BMW of Fort Wayne

BMW of Fort Wayne responded

We sold the vehicle to this customer in 2009 with a clean title and CARFAX report. The customer contacted us in late 2015 to inform us that CARFAX added a record to the vehicle history report in 2013 - four years after our sale - indicating that the vehicle had been totaled in 2006. We contacted the Indiana BMV in 2015 and confirmed that the vehicle in fact has a clean title - as it did in 2009, per our documentation - leading us to believe that the CARFAX report obtained by the customer in 2015 was mistaken. We have since been working with CARFAX on this matter. With the documentation we were able to provide, CARFAX has now removed this apparently erroneous information from the report and we believe we have resolved the customer's concerns.

BMW of Fort Wayne responded

We have met with this customer and have reason to believe that this situation is resolved, although perhaps not entirely to his satisfaction. In this case, our business sold the vehicle to the customer represented "As-is, with no warranty," in part due to the modifications made by the prior owner to the suspension. At some point after the customer test-drove the vehicle, agreed to all terms, consummated the transaction and left the dealership, he contacted us and indicated that he was not happy with the modified suspension. Because we had provided the customer with all of the stock suspension parts given to us by its former owner, our manager did agree to explore participating financially in the labor required to re-install those parts. The customer selected the mechanic of his choice for this job and contacted us with a $450 estimate. At that time we explicitly committed to contribute $225, half of that estimate, as a gesture of goodwill to our new customer. The following week, the customer appeared at our business with a bill for services in the amount of nearly $1,400, and requested half of that sum. The other mechanic had apparently determined that additional parts were needed to complete the job and the customer had agreed to purchase and install those parts. We were not informed of the mechanic's recommendation or the customer's decision until after the fact, and would have looked for some other resolution before agreeing to offer a "blank check" to a third party mechanic outside of our review. When the customer appeared with this bill, our manager informed the customer that we would only stand by our $225 pledge. After the customer posted this review here and elsewhere, the customer visited to pick up the check for $225. We cordially discussed the facts of the matter and remain satisfied that our employees acted honestly and in good faith. We firmly dispute the customer's claims in this review related to the honesty or the general integrity of our business.

BMW of Fort Wayne responded

We are disappointed to hear that this customer feels he or she was in any way misled or insulted. (Because we had multiple visits from customers interested in this vehicle around that time, it's difficult to tell who the customer might be.) This vehicle was purchased at auction for $45,415 in March 2014 with another customer in mind. After roughly $1,500 in auction fees, transportation and reconditioning we listed the vehicle for sale at just under $50,000. In the used vehicle retail business, unsold used vehicles lose their value quickly, especially at higher prices. This is unfortunate for the dealer, but can certainly work to the benefit of a customer who is patient and has researched the market. At the time this vehicle was sold last month - six months after we purchased it from the auction - it was listed for sale at $42,997, 92% of the average retail price for similar vehicles in this market. We sold it for $42,500 to a customer who was perfectly satisfied with the selling price. It's still the case today that we have a few used vehicles listed for sale at prices that allow for minimal, if any, discounting. If the reviewer left our business with the perception that he or she was being gouged, our sales team clearly did not do an acceptable job of justifying our asking price with transparent facts, and we apologize for the customer's unpleasant shopping experience.

BMW of Fort Wayne responded

This was a case of poor internal communication by our sales team, and the customer’s dissatisfaction is entirely justified. The negotiations between the salesperson and the customer took place over several weeks by phone (the customer lives more than an hour away from our business), and during that period we were unable to reach a mutually agreeable price for the vehicle. Our used car manager ultimately determined that agreement was unlikely and decided to dispose of the vehicle at the auction. Unfortunately, the salesperson was not aware of this, and continued discussions with the customer over the next few days regarding the vehicle. On the day they reached agreement, the vehicle had already been sold. The salesperson did not learn that the vehicle had gone to auction until he informed the manager that he had secured a commitment from the customer. This salesperson should have set clearer expectations with the customer that he needed to confirm the vehicle's current availability before formally accepting an offer. While we did not intend to mislead the customer - after all, it is almost always better for our business to sell to a retail customer than through a wholesale auction - we certainly wasted this customer’s time over those last few days and justifiably disappointed them with our lack of organization during that process.

BMW of Fort Wayne responded

We take pride in our customer service, and take Ms. Harrington’s complaints seriously. I called her and spent 30 minutes discussing the situation. Following is our understanding of her complaints along with our response to each one. 1) She implies that we did not properly recondition the vehicle and were not forthcoming about the wear on the rear brakes. With 30% of life remaining, the rear brakes would have been useful for another 8-12,000 miles of driving. It would be wasteful for us to replace brakes in this condition, needlessly inflating the cost of the vehicle. Ms. Harrington implies that our salesperson withheld this information until asked. It seems impractical to volunteer all components of a used vehicle that are not brand new and present no threat to safety or drivability. We openly encourage our customers to ask for inspection reports, though, and our salespeople readily share the results; I’m not aware of other dealers who go to the lengths we do to promote an honest transaction. Ms. Harrington requested that we replace the brakes as a condition of sale and we agreed to do so. All told, one of our Master Technicians identified nearly $1,300 of reconditioning on the vehicle, and we performed 100% of his recommendations. I stand behind our salesperson’s statement that the vehicle was “road ready” at the time of purchase. 2) Her passenger seatbelt pre-tensioner failed within a few weeks of purchase. Because there is no way to predict the failure of this type of device in the course of a normal inspection - it either passes or fails the inspection with no symptoms of future trouble - it is not covered by our otherwise extensive 30 day/1,000 mile warranty. Nevertheless, Ms. Harrington held us responsible for the malfunction. Due to the unfortunate timing, the safety hazard, and in the spirit of goodwill, we agreed without resistance to pay for the $364 repair in full. I personally signed off on this repair. We immediately ordered a part through a GM dealer, who needed to special-order the part. Over the next several weeks we were repeatedly given conflicting and incorrect information on when to expect the part from them. We shared this information with the customer, who over time became understandably frustrated due to her unusable seat belt. Rather than continue to play the middle man, we offered to put her in touch with the parts department of the other dealer to express her frustration directly. I sympathize with her frustration and do take responsibility for the fact that we communicated and were then unable to meet the ETA for the special-order part, but her portrayal of how our service department handled the situation is at best incomplete. Coincidentally, the part actually arrived on the day Ms. Harrington posted this review and has since been replaced at no charge. 3) Ms. Harrington’s vehicle is six years old with over 75,000 miles. We did indeed offer her an extended warranty both at the time of purchase and two months when she called on the 17th to tell us that her vehicle would not start for unknown reasons. She declined. As a vehicle ages, it is increasingly at risk of breakdown, so a warranty can provide great peace of mind for this type of vehicle. Ms. Harrington was adamant that we provide a towing service and diagnosis of the problem at no charge. (Presumably the cost of a towing service and diagnosis fee are the fees she describes in her review; the diagnosis fee is waived if it is determined that the repair will be covered under our lifetime powertrain guarantee). The day after she posted this review and she and I spoke, the customer drove the vehicle to our dealership for the complimentary seat belt repair. We still do not know why the vehicle would not start on the 17th, but it was evidently running on the 18th and the customer made no mention of the concern during that visit. I’m disappointed that Ms. Harrington has been so unhappy with her vehicle and experience with our dealership, and her frustration is completely understandable. We value her business and I apologize to her if any of our employees were not 100% clear with how they communicated any of the above. My team works hard to avoid these types of situations and to make customers happy. Where the customer in this case is publicly questioning the integrity and performance of my employees, however, I must respectfully disagree with her assessment.