Complaint Review: Charlie Falk Auto

Here is my demand for restitution-Falk Motors, Auto Finance, and Agents

(Breach of Contract, Breach of Duty, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Trespass to Chattel, Defamation, False Representation, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Unjust Enrichment; And Violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Virginia Uniform Commercial Code, the Virginia Consumer Protection Act, common law fraud and conspiracy.)been trying to reach your office of operations, agent or representative for some time now. All of her letters have been returned and incorrectly stamped as being the “wrong address.”  Auto Finance and Faulk Motors jointly owe  $336,000 plus interest for damage in causal chain link of more than 12 years of published defamation, credibility damage, taking funds out of her son’s military paycheck account, and emotional damage, placing her in physical harm in collusion with Falk Motors.

This is concerning a contract that was breached by Auto Finance Company (“Auto Finance”) in collusion with Faulk Motors in 2005, when a contract to finance the purchase of an automobile from Faulk Motors lot in Chesterfield, Virginia. A contract where Auto Finance in collusion with Falk Motors was enriched unjustly against her.

In 2005, she reasonably relied upon statements made by your sales clerk that induced her to purchase a vehicle from your Midlothian Turnpike lot in Richmond Virginia, the vehicle failed within months with electrical problems (causing a fire and the vehicle stopping in the middle of a dark road where she was almost run over by a dump truck while pushing the vehicle out of the road), engine failure (causing a fire and leaving her stranded in Georgia), Upon further examination, the vehicle was found to have had a rusted undercarriage and frame from water damage that had been painted over, and an odometer that was rolled back causing her to believe the vehicle’s major mechanical parts would work for the duration of the financed loan period. 

However, a few months later, the engine failed was during a trip out of town. According to several mechanics, who determined the engine failure was not due to any user related required repairs and to be in excess of $7,000 (mechanical engine failure causing smoke, and fire that could have injured her, and her passenger).  She notified Auto Finance because incident required months of auto rentals, repairs, and the vehicle at issue became a substantial financial burden. During negotiation talks with auto finance to settle the matter, Auto Finance wanted the vehicle towed thousands of miles back to Falk Motors for repairs. She asked that Auto Finance have it repaired by a local mechanic because she needed transportation, and could not pay for car rental, car payments, the expensive car repairs, and the thousands of dollars needed to tow the vehicle back to Faulk Auto for repairs.  Auto Finance refused to pay the towing to return the vehicle for repairs, leaving her, stranded out of town without transportation. 

After months of trying to negotiation with the Auto Finance and Faulk Motors for repair and continued payment, she surrendered the vehicle by letter and orally on the phone to your Auto Finance agent. Auto Finance and Falk Motors refused to recover the vehicle after repeated requests, and listed it as repossessed on her credit report leaving her unable to purchase any other vehicle for over a decade. She had to tow the vehicle with her when this incident caused her a great fiancial hardship.  She moved several times, towed the vehicle with her, kept the vehicle registered and licensed, and informed Auto Finance by mail and phone calls (that were rejected) to come get the vehicle.  Finally, the laws and covenant in her community would no longer allow a nonworking vehicle to be parked in the lot. Therefore, the vehicle at question had to be listed abandoned and towed to an abandoned vehicle lot.

Previously, Auto Finance’s agents act of freezing the sons joint bank and her credit account, has caused injury in a causal chain linked full of events of loss to include $4,000 in credit loss, upon the freezing of accounts, to which she has had to pay out of pocket. she has sufficient documentation to substantiate her claims in a court of law.  Furthermore, she wrote a 2016 demand for payment and preferred to put this matter in the past and move forward with just asking to have the matter closed at court. However, a 2018 garnishment of her paycheck is a new cause of action in a causal chain of events that reopens the clock on her demand for compensation in this matter.  Auto Finance and Falk have besmirched her name in public records for over 12 years with av claim of nonpayment and dishonoring a debt, published public records that kept her from  work opportunities, lowered her FICO score to keep her from purchasing new vehicle purchases, and home purchases by damaging her credit, and many other violations as listed above. A formal demand is hereby made that Auto Finance and their agents, and Falk Motors and their agents remit restitution in the total sum of $336,000.00, comprised of a personal loan made by an individual in the year 2007 for the purchase of another vehicle on her behalf in the balance of $25,500.00, fees in the amount of $6,852.00 incurred for towing and car rental fees in the last six months of 2006 because of her reasonable reliance in purchasing, and financing a vehicle through your companies and affiliates, $4,000 credit debt frozen, $300,000 in compensation for the 12 years of public notice of owing Auto Finance for a vehicle that your company knowingly colluded to sell and finance, a member of the consumer public, with the specific intent to defraud by leaving her with a debt for a non-working vehicle.

Further, Auto Finance and Falk Motors forfeited their rights by abandoning and not trying to recover or resell the vehicle.  Finally, because Auto Finance froze the bank accounts to collect a debt on a contract where Auto Finance breached their duty by selling a vehicle that was not safe for any consumer in a manner that would most likely shock the conscience of any court because it sold, hid water damage, changed mileage, told her it was fit for long drives, had no mechanical damage or repari needs, and financed in concert with its affiliates a vehicle that was not fully operational.