BBB Accredited Business since

Fiat of Kirkland

Additional Locations

Phone: (866) 631-5940 Fax: (425) 609-6742 12415 Slater Ave NE, Kirkland, WA 98034 http://www.fiatofkirkland.com


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

Description

This company offers new and used auto sales and services.


BBB Accreditation

A BBB Accredited Business since

BBB has determined that Fiat of Kirkland 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 Fiat of Kirkland include:

  • Length of time business has been operating
  • Complaint volume filed with BBB for business of this size
  • Response to 5 complaint(s) filed against business
  • Resolution of complaint(s) filed against business


Customer Complaints Summary Read complaint details

5 complaints closed with BBB in last 3 years | 0 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 2
Total Closed Complaints 5

Customer Reviews Summary Read customer reviews

0 Customer Reviews on Fiat of Kirkland
Customer Experience Total Customer Reviews
Positive Experience 0
Neutral Experience 0
Negative Experience 0
Total Customer Reviews 0

Additional Information

BBB file opened: April 04, 2013 Business started: 03/01/2011 Business started locally: 03/01/2011 Business incorporated 12/08/2010 in WA
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 Corporations Division
801 Capitol Way S, Olympia WA 98504
http://www.secstate.wa.gov/corps
Phone Number: (360) 725-0377
corps@sos.wa.gov

Washington Department of Revenue
6500 Linderson Way SW Fl 1, Tumwater WA 98501
http://www.dor.wa.gov
Phone Number: (800) 451-7985
bls@dor.wa.gov

Type of Entity

Corporation

Business Management
Mr. Greg Rairdon, President Mr. Micah Madche, Customer Relations Manager
Contact Information
Customer Contact: Mr. Micah Madche, Customer Relations Manager
Principal: Mr. Greg Rairdon, President
Business Category

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

Hours of Operation
Monday - Friday
7:00am - 7:00pm

Saturday
8:00am - 5:00pm
Alternate Business Names
FOK Inc

Additional Locations

  • 12415 Slater Ave NE

    Kirkland, WA 98034 (866) 631-5940

  • PO Box 2879

    Kirkland, WA 98083

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)

3/17/2014 Advertising/Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: we purchased a 2014 fiat 500L on 2/8/2014 from *******. we were shown one model with a sunroof on it and were ultimately quoted a price for the vehicle along with a trade-in value for our car. we decided that we did not need the sunroof and were subsequently shown another identical car w/o the sunroof option. we were then quoted a new price of $1100.00 higher than the previous quote even though our new option was w/o the one expensive option. in spite of this bait- and - switch tactic, we ultimately settled on a price of $200.00 higher than oru original quoted price and signed the documents. we took the car home and then started to do a little research on the price of these cars. (at this point,i must state that we were very naive and stupid in this purchase deal as we should have done our research prior to signing. but we trusted the people we were dealing with and felt that they were being honest with us.) the fair market value of the sale price for these cars was approximately $6000.00 less than what we had paid. further research showed that our car, not the exact vin#, but identical models to it, were currently being offered on web special prices for approximately $7500.00 less than or price. the trade-in value given for our car was approximately $1500.00 lower than the suggested Kelly Blue Book trade-in value. our car was given a value of $22500.00 and is currently for sale on their lot for $29,900.00, or something very close to that. we were never told of the true fair market value of our car, nor were we ever, at any time, told that they were, at that time, offering that car on a web special price significantly less than what we were charged, and asked if we would be interested inlooking at any of those models, even though they were identical to the one we were considering purchasing. we feel that we were very much taken advantage of on this deal, and lied to by not disclosing that the car was actually worth much less than what we were being charged, and could in fact be purchased for an even lower price than that due to current special pricing and advertising. we feel that this is illegal pricing and advertising, failure to disclose full and pertinent facts about the price of the car, a very illegal and immoral way of doing business. failure to do so on either of these options will result in immediate beginnings of legal action, which will not be good for either party but necessary as a choice of last resort. complaints will also be posted on available social media outlets if necessary, with every attempt possible being made on our part to damage the already questionable reputation of these salesmen involved and, unfortunately, the company name along with it, although neither of these have been done to this point.

Desired Settlement: we are requesting that the company either: 1)refund to us the price difference of of what were actually charged for the car and the current, at that time, web price being offered for the care of approxiamtely $7500.00 + tax., or 2) return oru original vehicle to us and we would do the same with our new vehicle to them, and refund to us the check we had written at the time of closing for $5090.00, minus a small fee of $500.00 - $1000.00 as a show of good faith on our part.

Business Response: Initial Business Response /* (1000, 10, 2014/02/21) */ The ***** make a number of allegations that are contrary to the facts they recite, and they are mistaken on many other factual matters. Each of the allegations against us is explored below, none of which allegations are true. Bait and Switch: By their own admission, they did not want to purchase the Fiat with a sun roof and elected to purchase one without that feature. We did not induce that decision; they made it which was their right. That is clearly not bait and switch. Price of Fiat: By their own admission, they knew the variance in the price between the two vehicles they considered and admit that they "ultimately settled on a price of $200.00 higher than (sic) original quoted price and signed the documents". Cars have different features and differing levels of supply and demand which affects pricing. They knowingly agreed to a price. We did not mislead them in any way. Post Purchase Research: After their purchase they apparently went on the web to discover various prices for different 2014 Fiat 500L's. Whether all of those were in our inventory or not we do not know, but as stated previously that is very common. But they do admit that none of the vehicles they saw on the web was the vehicle they purchased; we did not advertise the vehicle they purchased other than having a price posted on the car which was higher than what they paid. Trade in Value: The trade in was purchased by us at $22,831.61, not the figure they set forth in their complaint. They agreed to that price. We valued the vehicle at that in consideration of its condition, demand for such vehicles by our prospective customers, reconditioning and reported trade in values. In addition, the vehicle was appraised sight unseen, which placed a great amount of risk on our dealership. Had the vehicle not been as described, we certainly would not have asked the ***** to re-negotiate its value. We reconditioned the vehicle, performed maintenance on it, and put it in our used vehicle inventory. It has not yet sold which is evidence I suppose that the listed price is too high. Nothing improper was done in purchasing the trade vehicle. Illegal Pricing and Advertising: There was not any illegality in pricing our cars, nor any illegal advertising. We set our prices, as I commented earlier, on a number of factors and there is nothing illegal or unfair or deceptive of putting a price on a car and then selling it for less, as was done with the *****. And based on the earlier assertion of 'bait and switch' we would have been foolish to direct them to a car other than the one they selected and purchased knowing full well the price. Threat of Retaliation: The ***** threaten to disparage us concerning their purchase. Such a threat is reprehensible and amounts to extortion. Making such a threat certainly does not induce us to accede to the alternative proposals they set forth. There is freedom of speech, but the law does not allow commercial disparagement. We certainly hope the *****' will reconsider engaging in what they threaten as I submit they have nothing to gain and much to lose in doing that. ***** Proposed Resolutions: We cannot accept either of the *****' offers. Taking back a car sold new and now titled results in us having a used car that is worth much less than a new car. As we did nothing wrong we see no reason to do that, and to return of their trade vehicle which we on which we spent a good deal for reconditioning would similarly increase our loss. We also think the offer to pay them money in an amount of the purported difference in value is not acceptable or rational. Based on their multiple erroneous allegations, it appears that nothing we can possibly do will create customer satisfaction. They have already retained a lawyer who wrote to us and caused us to incur cost through our lawyer in responding to the allegation of selling a vehicle above the advertised price, a totally false allegation. Lastly, the retaliatory action the ***** threaten is unlikely to go away regardless of what we would be willing to do

9/25/2013 Billing/Collection Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I contacted Fiat of Kirkland after seeing a car at the Alderwood Mall. I was connected to a Mr. ****** ******* I told him that I had filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy a year earlier, but had a great job, longevity and was interested in a Fiat POP. I told him on the phone and via email from the get go that I was concerned with credit inquires on my credit report and they were only authorized one pull - they pull SEVEN!!! I did not authorize this and needless to say, none of them were approved. My credit source plummeted and I got no vehicle. I later inquired with another dealership and they looked at the credit pulls and said 98 percent of the banks they went through are known for NOT approving Chapter 13 clients. WHY WOULD THEY THEN PULL IT? My credit was damaged and they never responded with so much as an apology. They have furthered damaged my credit and do not listed. I have included copies of the email correspondence as well as the credit denials. They had different banks pull my credit six times without my permission!

Desired Settlement: Number one - acknowledgement that they erred. -removal of those credit inquires -fair treatment

Business Response: Initial Business Response /* (1000, 6, 2013/08/02) */ It appears that Ms. ***** has received a fair amount of incorrect information, and we would like to set the record straight. As stated on the Experian website, "...credit scoring systems allow people to shop for the best rates on car loans without having a negative impact on their credit scores. They do so by counting all inquiries for auto loans within a given period of time as a single inquiry." Ms. ***** can read further about the affects of shopping for an auto loan at the following link: http://www.experian.com/ask-experian/XXXXXXXX-impact-on-credit-scores-of-inquiries-for-an-auto-loan.html We regret that Ms. ***** was not able to receive approval for an automobile at our dealership, and apologize if we offended her in any way. We wish Ms. ***** well, and hope that she can find the perfect vehicle for her needs. Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 12, 2013/08/13) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) No My complaint is not baseless, I NEVER SIGNED ANYthing giving them permission, and when I talked to the salesman - I told him only one credit pull was authorized specifically. What do I want - I want them to have those illegal credit authorizations rescinded so they are not on my record - my claim was and is not baseless. If they wont cooperate, I will just take it to the next level. There are consumer protection laws under the FDCPA rules that govern issues like that. What is making me more angry is that they are in complete denial, the person answering this - I have never even spoke with! Final Business Response /* (1000, 19, 2013/09/11) */ Ms. ***** applied for credit via an online credit application, and asked that we attempt to obtain financing approval for her. She explained that her Chapter 13 bankruptcy had been discharged, and would like a new vehicle. During the process of attempting to obtain an approval for Ms. *****, we stayed in consistent contact with her and kept her abreast of our progress. She was completely aware of the fact that we were submitting her application for approval with financial institutions. There is simply no way to apply for credit with a financial institution without that institution viewing the customer's credit history. This is completely normal and necessary in order to obtain financial approval. In fact, Ms. ***** was required to read and agree to the below statement before her application was submitted: "You authorize us to submit this application and any other application submitted in connection with the proposed transaction to the financial institutions disclosed to you by us the dealers. This application will be reviewed by such financial institutions on behalf of themselves and us the dealer. In addition, in accordance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act, you authorize that such financial institutions may submit your applications to other financial institutions for the purpose of fulfilling your request to apply for credit." Early in the process, we had great difficulty securing an approval for Ms. *****, and we contacted her for more information. She explained that her bankruptcy was not, in fact, discharged. Had we been made aware of this initially, we would have submitted her application to different institutions. After sharing this information with us, she asked again if we could assist her in obtaining financing. Armed with the correct information, we applied on her behalf to institutions which were potentially more understanding of her situation. We were then able to secure a tentative approval for Ms. *****, but she declined it as a result of the interest rate being offered. She then asked if we would continue searching for another approval. Unfortunately, an approval at a lower rate was not obtained. It was determined quickly that an approval at a rate which Ms. ***** felt she was qualified for was simply not possible to secure, so our dealership ceased attempts to do so. We have attempted to explain to Ms. ***** that applications for credit when searching for a car loan within a reasonable amount of time are acceptable in the eyes of the credit bureaus, and never acted in manner which would be damaging to her. Applying for credit on a customer's behalf is a normal part of doing business in our industry, and our dealership did not act in any manner which was contrary to normal and accepted practices.

9/17/2013 Advertising/Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I purchased a pre-owned Mazda Miata from Fiat of Kirkland in June 2013. At the time of purchase I told them I wanted to use my bank, BECU, to finance the loan. I was told not only would they not be able to use them but that I would have to purchase a warranty in order to get the loan, with another unknown bank. My bank would have given me the loan, I found out later. In addition I went back to the dealer to return the warranty for refund on August 16, which is my right and at that time, asked the finance manager, *****, to please submit this request as soon as possible, by fax. He responded that they submit online electronically and it would be faster. A week later I called the Warranty Company multiple times and they had not only not received it but they advised that these requests are not submitted electronically and that the dealership has until Sept 8 to submit their August requests. When I had called the finance manager at the dealership, he had told me multiple times it had been submitted and the Warranty Company had to have it already.That made twice that the dealership had not told me the truth and I feel they have used deceptive sales practices for this sale and the processing of my refund. Product_Or_Service: 2006 Mazda Miata & warranty Order_Number: XXXXX

Desired Settlement: DesiredSettlementID: Other (requires explanation) I would like to return their vehicle and get my car back, I do not want to have done business with them, I feel they are deceptive and unethical.

Business Response: Business' Initial Response /* (1000, 5, 2013/09/03) */ The cancellation has been received, is being processed, and a credit should be appearing on *** ********** account shortly.

8/8/2013 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: We purchased a vehicle from Rairdon on November 5, 2011 during which we purchased GAP Insurance on the vehicle. We have recently sold the vehicle and paid off the loan, thereby entitling us to a refund of the pro-rated/unused amount remaining on the GAP Insurance. We contacted the company that underwrites the GAP Insurance, and they said we needed to contact Rairdon to initiate this process and that they needed to get us the paperwork. We contacted ****** in their Finance department on July 12, 2013 and he said he would get us the paperwork, no problem. Since then, nothing. No phone calls returned, even after we made another phone call on July 20, 2013. We contacted the General Manager of the store, nothing. We sent a complaint through the "general inquiries" portal on their web site, nothing. My husband had a really ridiculous instant message exchange with ******* ******* from Rairdon's Internet Sales department regarding the matter. After that, nothing. Frankly, anyone that buys a vehicle from these people is in for the Customer Service ride of their life.

Desired Settlement: We simply want the paperwork we were promised by ****** **** on July 12, 2013. Every day that goes buy us costing us money.

Business Response: Business' Initial Response /* (1000, 5, 2013/07/25) */ We have e-mailed a copy of the cancellation form to Mrs. *****.

6/5/2013 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I have a $10,000 deposit on a Fiat 500, the sales contract for which expired in March after the dealership was unable to secure the expected financing. They never offered us our deposit and our contract documents back before trying to negotiate another deal, which they are required to do by law. They continued to look for financing, and finally told us they could make a loan work if we would perjure ourselves on our application and indicate more income than actually exists. We felt uncomfortable and went to **********, where we were able to successfully lease a car with full disclosure of our financial circumstances. On calling Fiat of Kirkland to confirm that we were not going to sign a new purchase contract for a Fiat, they gave us no information on how to proceed with a refund, even verbally abusing us and hanging up on us.

Desired Settlement: Immediate refund of our $10,000 deposit.

Business Response: Business' Initial Response /* (1000, 6, 2013/05/30) */ We have been in contact with *** *******, and are processing a refund of his deposit. Consumer's Final Response /* (2000, 8, 2013/06/04) */ (The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)