Granger Chevrolet Complaint - Deceptive and Dishonest Sales Practices
ORANGE, TEXAS -- Granger Chevrolet staff demonstrated a low quality of service, used unfair and deceptive practices, pressure and coercion, and stalling techniques.
On 11-8-11 I arrived to purchase a new "IN-STOCK" 2011 Tahoe, only to be told that the specific vehicle had "just been sold" to another dealership. The salesman [snip] said that he located a similar vehicle and would proceed with a dealer trade in order to procure it. I was pressured into paying a $500 deposit to secure that vehicle; the salesman explained to me that the $500 was completely refundable. On 11-14-11 I received an email from the salesman stating that our vehicle had not yet been procured. On 11-15-11 I received an email from the salesman stating that a different vehicle had actually been procured (email documentation available).
Once that vehicle arrived at Granger Chevrolet, I went in to test drive. After I questioned the rebates and price of this vehicle, the salesman called in the GSM. the GSM proceeded to argue with me, saying that the $500 was non-refundable. In a very coercive and aggressive manner the GSM claimed that several "fees" were incurred for proccurring the vehicle. However, I had been told previously it was a "straight-swap" and no additional fees were ever mentioned. the GSM refused to refund my deposit. A sale price was finally negotiated and a finance appointment was scheduled to close the deal at 3:00pm on 11-18-11.
When I arrived at 3:00pm for my finance appointment the Granger Staff used several stall tactics, keeping me waiting for over 3 hours; never did I meet with the F&I manager. Finally I had to leave for a prior engagement, and another finance appointment was rescheduled for 1:00pm on 11-21-11. On 11-21-11 I arrived at 1:00pm and was forced to wait over 2 hours before the F&I manager the F&I manager would meet with me.
While waiting I explicitly told the salesman that I did not want the optional VIN etching (Universal Security Guard). He acknowledged and assured me it would be omitted from the final purchase agreement. Forty minutes later, I observed the salesman attaching the VIN etching decals to the vehicle. I immediately confronted him and stated again "I do not want the VIN etching," to which he smiled and replied "Don't worry about it." Even after I stopped him, the salesman continued to place the remaining VIN etching decals on the vehicle.
When I finally met with the F&I Manager to close the deal, I explained to the F&I manager what had happened. Again, I stated that we decline the VIN etching option. The F&I manager insisted that the $299 VIN etching was non-negotiable and automatically included in the price of all vehicles. I pointed out that it was an added option and I witnessed the salesman attaching the decals. However, the F&I manager refused to remove the fee.
The F&I manager then proceeded to coerce me, stating that in order to qualify for the best loan terms and lowest interest rate I would be required to purchase add-ons such as Vehicle Service Contract and GAP coverage. The F&I manager explained that if I declined the additional products, the interest rate would increase. The F&I manager's claim that the customer's interest rate is somehow contingent upon the purchase of dealer add-ons is a lie. This deceptive practice is dishonest, unethical, and unacceptable.
Upon taking delivery of the vehicle, I noticed a hairline crack in the windshield and contacted the dealership immediately on 11-23-11. I was instructed to bring the vehicle to Granger Chevrolet. The salesman admitted that no pre-delivery inspection had been performed on the vehicle. No customer walk-around or vehicle orientation was offered upon completion of the sale. In Addition, the On-Star welcome presentation was never conducted. The salesman informed the GSM the GSM of the issue. The GSM said that the vehicle was sold "AS IS" and the dealership would not replace/repair it.
A formal complaint has been filed with GM. I have requested a settlement in the amount of $494. However, his refusal to acknowledge his staff's misrepresentation and deception is shameful. Granger Chevrolet took advantage of us and then refused to address our concerns.