Not sure if this was already posted but this article is from 2010 with the follow up article below it



The Mazda dealership in Orangeville may have given new meaning to the automaker’s slogan of “zoom, zoom, zoom” for motorist Madeline Leonard.

Leonard walked into the dealership wanting to replace the tires on her 2004 car.

By the time she left she was on the hook for a spiffy, black 2010 Mazda6 sedan at the eye-popping price of almost $66,000, after taxes and the value of her trade-in vehicle.

That’s $25,000 more than she should have paid, according to Ontario’s auto regulator.

She says “Moe,” the salesman, talked fast. The numbers whizzed by and before she knew it she had bought the 2010 model.

“I was overwhelmed and confused and I soon felt like I had been mistreated,” the 56-year-old woman said in an interview from her small, subsidized apartment in the town 85 km northwest of Toronto.

The Ontario Motor Vehicle Industry Council, which regulates new and used car dealers, took action after she complained. Its investigation found she should have paid about $41,000 for the vehicle — which wasn’t even new.

“In my eight years here, I haven’t seen a case like this,” said Carey Smith, the regulator’s director of investigations. “The deal was way over the top regarding pricing.”

Smith has charged Mazda of Orangeville and two senior employees with breaching Ontario legislation that protects consumers. The dealership could face a fine of up to $250,000 if found guilty.

Kien Trung, business manager at Mazda of Orangeville and one of the employees facing charges, said he did not treat Leonard improperly or make any big profits in the deal in late December.

“We didn’t do anything wrong in the case of this transaction,” said Trung. “We made a little bit of money on the deal. I guess she was not happy with it.”

In promotional messages, the dealership says it treats customers “with dignity and respect.”

But Smith said in Leonard’s case, the store and two employees used several tactics to unfairly jack up the price.

“They put a list price of a new vehicle on the model but it was a demonstrator that the dealer used with about 6,000 kilometres on it,” he noted.

Mazda Canada lists the base price of the new sedan at $39,969 on its national website, but the dealership allegedly posted a sticker of $45,846 on the car.

Smith said the salesmen also billed Leonard, who is intellectually disabled, about $4,500 for a “protection package” that included fabric guarding, rust and sound proofing and window etching. Other dealers charge about a third of that for the same items, he said.

Furthermore, Smith said Leonard, who is unemployed, should not have qualified for a loan from the dealer because her monthly income including a disability pension is less than $2,000.

But Smith added that didn’t stop the two employees from offering an eight-year loan that will result in about $16,000 in financing costs for her, including a final balloon payment of $7,000.

Mazda of Orangeville says in a promotional message for phone callers that owning “your dream vehicle might be easier than you think.” The message goes on: “If you are a great person with not-so-good credit, we have you in mind.”

Leonard said she originally came to the store to replace the tires on her 2004 Mazda3 and didn’t even want to buy a car.

“I wished I had never walked into the place,” she said. “I’ve had a lot of trouble keeping up with these payments. The stress has been terrible.”

Leonard described the salesman at the dealership as “slick” and the process mesmerized her. But after signing a contract and driving the vehicle away, she checked prices at other Mazda outlets.

“The differences were shocking,” she said. “I felt very disappointed how I was treated.”

The regulator charged the dealership; Trung, 38, of Vaughan; and sales manager Mohammed (Moe) Shaikh, 46, of Mississauga with “engaging in unfair practice by making an unconscionable representation,” contrary to the provincial Consumer Protection Act.

Trung said the defendants will plead not guilty when they appear in court this month.

Under the act, the employees could receive fines up to $100,000 each and/or two years less a day in jail if found guilty. The defendants could also be liable for damages to Leonard.

The regulator could also revoke the registrations of the dealerships and salesmen.

“Dealers tell me there is nothing wrong with making money but the law says there is something wrong if you take advantage of someone,” Smith said.

Mazda Canada said it would not decide on any action involving the dealership until a court rules on the charges.

“Obviously we expect our dealers and staff to operate professionally,” said spokesman Greg Young. “We’ll see what the (court) determination is.”

Mazda of Orangeville has also popped up on the radar screen of the Better Business Bureau of Mid-Western and Central Ontario.

Although the dealership is not a member, the bureau has received six complaints and issued a D+ rating on a scale from A+ to F since January 2008.

“It speaks for itself,” said a bureau official.

Source

_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
Follow Up:

Car salesman lands in jail for misleading customers

A car salesman who sold a vehicle to an elderly widow for about $24,000 more than she expected has become one of the first auto dealership employees in Ontario to be jailed under current consumer protection legislation.

Naheed Ali Ramji was sentenced in a Belleville court Tuesday to seven months behind bars for “unconscionable representation” and “unfair practice” under the Ontario Consumer Protection Act, and falsifying information under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act.

“Mr. Ramji targeted female customers who he deemed gullible to take advantage of,” said Justice of the Peace Deanne Chapelle. “He used and took advantage of them both. He used unfair practice by making unconscionable representation to both.”

Chapelle convicted Ramji last November after hearing evidence from six witnesses including customers Doreen Waites, 80, and Barbara Fournier, in her mid-fifties, regarding transactions at Bob Clute Automart and Bob Clute Motors in Belleville in 2010.

“It’s his own fault,” Waites said after hearing about Ramji’s sentence. “We had dealt with him before and he was fine. We never thought he would try to do this to us. I was dumbfounded.”

Court heard Ramji called Waites from Bob Clute Automart about the pending expiry of a lease and she signed what she believed was another one for a new Pontiac model at a cost of about $18,825.

Waites moved and took the car to Michael Boyer Chevrolet Cadillac Buick GMC in Pickering for a small repair and informed the dealer about her unhappiness with the lease. Staff checked the paperwork and found she had actually bought the car and financed it for eight years at a total cost of $43,065.

The dealer alerted the sector’s regulator, the Ontario Motor Vehicle Industry Council, which investigated and eventually laid charges. The Clute dealership immediately unwound the deal, took the car back and later fired Ramji.

In a second transaction, Fournier contacted Bob Clute Motors and indicated she wanted to buy out a pickup truck whose lease had nearly ended. Evidence revealed Ramji told her that to consummate the deal, she would have to “put up” $5,000 in cash for General Motors to finance the purchase at a whopping 19 per cent despite an excellent credit history. Ramji described the cash payment as “shut-up money.”

Fournier’s husband discovered the terms and contacted the dealer who found the dealership had not received the money. A dealership probe revealed the manager’s signature on the purchase contract was not original and had been forged. The dealer returned the money to Fournier.

Although auto sales people have been jailed after convictions under the Criminal Code, the Ramji case is the first in the province involving the Ontario Motor Vehicle Industry Council and consumer protection legislation, said council executive director Carl Compton.

The consumer ministry may have successfully prosecuted auto sales people under previous legislation, he said.

“It appears the courts in Ontario are assigning a higher level of importance to offences involving consumer harm than we’ve traditionally seen in the past,” added Compton. “This is good news for consumers and good news for legitimate businesses.”

In 2010, the regulator charged a Mazda dealership in Orangeville and two senior employees for “engaging in unfair practices by making an unconscionable representation” under the act after the sale of a car to a woman for more than $25,000 above its value.

The regulator is still pursuing the case which could mean a maximum fine of $250,000 for the dealership and penalties of $100,000 plus jail time of up to two years if a court convicts the employees.

Mazda Canada quickly pulled the dealer’s franchise agreement for breaching the automaker’s business practices in that case and other incidents. The store is now under new ownership.

Source