ComplaintsforO'Rielly Chevrolet, Inc.

• Initial Complaint

  08/25/2024

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  Brought a camper here to have a pre purchase inspection done with current owner. Was assured it would be put.on a lift only to find put later the issues were more extensive and would cost repairs because they didn't put it on a lift. The inspection was vague and incorrect (tires were not new as marked and brakes required 1500 estimate later they repaired brakes but had the camper a week and lied multiple times about when it would be ready only to find out later it hadn't even been started. I was told it would be ready on a Monday and didn't end up getting it back until Thursday and when I did, it had a service engine light on that wasn't on before we took it there, with a piece of electrical tape covering it. I was told that they would cover the diagnostic if I took it back yo them but that they weren't taking responsibility for the tape being there even after he admitted the technician had mentioned seeing it (without notating it) shady business and won't be back. We had just taken it to emissions prior to dropping it off (in order to register it) so I know there weren't any codes before bringing it to them. Later found that they had removed a packrat nest but had ignored the chewed wire that caused the service engine light to come on. Essentially seems that they were more concerned with making the time promised (despite already putting me 4 days behind schedule) I feel duped and when I asked which technicians worked on my vehicle was given the first and last name ( Chris Boyd) of one of them but they wouldn't tell me the name of the 2nd technician. Didn't trust them to touch my vehicle again so told them thank you but no thank you on the "free" diagnostic. In thw week they had it I called them on average 4 times a day and got ZERO updates or calls back. Not a happy customer. I took it to a local shop after and they were able to fix the chewed wire in 20 mins.

  

  Business response

  09/03/2024

  As Consumer has stated, we performed an inspection of an RV that was brought in by Consumer.  Contrary to Consumer's assertion, the inspection revealed that the RV had a rear brake line leak and master cylinder leak.  Consumer brought the vehicle back to us to have the brake work completed at a cost of $1,660.71.  We did not receive the parts necessary to complete the repair until 8/20.  While Consumer may have called four times a day for updates, we were unable to complete the work until all parts were received; hence the work was completed on 8/21.  At that time, we discussed with Consumer that another day would be needed to complete a tire balancing and rotation, as we had discovered that the front and rear rims did not match. In response to Consumer's frustration with our lack of communication and the time required to complete the repairs, we discounted the ticket to $1,102.49.  

  With respect to Consumer's comments about the existence of electrical tape on a dash readout, we remain confident that we did not apply the tape.  As noted by Consumer, our technician noticed the tape but failed to note that discovery in the inspection report, which was a failing on our part.  As also noted, we did remove a packrat nest from the RV and offered to diagnose the "check engine" light, but the Consumer declined that offer.

  I understand that Consumer was, and remains, frustrated by the amount of time it took to procure parts and complete the brake and tire work on this vehicle and that Consumer was dissatisfied with the frequency of our communications.  We would like to have been able to further evaluate the vehicle and complete the necessary repairs, but we understand that Consumer was in a hurry and dissatisfied with our work and chose to take the vehicle elsewhere.  We are no surprised that the repair was  a simple fix involving a chewed wire.

  We don't feel we owe Consumer $100, as requested, as we performed the inspection for which the $100 was charged, and we already discounted the labor on this service by more than $500 in an attempt to appease Consumer.  However, if it will bring satisfaction to Consumer and put this matter to bed, we will happily refund the 100.  I have submitted a check request and will mail the check as soon as it has been processed and signed by me.  

  We thank Consumer for her business and wish her all the best with her new RV.

  Robert Draper, President and General Manager, O'Rielly Chevrolet

• Initial Complaint

  07/15/2024

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Resolved

  More info

  On July 8, 2024 I took my 2023 Corvette in for warranty service at Orielly Chevrolet in Tucson, AZ. Thus service is the first courtesy maintenance of 7500 which includes oil change and external transmission filter replacement. This needs to be done by Chevrolet to not voiding my vehicle warranty. At 10:43am I received a text that my service is done, so I went to pick up my car. I inspected my vehicle for any damages and looked at the invoice which did not have the external transmission filter replaced. I went back inside and talked to the service advisor, Lilly Arvayo. I asked why the filter was not replaced and she told me that my car does not come with one. I said “really?” and she said yes. I asked her to put it in the computer that it wasn’t replaced and she said she done that already. On Thursday, July 11, 2024, when I got home, I checked with two local Chevrolet dealers and I was told it came with an external transmission filter. Roseville Chevrolet dealer even checked my VIN and confirmed it does have an external transmission filter. Also, I raised my car and looked at the bolts holding the skid plate and noticed that Oreilly Chevrolet did not removed the plate to inspect. They didnt replace my external transmission filter. I told the person who scheduled the appointment that I will be in Tucson, AZ to do the service as I am on a tour there. On Thursday, July 8, I made several attempts for Lily to call me back but no response. Then I called her supervisor, Ray Garcia and I talked him about the situation and he said he will call me back but I got never call back. On Monday, July 15, I talked to him again and he told me to bring it to Tucsan, AZ, but I told him I have no more time off to go back to have this transmission done. I need Orielly Chevrolet to be responsible for my warranty since my car is now past the required mileage and need them to replace filter here in Sacramento, CA because it is their fault for not replacing it in the first place.

  

  Business response

  07/17/2024

  I agree with the Consumer that we failed to handle this repair properly.  Our Service Advisor misread some "op codes" and concluded, incorrectly, that the vehicle did not require a transmission filter service.

  We are in touch with the Consumer and have agreed to pay for the service, since it is no longer covered by factory warranty.

  I apologize again to the Consumer, on behalf of all involved, for our misdiagnosis and the resulting major inconvenience to him, and for our poor communication. We appreciate his business and hope to show him our true colors on his next visit.

  With best regards,

  Rob Draper, President and General Manager, O'Rielly Chevrolet

   

• Initial Complaint

  07/15/2024

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Resolved

  More info

  Hello, I bought a 2023 2500 the transmission Is not shifting correctly. It is the 6 speed. I have almost been hit because is sticks or Is in high gear pulling out of driveways And almost rear ended because it will not accelerate. Several rattles around the hood area. I have emailed them I have got one response saying ill send it over to someone else. I have a family share I'm involved in and need the truck.

  

  Business response

  07/17/2024

  We appreciate the Consumer getting in touch with us about his needed repairs.  We are in touch with him about setting an appointment and getting the work done.  

  With best regards,

  Rob Draper, President and General Manager, O'Rielly Chevrolet

• Initial Complaint

  04/24/2024

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  On March 9th 2024 We purchased a new vehicle at oreilley Chevrolet. On March 23th as we were headed out of town the car had major issues that required us to take the truck to the nearest town to a chevrolet. At that time we contacted oreilley chevrolet to see if there was anything we can do. They said there was nothing as the truck is ours and maybe we can do a trade in and get a new truck. We then contacted GMC and they were going to do a by back. As the truck had already been in the shop for 30 plus days. On April 17th I contacted our Bank Global as we knew it was close to the first payment being due. When they informed us that the original loan was canceled as there was a stipulation that was not fulfilled by oreilley chevrolet. To our surprise they also said, oh but they resubmitted an application to get the loam again today and we are working on getting that processed. By this time it had been about 42 days since the initial application. On Saturday April 20th our credit showed new hard inquiries to multiple banks. We immediately visited chevrolet to know what was going on, and that we did not authorize any new credit checks. At that time all we were told by the General manager was that he needed to do whatever he needed to do to get that truck that is still at the shop funded and that we are responsible for that Truck and are bound to our original contract. Which s the same contract that was canceled. Then on Monday April 22nd the same General manager called me and told us that the contract had been retracted. But since there was a trade that they had already paid off, he was doing all he can to get that loan reinstated and he would contact us once that happened. This whole situation has been a nightmare. There was no communication and they were running our credit without our consent. They were also trying to force something in to us when they knew the loan was not approved originally.

  

  Business response

  04/26/2024

  Complainant’s report relates to his purchase of a 2024 Chevrolet Colorado from O’Rielly Chevrolet (“O’Rielly”) on March 9, 2024.  To support the purchase, Complainant traded in a 2002 Ford Mustang on which he owed $12,570.  Complainant reports that on March 23rd, the vehicle exhibited “major issues” while being driven out of town.  I have since been informed that the truck is at Chapman Chevrolet in Yuma, and have been told that the vehicle is exhibiting transmission and/or electrical issues, but Complainant did not disclose, and I am not aware of, the specific nature of the issues. 
  
  Complainant states that he contacted General Motors (“GM”) and that “they were working on a buyback at this point.”  This statement is misleading.  It is my understanding that Complainant did inquire of GM about a vehicle buyback, but I am confident that this vehicle, with its experience to date, does not rise to level of qualifying for a GM buyback and, upon further discussion with Complainant, it seems pretty clear that a buyback was never seriously considered and is not currently under consideration.
  

  Complainant is upset that O’Rielly has submitted his purchase contract to several finance companies in an effort to obtain financing for his purchase.  This is standard practice.  It’s a service we provide to all new vehicle buyers who wish to finance their purchase.  And Complainant gave us express written permission to do so by completing and signing a credit application prior to consummation of the vehicle purchase transaction.  Complainant asserts that our submission of his contract to multiple potential finance sources has caused a significant reduction in his credit score.  That does not sound right to me.  I have agreed to look into it with him, and to assist in seeking correction of any inappropriate reductions, and he has agreed to show me the reduction that he is claiming, but I haven’t seen that yet.  But Complainant’s assertion to you that we have initiated inquiries regarding his credit without his consent is not true.
  
  Complainant asserts that he has now requested that we “stop running his credit.” As I have explained to him by phone, we do not run a customer’s credit with each submittal of his contract to a potential finance source.  The finance companies do that.  We are fully entitled to submit his contract to potential finance companies in search of funding.  That process is contemplated expressly in the retail installment sales contract that he signed in connection with the vehicle purchase. 
  
  Complainant seems to be using the fact that the vehicle has experienced undisclosed mechanical issues as an excuse for attempting to be released from the purchase contract.  That is not an appropriate basis for attempting to avoid his contractual obligations.  Almost any mechanical issue experienced this early in the ownership period will be fully covered by factory warranty, and almost any such issue can be resolved satisfactorily by the service team at a certified Chevrolet dealership, like the one where the vehicle apparently is right now.  The finance company mentioned in the complaint remains ready and willing to purchase the contract, asking only that Complainant provide a copy of his passport or another specified form of identification, as his driver’s license shows “limited term” or some other feature that is not sufficient to support financing.  Complainant, however, is refusing to cooperate with that simple request.  By the terms of the purchase contract, Complainant agreed to cooperate in furnishing O’Rielly with “any documentation necessary to verify information contained in the credit application.”  By refusing to cooperate with the simple act of providing an acceptable form of identification, he is solely responsible for our inability to secure funding for his purchase and seems pretty clearly to be in breach of that contractual obligation.
  
  Complainant’s complaint contains other false or misleading statements.  He states that “the original contract was canceled.”  That’s not true.  It remains in full force and effect.  As mentioned, he implies that GM is or was working on repurchasing his vehicle.  That is not true.  He asserts that his vehicle incurred “major issues,” but he hasn’t disclosed what is wrong with it. 
  
  To complicate this situation, on April 8th, the finance company that is working to obtain his ID so that it can fund this purchase posted on their portal that the transaction was FUNDED.  Based on that notice, O’Rielly paid off the loan balance on Complainant’s trade-in (the Ford Mustang) to another lender, in the amount of $12,570.  Based on Kelley Blue Book and other sources typically relied upon in the industry, that vehicle is estimated to have a wholesale value of somewhere in the range of $6,500 to $7,500. 
  
  In hopes of resolving this situation, we have encouraged Complainant to acknowledge that any mechanical issues that have arisen with his vehicle do not justify his current posture of denying that he has entered into a binding purchase transaction or failing to cooperate in obtaining financing for that purchase.  We have also made clear that we are ready and willing to help coordinate any necessary vehicle repairs either by the dealership in Yuma or here in our shop.
  
  As an alternative resolution, we have informed Complainant that we would be willing to void the purchase contract if he would like to repurchase the Ford Mustang for the $12,570 that he owed on it and that we paid his bank for it.  We have also offered to give him, at no cost, about $1,700 in new tires and other repairs and maintenance that we have performed on the Mustang, in acknowledgement of the inconveniences and hardships he has suffered in connection with the vehicle breakdown and the miscommunications by the finance company.   I believe he is considering that offer now.
  
   We regret that Complainant has had mechanical issues with his vehicle and remain eager to assist in getting them resolved and completing the financing of the vehicle.  But we do not agree, and will not support, what seems to be an effort by Complainant to avoid his contractual obligations because his vehicle is in the shop for repairs.
  
  We would be happy to respond to any further questions or provide any additional information that Complainant or your office may require.  We look forward to getting this situation resolved fairly and in a manner reasonably satisfactory to all involved.
  
  Thank you very much for your assistance with this matter.

  Robert Draper, President and General Manager, O'Rielly Chevrolet

  Customer response

  04/30/2024

  4/28/29

  Mr. Draper,

  We have never been in such a situation as the one you are forcing us to be in. To be clear We

  are not breaching our contract. But we are nonetheless hoping to get this resolved.

  Again here we are almost 2 months later discussing this original contract. A lack of

  communication between you and your staff is what this is. Let's go over the so-called

  “misleading statements we have made”. Because our lives are not busy enough, we hope to

  spend all of our free time chasing answers and receiving ultimatums from you and your staff.

  We “purchased” our 2024 Colorado on March 9th.

  To the best of our knowledge,On March 23rd, when driving to Yuma with my family, the truck

  suddenly became heavy, and it would not go into gear. We then reached for our On star advisor,

  who ran a diagnostic, and informed us that there was : Engine system failure; “transmission

  control module malfunction”, “transmission system failure” “an issue has been detected in the

  transmission system that transfers power from the engine to the drive wheels”, “AVS braking

  and stability system- an issue has been detected in the anti-lock brake system”.

  The recommendation was to service the vehicle within one day as these are considered major

  issues.

  As we were in the middle of the desert, the closest town with a Chevrolet was Yuma, AZ, so we

  went straight there at a max speed of 50mph.

  On March 29th, We reached out to speak to the salesman and sales manager of O'reilly

  Chevrolet. We were looking for guidance as to what to do with the non- working brand new truck

  that was still in Yuma, AZ. We struggled for about 1 week as nobody was reaching out or calling

  us back. Finally they referred us to Sales manager Chris Holcomb, and his concern was to know

  what was wrong with the truck, and that maybe we can sell the new truck back to them and get

  another new truck. Chris Holcomb offered us a proposal to get us in another brand new truck,

  which we were not opposed to. Again we were thrilled to have a new truck, our intention has

  never been to walk out of O'rielly Chevrolet 1. Without a new truck 2. To breach a contract and

  to be “seeking relief” from an attorney general office.

  Chris Holcomb has been in communication with the Mechanic from Chevy in Yuma, and is

  aware of the car's situation. See email attachment.

  The car has been and still is to date at Yuma Chevrolet, the emails or text have been very

  limited with the mechanic. The last update that I have was on 4/3/24: which states: The vehicle

  shows separate issues ; transmission and purely electrical.

  On 4/8/24 Chris Holcomb provided another update which states: “I just spoke with Jimmy at

  Chapman in Yuma. They have the transmission concern addressed and fixed but are still

  chasing the reduced power concern. They replaced the fuse block, but have the same concern

  so they have contacted Chevrolet support and requested further assistance.

  If Chevrolet cannot get the vehicle fixed within 30 days, you may be in a position for them to

  purchase it back. I have also spoken to our service manager Brian Guerrero for assistance. He says he will reach out to our Chevrolet Service Representative and ensure he is aware of your

  situation”.

  April 9th, I received a call from General motors- Paul, as our claim was escalated and was

  under review to see if it can qualify for a buyback.

  April 10th, Chris Holcomb was in communication with GM in regard to the possibility of a buy

  back. Per his email: “ It sounds like Chevrolet is in the process to see if you qualify for them

  purchasing the vehicle back. Usually if approved, they will ask for paperwork reflecting what you

  paid and have you work with us to pick out another vehicle. They work all the numbers, and see

  if you are interested in moving forward- Chris”.

  The last email from GM stated that the process requires repair orders of what they have done to

  the vehicle and what they are planning to do moving forward, as well as the car having to be in

  the shop for 30 days or greater.

  At this time the car had been in the shop for 20 days. Paul was supposed to be in

  communication with us and reach out within 5-7 business days. As of today we have not heard

  back from him.

  April 11th?Our plan was to move forward as the truck was “ours” so we knew our first payment was coming

  up. We still had not received any loan information or billing of any kind. So we reached out to

  Global Financial to make our first payment.

  We spoke to a loan representative who is the first person to inform us that we do not have an

  active account or an outstanding loan.

  However the loan officer informed us that the initial application expired. But a New application

  had just been submitted a day prior (April 10th) and was pending. By this time it had been 32

  days since the initial signing and allowed loan application and contract.

  Again during the frequent communication O’reilly Chevrolet did not inform us of any of this.

  Per O’reilley Chevrolet Retail Installment Sale Contract:

  #7. SELLERS RIGHTS IN ABSENCE OF CREDIT APPROVAL:

  (a) You agree to furnish us any documentation necessary to verify information

  contained in the credit application.

  We have never denied offering anything that was requested at the time of the initial loan

  application. Again if there were any required documents we were never informed. Until we

  reached out to the bank, and they informed us. By then that application was no longer valid and

  they required a new one.

  Had Chevy reached out within a few days we would have definitely delivered what was

  requested.

  But the request was made after 40 days, when they had already re-ran our credit to other

  banks, not the original bank without our consent, and when they already knew that the truck was

  not safe to be driven on the road.

  So at this time, WE clearly said we will not be signing any new loan application and are not

  interested in doing business with O’reilly.  April 13th we tried communication with O’reilly to get an update and any information on what we

  had just been told by “our” so thought financing company. We did not get any answers.

  April 17th, Chris Holcomb reached out via email and excused himself as he was sick. He

  mentioned he would reach out to us hopefully over the weekend.

  April 20th, We received a hard inquiry and multiple applications to about 5 different banks. Again

  with no communication of this matter. This is now day 42 from the initial signature that allowed

  loan application and credit pull.

  So this now required a visit to the O’reilly to get answers.

  We showed up and found Mr. Holcomb at work, and he gave us a few minutes of his time. We

  discussed the matter. Mr. Holcomb contradicted himself as he told us he had no idea that the

  financing did not go through, but he also stated that that morning he gave permission to his staff

  to continue to seek financing.

  When we asked when he was going to notify us of any of this, he replied “ I don't have to, and

  my duty is to find financing for that truck, if that means running your credit as many times,for up

  to 90 days. I will do everything I need to do to make sure you own that truck, As long as that

  vehicle is registered to your name you own that truck!”.

  He was being very confrontational, so we left the building to avoid any conflict and to get some

  guidance and help elsewhere.

  Before leaving we very clearly stated “ Orielly Chevrolet does not have our permission to run our

  credit ever again, and we no longer want any other business with this company!.

  Per O’reilley Chevrolet Retail Installment Sale Contract:

  #7. SELLERS RIGHTS IN ABSENCE OF CREDIT APPROVAL:

  (b) You acknowledge that it may take a few days for us to verify your credit and assign

  this contract. In consideration of our agreeing to deliver the vehicle, you agree that if we

  are unable to assign the contract to any of the financial institutions with which we

  regularly do business pursuant to terms of assignment acceptable to us, we may cancel

  this contract.

  The funding did not go through, the initial application expired. Per the contract this is when the

  dealer takes the car back, and unwinds a deal.

  Again it states that it takes a “few days” (3-5 business days) to get credit and assignment of the

  contract— no where does it give the dealership the right to run your credit again and again, as

  many times as they want for 90 days. No business will ever allow a person to take their car

  without it being financed for even longer than 2 weeks if that.

  We understand that there is an initial hard pull, that counts as one, no matter how many banks

  are involved within a reasonable time frame. Once the credit is ran or pulled again after 30 days

  it adds another or a second hard inquiry on your credit. We have our credit report that can

  demonstrate the impact it had and the dates. Consumers are to be made aware of any new

  hard inquiries.

  Again misleading information is not coming from us.On Monday April 22nd, Chris Holcomb, called me and said that he did some research and

  spoke with a back office- the person who is in charge of registering the vehicles, and was told

  that the 2024 Chevrolet Colorado was never registered under our name, and because of that we

  are not the owners of that truck. So Mr. Holcomb was going to speak with the credit union to try

  to reinstate the loan of our trade- a 2002 Ford mustang. He would have answers for us in a few

  days (3-5 business days).

  Per O’reilley Chevrolet Retail Installment Sale Contract:

  #7. SELLERS RIGHTS IN ABSENCE OF CREDIT APPROVAL:

  (c) In the event we cancel this contract, we shall give you notice of the cancellation. Upon

  delivery of such notice, you shall immediately return the vehicle to us in the same

  condition as when sold, reasonable wear and tear accepted. We agree, upon cancellation

  of this contract, to restore to you all consideration we received in connection with this

  contract, including any trade in vehicles.

  April 25th,

  I received a call from Mr. Robert Draper, who informed us that they were not able to reinstate

  our loan that they had precipitously paid for, prior to actually receiving funding for “our” Truck.

  He continued to tell us differently from Mr . Holcomb , in that we are still the “owners” of the

  truck (that is not under our possession, not registered under our name, and with no current

  outstanding loan).

  The ultimatum received from Mr. Draper per our last email is: either we sign a new contract and

  a new loan application for a non-working, unsafe truck, or pay them cash $12,570 and they will

  “generously” not charge us for the unneeded and again precipitously additions they made to the

  Ford mustang.

  Both of these ultimatums by no means are fair, and no one in their right mind would agree to do

  either. The contract states upon cancellation of this contract, to restore to you all

  consideration we received in connection with this contract, including any trade in

  vehicles.

  As this was unable to be done, per Mr. Draper, It sounds like they are in breach of their contract.

  Again this is none of our doing, we have done nothing wrong.

  It has never been our intent to get out of the contract, again we were willing to make our

  payment despite the truck being in the shop, we also were in the process of a possible buy

  back, we also were working with the GM to possibly trade in and get a new vehicle.

  But since finding out that we don't own this non working truck was very relieving.

  I hope to have a resolution as soon as possible, as this has altered our lives tremendously.

  Sincerely,

  Itzel and Jose Carlos Martinez.

  

  Business response

  05/13/2024

  We have reviewed carefully the Complainant's most recent post, dated April 30th.  This response to that post was originally drafted on April 30th, but we’ve been holding it in hopes of being able to report a successful resolution to the situation.  Today, however, Complainant asked that I no longer call or text him and communicate only by email and, for the reasons explained below, we feel he is no longer acting in good faith toward a reasonable resolution to the situation.
  
  We don’t have a lot to add to our initial response.  We feel that Complainant is obfuscating what decisions need to be made regarding this matter.  He is not taking responsibility for getting his vehicle repaired and getting it financed but rather seems to be hoping that he can somehow avoid his recent purchase and also have his prior vehicle loan repaid in full by O’Rielly Chevrolet (“O’Rielly”). 
  
  We are here to assist with both the repair and financing of Complainant’s truck, but in the end it is his obligation to take affirmative action to accomplish both.  He must cooperate with the financing company’s simple request for information and must be in touch with the dealership where he brought the vehicle for service, to keep up with the status of repairs.  It is true that a lot has happened in this case – truck broke down, finance company mistakenly reported that contract purchase was funded, funding application was extended, communication was poor – but at this point none of those things are affecting the resolution of this situation, which can take one of two forms – either Complainant can simply provide a copy of his passport or the other ID form that the finance company has requested, in which case his vehicle purchase will be funded and he will no longer be directly responsible for paying O’Rielly for the vehicle, OR Complainant can reimburse O’Rielly for paying off the loan on his Ford Mustang, in which case we would unwind the truck purchase (and return the vehicle in much better condition than it was in when we obtained it, a gesture which Complainant seems to dismiss).  All of the lengthy recap of what has transpired and who is at fault for what does not affect either of those solutions.   We are giving Complainant the choice of which way he would like to get this resolved, but he is not cooperating.  As mentioned, he seems to want to both unwind his truck purchase and have O’Rielly pay off the loan on his trade-in.  Nothing has transpired in connection with this transaction that warrants enrichment of Complainant in that way.
  

  In an effort to identify creative solutions that would benefit Complainant, we have proposed to Complainant that he repurchase the Mustang for what he had to pay the bank to acquire it -- $12,570 – and that we would contribute the cost of a set of new tires that we’ve added to the vehicle and maintenance and repairs that we’ve performed on it, all totaling about $1,700.  We have even been working with the finance company that is attempting to finance the Colorado truck, and they are open to financing the repurchase of the Mustang.  Complainant seemed interested in this proposal initially; however, Complainant just recently declined to pursue it, asserting that he didn’t want to risk an adverse impact on his credit score associated with underwriting a loan on the Mustang.  Complainant has produced no evidence that his credit score has been adversely affected by any of these events, and we think it is unreasonable for Complainant to be declining to explore this solution to the situation on the basis of a negligible, and possibly non-existent impact on his credit score.
  

  We are waiting for Complainant to decide how he would like to move forward.  In the meantime, we will be sending Complainant a certified letter reminding him that, pursuant to the terms of the contract, the first payment on the Colorado, in the amount of $834.39, was due on April 23rd and the next payment will be due on May 23rd, along with payment instructions.  We will likely waive any late fees on the first payment that have accrued to date, and grant an additional 10-day grace period from the date of the certified letter, in light of what we thought was an effort by Complainant to cooperate in reaching a resolution to this situation.  Now, however, since Complainant is refusing to either provide a form of ID or to cooperate with underwriting of a new loan on the Mustang, we feel that Complainant is not working in good faith toward a solution, and we will therefore proceed with enforcement of the contract that he signed for the purchase of the Colorado.
  
  We would be happy to respond to any further questions or provide any additional information that Complainant or your office may require.  We still remain hopeful, if less optimistic than before, that this situation can be resolved fairly and in a manner reasonably satisfactory to all involved.
  
  Thank you very much for your assistance with this matter.

• Initial Complaint

  04/12/2024

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  I would like Orielly Chevrolet to honor the appointment made and provide airbag replacement in a professional, timely ,business practice. The first recall I waited in the lobby, I was left there for hours. My dash was dented and not addressed. The next recallI I set an appointment. After showing up early, I was told to wait in a very long line with the car running. The attendant walks right bye with no acknowledgement. I called the service department and asked where I should be for my set appointment and again pointed to a long line. I told the representative to call me and tell me when my appointment would be available and include detailed information like Do I need to wait? How long? Do I need to leave the vehicle? Will I be offered drop off and pick up services? I was told get in line or reschedule. The infinite loop starts again. Finally received a call from the customer service department who stated the same but in different words like I chose a busy day or do you want to reschedule? I want to get the recall work completed as soon as possible before someone is injured. I don't want to be afraid of driving my car.

  

  Business response

  04/22/2024

  I apologize for the slow reply on this one.  I'd been dragging my feet on the reply in hopes of being able to report that it was all handled.  We've had two managers leaving messages and trying to connect with the Complainant since we first received this BBB complaint, but with no response.  I couldn't understand why we weren't hearing back when it is clear from the complaint that the Complainant is eager to get her vehicle fixed.  I finally spoke with her this morning, to learn that she has been dealing with a death in the family.  We discussed a plan for getting vehicle back in without her having to experience our admittedly busy service drive and providing her with transportation back home.  The plan is to finalize that appointment this afternoon.  Hopefully we can then make the repair without any further disappointment or inconvenience to the Complainant.  I'd be happy to answer any further questions about this matter.  With best regards, Rob Draper, President and General Manager, O'Rielly Chevrolet

• Initial Complaint

  03/16/2024

  Complaint Type:

  Sales and Advertising Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  Bought a new/used and certified vehicle from dealer. Was promised a spare key. Dealer says they can not provide the required spare key. I as they customer must now pay for the additional cost of a spare key ($350) when a spare key should be a natural inclusion when purchasing a vehicle.

  

  Business response

  03/21/2024

  I appreciate the Complainant raising his concern and am sorry that he didn't feel he was being heard when raising it directly with our team here at O'Rielly.  I have investigated this matter pretty thoroughly, and it seems to me that our team here has been responsive to the Complainant's request and working hard to provide him with a second key, at our expense, even though it was not part of the vehicle purchase transaction.  It is my understanding that the matter has been resolved.  I would like to ask the Complainant to confirm that that is the case.  In the meantime, I will add some background and commentary:  Complainant seems to be conveying both an opinion -- "a spare key should be a natural inclusion when purchasing a vehicle" -- and a complaint -- "Was promised a spare key."  With respect to Complainant's opinion, based on substantial experience in the industry and with this specific situation, I respectfully disagree.  Many consumers would rather pay a few hundred dollars less for a vehicle than, for example, receive two keys or have cosmetic dents removed or other minor issues resolved.  It is a tricky balance, but Complainant's opinion certainly is not universally shared.  Of course, we can always accommodate a customer's desire for additional keys or other equipment or services when those desires are made clear during the purchase process.  As for Complainant's complaint ("Was promised a spare key"), it appears to me that this commitment was made after the purchase had been completed, as Complainant was leaving the store, when Complainant asked for a second key and a member of our sales team said he would look into getting one.  Our team member probably made a mistake by being so accommodating and apparently giving the Complainant the impression that he had purchased a second key or was otherwise entitled to one.  But I don't mind that kind of mistake in favor of the customer.  In any event, my investigation shows that once the Complainant's expectation was understood by our team, we committed to providing a second key at our expense.  It seems like there was some hesitancy by Complainant to return to our store to have the second key cut, so we apparently agreed to pay another out-of-town dealership to cut the key to make it more convenient for him.  I'd like to hear from Complainant as to whether he feels the situation has been resolved to his satisfaction and to confirm that our sales team had already agreed to provide him with a second key before I got involved and that a second key was in fact provided at no expense to him.  I'd be happy to respond to any further concerns or questions regarding this situation.  And I would like to thank Complainant for doing business with O'Rielly Chevrolet!  With best regards, Rob Draper, President and General Manager

• Initial Complaint

  01/27/2024

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  The same issue is still happening. It's not fixed.

  

  Business response

  01/31/2024

  We have nothing further to add to our first four responses.  If the Consumer feels that there is an open issue with his vehicle, he needs to take it to a Chevrolet dealership to have it addressed.  General Motors is not going to consider or authorize a refund based on statements made to the BBB or the Attorney General.  The vehicle needs to be examined by a Chevrolet dealership.  At the most recent visit to the Consumer's local dealership in Georgia, the dealership determined that there were no open issues, and Consumer has presented a report evidencing that conclusion and indicating that the condition that was addressed at our store in Tucson had not recurred since we fixed it.  Consumer's interpretation of that report was clearly erroneous.  The photos presented by Consumer suggest that a condition may have recurred since that most recent dealership visit.  If that is the case then, again, the Consumer needs to take the vehicle back to the dealership to have it looked at.  The Consumer can also raise his complaint with General Motors by calling their Customer Assistance team at (800) 222-1020.  In that forum, he will be required to be a lot more precise with his assertions and a lot more rigorous with his documentation than he has been with your office or with us.  With best regards,  Robert Draper, President and General Manager, O'Rielly Chevrolet

• Initial Complaint

  01/12/2024

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  In July of 2023, I purchased a 2024 Chevrolet Silverado 2500 from Oreilly Chevrolet in Tucson, AZ. On July 2nd the truck began having issues with the electrical system. There was a point in time where the truck had been in the shop for 60 days, and I had it in my possession for 11. The truck was in the shop at least 8 times for the same issue. I have since moved out of state. I brought the truck to the shop here because the same issue that was occurring in AZ, was still happening. I brought the truck to the shop in my current state and a code reader machine was hooked up to the truck. There were 11 occurrences in which the main computer lost communication with various other computers within the truck. Including, but not limited to, the original error the truck was having whilst in Arizona. So clearly the issue has not been rectified. Mr. Draper of Orielly has been in communication with me, but refuses to address the issue at hand. I was sold a vehicle that has been in the shop an unreasonable amount of times, and the issue persists and clearly was not fixed. I was sold a lemon and it is going unaddressed. I want some accountability for this.

  

  Business response

  01/15/2024

  Complainant’s supplemental complaint does not appear to raise any new issues or provide any new information. Since filing this complaint, he has raised four new issues regarding his vehicle and asserted that his original concern resurfaced during his drive from Arizona to his new home in Georgia, yet he has not brought his vehicle to us or any authorized Chevrolet repair facility to have those issues examined.  We connected Complainant with a Chevrolet dealership in his new hometown so that he could have all five concerns addressed.  However, it has now been more than a month since that appointment was arranged, and it appears that Complainant has been unable to bring his vehicle into the Chevrolet dealership to have his concerns addressed.  The next step is for Complainant to take his vehicle to a Chevrolet dealership so that his one alleged recurring concern and four new concerns can be addressed.  Nothing in Complainant's service history supports his assertion that he purchased a "lemon" vehicle.  And the concerns that he has raised do not support his request for a "refund," especially since he has yet to take his vehicle to a Chevrolet dealership to have four of the five issues addressed even once.  Nothing further can be done to address Complainant's concerns until he brings his vehicle to a Chevrolet dealership to have those concerns addressed.  

  Customer response

  01/16/2024

  The truck went into the shop at the dealership in Georgia that Mr. Draper so graciously set up for me.  I've attached a photo of the found error codes from the vehicle's visit to the dealership in Georgia.  The truck had not been into any shop since the last time it was seen in Tucson, AZ at orielly.  I was told that all the codes were cleared at that time.    

  The service tech in Georgia described the errors as being caused when, "the main computer loses communication with other components." Since the errors weren't active at that moment, they were unsure where to look to try and fix the error(s).  It turns out, the vehicle's main computer lost communication with other components 11 times.  All these codes happened at some point after leaving orielly the last time the truck was there.  Clearly, the issue wasn't fixed.

  The errors have not been fixed which Mr. Draper explained in a previous response, had been fixed by his staff at orielly.  It's readily apparent that not only was the original issue not fixed, but the truck is having several other issues as well.  It's time for something to be done other than kicking the can down the road.  I was sold a lemon.  Fix it.

   

   

  

  Business response

  01/19/2024

  This will likely be our last response to Mr. Bonanno's BBB filing.  He continues to misstate facts, misconstrue data, exaggerate (he recently suggested to the Attorney General of the State of Arizona that his vehicle has been in our shop 50 times when in fact it has been here only four times), make false assertions (he recently asserted that we falsify our service records, which is absurd), and has now begun to post Google reviews under fictitious names.  We are not willing to cooperate with anyone who engages in these kinds of duplicitous behaviors.

  Mr. Bonanno clearly does not know how to interpret the technical report that he submitted to your offices.  The report indicates that there are no active electrical failure conditions associated with his vehicle. He fails to report on how the dealership in Georgia addressed his concerns, but the answer is that they found no failure conditions.  The report also lists the history of prior failures and, in that respect, provides clear evidence that, despite his assertions to the contrary, the parking assist module condition that we corrected prior to his departure for Georgia has not recurred.   So, in other words, the report he has attached to his complaint demonstrates that his assertions are inaccurate.

  If Mr. Bonanno continues to believe that his vehicle is not functioning properly, which we don't believe and which the dealership in Georgia apparently doesn't believe either, he should take it back to that dealership, or to a third dealership if he so chooses, so that they can try to understand what issue or issues he believes remain unaddressed.

  At this point, we have nothing further to add to our prior responses.  Should a Chevrolet dealership anywhere, including ours, determine that there are unresolved issues with the vehicle, we would be happy to reengage.

  With best regards, Rob Draper, President and General Manager, O'Rielly Chevrolet

• Initial Complaint

  12/21/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  This whole process started off poorly. I took my car to this Chevy dealer on November 21st 2023. I had an appointment with manny whom I had to wait over an hour after my appointment for and then never got to meet with him. I finally got a call and explained the oil leak and my warranty with ethos group. I told manny to which he also acknowledged that I needed to know if anything wasn’t covered my by warranty. Manny never called me to discuss costs, charges, none of the above. Would tell me he would reach out on Monday and not reach out until Wednesday. Now a month later I get a text telling me that I owe 778 and change. So I call and get no answer or response. I have also tried contacting the manager multiple times (Ray) and left multiple voicemails and I have gotten zero follow up from him. They are saying I owe for .7 hours not covered by warranty because they went over recommended time. They are also trying to charge me 333.00 dollars for “shop supplies” they replaced a head gasket and oil pans. What supplies added up to that amount? It’s just been a poor experience all around. I feel like I’m being squeezed and extorted for a few extra dollars that I don’t have. Which I made clear to manny. I would have decided to take my car elsewhere had I been provided this information prior to repairs. The fact that I had zero information. I still don’t even know what all was done. So hopefully they can settle on this .7 hours and shop supplies so I can pay my deductible and get my car. I hate to leave this but the lack of follow up and explanation/communication is horrible. Once again no information was given to me on costs or anything prior to repairs starting. All I got was a text that said the claim was approved. I also have an entire text thread with manny proving all of this. Now it’s a month later and I’m still having to rent cars and spend a ridiculous amount of money on them just to complete daily functions.

  

  Business response

  02/15/2024

  We received this "second notice" of complaint today.  Somehow we missed the first notice, so we will investigate this matter as quickly as possible and submit a response once we have all the facts.  We are not sure how we missed the "first notice" -- perhaps because it came over the Christmas holidays, but that is no excuse -- and will endeavor to provide a substantive response as soon as possible.  With best regards, Rob Draper, President and General Manager

• Initial Complaint

  11/22/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  On July 1st, 2023, I purchased a 2024 Chevrolet Silverado 2500 from Orielly Chevrolet in Tucson, Arizona. While at the dealership, my wife explained to me that the salesman, Aaron Antes, explained to her, that the truck had been purchased by someone else prior, but he never drove it off the lot. Mr. Antes advised my wife, and I found this out after we’d purchased the truck and left the dealership, that the former buyer realized he, “Couldn’t have the vehicle in California due to their laws on vehicles.” Not sure what that even means. Had I known about the explanation Mr. Antes gave my wife about why the truck was not driven off the lot, I would have dug a little deeper. Based on our experience thus far with this truck, I suspect, but cannot prove, that the first buyer noticed issues with the truck and walked away. I asked Mr. Antes if there were any mechanical issues with the truck that were found by the previous buyer. Mr. Antes stated, “I can assure you, there are no mechanical issues with this vehicle.” On July 2nd, 2023, an error message popped up on the dash, “Park Assist Blocked See Owner’s Manual”. I went back to the dealership to hopefully have the issue rectified. While waiting to speak with someone, I was standing by the front desk on the sales floor. I asked a woman, who I later identified as Racheal Lomonaco via the Orielly website, what the difference was between the salesmen who wear white shirts and the ones that wear blue. She said, “The ones that wear blue are lazy, don’t give a shit about their appearance, and are too cheap to spend the money to send their shirts to the cleaners.” I was lucky enough to have had a salesman the day prior, who was wearing a blue shirt. Eventually, I spoke with David Sorkin, a delivery coordinator. I advised him of the error that was showing up on the dash. He said, “If it continues, bring it back in, and we’ll get it fixed.” The error continued to show up every time I drove the truck. On July 7th, 2023 a new error, as well as the original error, showed up on the dash. While driving at 50 mph, an error showed up on the dash that read, “Key Missing Check for Key.” As you could imagine, quite jarring. I went back to the dealership on July 7th and tried to speak with Mr. Antes who was not available. I spoke with another delivery coordinator, Sonia Cowan. She initially advised that I wouldn’t be able to get my truck into the shop until July 15th. I explained that was unacceptable as I purchased the truck two days prior and it was already having issues. Ms. Cowan was able to get me an appointment for July 10th with the service department at Orielly. Going forward, the service department at Orielly will be referred to as, “the shop” or the “shop at Orielly”. I dropped the truck off at the shop on July 10th. The truck was given back the following day, July 11th. The “Key Missing Check for Key” error stopped showing up, but the original error, “Park Assist Blocked See Owner’s Manual” persisted. The truck went back into the shop at Orielly on July 17th. The truck was in the shop for 14 days. I picked the truck up on July 31st. The original error persisted. The truck went back into the shop on August 2nd. The truck was in the shop for 8 days. I picked up the truck on August 9th. The error persisted and it was back in the shop on August 10th. On August 15th, I went to the dealership to pick up the truck. The truck had been at the shop for 5 days. 4 minutes after leaving the dealership lot, the original error popped up on the dash. I brought the truck back to the dealership. On September 18th, I got the truck back. The truck had been in the shop for 33 days. To this point, the truck was in the shop for 61 days. It had been in my possession for 18 days. On October 27th, the truck went back into the shop. The truck was in the shop for 10 days, and was picked up on November 6th. All the above is simply the issues with the truck. Now we can get into the issues with the staff. Specifically, the general sales manager. At some point, I cannot recall which day, I spoke with the general sales manager. I explained my concerns regarding the truck. He said to me, “I can’t believe how calm you are about all this. If this were my truck, I’d be pissed! And most likely be yelling about it.” I explained that based on the history thus far, I wanted to explore options on what could be done with the truck. The general sales manager stated that he could not cancel the loan but was willing to start a new loan with an incoming truck. At the time, there were no trucks on the lot he could offer me. But there was one in transit that was similar to the truck we had, except it was white. From the start of the buying process, my wife advised me, very clearly, that a white truck was not an option. At this point, we needed a truck that worked, so I said the white truck would be ok. We were also in a crunch because interest rates were beginning to go up. And if we were getting a new truck, we’d have to get a new loan, and a new interest rate. I told the general sales manager I would sign for the truck even though it wasn’t on the lot yet because I trusted Orielly and wanted to give them my business. The general sales manager told me he would get me the documents in the next day or two max. I waited three days and heard nothing. On August 8th or 9th, I went to the dealership, after not hearing anything regarding the new deal, and advised the general sales manager that I no longer wanted the new deal we were trying to reach and certainly did not want the truck we currently had. I had spoken with employees at the dealership, including the general sales manager about this truck being a lemon and the associated process, which including paying for mileage on the truck. I explained that since it was clear that Orielly had no interest in making good on their sale of an obviously defective vehicle, it would be best if my truck stayed on Oreilly’s lot while the GM buyback process took place. The sales manager advised that, “If the vehicle stayed on the lot, there would be a repo” on my credit. Not the most helpful suggestion. Days later, (not sure of the date) I returned to the general sales manager’s office in a last ditch effort to get the situation sorted out. I saw on the Orielly website that there was a 2024 Chevrolet Silverado 2500 LT (one trim level up from what we had purchased) available for sale. The cost of the LT model was actually lower than what I had paid for my truck. I explained to the general sales manager that if we could make the deal happen, I wouldn’t even pay the lower price for the truck. We could do an even swap and call it good. He told me that there was no possible way that he could do that. He told me that I would have to pay money in order to get into the higher trim level truck. Even though, it cost less than the truck I had purchased about a month prior. I thanked him, and walked out. I called my wife and explained the situation to her. She called the general sales manager with questions. He advised that he would get her numbers for what our truck was worth and how much the LT model would be. Our original salesman, Mr. Antes, called my wife and said they had a white truck available, which he knew very clearly, that we did not want from when we met on July 1st. Well, had he paid attention I suppose. It was different than the LT trim level truck I had seen on the website. Mr. Antes advised that they would offer us 49k for our truck and we would have to pay some amount in order to get into the white truck. A month prior, the sticker price for the truck I had purchased was $56,305. What a slap in the face. My wife had not nice things to say to Mr. Antes and she hung up. This issue could have been rectified at the local level months ago. It is readily apparent that customer service is simply not part of what is offered at Orielly. Furthermore, there is zero accountability at this dealership. It was said to me by Mr. Antes and by the general sales manager, “We don’t put the cars together, we just sell them.” Both said the exact same thing using the same words. Odd. Given the opportunity, I would love to speak to the President, Mr. Draper, as I see he replies to almost every one of the complaints on this website. Thanks.

  

  Business response

  12/01/2023

  I appreciate the Complainant taking the time to submit these comments and am sorry that he and has wife have had such a difficult time with their vehicle and have not been satisfied with their experience in our store.  I have investigated this situation thoroughly, as the facts related by the Complainant are lengthy and complicated.  In short, I certainly understand the Complainant's frustration with having to bring the vehicle back several times to have the sensor issues addressed.  In hindsight, our efforts to help Complainant get into a different vehicle only further complicated the process and added to the inconvenience.  It seems to me that the vehicle was likely experiencing two different sensor issues, not just one, which contributed to our failure to get it fixed on the first several attempts.  It is my understanding that both the parking assist sensor and gateway module have now been successfully reprogrammed and that the vehicle is operating properly.  For what it's worth, I don't think the Complainant has quoted our Vehicle Services Director accurately or fairly.  I know her well and am confident that her comments have been misquoted and misconstrued.  In addition, I don't agree that there is zero accountability in our business.  Many people here worked diligently to get these issues resolved, and everyone is being held accountable for our shortcomings.  Again, I apologize to the Complainant that it took us several tries to identify and resolve the sensor and module issues with his vehicle, and I thank the Complainant and his wife for their business.  Robert Draper, President and General Manager, O'Rielly Chevrolet

  

  Business response

  12/11/2023

  I spoke with the Complainant on Friday (December 8).  He now lives in Brunswick, GA, so I have put him in touch with a Chevrolet dealership there that is run by an acquaintance of mine.  I have briefed them on the four concerns that Mr. Bonanno raised with me on the phone on Friday (which are different than the sensor and module issues repaired in our shop).  They include:  a "knocking noise" on the front left side of the vehicle; slow and rough idle; a “cricket noise” in the cab; and "an annoying humming noise" when the defrost fan is on High.  I apologized to Mr. Bonanno that he felt I was calling him a liar by suggesting that he may have misquoted an employee of ours.  I think that issue is put to bed.  We will follow this matter and are confident that the Chevrolet store in Brunswick will be able to address these new issues.  With best regards, Rob Draper, President and General Manager, O'Rielly Chevrolet
  

  Customer response

  12/13/2023

  Part of the response from Mr. Draper:

  "I have briefed them on the four concerns that Mr. Bonanno raised with me on the phone on Friday (which are different than the sensor and module issues repaired in our shop)"

  The new issues are IN ADDITION TO the original issue (Park Assist Blocked See Owner’s Manual). That error has showed up 6 times since I left Tucson. Yesterday, the error I've received in the past(key missing no key found), popped up again, while I tried to start the truck, with the keys inside the truck.

  Obviously the original issues are still occurring and new ones have arisen. I had planned on getting the truck into a dealership down here to address all the issues, but haven't been able to, due to conditions out of my control.

  With all that said, and with all due respect, I'm tired of taking a brand new truck into the shop for the same issue and now new issues. That is completely unacceptable. Orielly's service department certainly gave it the old college try, but ultimately the issue(s) have not been fixed. Sometimes vehicles are lemons. Let's call it what it is and take care of a customer. Enough beating around the bush. Obviously "trying" to fix this vehicle isn't work. What's the next step? This has been like a bad breakup.

*Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business. ↩