ComplaintsforMazda Roseville

• Initial Complaint

  07/02/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  I dropped my car off for repairs 6/21 in the morning. I was told there are no loaner vehicles available, so I went back home. Later on, ** told theres a loaner that was just returned available so I come back close to closing time to pick it up. The person checking the vehicle only marked the new damage to the hood from the previous person and showed me no other previous damage marked down. I even told the woman about damage on the upper rack and she insisted it was marked already. Later i saw she didnt mark ******** besides the hood. When I returned the loaner vehicle they did not do an inspection at all. As Im driving home, I get a call accusing me of an accident and I tell them its not possible. The car sat in my driveway in a spot nobody could have hit it. I only drove it to and from the dealership and I had no accidents. They also accused me of vaping in the car which I did not. This damage clearly came from someone before me. I believe they are trying to collect deductible money for previous damages they never actually have repaired from multiple people. I did not pay them ******** but they should be monitored. I would like them to call me back and apologize for their scam like behavior and tell me that Im not responsible for this. They should be doing a detailed inspection upon pickup and inspection while the customer is still there upon return to make sure that they did not in fact do the damage.

  Business response

  07/03/2023

  We have elected to repair the vehicle internally.  We are not agreeing to apologize as we thoroughly believe that this client not only damaged our vehicle but intentionally smoked cannabis in our vehicle.  Both are in direct violation of the term and agreements set fourth in the legal binding contract that we have with this clients signature.  We have fixed many cars that clients have damaged.  We try to allow people to be upstanding and honest however sometimes that is not the case. This client has contradicted himself on several occasions.  I have screenshots that I cannot attach for some reason.  If someone could provide an email so that I can send them that would be great.  There is also damage on this clients vehicle that are extremally similar to the damage found on our vehicle as well as the same odor in the clients vehicle that was found in our vehicle the day the loaner vehicle was inspected.  We inspected the loaner vehicle minutes after this client left and provided that information to the client via text immediately after.  I have those screen shots as well.  

  This is what we sent to him 

  12:43pm 6/23/23

  I spoke with **** who walked around the vehicle and there was no damage. We need to collect your deductible and Geico will handle the rest. Thank you so much!

   

  his response when being notified 

  12:56pm 6/23/23

  I am not taking responsibility for that. We just got done complimenting you guys and now you're trying to s**** me. There's no way possible that was caused by me. The car was not parked on the street where it could be hit and I didn't drive it besides there and back and certainly had no accidents.

  1:01pm 6/23/23

  Your inspection when I picked up I was told things were ****ed down and I pointed out the rack damage and was told oh that's ****ed down too and I was rushed out of there without even being shown what was ****ed down

  1:02pm 6/23/23

  Also the inspection happened after we had already left when we dropped off. Sorry. Have geico contact me.

   

  his staements to mazda

  Not accuse me of damaging your loaner vehicle after I just spent $3,000 on repairs when in actuality your staff just didnt do their job correctly

   

  and his response to our email 

  07/03/2023, 11:20:08 AM PST System Generated
  Whatever odor that was in the vehicle was already there. Just as was dog fur that wasnt mine. Just as the **** on the vehicle was. I was told by your service employee that morning that there were no loaner vehicles because people keep them longer than theyre supposed to. Youre welcome by the way for returning mine timely. Then later on when one is available there are ****s from the previous person not ****ed. The only thing ****ed was the hood and I know for a fact i mentioned other damage that is not on the paperwork. I have a witness and proof of my vehicle not moving at my house and witness that there were no accidents driving to and from your dealership. Isnt it more likely your employee did a bad job reporting the previous damage from someone she admitted kept the car too long? Give me a break. I am not taking responsibility for something I did not do and you should monitor your employees better because this is immoral and illegal. I dont need your loaner vehicles anymore because I will never ever go back there.-*****

   

   

  I cannot attach the yelp review but would like to send it.  If you can provide an email, I will gladly send them to you. 

   

  Customer response

  07/03/2023

  I am rejecting this response because: First of all, just because my vehicle they repaired has been in an accident.. does not prove I damaged their loaner vehicle. That is nonsense. I have all the proof I need to prove them wrong. They are clearly trying to collect deductibles from people for damage caused by previous users who probably in fact did cause the damage and Mazda failed to collect from them. Nice try. Keep an eye on them because this sounds illegal to me. They have contradicted themselves and I dont see where my story or evidence has ever changed or contradicted myself. If they want to continue this poor business practice that is fine with me, but Im not accepting their lies. My Yelp reviews will stay and so will this because its TRUE
  

  Business response

  07/05/2023

  We have communicated with this client internally.  We have elected to repair the vehicle internally per my last response. Communication between the dealership and this client has concluded.  We have also told this client that we cannot force him to take responsibility for the damage caused to the vehicle while it was in his care.  We have had vehicles returned on several occasions with odors, scratches, dents and other damages.  We have had clients take responsibility for damages more frequently than not.  There is no scheme to make money from the damages to these vehicles as the cost of the repairs get submitted to the clients insurance company.  None of the repairs are done in house, and deductibles are also paid to the body shop that does the repairs. We request the deductible at the time the vehicle is dropped so that the body shop doesn't have to try to collect it later.  If the deductible is ever waived we would submit a refund to the client for the cost of the deductible.  We have 22 loaner vehicles in service, and do 100+ loaner agreements per month at no charge to the client.  The only thing we ask for is for the client to refuel the vehicle back to the level that it left with.  There is no charge to clients that take these vehicles unless there is damage. 

    Clients last response is as follows

   

  June 3rd 2023 11:08 am

   

  Whatever odor that was in the vehicle was already there. Just as was dog fur that wasnt mine. Just as the **** on the vehicle was. I was told by your service employee that morning that there were no loaner vehicles because people keep them longer than theyre supposed to. Youre welcome by the way for returning mine timely. Then later on when one is available there are ****s from the previous person not ****ed. The only thing ****ed was the hood and I know for a fact i mentioned other damage that is not on the paperwork. I have a witness and proof of my vehicle not moving at my house and witness that there were no accidents driving to and from your dealership. Isnt it more likely your employee did a bad job reporting the previous damage from someone she admitted kept the car too long? Give me a break. I am not taking responsibility for something I did not do and you should monitor your employees better because this is immoral and illegal. I dont need your loaner vehicles anymore because I will never ever go back there. -Name Redacted 

• Initial Complaint

  04/13/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  On 3/20/2023 I took my car to Mazda Roseville for scheduled service. I requested the infotainment system in the car (the screen that controls the music,&navigation) to be replaced. Its a known bad part from Mazda and they had a ton of recalls in previous years. The infotainment screen goes crazy and randomly changes radio stations/songs.On 3/22/2023 @12:30pm, I picked up my car, 5 minutes after picking up my car my speakers started malfunctioning, a speaker would go out, buzz, and then come back on. I immediately called Mazda Service and stated that I just left the dealership (5min) and Im experiencing problems with my repair as now my speakers are making weird buzzing noises. I mentioned that I was unable to drive back right away because I had to leave for ************* for the week for work but schedule service for the following Monday 4/4/2023 to have it rechecked.On 4/4/2023 Monday morning I dropped the car off to get rechecked.At noon when I called for an update the Service agent informed me the technician is requesting the right speaker to be replaced because it has gone bad. If it was only the right speaker going out, I would believe him, but the issues jump from speaker to speaker.This issue didnt start until I had the Infotainment system replaced.I requested to speak to the Service manager ******. I felt comfortable going to him for a resolution. I requested that his tech double-check the work because there must be something loose or unplugged, since the speakers connect to the infotainment system, and I didnt have speaker issues before. He stated that he wasnt going to have his technician work pretty much for free and that if I wanted, he would give me a discount on the right speaker.He stated parts go bad while in the dealership and its not their responsibility to replace them. I told him I was not trying to get free speakers from them.How convenient for the speakers to all of a sudden do not work correctly after they installed the new infosystems.

  Business response

  04/14/2023

  ***************************** came in on 3/22/2023 requesting a diagnosis of her screen malfunction.  Her symptoms included radio station changing on its own, changing from radio to navigation, and general use issue we call ghost touch.  She is correct in that this has been an issue on some models, however she is incorrect in it being a recall.  It was an extension to the existing warranty on the affected vehicles for that particular repair also called a special service bulletin, or warranty extension.  Most of the models affected are Mazda 3.  ********* has a Mazda 6 to my knowledge was not affected, and a further check on our EMDCS page that shows applicable recalls, warranty extension etc that her vehicle was not affected by this condition. 

  On 3/22/2023 I spoke directly to ********* and gathered the information from her regarding the issues with the screen.  Instead of charging her a diagnosis charge, I had a technician do a quick screen test to confirm the screen was faulty. Shortly after her arrival we were able to determine that the screen was malfunctioning and was in need of repair.  We gave her 2 options, she could replace the entire screen part number GRT7669C0C part cost $1,183.79 plus $195.00 in labor for a total of $1,378.79 plus tax on parts.  The second option would be to replace the touch screen portion of the unit part number GRY7611JZA part cost $417.99 plus $390.00 in labor for a total of $807.99 before tax.  At that time ********* expressed to me that the vehicle would be a gift for a family member, I believe her mother so I took it upon myself to discount the service to $566.09 before tax, I have attached both repair orders. After the repair the vehicle was tested again to determine if the screen was working properly, to which it was.  The vehicle was returned to ********* after repairs.  I was not contacted after the vehicle was picked up, someone on my staff may have been contacted however I cannot confirm. 

   

  On 4/04/2023 ********* returned with the vehicle requesting we check for a speaker buzzing noise.  The advisor ***************************** wrote the complaint as follows, "Client states we just replaced her whole info system and now vehicle is making noise from speaker almost like a loud buzzing noise that interrupts the radio/music".  At this time the vehicle went back to the technician that repaired it initially to reinspect.  The technician's notes are as follow, "Checked for buzzing noise from radio. Was able to hear it for about 2 seconds. It came from the right door speaker. Recommend new speaker to start. Removed infotainment screen and ***. All connections are secured. Client declined repairs at this time and has elected to pick up the vehicle. No repairs have been completed".  At this time we informed ********* of our findings and she was upset as she believed that the reason behind the buzzing was do to an incorrect repair.  I then spoke with her and she demanded that we replace the speaker at no charge due the issue arising after the screen installation.  I then explained to her that the screen kit that was installed doesn't affect the audio.  I explained the the screen kit simple controls the touch screen portion of the unit and that the *** below the screen that was not replaced sends a signal to an amplifier, then the amplifier send the audio signal to the speakers.  I explained that it is possible that the amplifier can be malfunctioning as well.  Amplifier failure has happened on a number of occasions during my time with Mazda.  ********* again was displeased  and requested we check to make sure the connections were correct in video form.  I told her that I will send her photos of the technician removing the unit and checking the connections for a second time.  I then offered to discount the cost of repairs due to the unfortunate timing of the issue.  She declined and elected to retrieve the vehicle.  I have not spoken to her since the vehicle has been picked up.  

  Customer response

  04/16/2023

  I am rejecting this response because: Im starting to see the dishonesty even more now, two statements made by ****** in the response are false.  1. I never demanded that my right speaker be replaced. Thats the whole purpose of the complaint I dont believe there is anything wrong with my speakers and 2. He never mentioned the Amplifier possibly going bad, hes been so adamant about the right speaker needing replacing.  So, which is it the right speaker or the amplifier?  At this point,hes just guessing at my cost. I submitted the only quote he gave me which was for the speaker.  Thanks for the horrible experience. 
  

  Business response

  04/19/2023

  What remedy is the client seeking if the speaker is not what is being requested.  Per my previous response, we double checked our repairs at the clients request and supplied photos.  Please let us know what the client is seeking.  The amplifier was mentioned to the client due to previous issues we have had with the Bose system.  We recommended to start with a speaker repair as that was all we could duplicate at the time of reinspection.  We were only able to hear any noise for approximately 2 seconds.  I am more than willing to help with the costs of repairs as I did with the initial repairs, however the issue that is currently occurring is not a result of a screen kit replacement. The technician that did the repairs on this vehicle has 40 years of experience with Mazda vehicle's exclusively. 

  Customer response

  04/26/2023

  I am rejecting this response because Again *****, you want to start with replacing my speaker first,and if that's NOT it, you want to replace the amplifier. How is that a fair repair? You want me to pay for replacement parts that you don't even know if that's the issue.  Give me a real resolution, don't guess on my diagnosis you are spending other peoples money.  Do you guys not know how to diagnose so that it isolated the problem? Instead, you want to take a guess and replace ALL these parts. Get me a real diagnosis and don't make me spend so much money. 
  

• Initial Complaint

  04/21/2022

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  In February 2022, my 2016 Mazda CX nine started experiencing leaking coolant and overheating which ultimately resulted in the engine needing to be replaced. I contacted Mazda Corporate after my car was diagnosed by local dealership in Mazda Roseville as well as a second opinion , and I located a TSB that described the issue I was having. Mazda Corporate was willing to authorize an after warranty authorization but Mazda Roseville refused to authorize it for a multitude of reasons that one confronted about their integrity of those reasons he, the service manager, ultimately stated that he didnt want to pay his part of the repair so he denied the **** upon further discussing with the second opinion shop, he said that my vehicles problem cannot be ruled out as the issue caused by the **** The Mazda Roseville dealership ultimately lied and is not to be trusted. I would certainly advise other customers to take their vehicle elsewhere.

  Business response

  05/06/2022

  
  In response to complaint #********
  
  *********************** has been our client since 08/19/2020.  On 2/08/2022 ************* presented to our service department with a check engine light concern.  Technicians notes are as follows- VERIFIED FOUND CYLINDER 2 MISFIRE. REMOVED SPARK PLUG AND
  SWAPPED TO CYLINDER 1, PLUG WAS VERY CLEAN, SWAPPED COIL TO
  CYLINDER 3 TO SEE IF MISFIRE MOVES. TOPPED COOLANT. CHECKED
  THE NEXT DAY COOLANT WAS LOW AGAIN. INSPECTED CYLINDER 2
  FOUND TOP OF PISTON VERY CLEAN COMPARED TO TO OTHERS.
  PRESSURE TESTED COOLANT SYSTEM CAN SMELL COOLANT COMING FROM
  CYLINDER 2. REC REPLACE CYLINDER HEAD AND HEAD GASKET. AND
  WHILE APART INSPECT ENGINE BLOCK WITH STRAIGHT EDGE AND FOR
  ANY SURFACE CRACKING OF BLOCK. CAN ALSO GO ROUTE OF USED
  ENGINE IF THEY WANT QUOTE
  
  Her vehicle is a 2016 Mazda CX9 ***************** with ****** miles at the time of failure.  
  Warranty expired at 60,000miles and 7/15/2021 the vehicle was already outside of warranty by ****** miles.
  
  At this time we began to give ************ options as to what we would recommend and the best route to go.  We gave her multiple discounted estimates to repair the vehicle as well as offering to take the vehicle in on trade.  We also offered a loaner for the time the vehicle would be down during repair.  ************ stated that she would want to think about it then let us know.  ************ contacted us the following day stating she would tow the car home.  
  
  Quotes are as follows
  Cylinder head replacement without discount $6166.78 with discount $5000.00
  Engine replacement without discount $10,145.67 with discount $8900.00
  
  ************ contacted Mazda customer service to inquire about an after warranty repair or "goodwill"  repair.  *************** was aware of this type of service as we had replaced her transmission on 12/12/2020 where ************ paid $500.00,and Mazda paid for the remainder.  However when Mazda contacted us they stated that they would not be covering the repairs as the client has already had a substantial goodwill claim covered.  ************ also called another Mazda dealership to see if that dealership would cover her repairs as well and they too declined. There is no expectation to cover a repair after the warranty has expired. 
  
  As for the *** ************ is talking about is a collection of technician notes stating what has been observed throughout the years of seeing similar concerns.  
  
  We went above and beyond to help mitigate some of the costs to repair **************** vehicle and would still be willing to do so, However we will not be covering the cost of repairs as a whole.
  
  Please let me know if you have any other questions. 
  
  --
  *************************
  Service Manager
  Mazda Roseville 
  Direct:*************
  *************************************

  Customer response

  05/06/2022

  I am rejecting this response because: I have service records that indicate I have been a Mazda customer prior to when the business claims, due to a change in ownership. Additionally, the significant discount quoted in Mazdas email to BBB was not previously offered to me. I was told that they would simply offer a military discount which I qualify for regardless. Furthermore, and most importantly, I spoke with Mazda *** on numerous occasions and they specifically told me that they would have covered the full cost of the engine replacement had Mazda Roseville agreed to submit the after warranty authorization. Given the fact that ****************** is familiar with my vehicle and that their dealership had previously accepted an **** he took a hard stance of refusing to help. He specifically told me if Mazda *** were paying for it, hed do it. When Mazda A *** told me they would have covered the full cost had ****************** agreed, I quickly realized that ****************** was being dishonest with me. To add injury to insult, their technician came to speak with me and tried to purchase my vehicle from me for a laughable amount which was incredibly unprofessional. I certainly would never bring my business or recommend anyone do business with Mazda Roseville. Mazda should stand behind the quality of their vehicles and their defective engines. Several 2016-2020 CX-9 owners across the nation are experiencing the same problem. Mazda *** has told several of them that they are aware of the defective engines and has covered some of them, especially those whose local dealerships provided excellent customer service in assuring ******************* reliability was upheld. 
  

*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. ↩