DEANNA TUCKER

Corwin Ford Reno responded

We are sorry to hear your experience did not meet your expectations. We wish you the best with your vehicle moving forward.

Mlefever responded

While I appreciate your prompt response to our review and attempted clarification of the circumstances, the information provided is inaccurate and requires correction. Refund Offer:
 With respect to the one service item that was not covered under warranty, I expressly acknowledged that charge as my personal responsibility and have never disputed it. The dealership itself offered a partial refund of that charge in an effort to resolve my dissatisfaction with the service experience. More importantly, no alternative resolution options were presented to me at the time, and I accepted the partial refund offer only because it was the sole option extended to me. Communication Failures: 
It was never communicated to me that my steering wheel required to be disassembled until after the fact. I had to make multiple calls to ascertain the status of my vehicle and was subsequently told, after nearly a week had gone by with no vehicle, that the technician was waiting for parts to arrive. When I asked whether I could retrieve my vehicle while waiting for the parts to arrive, I was informed for the first time that this was not possible because the steering wheel had already been dismantled. It was extremely frustrating to not be made aware that my car had to be "taken apart" and thus adding a week to the time my family and I would go without a vehicle. The principal issue here is not the delay itself, but the lack of timely and accurate communication. Service Advisor Interaction: 
At the time of drop-off, loaner car options were discussed but not clarified. The service advisor, who identified themselves as new to the Ford organization, indicated only that they would need to confirm whether a loaner was available given that I own a Lincoln. No definitive answer was provided at that time. I later had to initiate a follow-up call, at which time I was informed that a loaner would not be provided because Ford would be responsible for the expense and chose not to cover it. Furthermore, I was never explained by the service advisor about the “extended timeframe for the repairs” at the time of drop off because no one, not the dealership nor I, even knew what was wrong with the steering wheel at that time. To be clear, I have no overall issue with the unforeseen delays in this situation, but instead, major frustrations with the lack of courtesy that was displayed. Vehicle Pick-Up Experience:
 The dealership’s stated “policy” regarding customer access to restricted areas was not enforced when we picked up our vehicle. Specifically, my husband was informed by the front desk that no employees were available to bring the car forward and was instead handed the keys and directed to retrieve the car himself from the rear lot. This occurred despite my having called approximately 20 minutes prior to arrange for the vehicle to be made ready for pick up. I invite you and your team to verify this incident via your company’s security footage from June 28 in the afternoon, which will corroborate this account. Refund (or lack thereof) and Review Manipulation:
 Regarding the refund, I’d like to emphasize that the definition of a bribe is “to persuade someone to act in one’s favor, typically illegally or dishonestly, by a gift of money or other inducement.” Conditioning a monetary refund on the alteration of an online review to 5-stars constitutes a bribe under this definition. This practice undermines the integrity of consumer reviews, negates honesty, and calls into question the business ethics of Corwin Ford. Your characterization of this conditional refund as a “good faith” gesture is contradicted by the facts. I was explicitly told that no refund would be issued until my review was changed to reflect only 5-star ratings, and subsequently informed that the refund would not be honored because my revised review included both 4- and 5-star ratings. This sequence of events can be fully supported by recorded calls between myself and your CRM employee on July 7 just after noon, during which she made these terms clear. Following that call, I received an email explicitly stating: “If you are willing to revise your survey, a follow-up will be sent to your email tomorrow, we would be happy to credit half of the diagnostic fee back to your credit card. Please allow 5–7 business days for the credit to appear on your statement. Please note that questions #3 and #5 are especially important and should be scored a 5 if you feel I have addressed your concerns.” I complied by revising my review to include both 4- and 5-star responses in an effort to balance honesty with compliance, solely to obtain the refund promised. Despite this, more than a month passed without communication, and when I followed up today, I was informed that the “deal” was rescinded because I had not submitted exclusively 5-star ratings. These “terms” that you referenced in your response above clearly are not a “good faith” offer. Otherwise, the refund would have been honored regardless, and an honest review would have been valued and respected. If this is Corwin Ford’s policy to garner 5-star reviews, how can anyone trust the legitimacy of those reviews and Corwin Ford as a business? This matter is no longer about the $135 refund at issue. The core concern is the dealership’s apparent policy of conditioning customer reimbursements on manipulated review scores, a practice that reflects dishonesty, a lack of transparency, and disregard for consumer trust. In a world where transparency is important, businesses are expected to uphold standards of integrity, and the conduct displayed in this matter falls far short of that obligation.