William Routon

Buyer Beware! ! Car has a clearly illegally bald tire that they are claiming is legal. They refuse to replace the tires.. Be aware of the $799 unwanted Lojack fee t ! Car has a clearly illegally bald tire that they are claiming is legal. They refuse to replace the tires.. Be aware of the $799 unwanted Lojack fee that they attach to all used vehicles plus the $799 dealer handling fee. Evidently dealers are using Lojack as a way to track cars to repossess along with boosting profit margins. Shop elsewhere!! More

Report | Print

I recently purchased a vehicle from Foundation Kia in Wheat Ridge, Colorado, and I feel compelled to share my experience due to the deceptive tactics used during the transaction. I was clear that I wa Wheat Ridge, Colorado, and I feel compelled to share my experience due to the deceptive tactics used during the transaction. I was clear that I wanted $17,000 for my trade-in, and the dealership said they could meet this request if I agreed to finance the car rather than pay cash. They explained that financing would benefit them and assured me I could pay off the car at any time without incurring additional interest or costs. Trusting this arrangement, I agreed, believing the process would remain fair and straightforward. However, during the signing process, the amount listed on the contract for my trade-in was only $15,700. When I questioned this, the dealership explained that the difference was offset by “effective sales tax savings.” At the time, I didn’t fully understand what they meant. I was understandably overwhelmed by the complexity of the transaction and focused on loan terms, interest rates, and monthly payments. It wasn’t until I got home and reviewed the contract in a calm environment that I realized the explanation was deceptive. The “effective sales tax savings” they referred to is a benefit of state law, which calculates sales tax based on the price difference between the trade-in value and the cost of the new car. This is not a dealership concession—it is a standard tax rule. In reality, this explanation was used to obscure the fact that they never honored their promise to pay $17,000 for my trade-in. To make matters worse, I later discovered an unexpected $799 charge for a LoJack aftermarket product that I neither requested nor recall being clearly informed about. This charge was buried in the paperwork and added to my frustration. I contacted the dealership and proposed a fair compromise: a refund of $1,449 to cover $650 (half the trade-in difference) and $799 for the unwanted product. In addition, I asked for confirmation that there is no prepayment penalty for paying off the loan early, as they had indicated during the sales negotiation. Despite assurances that my concerns would be reviewed, the dealership has not responded to any of these issues. If the dealership truly believed they had given me a fair and honest deal, they would have done everything in their power to communicate this and address my concerns. Because they cannot back up their deceptive ploy and do not have the truth on their side, they have chosen to ignore me instead. This experience has left me deeply disappointed. While the dealership’s actions may technically be legal, they are far from ethical. I am in the process of contacting consumer agencies to question whether these practices are ethical—or even legal—for that matter. I hope sharing my story will caution other buyers and encourage Foundation Kia to adopt honest and transparent practices moving forward. I will visit here again to post any updates, including whether or not Foundation Kia makes any effort to make things right. More

Report | Print