ComplaintsforHeritage Truck and Automotive Inc.

• Initial Complaint

  11/08/2021

  Complaint Type:

  Sales and Advertising Issues

  Status:

  Resolved

  More info

  I purchased a car from Heritage Truck & Automotive within the last couple weeks. I live in Florida and made this purchase remotely. I understand I am purchasing a car as/is, but based on what the dealer has told me it is. His advertisement stated the car had run-flat tires on it. He also stated that the car had "brand new tires" in a direct email to me (I have that email I can forward to anyone that needs to see it.) After purchasing the car, we had the car transported to Florida. Upon receiving the car, I checked the tires and find that the rear tires are 2 years old and NOT run-flats. The front tires are run flats but they are 8 years old. I had this confirmed by a local tire dealer and got a quote for new tires. I presented this information to Heritage Truck & Automotive, Tony B*******, he said he was told by the previous owner that they were new tires, and he had no intent on rectifying the fact that the car delivered is NOT how he represented the car. As a compromise I am willing to accept the non run flat tire, and not "brand new" tire on the back as it is a quality tire with plenty of tread, and only 2 years old. I would like a reimbursement for a tire purchase I will be making in the next couple days to replace the 8 year old front tires.

  Business response

  12/01/2021

  Business Response /* (1000, 6, 2021/11/16) */ On October 5, 2021,**** contacted Heritage Truck & Auto via Carguru regarding the 2003 Chevy Corvette which at that time the mileage was 59,000. We replied to him stating it was available. Few days later, Mr. ****** called and asked if he could buy it cheaper. We told him the vehicle was already discounted by $3,222 and it was hard for us to go any lower. After all we still gave him a $600 discount towards transportation, $250 towards detailing and $28+ for overnight mail which he promised to reimburse us but failed to do so. We sent him a lengthly video on October 12, 2021 showing the whole vehicle. We spent countless of hours trying to get him set up with a transporter. On October 25, 2021, vehicle was picked up and delivered to him on October 21, 2021 (6 days out of our sight). On November 6, 2021 he sent us an email regarding the tires which he said the weren't new - previous owner said the tires were fairly new (we have the paperwork from Midas as to when they were purchased along with the mileage). He asked for an additional $576 which we think was not fair since we already gave him so much. We have all the paperwork from when tires were purchased and bill of sale stating vehicle was sold "as is". We value all of our customers and we welcome Mr. ****** to call us if he wants to. We also asked him to return the vehicle if he is not satisfied. Please let us know if you have any more questions or concerns. Thank you Consumer Response /* (3000, 8, 2021/11/18) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) He suggested that I can return the vehicle? Who would be paying the $1200 to transport it back to NH? Is Heritage going to pay $1200 to bring it back instead of paying me just a little over $500 for tires? Or does he expect me to pay $1200 to return a car that isn't what he said it is? His response states a lot of price, discounts, detailing, and splitting transport cost. That is all part of the negotiation over final price of car and irrelevant to this complaint (and detailing isn't even part of that...thats what a smart car dealer does to help sell a car, he did that before we started negotiating when I commented that the pictures showed a pretty dirty car and I was conserved about how well the previous owner took care of it.) A price was reached based on the conditions/features of the car that were stated. Those conditions didn't match the car that was provided. I really don't suspect that the transport company took 2 of the tires off and replaced them with old ones. Now he is stating that the previous customer told him the tires were fairly new. He told me in an email that the "tires and brakes were brand new." He can't put blame on the previous owner for telling him wrong information. He had the car and took ownership of it, its then his responsibility to check that the information that he is giving a buyer is correct. 2 of the tires he stated were brand new were from 2013 (8 years old.) FAR from brand new, and dangerous to drive on. In addition, as I got the tires replace I had them check the brakes. The brakes he stated to me to be brand new also, are almost worn down and will need replace soon. His add states run flat tires, only 2 were run flats (the old ones,) and it had a 12 disk changer (there isn't one.) If he has paperwork for the purchase of the tires he should show it. I suspect it is just for the 2 newer tires, which are NOT run flats (as was stated in his add.) In reality it would take almost $2000 to make the car match what he stated it was. I am only asking for the 2 tires I had to replace before being able to safely drive it. The as is clause in the bill of sale doesn't exempt a dealer from representing the features/condition of a car accurately. I purchased as is. As is, as he advertised and stated to me, were brand new tires and brakes, run flat tires, 12 disk changer. Thats not what was provided. As is means that if it breaks a mile down the road, he isn't liable. Thats not what is happening here. He misrepresented what as/is is. P.S. He can gladly take the $28 overnight fees off the price of the tires. Business Response /* (4000, 10, 2021/11/19) */ We will reimburse Mr ****** $508.94 (cost of tires minus $28 and minus sales tax) on the understanding that he removes all negative comments from Google and Carguru. Once the comments are removed we will mail him a check. Consumer Response /* (2000, 12, 2021/11/30) */ (The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)

*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. ↩