On November 30 I test-drove a '95 Ford Taurus, VIN 1FALP584XSA253035. Upon discovering a recall notice with the owner's papers in the glove compartment, I asked two salesmen directly if the car had been a subject of a recall and the head gasket replaced. Each claimed it had been.
As a condition of the purchase they agreed to repair the noisy brakes and address the problem with the car stuttering between 55 and 65 mph. This took the form of a work order.
On the following Tuesday I took the car to their used card service center on West Main Street in Spartanburg. At that time the service manager explained the brakes and rotors were new and the coating on the rotors would wear off in a few days.
I asked directly about the fact that the car stuttered and the fact that I discovered the radiator was low on antifreeze and it was a brownish color. He said the stutter was probably due to "bad gas" as the car had been sitting for a while and told me to top off the antifreeze, as that was "normal."
I asked him directly if the car had been a subject of a recall and the head gasket had been replaced as described by the salesman and he replied, "Yes." And he indicated he had overseen the repairs.
On April 16 I stopped by their used car dealership on West Main St in Spartanburg and the salesman made an offer to accept the Taurus on trade for 2001 Mercury.
The used car sales manager "Frenchy" took the car for a test drive. After returning I waited for more than one hour before my salesman, Sam Wilson told me their computers were down and they could not complete the application and would I mind coming back on Monday.
On the way home I immediately felt a problem with the car at idle. Upon returning home I called Sam Wilson repeatedly to which he said "Frenchy" would call right back. He never did.
During a third call another salesman told me Sam Wilson and Frenchy were too busy to take my call as they were closing multiple deals. I asked about the supposed "computer problem" and he informed me none had occurred that he was aware of...
On Monday I e-mailed their Internet sales representative, and called Mr. Bailey's secretary. Frenchy eventually called back after I sent a fax requesting either the completion of the deal or repair of my car, informing of my intent to file a complaint with the South Carolina Attorney General as they are states contractors supplying police vehicles to numerous municipalities.
"Frenchy" said the car I planned to purchase was unavailable but he had another, albeit at a monthly payment twice what was offered before.
When pressed he admitted the reluctance to repair my car was due to the "excessive costs."
Discussions with Mr. Bailey and his secretary also alluded to "Frenchy's" assessment of the need for extensive repairs.
During a phone conversation with Vic Bailey II he told an elderly family member, my 80-year-old mother, to "Shut the he11 up and hang up the phone. I don't want to hear it."
Until this point myself had only described the problem as an "idle" problem, which could have been something as simple as a vacuum hose or a bad plug.
When speaking to Mr. Bailey's secretary and informing them of our intent to take legal action she responded by saying "Mr. Bailey says go ahead and after you get an attorney we will negotiate.
An independent mechanic diagnosed the car the following day as suffering from a blown head gasket with an estimated cost to repair at over $1200.
A carfax reports the car was never subject of a recall, so it is very unlikely that the gasket was ever replaced. And the independent mechanic saw no signs of any such repairs.
Calls to several Service Managers at Ford dealerships, including two locations of Vic Bailey resulted in the identical responses. When informed that I had a '95 Taurus with a "stutter" and brown fluid in the antifreeze, each manager including the original Vic Bailey service manager immediately diagnosed the problem as a blown head gasket and referred to a Ford Service Bulletin explaining the symptoms and remedy.
The same manager that told me the head gasket had been replaced, and diagnosed the same symptoms as "bad gas" when Vic Bailey automotive was contractually obligated to repair the problem, now said they were signs of a blown head gasket.
It is clear Vic Bailey's representative had prior knowledge of the problem given the fact that Frenchy claimed to only have driven the car "around the block" yet determined the costs of repairs to be excessive.
Had the auto been repaired prior to sale, the costs to Vic Bailey in parts would have been less than $200. The labor, expensed by using in house mechanics when not working on customer's cars would have cost nothing.
I have a vehicle that will not run without $1200-$1800 in repairs. I was forced to rent a car for $330 for one week in order to get to work (and until a friend was able to loan me a car.) And I now have a vehicle worth approximately $2000 with a payoff figure of $3600.
Given the fact that Vic Bailey's representatives, by either incompetence or intent provided incorrect information, and a third, the service manger, also concurred despite obvious signs of preeminent failure, I believe they are in breech of contract as the addendum clearly states the 'stutter" would be correct as a condition of the sale."
0 comments