As an attorney, she probably knows that in order to have a valid civil claim, she has to have suffered a monetary loss. Here, she paid slightly less than agreed to, so she suffered no monetary loss, and thus has no legal claim against the broker.
1 Like
Just leave a review in the broker thread and move on. I wouldn’t expect the owners to do anything for you and it’s not worth your time to pursue this over $300. Just tell your partner she’s not getting a gift for Christmas.
Yeah I didn’t even know you could block people on Venmo 
1 Like
I don’t think you can assume that.
Where did the $300 go?
Exactly why we’re having the academic discussion here, instead of pursuing a legal path. But if 25 people come out of the woodwork to report the same thing?
Man, reading through the comments is disappointing. OP is less concerned about the outcome and more so cautioning about the unethical practice.
For folks/brokers to shrug and say “you got the deal advertised, what’s the big deal” says a lot about their own moral code.
17 Likes
Just to recap - Prospective customer saw a broker listing on a car with an advertised fee of $799. Customer engages with said broker and decides to lock in the deal and pays the advertised fee. Then, the broker requests an additional $300 (not advertised as part of the broker fee). Folks don’t see anything wrong with that?
EDIT: I have seen some brokers offer one-off deals with a fee of $1k or even $2k. I see nothing wrong with that since they are transparent about it, and we live in a free market economy.
8 Likes
I’m a little surprised as well. I thought the whole point of this community was to sweat the small details and have more transparency into the process. But maybe this shows that I don’t have as much of a slam-dunk that I thought. It’s nice to see like-minded people though, so I appreciate the comment.
3 Likes
IANAL, but I am in a field that is regulated and licensed by the state of California and do reviews for complaints submitted to the state in this industry.
Regarding taking action against a license, my licensing board specifically states in writing that damage does not have to have occurred.
There are actions that can be taken against someone’s license (perhaps industry-dependent?) that have nothing to do w/ a civil claim.
2 Likes
Thanks for the insight. I’ve thought about this for a couple of weeks. At my core, I’d prefer not to pursue the complaint with the state because the goal isn’t to take away anyone’s livelihood, despite how I feel about the matter. But we certainly have the means to do so if we wanted, and I’m open to it if there are additional cases here. One other person reported the same issues in our private discussion, and I suspect that this broker has engaged in this scheme on multiple occasions.
As I mentioned, I would’ve dropped it if Omega had admitted to it after getting caught. It just pissed me off to be lied to and have my intelligence insulted.
1 Like
Oh, when I said I had nothing else to add to the (main) conversation, I really did mean that. I was only trying to clarify that state licensing (again, perhaps depending on the industry) can very much be dependent on ethics and such and not just about whether measurable harm was done.
And I am certainly not suggesting for or against filing a complaint w/ the state.
However, I do think that, if listed brokers here are regularly charging something diff than what is explicitly listed, that needs to be reported and dealt w/ it b/c
2 Likes
Then be transparent about the broker fee?
4 Likes
I never said it wasn’t a good deal. It is. Still not the point. But making $1100 on a $1250 one-pay isn’t exactly giving away anything. In fact, you should be taking notes to do the same thing, am I right?
I agree, don’t see why he wouldn’t just make a higher broker fee.
It’s obvious, no? Optics.
Why not? Every dollar you negotiate with the dealer can potentially go in your pocket.
Agreed. I’m a capitalist and I’m not here to dictate what I think others “should” make. Just don’t do it in an underhanded way, and don’t lie to the customer.
I’m happy providing the deals I provide at aggressive pricing and providing the service I provide. Cheapest doesn’t always mean best. I am happy with the service my dealers provide to my customers and if that comes at $200 more on a one pay, so be it. If $200 means you’re going to shop 20 other brokers to get the cheapest deal, that means in a year you’re going to be just shopping for the lowest price deal, and that’s not the type of brokerage I run.
Right, so wouldn’t you agree that his behavior is unethical? Potentially illegal?
Don’t know about illegal. I wouldn’t feel right about not disclosing what the $300 is for. I don’t know Seth personally nor have I ever spoken to him, so I won’t speak on his character. But his brokerage, deals, and service are solid from what I’ve read about him. Don’t know why he wouldn’t just add the $300 to his broker fee. I understand your frustration of just wanting transparency.
1 Like
In your estimation, how good should a deal be to justify dishonest practices? Can you share the criteria you use in your business?
5 Likes
What the broker did seems unethical from accounting perspective but what makes this a little gray area is that the buyer paid less than the originally agreed amount in total. I don’t understand why you try to Venmo each other $300. I think it is great that that you bring this up and I think the broker should apologize for the issue and don’t do it moving forward. Unfortunately, car sales isn’t the most ethical business. I don’t see the broker refunding $300 as it looks like they have been doing this for a long time. It would set a precedent and they need to do it for many other people. Should brokers offering no broker fee deals refund their commission from the dealer as it is not clearly accounted for in the deal?