Complaints

• Initial Complaint

  09/04/2024

  Complaint Type:

  Customer Service Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  This company sent someone to pick my vehicle up, drove it without my permission due to wrong type of insurance even though that was never discussed. Now due to a separation from my soon to be ex-husband the payments got behind a little bit. I’ve tried to work with these people they’re trying to tell me that the only way to work with me is for me to bring my vehicle in for inspection, though they have returned payment after payment after payment and then they also gave out my personal information on my account to several people via text message and over the phone. This is starting to become a problem.

  Business response

  09/04/2024

  We repossessed her vehicle 7/19/23 due to non compliant insurance. We received a new policy from **** ********* that was effective 7/12/23, which is listed as a company we do not accept. (signed customer acknowledgement attached) We contacted the customer and gave her until 7/18/23 to provide us with a compliant policy.  When she did not comply, we repossessed her vehicle on 7/19/23. 

  We do not accept partial payments. (signed customer acknowledgement attached) The customer attempted to make a partial payment via our online portal, which we returned to the card that made the payment.  We sent a courtesy text to the phone number the customer called us from stating the payment of $500 was returned and not accepted.  

  We are requiring the vehicle be brought in for inspection because the GPS tracking device is no longer working.  It is a requirement that those devices not be tampered with for the duration of the loan.  (signed customer acknowledgement attached)

  Customer response

  09/05/2024

  Better Business Bureau:
  
  I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. 

  Regards,
  ****** *******

  Number one to address the loan process we weren’t told anything about the insurance we were there at close and no one went over anything it was sign this and this! Second of all they gave another person information on my account multiple time his name is (Dwight P*******) ************ then also the attached documents I sent with the text being sent to a friend of mine so that two people! When I spoke to Jennifer she said that it would be 880 and I explained I would pay 500 and then the rest would be paid on Friday of the same week! They repoed my car and have yet to return the other $500, However I went out the the company today and was trying to explain due to going through a separation and being told that he would handle it I had no knowledge of this until this past week and I explained I sent $1000 and they would not take it! I was trying to do what’s right and pay them even offer to pay more if necessary! I didn’t know it had a gps tracker on the vehicle nor did I mess with this device! Now I’m out of over 10,000 dollars and no ride and now I’ve been completely humiliated in front of two of my colleagues! I will be getting a lawyer involved to seek punishment against this company!

  Business response

  09/06/2024

  The forms regarding insurance requirements were signed by the borrower. Signatures should never be placed if there is not a full understanding of what you are signing.  We also called to inform the borrow of the non compliant insurance and gave a deadline to send us a compliant policy, which was not met even after it was verbally communicated.  

  Again, we do not accept partial payments.  As discussed verbally and as discussed at contract signing which was acknowledged by the customer's signature.  $500 was sent on 9/3. Since that did not satisfy the amount due, it was refunded on 9/4.  $500 was sent on 9/5, and that was voided since it still did not satisfy the amount due.

  Borrower was notified of the tracking device at contract closing, as evidenced by her signature.  When the device stopped tracking, that is when we require a vehicle inspection - to ensure it is still there, if it has been tampered with, or if it has simply malfunctioned and we need to replace it, as that is a requirement of our financing.  

• Initial Complaint

  06/28/2024

  Complaint Type:

  Sales and Advertising Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  Consumer Complaint: Complainant ****** ******* in regards to Langley Automotive LLC Greenwood, SC 29649 Complaint Topics: False Advertisement, Misrepresentation and/or Fraud in regards to selling a used vehicle; Physical, emotional, mental harm to complainant due to the misrepresentation and or fraud practices of Langley Automotive LLC Facts of the complaint: I bought a vehicle from Langley Automotive on 9/20/23. Langley advertised the vehicle as being in good condition, with no accidents. Langley showed me the Carfax about the vehicle to support their advertisement, and staff’s claims about the condition of the car. I specifically asked the staff if the car had been in any accidents or had any damage, because I was looking for a reliable long term vehicle that would be dependable. I was approved with the dealership on 9/20 and financed the car for 19% interest, which is a very high rate. I mentioned this to the dealer, and they told me that I could refinance in a few months and get the payments lowered. During the contract presentation and signing for the vehicle, the finance manager again went over the paperwork including the condition of the vehicle, and the Carfax report showing the condition of the vehicle matched what she was telling me. The Carfax report was signed and stapled with the contract packet documents. When I tried to refinance the car, I was denied, because the car had structural damage that I was never informed of. I went to the dealership to file a complaint and get a remedy. The dealership said that they would accept no responsibility and do nothing to help me until someone told them they had to remedy my complaint. The dealership has asked me to contact Carfax about my complaint even though they knew I did not have access to resources that they had, and they were the Carfax consumer. They have told me that they do not want to do any further business with me. The business has been callous to the daily harm they are continually leaving me in.

  Business response

  06/28/2024

  The customer is claiming we misrepresented this vehicle.  We simply provided her the same Carfax that was available to us and every other US consumer for that vehicle at that time. The ad she references is from our website, which feeds information on each VIN # we have listed for sale directly from CARFAX and provides links to the Carfax website and vehicle report supporting that information on their website.  When we purchased the vehicle, we saw the same Carfax she saw, as it is an independent reporting agency.  On the front page on the Carfax report, it states “This CARFAX Vehicle History Report is based only on information supplied to CARFAX and available as of 8/31/23 at 9:07:13 AM (CDT). Other Information about this vehicle, including problems, may not have been reported to CARFAX. Use this report as one important tool, along with a vehicle inspection and test drive, to make a better decision about your next used car.”  On the last page, the signature page, it states “I have reviewed and received a copy of the CARFAX Vehicle History Report for this (states vehicle and VIN), which is based on information supplied to CARFAX and available as of 8/31/23 at 10:07 AM (EDT).”
  
  Her initial loan that she references was not through us but through an outside finance company.  We submitted her application to several lenders, and they were the lender who approved it.  The interest rate was offered, terms were explained to her, and we gave her figures with and without a Vehicle Service Contract and GAP Insurance.  She decided to proceed with the option that included both the Vehicle Service Contract and GAP Insurance.
  
  We cannot say what happened to the wheel in February/March 2024, as we are just hearing of this incident.  We also do not know if at any point those wheels were removed for tire rotation or any other maintenance or repairs since her purchase.  However, five months from the purchase date is a long time for a wheel to stay on if the mechanism holding it on is missing. 
  
  When meeting with the owner, the customer continually demanded an answer immediately.  The owner tried to explain that we are finding out about this for the first time right now and we need time to look into it and figure out what next steps can be taken.  We never stated we do not have to report frame damage, we stated multiple times we report the information available on the same Carfax that is available to everyone.  The customer became very agitated that we would not immediately have a resolution, but was reassured we would once we had an opportunity to review the information and reach out to appropriate representatives.  In the meantime, it was suggested that she contact Carfax regarding the discrepancy, since she was the owner of the vehicle.
  
  We reached out to our SCDMV Dealer Representative and a Carfax Representative, who were both out of the office until the following week.  We also left a message for our DMV Representative’s supervisor in his absence to try to find resolution sooner.
  The customer called back very upset we had not provided resolution within 24 hours, and we continued to explain we were still trying to review the information and awaiting return phone calls from the DMV and Carfax.
  
  We received a return phone call from Carfax and asked how a report could show no structural damage on 8/31 and then 9 months later show damage that reported prior to 8/31.  He explained there was no liability because a Carfax report is simply a report based on the information that is available to them as of that date and time. He pointed me to the verbiage on page one of the report.  He also explained that throughout the year every year, Carfax picks up new data sources.  Those new data sources will then pull all historical information they have and report them even if it was from the past, not just new additional information.  We asked how a vehicle could have “structural damage” reported when it also shows no prior accidents and he was not sure but that it was possible.  He encouraged us to file a dispute online (as this is the only way to do so) with Carfax to see if they could get any additional information on the damage, and we did.  They have not yet completed the request.
  
  We called the customer and explained the information we received from Carfax.  We explained we pay for Carfaxes so that our customers do not have to and to be able to provide them with transparency.  We rely on the validity as much as customers do but realize its only based on the information they have available at that time.  We explained that even though this incident is affecting us as well, we are a small business and wanted to do what we can for her.  We first offered to personally, in house finance her vehicle at the same rate and terms her bank offered at 6.5%.  She stated she was too concerned about the safety of vehicle since structural damage was reported.  We offered to have the frame professionally inspected by a company of her choosing at our expense to help ease her mind.  She declined.  We then offered to buy back the vehicle for the payoff on her existing loan, even though the depreciation from her driving it for 9 months was several thousand dollars lower than the payoff without any deductions for structural damage.  She declined.  She asked if she could trade it in and payoff the vehicle and get another vehicle without structural damage and we explained our fear is that we could be in the same situation some point down the road if that new vehicle’s Carfax was updated unbeknownst to us showing some previous damage. She was not barred from doing business with us.
  
  We then received a return phone call from our DMV Representative who stated that Carfaxes are a report that carry no legal binding with the DMV.  He asked if the customer signed an AS-IS form at time of purchase, and we said yes.  He stated there was no fault on our behalf, and we advised of the two offers we made her.
  
  Providing attachments for original Carfax, current Carfax, Signed AS-IS form, and Signed Buyers Guide showing As-is.

  Customer response

  06/29/2024

  Better Business Bureau:
  
  I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.
  I did not go to the business angry or upset. I was initially optimistic that this would all be resolved quickly. At the beginning I believed that L****** would stand behind their vehicles and advertisements. Jan L****** was very upset when I informed her that I had found out that the vehicle I bought from her was not in the condition that it was presented as. Mrs. L****** told me that she was very upset and angry with Carfax for putting her in this situation. I told her that I understood her frustration.
  I told Mrs. L****** that I was trying to work with her and wanted to resolve this complaint amicably.  I told her, I think Carfax has a guarantee on their document that if there is a dispute about information that you may have recourse with them. Jan L****** then said, oh ok. I need to find out about that, but you know that these agencies don’t work fast. I told her, I want to work with you. She told me to give her until the next day to try to figure out the situation. I said, ok, and thanked her.
  Mrs. L****** called me on my cell phone about 30 minutes after I left the dealership. Jan L****** told me that she talked with her daughter, Kelli, and Kelli said that her understanding was that I was the buyer, so I would have to file a claim with Carfax. I said that I believe that L****** Automotive was the buyer since they had purchased the Carfax, but that I would do ask Mrs. L****** asked me to do it. Mrs. L****** then asked me to let her know how that went. I agreed to do that. I can provide evidence that this information is accurate and true..
  The next day, I called Mrs. L****** to update her on my progress with Carfax. (which is exactly what she asked me to do) I told her that I was having a hard time reaching Carfax but I did leave an email and online chat message. Mrs. L****** immediately told me, yes I know, I have access to other site information and resources that you don’t have access to. I pay for Carfax so I have my own Carfax representative that I can directly call. I know that the public does not have any of that. Jan L****** then told me that she had talked with her representative and they were looking into the situation. I was surprised because Mrs. L****** had not told me any of this information the day before and she had told me to file a complaint even though she stated that she knew I would have a hard time doing just that. Mrs. L****** then told me that she had already contacted her SCDMV auditor that handles her business audits, to find out what should be done about my complaint. I asked her, when she believed that she may have some information about what could be done to remedy my situation with this car. (reason being, that each additional day- my daughter does not have a vehicle to drive, she will not be able to drive to her college classes or job, and the high interest is still accruing, and I am still paying for a vehicle that I can’t drive) Mrs. L****** told me that she had no idea when she would know any additional information. She stated that these people do not get in any type of hurry. She continued by telling me that she was not even going to tell me if she would provide me a remedy at all. She said that she was not going to admit to any wrongdoing by offering me a remedy to this situation. Mrs .L****** said that until she found out from someone that she had to offer me a remedy and exactly what the remedy would be, she would do nothing further for me. I told Jan L****** that this was not fair to me when I did nothing wrong. I again explained to Mrs. L******, that I was suffering damages every day that I still had this vehicle. I had a high interest rate accruing more and more money, and my daughter was out of a vehicle to drive to school and work. I was also paying taxes, and having to store the vehicle that I will not drive, due to it being a damaged vehicle.  Jan L****** then told me to do whatever I wanted to do. She told me that I could file with a lawyer, that I could make a complaint and I could do whatever, because she would not tell me any type of time frame that she would make her decision. I can provide evidence that all I have said here is true and factual.
  As far as the Carfax situation: When I went to look at the car, I was provided a Carfax as 1 piece of evidence to attest to the condition of the vehicle. I can not state where the Carfax I was provided was from. Later, when I went to refinance the car, I was provided by a 3rd party, a Carfax which I had never seen before that included information not listed on the Carfax provided to me by L****** which was part of the contract and condition of the automobile at the date and time of my purchase of that vehicle. 
  Per the Carfax from a 3rd party, the following information is true:
  8/30/2023 the Car was reported as having frame damage, and could be unsafe to drive
  8/31/2023 the car was purchased
  9/16/2023 the car was registered in the name of L****** Automotive, LLC
  9/20/2023 the car was sold to me
  Therefore, according to the Carfax, the damage was reported on 8/30/23, before the vehicle was purchased by L******. The carfax L****** Automotive provided me as part of the condition of the vehicle was dated 8/31/2023, and was missing several items that were listed on the 3rd party Carfax provided to me by my bank.
  Why the interest rate matters:
  The reason that I ever mentioned the interest rate of the car is because that shows that I am suffering damages, and very pricey damages each day that this complaint is not resolved. I am currently approved for the 6.5% interest. However, because of the condition of the vehicle that I purchased from L******, I continue to pay almost 3x that rate in interest on a vehicle that I feel is unsafe to drive, and a vehicle that has a diminished value due to the actual condition of the vehicle.
  Advertisement complaint:
  My complaint about false advertisement on the part of L****** Automotive is that their website advertised this vehicle, with the VIN number, and information listed. The vehicle was advertised as damage free. On the proof of advertisement that I submitted, the date is listed. On the date that this vehicle was advertised on their website as damage free, the vehicle already had frame damage. Please refer to the evidence of the 3rd party Carfax that states that the vehicle was listed as having frame damage on 8/30/23. 
  
  
  
  
  My Complain that still has not been addressed:
  On 9/20/23, I viewed L****** Automotive’s advertisement for a 2016 Infiniti QX50. The advertisement has been provided previously. This advertisement stated that the vehicle was not damaged. I went to L****** Automotive based on the advertisement, and spoke with the salesperson and GM. On this date, I was provided a Carfax from L****** Automotive saying that the vehicle was not damaged. I specifically said that I was looking for a reliable vehicle that was safe for a young person to drive. L****** assured me that they had their vehicles inspected, they had the Carfax information to support their position of the vehicle condition, and they had been in business for 40+ years. I took the car to L****** for an oil change, which was the only service I had done to the car, until the tire came off. 
  I have been calm, polite, and worked continuously to try to work out this complaint with the L****** dealership. After, Mrs. L****** told me the following: 
  She told me that she would not offer or provide me a remedy out of this situation, until one of her advisors told her she had too.
  She told me that was not going to admit to anything.
  She told me that she had legal counsel on retainer, and I should do whatever I wanted to do because she would not provide me any information until some date in the future and she did not know how long that would be.
  Therefore, I started by filing a complaint with the SCDMV Auditor Unit- I had read on their site that customers could file complaints on their site about dealers. I started with this informal dispute resolution process, again showing that I was trying to work with L****** Automotive. 
  After I had filed the complaint, the GM, Kelli called me. She then told me that she had heard back from Carfax and the SCDMV Auditor. She presented me with 2 offers of remedy. One of the offers was for me to keep the car that is damaged and I won’t drive, but only pay 6% interest financed through her dealership. The second offer was for the dealership to pay off my current loan value on the vehicle. I informed Kelli that I needed to think about that, because I had put $1500 down as a downpayment on the vehicle. I then asked Kelli if there was any way that I did not have to lose so much money on this vehicle? I asked her if it would be possible for her to take the vehicle, and then would I be allowed to get a comparable vehicle to the one that was advertised? (this way, I would not lose every dime I had put in the vehicle- and I would have a damage free vehicle at the same price that I have left to pay on the vehicle I currently have) Kelli told me, “no, we would not want to have you get another vehicle from us, and then later we be in this same position again.”  Per Kelli, her dealership, L****** Automotive does not want me to get another vehicle from them, therefore, how am I not barred from doing business with them? I thought that the vehicle situation that I am in with L****** was a one time situation where L****** made several mistakes. However, when Kelli told me that they could be in the same position again with me, I became concerned about their business practices. I also have proof of this conversation and exactly what was said. 
  The next day, after Kelli talked to me, the SCDMV auditor called me and told me that my complaint should have gone to the ********** ******* office and/or the BBB. Mr. Smith told me that the L******’s had bad business practices, but none of it was within the authority of his office. He said that I could accept one of their offers of remedy or I could file with the ********** ******* Office, the BBB, and or and attorney. He said that the SCDMV could not enforce legal matters or fines in the same way that the other agencies could. 
  Therefore, I have contacted the dealership, and asked for them to work with me repeatedly. I have proof that I offered the idea for them to contact Carfax. I have proof that when they asked me to do it, I did it. I reported back to them as they asked me too. I only asked for Mrs. L****** to provide me with a time frame of when she would have a decision about IF she was going to help me and remedy this situation. When, Mrs. L****** told me that she would not tell me anything. She told me that she had a lawyer on retainer, and that I should do whatever I wanted to do, only then, did I file a complaint with anyone.
  I began with a complaint to the SCDMV Audit Unit, because according to the website as of Jan 1, 2024 the laws had changed and that unit was more responsible for handling customer complaints against a dealership. 
  Next, when Kelli called me from L****** on Monday, June 24, 2024, that was the first time I had spoken to Kelli. I had no idea she was working on anything to do with my situation. The business had told me that she was busy with fireworks for 2 weeks. Therefore before 6/24/2024, I only had contact with her mother, the owner, Jan L******.
  As I mentioned earlier, I told Kelli that her 2 offers of remedy were not fair to me. I told Kelli that I had put $1500 down on that vehicle. I had paid taxes on the sale of the vehicle. I had paid a few months of payments on the GAP insurance and warranty insurance. (however, due to the condition of the vehicle- those warranties would have never paid out) I have been paying $475 a month on that vehicle. My current loan payoff is only around $12500. Therefore, I have paid a significant amount into this vehicle that I purchased from L******. 
  I asked Kelli, as an alternative, could I get a comparable vehicle, so that I would not lose all the money that I have paid into the vehicle that was not in the condition that it was advertised and sold in. I was told no.
  I asked Kelli what about the $1500 that I paid down as a down payment on the vehicle? But I never received a response about that. 
  No one at L****** Automotive has offered to have the vehicle’s frame inspected at their cost. I have evidence of the communications that I have had with L******. 
  I have continually tried to work with the L****** Automotive Group. Again, the reason that I asked about a timeline is that this car is my daughters, and she did use it to go to school. She is taking summer college classes. She wanted to get a job, but now has not had a vehicle to drive to a job. The interest rate is continuing to add up daily, and I am continuing to pay $475 a month on this vehicle. The vehicle has a diminished value because it has frame damage. Anyone that tries to re-sell it, or trade it will never get the same value that they would have received if the vehicle was not damaged. I did not do the damage to the vehicle. The vehicle was damaged before I ever saw the advertisement, saw the vehicle, or bought the vehicle. I have done nothing wrong. I have not been accusatory towards L******. I have evidence to show all of my information. I have presented the information to them at L******. I have followed everything that Mrs. L****** told me to do. I have documented every attempt I have made to work with L******. I have tried to not involve lawyers, and I have only requested that L****** do what is right by me, a consumer of their business. 
  My understanding of several sources that I have read, and research that I have done has stated that an As-Is purchase of a car does not mean that a dealership can advertise a vehicle in a condition which it is not in. Also, the vehicle was never in the “as-is” condition that the dealership stated it was in through their advertisement (which was written), through their verbal information to me, nor through the carfax evidence they submitted to me on the date I bought the vehicle. Per the Carfax the vehicle was listed as damaged on 8/30, before they purchased it. I would think that when the dealership purchased the vehicle they would expect the person to disclose frame damage on that vehicle. As a matter of fact within L******’s contract it states that if I the buyer trades in a vehicle that has frame damage on it, and I do not tell them, that L****** will come after me for the difference between the value they paid for the trade in and the actual value of the vehicle due to it being damaged. I specifically asked Mrs. L****** about that clause on the first day I presented her with the information about my complaint. Mrs. L****** told me “of course I would come after you for the difference in the price of the vehicle”. I told her, well, why would you not expect your customer to do the exact same thing to you, if that happened to them because you did not disclose damage? Mrs. L****** had no response for that.
  As far as the depreciation and such that Kelli is referring to about my vehicle in her complaint. If my vehicle that I bought from them was NOT frame damaged today, the value of the vehicle per Kelley Blue Book would be between $14,000 and $16000. My current payoff amount is around $12,500. Therefore, if the vehicle did not have frame damage I would have positive equity built into the vehicle. However, since the vehicle has frame damage,the value of the vehicle diminishes by 10%-25%.
  I have NOT asked L****** Automotive to repay me for the loan payments I have made on a vehicle that is not in the condition that it was advertised to be in. I am a mom and teacher that is trying to go to work, provide for my family, and have a safe, reliable vehicle to drive. 
  I have only asked L****** Automotive to provide me with a remedy that would get me out of the position that their company put me in. I tried to offer alternatives that would not make me whole. I still would have spent over $4000 on this vehicle that I am completely losing. The equity that I thought I was building in this vehicle is completely gone, due to the actual condition of the vehicle.
  I asked Kelli to consider the $1500 down payment I paid on this vehicle. I wanted L****** to take the vehicle back, pay off the vehicle loan in full, and refund me my deposit I paid. 
  I can show that I have not submitted bad reviews of L******. I have not told everyone I know about their business practices. I have not advertised my complaints in public places or in public manners. I have tried to work with them directly. When, I was told to do whatever I wanted, because they may not do anything to assist me. I filed with the SCDMV. I was told that I needed to file this complaint with ********** *******, and/or the BBB, and/or an attorney, because the SCDMV did not handle this type of complaint. I have done exactly what I have been asked to do through this entire process. I believe that does show that I have been calm, polite, and attempted many times to work with L******. I am continuing now to try to work with L******, through a 3rd party, so that maybe this will help L****** understand that I am in a negative position because of their business. I have not been treated nicely or fairly by their business.
  I still want to try to work this out with L******. I am continuing to try to be reasonable and fair to everyone involved, including myself.

  Business response

  07/01/2024

  In regards to the online listing or ad – again, that green check mark emblem beside “No Accidents Reported” is a feed from Carfax.  As of that date, CARFAX was reporting that no accidents had been reported.  In fact, it is still reporting no accidents but is reporting Structural Damage. 

  The disconnect here seems to be that the customer thinks we misrepresented a vehicle, when in fact, a CARFAX Vehicle History Report, pulled from the CARFAX website, did not report prior damage to a vehicle at the time of purchase.  As mentioned, that was a CARFAX report just as the one pulled currently.  The CARFAX report we pull today from the CARFAX website shows structural damage also.  That is what CARFAX is now reporting to us and all of America on this date.  On the date the original CARFAX was pulled, the report that was available to us and all of America showed no damage.  Carfax explained that because they pick up new data sources all the time, new information from the past could show today that did not show three months ago or three years ago.  For example – We do oil changes, we did two on this vehicle – one on 9/6/23 and one on 1/3/24.  However, none of those oil changes show on the CARFAX.  That doesn’t mean they didn’t happen, but CARFAX does not have us as a data source.  However, if CARFAX approaches us two years from now and solicits us for business to report to them, then all of our historical oil changes will report.  So, today it shows no oil changes have been done to that vehicle since 11/29/22.  If that CARFAX was pulled two years from now and we were then a data source for CARFAX, then it would then have new items that are not there today from 9/6/23 and 1/3/24.  It does not mean today’s CARFAX is fraudulent or misrepresentative, it means today’s CARFAX is reporting what information it has as of today, which does not include those items.
  

  Even though this whole matter arose from the information reported from CARFAX (from their website and available to everyone), and not in ANY way a misrepresentation on our part, and even though she signed AS-IS forms, as well as a purchase agreement with a section on Vehicle Inspection that states “You are purchasing this vehicle based upon your personal inspection, and are not relying upon any opinion, statement, promise or representation of the salesperson, or any of our employees that is not contained in the written agreements you are signing today”, we still made two very reasonable offers to try and help alleviate this burden for her that was caused from basing her decision to purchase on a CARFAX report:
  

  Option 1: Refinance it at the rate and terms her bank offered and have it professionally inspected to ease her mind about the condition
  

  She declined because structural damage would still be reported on the CARFAX and the value would be forever diminished
  

  Option 2: Buy the vehicle back and payoff her current loan amount

  She declined because she wanted an additional $1500.  Over 1/3 of that $1500 down payment was paid to the DMV for tax, tag, and title, and the rest went toward the total original loan amount which also included GAP and vehicle service contract policies which totaled well over that amount.  I understand those were canceled, but they are typically refunded on a pro rata basis and not refunded in full.

  Just because we did not offer exactly what she had in mind when she approached us does not mean we did not make two very reasonable offers to help her financially after CARFAX added something to her vehicle’s report months after she purchased it.  All offers we made for remedy were declined.

  Customer response

  07/05/2024

  Better Business Bureau:
  
  I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. 

  I feel as though Langley Automotive LLC is not realizing or responding to the entire plight that I am currently in, due to I becoming their customer. I came to the business in good faith, thinking that they would want to remedy me of the situation that they put me in. Unfortunately that has not happened. I have tried to work with Langley through the owner and the GM. I tried to work with Langley through the SCDMV Audit Unit. I have tried to work with Langley through the BBB. The South Carolina Department of ******** ******* is now involved with my complaint against Langley Automotive LLC. 

  Langley Automotive LLC has offered me 2 remedies. One of their remedies keeps me in the same damaged vehicle, with safety concerns. The second remedy they offered does not take into account the complete situation that has occurred. Therefore, both of the 2 offers of remedy by Langley Automotive LLC are not reasonable.

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

  
  
  

• Initial Complaint

  06/03/2022

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  On July 28th 2021 I purchased a 2013 Grand caravan which was financed with this company. A couple of months later I purchased a 2012 Grand caravan which was also financed with this company. The 2012 I kept for approximately one month and it was in their garage the majority of the time that I had it. One day while driving the 2012 I noticed a little yellow Dot on the dash and as I inspected it closer I had to use the camera on my phone to enlarge it I could see that the engine light had been covered with a black substance and a fleck of it had come off allowing the engine light to shine through. I contacted the dealership which they told me was something that should have been caught before they sold it and that it had come from auction that way. I believe them in that instance until recently when my 2013 Grand caravan that I still have at the moment began acting odd. I took the caravan to a garage where they wanted to put it on a computer although no engine light was showing. I love them to do so and it showed four codes and the mechanic noticed the engine light did not come on when the key was turned to crank the vehicle nor the light beside it and determined that the engine light had been disconnected. I have paid on this vehicle since July 28th 2021 as well as put $1,000 down on the vehicle and approximately $550 for taxes and tag. I feel that since this was done to both vehicles but I have been misled and fraud has been committed against me and am seeking a return of no less than my $1,000 down payment as I will be returning this vehicle to them since it was sold to me under false pretense.

  Business response

  07/27/2022

  The only thing this customer notified us about being wrong with this vehicle was needing some brake work done after driving it for four months.  We completed the requested brake work for him and never heard anything back from him until he submitted complaints to BBB and the ***** shortly after he started falling behind in his payments.  He called and asked us to come pick it up because he was turning it in to us, so we drove to North Carolina per his request, and picked it up.  We have been selling used cars for 22 years, and this is the first person who has ever made an allegation regarding a check engine light being unplugged.  Furthermore, he only made such an allegation after driving the vehicle for 11 months and 50,000 miles.  We have no idea what has happened with that vehicle or who may have tampered with anything once it left our possession on any of his cross-country trips, as he regularly took in the vehicle in question.  How can you have possession of a vehicle for almost a year and claim the current condition of it is how the dealer sold it to you?
  The customer in question also submitted a complaint regarding this matter to the South Carolina ********** ** ***** ********.  As a result, their Dealer Licensing Audit Unit investigated this matter and closed the case without penalty, finding it to be without merit. 

*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. ↩