We were sold a vehicle that had been a rental and had been wrecked. We were told that it was a fresh trade in that had never been wrecked.
On June 14th, 2014 we went to Jim Glover Chevrolet and traded in our 2012 Tahoe on a 2013 Cadillac SRX. We were told the SRX was a fresh trade in. We also asked if it had ever been wrecked and were told that no it hadn't. We worked out to buy the SRX for $36,000 and trade in our Tahoe that we owed $39,000 on for $36,000 causing us to carry over $3,000 and making our financed amount $39,000. We went home to talk about it and then texted our salesman to let him know we wanted to go through with the deal. When we arrived back at the dealership we were told that they had changed the numbers some so that our tax would be cheaper, but that the financed amount would stay the same. New numbers were the SRX was now $29,000 and they gave us $29,000 for our Tahoe. Financed amount was still $39,000 with us carrying over $10,000. We decided to go ahead and go through with the deal after we were told that it was just numbers on paper. Amounts were really still the same.
Within a month of purchase we started having problems with the SRX and new problems have occured up until today. Bad tire, parking sensors not working, electronics not working all of the time, blind spot sensors not working correctly, heated seats not working, and windsheild washer fluid shooting out inside of the dash and onto the driver's feet. After getting completely fed up with issues and something just not feeling right we pulled a CarFax only to find out that the car had been a rental in Florida, had been wrecked outside of Orlando, and sold at auction to Jim Glover Chevrolet. This was supposed to be a fresh trade in that had never been wrecked.
We went to Jim Glover Chevrolet on January 14, 2015 to talk to them about everything. After 2 hours we were told that it was our fault that we didn't specifically ask for a CarFax even though we asked if had been wrecked, that you cannot trust their salesmen, and that we carried over too much when we bought it so they couldn't help us now. When we complained that we were told it was a fresh trade in that had not been wrecked and that they had told us they were changing the numbers to help us out on taxes we were told that we didn't have anything in writing so they couldn't help us.
I would want Jim Glover Chevrolet to take the SRX back and give us at least the $36,000 we were told we were buying the SRX for, if not the payoff amount, towards a new vehicle.
We provide Carfax for any customer that asks. Our website has car fax on every vehicle on the lot for anyone that wants to see it. A sales consultant can not just look at a vehicle to see if it has had prior body damage or been wrecked. When we do pull a Carfax on the SRX it did indeed show rear impact with another vehicle on June 2013 in Florida. Says vehicle functional, airbags did not deploy (sounds as if they may have backed into another vehicle). SRX was sold through a certified retail auction in Georgia in 2014. it was not a salvaged or insurance loss auction. June 2014 we purchased the SRX which the title showed "clean". We ran through our pre-delivery inspection. Which all checked out, so we put on our lot for sale. For the past 2 vehicles, M/M ******** had been rolling over negative equity in their vehicles. The Tahoe that they were wanting to trade in, They had financed approx. $3k in accessories, and it was on a 84mo note. They were $10k upside down on the Tahoe and they wanted to purchase the SRX with zero money down and also on a 84mo note. . Once again with zero dollars down. As far as service issues, M/M ******** has only paid out for 1 tire replacement in July 2014. During that visit JGC bought and programmed them a keyless remote. One oil change in September 2014 has been paid for. In December 2014, there was a recall done. They had informed of us of a sensor not working correctly, which we replaced. They also had another oil change and reprogrammed their remotes to lock/unlock vehicle. All at zero charge to customer. January 2015 M/M ******** came in to trade in the SRX on a 2015 Equinox. We were unable to trade due to negative equity and having zero dollars down. We never intend to mislead any consumer if that is the way they feel. We strive on maintaining customer satisfaction. So what we would be willing to do for them is offer them the purchase price of the SRX which is $29503 even though the market value on the vehicle is only worth $23100. As far as the negative equity they carried in, M/M ******** would be responsible to satisfy that part of the debt. I have attached a copy of the Manheim Market Report of the SRX to show the current value of the SRX.
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
This response is very unsatisfactory. Asking if the SRX had been wrecked is basically asking for a CarFax. By your salesman telling is it had not been wrecked, one could only assume that he had looked into the history of the vehicle. We were also lied to when we were told it was a "fresh" trade in instead of what it really was, a rental that was sold at auction. Also, the first remote that was "replaced" was the second remote for the car which we were promised when it was sold to us becuase they couldn't find the second one. The sensor was known about when the SRX was purchased and we were told to bring it back in when we had a chance to get it fixed. This as well as the subsequent remotes that were replaced were all covered under the manufacturer's warranty. It's not like Jim Glover Chevrolet went out of their way to help us out on any of these. When the SRX was purchased we were supposed to be rolling over $3000 in negative equity with a purchase price of 36K and a trade in of 36K. Apparently being "helped out" by changing the numbers so that our taxes would be cheaper was only another way to screw us over in the end. Also, the accident report states that the SRX was hit in the rear end on a highway outside of Orlando, FL. It also states the vehicle was damaged, but was able to drive away. Doesn't sound like backing into something to me. The salesmen and general manager at JGC need to stop lying and saying whatever necessary to make a deal and then cover the tails. The only way I will ever be satisifed and would ever even think of buying another vehicle from JGC or recommending them to anyone else would be for JGC to give us the $36k we were supposedly purchasing the SRX for in the first place towards the purchase of a new vehicle. It is not right to lie to your customer and then treat them like they are the ones who screwed up when you get caught.