Explore your opportunities! Create an account or Sign In
The most trusted and popular consumer complaints website

The HighLine Motor Group / Deceptive Auto Practices

1150 Westford Street Lowell, MA, United States Review updated:
4.15
Contact information:
Phone: 1-866-231-2457

I purchased a 2000 Toyota Camry from the Highline Motor Group in Lowell Massachusetts in the fall of 2007. To date, I have had the vehicle serviced 13 times in a matter of months. I later found out the Toyota, which appeared to have a “clear and clean” car fax title was involved in a previous accident and was serviced to appear as a “slightly used vehicle.” My mechanic, who informed me unfortunately too late, that the Highline Group is notorious for selling auction bought, flood vehicles and has a history of bluntly ignoring customers. The “30 day warranty” which covers ONLY CERTAIN engine components, nothing electrical is a joke. BUYER BEWARE! HIGHLINE MOTORS rips off their customers! DO NOT PURCHASE A VEHICLE FROM THEM! SAVE YOUR MONEY !!
Td
0

Comments

Sort by: UpDate | Rating
Lo
  23rd of Oct, 2008
Agree Disagree 0 Votes
Whats up with the $2, 000 dollar down affecting (faking) their prices shown?
Mj
  23rd of Oct, 2008
Agree Disagree 0 Votes
The $2000 down assumption is an industry standard. I was also very suprosed to see the initial issue on this board, regarding the dealership ignoring customers. I have bought an 06 Escalade and a 04 Camry from Highline and referred both of my children and several other law enforcement officers to both buy and sell their vehicles through Highline. The operation is top notch from sales to service. A good business deserves recognition and a forum like this is a dangerous place to base your opinions on.
53
  11th of Apr, 2009
Agree Disagree -9 Votes
I bought a rare Saleen there. They let me take the car home and gave me a 7 day try it, and if you don't like it return it type deal. They even sign a contract stating that fact. I brought the car home, and the next day I was back trying to return the vehicle. The vehicle was in such bad condition (mechanically), I don't know how it was even still running. The clutch was blown (or atleast wouldn't hold worth a crap), the engine was knocking like crazy, the suspension hit bottom every corner and bump, and was missing a good portion of the undercarage due to hitting all the time. They refused to take back the car stating that I did all this damage, and that wasn't there. After two weeks of on and off fighting, I decided to just bring the car there, leave the keys in the ignition and go home. The bank finally (after that stunt) closed the loan, and sued the dealers for mis-rep. Also the most disrepectful people I've every seen. Swore at me like a truck driver and almost turned into assualt. Stay away!!!

P.S. Theres a chop shop in the back of the place, for salvage fixes.
Se
  14th of May, 2009
Agree Disagree -1 Votes
My family, friends and I have purchased numerous vehicles from The High Line Group Inc. of LOWELL MASS over the past 13 years and have been 100 % satisfied with our vehicles and especially their top notch service. It is my strong opinion that the person that Supposedly test drove the Saleen up above is mistaken this dealership for another entity. In fact, they do not have a 7 day test drive policy in effect and they do not have what you called a chop shop in the back. It is indeed a state of the art service facility. The above refernced person that stated this dealership deserves recognition for their professionalism is correct. I will continue to do business with them and will indeed continue to refer all my friends and family.

Keep up the good hard work and it is too bad that people can post eroneous information to defame and tarnish the dealership's reputation. They do not deserve it. Please get your facts straight and cease and desist from posting eroneous reports.
53
  14th of May, 2009
Agree Disagree -9 Votes
The Saleen I test drove they said had a 7 day policy, but did NOT infact have one. They were VERY deceptive to sell the car. On top of that, they also said I could be the sole owner of the car, and have the insurance in my name if the loan went through, when infact, the bank didn't want my name on the loan or the insurance. They wanted my co-signers name. The Highline group lied to not just me, but the bank as well. If you don't believe me, go talk to Columbus Credit Union, in Warren.
Da
  28th of May, 2009
Agree Disagree 0 Votes
My husband and I purchased two used cars from "The High-Line Group". I have the highest of praise for this Group. There was never any pressure to purchase a car. The staff was extremely knowledgeable in responding to our questions. I had two slight issues with the car. The mechanic listened to my concerns and suggested I bring the car in at my convenience. They serviced the problem in no time flat and took the time to go over all the details with me. From the owner who made it a point to introduce himself to me, to the person who processed the paperwork and the mechanic who worked on my car, I experienced nothing but total courtesy and dependable service. I love my cadillac and will never bring it anywhere else for service. I have that much confidence in this Group.
Pe
  3rd of Jun, 2009
Agree Disagree -1 Votes
19years in business in a city as competative as Lowell tells you what kind of guys these are and what kind of business they run. Sometimes, the customer isn't always right. Sometimes, the customer is deceptive in their practices and out for agendas not so obvious. Too bad the internet is a breeding group for this stuff.
Jo
  12th of Aug, 2009
Agree Disagree -10 Votes
i am willing to bet all the positive comments are on this page are from associates of highline. highline sux balls.
Ed
  25th of Sep, 2009
Agree Disagree +1 Votes
I also purchase a vehicle at the High Line Motor Group in Lowell, MA. A Jaguar X-Type. I regret I ever did. Please beware- their customer service is appealing... at first.

Before buying the car, I confronted them about the collision the car was in reported on Car Fax... they told me the car got hit by a shopping cart at the supermarket and "there is nothing wrong with the car's structural or mechanical integrity." They then told me that if there was ANYTHING wrong with the car down the line, just call and they would repair any & all problems- even said that they would replace parts $0.50 on the dollar.

It is now a few months later and the car will not start when cold. I've even had to have it towed to a repair shop... and incurred a $700.00 bill for a new starter motor, spark plugs- and a new distributor cap. In addition to this, my rear view mirrors are stuck, my passenger side windows don't work and the right side skirt is starting to fall off. I can only imagine what will happen next. I’ve tried calling the High Line Motor Group, left messages with the John and Evan the salesmen/owners, and was even told by the head of their "repair shop in the back" that I would be called back, and it would all be taken care of. It's now been over a month and I have not heard from anyone. After reading some of these posts... I'm not surprised.

Unfortunately, I must admit that I am yet another victim of The High Line Motor Group, and I would STRONGLY recommend that ANYONE planning on purchasing a vehicle should stay far away from this place. In retrospect, my gut told me not to buy the car, but I was too much of a fool and believed their lies. I was conned by their deceitful sales practices and I wish I was never involved with them.

And the person commenting above defending The High Line Motor Group is likely one of the owners. Don't listen... more lies.
Pr
  16th of Dec, 2009
Agree Disagree 0 Votes
I agree, everyone in the Middlesex County area knows that High-Line Motors sells auction bought, flood cars to unsuspecting consumers who are looking to get into a nice car at a decent price. I had a friend who purchased a BMW from them, the carfax was clear of any accidents but when the side window stopped working and when it rained the interior of the car would get soaked... her shop told her that the door was not original and was in an accident... BUYER BEWARE!!!
Ba
  23rd of Dec, 2009
Agree Disagree 0 Votes
I completely agree with you, HIGHLINE MOTORS aka HIGH-LINE MOTOR SPORTS of LOWELL MA are scam artists. The owner/sales man John is a class-act. He's a classic car sales man who gets you into a junk vehicle with promises it is in great condition because they have a "repair shop" in the back aka chop shop. This place is a joke, my friend looked at a Mercedes there it wouldn't even start when he wanted to test drive it, they actually had to unlock the car from the passenger side to get in because the car was undergoing "maintenance" there were also car doors that were on the side of the building...
DO NOT BUY FROM THEM CHECK CARFAX BEFORE YOU PURCHASE ANY CAR!!
Ch
  17th of Apr, 2010
Agree Disagree +1 Votes
Everyone has to remember that checking a Carfax does nothing if they fix the car off the record (which is what these guys obviously do). "This car is in excellent shape and has never been in an accident!" - yea right. This place does have some good deals but think about the reasons why... they sell beat up clunkers which appear to be clean at first glance! Also, the guy John who answers emails is as rude as they get. He gives a bad reputation to all other Greeks out there due to his foul language and unnecessary insults. STAY AWAY FROM THIS PLACE!
Jo
  29th of Apr, 2010
Agree Disagree +1 Votes
They're experienced scam artists. It's been proven in a court of law. Look below.


Massachusetts Appellate Division, District Court Department, Division.

Kristen MACKESY
v.
Charles FOTOPOULOS and John Fotopoulos, d/b/a Highline Motors, and the High-
Line Group, Inc.

No. 1411.

May 7, 2002.

Counsel for the Plaintiff: Thomas H. McGovern, John McGovern.

Counsel for the Defendant: Dana A. Curhan.


OPINION

WHEATLEY, P.J.

*1 The defendants, Charles Fotopoulos and John Fotopoulos (the Fotopouloses or John or Charles) seek relief, under Dist./Mun. Cts. R.A.D.A. 8C, from a trial court's findings and ultimate judgment against them for 93A damages, alleging evidentiary and damage computation errors. The plaintiff (Mackesy) cross-appealed from a judgment in favor of The High-Line Group, Inc. (High- Line) on all counts. A summary of the facts found by the trial judge follows:

On October 28, 1998, Mackesy, with a car salesman friend, Michael Cunningham, went to the defendants' auto dealership to inquire about a 1994 Mazda RX7 Twin Turbo, which Cunningham had seen advertised in the newspaper by High-Line. There they met John who showed them the car and praised its excellent condition. Cunningham inquired about the car's collision history and defects with the clutch, transmission and motor. John reported that there was no prior collision and no damage to the clutch, transmission or motor. John and Mackesy test drove the car, which performed beautifully. After unsuccessful negotiation and John's refusal to allow an outside mechanic to examine the car, Mackesy agreed to buy it for $19, 500, which, with financing charges, came to $24, 959.40. The sales agreement recited a "90-day warranty on motor, transmission, $100 deductible on any work done under the warranty period.", which the judge noted fell below the statutory warranty published in G.L. c. 90, § 7N1/4. John arranged for Mackesy's financing with a credit union, and Mackesy bought the car.

High-Line had originally purchased the car with 25, 922 miles on it from Mazda Gallery (Mazda). Before wholesaling the car to High-Line, Mazda had inventoried it and recorded electronically prospective repair costs, which listed "TIRE- 2/4.00 / DOME LIGHT BULB-11.00 / WIPER INSERTS-7.00 / PASSENGER SEAT-498.00 / CONSOLE PLATE COVER-16.00 / REAR TRAY-194.00 / EXPANSION TANK-121.00 / REAR BRAKES-147.00 / ENGINE-4, 520.00 / SWAY BAR ENDS 7 SUPPORTS-294.00 / WASHER BOTTLE-164.00." Before and after buying the car from Mazda, High-Line had the car fully inspected. The defendants knew about the mechanical and functional problems listed in the Mazda electronic inventory. Nonetheless, they chose only to fix the brakes, and make a temporary repair of an engine leak by inserting an adhesive into the spot where oil was leaking. This sealant couldn't indefinitely last and actually broke apart permitting the resumption of oil leaks within a few months. The edging actually required replacement due to casting porosity, that is, contamination of sand in the engine's alloyed aluminum slabs. As such, the slabs had lost their structural integrity, permitting oil to seep out, which posed a safety risk in that the escaped oil lay close to the heat shield of the catalytic converter.

Upon buying the car on October 30, 1998, Mackesy took it for an inspection, but it failed to pass because of a defective tire, one of the items in the Mazda inventory. The defendants replaced the tire and a leaking anti-freeze tank. They also temporarily fixed a door handle. In January, after hearing a knocking noise, as luck would have it for her, she took it to Mazda for examination. They diagnosed it as a bent sway bar and bracket, (another item listed in their inventory), and put the car up on a lift. Mackesy and the Mazda employee both observed oil all over the underside. They then gave Mackesy a copy of their July, '98 inventory. Upon seeing it, Mackesy immediately called Charles, told him about the inventory, and demanded a new engine. He said she must be "crazy, " adding, "look at your contract, honey" and demanded the printout, which she refused to give him. Mackesy followed up with a 93A letter.

*2 In May, 1999, at the defendants' request, Mackesy took the car to Mazda Gallery for an inspection. This revealed the car needed an engine and turbo charger assembly, with exhaust manifold-$9, 433, sway bay mounts and links-$402, and driver door handle-$294. In November, 1999, David Doyle examined the car and found engine porosity which was incurable and unsafe. She was advised not the use the car thereafter, and did not.

1. Expert testimony. The defendants complain that testimony from the plaintiff's expert, that the oil leak was due to porosity of the engine block caused by sand contamination in the casting process, was beyond the witness's expertise and inadmissible; that, although it was agreed that he was an expert in automotive repair and estimating the value of a car, he was not a metallurgy expert.

At the time of trial, the witness was an automotive technology instructor at North Shore Community College, had attended many technical programs and seminars given by General Motors, Ford, and other manufacturers, and had mechanical and auto body certification from the National Institute for Automotive Services Excellence. At the time of defendants' objection, the judge got further from the witness that he was testifying as to the oil seepage, not from some metallurgical analysis that he made, but from his "...training and background and directives from manufacturers.", "... that it is a problem that is from time to time found, and this is the cause of that problem." He then testified, with a video of the actual engine, about the oil seepage he observed and how it came about. The judge accepted his testimony. "A judge has wide discretion in qualifying a witness to offer an expert opinion on a particular question ... and his determination will not be upset on appeal if any reasonable basis appears for it... In qualifying an expert witness, the question for judicial decision is whether the witness has sufficient skill, knowledge, and experience in the area of his training to aid a jury." Commonwealth v. Mahoney, 406 Mass. 843, 852 (1990). See also Keene v. Moylan, 1998 Mass.App. Div. 262 (1998). The judge's allowance of this witness as an expert was amply supported by the evidence.

Moreover, the expert, along with the plaintiff, actually observed first-hand the oil seeping from the engine. He testified that the weld put on by the defendants was temporary, would not hold and the oil would continue to leak. His explanation of the casting process was directed at how the engine ended up in its observed condition. However, the judge did not actually need this information, in view of the fact that the witness stated what the condition was and what the consequences would be with its continued use, knowledge well within his mechanical experience. There was enough of this type of evidence to support the judge's decision, even without the background engine composition data. A judge's findings of fact must stand on appeal unless they are clearly erroneous. Kendall v. Selvaggio, 413 Mass. 619, 620 (1992). A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when, "although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Springgate v. School Committee of Mattapoisett, 11 Mass.App.Ct. 304, 309-310 (1981). Our review of the record leaves us with no such conviction.

*3 2. Evidence of settlement discussions. The defendants argue that the trial judge should have allowed evidence of settlement negotiations between the parties beyond evidence of any 93A 30-day response letter. We do not agree. The defendants attempted in this case to offer evidence of their oral offer to fix the oil leak, and the plaintiff's refusal to accept that offer, perhaps to cast the plaintiffs in a bad light. Whatever the defendants' rationale was, the judge properly excluded the evidence. Evidence of settlement negotiations between parties are excluded as a matter of public policy, "the policy of encouraging peaceful out-door adjustment of cases and causes of litigation." Garber v. Levine, 250 Mass. 485, 490 (1925). [FN1] See also Morea v. Cosco, Inc., 422 Mass. 601, (1996).


FN1. There is noted in this case an exception to the general rule for a limited purpose, namely, evidence of a settlement by a plaintiff with a joint tortfeasor as a deduction from a judgment in the case on trial, not as evidence of liability. This is not the issue in the case here on appeal.


An exception to the general rule arises under G.L. c. 93A, § 9(3). There, in order for a defendant to limit his liability for damages and attorney's fees in a 93A action, he must respond in writing within thirty days of the mailing or delivery to him of the 93A letter. This exception has a specific purpose and is not admissible on the general question of liability. The defendants in the case at bar did not file a 30-day response letter and, therefore, had no opportunity in the evidence to show other conversations or later writings for any purpose, in accordance with the general rule.

3. Damages. The parties concede that the judge applied the correct damage principal, which entitled Mackesy to the difference between what she paid and the value of what she received. G.L. c. 106, § 2-711. See also Melvin v. H.J. Nassar Motor Co., Inc., 355 Mass. 692 (1969). The car's basic price was $19, 500. The uncontraverted value of the damaged vehicle, as stated by the plaintiff's witness, was "... A couple of thousand dollars ... to the retailer, to the consumer it's actually worth nothing, because they can't use it in that condition... it still remained a wholesale vehicle." To the net total of these two figures, the judge added the cost of the plaintiff's financing ($5, 954.40), still outstanding as of the date of trial, and subtracted a charge for the plaintiff's use of the vehicle ($2, 4437.20), arriving at a total of $20, 552.20.

The defendants argue that he should not have included the financing charges in the damage calculation. However, G.L. c. 106, § 712 permits this. In construing the scope of incidental and consequential damages under the U.C.C., the remedies in general "...are to be administered liberally so as to put the aggrieved party in as good a position as if the other party had fully performed... An award of damages in a case involving a proper rejection or revocation of acceptance, courts have observed, aims primarily at restitution: to return the innocent buyer 'to the position he or she would have been in if the contract had never been entered into." ' Fortin v. Ox-Bow Marina, Inc., 408 Mass. 310, 320 (1990). "Whether a particular element of damage was within the contemplation of the seller ... is a question for the fact finder... Interest on a purchase-money loan has been held to be recoverable as damages on revocation of acceptance in all of the jurisdictions that have considered the question. [L]oan interest has been ... awarded when the seller had reason to know the buyer was financing the purchase." Id, at 320-321. Here the seller, who actually arranged for Mackesy's financing for her in order to facilitate the sale, can not deny that he was aware of her loan and the attendant charges.

*4 Even so, as it stands, say the defendants, this judgment could result in a windfall to the plaintiff, viz, she gets the purchase price and still has the vehicle. However, in the plaintiff's demand letter, she offered the defendants an option of refunding her money in exchange for her return of the vehicle. They could have taken it back, but chose not to respond in accordance with the statute. Moreover, the trial judge in his damage determination, did account for the actual value of the vehicle. In the end, if the plaintiff still has a car that can be completely fixed for less than the purchase price minus the actual value, it is not her fault. As the judge noted in his findings, he did not have the power to order rescission, it is an equitable remedy. G.L. c. 218, § 19.

4. Treble damages. Finally, the defendants urge that the court should not have assessed treble damages. They point to their several verbal offers to indicate that they were acting in good faith. The fact that these offers, as discussed above, were not admissible, renders this argument moot.

They also claim that the defendants' conduct was just not 93A material, neither conduct that attained a "level of rascality that would raise an eyebrow of someone inured to the rough and tumble world of commerce" (see Levings v. Forbes & Wallace, Inc., 8 Mass.App.Ct. 498 (1979)), nor conduct that was immoral, unethical, oppressive or unscrupulous (see Linkage Corporation v. Trustees of Boston University, 425 Mass. 1, 27 (1997)). They describe the defendants' actions as "seller's puffing" at worst. The trial judge found, inter alia, that the defects, mainly the defective engine, were delineated on an inventory sheet by Mazda, an owner prior to the defendants. The defendants were given that sheet when they bought the car from Mazda, and also made an independent inspection themselves. They attempted to patch the engine to stop the oil leak, which measure only lasted for a few months. When asked by Mackesy and her friend about any defects with the clutch, transmission, and motor, John "reported no prior collision and no damage to the clutch, transmission, or motor." The judge had ample evidence to support his findings that the defendants knew, prior to the sale to Mackesy, about the mechanical and functional problems listed in the Mazda Gallery evaluation, and, though the defective tire, the bent sway bar and bracket, and the engine problem impaired the car's use and/or safety, chose only to fix the brakes and temporarily remedy the engine leak. He further found that, if Mackesy had known about these problems, she would not have made the purchase, and that the defendants should have disclosed them to her. "Defendants intentionally hid these material defects from this inquisitive customer. [John and Charles] did so to secure the sale, a sale which netted defendants $19, 500 for an unmerchantable car.", wrote the judge. He summarized, "Because I find intentional nondisclosure and deceit, I treble those damages to $61, 566.60."

*5 "Resolution of a G.L. c. 93A claim, including the issue of bad faith, depends on a factual determination of the defendant's knowledge and intent .. We will not disturb a judge's ultimate finding in a c. 93A claim unless the finding is clearly erroneous or inconsistent with the relevant legal standards." O'Leary-Allison v. Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance Co., 52 Mass.App.Ct. 214, 217 (2001). Without more, the judge's findings reveal unfair and deceptive actions carried out with bad faith and are amply supported by the evidence.

5. Cross appeal. Mackesy charges that the trial judge, on the evidence, should have found additional liability on the part of the corporate defendant, The High-Line Group, Inc., arguing that the evidence shows that the corporation was a continuation of the d/b/a business operated by the Fotopouloses. We disagree that the corporate defendant, on the evidence in this case, should have to incur liability. Mackesy points in the evidence to the articles of organization for The High-Line Group, Inc., incorporated, by the parties' stipulation, on February 17, 1999, and argues, that because the purpose of the corporation is to buy, sell, and provide financing for cars, and the corporation's officers and directors are John and Charles, the corporation should be found liable in this case.

Traditional corporate law principles dictate that, in order for a corporation to be charged with liability of another, they must, among other things, expressly or impliedly assume the liability (not so in this case) or be part of a sale of assets that the law would recognize as a de facto merger with the other entity (in this case, John and Charles). "The factors that courts generally consider in determining whether to characterize an asset sale as a de facto merger are whether (1) there is a continuation of the enterprise of the seller corporation so that there is continuity of management, personnel, physical location, assets, and general business operations; whether (2) there is a continuity of shareholders which results from the purchasing corporation paying for the acquired assets with shares of its own stock, this stock ultimately coming to be held by the shareholders of the seller corporation so that they become a constituent part of the purchasing corporation; whether (3) the seller corporation ceases its ordinary business operations, liquidates, and dissolves as soon as legally and practically possible; and whether (4) the purchasing corporation assumes those obligations of the seller ordinarily necessary for the uninterrupted continuation of normal business operations of the seller corporation." Cargill, Incorporated v. Beaver Coal & Oil Co, Inc., 424 Mass. 356, 359 (1997), and cases cited. The evidence to support any of these requirements is non-existent in this case, and was not the subject of any request for finding of fact or ruling of law.

Within ten days of receipt of a copy of this decision, the appellant may submit to the Appellate Division her petition for fees incurred at the trial and the appeal, together with the necessary back-up material and details as to hours spent, precise nature of the work, and fees requested. The appellee may file opposition materials within ten (10) days of the date of service of appellant's submittal. We shall make a determination of legal fees without further hearing.

*6 For all of the above reasons, the judgment of the trial judge is affirmed and this appeal is, upon a court determination of the amount of legal fees, dismissed.

SO ORDERED

END OF DOCUMENT
Mi
  19th of Dec, 2010
Agree Disagree -3 Votes
I cannot more strongly *DISAGREE* with the complaints posted above. I just purchased a 2002 Subaru WRX Sport Wagon on 17 Dec 2010 from John at Highline Group and can *NOT* be more satisfied with the car, with John and with Highline Group as an organization. If there was a way to make my purchase experience more positive it completely escapes me what it would be.

I flew to Boston from Detroit to pick up the car. John sent his secretary, Vicky...also his older sister, to pick me up at the airport. She was *VERY* fun and we had a nice drive back to the dealership. I experienced *NO* pressure while I spent over an hour inspecting the vehicle. It was as John stated...in *EXCELLENT* condition. The Service Manager, Chris, personally drove the car into their (tile floored, *VERY NICE*) garage in the back and had a mechanic, Dan, pop it up on a lift for me to inspect the bottom of the car.

When I asked about tire pressures, Dan checked and set them for me. I pointed out a burned out bulb and Dan replaced it. When I had a concern about the A/C Dan brought their A/C machine and evacuated the system, checked for leaks and recharged the system. *RIGHT THEN* I've been a service manager for a motorcycle dealership in a past life. Highline Groups service department is *TOP NOTCH*

While the mechanic was fussing with the car I went in and bought it. Evan, John's younger brother, helped me with the paperwork including *REDOING* it because *HE* didn't like the mistake he made with my name and didn't want me to have problems with retitling it and registering when I got it back to MI. When John found out I did not have a temporary tag with me he made arrangements to leave the dealer tag on the car...for an, um, *EXTENDED* test drive. They even gave me a pre-paid FedEx envelope to return the plate.

I spoke with Charles, the owner, about the above referenced court case. He was up front about the case and told me they lost because their attorney failed to file some paperwork properly.

I drove the car home 800 miles...it performed *FLAWLESSLY* I bought the right car, from the right salesman and from the right dealership. I *CANNOT* be more pleased with my experience.

It is *EASY* to make unsubstantiated allegations on the Internet. Admittedly, this is my anecdotal experience. I would simply point to Highline Group's A+ Better Business Bureau rating. Who do you want to believe, some anonymous internet poster or the BBB. I leave that choice to you.

I can assure you I have *NO* connection to Highline Group other than being a satisfied customer. Charles told me that he does *NOT* respond to these kind of complaints...it is pointless to do so.

Highline Group is a long term family business. I believe John told me the best thing about how they do business when he said "My father told me you ruin my name and I'll kill you." *EVERYONE* at the dealership was friendly, courteous (in a Boston sense :) professional and *EXTREMELY* helpful from the owner right down to the porter who handed me the keys and told me where to find my new to me car just before I left. I would not hesitate *ONE SECOND* to give my highest praise and recommendation to this dealership. If they have the car you want, *BUY* from them. You will be glad you did, *I* am. In the future, when I am in the market to replace Mr WRX, I will be checking their inventory. I hope to *GET TO* do business with them again...it was *THAT GOOD* - Mike...a *VERY SATISFIED* Highline Group customer
Ih
  28th of Apr, 2011
Agree Disagree +1 Votes
It took about 12 seconds for the tool bag dealer to try and push me into a car that I didn't want. He was the definition of a ### used car dealer, rude, arrogant and just over all disgusting. My favorite part was how he went to get the car for a test drive and drove around the parking lot so the car could warm up and stop knocking before I got to it. I also liked how he kept telling me what I wanted and that I should trust him. He is the reason that there is a special place in hell for used car dealers. Do yourself a favor and just skip this place when your out looking for a car. He pissed me off so bad it ruined my day... and I only talked to him for 30 sec!

p.s. I am willing to bet the positive comments on here are from people that work at the place. Read the court documents, they are crooks.
Ta
  17th of Apr, 2013
Agree Disagree -1 Votes
I just bought a 2007 Mazda CX-7 from them on Monday. The service was great and Everyone was extremely friendly. Very helpful! My thanks to Charlie, John, Jenn, Evan, and Rob. I would recommend them to all friends and family. I asked for new tires and I got them. I couldn't ask for better service or nicer people to deal with. I've been to 3dealerships in my life and this one by far has been the best. Very courteous and friendly people. They helped and answered every questions I had. I am very satisfied with the service I had received and the vehicle I bought! Thank you so much Highline Group!!! I know if I ever need another car, this is where ill go!! Thanks again everyone! -Tammy Emerson
Lp
  14th of Jul, 2014
Agree Disagree +1 Votes
Just purchased a truck from this dealer 2 months ago. I guess I should have done my homework but unfortunately needed a second vehicle rather quickly. RUN..RUN FAST from this dealership. In 2 months I put 2K into it already! It's been in the garage more than it's been on the road. It even failed the RI inspection it was so bad and it's not like I paid $500 for it! Talk about a LEMON. This place should lose their license. Absolutely disgusted that they can get away with how they run their business.
Ka
  8th of Feb, 2015
Agree Disagree +1 Votes
Worst dealership ever!!! Sleaze bags...called them about a truck and informed them about my trade in ( yr, make, model) told that dumb ### John at the counter I was driving two hrs to look at the truck. That's fine he said it'll be ready when u get here. Got about an hr into the trip when he called and said the truck was at Ford next door being serviced. Pissed off I turned around and waited a week for them to get back to me. Finally called said it was all set, I asked what service had been done and he said routine stuff. What routine service takes a week?? Anyway went to look at the truck and it was nice but I could tell the motor had work done to it( lacked in power) UPON their inspection of my truck they said they weren't interested in my trade cause it was stock!!! Said they truck was gonna eventually need head studs ( 03' 6.0 powerstroke, never chipped wth 51, 000!!!) I said the truck is fine it has had all service work done at Ford and is 100% ok, the mechanic and John proceeded to try and belittle me in front of everyone, in the process they slipped and told me the cab had been off the truck I was test driving and the studs and injectors were all replaced, well the never informed me about any off this, wasted my time driving all the way out there to be insulted and ragged on...DO NOT DEAL WITH THEM!!! COULD CARE LESS ABOUT CUSTOMERS
To
  22nd of Apr, 2015
Agree Disagree 0 Votes
They are the worst I worked for them just scammers they talk about other car lots they are the ### on your shoes
Gw
  29th of Nov, 2015
Agree Disagree 0 Votes
Theyre horrible...idk how they got all those BBB certs but theyre a bunch of shmucks who talk fast and probably bribe people...the cars are overpriced the owner is a douche bag who talks to people like theyre stupid and hes gods gift to the car industry when infact he doesnt really know much he just reads info and then BS's people and doesnt let customers talk he just forces BS down peoples throats. If you want to buy over priced cars and be treated like a bag of dicks then definitely shop here but be warned if your car kicks the bucket good luck getting it fixed without a pissing argument

Post your comment

Submit
     

Reply to

close
Send