BBB Business Review

What is a BBB Business Review?

Consumer Complaints

This Business is not BBB Accredited

DCH Toyota of Torrance

Phone: (310) 325-7500

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

Customer Complaints Summary

10 complaints closed with BBB in last 3 years | 2 closed in last 12 months
Complaint TypeTotal Closed Complaints
Advertising / Sales Issues2
Problems with Product / Service8
Billing / Collection Issues0
Delivery Issues0
Guarantee / Warranty Issues0
Total Closed Complaints10

Complaint Breakdown by Resolution

Complaint Resolution Log (10)
09/02/2014Problems with Product / Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Complaint
Brakes not repaired
After several unsuccessful attempts of contacting DCH Toyota of Torrance, I have decided to send this email. I recently went for service in the new community I reside in after 12 years of going to **** ******* Culver City Toyota.

The service I received was poor. However, being a typical busy Saturday morning I understood. I requested for brakes, oil change and a car wash.
When I was finished the vehicle was dirtier than the way I brought it, I told the gentleman that I requested a car wash especially after the condition of the car when I got it back and he told me "sorry, no time." Again it was a Saturday morning, so I know they are busy. I was ok because I was assured my car was going to be safe to drive for my 60 mile commute.

When I came home my brakes were squeaking again. I thought maybe it was because they were new and breaking in. I let a couple of weeks pass and when I was parking my car my employee made a comment and when I got home my neighbor said something as well.

Ultimately, I do not think my brakes were ever changed. I spent 5 hours and $300 at a dealership that had poor service and an incomplete job. Lastly, I was never given the usual run through of work needed. I paid and left, with no car wash or service. I love Toyota and after being a 14 year dedicated client, I have reached a level of disappointment and betrayal.

In attempt to contact the dealership I was placed on hold for 20 minutes and transferred continuously. when I did receive a call back it was 3 days later.
I have records of calling at 645 and 650 and getting the automated message for being closed for the day.

By the time I reached the supervisor and hearing her response, I was very upset. She was very open to me reaching out and filing a formal complaint. Working in the vehicle service industry in the past, I know that Toyota doesn't operate in this manner.
I will like assistance in resolving this matter because I knowToyota is the best at what they make and do.

Desired Settlement
Refund and replacement

Business Response
Customer Relations Manager at the dealership spoke with the ***** on 8/22/2014 and apologized for the service she received (as detailed in her complaint)this past May. Customer Relations Manager assured her that her experience is not typical of the dealership. As it was her first visit to this dealership, the Customer Relations Manager offered a complimentary oil/filter change on her next service visit. Customer will contact the CRM to schedule her next service appointment, which is due in the next few weeks.CRM provided contact information to the customer.

Consumer Response
(The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)
Resolved with ******

07/11/2014Problems with Product / Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Complaint
AFTER A WHOLE YEAR OF PURCHASING MY CAR I FOUND OUT THAT THE ALARM WAS NOT WORKING ON MY CAR. THIS CAUSED DAMAGE TO MY CAR WHICH IS PROTECTED BY ALARM
I PURCHASED A TOYOTA CAMRY 2012 FROM DCH TOYOTA ON 01/07/2014. ACCORDING TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN ME AND THEM I SHOULD HAVE HAD AN ACTIVATED ALARM, WHICH WAS PART OF THE PRICE OF THE CAR. I RARELY USED THE CAR SINCE I PURCHASED IT (IT HAS ONLY 6000 MILES NOW) WHICH INDICATES THAT THE CAR WAS MAINLY PARKED. NOW AND THEN I DISCOVERED THAT THERE IS DAMAGE ON THE BODY OF THE CAR FROM ROUGHLY TOUCHING THE CAR FROM PEOPLE PASSING ON PASSING THE CAR. THIS DAMAGE VARIES BETWEEN SEVERE SCRATCHES TO DENTS ON THE BODY OF THE CAR. I FELT CONFUSED BECAUSE I BELIEVED THAT THE ALARM SHOULD NOTIFY NE IF THERE IS ANY ROUGH HANDLING OF THE CAR WHILE IT NOT MOVING. I ASKED THE DEALERSHIP OF DCH ON MY SIX MONTH SERVICE IF THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH MY ALARM BECAUSE OF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED CIRCUMSTANCES, BUT THEY LIED TO ME SAYING THAT EVERYTHING IS OK. MY SUSPICION BECAME GREATER ON WHAT THEY TOLD ME WHEN I NOTICED THAT MY FRIEND'S CAR, WHICH IS PURCHASED AROUND THE SAME TIME REACTS TO ANY ROUGH TOUCH OR EVEN LEANING ON IT. AS A RESULT, ON MY ANNUAL SERVICE WHICH WAS IN JANUARY 2014 I ASKED ONE OF THE SALESPERSON THAT MY ALARM WAS NOT WORKING PROPERLY, AND TO MY SURPRISE I DISCOVERED THAT THE ALARM WAS NOT EVEN ACTIVATED ON MY CAR. I WAS FUMING AT THAT TIME AND I WENT TO THE SALES DEPARTMENT WHERE I MET THE CUSTOMER SERVICE MANAGER. HIS NAME IS ******. IN A VERY UNCARING MANNER HE CONFIRMED MY COMPLAINT AND SAID THEY CAN DO NOTHING TO ME. I WAS VERY UPSET AT THAT MOMENT AND TOLD THEM THAT I WANT HIM TO CONFIRM THAT IN WRITING. TO MY SURPRISE, THIS MANAGER, ******, WROTE ON THE ALARM CONTRACT BY HIS HANDWRITING THAT THE WAS ONLY ACTIVATED ONLY ON 01/17/2014. THEN I ASKED HIM, AS A CUSTOMER SERVICE MANAGER TO TAKE CARE OF ALL THE SEQUENCES OF NOT ACTIVATING THE ALARM ON MY CAR, BUT IN AN UNPROFESSIONAL MANNER HE REFUSED. I THEN CALLED TOYOTA CUSTOMER SERVICE, BUT THEY TOLD ME THAT THE DEALERSHIP ARE SEPARATELY OWNED AND MANAGED.

Desired Settlement
I WANT THE DEALERSHIP TO TAKE CARE OF THE DAMAGE HAPPENED TO MY CAR AS A RESULT OF THE INCOMPLETE ANS DEFECTIVE CAR AND ALARM I GOT FROM THEM AND TO ISSUE a refund for the inconvenience I've been through as a result of paying for a service and not getting it, plus wasting my time to ask for my rights

Business Response
Customer purchased a vehicle on 1/4/2013 equipped with an alarm. Customer spoke with the Customer Relations Manager (CRM) on 1/17/2014, concerned that his alarm had not been activated or installed. CRM had the alarm technician inspect his vehicle. Alarm was active. Technician did adjust the senistivity. Customer had concerns regarding scartches that were to be addressed when he purchased his vehicle on 1/4/2013 (over 1 year ago.) These scratches were on the "To Due Bill", which the CRM stated we would try to honor - even though one year had passed. Due bill dated 1/4/2013 stated to "buff scratches on Driver's door". Vehicle was taken to detailers who informed customer it would take the day. Customer wanted a ride back to home outside the 10 mile radius for our shuttle service. Customer did not leave vehicle and wanted other scratches addressed because he "felt they were related to the alarm" (?). CRM declined that assistance, however, the dealership did offer to assist with the original scratches on driver's door indicated on the due bill from 1/4/2013. No other assistance is being offered.

Consumer Response
When I read the dealership's response along with what really happened, I see they are not telling the truth.

First, I had the bill of the alarm with the manager's (CRM) handwriting stating that the alarm was only activated on 01/17/2014, so I don't know why he said that the sensitivity was the only thing that needs to be adjusted. This is an obvious discrepancy that he might not be aware of.

Second, the alarm was inactive and that's why the car got the scratches without me knowing about them. The dealership is totally liable for these scratches because I got the car with no proper alarm (which should be included).

Third, I was in the dealership from 8:30 am to over 2 pm (which is already reported in their files), so on what logic they wanted me to stay longer to do the scratches on the door side, according to what he said. Please be advised that I left my car for over 6 hours, which should be enough to get everything handled properly, if they were really willing to

Fourth, even with what he stated, that the car came with scratches on the driver's door, is considered a statement that the car has some type of defect that they did not bother to handle for a year which shows the poor customer service they have (though I was there six months after the purchase and they did not take care of the scratches as well).


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

Final Business Response
It is always the highest priority at DCH Toyota of Torrance to assist our guests with excellent and outstanding service. The position of the dealership remains unchanged regarding this matter. The dealership stands by the initial response/reply submitted to the BBB.

03/31/2014Advertising / Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Complaint
Ad and sales practices at DCH Toyota of Torrance show a pattern of misleading,fraudulent practices and bait and switch tactics.
A full page ad for this dealership appeared in the Los Angeles Times on 12/30/2013. A similar full page ad for this dealership subsequently appeared in the Los Angeles Times on 1/4/2014 (copy of ads can be provided).

These ads appear to be false advertising and part of a bait and switch tactic by this dealership. The ads do not appear to be bona fide offers since such vehicles may not have been available for purchase at DCH Toyota of Torrance at the time of the ads.

I wanted to purchase one of the 2013 Prius 3 from the 12/30/13 ad.

Called DCH Toyota of Torrance about 10 am on 12/30/2013. Spoke with salesman and asked if there were any of the new 2013 Toyota Prius Threes with a MRSP of $26,785 still available for the ad price of $20,977. Salesman asked what color I wanted; replied that color didn't matter. He said that there were 3 silvers available at the dealership for that cost. When queried about the fact that their new car inventory at their dealer website at that time did not list cars that met the ad criteria. He stated that the website is not always up to date and that the cars were available.

Arrived at DCH Toyota of Torrance about 11:30 am; asked to speak to a salesman. Handed the ad to the salesman (Al Steele); asked to see the 2013 Toyota Prius Threes mentioned in the ad that had a MRSP of $26,785 and were on sale for the net cost of $20,977.

Salesman took us through main lot, service area, and on to two other sites looking for the 2013 ad cars. At the third site the salesman called out that he had found one of the ad cars. This search took at least 30 minutes.

Proceeded back to main building and met with sales manager (******* ******** who spent at least 30 minutes mentioning various convoluted reasons why he couldn't sell the car that the saleman found for us at the ad price. These included "he could not read ad info since he didn't have his glasses", "ad should not have run on Monday", "ad expired" , etc. None of these made sense based on the ad text that we all were looking at.

After trying multiple tactics to dissuade me from asking for the ad price, the sales manager then changed his tactic and stated that he could not sell the car that his salesman identified for the ad price since that car had a different MRSP ($26,800) than that specified in the ad ($26,785). The salesman was the individual who discovered the car on the lot and presented it as one that met the ad criteria. Finally he stated that this particular car was a 2014 Prius Three not a 2013 car that met the ad criteria.

I asked for proof that there actually had been "8" 2013 Toyota Prius Threes at the DCH Toyota of Torrance facility with the MRSP specified in the ad and eligible to be sold at the net cost specified in the ad. I also asked for proof that they had sold "8" of the cars at the net cost specified in the ad.

I was told that this information could not be provided.

The fact that a similar ad appeared 5 days later in the 1/4/2014 Los Angeles Times and again stated that there were "8" 2013 Toyota Prius Threes at a MRSP of $26,785 for a low net cost shows a pattern of deception. I was told on 12/30/13 that there were no 2013 Toyota Prius Threes available at this dealership.

After seeing the 1/4/2014 ad, I called DCH Toyota of Torrance at 9 am that day when the dealership opened to inquire about the ad in that day's paper. The sales representative I spoke to stated that he was not aware of the ad and could not give information on availability and that I should talk to **** ******** since he was the person in charge of ads and he would be in at 10 am. I called DCH Toyota of Torrance again at 11:30 am on 1/4/2014 and asked to speak to a sales agent. I spoke with ****** **** who stated that there were no 2013 Toyota Prius Threes left and that they only had 2014s.


I did my part as an educated consumer and used due diligence in interpreting and verifying the information in the DCH Toyota of Torrance ads in the Los Angeles Times.

Desired Settlement
I was deliberately misled when told on the phone and in person on arrival at the dealership on 12/30/2013 that there were 2013 Toyota Prius Threes on the lot that day that met the ad criteria. I was deliberately misled during the entire process of finding the "ghost" cars that met the ad criteria. The DCH Toyota of Torrance dealership clearly used false advertising and bait and switch tactics during my entire interaction with them on 12/30/13.

The dealership demonstrated a pattern of misleading and fraudulent practices when they placed a subsequent ad in the Los Angeles Times on 1/4/14 that again mentioned 2013 Toyota Prius Threes that are not available.

I request that the advertising and sales practices of DCH Toyota of Torrance be investigated to determine whether they are advertising nonexistent vehicles. This dealership placed at least two different ads in the Los Angeles Times that were not bona fide offers since the vehicles specified in the ads were not available for sale. My personal experience with this dealership also indicated that their sales methods included misleading and fraudulent bait and switch tactics.

I request that DCH Toyota of Torrance stop advertising cars that do not exist.

I request that the management, sales, and advertising staff at this dealership undergo appropriate training so that they no longer violate federal and state laws and no longer mislead consumers.

I request that this dealership honor the price stated in their 12/30/13 ad for 2013 Toyota Prius Threes by reimbursing me $3223. This amount is the difference between the cash price of the 2013 Toyota Prius Three that I purchased the same day (12/30/13) from a different dealership and the amount I would have paid for a 2013 Toyota Prius Three at DCH Toyota of Torrance had I been able to buy one of the "ghost" cars mentioned in their ad. The cash price of my purchase from a different dealership was $24,700; the cash price I would have paid DCH Toyota of Torrance if they actually had a car that met the ad criteria was $21,477 ($20,977 advertised net cost plus the $500 military rebate I was not eligible for).

Business Response
General Manager and General Sales Manager followed up with Ms. *******. The Prius model that she was interested in and listed in the ad were sold and none were available at the time she came to the dealership. The model year in the ad was for a 2013. She was offered a 2014 at a discounted price, which she declined.

Consumer Response
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
The complaint I filed against DCH Toyota of Torrance was in regards to a pattern of false advertising and part of a bait and switch tactics where vehicles were advertised, but did not appear to be bona fide offers since the vehicles were not available for purchase at the time of the ads.
I received a call from the General Manager in regards to this complaint. He stated that they had 5 2013 Prius Three vehicles on 12/30/13 the day that I attempted to buy the vehicle. I questioned the truth of that statement since the salesman I spoke to on the phone on 12/30/13 stated that at 10:00 they had 3 vehicles, and now I was being told they had 5 vehicles available for purchase. I asked for proof that they had sold said vehicles on that day before 11:00 when I arrived at the dealership.
The general manager said that he would show proof that they had sold 5 2013 Toyota Prius Threes on 12/30/13.
To date I have not received proof of their claim that they sold any 2013 Prius Three.

I inquired about the ad on 1/4/2014, stating that they had 8 2013 Toyota Prius Three vehicles. I asked how they acquired these vehicles when a week previously they did not have any of these vehicles. I also asked for proof that these vehicles were sold since I called the dealership on 1/4/2014 and was told they did not have any 2013 Toyota Prius Three vehicles available for purchase. To date I have not received any proof as to the claim that DCH Toyota actually had 8 Toyota Prius Three vehicles for purchase on 1/4/2014 and sold them.

I request that DCH Toyota of Torrance provide proof that they had said vehicles available for purchase at the time of their ad and that they show proof that they actually sold said vehicles.


Final Business Response
The General Manager and General Sales Manager both responded to the consumer. Unfortunately, the consumer is unhappy with that discussion and explanation. The dealership did offer to provide her the requested information upon her return to the dealership.

03/31/2014Problems with Product / Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Complaint
need a brand new same vehicle replacement that has no defects or problems that we can enjoy like most customers when buying a new vehicle.
purchased a brand new vehicle that has a defect.been to services three times to fix the steering wheel was off center and the alignment. 2/28/14 was purchased. in services 3/6/14 two times the same day.back in services 3/10/14.order number XXXXXXX. problem date 2/28/14. bill vas sales rep. 28,482.81 payment amount. cash offer deal.were given a hard time on DCH toyota of torrance doing for us.

Desired Settlement
All were asking is for a new van replacement that has no defects or problems a 2014 L model sienna silver sky. with low miles.

Business Response
All monies refunded to the consumer (consumer's Credit Union) per the consumer's request. Refund initiated on 3/12/14.

10/14/2014Problems with Product / Service
08/15/2013Problems with Product / Service
11/03/2014Problems with Product / Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Complaint
I was sold a car w/issues i was not aware of,sold me a lemon,want my money back, or another car.
Ipurchased a 2010 toyota corolla @ claremont toyota, few months later i noticed a issue with my brakes/gas pedal,took it to be checked, they said nothing wrong. few months later get postcard toyota has law suit for my vehicle year and model for accelarator issue. i wrote them, told them they sold me a lemon and wanted my money back, they stated it was out of warranty could do nothing/told them about lawsuit, still nothing.now i get letter to take car in for issue w/car in law suit. I dont want this car, i paid alot of money for it, they sold me car w/issues a lemon,now that they got sued they wanna fix it, when they denied it due to warranty. i want my down payment, and everything i paid for it up til now or another car..their efax showed no issues when i bought car and they sold it to me, thats false advertisement.Therefore, this car falls under lemon law and i want this taken care of asap..I put 3.000 down pluse 372.00 a month..

Desired Settlement
I want my down payment of $3.000 back, plus $372.00 for every month I have paid up til now.Lemon was sold to me..

08/04/2014Problems with Product / Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Complaint
Spend over $600 at service dept to fix oil leak but leak not fixed. They are refusing refund & saying I now have to spend more money to fix the leak.
I visited the service dept at DCH because my oil light was flashing and there was no oil when I checked the oil in the car myself.

After they checked my car they told me that I would need to spend over $600 to fix the leaks in my car. I agreed, paid in full and had the recommneded repairs done. They said that they needed to replace some seals. After about 2 months after the work was performed I checked the oil again and it was low.

I took the car back to them and they then said they would have to do a consumption test to see if there was an internal leak. I agreed and after the check they said that it was an internal leak and it needed a valve job.

I paid them money to correctly diagnose the problem and fix it. It was not made indicated before I spent the money that there could be further repairs needed to fix the problem. The repairs they are now suggesting costs thousands of dollars and it is much cheaper to just put oil in the car. Had I known this I would not have spent the over 600 dollars in the first lace.

I have spoken to the Service advisor ***********, the service director *********** and their Customer Relations Manager Walt and they have indicated that they do not wish to refund my money. This is unacceptable to me because I gave them a lot of money to fix my problem and they did not fix it. I want a full refund.

Desired Settlement
I want them to refund me the money I spend trying to fix the oil leak.

04/01/2016Advertising / Sales Issues
06/15/2015Problems with Product / Service

Industry Comparison| Chart

Auto Dealers - New Cars

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.

X

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.

X

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.