Let the Buyer Beware!!! Nevada has no consumer protection law to protect Buyers from unscroupulous auto dealers who routinely take economic advantage of anyone who walks onto their lots in the State of Nevada. The absence of State regulation permits them to do so.
The following is a complaint filed with the Nevada DMV regarding the predatory and deceptive sales tactics that complainant enountered at Reno Dodge. If you are unfortunate enough to walk onto their lot, believe absolutely nothing that anyone tells you.
Public Agency: DMV Compliance Enforcement Division
555 Wright Way
Carson city, NV 89711
Tel 775-684-4690
Subject: Misrepresentations by Dealer during pre-sale negotiations, sale of vehicle, discovery of presale damage to vehicle, return of vehicle, and subsequent negotiations for a replacement vehicle.
1) On 09/30/04 Complainant visited Defendant's dealership and requested to see 2004 pickup trucks in the 3500 series looking for end-of-model-year vehicles with manufacturer's incentives. The Salesman told Complainant that all of the 2004 model year 3500 series pickup trucks were sold out, and that only 2005 models without manufacturer's incentives were currently in inventory. Complainant later learned that this was untrue.
2) On 09/30/04 Complainant inquired about 0% financing. The Salesman told Complainant that even though it wasn't being offered on the 2005 models, he could obtain 0% financing from Daimler Chrysler because of the high number of vehicles that the Dealership sold each month.
3) During presale negotiations for the vehicle, the Salesman claimed that the vehicle was subject to a Market Value Adjustment of an additional $4,200 (see attached copy). Complainant later learned that this artificial inflation of the MSRP was not authorized by Daimler Chrysler, and was in fact a false overcharge on the part of the Dealer.By contrast, Daimler Chrysler was offering regional discounts.
4) The Salesman waffled on the 0% financing during presale negotiations for the vehicle.in direct contradiction of his earlier statements, the Salesman now stated that Daimler Chrysler never offered 0% financing on diesel engines, and that only conventional financing was available. A subsequent check with Chrysler Financial confirmed that manufacturer's incentive packages (which change monthly) did not exclude diesel engines, and never had to the best knowledge of the Chrysler Financial employees that were contacted. Note: this misrepresentation was later made twice more to Complainant's attorney during negotiations over a replacement vehicle.
5) The interest rate that was agreed upon between the Salesman, Floor Manager and Complainant was 4.75%. After a period of time, Complainant was directed to go upstairs and sign contracts with the Financial Officer. The Financial Officer spent 1-1/2 hours trying to sell Complainant add-ons such as Gap Insurance and extended warranties which subsequent investigation revealed could be purchased for 65% less than what the Financial Officer was asking. Complainant declined to purchase any of the add-ons. The Financial Officer never once mentioned the interest rate during the contract execution period which Complainant assumed was the previously negotiated 4.75%. The Financial officer's office was dimly lit and Complainant (being a senior citizen) requires normal to bright light to be able to read fine print. Complainant (very stupidly) assumed that the contracts were in accordance with the negotiated terms, and signed them. The next day Complainant read the contracts in daylight and discovered that the Financial Officer had surreptitiously increased the interest rate to 7.09%.
6) Upon discovering the Financial Officer's fraud the following day, Complainant called the Salesman to cancel the sale, the vehicle was still in the Dealer's custody at that time. Complainant (very stupidly) assumed that Nevada had consumer protection laws to protect the public from auto dealer abuses such as bait and switch interest rates. The Salesman informed Complainant that Nevada had no consumer protection for auto purchasers, and that once Complainant signed the Dealer's contract, there was nothing Complainant could do about it.
7) Complainant called the Financial Officer to complain about the jacked up interest rate, and was told that no one at the Dealership other than the Financial Officer was authorized to negotiate an interest rate. If this assertion is true, then both the Salesman and Floor Manager negotiated in bad faith and misrepresented the terms of the sale. If this assertion is false, then the Financial Officer misrepresented the facts. The Financial Officer did, however, agree to find Complainant a loan with a rate closer to what had been negotiated. Subsequently the Financial Officer did, and a new loan contract was executed.
8) Complainant then took possession of the vehicle and stored it in his garage. Complainant subsequently hired an auto Detailer to detail the vehicle. While detailing the vehicle at Complainant's home, the Detailer discovered that the colored portion of the front bumper had been repainted as evidenced by obvious over spray, and that the cab roof (which requires a step ladder to inspect) had 18-20 small dents in it. The Detailer, who is also a fully qualified auto body repairman, hypothesized that the roof dents were from a chain used to hold down a vehicle above during transit from the factory to the dealership. The Dealer apparently failed to disclose this priorto-sale damage and/or repair to the vehicle that was sold to Complainant as new and undamaged.
9) Complainant reported this damage to the dealership upon discovery by the detailer, and brought the vehicle in for repair. The dealership removed the interior ceiling covering and hammered out the dents. This improved the situation, but the dents were still visible when looked down upon from above. The Dealership also buffed out the over spray on the front bumper.
10) A few days after retrieving the vehicle from the dealership, Complainant took the vehicle to Kustom Kreations auto body shop in Carson City to find out what it would cost to properly repair the roof. The estimate came back at almost $2,000. Additionally, while inspecting the vehicle, Kustom Kreations discovered that the rear quarter panel had also been repainted. Upon learning that the new and undamaged vehicle sold to Complainant had actually been damaged in three places and repaired in two prior to sale, Complainant concluded that he had been intentionally defrauded by the dealership.
11) Complainant contacted the dealership regarding returning the vehicle. The Salesman was evasive, illusive and of no help whatsoever. Reno Dodge then employed a series of stalling tactics in the belief that Complainant would become discouraged and go away empty handed. Defendant's refusal to take back the vehicle caused Complainant to hire an attorney to file suit for damages against Defendant. Complainant's attorney wrote a series of letters and engaged in numerous telephone calls with the General Manager that ultimately convinced Defendant to retake possession of the vehicle under threat of imminent lawsuit.
12) Complainant returned the vehicle to the dealership a couple of days before Thanksgiving. The following day, Complainant cancelled the vehicle's insurance and registration. Complainant then notified the Lien Holder of the circumstances under which the vehicle had been returned to the dealership. The Lien Holder informed Complainant that it would be sending him a ten-day notice to pay off the loan on the vehicle. Complainant immediately notified the General Manager that the Lien Holder was calling in the note and had in effect cancelled the sale. Complainant included a request for pay off of the Lien Holder, and return of the sales tax, document fees and other monies paid by Complainant.
13) The General Manager, who was determined not to lose the sale, contacted and convinced the Lien Holder not to call in the note by misrepresenting the circumstances under which the vehicle had been returned. He did not want the Lien Holder to cancel the sale. Complainant was very surprised to learn of this when he contacted the Lien Holder several days later.
14) Complainant concluded that Defendant's strategy at this point was to use the Lien Holder's note as leverage against Complainant to preserve the original sale. This prompted the start of negotiations between Complainant's attorney and the General Manager over a replacement vehicle that dragged on for more than two months with no resolution.
15) Complainant's attorney repeatedly requested to be put in contact with Defendant's attorney in the hopes of resolving the outstanding issues. The General Manager refused to divulge this information. Complainant's attorney also repeatedly requested that Defendant put the proposed terms and conditions of sale in writing, which Defendant refused. This is misrepresentation by omission.
16) During this period, the General Manager misrepresented the substance of telephone conversations between himself and Complainant's attorney regarding what type of replacement vehicle would be acceptable to Complainant.
17) During this period, the General Manager libeled Complainant by falsely accusing him of perpetrating the pre-sale damage and repainting of the vehicle.
18) During this period, the General Manager twice misrepresented the regional discount available from Daimler Chrysler on the replacement vehicle.
19) During this period, the General Manager twice misrepresented the 0% interest rates available from Daimler Chrysler on the replacement vehicle stating that this incentive was not available on diesel engine models. (See Misrepresentation #4)
20) During this period the General Manager repeatedly refused to apply credits for costs paid by Complainant to the adjusted price of a replacement vehicle.
21) On or about the first week of January the Dealer began requesting loan payoff amounts from the Lien Holder. Additionally, the Dealer told the Lien Holder that they were taking back the vehicle.By so doing, the Dealer disproved the false charges made in Misrepresentation #17. Shortly thereafter, the Dealer listed the returned vehicle in its inventory on its website renododge.com.
22) On 01/13/05 the General Manager sent a letter to Complainant's attorney attached to which were the purchase proposals that Complainant's attorney had been requesting for many weeks. Defendant's proposals were inaccurate in both price and terms, all to the detriment of Complainant. Additionally, Defendant's proposals made no mention of the costs that Complainant had previously paid on the original vehicle, nor how these costs would be credited against the purchase of a new vehicle.
23) In his letter of 01/13/05, the General Manager once again misrepresented the 0% interest rate incentive package that Daimler Chrysler was offering on the replacement vehicle.
24) In his letter of 01/13/05, the General Manager imposed an artificial deadline to complete the replacement vehicle sale. This artificial deadline had never before been disclosed to Complainant's attorney, and is an additional misrepresentation designed to force Complainant to agree with Defendant's unacceptable terms.
25) Attached to the General Manager's letter of 01/13/05 was a copy of a Reno Dodge check # 074355 made out to USA Federal Credit Union for the specific purpose of retiring the loan on the returned vehicle. As of 01/23/05, this check failed to arrive at the Credit union's offices thus leaving Complainant liable for the loan. Complainant believes that the check was just a ruse resulting in yet another misrepresentation by Defendant.
Conclusion:
As this matter is still pending, there will probably be additional misrepresentations that can be added to those listed above.
Complainant wonders if Defendant will disclose the pre-sale damage and repair of the returned vehicle to the next purchaser of it?
Given all that Complainant has witnessed to date, he has formed the opinion that Reno Dodge Sales, Inc. Believes that its' business license entitles it to lie, cheat and steal from its customers with complete impunity. Due to the lack of consumer protection statutes in Nevada, they can. Nevada auto dealerships have nothing to fear from their customers due to this absence of State regulation.
Complainant is much impressed by the skill with which Defendant sold him a previously damaged and repaired vehicle at an inflated price with a jacked up interest rate.
0 comments