Complaint Review: MILLER TOYOTA - MILLER AUTOMOTIVE GROUP - TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION

I am a new immigrant and a first time car buyer, unsuspecting about the tricks and deception by car dealerships and auto lending companies in milking customers with their hard earned money. This is about my sad experience at the hands of these unscrupulous establishments.

I bought a used 2003 4Runner and signed a contract in good faith (first contract) on November 6,2004.

Adding insult to injury, I was called at my apartment about one to two weeks later, that the dealership has a good news which is a lowered APR for me . I went back to the dealership on November 20,2004 to sign a new contract (second contract) to avail the lower APR and went home immediately. I found out after examining the contract that my APR is decreased but I was deceived. Nonexistent accessories were put in the contract thereby increasing the loan amount, under Toyota Motor Credit. The contract is backdated on November 6,2004 although it was signed on November 20,2004. Miller Toyota made additional acts of deception as follows:

a) Six years of loan period instead of the regular five years;

b) Service options and accessories were included in the contract without asking for my consent, thereby making an impression to a first time buyer like me that these options are necessary in buying a car, like taxes.

By research for six months, I found out that I can rescind the contract for fraud as provided by California Civil Code Section 1689 (b). I sent them a demand letter for rescission based on fraud (Appendix 1), I was given a hard time to cancel the contract.

On June 2,2005, I met with Robert Leter - Finance Director, he offered me a lower price of the car from the previous contract so that I will be induced to keep the car instead of rescinding the contract. Instead of making it right this time, the dealership made extra outrageous acts:

1) I signed the third contract (Appendix 2) under duress (threat and act of unlawful detention);

2) I was forced to sign a blank credit application that is intended for Toyota Motor Credit as agreed but was used to make excessive credit inquiries with other lending companies thereby hurting my credit ;

3) The monthly payment is $619.15 for the loan amount of $28,346.50 for five years with APR of 11%. This is an act of predatory lending because the true monthly payment is only $616.00 when verified with online lending companies;

4) In cahoots with Toyota Motor Credit, the second contract is paid off instead of being rescinded as agreed. Thereby, I lost the payments I made under the second contract in the amount of $5,032.56;

5) I was forced to sign a statement that I sign the third contract without duress in violation of California Civil Code Section 2983.7 (a) (e).

I cancelled the third contract for fraud and duress (Civil Code 1689 b-1) by sending them a letter of cancellation with return receipt on June 17,2005 and return the car on June 21,2005 in accordance with the procedure provided under California Civil Code Section 1691, in the cases of Clanton v. Clanton and Weger v. Rocha.

The retail installment sale contract also provided for the cancellation of the contract for legal causes such as fraud. This is embedded in the contract under the heading of THERE IS NO COOLING PERIOD, last sentence which states After you sign below, you may only cancel this contract with the agreement of the seller OR FOR LEGAL CAUSE, SUCH AS FRAUD (capitalized letters added for emphasis). The first part provided for mutual rescission and the second part for unilateral rescission (Buyer's side). The legal causes for rescinding a contract under California law are mistake, duress, menace, fraud, or undue influence (CC 1689 b-1). This is so because a consent to a contract must be free (CC 1565). A consent obtained through duress and fraud is not free (CC 1567), thereby making the contract voidable.

Miller Toyota and Toyota Motor Credit made a collusion and declare repossession of the vehicle in a blatant display of violation of the California law. I believed that they know about the rescission rights of the buyer and rescission procedure but they are consumed by their corporate greed and disregarded California law as if they are above the law.

I tried to recover my $5,000 in a small claims case against Miller Toyota but was unsuccessful, for the dealership was able to deceive the judge that the amount was credited under the third contract. I filed a complaint in pro se with the Santa Monica Superior Court - Limited Jurisdiction (Case No. 05C02263) for declaratory relief for the rescission of the third contract but I am dismissing this case because seeking justice in a court of law is very expensive and time consuming for an average employee like myself.

So, I am requesting your office to investigate my complaint and please help me to seek justice and equity.

Isaac
LOS ANGELES, California
U.S.A.

Click here to read other Rip Off Reports on Toyota Dealers and Products