ComplaintsforBuyavette, Inc.

• Initial Complaint

  01/24/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  I purchased a **** Corvette from Buyavette.net 12/1/22 for $26,498. The state of the car delivered to me was not what was promised. I have had no response to my complaint from the sales manager.I was assured several times that the car was thoroughly checked out, everything was functional and properly serviced. I specifically asked about the tires. I stated that I may drive the car home to ********** and was assured it was safe and ready to go. I decided to have the car shipped instead of driving due to potential December weather. What I discovered when the car was delivered:The differential oil was very dirty,Tire monitoring system nonfunctional,Tires were manufactured in May of 2007 The car had only run a **** miles in the last 8 years - differential oil was at least 8 years old. Proper servicing of the vehicle required these fluids to be replaced. I was told that the tires were replaced around 2015, tread ~ 50% but were fine and safe to drive on. After delivery, I discovered the tires were over 15 years old. Tires this age are unsafe as determined by all major dealers and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.Also, inoperative Tire Monitoring system is essential to safety on cars with run flat tires - without it the driver would not know if the tire was flat.While I purchased the car on as-is-basis, the as-is-basis was not what I was told it was. I therefore requested that Buyavette.net reimburse me for a new set of tires along with the *** sensors (which are dead) and fluid replacements.Tires: $967.96 Tax: $75.00 Tire Sensors: 4 X $47 = $188 ******************* $138.00 ******************** $138.00 Total: $1,506.96 Requested from buyavette.net This brings the car to a condition I was told it was when I purchased it. As it stands now I cannot drive it safely and that is definitely not what I was told. I am very disappointed that the Buyavette team would have let me drive an unsafe vehicle 400 miles on the expressway.

  

  Business response

  03/15/2023

  **************** purchased his used **** Corvette from ** on 12/1/2022, electing to take advantage of our November Free Shipping promotion. The vehicle in question is at the following link, fully photographed with full description. ***************************************************************************************************

   

  The customer personally visited our location to inspect the vehicle, test drive the vehicle, then ultimately decided to purchase the vehicle. He then completed and signed paperwork to finalize purchase, also on 12/1/2022. Prior to the decision to purchase the vehicle, there was a conversation between ****************(customer), Mr. ************************************ and *****************************(General Manager), regarding the tires in question. **************** knew the car had older 50% worn tires when he made the decision to purchase the car. 

   

  Per the ***** some tire manufactures recommend replacing tires that are aging, but special care should be noticed on vehicles that are occasionally used, specifically listing collector cars (which this twenty-year-old **** Anniversary edition Corvette, with low miles is considered).

   

  Regarding the differential fluid, during our inspection process, the technician noted the fluid as good. The ******************* Interval for this fluid is not listed in the C5 owners manual, however, the transmission fluid is recommended to be changed at ******* miles(or ****** miles for severe duty), and the vehicle has not exceeded either of those mileages. Chevrolet does not provide a time period in which to complete this service, either.

   

  The TPMS system on the C5 Corvette is not standard on all models and is often removed from vehicles that were factory equipped with this system.  The description of the vehicle from our advertisement does not indicate this feature, nor was this feature present when **************** test drove and inspected the vehicle.

   

  In the attached file, I have provided four documents signed by ****************.

   

  -First, the originality disclaimer, which provides the customer with information on purchasing a collector vehicle, that the vehicle is sold as-shown/as-is, and that all vehicles are available for pre-purchase inspection.

   

  -Second, we have provided a copy of the Notifications of Items to be Repaired, Added, or Improved as part of the Condition of Sale. This document denotes the vehicle is sold as is, and he took advantage of our shipping promotion. Nothing else promised or due.

   

  -Third, the Buyers guide(which recommends a third-party inspection).

   

  -Finally, a signed repair agreement.

   

  -The final page of the scanned document is the recommended maintenance from the manual, that does not indicate differential fluid shall be changed.

   

   

  In terms of resolution, **************** was aware he was buying a 20-year-old collector vehicle, and in addition, was aware of the aged and worn tires. Buyavette will not be paying to replace the tires, nor fluid services, and as **************** states in the complaint, this vehicle was purchased AS-IS. The customer had every opportunity to personally inspect or higher a 3^rd party to inspect the vehicle prior to purchasing the vehicle.

   

  We also request that this erroneous complaint be removed, to maintain our zero-complaint rating.

   

   

  ***********************

  Operations Manager

  Buyavette, Inc.

  3762 *************************

  *******, ** 30340

  ************ (office)

  ************ (cell)

  Customer response

  03/18/2023

   
  Complaint: 18887876
  
  I am rejecting this response because:

  I will concede on the fluids although the corvette service center I took it to told me the differential fluid was ugly.
  Yes ,I was informed that the tires on the vehicle were 50%worn but I was specifically told by *************************(General Manager) that the tires were less than 10 years old.  He told me he thought they were put on the car in 2015.  Both the general manager and salesman specifically told me the tires had been checked out and were safe to drive. 
  Also, Mr.  ******** misread the ***** guide on aging tires.  What they started was just the opposite.  I quote from the ***** website:  Most of us drive our vehicles enough that the tires treads wear out, and we replace our tires before aging becomes an issue. However, if you own or use recreational vehicles, 15-passenger vans, collector cars, any other vehicles you dont drive regularly, or if your annual mileage is low, you could be at risk."
  If ******************** believes that 15 year old tires are safe to drive on at highway speeds he is putting his customers lives in jeopardy.  Car and Driver (among every other vehicle authority I have read) states that tires should absolutely be swapped out after 10 years, regardless of how much tread they have left.
  While he is free to believe differently, I was told the tires were less than 10 years old.  Based on this I believed I had 3 years of use left on the tires and more importantly,that they were safe to drive on.
  Regarding the Tire pressure Monitoring System, Mr. is correct that not all models of the C5 came with a **** but the model I was sold did.  In fact, all models of the C5 corvette that came with Run Flat Tires came with a ****  (Only the Z06 model did not have a **** as it did not have run flat tires).  This was not optional as Chevrolet required the **** for safety reasons.  Also, the tires on the C5 I purchased had the **** sensors on them (although after I had the **** repaired, only one of the sensors still worked).
  Selling me a car with 15 year old run flat tires without a functional **** is a recipe for disaster.  Without the **** functional, I would have no way of knowing that the run flat tires had lost pressure.  And since the manual states that run flat tires cannot be driven faster than 50 miles per hour or more than 200 miles after losing air, I could be driving  at 75 mile/hour highway speeds not knowing the danger I was in.
  Yes, I purchased the Corvette as is but the dealer has a responsibility to provide me with an accurate description of the as is condition.  ***** stated several times that everything worked on the car. I do not believe that he was being dishonest.  He probably thought everything worked but I also asked if the car was safe to drive home (400 miles away) and I was told twice that it was.
  I would have settled for half the cost of the tires and sensors (since they had 50% wear) and an apology for putting my safety at risk.  From the fact that I never received a response to my complaint until after filling a complaint with the BBB (and you had to try 4 times), and from the response I received, it appears that ******************** has no interest in customer relations/support and no concern for my safety.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  ***************************

  

  Business response

  03/22/2023

  ***************,
  Yes, any limited slip based differential will have a darkening of the fluid due to heat and clutch material. I am sorry the performance shop that you took your vehicle to sold you on a fluid change, and apologize on their behalf.

  I cannot prove for a fact what was -said- between two parties, as it would merely be hearsay. However, *******************, does not remember saying that they were less than 10 years old, but he does state that he said that he was comfortable to drive on them. Nor would I have any problem driving with these tires.

  
  The NHTSA website does not speak in absolutes. Their language states you -could- be at risk, not that you are at risk; more of the verbiage states -some- vehicle and tire manufacturers recommend replacing tires. *************************************.

  As stated above, I cannot prove what was said by either my salesman or general manager. In my initial response to the complaint, I said,
  

            The **** system on the C5 Corvette is not standard on all models and is often removed from vehicles that were factory equipped with this system.  The description of the vehicle from our advertisement does not indicate this           feature, nor was this feature present when **************** test drove and inspected the vehicle.

  Again, the argument is hearsay or speaking of fictitious/speculative situations.
  

  Our website provided you with an accurate description of the tires, which the listing is still active on our website, ***************************************************************************************************
  When purchasing a vehicle, it is the interested party to verify all information before making a purchase decision. All of this we covered in the previous response, and in the signed purchase agreement, specifically the statement starting with the bold underlined WE CANNOT GUARANTEE the originality.
  

  The vehicle was shown to you IN-PERSON, so that you could see the condition of the AS-IS vehicle you purchased. If the tires were misrepresent as new, I can understand the complaint, but the tires were as advertised. We have been in business for over 30 years and have no reason to misrepresent a vehicle.
  

  I apologize for not receiving a response sooner. The sales manager that initially fielded your initial complaint is no longer working for us, and the first I heard of this complaint was when I received the paper letter from the BBB. I am not sure what you mean by had to try 4 times, but again, the only communication I received regarding this, was letter in the mail and responded as soon as possible, (within one business day once I did my research of the situation), but I would not go as far as extending any libelous statements on regarding my personal customer relation or support.
  

  As a show of concern of your safety, I offer (2) things:
  

  (1) I will mail you a set of 4 **** monitors that you are concerned about.
  

  (2) I will recommend you use a third party inspector for future vehicle purchases and/or modify your pre-purchase checklist to include the items listed in your complaint.
  

  I have attached screenshots of the website showing the accurate description, and again attached the signed files for the originality disclosure and as-is purchase.

   

  Thank you,
  

  ***********************

  Customer response

  03/23/2023

   
  Complaint: 18887876
  
  I am rejecting this response because:

  Just for clarification:  I sent my first complaint about the tires on 12/16/2022 to your salesman Chis. I received no response. After weeks of no response, I followed up with emails to ***** on 1/14/2023, 1/16/2023, 1/19/2023 and 1/24/2023 (I have all of these emails if you would like to see them).  The only response I received was from ***** on 1/17/2023 stating that he would look into it.  However, despite 2 more emails from me he never did.  I then filled the complaint with the Better Business Bureau in January.  The BBB informed me they attempted to get a response from Buyavette.net on three separate occasions from January until their fourth attempt in March (which you responded to).  I dont know how you could consider going 3 months before providing a response and then only through BBB, as anything other than a lack of interest or concern for customer support.

  
  Regarding the tires, I checked with Kumho tire company and their technical service bulletin states that even if tires appear serviceable and have not reached their legal limit, they should be replaced after 10 years.  While I didnt read this service bulletin until now I was aware of tire aging from a Car and Driver article I read a couple of years ago stating that no tire should be used after 10 years of age even if it had never been on the road due to degradation of the rubber over time.  I immediately replace tires (after reading that) on an older vehicle I seldom used with tires over 10 years old.

  
  This is why, one of the first things I asked about was the age of the tires.  The 50% wear did not concern me as I will likely put less than **** miles per year on the Corvette.  You previously indicated, you follow manufactures recommendations for servicing the vehicle (oil/ fluids, etc.)  However, your service department did not follow the recommendation of ****************** to replace tires over 10 years old.  It is certainly your right to sell a car without doing the recommended maintenance but I was informed that the Corvette was properly serviced and was safe to drive.  This was incorrect on 2 fronts.

  
  The tires and the **** being nonfunctional.  Selling a car with run flat tires and no **** is a very serious disregard for safety.  I challenge you to find a single Car manufacturer or Tire manufacturer that would disagree with this statement.  As to my test driving the car, I had no knowledge at the time of how run flat tires work.  That is why I relied on the statements of your personnel being accurate and truthful.  I was told several times that everything worked on the car and that it was safe to drive.
  I have already replaced the **** sensors with the new tires I purchased (after having the **** repaired).  If your stance continues to be that 15-year-old tires are safe, despite the tire industry saying they are not, and that not replacing them and ignoring the manufacturers recommendation is OK without telling your customers then we are at an impasse and this complaint will just have to go unresolved.

  
  Sincerely,
  
  ***************************

*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. ↩