;
  • Report:  #1234180

Complaint Review: Mike Reichenbach Chevrolet - Okatie South Carolina

Reported By:
Michelle - Hilton Head, South Carolina, U.S.A.
Submitted:
Updated:

Mike Reichenbach Chevrolet
10 University Parkway Okatie, 29909 South Carolina, USA
Phone:
844-250-1764
Web:
www.mrchevrolet.com
Categories:
Tell us has your experience with this business or person been good? What's this?
Report Attachments

I traded in a vehicle at the end of 2014 for the current year model. Until recently the care from this dealership was great from the service department, the familiar faces that were there when they openned earlier in 2014 were all gone, and replaced with new faces. Even the charm was gone that was so refreshing to see in a dealership.

One of the options that was part of the deal that was recently installed was not correct, and the new service manager proceeded to give me a line of BS, basically dismissing the problem as not an issue she needed to concern herself with.

I had to complain about this to upper management because she is the SERVICE MANAGER, it turns out the issue was covered in a TSB, and in fact was an issue and created a safety and driving hazard, and in some state would have not even passed inspection (like in VA).

When I got the car back they did not even take the time to put down paper floor protectors, and seat protectors. Until recently they washed all cars before giving them back to customers when they were in for service. I don't know if that's standard, all I can say is the last time they gave it back to me unwashed. I don't think that matters however, its a perk thats nice but not something customers are entitled too.

I recently called because of a fuel consumption issue, and got the same service manager and the same kind of BS as in my previous experience, all she wanted to do was argue with me. The matter was left as she would ask her service tech, and get back to me. She never did.

Over that weekend I had to solve the problem without the dealerships help even though the vehicle is under warranty.

 

The following week, I get a call from the dealership, and they accused me of cursing, which is not true, and I have a witness to such, and asked me to use a another dealer. 

Since then I have re-reviewed the paperwork for the deal, and found that they actually engaged in fraud on the deal. During the closing of the deal the finance officer tried to upsell me on there EASYCARE extended warranty service, I told them I only wanted GMPP. The gave me a contract to sign that was made to appear as it was GMPP, as it had the chevy symbol followed by the words Protection Plan. But on the retail sales order they put the words "EASYCARE VSC".  Sometime later EASYCARE "Total-care" papers arrived in mail. So it turns out the had me sign a contract for AMT's Platinum, and substituted what they tried to upsell me earlier. Which was EASYCARE "TOTALCARE". They even left the spot on the credit contract where the third party payee is suppossed to be entered blank, which clearly seems to indicate they intended to substitute this item. Leaving such items blank is violation of the Truth in Lending Act, which requires a payments to third parties and add-ons that are included in the amount financed to be itemized.

This is outright fraud, as no contract was ever signed for EASYCARE "TOTALCARE". It turns out they activated service contracts for my vehicle with both easycare and AMT. (I think the later they did by mistake).

I have had to purchase GMPP directly from GMPP, and having to go thru the legal hassle of cancelling these extended warranties they stuck me with by there fraudulent actions, which is difficult as the easycare there is not contract and the AMT there is but only because they misrepresented it as GMPP.

Its going to be a while before I get me $972 back for this warranty that I did not want in the first place, and was not what I asked for.

So far they have not responded to a demand to cure sent to them via there other dealership in florence where the owner lives and works out of. 

 



1 Updates & Rebuttals

RESOLVED

#2Author of original report

Tue, June 16, 2015

Mike Reichenbach as required by third party contract with AMT tendered refund of 972.00 that was refunded to them by AMT. It is unknown if this dealership would have refunded if a third party contract was not involved. Contract required them to tender to lien holder. Tender was made directly. Obvious the terms of contracts don't mean much to them.

 

Reports & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
Also a victim?
Repair Your Reputation!
//