Complaint Review: Cn'V Corvette Sales and Tom Flannery - Tempe Arizona

12-19-2001

Following is the written record of my complaint with Cn'V Corvette Sales of Tempe, AZ. I have since received communication from ADOT and AZDEQ that the car has a valid emissions test and there is nothing more they can do. As of today, 12-19-2001, I have not heard from the Attorney General or the BBB. Also, I have been trying since 12-3-2001 to get a valid TX inspection so I can register the car. In the process of lifting the car to repair the mufflers, horn and emergency brake a crack in the fiberglass has appeared on the front left quarter panel. It is obvious that this crack has been repaired before. Judging from the filler material and the fact that it cracked at all suggests to me that it probably wasn't repaired correctly in the first place. And lastly, the power antenna does work. It is not a factory original antenna. The switch to operate it was located under the dash and looks like a nail or a brad not a switch. I will be gratified if the following information can save anyone from the mistake I made with my internet purchase from Cn'V.

Re: 1982 Bright Blue Corvette 1G1AY8780C5101384 complaint #502561

(initial complaint 12/7/2001)

Pete Ciadella - President

Cn'V Corvette Sales

1000 North McClintock Drive

Tempe, AZ 85281

Dear Mr. Ciadella:

The purpose of my letter is to inform you and complain about my recent purchase experience with your dealership. It is my feeling that your salesman's selling technique was deceptive, that material facts about the car were omitted and that the online depiction of the car I bought is seriously in question in my mind.

Where do I begin? First, the picture of the car displayed on the website is similar to the car I received, but discrepancies between that appearance and the car I purchased are these: 1)The internet depicted a car (see attached file) with BF Goodrich Radial T/A's which appeared to be in good shape. The car I received had some brand called Road Huggers which appear to have about half the tread life remaining. 2) The internet picture

showed polished alloy wheels which appeared to be flawless. The car I received had alloy wheels which were scratched, stained, marked and which otherwise looked as if they had seen better days. 3) The internet depicted a car with dark tinted windows and dark tinted T-Tops. The car I received had no tint on the windows. The side glass was badly scratched and the T-Tops were mirrored with many scratches and flaws in the glass, not to mention the fact that the driver side top does not fit properly.

The salesman, Tom Flannery, never indicated to me that the car I was looking at on the internet was not the car I was purchasing or that it was only representative of the car I was purchasing. Bottom line is the car depicted on the internet looks much better and nicer than the car I received which is why I have some doubt that they are one in the same. If they are indeed the same car then I would suggest that it appears that good equipment depicted on the internet was exchanged for old and inferior equipment before the car was shipped to me.

The salesman was very nice, seemed to be helpful and acted like he had my best interests in mind. I explained that I was trusting him to be my eyes and tell me honestly about the condition of the car so that I could make an informed decision. This was most important since I was purchasing over the internet and not able to actually view the car myself. Tom even indicated

that he felt a greater since of responsibility to customers purchasing sight unseen over the internet. The car arrived in Fort Worth and I picked it up at the transporters location. The very first thing I noticed was the bad fit of the T-Tops and the deteriorated condition they were in. I next noticed that the weather stripping, although appearing to be new, did not seem to fit properly. There are gaps between the windows and the weather

stripping which allow an annoying amount of wind noise and water into the cabin of the car. Upon entering the car I noticed that it smelled old, burnt, like it had been sitting out in the sun for years. I started the engine and the idle was extremely rough. I placed the car in gear and there was a loud and forceful clunking noise coming from just behind me. We got on the highway headed home and I tried to engage the cruise control,

which did not work. By the way, I asked Tom if all the equipment worked on the car and he indicated that it did. The car is equipped with a power antenna but when I turned on the radio the antenna did not function. The ashtray is missing from the console. You went to such trouble to paint the car and replace the interior but you leave out the ashtray?? The car is

equipped with intermittent windshield wipers. The wipers work but the intermittent feature does not. I refer you back to my previous statement where I asked if ALL the equipment advertised for the car on the internet was working and Tom said yes. I asked Tom to go out to the car and look it over critically and give me a report of his honest opinion about the car. He said it had a great paint job. The paint job on the car I received is

pretty good, from a distance, but up close there are obvious flaws in the paint job which make it look sloppy. I inquired about the mileage. Tom said the odometer was showing about 10,450 miles. He offered that sometimes the speedometers in these cars break and when new ones are installed they don't always reset the mileage to the correct amount, but he wasn't sure that was what happened with this car. I feel like this

statement was deceptive if not an outright lie. Tom, who has been in the business as long as he has, would surely recognize that this car had WAY MORE wear and tear than 10,450 miles. Which brings me to CARFAX. I finally asked for the carfax printout. Tom said he had already pulled it and the only thing on it was a failed emissions test. Again, not totally

factual and therefore, deceptive. Actually it failed the emissions test 6 times, it has been registered to different owners over the years several times. The odometer recordings on the registrations suggest that either this car has well over 200,000 miles on it or the odometer has been replaced more than once. The carfax report indicates that the car originated in Edmund, OK, went to Kansas for several years and finally ended up in Arizona. Tom told me the car was from California. Tom had the carfax report and knew the information he provided me was not accurate. In retrospect, I should have insisted that he send me the FREE CARFAX report but I trusted his word that the report was "clean". I paid for and ordered my own carfax report (see attached file) after encountering all the problems described above.

Finally, it is my opinion that your standard 100 point inspection isn't worth the paper it's written on or the air with which you say the words. Tom indicated that before the car was shipped out he was required to take it for a test drive and then have any problems corrected in the shop before shipping to the customer (me). Well, in addition to the problems and discrepancies mentioned above, I took the car in Monday, December 3, 2001, (I picked it up on Saturday 12/1) to get it inspected and to have all the fluids and lubrications changed so that I would know where I was starting from. I would think all of this would have been part of your 100 point inspection. The mechanic told me that the fluids were old and dirty, the differential had been packed with a product to compensate for a failing or deteriorating differential and while he was looking he noticed that the U-joints were bad and that the axles needed to be rebuilt or replaced. The car did not pass the Texas inspection. There were holes in both mufflers and tail pipes which required them to be replaced. The horn does not work

and the emergency brake does not hold the car sufficiently to pass inspection. The emissions were questionable but the mechanic said he would not get an accurate reading until after the exhaust system was fixed. By the way, it is Friday 12/7 and it still has not passed inspection.

What do I want from you? I feel that I was deceived and taken advantage of by physical absence and inspection of the car. I feel that pertinent information was withheld from me which would have changed my mind about purchasing that particular car. If I had been provided with a copy of the carfax report, as I requested (and as you advertise that a free report is available to any serious buyer of a 1981 or newer Corvette), I would NOT

have purchased this particular car. If I had known how many equipment items did not actually work, I would NOT have purchased this particular car. If I had known that I wasn't going to receive the car exactly as pictured on the internet, I would NOT have purchased the car. I knew the car was twenty years old. I expected a certain amount of wear and tear. But I was assured that the car had been totally reconditioned and restored and that it was an outstanding automobile. The only thing that was reconditioned or restored appears to be the appearance of the car, because the mechanicals indicate a car that has been used and abused for twenty years. At this point, what I want from you is to reverse this whole process and take the car back. Sell it to some other poor sucker. I have had it less than a week, I have put less than 50 miles on the car and it

will be returned to you in better shape than I received it. I don't want a replacement car. I don't want you to pay for any of the repairs needed to pass inspection. I don't want you to refund a portion of the purchase price. I want you to refund ALL the purchase price and take the car back and let me get on with my life having learned a valuable personal lesson and the true meaning of the old phrase "Let the buyer beware"

Sincerely,

Greg Taylor-Fort Worth, TX

(12-10-2001-- second contact after Cn'V faxed me work orders of all the things they replaced on the car - 7 pages worth of stuff)

Mr. Ciadella,

Thank you for the faxes detailing all the work performed on the car to put it in the shape it is in currently. I have no doubt that you invested a great deal of time and resources in the car. My mechanic did in fact comment that there were a lot of new parts on the car. However, that changes none of my comments below. In fact, it only serves to strengthen my belief that the car was a mechanical disaster with a history of abuse that was not disclosed to me before the sale. Someone with a knack and a

desire to tinker with these machines might love to get his hands on this car. I doubt at the price you were asking, but I can see the potential in the car. I am NOT one of those types of people. I have neither the time nor the inclination to own a project car that is always needing something else repaired to keep it running and looking good. Again, had I been informed about the car's history as I had requested, I would have determined that this car was too risky mechanically for my needs and I would have declined to have purchased it in the first place. I could have lived with some minor imperfections in the appearance of the car. I could have lived with such mechanical things as the power antenna not working. But when I put the car in gear for the first time and it slammed into gear with a loud clunk, I knew there was something I hadn't been told. When my

mechanic told me what was needed to pass inspection, I was even more afraid that I didn't have the whole story on the car. So that's when I decided to pay the $20.00 for my own copy of the carfax report. That report tells the whole story. This car bumped around between numerous owners, had the odometer replaced or rolled back at least twice and in all likelihood spent at least two years sitting in the Arizona desert sun deteriorating before you bought it at auction and began it's makeover. I do not want to continue with that makeover of this car and never did. Information was withheld from me by your dealership which would have affected my buying decision. All I want from you now is to take the car back. I don't want nor need an explanation. It is irrelevant to me. All that is relevant is

to get back to where I was before I purchased this car and begin my search again only extremely more carefully. I do not want this car. I will never be able to enjoy it fully because I will always know that I was taken advantage of. Please send me the details of how we should proceed with the shipping of the car back to your dealership and the details of how to reverse and close the loan and the extended warranty.

Greg Taylor-Fort Worth, TX

(12-13-2001-- My complaint to ADOT, AZDEQ, and BBB with Cn'V copied after not receiving any communication from Cn'V)

Dear Sir or Madam:

I recently purchased the referenced Corvette from Cn'V Corvettes in Tempe,AZ. The car was and has been misrepresented to me and I am pursuing other avenues to resolve my complaint concerning their sales and business practices. The car was delivered to me by common carrier in Fort Worth,TX. The car did not pass the Texas state inspection. In the State of Texas it is illegal to sell a car which does not have a current inspection sticker and/or will not pass the mandatory TX state inspection. Is there a similar or reciprocal law in AZ? The car was delivered without an inspection sticker of any kind. Later, after I had complained that the car did not pass the Texas inspection, I was faxed a copy of an AZ emissions test which seemed to indicate that the car had passed the AZ emissions test. Frankly, I don't see how this was possible as the car had an exhaust leak and required both mufflers and tail pipes to be replaced. In Texas,

an emissions test can not and will not be performed on a car with on exhaust leak or other exhaust system malfunction. Please email or write me back as to whether there is any recourse in AZ regarding this matter. I have contacted the dealer twice by email asking for a refund but the dealer has not contacted me or taken any action to my knowledge to resolve the issues I have with the car and their sales practices.

Sincerely,

Greg Taylor

(12-14-2001-- third email contact with Cn'V in response to the following fax)

Dear Tom and Mr. Ciadella,

For the record, I am reproducing the fax sent to me below:

(faxed 12-14-2001)(to)Greg Taylor,

"At this time CN'V Corvette is not interested in purchasing your Corvette. However, CN'V would consider trading you into something else, if you were to come out and check the unit over. CN'V still believes the 82 Corvette you purchased is very nice. You can't make an older car new. When you picked up the car at C.A.C. on Saturday we were told you said the car was beautiful more than once. Buyer's Remorse? Please be advised, please re-read your Purchaser's Agreement. Understand no more E'mails contact."

Thank you---

(signed) Tom Flannery"

(12-14-2001-- my response to Cn'V fax)

Perhaps I have not been clear. I know the car is 20 years old and some deterioration is to be expected. However, you represented to me that the car was in far better shape than it is. I listed all of the problems with the car only to illustrate that someone in the business of selling Corvettes should have been aware of the condition of the car and been in the position to correct the problems or disclose the problems to a potential buyer. I never said that the car does not look good. However, a close inspection reveals flaws which should have been disclosed or fixed before shipping the car.

My problem with Cn'V and the car is that in your sales pitch you represented to me a much finer car. I asked you to go critically examine each of the 3 Corvettes I was interested in and list out for me the good and the bad about each vehicle. You even told me that I didn't want the red one. In retrospect it seems to me that you subtly tried to steer me in the direction of the black car. I do not recall you telling me about any of the problems I have mentioned before even though some of them are fairly obvious. If you actually drove the car, as you said you were required to do, then the loud clunking from the rear end which can be both heard and felt would have been obvious to you at which time you should have notified the service manager, as you said you were required to do, or at the least informed me that there was a potentially serious mechanical problem.

I reiterate, Cn'V misrepresented the car and their services in their sales practices and in their advertising. That is the crux of my complaint to Cn'V, the Better Business Bureau and the Arizona Department of Transportation. Cn'V withheld relevant information about the condition and the history of the car which could have and would have influenced my decision to buy. At this point the only resolution with which I can be satisfied is a refund, a practice all reliable and respectable retailers observe in order to maintain their good reputation in the community.

Please be reasonable. What I have offered to do on my part leaves Cn'V no worse off than before the transaction. I am the only one who loses in this deal which ever way it goes. Please be advised, I will not relent until someone in authority tells me I have no more recourse in the matter.

Thank you,

Greg Taylor

(Following are excerpts from the carfax report I ordered after Cn'V did not send me the free report promised in their internet advertising)

http://www.carfax.com/cfm/UUCP_ViewReport.cfm 12/7/2001

VIN: 1G1AY8780C5101384

Yr/Make/Model: 1982 Chevrolet Corvette Sport Coupe

Body: 2D Cpe. 2-seat car

Engine: 5.7L V8 Twin TBI OHV

Fuel: Gasoline

Driveline: Rear-wheel drive

Aspiration: Normal

Country Mfg.: United States

ALERT! CARFAX search results confirm this 1982 Chevrolet Corvette Sport Coupe(1G1AY8780C5101384) DOES NOT qualify for the $5,000 Clean Title History Guarantee. CARFAX analyzed this vehicle's title history to determine if any title documents were designated or marked with the following problems:

Problem Titles Checked: Results:

Salvage/Junk Checked - No Salvage/Junk Title Found

Rebuilt/Reconstructed Checked - No Rebuilt/Reconstructed Title Found

Flood Damage Checked - No Flood Damage Title Found

Damage Disclosure Checked - No Damage Disclosure Found

Manufacturer Buyback (LEMON) Checked - No Manufacturer Buyback Found

Exceeds Mechanical Limits (EML) Checked - EML Found

Not Actual Mileage (NAM) Checked - No NAM Found

ALERT! CARFAX search results on this 1982 Chevrolet Corvette Sport Coupe (1G1AY8780C5101384) identify a potential odometer rollback. CARFAX analyzed this vehicle's reported odometer readings to determine if any reading is less than a previously reported reading.

CALCULATION: POTENTIAL ODOMETER ROLLBACK

NOTE: Information supplied to CARFAX indicates the above odometer readings may not reflect this vehicle's actual mileage. CARFAX depends on its sources to provide reliable information and works diligently to ensure the quality of its Reports. In this case, we recommend you contact the seller or a qualified mechanic to verify this vehicle's actual mileage.

On 04/08/1991 the odometer reading was reported as: 102,527 miles

On 05/10/1991 the odometer reading was reported as: 2,620 miles

This represents a mileage decrease of: 99,907 miles

ALERT! CARFAX search results on this 1982 Chevrolet Corvette Sport Coupe (1G1AY8780C5101384) identify one or more potential problems:

Problems Checked: Results:

Accident Checked - No Accident Record Found

Salvage Auction Checked - No Salvage Auction Record Found

Failed Emissions Inspection Checked - Failed Emissions Record Found

Fire Damage Checked - No Fire Damage Record Found

Crash Test Vehicle Checked - No Crash Test Vehicle Record Found

Grey Market Vehicle Checked - No Grey Market Vehicle Record Found

CARFAX search results on this 1982 Chevrolet Corvette Sport Coupe (1G1AY8780C5101384)identify the types of state motor vehicle department registrations, other than private, that appear in this vehicle's history.

Registrations Checked: Results:

Lease Checked - No Lease Registration Found

Rental Checked - No Rental Registration Found

Government Checked - No Government Registration Found

Taxi Checked - No Taxi Registration Found

Fleet Checked - No Fleet Registration FoundCommercial Checked - No Commercial Registration Found

Non-Profit Checked - No Non-Profit Registration Found

The CARFAX database contains a total of 19 vehicle history records on this 1982 Chevrolet Corvette Sport Coupe (1G1AY8780C5101384):

DATE REPORTED ODOMETER READING INFORMATION SOURCE GENERAL COMMENTS:

02/03/1987

Oklahoma Motor Vehicle Dept.

Edmond, OK

Title #N636360

Title issued

02/11/1988

75,260

Kansas Motor Vehicle Dept.

Wichita, KS

Title #A0245693

Title issued

04/08/1991

102,527

Kansas Motor Vehicle Dept.

Wichita, KS

Title #C736013

Title issued

Duplicate title issued

First lien reported

05/10/1991

2,620

Kansas Motor Vehicle Dept.

Wichita, KS

Title #C816364

Title issued

POTENTIAL ODOMETER ROLLBACK

08/06/1991

3,423

Kansas Motor Vehicle Dept.

Wichita, KS

Title #D0055261

EXCEEDS MECHANICAL LIMITS

TITLE ISSUED

11/02/1993

10,470

Kansas Motor Vehicle Dept.

Wichita, KS

Title #D2199735

Title issued

First lien reported

09/01/1998

110,000

Arizona Inspection Station

Failed emissions inspection

09/28/1998

10,470

Arizona Motor Vehicle Dept.

Chandler, AZ

Title #A2965CA271043

EXCEEDS MECHANICAL LIMITS

TITLE ISSUED

09/28/1998

10,470

Arizona Motor Vehicle Dept.

Chandler, AZ

Title #A2965CA271043

EXCEEDS MECHANICAL LIMITS

TITLE ISSUED

First lien reported

09/28/1998

Arizona Inspection Station

Passed emissions inspection

09/20/1999

Arizona Inspection Station

Failed emissions inspection

09/27/1999

Arizona Inspection Station

Failed emissions inspection

09/28/1999

Arizona Inspection Station

Failed emissions inspection

10/01/1999

Arizona Inspection Station

Failed emissions inspection

10/05/1999

130,000

Arizona Inspection Station

Failed emissions inspection

10/11/1999

Arizona Motor Vehicle Dept.

Chandler, AZ

Title #A2965CA271043

EXCEEDS MECHANICAL LIMITS

TITLE ISSUED

10/11/1999

Arizona Inspection Station

Passed emissions inspection

09/24/2001

10,470

Arizona Motor Vehicle Dept.

Chandler, AZ

Title #A44201D267048

EXCEEDS MECHANICAL LIMITS

TITLE ISSUED

09/26/2001

Auto Auction

Sold at auction