Complaints

This profile includes complaints for Wholesale Luxury Cars, LLC's headquarters and its corporate-owned locations. To view all corporate locations, see Find Local Branches.

close

Find a Location

Wholesale Luxury Cars, LLC has 2 locations, listed below.

*This company may be headquartered in or have additional locations in another country. Please click on the country abbreviation in the search box below to change to a different country location.

BBB accredited

Near

Country

USUnited States

Please enter a valid location.

Filter

• 

  Wholesale Luxury Cars, LLC

  2027 NE 154th St North Miami Beach, FL 33162-6023

• 

  Wholesale Luxury Cars, LLC

  4650 SW 51st St STE 708 Davie, FL 33314-5535

The complaint text that is displayed might not represent all complaints filed with BBB. Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:06/21/2025

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  Status:

  UnansweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  The cars sold here appear to be intentionally misleading. I arranged a contract to buy a 2019 ****************** Vantage from this dealer with a clean title and 2x previously repaired accidents. The car was made out to be in good condition, but upon inspecting - it appear to be in more than 2 accidents, as there was what appeared to be fairly recent - poor bodyworkmanship (panels misaligned, pain overruns that were dried dripped pain on the panels, a hood that wouldn't close properly, most likely due to the work that had been done). It was harder to find areas of non-worked on panels. Any reputable seller would make note of these in the listings. The photos are deceptive enough to not show any of these problems. I was told by their associates my 500 would be refunded (which is a small assurance compared to the flights, ***** hotels, etc). Never heard from them after I left the dealership I can only imagine how many times they have done this with people who are not familar with how to identify previously heavily damaged vehicles.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:09/05/2024

  Type:Sales and Advertising Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  Complaint Against:Wholesale Luxury Cars LLC *************************************** Phone: ************** Owner: ************************* Complaint Details:I am filing this complaint due to issues with communication, transparency, and professionalism during my attempted purchase of a 2022 Dodge Charger Redeye. Despite my efforts to resolve the situation amicably, ************************* has been unresponsive and dismissive, leaving me without clear answers or a path forward.Key Issues:Unjustified $61,500 Down Payment:************************* informed me that ****************** demanded a $61,500 down payment, violating 15 U.S.C. 1662(2), which prohibits specified down payments unless customary. Neither *************************** has provided any legal justification for this excessive demand.Lack of Communication:I made multiple attempts to contact ******* for updates, but he ignored my requests or gave vague responses. The same day I raised legal concerns about the down payment, he informed me that the vehicle had been sold, without prior notice or any attempt to resolve the issues.Sudden Sale of Vehicle:The vehicle was sold the same day I referenced my consumer rights, which raises questions about whether my concerns were deliberately ignored to avoid addressing the legal issues.

  Business Response

  Date: 09/05/2024

  I did not wish to do business with someone who was citing laws and threatening legal action since the very moment we spoke if I was not able to get him approved with ******** for a $90k car loan with $0 down and him having a 573 credit score with multiple delinquencies. Its a shame people like this can try to manipulate and take advantage of small businesses who cant afford to have lawyers on retainer. The vehicle sold and hes upset and is asking for me to unwind the sold deal so I can sell the car to him just so he can turn around and sue me about the loan? 

  Business Response

  Date: 09/06/2024

  Good morning to whom this concerns; this gentleman had filled out our credit application online for an $82,900 vehicle before tax & registration. We had run the credit application via standard procedure to find out he has a 573 credit score with major delinquencies and charge backs/vehicle repossessions on his credit report. He had requested to put $0 down on the application, however the bank made a counter offer by requesting $61,500 down to be approved as well as the customer providing sufficient proof of income. I presented this counter offer to the customer which was the first point of contact following the credit application he had submitted without introduction. (In summation) He replied by saying he is a contract lawyer and it is illegal for a bank to request a down payment and ask for proof of income and asked to speak to our legal council. I was confused and decided to give him a call. I explained to him we were a smaller dealership and dont offer direct financing to consumers. Instead we submit the applications we receive to 3rd party lenders and for his particular credit situation I would have to go through our only subprime lender which was **************************** He proceeded by asking the contact information of the lender so he can send a demand letter of legal action. I gave it to him and told him I did not want my company involved in the complaint. He continued to ask to speak to our legal council and I declined saying we are a smaller dealership and dont have a lawyer on retainer and even if we did our lawyer would likely tell him his complaint is with *************************** not with our dealership. Lastly I told him I wanted to help him and suggested he use one of the credit unions he had used in the past to acquire the vehicle. His response was No I submitted my credit application with you. You should be able to get me approved no problem without me having to run my credit with other people. I told him I couldnt help him anymore and to contact ********. He contacted Westlake via support emails I provided with no response. He took his anger and frustration out on me by continuously calling and harassing me saying I was going to be apart of his legal complaint if I didnt get ******** to respond to him. He also said the call was being recorded and anything I said would be used against me. I hung up and seeked legal council. The lawyer  was kind enough not to charge me for the simple advice of not picking up his phone calls moving forward to ensure all communication with this guy would be in writing. We got lucky and sold the car that day so I decided to ignore another phone call from ****** and responded the vehicle was sold I apologize. He was upset and blamed it on my for not getting Westlake to respond to him within a timely manner to resolve the issue. He now expects me to buy back the vehicle from the customer we sold it to in order to sell it to him.

  Customer Answer

  Date: 09/06/2024

  hi

  Customer Answer

  Date: 09/06/2024

  More Information...Response to Dealerships Rebuttal - Application #********
  To Whom It May Concern,
  I have reviewed the dealerships response to my BBB complaint. While I appreciate their response, I need to address several inaccuracies in their account of the situation. The response does not fully consider the federal laws involved, nor the instructions I provided with my application. The request for a $61,500 down payment may be inconsistent with federal laws. I request that my application be processed according to these laws, and I will outline the relevant legal framework below, focusing on the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), Truth in Lending Act (TILA), and *************** Act.
  1. Down Payment Request and Federal Law
  The dealerships request for a $61,500 down payment may conflict with federal statutes, including the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), Truth in Lending Act (TILA), and *************** Act. Federal law indicates that when legal collateral is provided, imposing additional requirements such as a down payment may be unnecessary unless properly explained.
  Violation of ECOA Equal Credit Opportunity Act (15 U.S.C. 1691)
  The Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) ensures that credit decisions are made without discrimination, provided the applicant has the capacity to contract. The law states:
  It shall be unlawful for any creditor to discriminate against any applicant, with respect to any aspect of a credit transaction... on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, ***, marital status, or age (provided the applicant has the capacity to contract).
  15 U.S.C. 1691(a)
  Capacity to Contract: My application was submitted with valid information, including legal collateral. This demonstrates my capacity to contract, as protected under ECOA. The request for a down payment based on my credit score, without fully considering the collateral provided, may not align with ECOAs standards.
  Collateral Provided: My application included legal collateral that should be sufficient under 12 U.S.C. ********************************** this context, the request for a down payment may not fully reflect the requirements of federal law.
  2. Truth in Lending Act (TILA) Representation of Credit Terms
  The Truth in Lending Act (TILA) requires lenders to provide clear, accurate information about credit terms, including down payment requirements. The law specifically prohibits unclear representations about such terms:
  It shall be unlawful... for any person to make any false or misleading representation in the course of obtaining or attempting to obtain credit, or attempting to collect an obligation, including any representation that an amount of down payment... will be lower than the actual amount.
  15 U.S.C. 1662(2)
  Explanation of Down Payment: The dealership did not provide a detailed explanation for the $61,500 down payment. Without a proper breakdown, this may conflict with TILAs disclosure requirements under 15 U.S.C. 1605.
  3. *************** Act (12 U.S.C. 412)
  According to 12 U.S.C. 412, an application can serve as legal collateral for credit issuance, removing the need for additional financial conditions, such as a down payment. The law states:
  Such application shall be accompanied with a tender to the local *************** agent of collateral in amount equal to the sum of the *************** notes thus applied for and issued pursuant to such application.
  Collateral Already Provided: I provided the necessary collateral with my application, and the dealerships request for an additional down payment may not fully reflect this legal standard.
  4. Communications Regarding Legal Counsel
  The dealerships claim that I acted inappropriately or demanded to speak with their legal counsel is incorrect. My communications were professional, and I only requested that they follow the legal instructions submitted with my application. At no point did I make unreasonable demands. I was informed that ************************* is the owner, and there was no improper communication as suggested.
  5. Vehicle Availability
  After raising concerns, I was informed that the vehicle I had applied for was sold. However, a similar vehicle remained listed as available on their website, which caused confusion about the vehicle's status.
  I did not request the dealership to buy back the vehicle, as they imply. My only request was that the dealership and ****************** process my application according to the legal instructions I submitted.
  6. Third-Party Lenders (******************)
  While the dealership states that they only submit applications to third-party lenders, such as ******************, they are still responsible for ensuring that these lenders comply with federal law. The legal instructions I provided should have guided the processing of my application in compliance with 12 U.S.C. 412.
  Conclusion
  The dealerships imposition of a $61,500 down payment may conflict with several federal statutes, including:
  ECOA (15 U.S.C. 1691): The dealership may have violated ECOA by imposing a down payment without fully considering my capacity to contract and the collateral I provided.
  TILA (15 U.S.C. 1662(2)): The dealership may have violated TILA by not providing a clear explanation regarding the down payment.
  *************** Act (12 U.S.C. 412): My application, with its legal collateral, should have been sufficient, and additional financial demands may not align with federal law.
  Next Steps
  If no resolution is reached through the BBB, I will pursue other means, including filing complaints with relevant regulatory bodies and legal action to ensure compliance with federal law.
  I respectfully request that the BBB help review the dealerships response and ensure a fair resolution.
  Thank you for your attention.
  Sincerely,
  **************: *******

  Business Response

  Date: 09/06/2024

  These are issues he will have to resolve with ******************* the third party lender, as we do not provide direct lending to consumers because we are a small independent dealership. I reiterated this statement multiple times to the consumer; I even suggested for him to go through his own credit union and I would be happy to do a deal with him. Why is BBB punishing us even after proof of this was provided? This is clearly an attempt by the consumer to manipulate us into buying a sold vehicle back from another respectful client just to sell it to this consumer for him to turn around and sue us for god knows what. We have received nothing but constant threats of legal action from this consumer from the very first interaction. I dont even see how this is a debate at this point? Instead BBB is going to allow consumers to threaten, extort, and manipulate honest businesses to bend to their will just to remove a negative review? We have been selling vehicles since 2019 and have an impeccable reputation on eBay www.WholesaleLuxuryCars.com. This consumer didnt even buy a car or leave a deposit and BBB is still allowing this? 

  Customer Answer

  Date: 09/07/2024

   
  Complaint: 22244533
  
  I am rejecting this response because:
  
  First, I would like to clarify that my intent has never been to manipulate or extort the dealership. From the beginning, I simply wanted to complete a legitimate transaction on a 2022 Dodge Charger Redeye (Application #********). My concerns were raised after being told I needed to make a $61,500 down payment without any clear legal justification or transparency. I referenced relevant consumer protection laws because I believed this demand violated 15 U.S.C. 1662(2), which makes it unlawful to require a specified down payment unless it is customary. I brought this up to ensure that my rights as a consumer were being respected, not to create conflict.
  In response to the business's claims:
  Down Payment & Lending Clarification:
  While I understand that the dealership itself does not provide direct lending, it was ************************* who informed me that the third-party lender ******************** was demanding this excessive down payment. Regardless of whether the dealership or ******** made this demand, it was still part of the deal being negotiated with Wholesale Luxury Cars LLC, and the dealership did not make any efforts to clarify the terms or assist in finding a reasonable solution. Suggesting I go through my own credit union after weeks of back-and-forth communication is not sufficient, as I was already in the process of working through the financing terms with ********, as directed by the dealership.
  Communication Issues:
  The dealership claims that they reiterated multiple times that I would need to resolve the issue with Westlake, yet in practice, my attempts to get clear answers were repeatedly ignored or met with vague responses. It wasn't until I raised legal concerns that I was suddenly informed the vehicle had been sold to another buyer without any prior notice.
  No Deposit Argument:
  While it is true that I did not leave a deposit, it was due to the unresolved issue surrounding the $61,500 down payment. I was ready and willing to complete the purchase once a legal and transparent explanation was provided for the down payment. It is unreasonable to expect a consumer to leave a deposit without knowing the full and lawful terms of the deal.
  Accusations of Legal Threats:
  I never made legal threats with the intent to extort or manipulate. The legal points I raised were simply to protect my rights as a consumer and ensure the dealership adhered to fair and lawful practices. If the dealership felt uncomfortable with my raising legal concerns, that is no excuse for their failure to communicate transparently or assist in resolving the matter.
  Reputation Defense:
  I acknowledge the dealerships claim about their reputation, but in this particular situation, they have failed to act professionally and transparently. If their reputation is important to them, they should have worked with me to ensure a fair and lawful transaction, rather than dismissing my concerns and suddenly selling the vehicle the same day I raised legitimate issues.
  Conclusion:
  I would like to reiterate that my goal from the beginning was to complete a fair and lawful purchase. I never sought to manipulate or extort the dealership. I raised concerns about the down payment because I believed it was excessive and unjustified under the law. The businesss failure to provide clear answers and the abrupt sale of the vehicle raise serious questions about their transparency and professionalism.
  I ask the BBB to continue to investigate this matter fairly, as my concerns remain valid. I welcome the opportunity to resolve this dispute amicably.