McCarthy Volkswagenservice plan sales scam

E Nov 19, 2018

Mccarthy vw gezina & mccarthy limited with fsp number 6852
Per email: [protected]@mcmotor.co.za
13 november 2018
Dear whom it may concern;

Re: service plan 90 000km / 5 year

The above-mentioned matter has reference. I find it prudent to give some background on this matter prior to set out my complaint.

Back ground
1. On the 19th of may 2016 I made an enquiry on a promotion mccarthy vw gezina had on 2015 volkswagen polo, 1.2 tsi vehicles that come with a service plan upgrade of 90 000km / 5 year. An email from one of your sales executive's by the name of richard malapile followed my enquiry, whom provided me with photos of the vehicle that was available on the floor, as well as an application form, kindly see the email attached hereto in support hereof.

2. After asking a few questions on the specs of the vehicle I was happy and satisfied with the vehicle as well as the deal and me and mr jf du preez completed the application form referred to in paragraph 1 hereof. On the very same day, 18 may 2016, we received an aadp quote from your sales executive with the following items listed:
2.1 selling price
2.2 license & registration
2.3 delivery fee
2.4 service plan upgrade (5y/90 000km)
Kindly find attached hereto the quote referred to above. You will note that the said quote has an invoice number as well an invoice total of r221 445.00

3. I had a question regarding the calculation of the delivery fee, after an explanation we accepted the quote and arranged with the sales executive to visit the branch and test drive said vehicle on saturday, 21 may 2016.

4. On the 21st of may 2016 we visited the branch and took the said vehicle for a test drive, however were informed by the sales executive that the specific vehicle had been sold, however there was a similar vehicle, white in colour with a little bit higher km's on its way to the branch that can be sold to me on the exact same deal since we already accepted the quote.

5. We accordingly advised the sales executive that we are fine with the white vehicle and that we would like to proceed with the deal as per the invoice.

6. It is important to note that through this entire process the sales executive were dealing wit me, eileen ackerman, and only when I was happy with the vehicle and the deal mr jf du preez got involved in this deal as the vehicle was registered on his name and I am the driver of the vehicle.

7. As noted previously, this was a special promotion that mccarthy vw gezina were running at the time. After accepting the quote, mr jf du preez sent through all his supporting documents and finance were approved for the exact amount as per the quote / invoice.

8. We then received the purchasing agreement which we signed and sent back to the dealership. Kindly see attached hereto the unsigned contract that we received. You will note that the total principal debt on the icontract and the invoice total on the quote is exactly the same amount, r221 445.00.

9. Further to this, you will note that on the quote / invoice the service plan upgrade of 90 000km / 5 years were listed at no charge, hence us not finding it strange that the icontract (sent to us by mr andre jansen van rensburg, representing mccarthy) made no reference of this service plan upgrade.

10. However, when arriving at the branch on the day of delivery of the vehicle we were surprised with a new contract that we had to sign, with a much larger principal debt amount than the quote / invoice and the original icontract. Fortunately, we noticed this and immediately queried the larger amount, only to be informed that the vehicle had been fitted with accessorize that we never requested nor consented to be fitted to the vehicle, please see the list of accessories that were added without our permission and/or consent:
10.1 bidtrack at an amount of r5 200.00
10.2 paint protection at an amount of r1 000.00
10.3 smash & grab at an amount of r3 500.01

11. We were immensely disappointed in the conduct of the dealership and its personnel I this regard as we felt that this was completely unprofessional and, to be frank, we found it to be dishonest as we were almost tricked into signing for this higher amount without same being brought to our attention, should we note have been as observant. It is quite evident that it was not part of the deal we entered and agreed to as we agreed to an amount of r221 445.00 as principal debt and not an amount of r231 145.00.

12. After the branch manager called in everybody involved in this transaction, from the sales executive right through to mr andre jansen van rensburg, whom attended to the finance of the vehicle, it was agreed between the parties that the bidtrack tracker will be removed and the protect will be paid at the branches expense, we then agreed to paying for the smash & grab in cash, regardless of the fact that we did not request nor consent for same to be fitted to the vehicle as we did not want to finance a larger amount at all.

Complaint
13. Taking the above mentioned into account, it is with great disappointment that we are now facing the after maths of even more dishonesty by mc arthy gezina, more specifically andre jansen van rensburg, representatives of mccarthy limited with fsp number 6852.

14. As noted in paragraph 2 hereof, more specifically paragraph 2.4 hereof, in the amount of r221 445.00 as per the quote that I received from mccarthy included a service plan upgrade (5 years / 90 000km). This quote was accepted by us and resulted in the conclusion of a purchase and sale agreement.

15. On the 12th of november 2018 I contacted mccarthy to arrange for the 70 000km service of the said vehicle on the service plan, only to be informed that the vehicle only had a service plan upgrade of 60 000km / 5 years, whichever occurs first.

16. I immediately contacted the mccarthy vw gezina branch where we bought the vehicle and enquired how this could be, taking in consideration the quote that included a service plan of 90 000km / 5 years, whichever occurs first, and were informed by the very same mr andre jansen van rensburg that mccarthy vw gezina does not sell, nor have they ever sold service plans of 90 000km / 5 years and that he assumes that I am referring to a normal vw service plan.

17. I then corrected him and advised that it is a mccarthy vw service plan and whilst having mr andre jansen van rensburg on the phone I forwarded him the quote (which we received and accepted in 2016). Mr andre jansen van rensburg were starstruck and had no explanation for this, other than informing me that unfortunately the invoice nor the transaction schedule makes any reference to an upgraded service plan of 90 000km / 5 years.

18. I proceeded to explain to mr andre jansen van rensburg that until the day we collected the vehicle we did not receive the invoice nor the transaction schedule for our perusal. Should we have had received this prior to the collection of the vehicle, we would have been able to cancel all the added extras.

19. Furthermore, I explained to mr andre jansen van rensburg that due to the service plan upgrade being part of a promotion that mccarthy vw gezina were running at the time, it would not have been charged for our account and therefor it won't be on the invoice. I again referred him to the quote where it can clearly be seen that the 90 000km / 5-year service plan was added to the deal at no charge ("n/c").

20. He bluntly said to me that the dealership will only honour the transaction schedule as we signed this schedule and resultantly accepted the shortened service plan of 60 000km / 5years. I again explained to him that on the day of signing the transaction schedule we were caught up in the sorting out of the unauthorised added accessories which contributed to a much larger amount than what we agreed to and the finance agreement then had to be amended as the add-ons had to be removed.

21. Due to the time spent on attending to the above, we were rushed through the new finance agreement. Looking back, it feels like this was a tactic used by mccarthy vw gezina to draw our attention to the larger amount of the unauthorised accessories, resultantly not noticing the shortened service plan.

22. We are further of the view that it should have been specifically brought to out attention that the deal was altered from the day we accepted the quote and signed the icontract to the day of accepting delivery of the vehicle for us to make an informed decision.

23. It should have been spesifically brought to our attention that the originally agreed policy of the upgraded service plan was replaced with a shortened service plan policy as we would not have necessarily proceeded with the deal.

24. It is quite obvious that the service plan policy which we accepted at time of accepting the quote were replaced with a different service plan policy, without specifically bringing it to our attention and clearly explaining to us why this replacement policy is a better, more suitable option to our avail.

25. The replacement policy came at the exact same price than the quoted policy with less benefits. As the purchase price were not lowered due to the shorter service plan policy, it remained exactly the same. The fact that the contract amount (after removing the unauthorised extra's) and the quoted amount were exactly the same, also constituted to us not suspecting any altercations to the deal as set out in the quotation.

26. I place on record that the transaction schedule, attached hereto, were presented to us for the first time on the day we attended to the collection of the vehicle. It is clear from the said schedule that we did not specifically initial the said page, nor the section, where the shortened service plan policy is listed and submit that it was never specifically brought to our attention.

27. I further submit that this is unethical, dishonest and undesirable business practice and completely out of line with treating the client fairly. Right from adding and fitting unauthorised extra accessories to the vehicle in an attempt to increase the purchase price, through to advertising and quoting a certain value-added product, such as a 90 000km / 5-year service plan, and then on conclusion of the transaction only including a much smaller 60 000km / 5-year service plan, without bringing it to the client's attention.

28. Due to the lack of communication between the representatives of mccarthy limited and their sales executive regarding the products, more specifically the upgraded 90 000km / 5 year service plan policy, that was sold to us and accordingly their failure to comply with the fais act and as a result of their wilful and/or negligent conduct we suffered and potentially will suffer prejudice and damage as we will now have to pay for the following 30 000km services ourselves.

29. I specifically address this letter to mccarthy directly in an attempt to resolve this matter amicably, failure which will result in a formal complaint being logged with the fais ombud as well as the fsca registrar.

30. Looking forward to your soonest response.

Kind regards

Eileen ackerman, obo jacobus frederik du preez

[protected]

Post your comment

    By clicking Submit you are agreeing to the Complaints Board’s Terms and Conditions