To tell or not to tell?

+1 , if that's the case then roy should hire an attorney and go after car fax, at the end of the day roy did not do his homework or he tried to pull a fast one on the prospective buyer and got caught.

 

Give Roy the benefit of the doubt. We are now working on the premise that Carfax erased the "salvage" history on this car between July and december 2008.

 

I love it. Make Carfax the bad guy.....The plot thickens

 

Roy, there is something wrong here. We are agreeing on to many items LOL.

 

hehehe your right about that.

 

You would not be laughing if you had actually got that joke
Eric

 

NO, I did not say the "erased" the history in any bad way, or in cohotes with someone...

I am saying and the investigation will show, I am sure of that after multiple talks with their Security and IT people...they did, have done in the past and will do again..

Remove information listed that is "Disputed" by the car in questions title holder and or a paying memeber..and replace it with "Notation"...TILL supporting documentation is reviewed by CarFax...at which time it is found in-correct and removed or found not substanied and re-instated.

 

What about Autocheck?

 

I have been looking into their service and buy back guarantee's for Dealers..may be an option we start using as well..

We looked into them a while back, but could not do what we needed...they have since updated some of their services for Dealers...so we will see.

 

Autocheck-- good question?..

I have tried to clear a item up with Carfax-- I had a car that notated unibody due to the auction announcing it. I took it to a the manufacturing dealer and had them inspect it and prove to carfax that there was no Unibody damage. After I sent the info in the Carfax showed something similar to what is mentioned in this thread. I dont think it said notation- but I think beside the record showing unibody it mentioned that it was temporarily being investigated. After the dealer inspected the car and told carfax that the car did not have unibody, it took about a week and a half for Carfax to tell me sorry the auction who mentioned the unibody must say that it did not have unibody or they would not take it off of the record. It was back on just like before in the next week's carfax. I never got it cleared up, I just showed the buyer the dealers inspection and that helped.

I could have sold the car within that 1-2week period while the carfax was investigating and anyone who pulled a carfax would not have seen the unibody.

In this case, I cant believe that it would stay off for 3-4 months. Also, good luck with finding out what happened, there are 2 many people at carfax to talk to the same person twice. And there job is not to resolve disputes and they probably will never tell you if they removed salvage from a file if that happened as it could possibly open them up to a legal problem in some way.

 

Carfax really drives me crazy! As a dealer who buys hundreds of cars cars yearly (mostly at auctions) doesn't have the the time to carfax every single car. They are so misleading on their reports in many cases. I come across some cars that look like train wrecks with perfect reports, and very nice cars with no paint work that will show accident indicators. It makes me furious! To top they have consumers so brainwashed that they make us dealers have no choice but to PAY BIG BUCKS every month to subscribe and provide these BS reports. Get a PPI and save your money from carfax.

 

Removing a unibody notation from an auction and removing not only a Salvage title but also a reinspected salvage titled car turned into a rebuilt title is a totally different matter. If somehow the seller was able to pull that off, he's wasting his talents being in the car business!

 

You are ducking and weaving so much that you could have a great career as a boxer.


Your ad stated the car was "pristine, even to the discerning eye".

You say "I don't intentionally misrepresent cars but I dont have time to put every one under a microscope"

Everyone knows the car was misrepresented, right? I am sure you acknowledge that now. If you do not, then you must be saying that either Roy is lying about the condition of the car, or that Roy did the damage himself and is looking to pawn it off on you... and I am sure you are saying neither of those things.


So you acknowledge the car was misrepresented, and you claim it was merely an accident, and you didnt know it was in as bad shape as it is.



The question then is, what are you going to do about it? It seems your answer is "too bad for Roy, he should have done his DD on the car first". That sounds to me like "it's his fault that he lew himself get screwed (by us)".

So given that the car was clearly not as described, what is SCC going to do about it? What are you going to do to make this situation right?

I am curious what the answer is.

 

Thanks for putting your butt out their with your car..but here is another example that it does happen..

What I do not know is how long it was changed...all we do know is in August 2008 it said one thing, then December 2008 another thing and the a week latter another thing...so have no idea...until they turn over their records to CHP how long the "notation" deal was on there.

 

I second that. They are a profit for business company and have got every private person in the world thinking a CarFax is as good as gold...hog wash...on one hand they do what ever they can to make the private happy and turn around and change add things to make the paying and I mean BIG PAYING Dealers like myself happy...even if only for a moment..

They do cover themselfs by saying "notation" or as other times I have seen "under investigation"

I as many Dealers rely more on the reputation of the seller Dealer to Dealer and do not have time to run CarFax on everything..that is just the nature of the Business.

 

No they are not...removing ANY information is just as bad...IMO

Or is OK to hit someone with a open hand but not OK to hit them with a fist?

 

Its not too hard to convince an $8/hr employee to do an investigation, to them it will all be the same. They (carfax employee)don't really know or care what the difference, they just want to get you off the phone. If they investigate the circumstance at hand it will be temporarily be set aside until the investigation is finished whether it be flood, unibody, frame, fire, tornado or odo discrepency.

BTW, Unibody damage and Salvage history are both very damaging to a cars value both usually mean the car was wrecked hard. The auctions are scared to get caught holding the bag so they call unibody on everything even closely related to unibody. Toe hook underneath car pulled a little- Unibody, Dually trucks with fifth wheel hitch installed-Frame damage. As soon as the car is sold in the auction it will have that on Carfax. Stupid.

 

You have a woody for Roy and you just made a statement that IMO crosses the line into libel. You should duck out of Roy threads because I don't believe anyone here considers your posts regarding Roy and Cats to be unbiased, and I think most are sick of reading constant bashing.

 

Roy is probably wrong on the carfax thing. Whether he is wrong because he's too dumb to be right (sorry Roy, just sayin) or whether he got some data mixed up or whether it's because of something else is largely irrelevant.

The paperwork shown says "negative" not salvage... different animals. But the larger issue is the description of the car as "pristine, even to the discerning eye". Clearly that was not true.

Either...

1) SCC knew it was a basketcase of a car and figured they could just lie about the condition and some sucker would buy it

or

2) SCC did not know about the condition of the car


Let's give them the benefit of the doubt and say it is #2. I think it's clear there is a major discrepancy in what was advertised vs. what was received. So, what is SCC going to do in order to rectify the situation?

It seems they should either

1) take the car back

or

2) Come to a mutually agreed upon resolution with Roy to compensate him for the true condition of the car (either a $$ to fix it or a $$ refund to match a realistic value for the car)


If they are unwilling to do either of these, it seems SCC's position is that they acknowledge misrepresenting a car but do not think that telling someone that they are buying one thing and then sending another is a problem worthy of a refund.


I am curious to know which of the above it is, or if it's something else.

 

I,

Just read some of this post and my #1 question is: Why does Rick still have a job, If I had an employee acting like this on a public forum I would have a fit. Don't care who is right or wrong, why is this on a public forum? Roy owns his company so he can't be fired, but Roy - you should fire yourself 1st thing tomorrow morning for perpetually acting crazy on public forums.

AK

 

CARFAX is on the way out.... http://www.nmvtis.gov/

-mick

 

So tell us, Roy, you have stated that you don't always run a car fax on every car you buy or even bid on....?

After the last Gallardo debacle, anyone would think you of all people would ALWAYS err to the side of caution. How can you feel good about selling 6 figure cars to anyone at all? How do you lay your head on the pillow?

Or are you gonna tell us that you sell these at such a narrow margin that you can't justify the cost of their service? Really?

 

Read all of it and make sure you have plenty of popcorn . I'm not going anywhere and that's probably true for Roy. They may stick a cork in him though LOL.

You ask why this is on a public forum. The answer to that lies with the author of post #1

 

Mike
now that there are lawyers involved. It's too late to put the genie back in the bottle. Kevin and I do have some back channel emails going although at this point. It's not clear where we are heading.

I have tried my best to explain the entire situation as I remember it. Your asking me for more "he said" "she said" and I don't see any use in trying to make my case on anything that I can't prove. Perhaps the best option now is to let SCC and Cats deal with this via legal or owner to owner. At some point there will be a final conclusion that will make it's way to this thread.

 

Could have not set it better myself...so since you talk to your owner and Kevin talks to me all the time...and since your owner won't take my calls or answer my e-mails...let me state it here...maybe you can pass it on to him..

Cats paid $128,000.00 for the car, I am sure you had a profit in there, not know what it is. I also have close to 10K in transports, inspections, little fixes and lost intrest of the money being tied up as well as Legal fee's to this date..

So in order to be resolve this quickly and move on and save everyone money (the lawyers just end up rich)......

I will be more than happy to ship the car from here in Portland back to you on my dime...with title included. You can refund me a check of $110,000.00. We can then all go on our ways and never meet again. The lost funds will be less than what it is going to cost in Legal fee's and lost intrest on the money of this car..

Let me know and we can remove it from sale and it is all yours again...

Sounds MORE than fair to me.