES BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE PAYMENT WAS MADE IN FULL. Mr. Doan has also failed to RETURN my payment with a SWORN STATEMENT as to why it could not LEGALLY be accepted. This not only breaches their own contract, but also violates Uniform Commercial Code 3-501(3) which states: "Without dishonoring the instrument, the party to whom presentment is made may (i) return the instrument for lack of necessary indorsement, or (ii) refuse payment or acceptance for failure of the presentment to comply with the terms of the instrument, an agreement of parties, or other applicable law or rule." I have already sent notice to them with documentation of the laws that provide me (and every other citizen for that matter) with evidence and the PROOF OF CLAIM that conflicts with their unproven statements. Not only this, but I made it clear to the company before they even began ruining our credit with their search for a loan acceptance that a LOAN WOULD NOT BE NECESSARY AND I WOULD BE MAKING THE PAYMENT IN FULL. We were also assured by David Pipkins that our credit would not be run until we brought in further documentation concerning our income history. This was obviously an outright lie, given Mr. Doan's claims, and they did in fact run our credit in search of an unnecessary loan. Mr. Doan has OBVIOUSLY continued to carry out his breach of fiduciary duty and warranty by failing to READ INTO THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODES THAT ALL BUSINESSES INCLUDING DEALERSHIPS ARE BOUND BY. Also to mention, I had demanded that Robby Dempster void and shred the previous loan contract that we were COERCED into (Violation of United States Code Title 18, Chapter 13, sections 241 and 242, which subjects the defendant to the risk of fines and arrest). Given that we watched the loan application get shredded, and we were specifically told that our credit would not be run until we provide more documentation, I don't see where Mr. Doan's statement gains any credibility. Again, The dealership has also dishonored their own contract agreement by not delivering the automobile to us on the day we both signed it, Not only with the first contract we signed and had shredded the next day, but also the second one in which we made the payment in full. THEIR OWN CONTRACT STATEMENT SAYS: "a. Seller agrees to deliver the vehicle to you on the date this contract is signed by Seller and you. You understand that it may take a few days for Seller to verify your credit and assign the contract. You agree that if Seller is unable to assign the contract to any one of the financial institutions with whom the Seller regularly does business under an assignment acceptable to Seller, Seller may cancel the contract. b. Seller shall give you written notice (or in any other manner in which actual notice is given to you) within 10 days of the date this contract is signed if Seller elects to cancel. Upon receipt of such notice, you must immediately return the vehicle to Seller in the same condition as when sold, reasonable wear and tear excepted. Seller must give back to you all consideration received by Seller, including any trade-in vehicle. c. if you do not immediately return the vehicle, you shall be liable for all expense incurred by the seller in taking the vehicle from you, including reasonable attorney's fees. d. While the vehicle is in your possession, all terms of the contract, including those relating to the use of the vehicle and insurance for the vehicle, shall be in full force and you shall assume all risk of loss or damage to the vehicle. You must pay all reasonable costs for repair of any damage to the vehicle until the vehicle is returned to Seller." ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN CONTRACT AGREEMENT: This vehicle was never delivered to us, regardless of our signing the contract and is therefore in direct violation. The dealership has also failed to give back all of our consideration received as per this agreement. MOST IMPORTANTLY, THIS CONTRACT LACKS ANY RELEVANCE TO PAYMENTS MADE IN FULL. Mr. Doan's last statement also seems an outright lie given that when we first met him he told us to leave the dealership after refusing to hear anything we had to say in the matter. It was very disrespectful and dishonorable behavior for a manager of the business, and I do have a recording of our interaction. It doesn't seem to me like anyone should FEEL FREE to contact them with any further concerns or questions, regardless of the laws. My previous complaint and evidence to the bbb as well as the notices given to the dealership should have made it very clear and easy to understand these claims. Please review ALL PREVIOUS NOTICES AND ALL RELEVANT *UNITED STATES AND UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODES* THAT WERE ALREADY RESPECTFULLY PROVIDED TO YOU BY THE BUYERS THEMSELVES, WITH NO OBLIGATION TO DO SO. I have provided this company with the honor and respect of being patient and non-confrontational with them while they processed the payment, due to its unfamiliarity, and have only been dishonored and disrespected in the process. One would think that any competent business would thoroughly investigate a method of payment if they were provided with all the evidence first hand that it was made in full, regardless of how it was made. If the dealership is unwilling to abide by the law and the bbb is

6/28/2013 Advertising/Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: Service department lied to me about charges for the repair or my vehicle, and charged me tax on a rental vehicle that was FREE! We brought our SUV here in April 2012. The vehicle needed to have some belts replaced (serpentine), and the "check engine" light + the "VSC trac" and "VSC OFF" lights were coming on. The belts were placed, and I was then charged $145 for a diagnostic to find out why those lights were coming on. When the inspection was completed, I received a summary stating that the catalyst on my SUV needed to be replaced. The quote for the cost of repair was $1950.99. Around this same time we purchased a brand new, more fuel efficient vehicle (from a different dealership) and that vehicle became our primary vehicle, so we did not have to drive the SUV as much (gas guzzler). The service advisor at this time (**** *****) also told me that he would deduct the $145 whenever I decided to bring the SUV back in to repair this problem. We brought the SUV back to this service center on 6/21/2013 to have the catalyst replaced. Prior to bringing it in, we called to confirm the prices for labor, parts, and to see if we were going to be able to use a 15% off coupon we had recently received in the mail. We were told that the charge for labor would be $225, and that we would be able to use the 15% off coupon as well, for parts & labor. When I talked to the service advisor (****** ****) who wrote up my order, I confirmed the charges for the labor at $225, and he also told me I would be able to take off the $145 I paid previous for the diagnostic, as well as use the 15% coupon. He printed out the service order and the total was $1950.99 before taxes and coupons. I was then given a rental and told it would be no charge, since my vehicle would need to be there all day to complete the job. Later in the day I received a call (from ****** ****) stating the vehicle would need to be kept over the weekend (until Monday), because parts would have to be ordered. An hour after that, ****** called me back and stated that my vehicle was ready, saying that they went and got the parts. I asked him what the total bill came out to, and he told me it was $1910.50. I asked him how did it still come out to that price after receiving discounts, and he stated that discounts were given and also that the price we were quoted back in April 2012 already included the 15% discount, which is a LIE because I didn't have a coupon a year prior, and there was never any mention of a coupon from the other service advisor that I dealt with then (***** *****). I called my husband and explained to him what the bill was, and he then spoke to *** ******, the Service Manager there, who told him that he would not go lower on the prices because if he did, then he wouldn't be making any money in labor. Upon further inspection of the bill, I saw that they charged me $40 TAX on the rental car that was supposed to be FREE! The invoice clearly shows that the charge for the rental is $0.00, so how can they charge $40 TAX on that? I also found that instead of charging the $225 for labor that they quoted and confirmed with me before leaving the vehicle, they charged $295 for labor! So, they jacked up the prices and charged for things they weren't supposed to, to get the most money out of us. I called back after seeing these charges and spoke with ****** **** on 6/25/2013, and he told me that my husband knew about those charges which is a LIE! My husband never knew, and was surprised when I told him.

Desired Settlement: I would like to be refunded the $40 TAX they charged me on the rental that was supposed to be FREE, and I would also like the difference back in the labor. We were told the labor would be $225, and they charged us $295, which is a difference of $70. I would like to be reimbursed $110.

Business Response: Consumer's Final Response /* (2000, 5, 2013/06/28) */ After going back and forth yesterday with *** ****** for hours, and leaving messages for his supervisor about the treatment we were receiving, *** ***** agreed to refund us the amount of $110. He said he would send it by mail, so we will wait to receive it. Upon receipt this matter will be resolved.


Customer Review(s)

The customer review(s) below are un-filtered. These positive and negative reviews are not used in the calculation of the BBB Rating. If you wish to file a complaint and request a resolution to your issue please click here. This customer review section is not BBBs complaint resolution system. Customer Reviews are the subjective opinion of the individual who posted the review and not of Better Business Bureau. A customer review is not posted on a business if a BBB complaint on the same issue(s) is also filed. BBB cannot guarantee the accuracy of any customer review and is not responsible for the content of any customer review. Public comments are not customer reviews.

Customer Reviews Summary

0 Customer Reviews on Downtown Auto Center
Positive Experience (0 reviews)
Neutral Experience (0 reviews)
Negative Experience (0 reviews)