Schaumburg Kia Reviews
3 TOTAL REVIEWS
Kia puts holes in vehicle and rips leather seat on BRAND NEW car
My husband and I purchased a brand new vehicle from Bob Rohrman Kia in Schaumburg on April 6, 2013 (**** Kia Optima). To close the deal, we were offered heating/cooling seats in the front and only heating in the back, which the person who sold us the vehicle has since vouched for repeatedly. This was explained to us by the salesman as a "package". The salesman himself understood this to be a “package”. In other words, front heated seats came standard with a cooling option, and heated rear seats were part of that package deal. Written on the "I owe, you owe" was "heating". When we first went to pick up our brand new car, only heating had been done in the front seats. Kia sent the vehicle to a third party vendor who drilled holes in the sides of the seats to put the switches in (the switches were located where they were not visible while sitting.) We explained that we were told heating/cooling in the front and heating in the back. At that time, Kia advised us to keep the loaner vehicle longer and they would send our car back to their vendor. We called several times to check on the status of our vehicle, and at one point, were told by someone in the service department that our vehicle was not in their system because it had already been released back to us. This was not the case. We then asked to speak with the General Manager who had previously advised us to keep the rental longer so that our car could go back to the vendor. He advised us that our car was with the vendor, and that the reason his service department was not aware of that was because he “didn’t have to tell them anything.” Later that day, I received a phone call from the same individual in the service department who had previously told me that he could not locate my vehicle. He assured me that the work was being done on our car, and that the reason it was taking longer than expected was because they [by “they”, I assume he meant the third party vendor Kia hired to put in the heating/cooling seats] ripped the seat in the back. A few days later, we were called and told the work had been done, and we could come and pick up our car. Paperwork had to be re-signed because the dealership noticed that they had asked my husband to sign in a place where I was supposed to sign. We re-signed the paperwork, got our car and returned the loaner vehicle. Within a couple days, we were able to locate the tear that the gentleman in the service department had referred to, and also realized that the cooling option was never put into the front seats. We were called a third time to come in a re-sign paperwork, this time because the bank realized that $2,000 of our down payment had not been applied to the loan. At that time, we advised the sales team there that day that the cooling option had never been put in. We were told that the General Manager who assisted/approved in the sale of our vehicle had been fired, and they apologized for his behavior and demeanor. Once again, we were given a loaner vehicle and our car was returned to the third party vendor. My husband and I had serious concerns about what exactly was being done to our vehicle. For example, with switches already put in that only addressed the heating factor, were more holes going to have to be drilled into our NEW car? Would the new switches be visible, or would we have to pull over and open the car door to see if the heating light or cooling light was on? We called and spoke with Ross (last name unknown), the Service Department Manager, to address these concerns. We specifically asked that NO further work be done until it could be explained to us how the new switches were being installed. We did not want more holes drilled into our brand new vehicle without our prior consent. Ross agreed to contact the vendor and get back to me. In the meantime, he had put us in contact with the new General Manager, Mike Meah. We explained the history to Mr. Meah, and expressed our recent concerns of how the vendor was doing the work and the tear in the back seat. At first, Mr. Meah was reasonable and pleasant, and indicated that he wanted to pull our file and review it before offering a remedy. The following day, he called me, and his tone had completely changed. In the file, he had found the “I owe, you owe”, which merely indicated “heating”. Mr. Meah was very rude, and indicated that the dealership had already gone “above and beyond”. We again explained to him what we were told, and how the “heating” package was described to us. That day and the following day, we were in close contact with the individual who sold us the car and Mr. Meah. It was our hope that Mr. Meah would try to make this right, as we had spent over $26,000 on a NEW vehicle. Two days later, we were called and told that our car had come back from the vendor. This was odd, because we had still not received a return call from Ross indicating HOW the work was being done. This evening (May 14, 2013 – over a month after the car was purchased), my husband and I went to the Bob Rohrman Kia dealership of Schaumburg to meet with Mr. Meah and inspect our vehicle. He showed us the new heating/cooling switches that had been put in the front, and said that he could not locate the tear we had described. We immediately pointed out the tear, and expressed our disappointment in how the heating/cooling had been re-done. We now have a vehicle that was purchased as BRAND NEW, that had non-working switches on the sides of the seats and a tear in the back seat. Mr. Meah offered to repair the tear, and explained that nothing could be done about the switches on the sides that no longer served a purpose (he called them “dummy switches”). My husband and I told Mr. Meah that this was unacceptable, and we either wanted our money back, or a vehicle that did not have a tear or unnecessary dummy holes/switches. Mr. Meah refused to meet either request. He demanded the loaner keys back, told us to take our vehicle and leave. Mr. Meah ordered 2 other salesman to inspect the loaner vehicle we were given for damage, and to charge our credit card on file if they found anything. He also ordered the salesman to call the police if we tried to leave with the loaner vehicle again, and then he left. We were treated like criminals, and forced to leave with a vehicle that we were not satisfied with. On the way home from the dealership, my husband and I tested to the heating/cooling feature, and when you turn them on, you hear a loud motor. This was supposed to be simple. We purchased a brand new vehicle, gave Kia $26,000 of our money, and in turn, were promised heating/cooling seats in the front and heating in the back. A month and half later, we now have a vehicle that has dummy switches on the seats, a tear in the back seat, a heating/cooling feature that sounds like a small engine motor when on, and a General Manager who will not fix any of it. The re-sale value of our BRAND NEW car has greatly depreciated because of these factors. Buying a new car is supposed to be a good feeling and a good experience. This was not.
No response, sorry but in order for everyone to understand, I needed to reiterate my story
September 10,2008 Dear all, I wanted to thank everyone for there support and e-mails; I’ve published my concerns pertaining to the Kia Corporation, Schaumburg Kia, and Ms. Debra Ashen a Chicago IL based attorney on over fifteen websites. To be honest the responses have been overwhelming and very gracious. Since posting my story on these fifteen websites, I honestly have received over forty-one thousand responses from the Chicago land area and throughout the U.S. I’ve only been able to open up and read between family members, friends, and myself about seven thousand five hundred emails over the last five days. How many individuals thanked me for the information and stated, they would think twice about purchasing a Kia vehicle if ever, and they would never purchase a vehicle from Schaumburg Kia? 100% of the e-mails we’ve had the ability to open and read. How many people were appalled by Chicago IL based attorney Debra Ashen’s behavior? 100% of the e-mails we’ve opened up and read. Starting today, I will be posting this letter on twelve more consumer websites that I‘ve been given by multiple individuals in their e-mail replies that I’ve received, so here is a shortened summary of what happened. On June 04,2008 I contacted Schaumburg Kia pertaining to a vehicle they had on their website, and to be honest I contacted them via e-mail and stated I didn’t want to run a credit check that day. Christopher a salesman at Schaumburg Kia contacted me via my cell two or three times on June 04,2008 and stated Mr. Sottile come on in we can sell you a vehicle without running a credit check today. I went into Schaumburg Kia and looked at the vehicle, after some negotiating we came to a fair and mutual agreement. A bank was contacted and I was given a monthly payment, an interest rate, a loan term, and a final payout. I then signed a retail installment contract, a spot delivery agreement that stated I had a five-day contingency, an odometer disclosure statement, and a vehicle purchase order, not to mention a document pertaining to new license plates. Why was I given a five- day contingency on the spot delivery agreement? Due to the fact I wasn’t running a credit check that day, Schaumburg Kia wanted to give themselves five days in case they couldn’t loan me to get out of their contractual obligation. Brian the finance manager at Schaumburg Kia stated, Mr. Sottile if you don’t hear from us by June 09,2008 then everything is good, so just look for your billing statement by the end of the month. June 09 came and went, so like anyone else I assumed everything was settled. Around June 19,2008 I received a voicemail that was anything less than scratchy and vague and it pertained to my loan. I immediately contacted Schaumburg Kia via e-mail and stated what’s going on gentlemen the contingency came and went, so I mailed Schaumburg Kia a copy of the original spot delivery agreement on June 20,2008.why? I thought maybe they had forgotten about the five -day contingencies. (Please remember I have the original Spot delivery agreement that stated a five-day contingency not a copy you’ll understand in a minute.) On June 24,2008 two gentlemen came to my home working for Schaumburg Kia and trying repossess a Schaumburg Kia vehicle. They immediately stated you’re a loser, a liar, and your credit *** My sixty seven year old mother was at the house, so she came out and stated what’s going on here? They then called her old Mother Hubbard, and a fat *** The Algonquin Police were called and what did they say? You bypassed the contingency; you’re not touching Mr. Sottile’s car. Can I prove all of this? Yes I have multiple witness statements. After the June 24,2004 incident, I became aware that Schaumburg Kia tried to loan me under a nickname an unbelievable amount of times, but they never used my birth name which was signed on all of are contractual agreements and they waited over fifteen days to run a credit check. Yet the spot delivery agreement states a five –day contingency. How can you loan anyone if your social security number says one thing and your name on the loan document says another. The numerous loan companies told me that trying to obtain a loan like that would be miraculous at best. In laymen terms, it would never happen. Can I prove this? Yes, I have numerous letters from these loan companies stating Tony Sottile was trying to get a loan not Chester A Sottile. Now we can all understand why my credit stinks, the more times you do a credit check, the lower and lower your score become. They were trying loan me, knowing they were using the wrong name, why? All they had to do was look at the signed contracts this wasn’t brain surgery. Was my credit the greatest? No, but I at least had the ability to be loan able on a car. Around the 28 of July 2008 I received a court summons from Debra Ashen an attorney in Chicago IL representing Schaumburg Kia. Why did I receive her pleading? Schaumburg Kia was suing me for the vehicle. While looking at her pleading, I noticed an exhibit (B) in her pleading that was a spot delivery agreement that stated I had a no day contingency yet my original stated I had a five-day contingency. I took a very close look at exhibit (B) and here it what I saw; my signatures on my original and their exhibit (B) were identical yet Brian the Finance manager at Schaumburg Kia initials were different. How could that be? No one signs her or her name or initials the same way twice. It was a forgery. A pleading signed by Ms. Ashen and submitted with exhibit (B) through the Mchenry County Court system with a court date of August 11,2008 and case # being 08LM629, stated I went into Schaumburg Kia and said I have a seven hundred credit rating, I’m refinancing my home, and you’ll wait fifteen days to run a credit check on me. Here is an easy question, if your pleading is true and correct Ms. Ashen, then why did Schaumburg Kia forge my signature on a spot delivery agreement that stated I had a no day contingency, what was Schaumburg Kia hiding? I maybe wrong, but if a plaintiff lies and an attorney facilitates a forgery through court, is that not committing perjury on both parties’ behalf? I sent Ms. Ashen at least fifteen faxes prior to our court date on August 11,2008, which stated Exhibit (B) is a blatant forgery. Can I prove this? Yes, I have all of fax confirmation sheets showing that Ms. Ashen’s office did receive my faxes. So Ms. Ashen was fully aware that exhibit (B) was a forgery. What did Ms. Ashen do? Absolutely nothing. Here is a good one, on August 11,2008 her associate stated under oath in court, that I was given a five day contingency. Hmmm…. Her associate now further validated that exhibit (B) was a forgery? This would mean Ms. Ashen and her associate knowingly and willingly submitted a forged document into a court of law? Correct. With that being said, I wanted to be fair, so I contacted the KIA Corporation in Irvin California on August 20,2008. I then spoke with a Marjorie Beard or Veards, and she stated oh that is terrible Mr. Sottile, and I then stated would you like to see all of my evidence? She then stated no, I’m sorry but anti-trust laws prohibit me from helping you. What does anti-trust laws have to do with consumer fraud, forgery, and perjury committed by your independent dealership? Yet to date she has never sent me a letter via U.S. mail that stated her anti-trust law claims. So I sent her an e-mail on September 05,2008 which stated I’ve posted my story on multiple websites, and I would like to give you an opportunity to respond for the KIA Corporation by September 08,2008. How did Marjorie respond? Silence. Was Marjorie in the KIA Corporation office on September 05,2008 to receive my e-mail the Kia complaint number being, K149****? What is this number? It’s a confirmation number that notifies the consumer that the KIA Corporation received your email. With all that being said; was Marjorie in the Kia Corporations office on September 05,2008? Yes, and how do I know this, I contacted the KIA Corporations toll free number on September 05,2008 and asked is Marjorie Beards or Veards in today? And the KIA Corporation’s customer service representative stated yes sir Marjorie is in, would you like to speak to her. As for Ms. Ashen who represented Schaumburg Kia, I sent her a fax on September 06,2008 which stated I would like you to also respond to your exhibit (B), and your legal pleading. Can you prove with factual hard copy evidence that your pleading and exhibit (B) are true and correct? Can I prove I sent Ms. Ashen this fax on September 06,2008? Yes, I have the fax confirmation sheet showing Ms. Ashen’s office did receive my fax. I gave Ms. Ashen and Marjorie my e-mail address and stated I will post whatever your responses are. Why? I wanted everyone to realize I was giving all parties involved a level platform to dispute their claims on. I gave Ms. Ashen until September 10,2008 to respond via e-mail. Please note a time frame was never given, I never stated at the end of the day, mid afternoon or late evening. I just stated you have until September 10,2008 to respond. I looked at my e-mails this morning and what was Ms. Ashen’s response? Silence. Ladies and gentleman Ms. Ashen had two full days to respond, so whether I waited until tomorrow or next week, Mrs. Ashen had more than enough time to respond, due to the fact she’s been involved in this case since July of 2008. Was Ms. Ashen in her office on September 06,2008 or September 08,2008 to receive my fax? Yes, how do I know this? I called her office on September 08,2008 and asked is Ms. Ashen in this week? Her receptionist stated yes sir could I get her for you, I then stated did she receive a fax dated September 06,2008 from a Chester A Sottile, the receptionist then stated hold on and then two minutes later she then stated yes Mr. Sottile, I then replied thank You. Why am I doing this? To insure everyone realizes what Schaumburg Kia, the KIA Corporation, and Debra Ashen an attorney in Chicago IL are capable of. All I wanted was everyone involved to do the right thing. Schaumburg Kia destroyed my credit, so I couldn’t purchase a vehicle if a miracle happened, and Ms. Ashen and Schaumburg Kia did nothing more than facilitate a forgery and a defaming pleading against me through the court Mchenry County Court systems. I gave Marjorie, and Ms. Ashen, Schaumburg Kia, and the KIA Corporation the ability to set the record straight pertaining to their side of this travesty, yet they chose silence. What was there to hide Ms. Ashen, Marjorie, Schaumburg Kia and the KIA Corporation? If I were lying about this issue, then why were your responses Silence. Thank You, Chester A Sottile
Lake In The Hills, Illinois
I gave the Kia Corporation and Debra Ashen, the ability to respond.
To whom it may concern, I want to do multiple follow ups pertaining to this issue, over the last week I’ve wrote my story on multiple websites, and for privacy purposes I won’t divulge any of the other websites names or information, out of respect for individual’s and website user privacy. Pertaining to one website, I’ve received over twenty one thousand responses. Due to the large volume of e-mails, it would be impossible to have the ability to read all of them. As you’re all aware this issue pertains to a story I wrote involving the KIA Corporation, Schaumburg Kia, and an Chicago Il based attorney named Debra Ashen. To insure I don’t become redundant, I won’t reiterate my story. I want everyone to realize this fact; I only wanted these individuals to do the right thing.To malign a corporation, an attorney, not to mention a dealership wasn’t my plan. I only wanted to insure no one else gets taken advantage and made a fool out of as I was. So I decided to Give Debra Ashen and Marjorie from the KIA Corporation the ability to dispute my claims. So on Friday September 05, 2008 I sent Marjorie an e-mail which stated Marjorie of the KIA Corporation I will give you until September 08, 2008 to respond, why? She’s known about this issue since August 15, 2008. All I wanted disputed was her claim of anti-trust laws pertaining to this issue. On Friday September 05, 2008 I contacted the KIA Corporation through there toll free number and I was told Marjorie was in the office. This morning when I called her direct line it stated sorry I’ll be out of town until September 10, 2008. You can derive whatever opinion you want, but if I could write up my story in twenty minutes, I’m sure she could have too. Marjorie has known about this issue for over eighteen days, and If anti-trust laws are correct, then all she would have needed to do was e-mail that portion of the Kia Corporations contract with there independent dealerships, which validates the anti-trust law theory. Whenever you post an e-mail through the KIA Website, you receive a complaint number. My complaint number pertaining to this letter is K149****. Out of the twenty one thousand e-mails I’ve received myself, family, and friends have opened up six thousand five hundred; and how many have stated they would never purchase a vehicle from Schaumburg Kia, the Kia Corporation, or use Debra Ashen as an attorney? All Six thousand five hundred e-mails we’ve opened. The court of public opinion is speaking. Ms. Ashen was given until September 10, 2008 to respond since she represents Schaumburg Kia. I will let you know whatever response I recieve, which would include silence. Thank You, Chester A Sottile
Lake In The Hills, Illinois
Companies Similar to Schaumburg Kia
Thank You for Your Reply!
Thank You for Your Reply! We are processing your message.
11Thank You for Your Submission
Your comment is successfully posted.