Report: CarMax
Category: Auto Dealers
CarMax ripoff Laurel Maryland
*Consumer Comment ..This car is too old for implied warranty
CarMax
Fax:
Laurel , Maryland, 20723
U.S.A.
Submitted: 6/27/2006 1:59:41 PM
Modified: 10/3/2006 5:13:03 PM
Amos
Burtonsville, MarylandJune 14, 2006
Alex Kozdras, Service Manager
CarMax
8800 Freestate Drive
Laurel, Maryland 20723
Dear Mr. Kozdras:
My son, Amos, purchased his 1999, Mazda Mellinia on or about January 29th, 2006. Since that time his car has been returned to CarMax because the engine light remains on. As of today, June 14th, 2006, the problem still exists. This presents a major problem. As a result of the engine light being on, the car cannot pass Maryland's Emissions Inspection Test. The following is a list and time of service dates when the issue was supposed to be resolved.
Repair Order Date Service Employee
3:14 pm 2/22/06 Jason Finney
6:54 am 3/6/06 Jeff Gunn
6:52 am 5/4/06 Jeff Gunn
6:50 am 5/16/06 Jeff Gunn
As you can see, it is four occasions. In fact, the last time that Amos picked up his car, which was 5/24/06, the engine light came back on the same day. Amos will drop the car off again today and pick up a loaner car. Please do not release his car again until the engine light problem has been resolved. This test is required by the state and he cannot comply until you fix the problem.
Your customer service has been stellar in terms of how you have accommodated Amos. However, with regard to the resolution of this continuing problem, we are quite disappointed with the amount of times the car has been returned for the engine light issue.
If the repair is beyond your mechanic's ability to repair, we expect that you will provide Amos with a comparable vehicle. I found the following information on your web site under used cars. I would hope that this would apply in our current situation.
“CarMax was designed to make buying a used car easy. We knew, for most people, buying a used car was usually a pretty bad experience. Our goal was to change that by listening to what consumers said they wanted. And what they wanted was for car shopping to be hassle-free. They wanted a good selection of vehicles to choose from. They wanted high-quality cars they can trust".
What Is A CarMax® Certified Quality Used Vehicle?
'Lemon' may be the first thing you think about when you hear 'used car.' You know one of those cars your neighbor got stuck with that spent more time in the shop than in the driveway. That's why we created CarMax. Every CarMax car has been thoroughly inspected and reconditioned so it feels like new. And every car comes with a Limited 30-Day Warranty (60-Days in CT) and a 5-Day Money-Back Guarantee so you can relax. It's peace of mind.
Cordially,
Darlene L. Tawiah
darlenetawiah@hotmail.com
240-381-4863
June 27, 2006
Alex Kozdras, Service Manager
CarMax - 8800 Freestate Drive
Laurel, Maryland 20723
Dear Mr. Kozdras:
As requested by you, my son Amos and I visited the Carmax store to have his car appraised on Saturday, June 24th, 2006. It was appraised at $7000.00. Since the purchase on January 28th, 2006, there was minor damage in the way of a dent in the edge of the car door that Amos is responsible for.
The original purchase price of the vehicle was $9,999.00 and the down payment was $3000.00. I am requesting that the $3000.00 down payment be credited towards another vehicle along with the $1500.00 in car payments that have been expended and that the damage to the car door be deducted from that amount.
If a comparable vehicle within Amos' price range cannot be found on your lot, I am requesting that the $3000.00 down payment be returned to us along with the balance of the insurance and that Carmax purchase the car back at the pay off price which is $8350.00.
My request is justified because the vehicle should never have been sold to anyone at all in the condition that it was in. It is my intention to resolve this matter within the next 24 hours. Please advise.
Finally, my personal preference is to purchase a car from another dealer because I met 2 customers in your showroom who were returning their vehicles because of similar problems. One such customer's vehicle was so defective that it could have cost him his life and that of his family. Given the unnecessary hardship that we have experienced over the course of the past 5 months, the inconvenience, the false accusations and maltreatment, I would much rather undo this deal and purchase somewhere else.
Regards,
Darlene L., on behalf of Amos
CarMax has refused to accept my reasonable terms.
Amos
Burtonsville, Maryland
U.S.A.
Click here to read other Rip Off Reports on CarMax
Search for additional reports
If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here: Search Tips
Rebuttal Box
Respond to this report!
What's This?
Victim of this person/company?
What's This?Repair Your Reputation
What's This?
Updates & Rebuttals:
- Get your legislators involved! Lets stop this fraud! Amos [6/29/2006 8:07:09 AM]
- Maryland Implied Warranty of Merchantability A. [10/3/2006 9:36:30 AM]
- This car is too old for implied warranty Mark [10/3/2006 4:47:39 PM]
Get your legislators involved! Lets stop this fraud!
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
Submitted: 10/3/2006 9:36:30 AM
Modified: 10/3/2006 9:36:30 AM
A.
Washington, District of ColumbiaU.S.A.
Maryland Implied Warranty of Merchantability
Though I am sure you have already looked into this, as your letters seem well written and reasoned, the following may be helpful for other Maryland consumers. Maryland is one of a few states that do no allow cars to be sold 'As Is,' to limit or disclaim the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose.
The implied warranty of merchantability applies to all vehicles purchased in Maryland that are less than 6 years old and have less than 60,000 miles on them. In general, the implied warranty is applicable for 4 years after purchase. Any vehicle sold in Maryland should be able to be taken back to the dealer if they cannot be used as a vehicle in the state.
Please see the following bulletin from the Maryland Attorney General's Office for further guidance:
(((ROR REDACTED LINK FOR SECURITY PURPOSES)))
This post does not constitute legal advice about your particular situation, it is only general knowledge relating to Maryland law. For further help, any consumer should contact an attorney.
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.
This car is too old for implied warranty
Cars in Maryland can not be sold as/is. Cars under 6 years old or under 60K miles must carry a 30 day 1000 mile limited warranty (engine, transmission, drive axles) The implied part of the Maryland warranty is for cars over 6 years old (2000 and back) and over 60 K miles (they must be both) All the implied part means is they must have passed MD State Inspection, therefore not really As/Is. It is still only in effect for 30 days (the inspected parts must be good for at least the 30 days) not 4 years
Rebuttal Box
Respond to this report!
What's This?
Victim of this person/company?
What's This?Repair Your Reputation
What's This?
Looking for premium tickets? Concert Tickets | Sports Tickets | Theatre Tickets just visit www.TicketFeeder.com
Advertisers below have met our strict standards for business conduct.
