Complaint Review: Arizona Auto Dealers - Phoenix Arizona

Dealer documentation fees are nothing more than a rip off Dealer documentation fees State by State Nationwide, REFUSE TO BE THEIR SUCKER........

Dave is dead on the money in my opinion. I am the internet manager of a nation wide automotive group and I can tell you that out of the 31 dealerships my company owns, the average monthly expense just to keep the doors open is more than $300,000. I work in Atlanta where property and advertising is more expensive that the average. My dealership spends more that $520,000 every month. That doesn't include the expense for "yanks". That is just the everyday cost of paying the bills plus advertising. As far as the DOC fee, it is a rip off. But customers have given dealers no choice but to charge the outrages fees because of the internet. A customer can go to a large number of websites and find out exactly what dealer invoice is, and yes, also what the holdback is. The Doc fee usually goes to the dealer principle (or owner). That is his return on the investment he made in buying a dealership. But because the internet has made it virtually impossible to make a fair and reasonable profit on a vehicle, dealers are forced to charge an outrages DOC fee. The fee at my dealership is $489.50 by the way. Also think about the amount of profit vs the cost of the car. If the car is $30,000 and the dealer wants to make $1200, that is only a 4% margin. Sounds pretty reasonable to me. I think the goverment should do away with DOC fees all together. And there should be a reasonable percentage of profit agreed upon. Hell, in detroit, all of the dealerships are unionized. They don't open on the weekends and they DON'T NEGOTIATE. I agree that the Doc fees are crazy, but the customer brings most everything on themselves by being "greedy" like you think dealers are. And Frank, dealers are not your enemy. It sounds like you've had a bad experience, but who knows, maybe you are just a jerk and no dealer could possibly please you. It happens more often than you might think.

Dave, Your argument makes a number of good points. However, I find a number of things youve chosen to omit which, if considered, would show that your apparently reasoned conclusions are actually nothing more than spin. A dealer CHOOOSES to make a spot delivery on a vehicle. By doing so he puts himself at risk of having a deal go bad if he can not find financing for the buyer. If there is any question about the buyers credit worthiness it is up to the dealer to protect himself by not allowing a $30,000 piece of property to leave the lot unsecured. No one is forcing the dealer to spot a car to a dead beat. Most of the complains registered in the Rip-Off Reports are not from buyers who have had to give back the cars they thought they had purchased. The complaints are from buyers who have had to give back their cars and have lost substantial deposits when dealers would not refund them. Giving a car to a buyer who the finance department knows is not going to be financed then keeping the deposits removes the risk to the dealer and places it on the buyer. The risk does not belong on the buyers shoulders, he is not the one making the profit. Placing risk on the buyer is unethical. Your points about dealer profit are absurd if looked at closely. First, you fail to mention the dealer hold back which is about 3% of the purchase price. On a $30,000 vehicle this would be $900 making the dealer already nearl the break even point for the transaction (assuming his cost per vehicle is really $1200). Im sure you know that the finance department of a dealership isnt there to make the buying experience a joy for the customer. Its there to make money for the dealership, and make money they do. Finally, even if the a car was sold at invoice minus the 3% hold back, the profit from maintenance and repair on the vehicle would still keep the dealer on the plus side of the money equation. What is the average gross on auto-repairs at a dealership Dave? Im afraid I must conclude that allocating the entire operating cost for a dealership to car sales alone fails the smell test. The dealer is not in business to sell cars at a loss but neither is it the consumers responsibility to insure that the dealer can pay his sons tuition bill at Princeton this semester. Car buyers need to realize, NO ONE in the dealership is their friend. The sooner they come to this realization the better of they will be.

Ok, Jim let's talk about the "yank." First off, I am not employed by a car dealership. I work in the financial services field and have for over 22 years. I used to repossess cars for a large bank in the Pacific Northwest, ran collections for the same bank, and have been a loan office in both a bank and a captive finance company. I can tell you all about the lies that customers use to get a loan or to get out of paying for one. So, if you want to learn something, let the class begin First, are you trying to tell me that a customer who lives in a community with an HOA and in a house with a small garage doesn't know up front what the community rules are or whether or not a Ford F350 will fit in the garage before they go and buy it? Please explain to me how that is the dealer's fault. Why should the dealer have to pay for taking that unit back in stock as a USED truck after the dealer negotiated in good faith with the customer and agreed to a contract? And when that customer takes the truck back to the dealership why should the dealer have to pay for the deprecation? The dealer cannot sell that truck as new because it is against the law. It is worth less through no fault of the dealer. But according to your logic, the dealer should be a nice guy and take the thing back because of the incompetence of the buyer. No, Jim, in fact it is the customers who want the option to get out of their contracts at any cost while holding the dealer's "feet to the fire." Let's turn this around. I believe both the customer and the dealer should live up to the provisions in the contract. But if the customer has the "right" to return the truck because it doesn't fit in the garage, or simply changes his or her mind, shouldn't the dealer also have the right to change their mind? What would you think if within 3 days after the sale and delivery of the unit the dealer shows up on the customer's doorstep wanting the truck back because they found someone who would pay more for it? Not a good idea, is it? And that is what contracts are for. It protects both the buyer and seller in the transaction. The last time I purchased a truckan F250 Super Duty PUI made sure it fit in my garage first by taking the measurements of the garage door of my house (actually my wife did that) with me to the dealership. I made sure it fit BEFORE I negotiated for the truck. And when it came time to sign the papers, we signed 32 pieces of paper! Let me say that again32 pieces of paper. I have them all. They are titled "No Cooling Off Period", "Financing Pending," among other things. Why do dealers have to do that? To protect themselves BECAUSE CUSTOMERS LIE!!!! But do you know the number one reason why people want to get out of their cars? It is not because they believe they were ripped-off by the dealer, or the finance rate was too high, or that they were pressured to take the car by the dealer. Nope. The number one reason people want to get out of their cars is because they DIDN'T CHECK THE COST OF INSURANCE! The customer gets home, calls their agent, and has a heart attack because of the cost of the insurance just added another $100 to the overall price of the vehicle. If you can't afford the insurance, you have no business buying a car. But of course, according to you, that is the dealer's fault. He should just take the truck back without compensation. Go back and read the postings to this web site. Just about every person thought that it was a rip-off that the dealer wanted to change mileage on the returned unit. How horrible! Before you think I am some sort of a cold-hearted individual, I know that sometimes bad things happen to good people. Through no fault of their own, they are faced with circumstances that are out of their control and they at times need help. That's why second chance lenders came into being. It was to provide those individuals with an avenue of finance to help them get back on their feet creditwise. But these peopel seem to be the exceptions to the rule. Second, there is no benefit to the dealer to "yank" a car back. That dealer wants that car to stay sold. They want to be able to get the loan bought by a bank so then can pocket the commission (there is nothing wrong with thatI will explain in a moment). The problem comes in when the CUSTOMER wants delivery of the car RIGHT NOW!!! Forget the fact that about 60% of the buyers out there right now have horrible credit. It doesnt' matter if it is their fault, the dealers fault, or nobody's fault. They 're the ones with bad credit and not the dealer. However, the dealer accommodates the customer by "spotting" the customer the car so they can take it home pending finance approval. But what is the dealer supposed to do when ALL banks reject the loan? The banks are not in business to take risks. They are in business to make sound loan judgments based on historical information and prudent lending policies. If a person has shown in the past that they either can't or won't repay a loan on time or at all, what do you want the banks to do? Lend them the money anyway? If they do they will loose money because they will suffer astonishing loan losses, which in turn drive up interest rates making it more expensive for everybody to borrow money. In fact, most of the "sub-prime" lenders that were out there at this time last year are out of business this year. Do you know why? Because people with bad credit went bad on their loans! Oh, they were sorry they had bad credit. In fact, most of them were very, very, sorry they had bad credit. I'll bet a few of them were even very, very, VERY sorry they had paid all of their obligations late, and that they really promised to be good this time. But it doesnt' change the fact that they went bad on their loans. In other words, they LIED! And do you know what the costs of these lies are to you as a consumer who pays your bills? As I said about: higher interest rates. The company I work for looses $8,000 per carTHAT'S $8,000that we repossess and take to the auction. We don't want to repossess any car, but if we let people just pay late, we will loose over $10,000 per car, which is the average charge-off amount (a charge-off is when a lender will write off the loan because they can't find the collateral to reposes it because the customer is hiding it in violation of the contract)! I know you aren't going to believe these figures, but liars seldom believe the truth. And third, there is nothing wrong with a dealer making money. Do you know how much a dealer has to make just to break even? The dealer has to make about $1,200 per car sold! And that is before the owner pays himself or herself a fair return on their investment. That pays for the lights, insurance, attorney's fees, interest, training, building, licenses, and salaries. And part of that amount has to cover the cost of TAKING BACK CARS FROM PEOPLE WHO CAN'T GET FINANCED! Just for the record, I know that some car dealers will lie and stretch the truth to make a car deal. I would be delusional if I thought otherwise. But be honest, Jim! It's not like the customers are the Christians being lead to the lions here. People will lie if it is in their best interest. And it is not just people who work in car dealerships. Read some of these postings on this web site. Some of the logic that people put forth just doesnt make sense because they are trying to support their lie! And anybody who challenges them is accused of working for the industry and attacking the "victim"like you just did. By the way, I bet you don't like it when I call customers "liars" do you? Well, neither do the hard working people in car dealerships!

David you say in your rebuttal that you take great issue to what I have said. You say that car buyers do not have a right to a cooling off period. OK. Let's chat about how a car dealer will stuff a car buyer into a "spot delivery" or what some of you people call a "yank" you know make them think the car deal has been approved and then the greedy finance department will YANK the buyer back down to the scene of the slim and try to con the buyer into a higher interest rate. What if the buyer says "HELL NO, KEEP THE CAR" are you going to charge them for the miles? Are you going to charge them for the gas in the car? Let's say a buyer buys a new F350 truck and lives in an area that will not permit home owners to park in their driveways, truck buyer gets home and the new F350 will not fit in his or her garage, are you going to hold their feet to the fire, or are you going to unwind the deal? The problem that we have here, is that car dealers want to be able to hold the Buyer's feet to the fire, but let a car buyer try to hold the dealer's feet to a fire! Can't have that! You also say people lie, Just like car sales people. They lie to make the sale and kick the buyer to the curb. David it seems to me that you are a sales manager or a GSM. How many BCA'S do you use a month? If a car buyers asks you if they can drive the car home alone without a salesperson, would you let them? Car dealers do not want car buyers to have the chance to go to a dealer down the street and make deal else where. So TO HELL WITH THE BCA'S or the BVA's What I am saying is car buyers are sick and tired of the BS they have to go through just to buy a car. Car dealers are not happy with an honest profit, so they create all kinds of BS fee's to make mo money. Bottom line, greed and that's it. Car dealers and car makers have to except the fact that they can't hide anymore under their deception rug!

I take great issue with the implication (that means you said it without saying it) that there is some collusion between the car dealers and the state legislature which blocks a customer from having a 3-day rescission option on a car purchase. You cited that Best Buy, JC Penney, and other department stores honor this option and wondered why don't the car dealers. Once again, this website confuses perception with fact. Let me help you out here. As surprising as you will find this, you DO NOT have the "right" to a cooling off period on any merchandise that you purchase on any company's property. What you have is an exchange policy set by each individual store that allows you take a product home, and if something isn't right or it doesn't work, you may bring it back. State or federal law does not mandate this. In fact, I can name a couple of stores in this citysome furniture stores to be specificthat tell you there is NO RETURN policy and all sales are final. The "cooling off" period is applicable only when a sales person goes to a private residence, demonstrates, negotiates, and sells a product. Then and only then does the customer have 3 days to change his or her mind. The federal government realized that door-to-door sales people can use very high-pressure sales tactics to sell their products and once the sale was completed and the sales person was long gone, there was no way the customer could get their money back if the product didn't work as demonstrated. As a form of protection, the federal government passed a law that REQUIRES the cooling off period for all sales that are generated at private residences. First and second mortgages also have to offer this protection to be in compliance with federal law. Now if a person representing a car dealership comes to your private residence with the intent to negotiate, sell, and deliver a car or truck, then the dealership has to honor the cooling off period. I am willing to bet a year's subscription to Automotive News that there are virtually no door-to-door car sales in this country. That means that the customer has to go to the dealershipwhich is private property by the wayto buy a new or used car. That customer will test drive, negotiate, sign the documents, and more importantly, take delivery from the dealership site, which again is private property. Federal law does not provide anyone with a cooling off period under these circumstances. Why do stores have return policies? Not all stores do! In fact I purchase a piece of furniture this past Sunday, February 23, 2003 from such a store. I purchased it knowing that I assumed all the risks as to its usefulness in my house. If it didn't fit in the space I had to place it or it was the wrong color, I was out of luck. It was mine. For stores that do offer a return policy, it depends upon the store and merchandise purchased. And then there may be a restocking fee applied. Why do store restrict this policy? BECAUSE PEOPLE LIE! I know that is hard for you to understand but customers lie all the time. They lie as to the amount they paid, why the product they purchase isn't right, or whether or not they broke the product getting it out of the box. In fact there is a nationally run commercial that is airing right now the shows a customer in the "Returns" line thinking up of various reasons why he wanted to return the product he purchased. In other words, he is formulating his lie! And to answer the weak argument the customers are forced to lie because merchants lie I say: There is no valid excuse for dishonesty, no valid substitute for honesty. Because of this, many stores, including the ones you mentioned, have adjusted their return policy to protect the store from customers who suffer from nothing more than buyer's remorse. These changes include in-store credit rather than cash back, a limit to the time you can bring a product back, or as I mentioned above, the application of a restocking fee. I purchased a watch for my wife in February that we returned and received an in-store credit, not a cash refund. It is impossible for a car dealer to offer any kind of a return policy on cars or trucks they sell. For one thing, the car is NEVER returned in the exact same condition as it was when it left the store: the car will have the miles driven by the customer on the odometer. Mileage impacts a car's value more than any other factor. Therefore, the car is worth less if the car was returned with mileage on it. Customers actually understand this far better than you will admit. There are more people out there that have disconnected their odometer in violation of federal law in order to get a higher resale value, than there are car dealers who employ the same practice. Car dealers go to jail if they are caught doing this. I see no reason that a private citizen shouldn't be held to the same standard when they attempt to trade-in their cars with disconnected odometers. Do you want car dealers to report these people to the authorities for prosecution? I believe they should! Returned products are also worth less than if they were sold new. All you have to do prove this is go to the home page of the Rip-Off report and scroll down. You will find a heading that complains about an electronics store that allegedly is selling returned items as new. But what if the store only offered a percentage of the amount paid for a product if it is returned? I can only imagine the content of the postings to your web site. But it is permissible for a merchant or car dealership to loose money on a return item because they can't sell the product as new. Another reason that it is impossible for a car dealer to offer a return policy on cars and trucks is the legal responsibility a dealership has to perfect the title within a prescribed period of time. Once financing is approved or if a customer pays cash, the dealer will immediately submit the title work to the MVD to perfect the lien. This is usually done the next day. So, the dealer goes to the MVD, processes the title, sends the notice of sale to the state and manufacture, and guess what happens! The customer wants to bring the car back! Because that car was title, it becomes a used car under Arizona law. The dealership cannot sell that car as new to the subsequent buyer because the law says they can't. That also devalues the car. Now, I have read enough of the your responses on this website to understand that you don't believe that is fair for the dealer to charge mileage or a restocking fee to protect the dealer from the devalued cost of the car. But you sure don't mind making the dealer lose thousands of dollars per car, and it is thousands of dollars, because you want the right to renege on a legal contract while holding the dealer's feet to the fire in every minute detail of the transaction. So, the question now is: If you are wrong about the availability to a customer of a 3-day rescission agreement option when purchasing a car from a dealership, what else are you wrong about? Could it be the "doc fees?" I wonder