6 ms·

I was highly confused until I read the article. Here is a summary: 1. Guy's mom pays off his car loan 2. Dealer says we installed a remote immobilizer to prot

I was highly confused until I read the article. Here is a summary: 1. Guy's mom pays off his car loan 2. Dealer says we installed a remote immobilizer to protect our loan 3. Dealer demands $200 to remove the device since the loan is paid off now 4. Guy understandably refuses 5. Dealer immobilizes car I think this sort of behavior should mean the end of your dealership. I cannot quantify/identify the actual wrongdoing here but I'm pretty sure there is something illegal.

csours 9y ago
These immobilizers are commonly installed on cars from "buy here, pay here" used car dealerships - the kind of place where customers physically bring cash every month for their car payment. I'm very surprised to learn than an official Kia branded dealership would install these, and then act this scummy - not a good look for the brand. > Iny said Lallier's case is a good example of the conditions faced by borrowers with bad credit. > "Immobilizers are most often seen in cases of sub-prime borrowers with questionable credit," he said. "The devices are very effective at keeping people on time with their payments."
- tinbad 9y ago
  Just like with other brands, in the automotive industry, there are different tiers. At the top, you have the ultra premium (Bentley, Ferrari) and premiums (BMW, Audi, Mercedes, etc.) followed by brands like Toyota and Ford where cars are still desirable and people will buy them no matter what. So they can be picky and only sell to folks with good credit. Once you get to the bottom you'll have stuff like Dodge and Nissan. At the very bottom, there's brands like Kia that are not much more off the "buy here, pay here" stuff. It's often the only way they can move the metal at all. EDIT: getting a lot of heat. Oh well, I guess I should've linked to 5 articles supporting what people in the industry already know.
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    Dodge and Nissan aren't bottom tier brands. If Dodge was bottom tier, there never would have been an $85,000 Dodge Viper. And plenty of people would buy a Maxima before they would buy a Taurus. The Korean automakers (Kia and Hyundai) both entered the US market on the bottom, but they have comparatively high quality at the price points they started at, price points that other automakers sell plenty of vehicles at.
    - tinbad 9y ago
      Nissan is slightly moving upmarket but the amount of incentives they have to give out to sell is still way above industry average (which my comment was based on). Toyota or Honda have to barely discount their vehicles to sell, do you really thing Dodge or even Chevy can get away with that? They can't, thats why you can get $5-10k off MSRP on pretty much any Chevy right now, good luck trying that at Toyota. [1] The Dodge Viper is a notable exception but even FCA realized that it hurt sales and spun it off as a separate brand: SRT, which they discontinued this year, and with it, the Viper is dead. [2] EDIT: down voting doesn't change the facts I stated above. [1] http://www.autonews.com/article/20170508/RETAIL01/305089965/discounting-is-up-but-so-are-average-transaction-prices http://www.autonews.com/article/20170508/RETAIL01/305089965/... [2] http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/future-cars/news/a29664/the-dodge-viper-is-officially-dead/ http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/future-cars/news/a29664...
  - mediocrejoker 9y ago
    What are you basing these rankings on?
    - csours 9y ago
      JD Power Initial Quality Survey, Consumer Reports, etc. He's correct that Dodge and Nissan have low scores in these studies/surveys, but Hyundai and Kia [0] have improved their vehicle quality SIGNIFICANTLY in the last few years, and score at or near the top of these studies now. However, Kia still has a reputation for terrible dealership experience. I don't have a link that shows this, so take that with a large grain of salt. 0. Hyundai owns 34% of Kia, but they have a strong internal rivalry Disclaimer - I work for GM
  - 0xfeba 9y ago
    Depreciation/market values do not correlate at all with your rankings. What did you base them on?
    - tinbad 9y ago
      A combination of following and working in the industry, personal experience as well as manufacture incentives. Depreciation tells only one part of the story, and actually Kias are very high within their segment. Try comparing something like a Toyota Camry vs. Kia Optima - it's night and day difference.
      - 5ilv3r 9y ago
        I've noticed a good pattern to indicate car value. Junkyard availability. If you want junkyard parts for a car in my region, you're looking at good availability for 15 year old American cars, 10 year old Japanese and German cars, and 5 year old Korean cars. That obviously is skewed by demand and taste, but is a nice indication of when a car is too old to be worth fixing. Also a good way to figure out what used shitbox you should buy next if you want cheap parts. :)
  - yitchelle 9y ago
    Not 100% sure that the immobiliser strategy was a Kia strategy or a dealership strategy. I drive a Kia in Germany. Thank goodness they or their dealership does not have any such thing here.
    - tinbad 9y ago
      Dealership for sure, they are independent from the manufacturer.
      - csours 9y ago
        I'm sure you know this, but for others: dealerships are separate businesses from manufacturers, but they are bound by something like franchise agreements. They also represent the brand to the public, and (good) manufacturers care deeply about this perception and spend a lot of time and money tuning the dealership experience.
        tinbad 9y ago
        Normally, yes, but I imagine a brand like Kia is more loose with enforcing standards as opposed to say, Toyota.
  - jonknee 9y ago
    It's not about the brand of car, it's that it was a dealership and not a low end used car lot. "Buy here, pay here" is a thing, they're in bad neighborhoods and run ads about how no one is denied because they do the financing themselves. They're essentially loan sharks handing out cars instead of cash. They make a lot in interest, but they really make a lot by selling the same car again and again through very quick reposession (they do not mess around, weekly payments are standard). The same lot will sell many different makes, even higher end sometimes.
    - tinbad 9y ago
      Not for new cars, you'll need to be certified by the manufacturer. In this case, it was an "official" Kia dealer. They are way down the ranks when it comes to keeping their brand "clean". If it was an Audi dealer they wouldn't even have sold the car to a bad credit customer in the first place.
      - jonknee 9y ago
        Yes, that is why it is surprising this type of device and behavior was used. It is something you'd expect from a sleazy car lot, not a new car dealer (regardless of brand).
- jxramos 9y ago
  Didn't realize the "buy here pay here" was a formal concept https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buy_Here_Pay_Here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buy_Here_Pay_Here
CobrastanJorji 9y ago
I'm no lawyer, but I think the wrongdoing was when they remotely disabled a car that was owned by someone else. If I think my neighbor owes me $200, I can't just lock him out of his house. A lawyer might or might not use fancier words like "coercion" or "extortion," couldn't say.
- dominotw 9y ago
  <deleted>
  - kobeya 9y ago
    ...which they did.
- gumby 9y ago
  In fact the article says that it could be interpreted as intimidation which of course is illegal on its own.
  - _pmf_ 9y ago
    Do it over state borders and you have a nice felony.
    - astolarz 9y ago
      This is in Canada. Do they have the same distinction for crimes committed across provinces as we do in the US across states?
      - smnrchrds 9y ago
        I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that no such distinction exists in Canada. In the US, criminal law falls under jurisdiction of both state and federal governments. Thus something can be legal in a state and illegal in another. And crossing state lines makes it a federal matter and prosecutable in federal courts. And so many other complicated things. In Canada, criminal law is under jurisdiction of federal government. Thus it is the same across the country, and crossing provincial borders does not change anything about the laws applying to the crime or how they are prosecuted.
mindslight 9y ago
Even ignoring the general-principle common law complaints, Canada's general witchcraft^whacking statues should be more than enough to put someone at the dealership away for life. If the regime is similar to the US, then the victim should find a technical expert to bill $100k for analyzing the extent of damage, thus conjuring a felony.
- yahna 9y ago
  > Canada's general witchcraft^whacking statues should be more than enough to put someone at the dealership away for life uh what.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
mullen 9y ago
Why does the Dealer even think they own the immobilizer? The guy bought the car, he owns what ever is in it or on it, including the immobilizer.
- fmj 9y ago
  If they repossessed the car or he chose not to buy the car after the lease was up they would have left the immobilizer in the car for the next person to lease it, or removed it and installed it in a different car. I bet if we had a copy of the contract he says he didn't really ask about there is a clause saying that the immobilizer was their property, and not included in the sale. The issue here is more about how the dealership attempted to recover their property and the fee that he claims wasn't mentioned in the contract, not whether or not they actually owned the immobilizer.

csours 9y ago

These immobilizers are commonly installed on cars from "buy here, pay here" used car dealerships - the kind of place where customers physically bring cash every month for their car payment. I'm very surprised to learn than an official Kia branded dealership would install these, and then act this scummy - not a good look for the brand. > Iny said Lallier's case is a good example of the conditions faced by borrowers with bad credit. > "Immobilizers are most often seen in cases of sub-prime borrowers with questionable credit," he said. "The devices are very effective at keeping people on time with their payments."

tinbad 9y ago
Just like with other brands, in the automotive industry, there are different tiers. At the top, you have the ultra premium (Bentley, Ferrari) and premiums (BMW, Audi, Mercedes, etc.) followed by brands like Toyota and Ford where cars are still desirable and people will buy them no matter what. So they can be picky and only sell to folks with good credit. Once you get to the bottom you'll have stuff like Dodge and Nissan. At the very bottom, there's brands like Kia that are not much more off the "buy here, pay here" stuff. It's often the only way they can move the metal at all. EDIT: getting a lot of heat. Oh well, I guess I should've linked to 5 articles supporting what people in the industry already know.
- maxerickson 9y ago
  Dodge and Nissan aren't bottom tier brands. If Dodge was bottom tier, there never would have been an $85,000 Dodge Viper. And plenty of people would buy a Maxima before they would buy a Taurus. The Korean automakers (Kia and Hyundai) both entered the US market on the bottom, but they have comparatively high quality at the price points they started at, price points that other automakers sell plenty of vehicles at.
  - tinbad 9y ago
    Nissan is slightly moving upmarket but the amount of incentives they have to give out to sell is still way above industry average (which my comment was based on). Toyota or Honda have to barely discount their vehicles to sell, do you really thing Dodge or even Chevy can get away with that? They can't, thats why you can get $5-10k off MSRP on pretty much any Chevy right now, good luck trying that at Toyota. [1] The Dodge Viper is a notable exception but even FCA realized that it hurt sales and spun it off as a separate brand: SRT, which they discontinued this year, and with it, the Viper is dead. [2] EDIT: down voting doesn't change the facts I stated above. [1] http://www.autonews.com/article/20170508/RETAIL01/305089965/discounting-is-up-but-so-are-average-transaction-prices http://www.autonews.com/article/20170508/RETAIL01/305089965/... [2] http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/future-cars/news/a29664/the-dodge-viper-is-officially-dead/ http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/future-cars/news/a29664...
- mediocrejoker 9y ago
  What are you basing these rankings on?
  - csours 9y ago
    JD Power Initial Quality Survey, Consumer Reports, etc. He's correct that Dodge and Nissan have low scores in these studies/surveys, but Hyundai and Kia [0] have improved their vehicle quality SIGNIFICANTLY in the last few years, and score at or near the top of these studies now. However, Kia still has a reputation for terrible dealership experience. I don't have a link that shows this, so take that with a large grain of salt. 0. Hyundai owns 34% of Kia, but they have a strong internal rivalry Disclaimer - I work for GM
- 0xfeba 9y ago
  Depreciation/market values do not correlate at all with your rankings. What did you base them on?
  - tinbad 9y ago
    A combination of following and working in the industry, personal experience as well as manufacture incentives. Depreciation tells only one part of the story, and actually Kias are very high within their segment. Try comparing something like a Toyota Camry vs. Kia Optima - it's night and day difference.
    - 5ilv3r 9y ago
      I've noticed a good pattern to indicate car value. Junkyard availability. If you want junkyard parts for a car in my region, you're looking at good availability for 15 year old American cars, 10 year old Japanese and German cars, and 5 year old Korean cars. That obviously is skewed by demand and taste, but is a nice indication of when a car is too old to be worth fixing. Also a good way to figure out what used shitbox you should buy next if you want cheap parts. :)
- yitchelle 9y ago
  Not 100% sure that the immobiliser strategy was a Kia strategy or a dealership strategy. I drive a Kia in Germany. Thank goodness they or their dealership does not have any such thing here.
  - tinbad 9y ago
    Dealership for sure, they are independent from the manufacturer.
    - csours 9y ago
      I'm sure you know this, but for others: dealerships are separate businesses from manufacturers, but they are bound by something like franchise agreements. They also represent the brand to the public, and (good) manufacturers care deeply about this perception and spend a lot of time and money tuning the dealership experience.
      - tinbad 9y ago
        Normally, yes, but I imagine a brand like Kia is more loose with enforcing standards as opposed to say, Toyota.
- jonknee 9y ago
  It's not about the brand of car, it's that it was a dealership and not a low end used car lot. "Buy here, pay here" is a thing, they're in bad neighborhoods and run ads about how no one is denied because they do the financing themselves. They're essentially loan sharks handing out cars instead of cash. They make a lot in interest, but they really make a lot by selling the same car again and again through very quick reposession (they do not mess around, weekly payments are standard). The same lot will sell many different makes, even higher end sometimes.
  - tinbad 9y ago
    Not for new cars, you'll need to be certified by the manufacturer. In this case, it was an "official" Kia dealer. They are way down the ranks when it comes to keeping their brand "clean". If it was an Audi dealer they wouldn't even have sold the car to a bad credit customer in the first place.
    - jonknee 9y ago
      Yes, that is why it is surprising this type of device and behavior was used. It is something you'd expect from a sleazy car lot, not a new car dealer (regardless of brand).
jxramos 9y ago
Didn't realize the "buy here pay here" was a formal concept https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buy_Here_Pay_Here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buy_Here_Pay_Here

CobrastanJorji 9y ago

I'm no lawyer, but I think the wrongdoing was when they remotely disabled a car that was owned by someone else. If I think my neighbor owes me $200, I can't just lock him out of his house. A lawyer might or might not use fancier words like "coercion" or "extortion," couldn't say.

dominotw 9y ago
<deleted>
- kobeya 9y ago
  ...which they did.
gumby 9y ago
In fact the article says that it could be interpreted as intimidation which of course is illegal on its own.
- _pmf_ 9y ago
  Do it over state borders and you have a nice felony.
  - astolarz 9y ago
    This is in Canada. Do they have the same distinction for crimes committed across provinces as we do in the US across states?
    - smnrchrds 9y ago
      I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that no such distinction exists in Canada. In the US, criminal law falls under jurisdiction of both state and federal governments. Thus something can be legal in a state and illegal in another. And crossing state lines makes it a federal matter and prosecutable in federal courts. And so many other complicated things. In Canada, criminal law is under jurisdiction of federal government. Thus it is the same across the country, and crossing provincial borders does not change anything about the laws applying to the crime or how they are prosecuted.

mindslight 9y ago

Even ignoring the general-principle common law complaints, Canada's general witchcraft^whacking statues should be more than enough to put someone at the dealership away for life. If the regime is similar to the US, then the victim should find a technical expert to bill $100k for analyzing the extent of damage, thus conjuring a felony.

yahna 9y ago
> Canada's general witchcraft^whacking statues should be more than enough to put someone at the dealership away for life uh what.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

mullen 9y ago

Why does the Dealer even think they own the immobilizer? The guy bought the car, he owns what ever is in it or on it, including the immobilizer.

fmj 9y ago
If they repossessed the car or he chose not to buy the car after the lease was up they would have left the immobilizer in the car for the next person to lease it, or removed it and installed it in a different car. I bet if we had a copy of the contract he says he didn't really ask about there is a clause saying that the immobilizer was their property, and not included in the sale. The issue here is more about how the dealership attempted to recover their property and the fee that he claims wasn't mentioned in the contract, not whether or not they actually owned the immobilizer.