Response to BBB Complaint |
EXPLANATION OF EVENTS
A mistake was made but it was an honest mistake and it was not intentional.
In the first call between the parties, Marcus asked if there was any flexibility in the price. Matthew said yes a little. Marcus explained that his daughter only had $5,000. Matthew went to his computer and looked up exactly what the list price was ($5,685) and what the cost of the vehicle was ($5,375)(first-call-below).
Matthew explained that he could sell it for no less than $5,375 because that would be at cost (first-call-below).
Take into consideration that this vehicle is worth almost $7,000.
There were several calls between the parties after this first call. In one of these follow-up calls, Marcus asked Matthew about a military discount.
When Matthew conducted these follow up calls with Marcus he was not in front of his computer, like he was on the first call. Therefore, he was giving figures over the phone as estimates and inadvertently gave the wrong figures back to Mr. Marcus.
The typical military discount given is around $150.
Giving any discounts is NOT something we have to do, but rather, something we like to do to honor our military and those that served.
Matthew did the math in his head instead of on the computer and gave a much lower figure of $4,230 instead of $5,230. He meant to deduct $145 from $5,375 and that would equal $5,230. Instead he said $4,230.
Matthew may have been distracted at that particular time when they were discussing the figures and discounts. Matthew is not denying that he made the mistake. He is denying the allocations by Marcus that he purposely was dishonest about the price. If you listen to the first call and the dialogue between them, it was clear that the price Marcus was trying to get to was $5,000 and Matthew was at $5,375 and couldn't go any lower.
It wasn't until the test-drive was completed and they went inside that Matthew realized that $4,230 was off by $1,000. He confirmed that on his computer and then explained to Marcus that some how he gave him the wrong number and apologized to him.
Marcus demanded that Matthew "honor" the price that was given over the phone. Of course anybody would "demand" this. Instead of accepting this as a mistake Marcus became angry that he wouldn't sell it for the lower price.
Matthew felt really bad about the situation and drove down to the Speedway gas station. Matthew went inside the store and prepaid for $20 of fuel for Marcus. Matthew can provide receipts and we can petition the gas station for the video from that day if Marcus attempts to deny this occurred.
Marcus failed to mention in his complaint that Matthew fueled his vehicle and instead decided to create a false narrative because he wouldn't sell him the vehicle for $4,230.
Marcus claims that the situation was a "bait-n-switch" scam. He is portraying Matthew as someone that has done this in the past to others and would continue to do this, without any evidence to support this claim.
Bait-n-switch tactics are fraudulent and criminal in nature. If Matthew was truly behaving this way, in the past five (5) years since our foundation has been helping families with housing and transportation, there would be some evidence from others reflecting this.
Marcus was a potential customer. He did not buy anything and therefore was not scammed. No money changed hands and no agreements were executed. Marcus is saying that they had a verbal agreement but, if you listen to the first call and the facts on pricing from that call, that amount does not make sense and could be nothing more than a mistake made by Matthew.
The final price Matthew offered Marcus was $5,230, not $4,230. That's $145 lower than the $5,375 price that he clearly communicated to Marcus was the lowest we could do. Marcus could have purchased a great vehicle at a really low price but he was more determined to try and bully Matthew into giving him a ridiculously low price than taking advantage of the really great deal that was in front of him.
As of the date that his event occurred, Matthew has completed over 400 or more transactions since 2012 with actual customers. Customers who completed the purchase of a vehicle. This is the first time that Matthew made a mistake and mis-quoted figures.
Marcus has no other evidence other than his own biased opinion to draw conclusions from.
This is clearly a case of an unhappy "potential" customer NOT a "Bait-n-Switch" scam scenario.
A mistake was made but it was an honest mistake and it was not intentional.
In the first call between the parties, Marcus asked if there was any flexibility in the price. Matthew said yes a little. Marcus explained that his daughter only had $5,000. Matthew went to his computer and looked up exactly what the list price was ($5,685) and what the cost of the vehicle was ($5,375)(first-call-below).
Matthew explained that he could sell it for no less than $5,375 because that would be at cost (first-call-below).
Take into consideration that this vehicle is worth almost $7,000.
There were several calls between the parties after this first call. In one of these follow-up calls, Marcus asked Matthew about a military discount.
When Matthew conducted these follow up calls with Marcus he was not in front of his computer, like he was on the first call. Therefore, he was giving figures over the phone as estimates and inadvertently gave the wrong figures back to Mr. Marcus.
The typical military discount given is around $150.
Giving any discounts is NOT something we have to do, but rather, something we like to do to honor our military and those that served.
Matthew did the math in his head instead of on the computer and gave a much lower figure of $4,230 instead of $5,230. He meant to deduct $145 from $5,375 and that would equal $5,230. Instead he said $4,230.
Matthew may have been distracted at that particular time when they were discussing the figures and discounts. Matthew is not denying that he made the mistake. He is denying the allocations by Marcus that he purposely was dishonest about the price. If you listen to the first call and the dialogue between them, it was clear that the price Marcus was trying to get to was $5,000 and Matthew was at $5,375 and couldn't go any lower.
It wasn't until the test-drive was completed and they went inside that Matthew realized that $4,230 was off by $1,000. He confirmed that on his computer and then explained to Marcus that some how he gave him the wrong number and apologized to him.
Marcus demanded that Matthew "honor" the price that was given over the phone. Of course anybody would "demand" this. Instead of accepting this as a mistake Marcus became angry that he wouldn't sell it for the lower price.
Matthew felt really bad about the situation and drove down to the Speedway gas station. Matthew went inside the store and prepaid for $20 of fuel for Marcus. Matthew can provide receipts and we can petition the gas station for the video from that day if Marcus attempts to deny this occurred.
Marcus failed to mention in his complaint that Matthew fueled his vehicle and instead decided to create a false narrative because he wouldn't sell him the vehicle for $4,230.
Marcus claims that the situation was a "bait-n-switch" scam. He is portraying Matthew as someone that has done this in the past to others and would continue to do this, without any evidence to support this claim.
Bait-n-switch tactics are fraudulent and criminal in nature. If Matthew was truly behaving this way, in the past five (5) years since our foundation has been helping families with housing and transportation, there would be some evidence from others reflecting this.
Marcus was a potential customer. He did not buy anything and therefore was not scammed. No money changed hands and no agreements were executed. Marcus is saying that they had a verbal agreement but, if you listen to the first call and the facts on pricing from that call, that amount does not make sense and could be nothing more than a mistake made by Matthew.
The final price Matthew offered Marcus was $5,230, not $4,230. That's $145 lower than the $5,375 price that he clearly communicated to Marcus was the lowest we could do. Marcus could have purchased a great vehicle at a really low price but he was more determined to try and bully Matthew into giving him a ridiculously low price than taking advantage of the really great deal that was in front of him.
As of the date that his event occurred, Matthew has completed over 400 or more transactions since 2012 with actual customers. Customers who completed the purchase of a vehicle. This is the first time that Matthew made a mistake and mis-quoted figures.
Marcus has no other evidence other than his own biased opinion to draw conclusions from.
This is clearly a case of an unhappy "potential" customer NOT a "Bait-n-Switch" scam scenario.
FIRST CALL WITH MARCUS
Closing Summary
In an attempt to understand why Marcus would file a complaint like this.... Matthew contacted him a few days later on 4/5/2018.
Matthew asks for clarity on why Marcus filed the complaint with the BBB. Matthew also re-explained the facts of what actually happened.
Marcus responded with... "I had to do what I had to do"...
In an attempt to understand why Marcus would file a complaint like this.... Matthew contacted him a few days later on 4/5/2018.
Matthew asks for clarity on why Marcus filed the complaint with the BBB. Matthew also re-explained the facts of what actually happened.
Marcus responded with... "I had to do what I had to do"...
LAST CALL WITH MARCUS
It is very clear that Marcus didn't care about doing what's right, he was more concerned with forcing Matthew into losing a $1,000 and when that wasn't going to happen, this review was all he could do to retaliate against Matthew.
Does that give him the right to twist the truth and create a false narrative that paints Matthew as a person that he is not? Marcus presented no evidence to support his claims that he was scammed. It was an inconvenience ("yes")... but there was no intent to hurt or take advantage of anybody.
Does that give him the right to twist the truth and create a false narrative that paints Matthew as a person that he is not? Marcus presented no evidence to support his claims that he was scammed. It was an inconvenience ("yes")... but there was no intent to hurt or take advantage of anybody.