He might want to contact corporate and get them on their asses.
In this case, it’s plausible to say that corporate might’ve offered the dealer incentives to provide the loaner cars by giving the dealer a discounted price on the vehicles with stipulations. However, the dealer just took advantage of the program and sold the cars without utilizing them as loaners. It is also illegal to sell a vehicle without the original sticker. @Jon @tvcham
Interesting. Thanks Chris. I tried to do a little research and didn’t find anywhere that it said it was illegal to not have the original sticker. I imagine that must happen from time to time - sticker gets ripped, lost, wet, etc?
Super interesting though…
It’s required by law and it’s 1K fine for EACH instance the sticker is not on the car. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/chapter-28
Every manufacturer of new automobiles distributed in commerce shall, prior to the delivery of any new automobile to any dealer, or at or prior to the introduction date of new models delivered to a dealer prior to such introduction date, securely affix to the windshield, or side window of such automobile a label on which such manufacturer shall endorse clearly, distinctly and legibly true and correct entries disclosing the following information concerning such automobile—
(a) the make, model, and serial or identification number or numbers;
(b) the final assembly point;
© the name, and the location of the place of business, of the dealer to whom it is to be delivered;
(d) the name of the city or town at which it is to be delivered to such dealer;
(e) the method of transportation used in making delivery of such automobile, if driven or towed from final assembly point to place of delivery;
(f) the following information:
(1) the retail price of such automobile suggested by the manufacturer;
(2) the retail delivered price suggested by the manufacturer for each accessory or item of optional equipment, physically attached to such automobile at the time of its delivery to such dealer, which is not included within the price of such automobile as stated pursuant to paragraph (1);
(3) the amount charged, if any, to such dealer for the transportation of such automobile to the location at which it is delivered to such dealer; and
(4) the total of the amounts specified pursuant to paragraphs (1), (2), and (3);
(g) if one or more safety ratings for such automobile have been assigned and formally published or released by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration under the New Car Assessment Program, information about safety ratings that—
(1) includes a graphic depiction of the number of stars, or other applicable rating, that corresponds to each such assigned safety rating displayed in a clearly differentiated fashion indicating the maximum possible safety rating;
(2) refers to safety rating categories that may include frontal impact crash tests, side impact crash tests, and rollover resistance tests (whether or not such automobile has been assigned a safety rating for such tests);
(3) contains information describing the nature and meaning of the crash test data presented and a reference to additional vehicle safety resources, including http://www.safecar.gov; [1] and
(4) is presented in a legible, visible, and prominent fashion and covers at least—
(A) 8 percent of the total area of the label; or
(B) an area with a minimum length of 4½ inches and a minimum height of 3½ inches; and
(h) if an automobile has not been tested by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration under the New Car Assessment Program, or safety ratings for such automobile have not been assigned in one or more rating categories, a statement to that effect
Thanks! I read about Monroney last night. But didn’t see that the original had to be on the car. It does make sense from a consumer protection standpoint – else this kind of thing would happen.
What’s interesting here was that he did get the sticker – it just wasn’t on the car. So I wonder if it was a violation or just an ‘oversight’ 
Have you contacted the dealer at all? If so, what have they said thus far?
“Although in this case there is not much of a discount.” Can you explain what you mean? I’m not familiar with lease terms. What would a great discount be? Is it a discount on the price or on the lease %, or both?
It’s not about loaners, just check the link I posted:
Audi is pleased to announce that we are continuing the Mobility Assistance Program for handicap hand controls that are installed on any qualifying Audi model. We will also consider other types of handicap assists (or other approved handicap assistance devices.) to anyone who purchases or leases a new Audi or CPO Audi vehicle. All exception requests from dealers should be made directly to mobilityassistance@audi.com.
Discount on the price off MSRP. You should negotiate purchases/leases with the same approach, trying to get the the best sales price/cap cost before any incentives.
They’re messing with him and hoping he goes away, I think. He’s not. He takes my kids around in this car, so at a minimum he’s worried that they sold him a car with something wrong with it that he should know about. But more likely: they’re just greedy and got caught with their hands in the cookie jar.
Thanks Jon. Suggestion as to the way to estimate the best price on this particular car?
Research NADAGuides or Audi forums to see what others have paid. This is a brand new model and in very high demand though, so discounts won’t be great.
I don’t think there is anything wrong with it. It was supposed to have handicapped hand controls installed and they did not install or removed them.
“VW Credit Inc. Service Loaner” is printed on original window sticker. Below VIN and Dealer#.
Not disclosing that is fraud territory I think.
No Idea how it works for VW/AUDI. “Mobility service loaner”? Like I said, what raises red flag for me is “NOT FOR RETAIL SALE” in bold red letters. But who knows, maybe they can sell it after it comes out of loan service and it may have 20 miles on it if no one ever used it as a loaner? I’d think there must be some type of disclosure for the buyer.
Current example where Volvo has lost the plot. Leasing one at Costco is better than buying one 
A bit of clarity as we’ve gathered information. Here’s what we understand: dealers are given an allotment of cars for sale and to use as loaners. When a model is particularly popular - say the Q5 – and a dealer has a loaner Q5 on the lot, the dealer can ask Corporate to change that Q5 to a retail sale car, and assign another car on the lot as a loaner (say, an A4). This happens frequently. What happens is that Corporate sends a new window sticker for the car so that it can be legally sold. I think that as what was happening here, except someone wanted to rush the process, and in doing so made a mess.
There were lots of ways to avoid this – the person who doctored the sticker in the first place could have ‘finished the job’ and tossed the original sticker. When the deception was discovered, the dealer could have said ‘my bad, what do we do to make this right’? Or various other things to make my father feel like he was treated fairly and decently, rather than being scammed. Because he wasn’t being scammed, he was buying a car, and that entails having imperfect information.
(I’m not excusing the fraud – it’s clear, and the consumer protection rules are there for a reason – my point is, though, that it seems like the fraud was done to close a deal faster, not to deceive or to sell a lemon. So handling it better might have prevented a lot of headaches).
But headaches we have. The dealer is presenting my father with a very good deal on a new car. I hope that when I post information about that deal here, that reasonable people will say ‘yeah, your father was treated poorly, but he’s getting a great deal which might make up for some of the hassle.’
Stay tuned!
Thanks Jon. He should get a better price than anyone else on any forum, given then circumstances. The dealer committed fraud, and tried to scam him, and didn’t own up to the mistake when he discovered it. If he doesn’t get an amazing deal – the kind nobody else is getting anywhere – we’ll escalate to corporate & the authorities. There’s just no reason to keep going back and forth at this point.
There is also question about “mobility” title. I think this car was provided by Audi as a loaner for disabled people, but has never been retrofitted as such, while Audi provides money for this.