Complaint Review: Don Waisenan Dba Carbuychoice - Riverside California

It is important that anyone reading the above statement consider the facts of this case. There are reasons why the Superior Court of California (for the County of Orange), the Better Business Bureau, all of our advertisers, both an official Jaguar and an official Big O Tires service center, and our company all found that these claims are unsubstantiated. To bring this into immediate focus either ALL of these organizations and our business are incorrect about the veracity of these statements, or this is an unwarranted smear campaign against us by one individual who has already been discredited in a court of law. We will provide the key facts of this case, which were omitted from the above statement, and show exactly why all the above agencies decided that a) these claims are false or omit important details, and b) Carbuychoice did everything within its power to make this customer happy (in fact, we did not need to do anything for this customer, given the unsubstantiated claimsbut decided to pay for items not covered under the warranty, given our commitment to servicing every customer's needs she does not mention any of this in her statement). We will respond to each of the claims above, so there is no ambiguity or doubt as to the decision of the court in this case. We are a caring company, as five years of business and THOUSANDS of customers can attest (see testimonials at www.carbuychoice.com/frontend/testimonials.asp). We take every customer claim seriously, and do everything we can to make sure they are satisfied. This is actually the one quality that most separates our company from all the other car dealerships out there that every customer gets the personal attention they need in choosing and buying a car. Every car goes through a detailed inspection process prior to delivery. This is why customers return to us time and time again, and most of our business runs on referrals. In an industry known for unethical behavior, people TRUST us, so it is important that these charges be quickly addressed. Here are the facts: 1) She had an accident with this vehicle within the first few weeks of purchase and then tried to blame it on a prior condition. THIS IS THE KEY FACT OMITTED FROM THE STATEMENT ABOVE, upon which much of this turns. When she brought concerns to our attention, we took her Jaguar to an official Jaguar service center to inspect the vehicle. They found nothing wrong with the vehicle, other than the damage sustained to it by her accident. We also took it to Big O Tires service center, a second source in order to double check this. This service center came to the same conclusion. We paid extra money to have the vehicle inspected by these two neutral sources, and have verified, official documents from both of them. We checked on this, out of our own pocket, because we are relentless about making sure every person who walks into and out of our business is satisfied. 2) When she purchased the vehicle, it was fully disclosed that it had been in a minor fender bender, which was supported by the CarFax report indicating: NO frame damage and NO air bag deployment. This was an exterior, cosmetic incident that had nothing to do with the damage she made to the vehicle. 3) We offered her an extended warranty, but declined and signed an acknowledgement that she was purchasing the vehicle AS IS. This is not simply a matter of opinion or assertion; the exact page and signature are on file and in the court records. The page where this is signed is not equivocal in any sense, as the large letters AS IS are right next to the signature area, and we run through this with every customer. 4) After we discovered that it was not possible to satisfy this customer's concerns, we sent her a written offer to repurchase the vehicle and refund all her money, but she ignored the offer. 5) The judge who examined all the information above thoroughly ruled against this complaint because she had unfounded statements, our company did everything reasonable to satisfy her needs, and the determining facts above. 6) Lastly, it is important that even minor points are correct, and she fails to meet even this standard. The customer purchase date was not June 15th, 2007, but June 19th, 2007. The mileage on the car was 43,934, not 39,400. These may be minor points, but they evidence a pattern of carelessness with the facts that is representative of the unwarranted opinions and grand omissions above. Whenever there is a dispute, we try diligently to satisfy every customer complaint. We have gone above and beyond what any company would be expected to do to accommodate this customer. She has been exposed for lack of credibility and evidence in a neutral court of law, and therefore unhappy with the consequences. She has been unsuccessful with the Court, the Better Business Bureau, and others willing to review these facts. This is not simply a matter of unfounded assertion and attack, which ripoff.com thrives upon. Ripoff.com simply ignores that the due process of law has already been served; credible sources will take responsibility for their content. She ignored the facts and the Court decision. As a result, she is attempting to mount an unreasonable smear campaign based on unsupported accusations. As can be seen, we are an open and honest company, and will try to do everything to exceed our customers' expectations that is and will always be our company policy.