Complaint Review: Emich VW - denverc Colorado

Fred Emich IV-owner of company. I was attempting to expose the situation, but since you've taken a personal attack stance, we'll go that route. I'm not sure how you could know what actually happened because you didn't get involved until the last minute. When I contacted Emich Volkswagen the first time in September of 2009, instead of blowing me off you should have taken my situation seriously. It wasn't until Jan of 2010 when legal action was suggested that I received a reply-and from your representative.  I know that as the "BIG car dealer" you're used to running the average guy like me over, but that simply is NOT going to happen in this case.

First: Clerical error? Not true. If so, then why did an Emich Volkswagen representative attempt to conseal the alleged mistake? Signing another person's name on a legal contract resulting in a change of agreement terms WITHOUT THAT PERSON'S KNOWLEDGE is EASILY defined as fraud. Second: Here's an analogy for comparison of Emich Volkswagen's attempt to refund the cost of the service contract: if you've paid $5,000 towards a $500,000 life insurance policy then die, should your beneficiary expect the $5,000 you've paid in premiums? Simple anwer: no. Additionally, the Release of Claims is dependent upon receipt of funds from Emich Volkswagen; the funds have never been received by me. Third: The reason the experienced VW mechanic, aka according to Fred Emich IV the "buddy," was invited into the picture is because the car was inoperable due to a failed engine component-I believe the water pump-in September of 2009. When I contacted Zurich to see how to have the issue addressed, I was told the warranty was expired-after further research I found that the reason it was expired is because an Emich Volkswagen representative filed fraudulent paperwork. Fourth: I have written comunication from Chris Condon, the finance manager at Emich Volkswagen and person that  filed the paperwork between Emich Volkswagenand Zurich, proving that Emich Volkswagen a) was aware that the car was inoperable  b) "would like to trade (me) out of the car if possible, and if not, we will do the repairs at the dealership." and c) representative would reiburse the transportation amount. Fred's story has so many holes, it's starting to look like swiss cheese. Here's the main difference between our narratives: mine account states facts while yours states opinion.

I've said it numerous times but will state it again, the engine was rebuilt and the expenses for that repair not including transportation total $5,500 and I am seeking reimbursement from Emich VW for expenses incurred. That's the only happy ending to this story and the only way this will end.

Emich admits to making a clerical, not fraudulent error with the paperwork. This error was the reason we agreed to reimburse Mr. Wegs for what he paid for the warranty. Originally Emich agreed to do the repairs on Mr. Wegs vehicle (actually Zurich the warranty provider agreed to reinstate the warranty to cover the claim) however Mr. Wegs failed to notify Emich that he had a buddy try to replace the timing belt in his Passat. When Emich began to dismantle the vehicle to make repairs we noticed that the vehicle had a brand new timing belt on it that was severely off time. At this point we contacted Mr. Wegs to inquire about our findings. He was very reluctant to admit to the botched repairs. We then contacted the buddy who replaced the timing belt and he sent us the old timing belt and other parts he removed from the vehicle. After talking to him it was clear he was not qualified to perform a timing belt replacement on a VW. Zurich sent a claims adjuster out to inspect the vehicle and the adjusted declined the repair because the claim was to fix what another mechanic did wrong, not a mechanical failure. We informed Mr. Wegs that Zurich had declined the claim and that we did not feel it was our responsibility to fix damage another mechanic had caused. Mr. Wegs agreed to the refund of the amount he paid for the service contract and signed a legal Release of Claims.

I am sorry Scott, but if you would have been truthful with us about your buddy replacing the timing belt we would not have had you tow the vehicle down here to tell you we would not cover the repairs.

I have done so, thanks for the suggestion.

It sounds to me that the dealer just lied or faked the terms of the warranty. I have been in the car business for years and I have never heard of a extended warranty that is in addition to the mile on the car. Typically if it is for 75,000 mile then once the odometer hits 75,000 the warranty is finished.

I am not sure what recourse you have other than to take this dealer to court.

Good luck and please do not think all car dealers and sales professionals are crooks, yes there are many out there but there are also a lot of honest people who do their best to please the customer.

and get your story to Deborah Sherman or any of the other Investigative Reporters immediately!