Complaints

This profile includes complaints for Mark Motors Group's headquarters and its corporate-owned locations. To view all corporate locations, see Find Local Branches.

close

Find a Location

Mark Motors Group has 8 locations, listed below.

*This company may be headquartered in or have additional locations in another country. Please click on the country abbreviation in the search box below to change to a different country location.

BBB accredited

Near

Country

USUnited States

Please enter a valid location.

Filter

• 

  Mark Motors Group

  611 Montreal Road Ottawa, ON K1K 0T8

  
• 

  Mark Motors Group

  458 Montreal Road Ottawa, ON K1K 0V3

  
• 

  Mark Motors Group

  295 West Hunt Club Road Nepean, ON K2E 1A6

  
• 

  Mark Motors Group

  458 Montreal Road Ottawa, ON K1K 0V3

  
• 

  Mark Motors Group

  269 West Hunt Club Road Nepean, ON K2E 1A6

  

The complaint text that is displayed might not represent all complaints filed with BBB. Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:02/12/2024

  Type:Order Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  I signed a contract to lease my **** Q3 on December 11, 2020. The lease contract sets out the terms and conditions relating to the buyout of my lease. The Lease clearly stipulates the amount payable should I exercise the Purchase Option. My lease terminates on December 11, 2024 and I'd like to exercise the Purchase Option. The dealership is refusing to honour the terms of the contract and is insisting on charging additional fees that are not stipulated in the contract. Specifically, the dealership is insisting on charging $499 as an administrative fee when there is already a $500 fee setup in the lease contract. In email exchanges with the dealership, they cannot point to a clause in the contract setting out that the additional $499 fee is payable as it is nowhere to be found in the contract. Instead, the dealership responded that the administrative fee is charged on all transactions that go through the dealership for any vehicle purchase and that this fee is a reflection of the work invested in the process and serves to compensate colleagues responsible for the licensing process, the driver bringing the documents to Service Ontario and back and their accountants handling remaining paperwork. This additional $499 administrative fee is hidden and should not be added as surprise at the end of a lease term when it is not included in the contract. I'd like to buy out my car pursuant to the terms and conditions agreed upon by both the dealership and myself at the beginning of the lease.I've included my VIN number for ease of reference when reaching out to the dealership.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 13/12/2024

  Hello,
  
  Client was contacted on December 2nd via phone and followed up via email. The lease buyout was sent with the residual value of the vehicle, plus the ************** lease buyout fee, plus the administration fee, plus warranty and a safety and warranty inspection. Client opted to forfeit warranty, and a new total was sent with the residual value of the vehicle, plus the ************** lease buyout fee, plus the administration fee.Client expressed concern regarding the administration fee. This fee is charged on all transactions through the dealership for the following reasons: the fee serves to compensate for the licensing process, the driver bringing the documents to Service Ontario and back and our accountants handling remaining paperwork (to summarize: completion of the sale).
  
  Management called client on December 3rd based off of clients request to be contacted. There was a verbal agreement that the client would pay half of the fee ($250). It is our understanding; this complaint was filed prior to this agreement rendering the complaint null.
  
  Thank you,.

   

  ****** ****

  General Manager

   

  ************

• Initial Complaint

  Date:20/04/2024

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  On June 29th, 2023 I brought my vehicle to the Audi Ottawa West dealership for an all-day Audi Care Service maintenance. At around 3:30 I picked it up from the dealership parking lot and drove it home. Forty minutes later, in our garage, under the overhead light I discovered twin chips at the bottom part of the windshield (photos attached). I immediately contacted the service agent Mr. **** ******* to inquire about the chips in the windshield. I requested a meeting with Mr. ******* (******* *******) to discuss the matter, this was followed by attempts to reach the manager by phone, all with no success. Further exchanges by email with Mr. ******* proved to be frustrating as he was evasive, non-responsive and lacked transparency in dealing with this matter. It appeared that Mr. ******* had made up his mind at the beginning of the interactions that he will not deal with the facts and will not do proper investigations to determine if the mishap happened on the shop floor. He simply and arbitrarily determined that he will not take responsibility for any of it since I had driven away with the vehicle before discovering the twin-chips. Even though it was explained that the location of the chips in the windshield is concealed from view, similar to a hidden defect that escapes normal detection. Both chips were in the black band of the windshield in the vicinity of the VIN and are not visible from inside the vehicle. I inquired for the cost of replacement, Mr. ******* estimated it between $1500 and $2000 however he offered to only cover 10% of that cost. Audi Canada was asked to assist with this matter, however, they fully sided with the dealership. The matter remained at an impasse.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 24/04/2024

  Mr. ******'s vehicle was dropped off at Audi West Ottawa (AWO) on June 29,2024. At 9:33 am, a Service advisor carried out a visual inspection of the Q5 VIN *******************, in the AWO drive- through facility, as per the Dealership's policy for all vehicle registered for service. An inspection sheet is part of the service record, and was appended to invoice#*****. No damage was recorded at the time, and the vehicle's mileage was recorded on that inspection sheet at 13,138 Km, which corresponds to the mileage recorded on the Work Order. A second odometer reading was recorded at 103,140 Km when the vehicle left our premises, after the 115K Audi maintenance was completed. Our Service Department has confirmed that nothing unusual was noted while carrying out the maintenance work. Furthermore, a post service multi- point inspection of the vehicle was carried out ,as noted on the work order, and no damage to the front windshield was noted. Following Mr. ******'s complaint, the ******* ******* undertook a number of due diligence steps to ensure that AWO was not the cause of the damaged windshield. An interview with the Audi Trained Technician, who worked on the vehicle, did not reveal anything that would explain the damage. The ******* ******* also verified the recorded video footage to see if anything unusual took place around the vehicle while at our premises; nothing was observed. As for the exchanges between the ******* ******* and Mr. ******, we feel they were professional and courteous. These e-mails are part of the service record, and can be consulted. But fundamentally, we disagree with Mr. ******'s assessment that the Dealership caused the damage to the windshield. Accordingly, Mr *******'s position should not be understood as being "evasive, non-responsive and lacking transparency"; we have no reason to believe that AWO caused the said damage. Finally, we sought the view of  an automobile glass specialist.  Mr **** ****  from ********* **** *****, with more than 17 years of experience in that field, wrote after he saw the pictures of the damaged windshield: "that is a rock chip. In my opinion a rock hit that windshield. People usually do not notice any discrepancies  (cracks/scratch or chip) in the black band since it's not in their view when they are driving. Individuals usually only look there if something happens and makes them look". 

  In summary, we do not  accept any liability for this unfortunate incident based on: first, no windshield damage was noted when the vehicle was visually inspected at the drop off time and after the multi-point inspection. Second, the vehicle was only test driven for 2 Km at low speed on a low traffic service road. Third, the vehicle was driven by Mr ****** from the Dealership to his house in Orleans, as he noted, for a distance of 34Km ( google search), making it totally plausible that the damage occurred at that time. Fourth, camera footage, and an interview with the Technician did not reveal anything related to the windshield. Fifth, a third party opinion by a reputable expert states that the windshield damage was caused by a rock., while driving.

  We  have offered a 10% reduction on the replacement cost of the windshield. This offer still stands and has been noted on the service record of Mr. ******.

  Customer Answer

  Date: 28/04/2024

  
  
  Complaint: 21603944
  
  
  
  I am rejecting this response because:

  To:You
  Sun 2024-04-28 1:24 PM

  
  Please see in quotes the message I had sent to Mr. **** ******* on June 29th at 5:15 pm. It followed a phone message I had left him immediately after discovering the broken windshield at around 4:15 that same afternoon. “I left you a message on your phone upon my arrival at home. I noticed a chip in the windshield just above the VIN. The chip was not there before I got to the dealership and the drive home was uneventful, I did not hear or see an object strike the windshield. So I wanted to know if the vehicle was taken for a test drive during its testing and if the mechanic had mentioned anything about the windshield. There could be another reason for the chip though I can’t think of what it could be.”
  
  In ****’s email response on June 30th the conclusion had already been made, and it was clear. They would not investigate further, and since I did not discover the issue when picking up the vehicle it was then my responsibility. “Apologies for the delayed response it can be tough respond sometimes when we are short staffed like we are today.  Unfortunately with something like this unless this was brought to our attention RIGHT as the vehicle was picked up, there is not much that can be done on our end. We only bring the vehicle up and down the road quickly, not even past the lights up the road. This is something that could have occurred on the drive home on the highway.. Unfortunately we would not be able to compensate for a windshield based off of pictures sent to me hours after the vehicle was picked up.”
  
  After several attempts to reach Mr. ******* both by requesting a meeting with him through Mr. ******* and over the phone and after having left two phone messages, Mr. *******’s response came by email on July 11th: “Based on the attached picture of your windshield that impact was from presumably a rock hitting it at high speeds, as the back street is short there is no opportunity to reach any speed that would cause that sort of impact. I can appreciate the frustration with having to replace a windshield as I have been there myself. However a stone impact and also one that was noticed after the drive home cannot be the responsibility of the dealership.” Even though I had explained in my correspondence to him that my drive home that afternoon was about 40 minutes long and I had not felt nor heard an impact of a stone hitting the windshield. In several of my emails I had requested that they kindly meet with me to verify the damage and also to investigate since I did not have access to the technician nor to the resources they had in place. Mr. ******* never indicated to me that he had interviewed the said technician. His conclusion was obviously made at the first moment he learned of this issue and all that followed was to justify his decision. I also question the most recent expertise received, that had never been mentioned to me previously, from the glass specialist Mr. **** ****, which is a categorical opinion that does not appear impartial and that serves the interest of the dealership “that is a rock chip. In my opinion a rock hit that windshield.” Mr. **** never did a physical verification of the windshield nor did he inquire with me about the driving conditions that day. He never explained the double-chip aspect of the damage nor the angle of impact or the fact that no impact was heard of a smashing rock by the driver.
  
  Over the past few months, I inquired with acquaintances about this damage to the windshield. I particularly asked two individuals who have seen their share of broken windshields. One is the owner/operator of a body repair garage, the other is an owner/operator of a mechanics garage for European vehicles. Both, independently stated that the damage was likely the result of dropped tool.
  
  This Audi dealership often speaks of their exemplary customer care and excellence of service. They in fact, in their request for feedback, request that you call the ******* ******* if you are unable to give them the highest rating of 5/5. In my experience, they have failed in addressing an issue that was important to me with the professionalism and transparency that I expected from Audi. I found their general approach to be distant and defensive rather than forthcoming and helpful. The ******* ******* simply made the conclusion about this matter in his first correspondence with me July 2023 then made every effort to support that conclusion without once taking a call from me, speaking with me, meeting with me or inspecting the damage. I expected more in terms of customer care, compassion, professionalism and transparency. Thank you.
  
  
  Sincerely,
  
  
  
  ****** *****

  

  Business Response

  Date: 02/05/2024

  As a first point, we note that Client ***** asked, in his original June 29th,2024 message to Mr. ******* of AWO;" if the vehicle was taken for a test drive during its testing and if the mechanic had mentioned anything about the windshield. There could be another reason for the chip though I couldn't think  of what it could be". It seems reasonable to assume that the Client's original suspicion for the damaged windshield was the same as ours...damage caused while driving. Nowhere in this message do we see a reference to a tool potentially causing the damage. Only after Mr ******* answered ;" we only bring the vehicle up and down the road quickly, not even past the lights up the road", did we see a shift in the position of the client, now pointing to the damage being the result of a tool impact. This is especially telling since our service records support/shows  a brief 2 Km test drive. The due diligence steps taken by the ******* ******* substantiated his position. As for the involvement of Mr. ****, his assessment was sought last week using the original photograph provided by Mr ***** and that we have kept on our Service records. Client ***** states that the opinion of Mr **** "does not appear impartial and serves the interest of the Dealership". Yet, a similar statement could be made viz the "anonymous acquaintances " of Client *****, declaring that the damage was likely the result of a dropped tool, without having had a single interaction  with the Dealership. In conclusion, no new facts/evidence has been offered in this response. Accordingly, we stand by our original position. We will however  gladly meet with the two "anonymous experts" to review and understand the basis of there conclusion. We will have Mr. **** present at that meeting. Before such a meeting takes place we would ask: 

  The full name and Provincial accreditation of the two business entities, and the number of years of work experience;

  The specific work experience they have with Audi brand vehicles, there knowledge of the steps /elements of the Audi 115Km service maintenance requirements, including  experience in windshield damage/repair;

  Based on the above, we will expect both individuals to go through our Service records, review the due diligence steps we took, and the camera footage of the car being serviced.

  This is what we propose as next steps.

  Customer Answer

  Date: 09/05/2024

  
  
  Complaint: 21603944
  
  
  
  I am rejecting this response because:

  In their response, the courtesy of referring to a customer as Mr./Mrs. appears not to extend to clients (or at least this client). Less than professional. That's customer care 101. In addition, the name and title of the respondent is nowhere to be seen.
  
  They claim to be experts in customer care, yet their responses do not address the questions asked by the customer. They go into argumentative and circular debates that leave much to be desired in terms of feeling listened to and respected.
  
  
  At the beginning of what has become a surprisingly negative experience, I reached out to them in good faith believing I am dealing with a fair company that wants to earn my trust and respect. Instead, in my hour of need, they turned to denial and stonewalling, and in this last correspondence I feel the hostility. In the first five lines, they go to length in cross-examining my intentions with respect to my correspondence with Mr. *******. There was nothing sinister about my questions to him the day I discovered the broken windshield. It is a normal line of inquiry in cause-and-effect. I was totally in the dark at that point as to what happened to my windshield. I was using a process of elimination to determine the reason for the damage as I had not encountered any issues during the 34 km drive home. 
  
  
  I do not agree that the ******* ******* had taken "due diligence steps". That was my main point of contention right from the start. I had attempted to speak with him on many occasions by phone and in person, he never called back nor offered a meeting. I requested a proper investigation to determine the chain of events, that was not done either. This latest response from Audi was indeed the first instance that I receive an invitation to view the records and discuss the issue in person.
  
  
  As for casting doubt on my "anonymous experts". These are respected individuals who built their businesses on the strength of their knowledge and expertise. They own and operate their successful businesses and I think anyone who thinks I can summon them to Audi dealership to review your records is out of touch. These are busy individuals and I don't think I am willing to pay for their time to assist in this matter. That's too much of a burden on me. However, I would like the invitation extended to me to view the records and videos. 
  
  
  I appreciate that Mr. **** may have extensive experience with windshields but I am alarmed by the off-the-cuff opinion he gave about how the windshield was damaged as if it was a fact. This remains an opinion, and a very stretched one at that. No one can assert what he did unless they were in the vehicle when it happened or if they were clairvoyant. 
  
  
  This dealership, through the individuals involved in this issue, has not met my expectations for customer care. They failed to take responsibility for breaking my vehicle's windshield during a service call and followed it by a series of missteps in customer relations handling. Quite disappointing, particularly from a company that only accepts ratings of 5/5. Their approach and responses are unsatisfactory and I do not feel I have been fairly treated after many years of dealing with them.  
  
  
  
  Sincerely,
  
  
  
  ****** *****

• Initial Complaint

  Date:12/04/2024

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  Status:

  ResolvedMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  Purchased an extended warranty with my 2020 Range Rover Velar P300 R-Dymanic S in August 2020. Purchased this warranty to ensure vehicle was covered long-term and to ensure good trade-in/resale value. Went to trade-in vehicle on another brand and was told extended warranty did not transfer with the vehicle and that it only transferred if I sold the vehicle privately. Contacted Mark ********************** about the issue and was told by the sales manger who sold me the warranty that since I never reached the point where the warranty would come into effect, after 4 years or **************************************************************************************************************************** at the time I was at the dealership. Sent email to him explaining my situation and my conversation with the sales manager and was told that no prorated refund could be offered but if I purchased another vehicle from them that they would prorate the warranty towards the new vehicle. I was never told any of this at time of purchase and would have never purchased if I had known this up front.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 06/05/2024

  Please accept this email as a response to the complaint filed against us. 
  
  We not only refunded **************** on a prorated basis, but also issued a full refund for the *** extended service contract. A note from *** is included below for confirmation.  You will also find below a ****** review that was posted today by Mr. ***** stating satisfaction with full resolve. You will also find attached a pdf  scanned copy of the cheque sent to ****************.
  
  I trust this is sufficient to satisfy the BBB in closing the complaint against us and report it as being satisfactorily dealt with. 
  
  Many thanks,
  

  
  

  Customer Answer

  Date: 06/05/2024

   
  Better Business Bureau:
  
  I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  ***********************

• Initial Complaint

  Date:09/10/2023

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  1 brake rotor corrosion which Audi blame on Covid, for not driving enough to remove the corrosion while there is no corrosion on front rotors which drive the same limitation. The customer must how much driving IS enough and why front rotor is free of rust even at Covid. Audi has pictures from user of brake disc before and after. The cost of refurbishing the rear brakes was ~$700.00 and cr is in dire need to repairing both front/rear by grinding and replacing 4 brake linings, 2 Tire Pressure Sensors, is consistently giving erroneous readings both ways causing no warning that pressure tire is low gave NO warning causing run to the ground (new Continental cost to me/user was ~$1300 copy at Audi West) for no audio signal, only a passerby caused me to stop, and call Assistance, On the other occasion the Sensor gave warning when tire pressure was OK, copy of invoice for unneeded repair, is by Audi. The same Sensor is still in place, causing false alarms, anxiety and trip restrictions due to possibility of new faulty reaction. I insist on crediting me with $2000 and replacement of all tire pressure sensors. While erroneous alerts cause interruptions in my travel plans, and high anxiety while one never knows what can happen on the road. For damaged tire there was NO pressure alarm, and I was alarmed by a passerby in parking lot I was going to buy milk. Copy invoice charged for resetting the undamaged tire is at Audi, lost whole day to get this alarm verified, there are more such instances, and the car is scheduled for "testing again". 3 ************* and console, it took for almost 3 years & 2 times repairs took 10 days. Audi West must disclose pictures of interior taken while 2 ensuing repairs and evaluate what structural, electric and otherwise damage resulted by ice and water to the car interior during over 3 *******. The film with water leaking into inside the vehicle I took while driving on a sunny afternoon, is worth news.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 13/10/2023

  Reply to Item # 1-client came is August 16 2022. Client concern was of a pulsation. Inspection found rear rotors severely rusted. At that time we gave him some context and also asked about his recent driving history. Over the course of the previous 17 months client had driven the car at total of ****km, he was asked if it had been parked for long periods to which he confirmed that like many others during COVID he barely drove his car. We explained that this is not a warrantable concern and he accepted that what we were saying made sense. We offered a 20% discount to the replacement of the rear brakes. We also noted that after the rears were replaced that the fronts had a slight pulsation. He declined to go any further with the repairs to the front brakes.We recommended machining the rotors. <Please note the pictures the client has provide are showing the normal corrosion on the brake rotor heat fins,these fins service no purpose with the actual contact of a brake pad to a rotor and where/are not the concern which required the rotor replacement>

   

  Reply to item # 2 -  Flat tire- client came in June 17, 2022 @ *****km <RO # *****>. He came in for a flat tire on the right rear and had already himself called in and ordered a tire thru parts. On arrival we spoke with as he had questions about the **** system. I did explain to him that it is no longer a sensor in the wheel/tire assembly and that it now works thru the *** which reads wheel revolutions and not physical pressure inside the tire. His tire was repairable however he said that he does not believe in tire repairs and that was why he pre-ordered his tire. **** was replaced and he went on his way. We have only been asked to check and set the tire pressure once since the replacement and this was February 27, 2023. We cannot comment on his trip related concerns.

   

  Reply to item # 3 -Water leak 1st note of water leak was ***** of 2021 @ ****km at that point client declined to have any diagnosis done. Feb 2022 @ *****km roof leak was diagnosed and parts ordered. <they were on back order from the manufacturer with no ETA on availability> November 2022 @ *****km was the 1st repair of the roof leak. We replaced the sunroof perimeter seal as well as replaced the roof deflector with an updated part as per Audi ****** repair Guidelines. Feb 2023 @17635km 2nd repair for water leak. Sunroof perimeter seal was again replaced, we also removed the front drain tube flaps <one way valves> as per Audi ****** repair instructions

   

  Reply to item # 4 November 2022 the emergency fuel release was re positioned as it had been jammed from a previous repair.

   

  Customer Answer

  Date: 18/10/2023

   
  Complaint: 20713636
  
  I am rejecting this response because: rejecting in full, demand completion of the pulsation on front and rear, Rreplace faulty Tire Pressure malfunctioning system for all wheels. Report with photos on repairs ( two of them) and prognosis for this coming winter. see comments in the attached file BBBoct2023
  
  Sincerely,
  
  *****************************

  

  Business Response

  Date: 19/10/2023

  Is the customer available to meet with our owner at our east end location <Audi Ottawa> to have an inspection performed on the Q3? We ask for the east end as we noticed that the client lives in the east end of Ottawa.

  Customer Answer

  Date: 20/10/2023

   
  Complaint: 20713636
  
  I am rejecting this response because: they (I mean Audi not Dealer) failed to correct failures of their systems and are unvilling still.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  *****************************

  Customer Answer

  Date: 18/01/2024

   
  Complaint: 20713636
  
  I am rejecting this response because:

  2020 Audi Q3 (VIN: *****************) was leased based on contract from Oct 2019 and terms were agreed that the lease at purchasing price $46.923.81 (the residual value was set at ~55%). During the lease there several repairs Audi declined to cover: Univeersal Tire (new) was ruined by the Tire Pressure sensor failing signal loss of pressure, thus it was impossible how long the car was driven since no warning was lauted/blaired , cost ~$1.500.00. The brakes exhibited noisy pulsating brakes, Audi blamed on "not enough driving during Covid", nevertheless I did pay for repair, it did not eliminate the noise and vibration, cost to me ~******. During the lease I did pay to Audi approx. $40.702 as leasing costs. In August 2023 I had accepted and offer for new lease at old residual value and at new interest rate of ~8% minus 1/5% for existing customers. It was suggested the new lease to be signed 30 days before lease end., I agreed to to all. The vehicle has mileage of approx. ****** km, so it accumulated substantial value, thus Audi sent a new proposal as of January 10th, an email from ********************* where Audi is presenting several options to purchase and or to lease a new equipment but the option to lease based on Residual Value mysteriously disapproved. I as for keep the offer to lease as agreed before in 2023.

  Sincerely,
  
  *****************************

  

  Business Response

  Date: 18/01/2024

  We appreciate the opportunity to comment on he complaint (********) submitted by ***********************. As a first point, I would like to note for the record, that the Service issues contained in this complaint were dealt with under complaint  ********, as submitted by *******************. The matter was closed by the BBB at the end of October 2023,after Audi West Ottawa (***) provided substantive explanations/evidence to all the points raised, including an offer to meet directly with the Dealer Principal, which was refused.
  
  Second, and for greater clarity, we offer the following information which is part of the *** information record. The Client's 2022 Audi Q3 residual value set at 55% , is $33,549.98 and not $46,923.81 as stated. Similarly, the overall incurred leasing cost at maturity are $31,266.61, and not $40,702.00 as stated in the complaint.
  
  Third, it is simply impossible for a leased vehicle to be "re-leased" (meaning executing a new lease) at the "old residual value". All the Dealership's Audi Brand Specialists (ABS), who are ***** (******* Motor ************************* registered know the elements and detailed parameters underpinning the leasing process. .Accordingly, such an "offer" was never made to the Client. Furthermore, *** submitted in writing (email correspondence) three(3) options:  buy out the current lease, return the vehicle, or lease a new vehicle. *** reiterated on January11/15,**** that "re-leasing" the current vehicle was NOT an option. At that time, the client also asked that the residual value be reduced; that too is not possible. *** Assistant Sales Manager intervened on January15, ****, through a phone call with the Client, explaining that "re-leasing" the current vehicle was not possible, and that only  the three(3) options mentioned above were available to move forward. 
  
  Finally, *** sought the support of *********************** in reaching out to the Client to further explain the options available. A lease-end service Representative  confirmed with *** that she explained to ******************** what the options were, as per the above. The Representative stressed that everything needed (choice of an option) to be done by the lease maturity date of January  27, ****. The Client  was informed that he should schedule an appointment with Auto VIN to do an inspection before returning the vehicle to the Dealership. A phone number to do so was provided to the Client. The Client was also made aware that there will be late fees if the vehicle is not returned to *** by January 27,****.