A recent experience with a used car dealer left one buyer feeling frustrated and betrayed after a series of mechanical issues and unauthorized work. The buyer purchased a used vehicle less than two months ago, only to find themselves dealing with a slew of electrical problems soon after. The car’s check engine light illuminated, and multiple key features faltered, including doors failing to unlock and power seats not functioning.
The only modification made to the car was a professional installation of a dash cam, costing around $200. When the buyer reached out to the dealership for assistance, the dealer, claiming they lacked the necessary certifications to service that car brand, directed them to a local dealer instead. The buyer had high hopes that their dealership warranty, car brand warranty, and extended warranty would cover the issues.
The local dealer kept the car for several days, running diagnostics, but ultimately said there were no apparent problems and cleared the error codes. Yet, the issues persisted, prompting another return to the dealership barely a day later. As the buyer drove home, the check engine light flickered back on, heightening their frustration.
Upon returning the vehicle, the buyer noted a scratch that had appeared during the service and was assured it would be buffed out easily. Unfortunately, as the days turned into weeks, the dealership held onto the car for three weeks, providing a loaner in the interim. Eventually, technicians discovered that a y-splitter, installed by the previous dealership, was incompatible with the car and was causing the electrical issues. They removed it but couldn’t reach the original dealership to confirm payment for the service.
After speaking with the car’s used car manager, the buyer learned that the original dealer had installed the y-splitter without considering the car’s service compatibility. The dealership covered the $230 for the diagnostic but refused to pay for the removal of the faulty part. A technician then removed the splitter, stating it was an easy fix, and the buyer signed a release form to take the car home.
Upon returning home, the buyer discovered two significant problems. The scratch was still visible, and the dash cam was malfunctioning. Instead of shutting off when the car powered down, it continued to run, potentially draining the vehicle’s battery. A review of the dash cam footage revealed it had recorded for 24 hours straight after the service, suggesting the battery may have died due to their action.
When the buyer contacted the dealer for help, they were met with responses that didn’t add up. Initially, the representative claimed the dash cam should cut off after 15 minutes, a statement the buyer disputed based on the footage. The representative then suggested it had been wired to the headlights, but the buyer was adamant that everything, including the lights, was off when the cam remained operational.
Asking to return the car to its original dash cam setup, the buyer was told that the mechanic had changed the wiring when removing the y-splitter, something that had never been discussed. Faced with a $50 repair quote from the original installer to fix the unauthorized work, the buyer requested reimbursement from the dealership. To their dismay, the dealership denied the request, suggesting they should accept the situation since the service was conducted free of charge.
Frustrated, the buyer left a two-star review on Yelp detailing their experience, filed a complaint with the Bureau of Automotive Repair, and reached out to the car brand’s customer service. A day later, they paid their installer to fix the issues caused by the dealership. Interestingly, the dealership’s customer service manager called to discuss the review, eventually agreeing to reimburse the repair cost and fix the scratch after some back-and-forth negotiation.
The call ended with the manager asserting they had lost money on the service without recognizing that the buyer had already paid for the diagnostic. The buyer stood firm that unauthorized work had created additional problems, which could have resulted in a costly battery replacement if left unchecked.
Despite the eventual resolution, the buyer couldn’t shake the feeling of being treated unfairly. They had already endured a tumultuous experience with the car, spending half of their first two months in a shop. While the dealership’s eventual agreement to cover the repairs was a step in the right direction, the process left a lingering bad taste, amplifying the frustrations associated with purchasing used vehicles.
One reader commented on the situation, suggesting that the dealership should take responsibility for its mistakes and treat customers with respect. Another reader echoed similar sentiments, arguing that it should not have taken public feedback for the dealership to address the issue properly.
As the buyer reflected on their experience, they still grappled with the question of whether they had been justified in pursuing complaints and negative reviews. While the repairs were eventually covered, the initial stress and dissatisfaction remained fresh in their mind. They were left considering what steps to take next in ensuring their voice was heard amid the chaos of car repairs and dealership dealings.
More from Vinyl and Velvet:
Leave a Reply