ComplaintsforFiat of Strongsville

• Initial Complaint

  02/12/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Product Issues

  Status:

  Unanswered

  More info

  In May of 2021 i purchased a 2019 Jaguar F Type from Fiat of Strongsville and had the vehicle shipped to me The total purchase amount was $73456. This was paid with a cash deposit and a loan from my bank The dealer assured me that the vehicle had a “clean title” Recently i took the vehicle to Jaguar Sarasota to trade it in. The dealer ran a carfax and told me that the vehicle was a lemon and it had a branded title and i should contact the dealer where i purchased the vehicle and return it. They advised that a lemon vehicle is only worth half of the purchase price - They advised it was worth about $25,000. They advised that the title was probably washed which is illegal and the selling dealership should have informed me prior to the purchase that the title was a lemon previously. I contacted the dealer where i purchased the vehicle the next day. Joe P*** the general manager of the dealership stated that he had given me a clean title and there was nothing that i could do and he would not purchase it back or offer me a refund. He stated that it was an error them not providing a fair warning notice and because it was a technicality, he would not provide a refund even though he is required to by Ohio State law!! Had i known that the title was a lemon, and the vehicle had a washed title i would not have purchased the vehicle. Per Ohio law the following should have occurred, The dealer should have provided a fair warning notice requesting my signature which he did not provide or have me sign ( confimed by Joe P*** it did not occur). The required document should have stated: WARNING: THIS VEHICLE WAS PREVIOUSLY SOLD AS NEW IT WAS RETURNED TO THE Manufacturer OR ITS AGENT IN EXCHANGE FOR A REPLACEMENT VEHICLE OR REFUND AS A RESULT OF THE FOLLOWING DEFECT(S) OR CONDITIONS(S): [list conditions or defects here]. In addition, the title should have been noted with the below which it was not Branded title: If a manufacturer repurchases a vehicle that the consumer claimed was a lemon, it must place a notation upon the resale title. The notation should say: BUYBACK: This vehicle was returned to the manufacturer because it may not have conformed to its warranty. This was not provided by the dealership Upon reviewing the documents from the sale a few other items of deception had occurred The dealer conveniently omitted the pages on the car fax report that he had sent me when i had purchased the vehicle that would have noted it was a lemon so i had no visibility to the fact it did not have a clean title The dealer falsified the actual value of the vehicle to the bank over inflating the cost so that the loan would be approved. The bank had requested current NADA book out which should have reflected the actual value of the vehicle as a lemon which it did not nor did the dealer note that the vehicle had a branded lemon title to the bank so the bank was also deceived in the transaction. The bank would never have approved a loan that exceeded the value of the vehicle. This dealer has conducted an unfair and deceptive transaction. omitting critical information and not following fair business practices by not presenting all the facts and not providing full disclosure/ fair warning documents as required by law

*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. ↩