Are you the Owner of this Business? ×
BBB® Accredited Business Seal

Are you...?

If yes, click here to login.

Are you...?

BBB Accredited Business since

Korum Automotive Group

Phone: (253) 845-6600 Fax: (253) 841-7615 100 River Rd, Puyallup, WA 98371

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


This company offers new and used car sales and service.

BBB Accreditation

A BBB Accredited Business since

BBB has determined that Korum Automotive Group 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.

Customer Complaints Summary Read complaint details

6 complaints closed with BBB in last 3 years | 1 closed in last 12 months
Complaint Type Total Closed Complaints
Advertising/Sales Issues 2
Billing/Collection Issues 1
Delivery Issues 0
Guarantee/Warranty Issues 0
Problems with Product/Service 3
Total Closed Complaints 6

Customer Reviews Summary Read customer reviews

0 Customer Reviews on Korum Automotive Group
Customer Experience Total Customer Reviews
Positive Experience 0
Neutral Experience 0
Negative Experience 0
Total Customer Reviews 0

Additional Information

BBB file opened: August 01, 1972 Business started: 01/01/1956 in WA Business started locally: 01/01/1956
Licensing, Bonding or Registration

This business is in an industry that may require professional licensing, bonding or registration. BBB encourages you to check with the appropriate agency to be certain any requirements are currently being met.

These agencies may include:

Washington Secretary of State
801 Capitol Way S, Olympia WA 98504
Phone Number: (360) 725-0377

Washington Department of Revenue
6500 Linderson Way SW Fl 1, Tumwater WA 98501
Phone Number: (800) 451-7985

Type of Entity


Business Management
Mr. John Hall, President/COO Jeff Beaty, General Sales Manager Susan Fleury, Marketing Manager
Contact Information
Principal: Mr. John Hall, President/COO
Business Category

Auto Dealers - Used Cars New Car Dealers (NAICS: 441110)

Alternate Business Names
Korum Ford-Lincoln
Products & Services

New Ford, Lincoln, and Hyundai vehicles as well as quality pre-owned and certified pre-owned cars, trucks, vans and SUV's.

Additional Locations

  • 100 River Rd

    Puyallup, WA 98371 (253) 845-6600


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.

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)

6/23/2016 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details

Additional Notes

Complaint: My complaint is with the gap insurance I purchased through Korum when I bought my car they used CNA National for my gap insurance. What a hassle CNA national is the worse company to deal with when trying to get a gap claim processed, it is now almost 3 months after my car was deemed a total loss and my car is still not paid off, I finally got the letter for my claim, and they're not paying off the total of the car and want me to now pay over $300 . I turned in my paperwork for the accident and the dealership told me they were going to forward the paperwork and then they lost my paperwork for the accident, then when I found out the gap insurance hadn't received one of the ten documents they request to process my claim, they yelled at me because my insurance wasn't taking care of this. I now have this effecting my credit , and I'm getting late fees for a car that I don't have , can't drive and haven't had for months. CNA National , had so many requests for documents, for example, every single statement I had gotten for the life of the loan.

Desired Settlement: want my car paid off in full that is why I bought gap insurance, I never missed any payment or was late on any payments. this gap insurance company looked for any reason to drag out and not pay my car off, now isn't paying it off in full, and sticking me with $ 311.51, and this is negatively effecting my credit.

Business Response:

To Whom It May Concern:

Generally a Guaranteed Auto Protection (GAP) claim is handled directly between the Program Administrator, in this case CNA, and the consumer.  In reviewing this case, I did find that the customer purchased both a CNA vehicle service contract and GAP, and that on 3/22/16 a Cancellation Request Form was completed and signed by the customer allowing us to cancel the CNA service contract however there is no documentation showing that we initiated the GAP claim or that Ms. ********* requested such assistance.    

Approximately one month after the customer cancelled the CNA contract; we received an online request from Ms. ********* through our website (4/26/16) inquiring if “all the paperwork for my GAP insurance has been submitted?”  This was forwarded on to Aaron K****, one of our Finance Consultants, to look into and address.  Mr. K**** made a phone call on 4/27/16 at 11:57am to Ms. *********’s cell phone that was 1 minute and 49 seconds in duration.  If something was promised in this phone conversation, nothing was documented.  This could be where our communication broke down.


On 5/12/16 at 11:00am Ms. ********* sent us another email stating that she had not yet heard anything from us regarding the paperwork.  Mr. K**** made some calls to CNA and found that they still needed copies of the purchase order, service contract, and GAP contract which he promptly emailed to Ms. ********* on 5/12/16 at 3:42pm so that she could forward them to CNA to complete her GAP claim.


On 5/16/16 Ms. ********* sent us another email explaining that she was very upset with us.  Frank P****, our Finance Manager, immediately got her on the phone only to discover that she still hadn’t received a call and she did not receive Mr. K****’s email.  Frank sent an email to both Ms. ********* and CNA claims.  Attached to the email was a copy of the bank contract, the purchase order, and the GAP contract.  Once that email was received, it appears that the claim was paid timely by CNA as per the contract stipulations within a 10 day period.


I’ve attached a copy of the “Notice of Waiver” from the GAP Administrator.  It shows that the GAP company paid all but “$311.51 for missed, deferred or insufficient payments, plus any accrued interest and/or late fees associated with that amount.”  I’ve also included a copy of theGAP policy which clearly defines “Net Finance Contract Payoff” on Page 2, Section 8.  It appears from the documentation we have that the deficiency balance is due from unpaid payments, accrued interest and or/late fees that were due on or before the accident occurred or even any late fees or interest accrual that may have been charged while the claim was pending.  In her case, we do not believe that Ms. *********’s non-performance on her auto loan is our responsibility.







Jeff *. B****

General Manager

Korum Automotive Group


9/18/2015 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details

Additional Notes

Complaint: We bought a new F150 in 2010. It came from the factory with a defective (leaking) third brake light. We were not advised of the defect or the possibility of a known defect. In June of 2014 we took the truck to the dealer with a complaint of excessive moisture inside the cab. It was kept overnight and we were told they "could not reproduce the condition". Around May of 2015 we noticed water stains on both sides of the rear of the headliner. Further investigation revealed rust on metal parts of the interior. The dealer insists we pay for damages caused by the defect because it was not corrected during the warranty period. We had no idea of the defect during said warranty period. The salesman hid/failed to mention the defect. The service department failed to repair the defect or acknowledge it's possible existence until damage actually showed. The dealer has blatantly lied to us and suggested we take responsibility for them selling us a defective product.

Desired Settlement: Replace with a new truck.

Business Response: To Whom It May Concern:

The stance of Korum Ford-Lincoln in this matter was communicated clearly to the consumer in an email dated June 12, 2015.  I’ve included recent email communications
and copies of every repair order since the vehicle was sold to the consumer on October 30, 2010.  

To summarize, Ford Motor Company provides a new vehicle limited warranty to the consumer to provide specific coverage when something is not operating as it is designed.  For the Consumer, the coverage ended on October 30, 2013.  The enclosed repair orders do not indicate that there was a leak, seep, smell, condensation, or any other abnormal condition that would have given Korum Ford-Lincoln enough evidence to repair the third brake light under the manufacturer’s warranty.  It wasn’t until the final repair order dated
April 9, 2014, (at which point the warranty period had been expired for over five months), that showed any communication regarding anything resembling moisture getting into the vehicle.  On that specific repair order it is clearly noted that we were “unable to verify” the concern of “condensation.”  There were no visible signs of leakage so there was no approval from Ford to repair something that was not broken. 

After our inspection of the vehicle on June 5, 2015, I sent an email to provide the Consumer with a discounted solution to the problem.  Our company has worked tremendously hard to provide the Consumer with a solution to this problem.  I know that we are a service provider for Ford Motor Company; however, we are not empowered to act outside their warranty guidelines.  

If there is anything else I can provide that will help you close out this complaint, please feel free to contact me any time.


Jeff ** B****
General Manager
Korum Automotive Group

Consumer Response:  
Complaint: ********

I am rejecting this response because:


************* *****************

6/1/2015 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details

Additional Notes

Complaint: I have been a loyal customer of Korum Ford for 15 years so it was only after a long list of poor communication and evidence of corner-cutting and deception,during my last routine maintenance that I decided to voice my concerns to the GM of the dealership-which was handled unprofessionally and confrontationally(actually gathering the mechanics that I had named in my complaint and calling me on speaker phone!)I brought my car in for a routine tune-up,stating that it was running a little rough,I was charged for a diagnostic and declined the greater than $1500 service they suggested,requesting they only do the tune-up I brought it in for.They drove it out to me after the service,with the check engine light on.When I brought it to their attention,they plugged into the dash and reset the light without double checking their work.I drove home without incident but the next time I started my car,the check engine light came on within a few blocks.I called the mechanic that had reset the light and he stated it must have gotten tripped again because he had him adjust(some mechanic terminology)and told me tobring it by whenever you can,it will only take me a few minutes to reset it.Before I could bring the car back in I was faced with a car that wouldnt start.I then emailed the service manager about the situation and he agreed it was a flaw in the original service and I should not have to pay for them to fix their error.He stated they would arrange to have it towed back in to fix it and instructed me to leave my key in their drop box.On the envelope I wrote that the service requested was already discussed with *** ***** (the service manager).I didnt receive confirmation they had my vehicle until nearly 9am 2 days later and the service manager would not return my emails regarding an update.Thats when I voiced my concerns to the GM-only to find he is related to the service manager.

Desired Settlement: The mechanic is denying things that were said during verbal conversations, the work order has been changed to state that I was advised of things that I was not and the original verbal conversation to schedule the tune-up was apparently changed to a diagnostic because I answered the questionwhats going on with your carwith the statement that it wasrunning a little rough.Even after the diagnostic was done,I maintained that I only wanted a tune-up.I contacted the Ford Corporation and they agreed that it is reasonable to expect my vehicle to be returned to me in the same, or better condition than before I requested service.I would like my vehicle to be worked on by another Ford certified mechanic and have Korum Ford pay for the minimum repairs (and towing costs)necessary to restore my car to the condition it was in before it was serviced by them -ie. running, without stalls or changes in idle, without difficulty starting and without the check engine indicator light engaged.

Business Response:

The Consumer brought their 2000 Ford Escort to us on 3-19-2015. The Consumer was unable to drop their vehicle off during regular business hours so they used our night drop process.  The Service Advisor, who was assigned to the Consumer, processed their concerns which the Consumer wrote on the night drop envelope.  Concern #1, “Loose wiring in
left headlight”; and, #2 “Running rough and hesitating on acceleration most noticeable at beginning of second gear.”  (A copy of Repair Order #******* and a copy of the night drop envelope are attached).  The Technician, who was assigned to diagnose the vehicle, checked for codes stored in the system and found Code P1383, which indicates a timing issue.  The Technician determined that due to the vehicle having 250,000 miles, it didn’t have enough oil pressure to activate the VCT Sprocket Solenoid and therefore the timing was not able to adjust when needed.  The Consumer was advised that at the very minimum they would need to replace all of the timing components at the cost of $1,500.00.  However, given the high mileage and low oil pressure, we strongly suggested replacing the engine.  The Consumer explained that they didn’t have the money for such a costly repair and asked us to replace the spark plugs and ignition wires.  The Service Advisor advised the Consumer that this work is not recommended because it would not repair the running problem that they were experiencing due to the low oil pressure and timing issues.  The Consumer insisted that we perform a tune up so we took care of the Consumer’s request.  When the Consumer came to pick up their vehicle, the check engine light was on.  The Advisor hooked up our diagnostic computer (IDS) in the Service Drive and found that the same timing code (P1383) was present so the Service Advisor cleared the code and reset the light.

On 4-1-2015, the Service Manager received an email from the Consumer explaining that their car would not start.  The Consumer explained that they were having to deal with a family emergency and was working early everyday so that was the reason for their delay in reporting the issue.  The Consumer requested that their car be towed at our expense because there was an “obvious flaw in the service work that was performed.”  The Service Manager agreed to have the vehicle towed from the Consumer’s residence in Tacoma to our dealership and diagnose the vehicle at no charge.  Once the vehicle arrived, we created Repair Order #******* (a copy is attached).  It was determined that the vehicle had spark and a good fuel supply; however, the timing issue progressed to the point that the vehicle would no longer run.

The Service Advisor reported our findings to the Consumer. The Consumer still felt that the vehicle failure was due to the tune up that was done on 3-19-2015.  The Consumer contacted our General Manager and explained their concerns.  The General Manager called a meeting with the Service Manager and the Service Advisor to discuss the concerns.  A decision was made to make a conference call to the Consumer in an effort to sort through their concerns.  The call became heated and the Consumer ended the call by saying they were going to call “Corporate.”  The Consumer’s vehicle was towed back to their residence in Tacoma with a check for a full refund of the tune up that was requested by the Consumer on 3-19-2015.  No more contact was made by either party.


Consumer Response:

Complaint: ********

I am rejecting this response because:

The most compelling issues of my complaint were that the
work order did not match the verbal or email conversations that I was having
and the maintenance done on a functioning vehicle should not have resulted in a
non-functioning vehicle. Neither one of these issues were addressed by the
business’s response.

I have attached emails between the service manager and myself
that occurred after several calls were made to schedule a Saturday appointment
for a tune up. Eventually he convinced me to schedule on a weekday by
confessing the most inexperienced mechanics were scheduled on saturdays and
when he asked why I wanted a tune-up, I told him “it was running a little rough”.
As you can see by the attached emails between the service manager and I, he
advised ***** ****** of the reason why my vehicle was there and I just confirmed
the conversation he and I had already had. I didn’t realize until ***** called
me to advise me of faulty timing codes that a diagnostic had been ordered. I
was advised it would take $1500 to “get in there and find out what was really
wrong” and then the cost of fixing whatever was found. I was also told my car
wasn’t worth it. I was NOT told anything about oil pressure. I was NOT advised
that doing the tune-up I had originally asked for would make my car inoperable.
I also was NOT told what code was responsible for the check engine light being
on when they brought it out to me or when I called about it the next time it came on.
Again I reiterate, I only want my vehicle returned to the condition it was in
when I drove it into the dealership for routine maintenance.

I was refunded the cost of the service -without requesting
it, because they were admitting fault. The service manager agreed to tow my
vehicle back into the shop and fix the problem, free of cost, because he agreed
there was a flaw in the original service.  The story only changed when a complaint was
filed with the general manager.  An incredibly confrontation ‘conference call’ ensued 30 minutes after I spoke with
the GM and my vehicle was held for ransom, stating the > $1500 repair was
the only way my car would again be operable. I had requested the service
department not be advised of my complaint for that very reason. I was refunded
only after a call to the Ford corporate offices and I am still without a vehicle
to get to and from work.


******** ******


Business Response:

This correspondence is being provided in response to the May 12, 2015 submission to the BBB, Complaint #********.

In the Customer's May 12, 2015 submission, the customer indicates that they were rejecting Korum Automotive Group’s earlier response to their complaint because they claim that the most compelling issues of their complaint were not addressed by the business’s response.  This correspondence is intended to respond to those two issues.

First Issue as cited by the Customer: “the work order did not match the verbal or email conversations that I was having.” 
Based upon the documentation previously shared, the work order comments are essentially verbatim of the wording used by the Customer to direct us in the work we needed to complete as stated on the night drop envelope (see attached copy).  Upon receiving the Customer's vehicle, the dealership evaluated it via an appropriate diagnosis process to determine why it was running rough, and communicated significant issues that were in need of repair, and the Customer chose to ignore the recommendations instead requested a “tune up” of new spark plugs and wires.  On April 1st there were email exchanges relating to her dissatisfaction with the March 19th maintenance service provided, in which the Customer asked the dealership to “undo whatever was done” and ignored any reference to the declined services.  Based upon what the Customer said, it was initially thought by the dealership’s Service Manager that if the dealership did something to create a problem, it should appropriately remedy that.  However, upon researching the entire history of the service with the Service Advisor and the Technician that actually performed the work, it was learned that the dealership’s service did not create the problem and it could not simply “undo” the nominal work it did and have the vehicle overcome the significant deferred maintenance that the Customer declined to have addressed.  (See comments below on the Second Issue for further information.)

Second Issue cited by the Customer: “the maintenance done on a functioning vehicle should not have resulted in a non-functioning vehicle.” 
The short answer to this assertion by the Customer is that the maintenance done did not result in a non-functioning vehicle.  The vehicle, with 239,585 miles on the odometer when it arrived at the dealership on March 19th, was not in good working order at all.  The Customer left the vehicle for the dealership after hours and stated on the “night drop” envelope that the vehicle was “running rough and hesitation on acceleration – most noticeable at beginning of second gear” (the Customer made no mention on the envelope or in their preceding emails that they wanted a “routine tune-up” as stated in her BBB complaint).  With the instruction provided on the night drop envelope (see attached), we appropriately diagnosed the customer’s stated concern as previously noted in the dealership’s April 24th correspondence and found significant issues with the motor (inclusive of critical and failing timing issues and lack of oil pressure), for which we estimated the timing components’ replacements/repairs alone would cost $1,500 but due to the age, mileage, and wear on the motor a motor replacement would be the best solution if the Customer wanted to keep the car running.  The Customer did not want to complete the recommended repairs, and instead insisted that we perform the “tune up” they wanted (essentially new spark plugs and wires). We obliged and performed the work the Customer authorized, not the work needed to keep their vehicle running. While the vehicle “ran” when the Customer brought it to the dealership, it also “ran” when it left here; yet the underlying timing and oil pressure issues continued (as evidenced by the trouble code and check engine light issues she experienced) and are believed to have ultimately resulted in the vehicle no longer functioning. The “non-functioning” of the vehicle had nothing to do with the spark plugs and wires maintenance we performed. 

With respect to the Customer’s allegation that the dealership “refunded the Customer the cost of the service – without requesting it, because they were admitting fault” is untrue. The dealership refunded the cost of the repair as an act of goodwill and in recognition that the service performed had no value to the Customer. We are also empathetic to the challenges the Customer has with financially maintaining their high mileage vehicle and considered this in the decision to refund the Customer the cost of the service. We did nothing to worsen the pre-existing failing state of the Customer's motor with the spark plugs and wires maintenance service we provided at their request.  Furthermore, the failure of the Customer's vehicle was not due to any work conducted on it by the dealership. 

Respectfully submitted,

**** ** ****
President and Chief Operating Officer


5/12/2015 Advertising/Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details

Additional Notes

Complaint: This dealership will not sell the truck for the advertised price. We are willing to pay the full advertised price and the sales manager said he won't sell it to us.

Desired Settlement: They need to not falsely advertise an automobile price and/or discriminate. My feeling is they should sell the truck at the advertised price(period).

Business Response: To Whom It May Concern,

It is important to point out that all our interaction with this customer was via the phone.  The customer interacted with us over a two day period with our sales person **** *******

The first day the customer called and offered us what amounted to a significant discount off our ad price.  We informed the customer that we would not discount the price advertised on Craig's List.  The next day the customer called in and said he would pay the sales price; however, we needed to sell the car to a local dealership in Oregon where he lives.  We informed the customer that we are in the retail business not the wholesale business and that he would have to come up here in person and buy the car himself.  It is also important for us to point out that this customer doesn’t work for the dealership he was requesting for us to sell the car to, his girl friend does.  Even more important is the fact that the dealership in Oregon he was requesting we sell the car to never called or even inquired about the vehicle.  All this is really beside the point.

We are a retailer of vehicles.  We sell vehicles to customers in hopes of them doing business with us.  Like this customer, who is claiming this Oregon dealer would give him more for his trades (if they really were), is doing it to get the benefit of the future sale of his trades.  In the end, we have the right as the seller of a product to pick to whom and or who we want to sell to.  This is to say that if we bought something to retail it, even if the price were the same from a wholesaler or dealer, we can say that the advertised price of the car is only good for the end user.

It is our position that neither the Korum Automotive Group or its representatives did anything wrong!

Thank you,

***** *******
General Manager  

3/2/2015 Billing/Collection Issues | Read Complaint Details

Additional Notes

Complaint: I am currently Active Duty in the US Army and recently returned from deployment. I will be moving to Germany in the next week. I purchased a vehicle through Korum Auto group shortly after I returned and was charged $939.49 sales tax. However I am not a resdident of Washington State; I am a resident of Texas. I did some research and found through the Washington State Department of Revenue Special notice a form titled: Vehicle Sales Tax and Use Tax Requirements for Persons in the Military Services. I fall into this policy because I am not considered a resident of Washington State.

Desired Settlement: I would like to receive the sales tax back that I had paid a total of $939.49

Business Response: February 18, 2015
To: Better Business Bureau
BBB Complaint Case #*********
Reference #**********************

To Whom It May Concern,
I am sorry for any confusion related to the taxing of this transaction. The following is our response to the BBB complaint referenced above.
On January 31, 2015, ******** ****** came in to Korum Hyundai and purchased a 2012 Hyundai Accent. We did charge her sales tax, due to the fact that she needed it registered immediately in Washington as proof she owned the vehicle to have it shipped to Germany. She did not have time to register it in her home state of Texas.
I have included the regulations on the Department of Revenue website for sales to the military. She does quality for the nonresident military exemption, the exception is #3 on the list requiring it not be licensed in Washington. Therefore we were required to charge sales tax.
I have spoke with the Department of Revenue about this case and the gentlemen on the customer service support line recommended that Ms. ****** file for a refund through the state Department of Revenue.
I have attached refund forms. Let me know if I can be of further assistance.


***** *******
Korum Automotive Group
*** ***** ****
Puyallup, WA 98371

Consumer Response:  
Better Business Bureau:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.


******** ******

******** ******

9/16/2014 Advertising/Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details

Additional Notes

Complaint: On 17 August 2012 my wife and I purchased a 2010 Lincoln MKX at the Wallup of Puyallup. We explained to the salesman, *** ******** that we needed an SUV as we lived on a steep road and went skiing frequently. He said he had just what we needed and showed us The MKX which we purchased for $35,282. I notice it didn't track very well last year when we encountered light snow at Crystal Mountain. But it was never really tested until 9 February when we had 3 inches of snow that stuck. I started up my drive and got about 30 feet when the car took an uncontrollable swerve and ended up on the lawn. I could see by the skid marks that only the front wheels were working. On 11 February 2014 I took the car into the Service Department to see why the rear wheels did not have traction. The service manage soon figured out it was FWD (front wheel drive, not four wheel drive). I thought all SUVs were by definition 4 wheel or all wheel drive. I realized that this was a blatant representation by *** ******** I immediately went to talk to Korum sales manager, **** ******* who was very cordial and said they wanted to make me happy. He said he would call when a lease was returned. He explained that the lease had to be internal to Korum as there were extra expenses between dealerships. He has to date not found a suitable AWD MKX. I am willing to trade up to a 2012 or 2013 MKX. His salesman, *** ****, called me down to look at two which didn't have the features we needed. On 11 July I wrote to the General Manager of Korum Lincoln. ***** *******, the GM, called me back on 14 July and said there was to be an auction the following week and he would call me back. That was three weeks ago. As explained by the sales manager, **** ******* going outside their dealership would be an additional cost. They are not willing to go to any expense to make up for their fraud.

Desired Settlement: I would like Korum Lincoln to provide me a 2010,2011,2012 or 2013 Lincoln MKX with AWD and the accessories like the one I have with my 2010 MKX at dealer's cost and to take my MKX at KBB Sale by Owner price.

Business Response: Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2014/08/12) */ As noted in the Consumer's complaint, the Consumer did purchase a Lincoln MKX from Korum Automotive Group in August 2012. The Consumer purchased a "Front-Wheel Drive" vehicle which has an abbreviation of "FWD" in the auto industry. Vehicles like the MKX also come with "All- Wheel Drive" (signified in the industry as "AWD"), or "Front-Wheel Drive". If a vehicle is "Four-Wheel Drive" the Acronym is "4x4". When the Consumer arrived at the dealership in February of 2014, (2 1/2 years after their purchase), with their concern, our Sales Manager, **** ******* tried to help the Consumer. **** ****** and our Salesperson, *** ****, both tried to help the Consumer and sold them a different vehicle. The vehicle purchased was an "All-Wheel Drive" (AWD), Lincoln MKS. The Consumer brought the vehicle back to the dealership after 3 days expressing they did not feel it was the right vehicle for them and their needs. At that time the Consumer was given their Lincoln MKX back and **** ****** told them we would try to find a comparable MKX with "All-Wheel Drive" and the same equipment. In July of this year, the Consumer contacted us expressing that he hadn't heard anything back. At that time, the Consumer was told that we would try and find something for them. Not because we are obligated and owe them anything, but because good customer service is our goal and we want them to be happy. To date we have not been able to find a comparable vehicle for the Consumer. Once an acceptable vehicle is found, we will make the Consumer the very best possible deal we can that will be satisfactory to them. We believe we did not do anything wrong, however, we will do all we can to help the Consumer. All we ask is for their patience and flexibility knowing we are trying to satisfy them. Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2014/08/16) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) I would like to keep the complaint open until the dealer responds with an acceptable vehicle at an acceptable price.

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 Korum Automotive Group
Positive Experience (0 reviews)
Neutral Experience (0 reviews)
Negative Experience (0 reviews)