June 28, 2006
The Honorable Senator Barbara Milkulski
503 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Milkulski:
Re: Nationwide consumer problem with CarMax!
I am your constituent and I need your help. In my belated research, I have found that consumers across the country have very similar horror stories about CarMax.
My 19-year-old son Amos xxx purchased his first car from the Laurel, Maryland CarMax store on January 28th, 2006. Since the purchase, the vehicle (1999 Mazda Millennia) had to be returned to the CarMax Store on 5 different occasions within a 4-month period for major repairs.
Repair Order Date Service Employee
3:14 pm 2/22/06
Transmission replaced Jason Finney
6:54 am 3/6/06
Radiator replaced Jeff Gunn
6:52 am 5/4/06
Oxygen Sensors replaced Jeff Gunn
6:50 am 5/16/06
Axel replaced Jeff Gunn
6:30 am 6/28/06
Transmission problem Unknown
The car was under a 90 day CarMax warranty and in addition, we purchased a 1-year extended bumper –to-bumper warranty for approximately $1200.00, so the repairs were covered. CarMax gave us two certificates that indicate (1) a complete and satisfactory 125-point inspection and a complete and satisfactory state inspection. How could these inspections truly have been satisfactory when the vehicle was and is still in need of multiple major repairs?
The first two times Amos' car was “repaired” he was provided a loaner. On the third occasion, the problems began to escalate.
Third Occasion:
Five days after Amos picked up his “repaired vehicle”, I initiated a phone call to CarMax to inform them that we were still having problems with the purchased vehicle and it needed to be returned again for service. It was at this time (5-days later) that they stated “it looked as if someone had thrown baseballs at the hood of the previous loaner”, and they refused to accommodate him with another loaner. This accusation was untrue, and I protested. Afterwards, they agreed to provide him with a loaner. (See attachment 1)
Fourth Occasion:
The car was returned to CarMax again for repairs, and my son was given another loaner car. Approximately 5 days after Amos picked up his “repaired vehicle”, I contacted the CarMax Store again to inform them that the vehicle was once again malfunctioning and needed additional service. At that time, I was advised that Amos would not be given a loaner car. They stated that he was responsible for “a major crack on the windshield” of the last loaner. This was also untrue.
Finally, out of major frustration and disappointment about the false accusations, poor customer service, a substandard vehicle, and extreme inconvenience, I called the Store and spoke with the Asst. Service Manager (Shelly) in Alex's absence. She told me that our maintenance policy stated that Amos could only receive a loaner once CarMax determined that a problem did exist with his car and this process could take up to 24 hours. This process seemed odd to me because it was contrary to their normal practice.
Subsequently, I wrote to Alex Kozdraz CarMax Store service manager in an attempt to discuss a final and reasonable resolution to this ongoing problem. (See attachment 2). I asked that the car be replaced if the problems could not be resolved. Mr. Kozdraz stated that CarMax would put Amos in a replacement vehicle. He called me back and stated that he had spoken with the senior store managers Niem Sobani and Ted Neal and they requested that Amos and I should bring the car in on Saturday, June 24th, 2006 to be appraised. The car was appraised at $7000.00.
On June 27th, 2006, I offered the following options in writing:
1. I requested that the $3000.00 down payment be credited towards another vehicle along with the $1500.00 in car payments, which has been expended since February 2006.
2. If a comparable vehicle within my son's price range could not be found on CarMax's lot, I requested that the $3000.00 down payment is returned to me along with the balance of the maintenance insurance and that Carmax purchase the car back at the pay off price, which is $8350.00. Otherwise, my son and I would be responsible for $1350.00 in negative equity. (I co-signed the loan and made the down payment) (See Attachment 3)
CarMax refused. The service manager Alex Kozdras informed me that the senior store managers Niem Sobani and Ted Neal stated that I should accept their terms or feel free to pursue legal action.
CarMax Store offered:
1. Return the vehicle and owe the financer $1350.00 in negative equity and receive $7000.00 appraised value with a buy off of $8350.00.
2. Use the $7000.00 (appraised value) towards the purchase of a CarMax replacement vehicle, and make an additional down payment on the replacement vehicle.
With this option, we would still be responsible for the outstanding $1350.00 in negative equity from the original vehicle.
Problem with offer:
I asked about my $3000.00 down payment, Alex told me that it was included in the appraised value of the car. However, the appraisal certificate indicates that the $7000.00 is the market value of the vehicle that was determined upon the appraisal inspection. The certificate specifically describes each item and does not make reference to my down payment of $3000.00 being included. It implies market value only.
How could the appraiser have known that my down payment was $3000.00? How is it that a vehicle that was sold for $9,999.00 4 months earlier and has new major parts placed in it is only worth $4000.00 now? This is highly suspect and unreasonable to me.
Major Unresolved Issue:
In addition to all of the other problems, Amos took the car to the emission inspection center in Montgomery County and was told by the attendant that the car would not pass inspection because the engine light is on.
The engine light issue is what precipitated all of the visits to the CarMax Store. Over the course of the past 4 months, the engine light problem has never been resolved, which raises another major problem. That problem is that Amos' car never could and currently cannot pass the Maryland state emissions inspection because of this; as a result my son stands to have his driver's license revoked by the State. It is my contention, evidenced by all of the service orders, that the vehicle should not have passed CarMax's 125-point inspection, nor the Maryland general vehicle inspection that reference a quality check on the items that had to be replaced.
I would like my down payment and maintenance insurance balance returned to me immediately. CarMax has refuse and therefore, I have lost a $3000.00 down payment, Amos has lost $1500.00 in car payments, time off from work and no vehicle to get back and forth to work. We have completely lost.
We would appreciate your immediate intervention and advisement. I anxiously await your response.
Victimized Consumer,
Darlene L.xxx, on behalf of Amos xxx
CLICK here to see why Rip-off Report, as a matter of policy, deleted either a phone number, link or e-mail address from this Report. Darlene L. Tawiah
3934 Ballet Way
Burtonsville, Maryland 20866
301-421-1469* 202-326-8742
darlenetawiah@hotmail.com
June 28, 2006
The Honorable Governor Robert Ehrlich
100 State Circle
Annapolis, Maryland 21401-1925
Dear Governor Robert Ehrlich:
Re: Nationwide consumer problem with CarMax!
I am your constituent and I need your help. In my belated research, I have found that consumers across the country have very similar horror stories about CarMax.
My 19-year-old son Amos Tawiah purchased his first car from the Laurel, Maryland CarMax store on January 28th, 2006. Since the purchase, the vehicle (1999 Mazda Millennia) had to be returned to the CarMax Store on 5 different occasions within a 4-month period for major repairs.
Repair Order Date Service Employee
3:14 pm 2/22/06
Transmission replaced Jason Finney
6:54 am 3/6/06
Radiator replaced Jeff Gunn
6:52 am 5/4/06
Oxygen Sensors replaced Jeff Gunn
6:50 am 5/16/06
Axel replaced Jeff Gunn
6:30 am 6/28/06
Transmission problem Unknown
The car was under a 90 day CarMax warranty and in addition, we purchased a 1-year extended bumper –to-bumper warranty for approximately $1200.00, so the repairs were covered. CarMax gave us two certificates that indicate (1) a complete and satisfactory 125-point inspection and a complete and satisfactory state inspection. How could these inspections truly have been satisfactory when the vehicle was and is still in need of multiple major repairs?
The first two times Amos' car was “repaired” he was provided a loaner. On the third occasion, the problems began to escalate.
Third Occasion:
Five days after Amos picked up his “repaired vehicle”, I initiated a phone call to CarMax to inform them that we were still having problems with the purchased vehicle and it needed to be returned again for service. It was at this time (5-days later) that they stated “it looked as if someone had thrown baseballs at the hood of the previous loaner”, and they refused to accommodate him with another loaner. This accusation was untrue, and I protested. Afterwards, they agreed to provide him with a loaner. (See attachment 1)
Fourth Occasion:
The car was returned to CarMax again for repairs, and my son was given another loaner car. Approximately 5 days after Amos picked up his “repaired vehicle”, I contacted the CarMax Store again to inform them that the vehicle was once again malfunctioning and needed additional service. At that time, I was advised that Amos would not be given a loaner car. They stated that he was responsible for “a major crack on the windshield” of the last loaner. This was also untrue.
Finally, out of major frustration and disappointment about the false accusations, poor customer service, a substandard vehicle, and extreme inconvenience, I called the Store and spoke with the Asst. Service Manager (Shelly) in Alex's absence. She told me that our maintenance policy stated that Amos could only receive a loaner once CarMax determined that a problem did exist with his car and this process could take up to 24 hours. This process seemed odd to me because it was contrary to their normal practice.
Subsequently, I wrote to Alex Kozdraz CarMax Store service manager in an attempt to discuss a final and reasonable resolution to this ongoing problem. (See attachment 2). I asked that the car be replaced if the problems could not be resolved. Mr. Kozdraz stated that CarMax would put Amos in a replacement vehicle. He called me back and stated that he had spoken with the senior store managers Niem Sobani and Ted Neal and they requested that Amos and I should bring the car in on Saturday, June 24th, 2006 to be appraised. The car was appraised at $7000.00.
On June 27th, 2006, I offered the following options in writing:
3. I requested that the $3000.00 down payment be credited towards another vehicle along with the $1500.00 in car payments, which has been expended since February 2006.
4. If a comparable vehicle within my son's price range could not be found on CarMax's lot, I requested that the $3000.00 down payment is returned to me along with the balance of the maintenance insurance and that Carmax purchase the car back at the pay off price, which is $8350.00. Otherwise, my son and I would be responsible for $1350.00 in negative equity. (I co-signed the loan and made the down payment) (See Attachment 3)
CarMax refused. The service manager Alex Kozdras informed me that the senior store managers Niem Sobani and Ted Neal stated that I should accept their terms or feel free to pursue legal action.
CarMax Store offered:
3. Return the vehicle and owe the financer $1350.00 in negative equity and receive $7000.00 appraised value with a buy off of $8350.00.
4. Use the $7000.00 (appraised value) towards the purchase of a CarMax replacement vehicle, and make an additional down payment on the replacement vehicle.
With this option, we would still be responsible for the outstanding $1350.00 in negative equity from the original vehicle.
Problem with offer:
I asked about my $3000.00 down payment, Alex told me that it was included in the appraised value of the car. However, the appraisal certificate indicates that the $7000.00 is the market value of the vehicle that was determined upon the appraisal inspection. The certificate specifically describes each item and does not make reference to my down payment of $3000.00 being included. It implies market value only.
How could the appraiser have known that my down payment was $3000.00? How is it that a vehicle that was sold for $9,999.00 4 months earlier and has new major parts placed in it is only worth $4000.00 now? This is highly suspect and unreasonable to me.
Major Unresolved Issue:
In addition to all of the other problems, Amos took the car to the emission inspection center in Montgomery County and was told by the attendant that the car would not pass inspection because the engine light is on.
The engine light issue is what precipitated all of the visits to the CarMax Store. Over the course of the past 4 months, the engine light problem has never been resolved, which raises another major problem. That problem is that Amos' car never could and currently cannot pass the Maryland state emissions inspection because of this; as a result my son stands to have his driver's license revoked by the State. It is my contention, evidenced by all of the service orders, that the vehicle should not have passed CarMax's 125-point inspection, nor the Maryland general vehicle inspection that reference a quality check on the items that had to be replaced.
I would like my down payment and maintenance insurance balance returned to me immediately. CarMax has refuse and therefore, I have lost a $3000.00 down payment, Amos has lost $1500.00 in car payments, time off from work and no vehicle to get back and forth to work. We have completely lost.
We would appreciate your immediate intervention and advisement. I anxiously await your response.
Victimized Consumer,
Darlene L. Tawiah, on behalf of Amos Tawiah
P.S. Please see the following websites for similar CarMax complaints including mine:
http://www.ripoffreport.com/
http://www. Consumer complaints.com
http://www.badbusiness bureau.com