ComplaintsforDeal Depot Inc.

• Initial Complaint

  01/08/2024

  Complaint Type:

  Billing Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  Incident date: 12/21/2023. My husband, *********** ****** and I, ****** ******* put down a deposit of $600 towards a 2011 ****** ******** **** * *******. We test drove the vehicle & noticed that when the vehicle went up a hill it would barely go. Initially we were interested in another vehicle that we test drove first which was a silver 2015 ***** ******* which drove perfectly find after test driving it. After completing paper work with the salesman, we had to finalize everything with the Admin, Timothy B****. Upon taking these steps we were told about a tax program that Deal Depot offers that allows you to get the car you would like and promise to pay with the tax money as the down deposit. The salesman told us that she did not see an issue to why we couldn't qualify being that the requirement are to file taxes with them & they receive the money that way.. After test driving both cars we spoke with Timothy & he stated that we do not qualify for the ***** ******* because it's "Too much car" He then asked us how much did we have for the ****** ******** we told him we could put down $500 he then stated that due to taxes and tag he would need more so we told him $600 and that was final. We asked him why could we not get into a car that runs better and he simply said because we can't afford it. So we brought up to him the program that Sammi told us about and he shut the idea down because he told us that we could not be trusted because all we had to offer him was $600. We were denied the convenience to get in a car that runs well & given a vehicle that broke down in 12 days. Now we are sitting idle & they took our money, and are forcing us to go into repo! Tim was very aware that we had to continue work prior to this happening, we asked him to please put us in another car that was cheaper and functioned properly. He refused, now they want us top pay $1750 on top or our pick up note every week which is $250 in order to get our car back. Please help us this is unfair!

  

  Business response

  01/18/2024

  This letter is for the record that I have investigated the above-listed complaint.
  
  In the complaint received Mrs. ****** made several allegations that I would like to address. First, Mrs. ****** was a customer of Deal Depot from December 21, 2023, until her vehicle was processed as a repossession on January 5, 2024. The complaint received was made against account number #********.
  
  Mrs. ****** put down $600 to purchase a 2011 ******** **** *** ******* on December 21,2023 that she financed through our sister company ***** ******** Mrs. ****** and her husband originally picked out a 2015 ***** ******* with their sales associate, but after personally interviewing them and putting them thru our underwriting process with the down payment they had, the ***** ******* was not in their budget. Mr. and Mrs. ******** proposed down payment of $600 was $1,000 below our required down payment on the 2011 ******** **** *** *******. However, after speaking with them, and them relaying to me how urgently they needed to drive away in a vehicle that day, I offered to get them in the **** *** ******* with $600 down and three weekly deferred down payment installments of $250.
  
  In her complaint Mrs. ****** alleges that during the test drive of the **** *** ******* “it would barely go up a hill”. That is not the verbiage they used when explaining their test drive experience to me. Mr. and Mrs. ****** did say that the vehicle hesitated when going up a hill on the test drive and seemed like “it did not have a lot of power”. In contrast to the 2015 ***** *******, with considerably less miles, that they test drove first, this was not an unrealistic perception. I asked if there were any lights on in the vehicle, which they said there were not. I explained to them our multi-layered quality control process and the fact that all our financed vehicles come with a limited powertrain warranty that is 50% the responsibility of the customer and 50% the responsibility of the dealership, and the fact that the transmission is a covered component. In another example of Deal Depot Inc. going above and beyond to help our customers I also explained that if they had a mechanical issue immediately (1-7 days or 500 or less miles) after the purchase that affected the drivability of the vehicle, we would be happy to get the vehicle in and address that issue at no cost to them. Mr. and Mrs. ****** both agreed to the terms above on the 2011 ******** **** *** ******* and signed the loan paperwork.
  
  About thirty minutes after driving away in the **** *** *******, Mr. and Mrs. ****** returned to the dealership visibly upset. They relayed to me that the navigation screen got hot, the traction control light came on, the abs light came on, and the vehicle was acting like it did not want to go up a hill. I immediately apologized to them and told them I understood their frustration and asked them to leave the vehicle with me and I would cover all mechanical issues at 100% no cost to them, as I had agreed to earlier. Both Mr. and Mrs. ****** refused to leave the vehicle with me that Friday since it was Christmas weekend, finally they agreed to drive the vehicle that weekend and drop the vehicle off at 9 a.m. on Tuesday December 26, 2023. I made it abundantly clear that if they missed the appointment on Tuesday December 26, 2023, that any issues would either be warranty, if it was a covered component, or not warranty and the responsibility of the customer. They agreed. Tuesday December 26, 2023, the ******* did not bring the **** *** ******* and made no effort at communicating with us to reschedule their appointment.
  
  On January 2, 2024, the ******* had the vehicle towed to our dealership. Mrs. ****** called in stating the transmission was “completely locked” and demanded to speak to the owner. I made Mrs. ****** aware that the owner is busy, does not always work in the office, I could request that she contact them back, however that she has empowered her staff and myself, as the Director of Administration, to make sure that matters of this nature were handled in a manner that is ethical, legal, and in accordance with our policies and procedures. Neither Mr. ******, Mrs. ******, nor Mrs. ******’s mother were happy with that reply. They demanded to be traded into another vehicle or to be given a full refund. Because of their unwillingness to discuss the matter in a civil manner without using profanity and threats we had to disconnect the call several times. Anytime I did have an opportunity to talk civilly to them they completely avoided answering why they had not kept the appointment for December 26, 2023, so we could have potentially avoided this situation.
  
  We diagnosed the vehicle at no cost on January 3, 2024, and found it to need a transmission. The total cost for the repairs was $3007.45. Because the transmission is a covered component the ******’s responsibility would be 50% or $1503.72. This information was relayed to the *******, who requested that we pay the entire cost of the transmission. Again, I reminded them of their missed appointment on December 26, 2023, and my agreement to handle it at that time at no cost to them, and possibly catch this issue before it got to this point. In the time period between December 21, 2023, and January 2, 2024, the ******* put 2,455 miles on the vehicle. In between the profanity, threats, demands, etc. I did make another offer to the ******* in an effort to help them. I asked them to come up with as close to 50% of their portion of the repairs as possible, app. $750, keep their account in good standing, and then they could pay an extra $25 weekly with their payment starting the Friday after the repair was completed until they paid the repair balance off. I was never able to get a definitive answer from the ******* on whether they wanted to pursue this course of action or not. On January 4, 2024, the ******* sent a family member to retrieve their personal belongings out of the vehicle. On January 9, 2024, after getting no direction from the customers on how they wished to proceed with the repair issue and them missing the deferred down payment that was due January 5, 2024, we sent a 10 Day Letter and started the repossession process.
  
  Based upon my investigation we went above and beyond our contractual obligation to retain   Mr. and Mrs. ****** as customers and prevent the repossession of their vehicle. We understand that repair issues never come at a good time, and we do everything within our power to prevent them. In cases where we simply cannot prevent them, we honor our warranty and make customer’s vehicles our top priority in our service department to get our customers back in their vehicles as quickly as possible. We would have done the same in this situation had the ******* cooperated. We take no satisfaction in the repossession of any customer’s vehicle. We find no merit to Mrs. ******’s allegations and respectfully decline her request for a refund. Should you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me directly.
  
  
  Sincerely,
  Tim B**** 

• Initial Complaint

  11/16/2022

  Complaint Type:

  Billing Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  I was contacted by someone in the deal depo and told that I was late on a payment . So I paid half of the payment and arranged for the next week the very next day my car was taken. when I and a family friend called to see what we could do to resolve this situation we were told that before anything can be done I would owe them an apology. my friend stated sir that's not your job to ask for that it's your job to help her with her car we were told we were not gonna tell him what his job is and at this time the only way I was gunna get my car back was if I paid the full balance upfront. I'm a single mother of 2. and the reason I was late on payment was that i had complications while giving birth. i have had that car over 3 years and had paid it down to almost 5 grand on a 17,000 dollar note . i was also not allowed to get any of my stuff out of the car and was told they where the only ones who could do it . when we showed up to get my stuff we where told we would need to wait 2 hours before anyone would be back to clean it out . by the law i have 30 days to get my stuff before then can take it out of the car .. so can someone explain to me why we wait 2 hours and called them right on the time frame given and they came out with 3 trash bags in a matter of maybe and I do mean maybe 30 seconds. either they had already removed my stuff from the car or they made us wait 2 hours for no reason because there was no one there to do it. one is illegal the other is extremely dishonest .when we asked for a meeting with the owner we were told and I quote it was not worth her time. mr brown was very distressful and argumentive honestly we couldn't even talk cause he would hang up on us and interrupt we have all this on voice recording which is legal for us. I am having some other complications so I would like my friend ******* ****** to deal with all this his number is **********. he has already called multiple times with no response back. he has left multiple reviews and they have all been taken down please help...

  

  Business response

  12/06/2022

  This letter is for the record that I have investigated the above listed complaint.

   

  In the complaint received Ms. ****** made several allegations that I would like to address.           First, Ms. ****** was a customer of **** ***** from January 21, 2021, until her vehicle was repossessed on September 27, 2022. The complaint received was made against account number #*******.

   

  Ms. ****** purchased a 2014 ******* ******* on January 21,2021 that she financed thru our sister company ***** *******. Ms. ****** had an exemplary payment history from her purchase date thru January 2022. Her payment history got progressively worse from January 2022 to the date of repossession, September 27, 2022. During that time-period Ms. ****** accrued multiple late fees. On July 5, 2022, after multiple failed attempts to communicate with Ms. ****** about her past due payment she did call in and make us aware that she had complications with her pregnancy and set a payment arrangement. At the time of that conversation, I made Ms. ****** aware of how important it was to maintain open lines of communication and to keep any payment arrangements that were setup, she agreed. Between that conversation in July and the date the vehicle was repossessed, there were several lapses in communication as well as broken payment arrangements. On September 27, 2022, when Ms. ******’s vehicle was repossessed,

  she was past due from August 26, 2022.

   

  In her complaint Ms. ****** alleges that after the vehicle was repossessed, she was told that she owed **** ***** an apology. That is not true. Ms. ****** called in with a gentleman who identified himself as ******* ******, who, for the record, is not a party on the loan, who stated he wanted to know the process for us to consider redeeming a vehicle for anything less than the full payoff of the loan. I advised them that the first step in that process was determining why the account got so far past due and why the lines of communication were not kept open and that requires the customer to accept accountability. Ms. ****** and Mr. ****** refused to take any responsibility and just wanted to be belligerent, make demands, and threaten myself and my staff with his attorney and local news stations.

  Because of their unwillingness to discuss the matter in a civil manner without using profanity and threats I had to disconnect the call at least two times. At this point it was clear that it was not in the company’s best interest to allow this vehicle to be redeemed for anything less than the full payoff which is what was relayed to Mr. ****** and Ms. ******. That is true and is well within our legal rights.

   

  Ms. ****** alleges in her complaint that she was not allowed to get her personal belongings out of her vehicle after the repossession. This is also not true. It was made abundantly clear to      Ms. ****** that she was welcome to bring us her key within ten days of the repossession and a member of our staff would bag all her belongings up and bring them outside of the gate to her. Customers are not allowed behind our fence for the security of our cars, our staffs, and for the security of our customers. Ms. ****** alleges that she showed up to get her belongings and was asked to return in two hours. With staff shortages it is possible Ms. ****** showed up and was asked to come back so that we could ensure we had a staff member to be able to package her belongings. We usually assign a time frame to retrieve belongings and if Ms. ****** was asked to return at a certain time it is because she showed up outside of the prescribed timeframe.      Ms. ****** alleges this process is either dishonest or illegal when in fact, it is neither.

   

  Ms. ****** alleges that I was “distressful and argumentative, would interrupt them, and hung up on them”. This was addressed previously, after it became clear that Mr. ****** was incapable or unwilling to discuss this manner in a civil manner with the same courtesy afforded to him without threats and profanity, I did disconnect the call at least twice. Ms. ****** also alleges that they were told their request for a meeting with the owner was met with the response” it is not worth her time”. That is untrue as well. I made Mr. ****** aware that the owner is busy and does not always work in the office and I could request that she contact them back however that she has empowered her staff and myself, as the Director of Administration, to make sure that repossessions were handled in a manner that is ethical, legal, and in accordance with our policies and procedures. This repossession was handled as such.

   

  Based upon my investigation we went above and beyond our contractual obligation to retain   Ms. ****** as a customer and prevent the repossession of her vehicle. Unfortunately,           Ms. ****** did not fulfill her obligation, and we were unable to prevent losing her as a customer. We take no satisfaction in the repossession of any customer’s vehicle but when a repossession is necessary, we ensure all state laws and statutes governing repossessions are adhered to while making the safety of both our employees and customers our top priority. We find no merit to Ms. ******’s allegations and respectfully decline her request for a refund. Should you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me directly.

  Sincerely,

              Tim Brown

  

  Business response

  12/06/2022

  This letter is for the record that I have investigated the above listed complaint.

   

  In the complaint received Ms. ****** made several allegations that I would like to address.           First, Ms. ****** was a customer of **** ***** from January 21, 2021, until her vehicle was repossessed on September 27, 2022. The complaint received was made against account number #*******.

   

  Ms. ****** purchased a 2014 ******* ******* on January 21,2021 that she financed thru our sister company ***** *******. Ms. ****** had an exemplary payment history from her purchase date thru January 2022. Her payment history got progressively worse from January 2022 to the date of repossession, September 27, 2022. During that time-period Ms. ****** accrued multiple late fees. On July 5, 2022, after multiple failed attempts to communicate with Ms. ****** about her past due payment she did call in and make us aware that she had complications with her pregnancy and set a payment arrangement. At the time of that conversation, I made Ms. ****** aware of how important it was to maintain open lines of communication and to keep any payment arrangements that were setup, she agreed. Between that conversation in July and the date the vehicle was repossessed, there were several lapses in communication as well as broken payment arrangements. On September 27, 2022, when Ms. ******’s vehicle was repossessed,

  she was past due from August 26, 2022.

   

  In her complaint Ms. ****** alleges that after the vehicle was repossessed, she was told that she owed **** ***** an apology. That is not true. Ms. ****** called in with a gentleman who identified himself as ******* ******, who, for the record, is not a party on the loan, who stated he wanted to know the process for us to consider redeeming a vehicle for anything less than the full payoff of the loan. I advised them that the first step in that process was determining why the account got so far past due and why the lines of communication were not kept open and that requires the customer to accept accountability. Ms. ****** and Mr. ****** refused to take any responsibility and just wanted to be belligerent, make demands, and threaten myself and my staff with his attorney and local news stations.

  Because of their unwillingness to discuss the matter in a civil manner without using profanity and threats I had to disconnect the call at least two times. At this point it was clear that it was not in the company’s best interest to allow this vehicle to be redeemed for anything less than the full payoff which is what was relayed to Mr. ****** and Ms. ******. That is true and is well within our legal rights.

   

  Ms. ****** alleges in her complaint that she was not allowed to get her personal belongings out of her vehicle after the repossession. This is also not true. It was made abundantly clear to      Ms. ****** that she was welcome to bring us her key within ten days of the repossession and a member of our staff would bag all her belongings up and bring them outside of the gate to her. Customers are not allowed behind our fence for the security of our cars, our staffs, and for the security of our customers. Ms. ****** alleges that she showed up to get her belongings and was asked to return in two hours. With staff shortages it is possible Ms. ****** showed up and was asked to come back so that we could ensure we had a staff member to be able to package her belongings. We usually assign a time frame to retrieve belongings and if Ms. ****** was asked to return at a certain time it is because she showed up outside of the prescribed timeframe.      Ms. ****** alleges this process is either dishonest or illegal when in fact, it is neither.

   

  Ms. ****** alleges that I was “distressful and argumentative, would interrupt them, and hung up on them”. This was addressed previously, after it became clear that Mr. ****** was incapable or unwilling to discuss this manner in a civil manner with the same courtesy afforded to him without threats and profanity, I did disconnect the call at least twice. Ms. ****** also alleges that they were told their request for a meeting with the owner was met with the response” it is not worth her time”. That is untrue as well. I made Mr. ****** aware that the owner is busy and does not always work in the office and I could request that she contact them back however that she has empowered her staff and myself, as the Director of Administration, to make sure that repossessions were handled in a manner that is ethical, legal, and in accordance with our policies and procedures. This repossession was handled as such.

   

  Based upon my investigation we went above and beyond our contractual obligation to retain   Ms. ****** as a customer and prevent the repossession of her vehicle. Unfortunately,           Ms. ****** did not fulfill her obligation, and we were unable to prevent losing her as a customer. We take no satisfaction in the repossession of any customer’s vehicle but when a repossession is necessary, we ensure all state laws and statutes governing repossessions are adhered to while making the safety of both our employees and customers our top priority. We find no merit to Ms. ******’s allegations and respectfully decline her request for a refund. Should you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me directly.

  Sincerely,

              Tim Brown

*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. ↩