Complaints

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:04/11/2025

  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.

  I am filing this complaint against John Elway Cadillac Dealership due to misrepresentation regarding repairs on my 2011 Cadillac DTS. For years, I managed a known coolant leak without issue. I brought my car in to confirm if symptoms I observedthermostat gauge above halfway and long cooldown timesindicated overheating. Their diagnosis, including a block test, found no overheating, but this was never disclosed to me. Instead, they suggested replacing the water pump and crossover pipe gaskets, implying these would resolve an overheating issuean issue their own tests confirmed did not exist. I agreed to the costly repairs based on this false pretense, expecting my concerns to be addressed. After paying and retrieving my vehicle, I noticed no change in the symptoms. When I raised this with ***, he dismissed them as normal, contradicting the impression I was given that the repairs would fix them. Text messages from the service department, sent post-repair, confirm no overheating was found and label my concerns normal, yet they never informed me of this beforehand. This lack of transparency misled me into an unnecessary expense, as I sought overheating confirmationnot routine leak maintenance. The General Manager cited the ************** Policy Evaluation Tool (PET), which returned a zero refund, claiming it justifies their stance. However, the PET, a tool for warranty or mechanical disputes, cannot assess misrepresentationa qualitative failure of communication and ethics. My issue isnt about parts or warranties; its about accountability for being misled. Ive exhausted direct talks with no resolution, seeking a refund and apology. This aligns with the Colorado Consumer Protection Act and Motor Vehicle Repair Act, which guard against deceptive practices. I urge the BBB to hold the dealership accountable for this breach of trust.

  Business Response

  Date: 04/12/2025

  Business Response to BBB Complaint
  We appreciate the opportunity to respond to the concerns raised by the guest.
  At the time of service, the guest brought in their 2011 Cadillac DTS with concerns related to a coolant leak and a perceived overheating issue. Our certified technicians thoroughly inspected the vehicle and performed appropriate diagnostic tests, including a block test, which did not indicate overheating. This testing was part of our standard diagnostic procedure to rule out serious concerns such as head gasket failure.
  During our evaluation, we did confirm a significant coolant leak coming from the water pump and crossover pipe gasketscomponents critical to the proper functioning of the cooling system. Our service advisor discussed these findings directly with the guest and recommended addressing the leak to prevent future engine damage and to ensure the system could operate as designed. The guest was given a detailed estimate and authorized the repairs.
  At no point did our staff guarantee that these repairs would resolve a perceived overheating issue. Rather, the recommended work addressed a known and visible mechanical issuethe coolant leakwhich the guest acknowledged managing for some time. While it is understandable the guest may have hoped the repair would also resolve other concerns, such as the thermostat gauge reading or cool-down times, these symptoms were not determined to be outside of normal parameters post-repair.
  After the repairs were completed, we reiterated that no overheating was found and invited the guest to return so we could re-inspect the vehicle and ensure his continued peace of mind. To date, the guest has not contacted us or returned for any follow-up diagnostic checks.
  We regret any miscommunication that may have occurred, but we do not agree that there was any misrepresentation or deceptive practice. The guest was informed of the condition of his vehicle, the recommended repairs, and authorized the work with full knowledge of what was being done. We remain open to assisting the guest further and continue to stand by our diagnosis and repair process.

  Customer Answer

  Date: 04/15/2025

   
  Complaint: 23192228
  
  I appreciate the dealerships response but respectfully disagree with their account, firmly maintaining that misrepresentation occurred. I brought my 2011 Cadillac DTS to verify whether symptomsthermostat gauge above halfway and prolonged cooldown timesindicated overheating, not to address a coolant leak Id managed successfully for years.Their block test confirmed no overheating, yet they failed to share this critical finding and instead proposed water pump and gasket repairs, implying these would resolve my overheating concerns. This omission led me to authorize costly repairs under the false pretense that they would fix a nonexistent overheating issue, resulting in unnecessary expense.

  
  Contrary to their claim, I was not informed that the water pump and gasket repairs were unrelated to overheating. Instead, the service advisors suggestion implied these would address my concerns, leading me to authorize costly repairs under false pretenses.Text messages from the service department, sent only after repairs, confirm no overheating was found and label my symptoms normal, proving they withheld this key finding during our discussions. Their assertion that they didnt guarantee a fix for overheating sidesteps their failure to clarify it wasnt an issue at all.

  
  Post-repair, I noticed no change in symptoms. When I raised this with ***, he dismissed them as normal,contradicting the expectation set that repairs would help. While I acknowledge their invitation to return, I had already exhausted direct discussions,including with the General Manager, who referenced a zero refund from GMs Policy Evaluation Tool, which bears no relevance to misrepresentation.

  
  The dealerships denial of deceptive practice ignores their failure to disclose key findings, breaching transparency required by the Colorado Consumer Protection Act and Motor Vehicle Repair Act. I seek a refund for these unnecessary repairs and am open to negotiating a fair amount to resolve this amicably. The issue is their misrepresentation, not mechanical failure. I urge the BBB to hold the dealership accountable for this breach of trust.

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

  Business Response

  Date: 04/16/2025

  It seems that there may have been an assumption on Mr. ******** part that his vehicle was overheating when it was brought in to our team, which led us to check the cooling system. We observed obvious leaks and issues with the cooling system and these issues left in disrepair can cause the issues that he was experiencing. We recommended to him findings and gave him our our recommendation for repairs. We identified leaks from the crossover pipe gaskets and the water pump, and we acted on that information. I truly believe we followed the correct process and did everything that was asked of us. Based on this, I dont believe there is any further compensation required at this time.
  That said, I genuinely want to make sure were doing right by him. As a gesture of goodwill, we offered a $250 credit for use in our parts and service department via email on March 6th at 7:43AM. This can be applied toward future maintenance or any other repairs, such as the oil leaks we found during the initial work on his brakes and cooling system. I offered him an olive branch again to reach out to me via email if he had any further questions or concerns. Additionally, Id like to provide you with the contact information for our Cadillac District Parts and Service Manager, ***** **********, who is familiar with this situation and would be happy to discuss it with him further if needed.
  I asked him to keep a copy of the email for the credit, and that we would be happy to honor it for a period of one year from 3/6/2025. At this point if he would rather be compensated directly by check I would be willing to make this offer in the from of a check for a total of $500.00 and no in-store Parts and Service Credit. 

  Customer Answer

  Date: 04/18/2025

   
  Complaint: 23192228
  
   I respectfully challenge the dealerships response, as it mischaracterizes my intent and sidesteps the core issue of negligent misrepresentation. Their claim that I assumed my 2011 Cadillac DTS was overheating is inaccurate. Prior to the service visit, I clearly stated over the phone that I sought confirmation of whether symptomsthermostat gauge above halfway and prolonged cooldown timesindicated overheating, not that I believed it was occurring. The service department misinterpreted my inquiry as a confirmed overheating issue, proposing water pump and gasket repairs that implied a nonexistent problem. Their diagnosis confirmed no overheating, yet they withheld this critical finding, leading me to authorize costly repairs under the false impression that a coolant leak caused overheating.
  
  The dealerships claim that leaks could cause my symptoms contradicts their texts and **********repair statement labeling my symptoms 'normal,' confirming no overheating occurred.Their claim of full disclosure is undermined by texts sent only after repairs,which confirmed no overheating. They withheld this critical information during discussions. This constitutes negligent misrepresentation: by omitting the diagnosis, they failed to exercise reasonable care, creating a false impression in their professional capacity, leading to my justifiable reliance and financial harm ******* v. **** ***** Harvestore Prods., ***** 819 P.2d 69 [Colo. 1991]).
  
  Their $500 offer, while appreciated, does not rectify the impact of their misrepresentation. While I acknowledge their invitation to return, I have pursued discussions, including with the General Manager, whose 'zero refund' determination via GMs Policy Evaluation Tool is irrelevant to the issue of misrepresentation. Their actions breach the Colorado Consumer Protection Act and Motor Vehicle Repair Act by engaging in deceptive practices. In the interest of a fair resolution, I propose the following counteroffer: I will cover the cost of the parts, as these materials directly benefit my vehicle, and in return, I respectfully request that the dealership waive the labor charges for the repairs I authorized based on their misleading information. This arrangement equitably balances both parties responsibilities. I look forward to your prompt response to this proposal.