Used Car "Spot Delivery" from Ken Garff

[SilT]

Jurisdiction

Utah

I recently made a purchase on 11/07/19 for a Pre-certified used 2018 Dodge Journey SE FW sports utility vehicle. Ken Garff used their in-house financing had a finance manager review all supporting documents. The sales representative advised me to put my income amount a different amount than what is on my supporting financial documents statement which I signed. I was able to access supporting financial documents via their internet. I have the following forms Law 553-UT-ARB-eps-14 11/15 (RISC) Retail Installment Sale Contract - Simple Finance Charge (With Arbitration Provision), Motor Vehicle Contract Of Sale, Buyers Guide Implied Warranties Only, Odometer Disclosure Statement, AdvantageCARE, GAP Waiver. They said that I needed those type of coverage for this type of loan and that it wasn't optional. I received a phone call on 11/29/19 from the finance manager stating that the finance fell through and I was given the option to come into the office with a co-signer to re-apply. My down-payment is scheduled to be deducted on 12/06/19 in the amount of $500.00. I asked if I can return the vehicle and the finance manager said I would be responsible for the mileage usage, tailoring of vehicle, fees etc. I have a recording of the finance manager saying that he knew that the amount I make is less than what was being reported and still submitted the paperwork in my behalf. I told the finance manager that he is a certified finance representative and should know per supporting documents if something all information received and submitted are accurate. I mean they are representing me this was a in-house process. Ultimately, I want to return the car without any cost repercussions. Based on that phone call he didn't sound like he wanted to make things right and cancel the contract and write a statement leaving me with no liability of cost for usage during the time of 11/07/19 to now. Also, on the back of the pg 4 of 4 of the LAW 553-UT-ARB-eps-14 11/15 Form there is a Seller assigns its interest in this contract to Chrysler Capital (Assigned without Recourse) what does this mean? I'm very exhausted and overwhelmed that this kind of transaction can still be allowed. Please, I'm drafting a breach of contract letter before action as they led me to believe that I had purchased and finalized a financing bank with my vehicle. I submitted a BBB consumer review, I hope to get a response. Feel free to let me know if you've been in the same situation and hope the best for everyone -Thanks

Image of the contract:

 

[Tax Counsel]

I have a recording of the finance manager saying that he knew that the amount I make is less than what was being reported and still submitted the paperwork in my behalf.

Let's start here. This sounds like you completed loan documents claiming to have a higher income than you really do. Is that what you did? If it is, then knowingly providing false information on the loan application would be fraud if the dealer and lender relied upon it in granting the loan. Now if the dealer already knew it wasn't accurate you probably can avoid the consequences for fraud, but you may be stuck in a bad situation as a result of your misrepresentation in the loan documents. Used car dealers are not know to be the most honest of businesses and you need to be very careful in dealing with them. Never bite on the request by a dealer to inflate your income on the loan application. That's a big roll of the dice, and if the roll isn't good and the lender discovers the fraud, you get burned. Indeed, because of the games some used car dealers play with financing, I generally recommend people arrange their own financing with their bank or some other lender rather than going through the dealership.

 

[mightymoose]

Yes for mileage and use of the vehicle are normal in this situation and you should not expect to get away at no cost.
Assuming your recording is legal you might be able to talk then down a bit on fees, but if it isn't then it is of no use to you.
As above, you knowingly submitted false information, but if your recording implicates them they might be inclined to let you off the hook.

 

[SilT]

I appreciate your input, however, I was advised by the in-house finance representative to specifically put a specified amount. They clearly had my income information as it's accessible online. There is no need to wait for validation of income information. I do have a recording asking if they legally and technically have the contract approved and financially finalized upon sales of the vehicle and they said no. They stated that I get 11.00 an hour work 40 hours which equals 1900 a month. Mathematically that doesn't add up. I provided my income paystub all they had to do is go off my supporting documents. They did say to put 1900 on a statement. I'm willing to argue that input was per their advisement not mine. I brought that up and he said he can't. Real customer service is not giving bad advice and provide a copy of the financial approval per consumer request at time of purchase. I requested for the finance approval and they said it's confidential. When you allow a dealership to represent you they have the posterity of making things right and ethical in your behalf. This is bad business and why would you put without recourse and not establish a financial institution? Also, I was in a financed vehicle when I went to them. I returned the car the day we completed the contract for their vehicle.

***I have a consumer lawyer who is working on this he said it's called spot delivery or yo yo financing. Thanks for your input. I just wanted to know if anyone else was in my situation and what help they got

 

[SilT]

I found out that in my state it's legal to record phone calls.

 

[flyingron]

Only with the consent of all parties to the conversation,.

 

[Zigner]

Only with the consent of all parties to the conversation,.

Utah is a one-party consent state. Only one party to the conversation has to consent, so if the OP was involved in the conversation that the OP recorded, that is legal.

EDIT: flyingron - I know you know what "one party consent" means - I expanded on it for the OP's benefit.

 

[adjusterjack]

The sales representative advised me to put my income amount a different amount than what is on my supporting financial documents statement which I signed.

That was your first and fatal mistake. Lying on your loan application.

They said that I needed those type of coverage for this type of loan and that it wasn't optional.

You could have said "Well, I'll be back after I have verified that with my bank."

I asked if I can return the vehicle and the finance manager said I would be responsible for the mileage usage, tailoring of vehicle, fees etc.

That's right, you will be. Still, returning the car, tossing the keys on the dealer's desk, and paying the fees is the best bet. You take your lumps and learn an important life lesson from the school of hard knock.

Who knows, when faced with putting the car back in inventory and having to resell, the dealer will be under some incentive to work something out with. Or, maybe not.

I mean they are representing me

Second mistake, believing that the dealer is representing you.

Also, on the back of the pg 4 of 4 of the LAW 553-UT-ARB-eps-14 11/15 Form there is a Seller assigns its interest in this contract to Chrysler Capital (Assigned without Recourse) what does this mean?

It means that the dealer had no intention to keep the loan "in house." "Signed without recourse" means the lender can't go after the dealer if you default.

I'm willing to argue that input was per their advisement not mine.

If I took you to the edge of a roof and said "Jump off, it'll be good for you," you would jump?

 

[mightymoose]

If I took you to the edge of a roof and said "Jump off, it'll be good for you," you would jump?

Will he get a car if he does?

 

[adjusterjack]

Will he get a car if he does?

I would be happy to provide the hearse.

 

[flyingron]

Utah is a one-party consent state. Only one party to the conversation has to consent, so if the OP was involved in the conversation that the OP recorded, that is legal.
.

My mistake. There was a bill in their legislature last year to change that, but it appears not to have passed.