Mazda of Gladstone

Mazda of Gladstone responded

Thank you for your additional comments. We understand that your experience was frustrating and appreciate the opportunity to provide further clarification. While we acknowledge that there were ongoing discussions between yourself, Mazda North American Operations, and our dealership regarding possible resolution options, we respectfully disagree with the assertion that conflicting information was intentionally provided or that responsibility for your concerns was shifted between parties. Throughout the process, Mazda of Gladstone consistently explained that any manufacturer buyback is a decision made by Mazda North American Operations and not by the selling dealership. While dealership participation may be requested as part of the overall process, the authority to approve or deny a manufacturer buyback does not reside with the dealership. Our comments on this matter remained consistent throughout our interactions. Regarding discussions about alternative transaction structures, these conversations occurred weeks after the original lease delivery and were presented only as potential options to assist in addressing your concerns. These discussions were exploratory in nature and did not alter the products originally selected, disclosed, and authorized at the time of signing. Any figures discussed during those conversations reflected hypothetical scenarios and were not representations that additional products had been added to your lease without your knowledge or authorization. We would also like to acknowledge that your request to unwind the transaction was made well after 20 days after the original lease agreement being finalized. During your conversation with management on March 3, 2026, you were advised that the dealership was unable to unwind the transaction because the title had already been perfected, the lease had been funded by the leasing institution, and your trade-in vehicle had been paid off. Additionally, we would like to clarify that your trade-in vehicle was processed in the ordinary course of business following the completion of the transaction. At no point was there an approved buyback, unwind, or other agreement requiring the vehicle to be retained by the dealership. Accordingly, the disposition of the trade-in vehicle was consistent with standard dealership practices and procedures applicable to completed transactions. While you characterize the resolution process as involving months of confusion, our records reflect that we responded to your inquiries, provided copies of signed documentation, communicated with Mazda corporate representatives when appropriate, and ultimately agreed to cancel dealership products and process applicable refunds despite maintaining that the products were properly disclosed and authorized. Those actions were taken in an effort to address your concerns and demonstrate goodwill, not because of any finding that the original transaction had been handled improperly. We understand that you remain dissatisfied with the outcome and respect your right to share your perspective. However, we continue to maintain that the lease transaction was conducted in accordance with applicable dealership procedures, that all selected products were properly disclosed and documented, and that the vehicle concerns raised after delivery were addressed through the appropriate service and manufacturer channels. While we regret that we were unable to meet your expectations, we appreciate the opportunity to address your concerns and wish you the very best moving forward.

Jubby responded

Thank you for the additional response. I disagree with the suggestion that this is merely a difference in perspectives. My concern is that throughout this dispute, attention has repeatedly been directed toward my frustration, wording, or emotional reactions rather than the underlying issues I raised. For example, language that I used colloquially during a months-long dispute has repeatedly been characterized in the most extreme possible interpretation, despite no threats ever being made and no actions ever being taken that would support such a characterization. At the same time, concerns involving product disclosures, MEPCO-related billing, contradictory statements regarding unwind authority, and representations made during restructuring discussions remain largely unanswered. There is also important context missing from your response regarding the timing of my request. You note that my unwind request occurred more than 20 days after the lease transaction was completed. However, that timeline omits the events that led to the request in the first place. On February 27, 2026, with fewer than 1,000 miles on the vehicle, a check engine light appeared and I immediately began seeking assistance and discussing possible resolution options. I also opened a case with Mazda North American Operations regarding the situation. Despite the active check engine light, the vehicle was not evaluated for approximately two weeks. During that time, I was actively communicating with both Mazda corporate and dealership personnel regarding my concerns. The delay was not caused by inaction on my part. Additionally, during those early communications, I was informed that any buyback or unwind request would need to go through Mazda corporate. Based on that guidance, I proceeded accordingly and continued working through Mazda North American Operations. What makes this particularly frustrating is that Mazda corporate later communicated that the dealership itself possessed authority regarding certain resolution options. Whether this was a misunderstanding, miscommunication, or something else, I was left navigating conflicting information regarding who actually had the authority to resolve the situation. For that reason, I do not believe it is accurate to characterize my efforts as beginning only after a significant delay. I began raising concerns and pursuing assistance immediately after the check engine light appeared on February 27. The timeline that followed was largely dictated by service delays, the guidance I was provided, and the resolution process I was directed into. What continues to stand out to me is that when I questioned why I was being billed for coverage I could not locate in my lease documentation for the restructure, I was repeatedly told by Dominic those products had already been purchased. This was not a hypothetical conversation like you keep trying to paint it as. When I questioned who had authority to resolve the situation, I was directed toward corporate. When I spoke with corporate, I received different information. When I questioned those inconsistencies, the discussion frequently shifted away from the inconsistencies themselves and toward my reaction to them. Likewise, while you characterize the restructuring discussions as hypothetical, those discussions remain important because they were the context in which I was told that VSC and PPM products had already been purchased. Those statements directly contributed to my concerns regarding what products existed, how they were disclosed, and whether I had been provided complete and accurate information from the beginning. I also continue to find it difficult to reconcile the position that Mazda of Gladstone had no involvement with any MEPCO-related products while dealership personnel simultaneously represented to me that I had purchased coverage that appeared consistent with the billing and communications I was receiving. If the dealership had no involvement whatsoever, that raises additional questions regarding how those representations were made. The issue regarding my trade-in is not that the dealership was legally prohibited from selling it. The issue is that active discussions regarding potential resolutions were ongoing while I was being told that meaningful decisions rested elsewhere. Once the vehicle was sold, potential avenues for resolution that involved that vehicle effectively disappeared. I acknowledge that you ultimately agreed to cancel dealership products and process refunds. I appreciate that action. However, the cancellation of products does not resolve the concerns that led me to question them in the first place. My position remains simple: a vehicle developed a check engine light with fewer than 1,000 miles on it, I immediately sought assistance, I opened a case with Mazda North American Operations, I spent months attempting to obtain clear answers regarding products, billing, and resolution options, and the explanations I received often changed depending on who I was speaking with. After months of attempting to obtain straightforward answers, my overall impression remains unchanged: I do not believe I was provided clear, consistent, and transparent information throughout the life of this dispute. Reasonable people can review the timeline, documentation, correspondence, and public responses and draw their own conclusions. At this point, I will allow the facts and the agencies reviewing the matter to speak for themselves.