Active Green And Ross - John Suglia - Franchise Owner Misrepresentation / Fraud - Selling Old Merchandise as NEW Mississauga Ontario Canada

Active Green + Ross Response

The complainant, Ms. Lil, has not represented the facts in an accurate fashion in her posting, and has conveniently and purposely left out many facts to portray herself & her daughter as a victim and Active Green + Ross as a villain. It is regrettable that a person can post inaccurate and harmful accusations without any verification as to the veracity of the information posted.

Active Green + Ross is committed to a high standard of customer service and care. Dealers are trained to ensure that customer satisfaction is achieved at the highest level. In the overwhelming majority of the many transactions that Active Green + Ross Dealers process in a weekly basis, high customer satisfaction is achieved. In our view the complainant was dealt with fairly and in accord with its goal of providing high degree of satisfaction to its customers.

Here are the facts in the matter:

1. Ms. C's daughter purchased 4 rims on November 17th, 2008 for her 2001 Suzuki Vitara.

2. The rims were purchased cash and carry and the customer did not make any reference to any cosmetic marks when accepting the new loose rims, which were not boxed or wrapped.

3. The customer returned to an alternate location where the rims were installed along with the customer supplied used tires. Active Green + Ross have no knowledge of the transportation or if any scratching could have occurred at this time. The customer was credited with the cost to install the rims, a value of $62.13.

4. The history of the rims was investigated by our Head Office and it is known the rims were purchased new by the Active Green + Ross location on October 31, 2006. The rims are silver in color and it appears that black rims were stacked on top of these rims, causing some cosmetic marking.

5. It was confirmed by the technician at the alternate shop that the rims were in fact new, and had never had tires mounted on them.

6. Within 48 hours of filing her complaint, the store that sold her the rims had communicated back to her that they would either discount the rims for the cosmetic damage or provide her with 100% refund if she would rather return the rims.

7. On November 19,2008 Ms. C responded to decline the 100% refund for the rims. She indicated that it was not convenient for her to attend for a refund and return of the rims. Ms. C went further to say that she could source used rims for $25.00 each and she would reluctantly pay $25.00 for each rim, or she would accept a mobile unit being sent to her daughter, at her convenience, to remove the rims and install her original rims.

8. The rims sold to the customer have an Manufacturer Suggested Retail Price of $191.04 and were sold at a discounted price of $109.95. Active Green + Ross didn't feel the offer of $25.00 per rim was reasonable, but since we offered a 100% refund, Ms. C could purchase the rims for $25.00 that she had located and Active Green + Ross offered to install them at no cost when we removed the cosmetically marked rims for her 100% refund. Her demand to send a mobile unit was not reasonable, understanding that special tire machines and wheel balancers along with compressed air are required to perform the work on car tires. We do not offer mobile service, but we do have multiple shops in the city where her daughter was, and offered any of these locations to minimize any inconvenience.

9. Ms. C's sole argument is that the rims were used, and sold as new. We have advised her that was not the case. The rims were new, albeit they may have been marked cosmetically. In such cases, the rims would be discounted for the cosmetic damage, but not to $25.00.

10. On November 20th, Active Green + Ross responded to Ms. Crawford that Head Office had investigated and found the rims to be new not used as she claimed. We would offer a discount of $100.00 on the purchase of the rims for the cosmetic marks or we would provide a full 100% refund of the purchase price at one of our stores located in the same city as her daughter, to minimize any inconvenience. Ms. C was advised the rims were no longer available from the manufacturer, so we could not order in alternate rims for her to exchange.

11. Ms. C responded on November 20th, 2008 that the offer was not acceptable and that she would be pursuing Consumer Advocates and Local Papers for assistance. Unlike this website, all credible consumer advocates check the veracity of any complaints prior to taking any action and Ms. C said she was disappointed that no one she contacted would take up her cause.

12. On November 21, 2008 at 12:28 pm, Ms. C contacted our Head Office and advised she would settle for a credit as offered for the cosmetic marking on the rims.

13. On November 21, 2008 a credit was issued in the amount of $123.45 to the customer's credit card.

14. On November 22, 2008, despite having already called to accept the settlement, Ms. C made her Internet Posting. In her posting, Ms. C fails to disclose the pertinent facts:

a. She had already accepted $123.45 for the cosmetic damage and $62.13 in installation charges for a total of $185.58 in compensation prior to making the posting.

b. Her claim that she was sold used product was taken seriously, investigated, and found to be incorrect. When presented with the facts, Ms. C discards' the findings and relies upon her own opinion as fact.

c. Within 48 hours of her complaint, she was provided with an option to obtain a full 100% refund at her convenience, at a store in the city where her daughter resides, which was repeatedly declined.

As is evident, Ms. C was dealt with in a most courteous and professional basis to address her complaint. The complaint was resolved to her satisfaction. This is contrary to what has been posted by Ms. C but does constitute the truth. Obviously, Ms. C is intent on unfairly maligning Active Green + Ross for no reason whatsoever.

Peter Steele
General Manager
Active Green + Ross
petersteele@activegreenross.com
416-255-5581

Contacted by Peter Steele on December 8, 2008. Summary is that I was "slandering" his company and legal would review due to internet postings. To clarify, it is my belief that the franchise owner misrepresented the product sold. I did begrudingly receive a $100 discount.