The folIowing letter details my hellish experience of purchasing my "new" Camaro with almost $2000.00 (yes, that's two thousand dollars) of estimated cosmetic damages.
Any input or suggestions are welcome.
In regards to the recent purchase of a 2014 Chevrolet Camaro SS, on Saturday, July 5th, 2014, the following documentation addresses numerous unresolved incidents including the lack of rendered courteous and honest professional service from Koons Chevrolet of Tyson's Corner, in Vienna VA. Though purchased as new, the vehicle was delivered with an estimated $1990.00 (One Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety Dollars and No Cents) in cosmetic damage in which the cause is unknown. It is my belief that the vehicle should be replaced with a new vehicle of the same make and model, which is expressed throughout the detailing of the experience.
After conducting thorough research for a vehicle that correlated appropriately within need and budget, one was selected for purchase in Vienna, VA at Koons which is approximately two hours from my residence. Not until all the necessary paperwork completed and committed to purchase, information was divulged regarding the GM ignition recall pertaining to the vehicle. Per John Gribbins, the Sales Manager, the vehicle could not leave the facility until recall parts were received and installed. According to a GM Direct Specialist a “stop sale” had been issued (June 12th, 2014) to the dealerships. A waiver was requested to release the vehicle to be serviced locally, however, the Sales Representative (Harpreet) pleaded ignorance and stated he would inquire with the Sales Manager which concluded that the dealership was not authorized to issue a waiver. Furthermore, Mr. Gribbins promised the vehicle recall repairs to be completed by Thursday, July 10th, 2014 and released from the dealership the same day. During this five day waiting period several calls were placed to Koons and General Motors in regards to maintaining current status updates. By Thursday, recall parts had not been received and upon expressing dissatisfaction, Mr. Gribbins authorized issuance of a waiver to decline recall servicing at that time in order to release the vehicle from the dealership that day. Due to the multitude of inconveniences rendered, Mr. Gribbins agreed to sign a “We Owe” up to the amount of $200.00 (Two Hundred Dollars and No Cents) for window tinting. An invoice for the tint was sent to the dealership at Mr. Gribbins request, and compensation has still not been received.
The dealership was previously informed of prior engagements that I was required out of town no later than Thursday, however, little concern or effort was made to deliver the vehicle in a timely manner. The delay of deliver cost yet another day to be forfeited from travel time. Thursday, July 10th, 2014 the vehicle was driven approximately 130 miles to my residence by the Sales Representative who arrived around 8:15pm. Prior to delivery, when asked if the car could be trailered, the Sales Representative laughed and mentioned that the car would be driven to the receiving destination. Upon delivery, the aforementioned waiver was signed but no copy was furnished for personal records.
Within approximately twenty-four hours of the vehicle being in my possession, several imperfections were discovered. The damages included a two inch wide dent and crack on the spoiler, a vertical dent (approximately four inches long and inch wide) into the fender and warping noticed on the trunk. This prompted yet further communication with the Sales Representative who nonchalantly brushed it off as, "...Looks like you got a hater already." However, once it was brought to his attention that the damage could be seen in photos he sent of the vehicle previous to leaving the dealership communication ceased.
When finally contacted by Koons Chevy, they suggested attaining an estimate of the damages at a local Chevrolet dealership and promised reimbursement after the vehicle was repaired. The estimate totaled almost $2,000.00 for repairs to said damage. Considering the dealership should claim responsibility for the damages, appropriate action would include replacing the vehicle with the same make and model. The vehicle was purchased as a new vehicle and to receive damaged goods is unacceptable business ethics. Should the vehicle be repaired, regardless of whether documentation follows the Carfax, a trained eye and meticulous scrutiny would be able to devise that the car was repaired cosmetically. If the vehicle was sold or traded, the value would depreciate for damages that I did not incur nor should be held accountable.
Since addressing concern to the dealership and GM, there has been little correspondence or priority taken in the matter. Several phone calls and e-mails have gone unanswered, and there has been no effort to reach an agreeable resolution from either Koons or GM. The GM Direct Specialist, Jennifer, also stated the District and Sales Managers had not returned any of her phone calls. During the last correspondence with Mr. Gribbins he stated that the customer had not responded to his vehicle swap proposition. Mr. Gribbins’ claim is false, as it was agreed to verbally as an acceptable resolution during the last visit to the dealership. Since then, numerous attempts were made to contact Mr. Gribbins to no avail.
On September 7th, 2014, the two and a half hour trip was made to the dealership since Mr. Gribbins refused corresponding to resolve the matter. Upon arrival, Mr. Gribbins had left for the day and Mr. Joshua Estrada tended to the matter. Mr. Estrada offered to repair the vehicle at his dealership, and expressed that replacing the vehicle would have to go through GM’s “Buy Back” process. Since GM has been of little assistance and refused a “Buy Back”, the only options Koons provided were to either trade the vehicle, or have it repaired in their body shop. It was also brought to Mr. Estrada’s attention that it shouldn’t require driving two and a half hours out of the day just to be acknowledged. After apologizing for the inconvenience, he offered to fuel my vehicle in which the Sales Representative used 87 Octane. The Sales Representative was informed that the vehicle was geared for performance and shouldn’t use less than 91 Octane or it could cause engine knocking, but he claimed the vehicle would be “fine”.
Four days after the visit to the dealership, Mr. Gribbins called to express that there was no way to swap the vehicle it would have to be traded into another which could change the payments. He claimed he would be more than happy to have it fixed to factory specifications. The principle of the matter is that the vehicle delivered was sub-par and no longer in “new” condition, no one wanted to take accountability, and the whole experience has been quite the runaround.
What could’ve been an excellent opportunity to gain loyalty and trust in a new customer as a reputable and customer service oriented dealership, has now become a two month long headache.