Dealership Steals Car BACK

[lazebum]

Bill Heard (http://www.newschannel5.com/content/investigates/20762.asp?q=BILL+HEARD)

Ok so this dealership sold this truck and when a manager found out that they got the short end of the deal the stole the truck back!!!!!

So here is what some of us on other sites are doing

Bimmerforums (http://forums.bimmerforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=572275)

Edit: Sign thePetition (http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/billheard)

[Steelrat]

Dead link followed by a link to a forum that requires a subscription.

This thread officially sucks.

[lazebum]

Fixed

[surfbum]

Dead link followed by a link to a forum that requires a subscription.

This thread officially sucks.

amen
:shooting: lazebum

edit: damn, now i have to take it back

damn car dealerships

[lazebum]

(no this wasn't my car and it wasn't anyone I know, but imagine if it was one of us?!)

I know this dealership!! This is rediculous! And police consider it a civil matter? The dealership came and stole the car IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT!!!! If they knew that they were right, why didn't they do it during the day?!?!

I'm seriously considering going to the dealership with some signs and protesting. Absolutely rediculous!

FYI:

Their Email: bhnsales@billheardnashville.com

Their Phone: 800-290-9948

Please reak !@@#$ havok on that phone number and email address. What an awful business.

-G

Local Numbers:

Heard Bill Chevrolet Corp Nashville Inc: Parts
Nashville, TN
0.3 mi E - (615) 731-3040

Heard Bill Chevrolet Corp Nashville Inc: Service
Nashville, TN
0.3 mi E - (615) 731-3020

Heard Bill Chevrolet Corp Nashville Inc: Body Shop
Nashville, TN
0.3 mi E - (615) 731-9490

Bill Heard Chevrolet Corp Nashville Inc
5333 Hickory Hollow Pkwy, Antioch, TN
11 mi SE - (615) 731-3000

Bill Heard Chevrolet Corp Nashville Inc: Wrecker Service
3533 Murfreesboro Pike, Antioch, TN
12 mi SE - (615) 641-2200


This was quoted from Bimmerforums and edited for content

[RoadDawg]

Bill Heard (http://www.newschannel5.com/content/investigates/20762.asp?q=BILL+HEARD)

Ok so this dealership sold this truck and when a manager found out that they got the short end of the deal the stole the truck back!!!!!

So here is what some of us on other sites are doing

Bimmerforums (http://forums.bimmerforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=572275)

Edit: Sign thePetition (http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/billheard)


Did the party make ontime payments for the vehicle? Did they default in anyway?

Dealerships don't take cars because they got shafted. Dealerships, even the dumb ones, know what the prices are for their vehicles.

My guess is the money paid was bad and bounced.

On a side note: e-petitions are retarded and are worth less then the paper they are printed on. IF you are serious about taking action, get the local police involved. If they really stole the vehicle back then there is a case. It's up to the dealership to prove why they "stole" the car. (repossesion)

[lazebum]

Car dealers are often the butt of jokes. But one local truck buyer is not laughing about the deal that he got -- and lost. Consumer advocates say this case raises lots of questions about how a well-known auto dealer does business.



Earl Kieselhorst thought he owned a 2003 Chevy Silverado -- a truck that he bought from Bill Heard Chevrolet in Antioch.

Kieselhorst says he "paid cash for it. Made the deal. Sales manager signed off on it. Signed all the paperwork. And drove off."

He traded in his car and gave the dealer a check for $8,100.

"I have the keys," Kieselhorst tells NewsChannel 5 investigative reporter Jennifer Kraus.

But he doesn't have his truck.

Bill Heard does.

"I can't see any reason why this wouldn't be my car," he adds.

Just one day after he bought the truck, a salesman from Bill Heard called to say the dealership was having second thoughts about the deal.

He told Kieselhorst that if he wanted to keep his truck, he needed to fork over another $10,000 -- something he refused to do. After all, he says, they had a signed deal.

But the next morning, when Kieselhorst woke up, his truck was gone.

"And I was like I can't believe it," he recalls.

The dealership had come and taken it in the middle of the night.

"I've got a contract. This is a legal contract. I don't know what to say. I don't know what to say."

Metro police investigated and wanted to file charges against Bill Heard for stealing the truck.

Detective Ray Paris got a statement from Bill Heard, blaming a rookie salesman for what happened and calling it a mistake. (Read the statement given to police by Bill Heard.)

"They inadvertently sold the vehicle at a lower cost than what they should have," Paris says.

Kathleen Calligan says the Better Business Bureau has received literally hundreds and hundreds of similar complaints about the Bill Heard dealership -- more complaints by far than any other auto dealer in all of Middle Tennessee.

"Not only is this an unbelievable volume of complaints, most of them are unresolved," she adds.

Calligan says that, in this day and age, dealers know exactly how much a vehicle is worth.

And if a dealership truly does make a mistake, she says they'll take the loss -- rather than call the customer and demand he make up the difference.

"There is absolutely no reason for a sale not to be final when the customer walks out of the dealership," Calligan adds.

Yet even after Bill Heard had taken back the truck, the salesman called Kieselhorst again.

"He calls me back and offers to sell it to me for $11,000 more than I paid for it," Kieselhorst recalls.

Kieselhorst said no way.

And even though he still believes he is the rightful owner of the truck, when we went looking for it at Bill Heard, we found a customer checking it out. It was for sale, the customer and a saleswoman told us.

"The whole thing has just gotten more and more ridiculous," Kieselhorst says.

And now the self-proclaimed largest Chevrolet dealership in the world is accusing Kieselhorst of "trying to pull a fast one" on them.

"This is the way this company does business," Calligan says. "They really thought they would be able to pull a fast one on their customer."

After we tried to get their side for days, Bill Heard faxed us a statement just before air time, saying that Kieselhorst "should have known" that the deal he got was too good to be true.

The company says:

"It is not reasonable or fair to expect for Bill Heard Chevrolet ... to be bound by a sale where a clear and material mistake was made, and the customer was aware that it was a mistake."

(Read Bill Heard's statement provided to NewsChannel 5.)

Kieselhort says he just thought Bill Heard was giving him the type of good deal they advertise.

As for the police investigation, the DA says this is a civil case, not a criminal case. He says Kieselhorst is free to take the dealer to court -- something he's now seriously considering.





Return to NewsChannel 5 Investigates

Copied from the frist link

[lazebum]

OK so heres the plan


I'm All up for 2 waves of attacks.

1) Monday.

2) Next Saturday. If we hit them HARD next Saturday and combine this with some other forums, we can likely **** up their switchboards on their busiest day.

I am a car dealer and I HATE sleazy ones. Bill Heard stores are often among the worst.

[hgp3fat]

I work at a non-GM, non-Bill Heard dealership in Florida. I hear horror stories about them all the time. I couldn't imagine a sales manager trying to get away with this... that's just insane.

[Lohman446]

Wait a minute... so if you give less than fair market value for a vehicle you can be expected to pony up the rest. Isn't this a dangerous precedent to be set by any dealership? Think of the trade ins and the profit made on them. So if they gave me less than my trade in was worth I than have the right to demand the rest, after the deal is done? And if they refuse to steal it back? I think the precedent they are trying to set is far more dangerous to them monetarily than a few, or even ten thousand dollars.

I'm sorry, but you have the sales managers signature. The customer has there ad campaigns about "its too good to be true" or whatever they are. Court - lawyer costs and punative damages.

[Timmee]

Did the party make ontime payments for the vehicle? Did they default in anyway?

Dealerships don't take cars because they got shafted. Dealerships, even the dumb ones, know what the prices are for their vehicles.

My guess is the money paid was bad and bounced.

On a side note: e-petitions are retarded and are worth less then the paper they are printed on. IF you are serious about taking action, get the local police involved. If they really stole the vehicle back then there is a case. It's up to the dealership to prove why they "stole" the car. (repossesion)

He paid cash + trade for the truck. The owner of the truck should sue the dealership for breach of contract.

[lazebum]

Holy ****! Just read this: http://www.newschannel5.com/content/...ates/20957.asp

Highlights are:

"Just two days after Wilson and her husband bought a 2005 Chevy Equinox, the dealer tried to take it away, using what Wilson called fear and intimidation"

"“There was no way to get out. They surrounded my car with seven people and stood in my doorframe. Couldn't start the car. Couldn't shut the door in 97-degree weather,” Wilson recalls"

" when she went back to get a typo on the car title fixed, she says the salesman suddenly insisted she couldn't keep the car because the former owner's deal had fallen through"

"She refused to hand over the keys. That's when, she says, the salesmen surrounded her car while another used a truck to block her in all while her 1-year-old son sat strapped in his car seat"

"Wilson finally called police from her car to get out of the dealership -- with her car."

She is now suing Bill Heard for false imprisonment

"The company has been fined hundreds of thousands of dollars by the attorneys general in Texas, Georgia, Florida and Tennessee yet the self-proclaimed world's largest Chevy dealer claims on the its Web site that Bill Heard is “dedicated to the principles of sound business ethics" and “long-standing integrity."

!@#$ these pricks
__________________


Dude these people are insane

[lazebum]

Check out there complaint list!!!!!

Rip off report (http://www.ripoffreport.com/results.asp?q1=ALL&q5=Bill+Heard+&submit2=Search%21&q4=&q6=&q3=&q2=&q7=&searchtype=0)

[ahellers]

Check out there complaint list!!!!!

Rip off report (http://www.ripoffreport.com/results....&Search=Search)

page not found!!!!!! :wow:
t

[warpspyder]

I have one question....

Why the heck is this even being discussed? It should be clear from the contracts signed by the dealer and customer that the sale was made. Therefore making the car the customer's property. Sooo the dealership then commited grand theft auto (depending on the local laws I suppose)... In any case I fail to see how the dealer isn't being threatened with felony charges.

Sue the dealership, win, get your truck back and some cash on the side. Done deal. Any lawyer with half a brain will gladly take this case and probably not charge you anything up front because it's such an open and shut one.

I guess I just don't see the point in arguing about something so stupidly criminal.

It's contract law folks. You can't just claim you made a mistake. The only way they can legally do that is if both parties agree on the new terms. The customer obviously doesn't, therefore the original deal stands. If the dealership wishes to take it to court, they will lose.

The end.

[Army]

Obviously, the vehicle he traded in, is NOW worth $11,000 more than what he traded it for....so simple even Bill Heard can make the connection :headbang:

[jenarelJAM]

wow... People like this make me mad...

[ScatterPlot]

Dude this is like really really close to my house! Weird!

[Steelrat]

As for the police investigation, the DA says this is a civil case, not a criminal case. He says Kieselhorst is free to take the dealer to court -- something he's now seriously considering.



Oh, so its okay if a business commits a felony theft. I didn't realize that.

Another DA who is unwilling to tackle anything but the slam-dunk, sure-fire plea-bargain cases. Surprise, surprise.

[RoadDawg]

He paid cash + trade for the truck. The owner of the truck should sue the dealership for breach of contract.

He gave them a check, doesn't mean the account was valid or had sufficent funds. Now the trade in is a different story and I originally missed that part.

He does have a signature which means the transaction was complete. Sounds like a reverse of the "cooling" off period.

[RapidTransit]

Um if I walk into a store and pay $30 for something that should cost $300 because of a stock error number that is still stealing. The dealership had every right to take the vehicle back. As for why its a civil matter, most likely a repo company was used that had informed police prior to towing it away. It also sounds like the bank is still holding the title and maybe hes refusing to pay? There arn't enough details present to justify any opinion.

[deathstalker]

Um if I walk into a store and pay $30 for something that should cost $300 because of a stock error number that is still stealing. The dealership had every right to take the vehicle back.
I disagree. If a store screws up their stock numbers and sells you an item cheaper than it should be, that is their mistake. You are not stealing anything. They also will not call you up and demand you pony up the rest of the value of the item. It's one thing if they catch their mistake at checkout and refuse to sell it to you for $30. It's another case entirely if the transaction is completed.

Also, any half-decent car dealership will have several people look over a contract to verify it. The salesperson, his/her manager, and usually the business/credit manager will all approve it before it is put in the customer's hands to sign. This also includes all verbal negotiations and agreements that should be put into writing as well. If they didn't bother and made a mistake, too bad for them.

[BeaverEater]

You know the customer shouldnt have to be shafted just because the people at this dealership are literally retarded. Its not like a single "rookie" salesman handles the whole deal. Usually the manager and other financial people verify it too. Just because they did screw up doest mean he should have to pay.

[Lohman446]

Um if I walk into a store and pay $30 for something that should cost $300 because of a stock error number that is still stealing. The dealership had every right to take the vehicle back. As for why its a civil matter, most likely a repo company was used that had informed police prior to towing it away. It also sounds like the bank is still holding the title and maybe hes refusing to pay? There arn't enough details present to justify any opinion.


Only if you are expected to know the value. That being said - if a company constantly advertises deals too good to be true - are you expected to? Especially if they are in a position to be considered legal experts at value. This is not a cashier or something, this is a trained salesperson and managerial staff.

[warpspyder]

Um if I walk into a store and pay $30 for something that should cost $300 because of a stock error number that is still stealing. The dealership had every right to take the vehicle back. As for why its a civil matter, most likely a repo company was used that had informed police prior to towing it away. It also sounds like the bank is still holding the title and maybe hes refusing to pay? There arn't enough details present to justify any opinion.
Well I work at a grocery store, and things like this have happened though obviously not to that degree. Typically if something is mislabeled and the management is notified they problem will be corrected promptly, but the sale was made, and was legal. There's no protection in contract law for ignorance. Not knowing the true value of something (which was really not the case here) is no excuse for theft. The sale was legal, and the dealership should be forced, by law, to honor their commitment.

Basically even if they guy did get too good of a deal, it's their problem, and they should have to deal with it.

[Glickman]

F'ing A man.

I bet we can all devise some way to rip them off and see how THEY like it

seriously though, i dont care WHO the hell you are. if you are trying to get into my car after i paid for it, and signed a contract youll be at the end of a shinai ;)


Um if I walk into a store and pay $30 for something that should cost $300 because of a stock error number that is still stealing. The dealership had every right to take the vehicle back. As for why its a civil matter, most likely a repo company was used that had informed police prior to towing it away. It also sounds like the bank is still holding the title and maybe hes refusing to pay? There arn't enough details present to justify any opinion.

that makes absolutely no sense. a stock error is still an error on the salesman. ive made similar mistakes at work, and i paid the difference for it. if this WAS stealing (which its not even close) then i could sue YOU because i priced a item too low on purpose then to "regret" it later.

to quote the Attorney General Mike Cox:
" As a general matter of contract law, consumers do not have a right to cancel a sale of goods or services. In the case of defective, damaged, or undelivered goods, consumers may be able to demand their money back. And those merchants who choose to offer consumers a “money-back guarantee” must live up to their promises. But where the merchant has provided the goods or services that the consumer agreed to buy, the consumer generally may not insist on canceling a transaction after the fact. "

The only way the dealership (feel free to correct me) couldve reversed the sale is only if they contacted the buyer one day after (since hes paying over time)

this probably differs from state to state, but i doubt it changes alot.

[ahellers]

well i think the dealer did contact him one day after. but i dont think he was paying over time. perhaps the paper work for his trade in didnt go though yet? would some one call this guy and tell him to sign up for AO? :rofl:
t

[1stdeadeye]

"Unjust Enrichment" is the term.

If you cash your paycheck and the teller gives you back an extra $100, that money is not yours! It belongs to the bank still. You are stealing then!

[Glickman]

"Unjust Enrichment" is the term.

If you cash your paycheck and the teller gives you back an extra $100, that money is not yours! It belongs to the bank still. You are stealing then!

Unjust enrichment

A legal procedure whereby you can seek reimbursement from another who benefitted from your action or property without legal justification. There are said to be three conditions which must be met before you can get a court to force reimbursement based on "unjust enrichment": an actual enrichment or benefit to the defendant, a corresponding deprivation to the plaintiff, and the absence of a legal reason for the defendant's enrichment. For example (and only theoretically as many countries have laws which have modified equity law in some situations), if you found somebody else's cash and spent it, you might be sued for reimbursement under unjust enrichment. The legal theory behind unjust enrichment is the constructive trust, which the court imposes upon the circumstances to hold the person unjustly enriched as the trustee for the person who should properly get the property back, held to be the beneficiary of the constructive trust.

still doesnt seem like the dealership was in the right, least far as i can see from the story.

either way, they need wayne brady to go upside their head

[Lohman446]

"Unjust Enrichment" is the term.

If you cash your paycheck and the teller gives you back an extra $100, that money is not yours! It belongs to the bank still. You are stealing then!

But this was not a counting error. This was a deal done and signed off by multiple people. Also at a bank you have no reason to expect extra money. What about a car dealer that advertises "deals too good to be true" or whatever there advertising schemes are.

[ahellers]

yeah its not like the dealership acidently gave him a few extra dollers with his change, (im sure he didnt get change, but yeah). it just the dealer made a bad deal.
t

[Linkwarner]

Now.. if I was surrouned in my garage by 7 people. That too me seems like enough reason to consider it a threat to me and my family. My clip holds 7 bullets, better use them wisely.

[Lohman446]

Now.. if I was surrouned in my garage by 7 people. That too me seems like enough reason to consider it a threat to me and my family. My clip holds 7 bullets, better use them wisely.

7+1 of .45 seems like a great number to me.

[PyRo]

I'd go right back to the car lot, get in and drive it back home. Then I'd be sure to garage it, chain it to a tree, somthing so that it's unquestionably a crime to take it back.

[Pneumagger]

Maybe I'm harsh, but I'd definately go back at night and drive that truck away. I mean I have the keys.

If litigation failed...you can bet one of his benzes gets a molitov cocktail :mad:

[Dubstar112]

that sucks. any news on this since?

[

[TheAngryDrunkenRussian]

I'd drive a truck throw the front doors.

[mobsterboy]

Um if I walk into a store and pay $30 for something that should cost $300 because of a stock error number that is still stealing. The dealership had every right to take the vehicle back. As for why its a civil matter, most likely a repo company was used that had informed police prior to towing it away. It also sounds like the bank is still holding the title and maybe hes refusing to pay? There arn't enough details present to justify any opinion.

no, you missed a part. walking into a store, paying $30 for a $300 item and not only did the clerk check you out, but the general manager ok'ed the price. now, how do you feel about that? i mean, we're not just talking a dumb teenage clerk, or some old guy hell bent on screwing the store he works for, we're talking the manager who's sole job is to make sure he's making enough money off sales that are going through

[mobsterboy]

btw, started reading some of these
this one was the funniest ive ever heard

http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/ripoff196992.htm

she was 16...with her 2 year old daughter

[Glickman]

no, you missed a part. walking into a store, paying $30 for a $300 item and not only did the clerk check you out, but the general manager ok'ed the price. now, how do you feel about that? i mean, we're not just talking a dumb teenage clerk, or some old guy hell bent on screwing the store he works for, we're talking the manager who's sole job is to make sure he's making enough money off sales that are going through


wham bam thank you mam

[Timmee]

btw, started reading some of these
this one was the funniest ive ever heard

http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/ripoff196992.htm

she was 16...with her 2 year old daughter

She doesn't state that she was 16 when this happened, just that she's always had a used vehicle, not a new one.

"Having had used cars since I was 16, I decided I wanted a new car and wanted to do it on my own, w/out a co-signer or anything."

[Glickman]

She doesn't state that she was 16 when this happened, just that she's always had a used vehicle, not a new one.

"Having had used cars since I was 16, I decided I wanted a new car and wanted to do it on my own, w/out a co-signer or anything."

seeing what you just said made me realize that 16-2=14

....

whos living in italy? i dont they they marry that early anymore either :rolleyes: