RIP 2012 ZL1 #1635

[Mcarltonjr]

Originally Posted by Devryn17

The dealership had no criminal intention. The dealership was wronged here too...I think we tend to forget that.

The dealership was wronged by their employee but the dealer has in their own way made it clear they think its not to be their problem. Defending the dealer is pointless. The dealer has made minimal effort to make this right. I didnt say no effort I said MINIMAL.

[PQ]

Originally Posted by smkooq

You proved my point...

Why does the dealer have to make things right? Because the said employee represents the dealership. So who is at fault? The dealership

If this employee did not represent the dealership, then this criminal would be the one having to pay and the dealer is off the hook..

Nobody is saying the dealership does not have to make things right. We just disagree on required compensation.

[smkooq]

Originally Posted by PQ

Nobody is saying the dealership does not have to make things right. We just disagree on required compensation.

I understand. But in this case who should come out winning? Hoopers or the dealer?

[Hall of Fame]

Did y'all read in the original 1st posting by the OP that the Dealership would not give their insurance information. Uh.. they were not driving the car. So, when the accident occurred the Police asked for the drivers insurance information. Whether his insurance co. is wanting to pay has not been discussed, however.... IF the op cannot collect from the driver.. their UNDER Insured or uninsured policy would take effect... IF the amount on the coverage did not cover the car. That is.. IF they carry it.

[PQ]

Originally Posted by smkooq

I understand. But in this case who should come out winning? Hoopers or the dealer?

There are no winners here. The Hoopers would rather just have their car back. As far as who should win if there is a winner a good business decision would be to make the Hoopers the winners. And that is where my thin line is drawn. I think they dropped the ball on this. BUT I don't think they are as bad as they've been hammered to be.

[smkooq]

Originally Posted by PQ

There are no winners here. The Hoopers would rather just have their car back. As far as who should win if there is a winner a good business decision would be to make the Hoopers. And that is where my thin line is drawn. I think they dropped the ball on this. BUT I don't think they are as bad as they've been hammered to be.

i see your point.. but still, imo i think this dealer deserves being hammered and i hope they learn from it.

[BSX_Camaro]

Originally Posted by PQ

If the dealership said that then I agree. I do not believe that happened. If it did then I'm wrong but I'll go with the odds. I'm not sure why you believe that happened?

That's exactly what I heard happened. "Not our Problem" I should have included the whole comment. "Not our Problem, this is up to insurance company." Course this whole thing is he said/she said/they said. Only a very few know the "whole" story.

[PQ]

Originally Posted by Hall of Fame

Did y'all read in the original 1st posting by the OP that the Dealership would not give their insurance information. Uh.. they were not driving the car. So, when the accident occurred the Police asked for the drivers insurance information. Whether his insurance co. is wanting to pay has not been discussed, however.... IF the op cannot collect from the driver.. their UNDER Insured or uninsured policy would take effect... IF the amount on the coverage did not cover the car. That is.. IF they carry it.

I'm guessing that the 'Refusal' to give insurance info was also made something it isn't. At that early a point they still don't know exactly how it will be handled. We don't know who's insurance called the car totaled.

[Hall of Fame]

Originally Posted by PQ

I'm guessing that the 'Refusal' to give insurance info was also made something it isn't. At that early a point they still don't know exactly how it will be handled. We don't know who's insurance called the car totaled.

The OP wrote that !

[Kevins89notch]

Originally Posted by smkooq

I understand. But in this case who should come out winning? Hoopers or the dealer?

One major aspect of customer service is turning a possible problem isn't a positive. To cut in with an answer, the dealership should have won. They should have handled this properly from the get go, and eaten any cost to make things right. In the long run, the positive word of mouth would have easily sold 3 more cars, which the profits from those sales would have covered this issue.

Instead they got cheap, didn't know how to handle it, and now their name is mud.

[PQ]

Originally Posted by smkooq

There really is no win-win situation in this. Either the Hoopers win or lose.

Why should the Hoopers be forced to just "deal with it"? Because this dealership cannot even control there own staff members?

NOBODY can control their staff like that. Nor anybody for that matter.

I suppose it depends on what a 'win' would be. A new car is the only win in the Hoopers mind. And I'd have tried to go that route as a dealer but why do we feel like we have to hold businesses to a higher standard? The owner of that dealership is a victim here too. NOT as big as the Hoopers but he did nothing criminal. It's not criminal for him to hire an employee not realizing he's a piece of crap.

I'm not saying and never have said that the dealer in not liable, just that they are not as evil as is being portrayed. They accept liability and were trying to find a car. But I don't think it's fair to force a brand new car that cost 15k more than the one wrecked.

[ZoomZoom]

Originally Posted by Kevins89notch

One major aspect of customer service is turning a possible problem isn't a positive. To cut in with an answer, the dealership should have won. They should have handled this properly from the get go, and eaten any cost to make things right. In the long run, the positive word of mouth would have easily sold 3 more cars, which the profits from those sales would have covered this issue.

Instead they got cheap, didn't know how to handle it, and now their name is mud.

HA. MUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUDDDDDDDDDDDD!

[PQ]

Originally Posted by Kevins89notch

Instead they got cheap, didn't know how to handle it, and now their name is mud.

Yup. That we can agree on. And I think it's wrong.

[Devryn17]

Originally Posted by smkooq

no, the employee represents the dealership. It does not matter if it was the CEO, or CFO that crashed the car.. An Employee is still part of the company, and this dealership needs to own up to that..

No, the employee represents the dealership to the point that they go out of their way to rob the dealership, which is what happened here. They employee went to the dealership when it was closed and STOLE from the dealership.