$1000 Maximum at Car Dealership

[BBQ123]

Got a new one for everyone...

 

A certain car dealership thinks that it's able to impose a maximum charge on a credit card for purchases of vehicles. They have a sign posted that says "The maximum credit card transaction allowed for puchasing a vechicle is $1000" or something to that extent.

 

As most of us know, it is against the policies and the merchant agreement the dealership signed with Visa/MC/AmEx to impose a minimum or maximum, impose a fee, or require ID as a term of the sale.

 

Now here is where it gets interesting: I learned about this through my friend who was out with his parents while they were shopping for a replacement to a car that managed to get totaled in -- of all places -- a parking lot when an elderly woman ran into it. Luckilly nothing/noone was damaged/hurt other than their car, her car, and another car in the lot.

 

Well, they had found a car. However, they did not want to finance or anything (since they had money saved, I guess and are also getting a check from some insurance company since their vehicle was totaled.) So, when his dad said he wanted to put the whole thing on his credit card (like $12,000), the dealership refused. They said he could only put $1000 on the card and would have to write a check for the rest. Not having a checkbook on him, and knowing that maximum's aren't allowed, my friend's dad argued with them. The dealership didn't back down -- SO THEY WALKED OUT -- meaning that's $12,000 less that dealership made that day.

 

They are still going to buy a car -- I Just doubt they'll be buying from this dealership since the management is too incompetent to know that they can't impose a maximum charge on a credit card since they agreed to it in their merchant agreement.

[RebuildingIT]

Get them to write something stating the book value of the car and the price they are offering it for. Of course it always works out in the consumers favor as they want you to think you are getting a deal. Then file a complaint with VISA for the differnce that was lost on the transaction.

[GEORGE]

Got a new one for everyone...

 

A certain car dealership thinks that it's able to impose a maximum charge on a credit card for purchases of vehicles. They have a sign posted that says "The maximum credit card transaction allowed for puchasing a vechicle is $1000" or something to that extent.

 

As most of us know, it is against the policies and the merchant agreement the dealership signed with Visa/MC/AmEx to impose a minimum or maximum, impose a fee, or require ID as a term of the sale.

 

Now here is where it gets interesting: I learned about this through my friend who was out with his parents while they were shopping for a replacement to a car that managed to get totaled in -- of all places -- a parking lot when an elderly woman ran into it. Luckilly nothing/noone was damaged/hurt other than their car, her car, and another car in the lot.

 

Well, they had found a car. However, they did not want to finance or anything (since they had money saved, I guess and are also getting a check from some insurance company since their vehicle was totaled.) So, when his dad said he wanted to put the whole thing on his credit card (like $12,000), the dealership refused. They said he could only put $1000 on the card and would have to write a check for the rest. Not having a checkbook on him, and knowing that maximum's aren't allowed, my friend's dad argued with them. The dealership didn't back down -- SO THEY WALKED OUT -- meaning that's $12,000 less that dealership made that day.

 

They are still going to buy a car -- I Just doubt they'll be buying from this dealership since the management is too incompetent to know that they can't impose a maximum charge on a credit card since they agreed to it in their merchant agreement.

NO MINIMUM

NO MAXIMUM

NO FEE TO USE THE CARD

NO ID ON A SIGNED CREDIT CARD

 

"IF" THEY PAID 3% FOR A FEE THAT IS ONLY $360

 

THAT FEE IS A COST OF DOING BUSINESS JUST LIKE...

 

WATER

SEWER

GAS

ELECTRIC

PHONE

ETC

[GEORGE]

THEY DO OIL CHANGES WITH CREDIT CARDS

THEY DO RENTALS WITH CREDIT CARDS

THEY SELL PARTS WITH CREDIT CARDS

THEY DO COLLISION REPAIR WITH CREDIT CARDS

THEY INSTALL TIRES WITH CREDIT CARDS

THEY DO TUNE UPS WITH CREDIT CARDS

 

BUT THEY CAN'T SELL A CAR???

 

THEY "INFER" THEY WILL LOSE LIKE $3,600 NOT JUST $360

 

THAT $360 IS A TAX DEDUCTABLE COST OF DOING BUSINESS!!!

[Uncle Leo]

Got a new one for everyone...

 

A certain car dealership thinks that it's able to impose a maximum charge on a credit card for purchases of vehicles. They have a sign posted that says "The maximum credit card transaction allowed for puchasing a vechicle is $1000" or something to that extent.

 

<snipped for brevity>

 

They are still going to buy a car -- I Just doubt they'll be buying from this dealership since the management is too incompetent to know that they can't impose a maximum charge on a credit card since they agreed to it in their merchant agreement.

 

Did they report the dealership to VISA? A picture of that sign would help alot, too. In any reporting, that is.

[BBQ123]

Not sure if they reported. But that dealership lost over $10k that they were seconds away from getting -- far more than any fine Visa would give them, I think.

 

My guess is that the car dealership doesn't care about the transaction fee -- but wants to force customers to finance through them by not allowing credit cards to be used. That way they make money off the car loan interest and such.

[Uncle Leo]

Not sure if they reported. But that dealership lost over $10k that they were seconds away from getting -- far more than any fine Visa would give them, I think.

 

My guess is that the car dealership doesn't care about the transaction fee -- but wants to force customers to finance through them by not allowing credit cards to be used. That way they make money off the car loan interest and such.

They lost over $10K in the sale, though not all of that was profit obviously, but I understand your point.

 

I also understand them wanting to steer people into financing since that is the big money maker, but that still doesn't excuse them from doing the right thing and honoring their commitments.

 

I wonder if it's a dealership that also does repair work, and if they have the same limit for repairs over $1000. Something tells me they would let that slide.

[zx10 guy]

Personally, I think it goes deeper than this. With credit cards, you have an additional layer of protection. You can always do a charge back if there is a "problem." Now here's the rub. A consumer can make up any problem they see fit. The dealer would be left holding the proverbial bag if the consumer's grievance is made up. This really exposes the dealership to far too much liability. And I can sort of understand why a dealership will draw a distinction on how you purchase the vehicle. I know some dealerships in my area have this policy. Their response with any one wanting to use a credit card is to go ahead and do so if you do a cash advance or use a BT check. That would seem to negate the assumption that dealers just want to steer consumers towards the F&I department.

[hegemony]

well...this might encourage people to borrow more which means more money (potentially) for the dealer on the backend...

[GEORGE]

Personally, I think it goes deeper than this. With credit cards, you have an additional layer of protection. You can always do a charge back if there is a "problem." Now here's the rub. A consumer can make up any problem they see fit. The dealer would be left holding the proverbial bag if the consumer's grievance is made up. This really exposes the dealership to far too much liability. And I can sort of understand why a dealership will draw a distinction on how you purchase the vehicle. I know some dealerships in my area have this policy. Their response with any one wanting to use a credit card is to go ahead and do so if you do a cash advance or use a BT check. That would seem to negate the assumption that dealers just want to steer consumers towards the F&I department.

THAT REASON IS A "WEAK" REASON TO REFUSE TO FOLLOW CREDIT CARD POLICY!!!

[hegemony]

charge backs are not automatic. consumers are not free to make up reasons. not all charge back requests are approved.

[zx10 guy]

Personally, I think it goes deeper than this. With credit cards, you have an additional layer of protection. You can always do a charge back if there is a "problem." Now here's the rub. A consumer can make up any problem they see fit. The dealer would be left holding the proverbial bag if the consumer's grievance is made up. This really exposes the dealership to far too much liability. And I can sort of understand why a dealership will draw a distinction on how you purchase the vehicle. I know some dealerships in my area have this policy. Their response with any one wanting to use a credit card is to go ahead and do so if you do a cash advance or use a BT check. That would seem to negate the assumption that dealers just want to steer consumers towards the F&I department.

THAT REASON IS A "WEAK" REASON TO REFUSE TO FOLLOW CREDIT CARD POLICY!!!

 

Well that's your opinion. When you're dealing with cars that depreciate once it rolls off the lot or if it was titled to an owner, then you're talking about big money for each car. Not to mention the headaches a dealer would have to go through in dealing with fighting a charge back. We're not talking about a even a few hundred dollars in lost value...we're talking about thousands. I don't know any business that can just absorb that kind of loss. Once sold, vehicles can't just be simply remarked for sale to another owner like any other merchandise. Weak as you may call it, it's a reality. To me, it's a totally justifiable reason.

[GEORGE]

Personally, I think it goes deeper than this. With credit cards, you have an additional layer of protection. You can always do a charge back if there is a "problem." Now here's the rub. A consumer can make up any problem they see fit. The dealer would be left holding the proverbial bag if the consumer's grievance is made up. This really exposes the dealership to far too much liability. And I can sort of understand why a dealership will draw a distinction on how you purchase the vehicle. I know some dealerships in my area have this policy. Their response with any one wanting to use a credit card is to go ahead and do so if you do a cash advance or use a BT check. That would seem to negate the assumption that dealers just want to steer consumers towards the F&I department.

THAT REASON IS A "WEAK" REASON TO REFUSE TO FOLLOW CREDIT CARD POLICY!!!

 

Well that's your opinion. When you're dealing with cars that depreciate once it rolls off the lot or if it was titled to an owner, then you're talking about big money for each car. Not to mention the headaches a dealer would have to go through in dealing with fighting a charge back. We're not talking about a even a few hundred dollars in lost value...we're talking about thousands. I don't know any business that can just absorb that kind of loss. Once sold, vehicles can't just be simply remarked for sale to another owner like any other merchandise. Weak as you may call it, it's a reality. To me, it's a totally justifiable reason.

YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO YOUR OPINION...

[zx10 guy]

charge backs are not automatic. consumers are not free to make up reasons. not all charge back requests are approved.

 

Agreed. I'm not devious enough to think of false reasons to do a charge back. So I can't think of any that would be viewed as valid to initiate a charge back. I'm using this example for from real life experiences with my friend who owns a repair shop. He says sometimes has to deal with charge backs even though he repaired the car properly but the customer thought he charged too much or the customer abused the car again and claimed he didn't do the repair properly.

 

Just tossing out something that to me is still a valid concern.

Edited March 5, 2006 by zx10 guy

[Uncle Leo]

charge backs are not automatic. consumers are not free to make up reasons. not all charge back requests are approved.

 

Agreed. I'm not devious enough to think of false reasons to do a charge back. So I can't think of any that would be viewed as valid to initiate a charge back. I'm using this example for from real life experiences with my friend who owns a repair shop. He says sometimes has to deal with charge backs even though he repaired the car properly but the customer thought he charged too much or the customer abused the car again and claimed he didn't do the repair properly.

 

Just tossing out something that to me is still a valid concern.

 

Interesting points, and I would agree that they're valid concerns. The only way around them, I would suggest, would be to have the selling part and all other parts of the business as two separate and distinct business entities. They could still occupy the same property, and it wouldn't have to be obvious to the general public. The selling business does not take credit cards at all, and the other (parts, service, etc.) does.

Edited March 5, 2006 by playthecreditgame

[GEORGE]

I signed like 20 or 30 papers and one was a "FRAUD" paper that gave them the right to collect their expenses involved in a FRAUDULENT transaction (if it was fraud)

 

SO "IF" I DISPUTED THE TRANSACTION THEY WOULD STILL COLLECT

 

THEY ALSO HAVE ALL THE OTHER SIGNED PAPERS THAT WOULD BE PRESENTED TO AMEX "IF" I WAS STUPID ENOUGH TO DISPUTE THE SALE!!!

[johnr]

POLICY!!![/b]

 

Well that's your opinion. When you're dealing with cars that depreciate once it rolls off the lot or if it was titled to an owner, then you're talking about big money for each car. Not to mention the headaches a dealer would have to go through in dealing with fighting a charge back. We're not talking about a even a few hundred dollars in lost value...we're talking about thousands. I don't know any business that can just absorb that kind of loss. Once sold, vehicles can't just be simply remarked for sale to another owner like any other merchandise. Weak as you may call it, it's a reality. To me, it's a totally justifiable reason.

 

Poor excuse...

 

Chargebacks aren't that easy to go through with. "Just any reason" doesn't cut it.

 

I've had three people do chargebacks against me in the past five years. I provided the credit card companies (one was amex, the other two were visa/mc) the information they requested and the chargebacks were disallowed.

 

Next, you'll be telling us you agree with the "right" of a dealership to pull a credit report on a credit card sale or a bankable check sale??

 

John

[zx10 guy]

POLICY!!![/b]

 

Well that's your opinion. When you're dealing with cars that depreciate once it rolls off the lot or if it was titled to an owner, then you're talking about big money for each car. Not to mention the headaches a dealer would have to go through in dealing with fighting a charge back. We're not talking about a even a few hundred dollars in lost value...we're talking about thousands. I don't know any business that can just absorb that kind of loss. Once sold, vehicles can't just be simply remarked for sale to another owner like any other merchandise. Weak as you may call it, it's a reality. To me, it's a totally justifiable reason.

 

Poor excuse...

 

Chargebacks aren't that easy to go through with. "Just any reason" doesn't cut it.

 

I've had three people do chargebacks against me in the past five years. I provided the credit card companies (one was amex, the other two were visa/mc) the information they requested and the chargebacks were disallowed.

 

Next, you'll be telling us you agree with the "right" of a dealership to pull a credit report on a credit card sale or a bankable check sale??

 

John

 

Just because I don't agree with you, I would appreciate that you don't make assumptions about what else I would support that is counter to your opinion. Thank you. I personally don't have a business where I have to deal with credit cards. My friend does. All I have to do is have him recount the headaches he had to go through to fight false chargeback claims on services he provided.

[hurricanesfans27]

POLICY!!![/b]

 

Well that's your opinion. When you're dealing with cars that depreciate once it rolls off the lot or if it was titled to an owner, then you're talking about big money for each car. Not to mention the headaches a dealer would have to go through in dealing with fighting a charge back. We're not talking about a even a few hundred dollars in lost value...we're talking about thousands. I don't know any business that can just absorb that kind of loss. Once sold, vehicles can't just be simply remarked for sale to another owner like any other merchandise. Weak as you may call it, it's a reality. To me, it's a totally justifiable reason.

 

Poor excuse...

 

Chargebacks aren't that easy to go through with. "Just any reason" doesn't cut it.

 

I've had three people do chargebacks against me in the past five years. I provided the credit card companies (one was amex, the other two were visa/mc) the information they requested and the chargebacks were disallowed.

 

Next, you'll be telling us you agree with the "right" of a dealership to pull a credit report on a credit card sale or a bankable check sale??

 

John

 

most dealers do this ... if you dont like it then they let you walk.

[hegemony]

When you're dealing with cars that depreciate once it rolls off the lot or if it was titled to an owner, then you're talking about big money for each car. ...[snip] We're not talking about a even a few hundred dollars in lost value...we're talking about thousands. I don't know any business that can just absorb that kind of loss. Once sold, vehicles can't just be simply remarked for sale to another owner like any other merchandise.

dealerships deal with "returns" all the time and somehow they manage to stay in business. it is called a "rollback" and many times it means the dealer makes MORE money not less on the vehicle.

 

ETA: I mean "unwind" not rollback. sorry.

Edited March 5, 2006 by hegemony

[zx10 guy]

When you're dealing with cars that depreciate once it rolls off the lot or if it was titled to an owner, then you're talking about big money for each car. ...[snip] We're not talking about a even a few hundred dollars in lost value...we're talking about thousands. I don't know any business that can just absorb that kind of loss. Once sold, vehicles can't just be simply remarked for sale to another owner like any other merchandise.

dealerships deal with "returns" all the time and somehow they manage to stay in business. it is called a "rollback" and many times it means the dealer makes MORE money not less on the vehicle.

 

Could you elaborate more on this? Thanks.

[hegemony]

Could you elaborate more on this? Thanks.

when financing falls through; the car is returned (sometimes with hundreds of miles on it) and the dealer sells the car as "new." I made a mistake with the term...this is called an unwind...

Edited March 5, 2006 by hegemony

[zx10 guy]

Could you elaborate more on this? Thanks.

when financing falls through; the car is returned (sometimes with hundreds of miles on it) and the dealer sells the car as "new." I made a mistake with the term...this is called an unwind...

 

Ok. I get it. I guess the same would apply for having no insurance too. I guess this gets to be pretty complex. I was only speculating on a plausible reason why credit cards are not accepted which would be logically the concern about charge backs. Which I might have to file against a furniture company who still hasn't delivered my sofa after I put a deposit down now over 16 weeks ago.

[GEORGE]

POLICY!!![/b]

 

Well that's your opinion. When you're dealing with cars that depreciate once it rolls off the lot or if it was titled to an owner, then you're talking about big money for each car. Not to mention the headaches a dealer would have to go through in dealing with fighting a charge back. We're not talking about a even a few hundred dollars in lost value...we're talking about thousands. I don't know any business that can just absorb that kind of loss. Once sold, vehicles can't just be simply remarked for sale to another owner like any other merchandise. Weak as you may call it, it's a reality. To me, it's a totally justifiable reason.

 

Poor excuse...

 

Chargebacks aren't that easy to go through with. "Just any reason" doesn't cut it.

 

I've had three people do chargebacks against me in the past five years. I provided the credit card companies (one was amex, the other two were visa/mc) the information they requested and the chargebacks were disallowed.

 

Next, you'll be telling us you agree with the "right" of a dealership to pull a credit report on a credit card sale or a bankable check sale??

 

John

THEY PULLED THAT ON ME WITH PIF AMEX DELTA

[RebuildingIT]

POLICY!!![/b]

 

Well that's your opinion. When you're dealing with cars that depreciate once it rolls off the lot or if it was titled to an owner, then you're talking about big money for each car. Not to mention the headaches a dealer would have to go through in dealing with fighting a charge back. We're not talking about a even a few hundred dollars in lost value...we're talking about thousands. I don't know any business that can just absorb that kind of loss. Once sold, vehicles can't just be simply remarked for sale to another owner like any other merchandise. Weak as you may call it, it's a reality. To me, it's a totally justifiable reason.

 

Poor excuse...

 

Chargebacks aren't that easy to go through with. "Just any reason" doesn't cut it.

 

I've had three people do chargebacks against me in the past five years. I provided the credit card companies (one was amex, the other two were visa/mc) the information they requested and the chargebacks were disallowed.

 

Next, you'll be telling us you agree with the "right" of a dealership to pull a credit report on a credit card sale or a bankable check sale??

 

John

THEY PULLED THAT ON ME WITH PIF AMEX DELTA

And on me with a cashiers check, no warning.