Update: April 20, 2006 - Toyota responds respectfully and with the relief requested. (see the comment section for the letter they sent to us) Also, my accountant shared he encountered similar circumstances with Toyota when returning his leased vehicle. He did not share his experience with me or others outside of his immediate circle. Social change takes place when we have information and act on the information. In any circumstance of deceit, bad business practices, and the like, please share this information with your friends, relatives, and the world. We must advocate for each other. A socially disenfranchised or disadvantaged individual or group is not based on economics and the color of their skin. In order to be a socially disenfranchised or disadvantaged individual or group you have to be negatively impacted by a social subversive or nefarious policy, procedure, and/or structure intended to suppress or depress an upward movement or change in status.
March 27, 2006
Toyota Motor Sales USA
Mr. Yuki Funo, CEO Toyota North America
19001 So. Western Ave., Dept. WC11
Torrance, California 90509
Toyota Financial Services
Mr. George Borste, President & CEO
19851 So. Western Avenue
Torrance, California 90509
Re: 2003 Toyota Corolla Refund – Account number 03-0612-95183
Vehicle Identification Number 1NXBR32E43Z023573
Dear Sir/Madam:
I, Fred Nance Jr., and my wife, Darlene Bouyer-Nance, submit this writing objecting to Toyota taking our refund of $108.50. We received two (2) refund checks from Toyota Motor Credit Corporation, Lexus Financial Services, P.O. 9490, Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52409-9490 totaling $216.50. On April 22, 2002, we paid a security deposit of $375.00.
On February 14, 2006 we returned our lease Toyota without damages. Toyota determined in our presence the lease Corolla had damages that were normal wear and tear. There were no photos/pictures taken, in our presence, by Toyota of our car upon return.
On March 3, 2006 Toyota determined excessive wear and use of $281.00, refunding $94.00 dollars to us. We rejected this refund. We called Toyota. Upon analysis, a representative stating there were no pictures of the vehicle available, a second refund was issued in the amount of $122.50 on March 8, 2006. This totals $216.50. This leaves a balance of $158.50. We conceded there were cigarette burns in the drivers’ seat of the car. We were charged $50.00 for this damage. This would leave a balance of $108.50.
We were charged additionally for a left fender panel dent-no paint, severity 3 ½” to 6” = $35.00, a left front door panel dent-paint damage, severity 3 ½“ to 6” = $108.50, and a front bumper, bumper cover crack, severity cracked paint>3 ½“ = $87.50. We reject these charges. This totals $231.00. If we conceded to the description of the “paint” described above, it would be normal wear and tear.
We conceded to $50.00 for the “multiple burns.” This means Toyota owes us $108.50. Toyota should have taken pictures of our car when we presented it on February 14, 2006 so we could have discussed proposed damages. For Toyota to take a “condition report” on February 24, 2006 is ludicrous. The customer/consumer has no recourse for contesting the charges.
From talking to your representative, it appears there were no pictures taken or presented to anyone. In addition, it was stated to us Toyota believes because they use an outside vendor to assess the car, this makes it a legitimate analysis. This analysis is biased because it was not performed in front of the customer/consumer. We respectfully request our refund balance of $108.50.
Thank you.
Fred Nance Jr., ABD, MA, CADC, NCRS
cc: http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/
