Read this before purchasing a SEAT vehicle
25 June – First visited Seat Singapore Authorised Distributor’s showroom and was attended by sales person – Fred Chew.
Was offered a Seat Ibiza test drive car for $80,000 but did not commit at that point of time as it, was my first experience with the brand. Went to Citroen next and was offered a 2016 C4 hatchback at $86,999 (a class higher than the Ibiza). Also paid a visit to Peugeot and was offered a 208 at $79,999 (same class as the Ibiza).
14 July – Went down showroom for a second look with my wife but was informed by Fred that the test drive model has been sold.
To entice me into buying, Fred stated that the available new cars (Ibiza) are the latest stock and had confirmed several times that the Ibiza available for me to purchase are the 2017 models at the price of $86,000. The facts the Ibiza is a 2017 model and Seat’s great reputation were the main deciding factors for me. Both Citroen and Peugeot could offer 2016 models.
Prior to purchase with my wife beside me as witness, I confirmed with Fred again that the car that I am purchasing is the 2017 model. Fred confirmed that it will be the 2017 model upon purchase. Hence the purchased agreement was signed by myself and a deposit of $5000 based on the above understanding.
After reaching home the same day, I wanted to find out the detailed specifications on the 2017 model. While browsing Seat’s Singapore website, I was directed to Seat’s international website to find out more about the 2017 model. After reviewing the specifications that I was given by Fred, I had come to realized that there are 2 different models of the Ibiza, one is a 2016 model (Ibiza FR) and there other is a 2017 model which is a totally different design. The 2016 model has been around for 10 years. With a growing concern that the car I am purchasing may not the 2017 model, I contacted Fred the next morning via SMS to confirm that I will be receiving is the 2017 model.
15 July – Fred replied via SMS that the 2017 model will only be arriving next year. My reply to him was that my purchase was made on the understanding that I will be receiving the 2017 model and that I am agreeable to wait for the 2017 model to be available in Singapore before resuming my purchase. Fred now confirms that I will be receiving the 2016 model instead of the 2017 model. Fred now changed his statements in that what he meant prior to purchase was that I will be receiving the model that is manufacture in 2017 but is the 2016 model, not the 2017 model as what was agreed upon during purchase.
I asked Fred if I can call him as to better understand and resolve (from my point of view) this issue of misrepresentation.
16 July – Our phone conversation took place in the late morning. Fred turned defensive and will not allow me to give my point of view. Hence nothing was resolved over the phone.
Together with a friend who has interest in purchasing a Seat car as well, I then went to the showroom late afternoon the same day wanting to clarify the misrepresentation. Upon meeting Fred, he became defensive stating that it was my own misunderstanding and not a fault of his. He also became aggressive stating that “I put words in his mouth”. Fred did not allow to finish my sentence, before I could state my point of view, he began his defensive speech again. Prior to this, his attitude was cordial and polite. This gives me a notion that Fred has something to hide and is trying to remove any responsibilities from this matter.
With Fred being overly defensive and aggressive, I decided to give him some time to calm down. I advised Fred to attend to my friend for the time being. After short period of time, I spoke to Fred but again he did not give me the opportunity to finish my sentences before butting in with his defensive statements. From my point of view based on the many confirmations prior to purchase that I will indeed be receiving the 2017 model, this issue to me is a clear case of misrepresentation on the part of the authorized distributor. I then offered Fred a resolution. If he was agreeable to compensate $1000 to me or to deduct it from the cost of the car, we will let this issue rest and I continue with the purchase of a 2016 model.
Fred said he does not have the right to make the decision on my resolution, he will need to pass it on to his superior.
17 July – I continue to contact Fred via SMS in the morning to find out if his superior is able to revert by 11am that day. Just before 11am, Fred replied that his superior is not in the office and will only be able to revert once his superior returns.
In the late afternoon, Fred reverted “Sorry my management said can’t reduce cos price aready (exact verbatim) agreed.” This indicates that the management of Seat Singapore authorised distributor has the impression that I am asking for a further discount after purchase. However, as stated I am looking for a resolution to the matter of their misrepresentation. Hence, there was no resolution and the management did not bother to offer one. As such, it gave me the impression that sales and /or management did not take my issue seriously.
I informed Fred via SMS that his reply was unsatisfactory and I want to speak to higher management. There was no further reply from Fred.
18 July – Without any replies from Fred, together with another friend as a witness, I decided to pay the authorised distributor another visit but this time to speak to Fred’s superior.
Together with Fred’s superior (Sales Team Leader), Ken Tay, myself and my friend, we began a meeting so that I may relate my side of the story. At the beginning of the meeting, Fred was again overly defensive and aggressively relate his version of the issue without giving me a chance to complete my version. After several times of him doing that, I had to politely ask him to remain quiet while I complete the issue from my point of view.
All the while when I am relating the issue, Ken asserted that none of his sales staff will provide such wrong information. Several times during the meeting, Ken has asserted that the $1000 (I asked as a compensation), has to come from somewhere. This tells me, he views the amount as a discount and has no regards to compensate me for the issue of misrepresentation by authorised dealer and he feels it is not the authorised distributor’s responsibility at all. He too did not provide any resolution all the while stating they are not at fault.
After many assertions that I have indeed have confirmation from Fred that I will be receiving the 2017 model upon purchase and my wife was with me who also have the same impression, Ken agreed to do an internal check to verify if it is indeed their error. Ken has also agreed to revert before 12pm on 21 July on the above. At the end of the meeting, Ken stated the COE bidding will be put on hold.
19 July – In a short span of less than a day, Ken reverted on their internal verifications and that the authorised distributor is not at fault but did not provide any proof, evidence or further explanation. Such short turnaround clearly indicates slipshod investigation on the part of Ken.
Wanting to resolve the matter in an amicable manner, I offered a second resolution to Ken which is to cancel the purchase and refund the deposit to me. Without second thoughts, Ken flatly rejected my resolution stating the purchase agreement has already been signed and since to him, it is of no fault of his staff, did not provide any further resolution again. This clearly shows that a) the authorized dealer only wanted to complete the sale, everything else is secondary, b) provide false information in order to complete sale and; c) does not bother to investigate allegations seriously.
At this point in time, with such defensive/aggressive actions from the authorized distributor, I have severe concerns that the car that I will eventually be getting and the after sales vehicle servicing or warranty are of a high quality as per Seat’s fantastic reputation.
As such, Seat Singapore authorised distributor has left no options but to pursue this legally.