KIA Dealer Remotely Disables Car over $200 Fee

Most likely he can't sue due to the binding arbitration clause in his contract that allows for the car company to chose who they want to mediate.
 
Todd Walter said:
It technically was in the contract, per the article, he was a high-risk lease and the dealership uses the device to ensure payments are on time. It should have been included in the buy-out portion of the contract and wasn't. Non-disclosure is a big no-no in Canadian contract law and the dealer is going to get burnt by the court over it.
Click to expand...

And Quebec law (provincial legislation here superceeds any federal law) is explicit this isn't allowed.
 
DejaWiz said:
Dick move by the dealership, especially since the fee wasn't in the contract. That's attempted extortion and tampering with private property...lawyer up and take them to the cleaners.
Click to expand...

"Take them to the cleaners", doesn't happen here in Canada. Our Tort law is much different than that of the U.S. (thank goodness).


gxp500 said:
I don't get it, a guy that obviously has money issues buys a $13000 car? Why not buy a $5000 car instead?
Click to expand...

Only logical reason I can think of is reliability. I know some young men who can't even change a tire or check their engine oil. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: DKS
like this
CRaschNet said:
Most likely he can't sue due to the binding arbitration clause in his contract that allows for the car company to chose who they want to mediate.
Click to expand...

That would only apply for things in the contract. If this removal fee truly wasn't in there, as mentioned in the article, then it's game on.
 
CRaschNet said:
Most likely he can't sue due to the binding arbitration clause in his contract that allows for the car company to chose who they want to mediate.
Click to expand...

Binding arbitration is unusual in Canadian contract law (it's not in my truck financing with a major Canadian bank).
 
Why did this happen? Dealership states he needs to have $200 to have GPS kill switch removed, dealership uses said kill switch to disable vehicle, obviously the switch was not removed so why did he owe money?
 
I'm guessing that since he hasn't already Googled the issue and resolved it himself, that it's in his best interest not to be playing around under the dash.
 
CRaschNet said:
Most likely he can't sue due to the binding arbitration clause in his contract that allows for the car company to chose who they want to mediate.
Click to expand...

Unlike in the US, in most Canadian provinces it is illegal to sign away your rights as specified in the Consumer Protection Act. Puts the kibosh on that sort of thing.
 
sboucher said:
Irrelevant. His reasons are his own, and that decision has no bearing on the dealerships actions post buy-out of the lease.
Click to expand...
Its like i'm talking to a wall here, your reading comprehension skills are non existent.
DejaWiz said:
He. Lost. His. Job.
Click to expand...
If you had bad credit would you buy a 13k car? There are 1k cars too, even without a job he could probably afford it.
 
gxp500 said:
If you had bad credit would you buy a 13k car? There are 1k cars too, even without a job he could probably afford it.
Click to expand...

It's not fair to assume his situation is one that could allow him to get away with a cheap beater. Quite possibly, he chose to lease a new car because he needed the reliability, the warranty, and the credit-building because it's possible he has longer commutes (or drives to multiple places for work), and maybe others rely on him to run errands like regularly dropping off/picking up kids from school, grocery and pharmacy runs, etc. Who knows? There are a million different reasons.
 
Last edited:
Anyone wanna take a guess that they did a shit job removing the device afterwards too? If it were me in that situation I'd have removed the effing thing myself and left it on their doorstep as a "present".
 
So the dealer just KIA (killed in action) the Kia?

Yo dog. I heard that you like Kia's, so I KIAed your Kia.

My dad will never buy a Kia do to the acronym KIA.
 
vegeta535 said:
This something a dealer adds to their cars. Typically used car sell and is something for their protections against people that default on their loan. The dealer is a shit bag for charging the customer to remove their equipment. My friend bought a used car with something like this installed years ago. Once he paid it off they took off the device at no charge.
Click to expand...
This is correct - generally done for very low credit borrowers who don't have ability to repay (at least on paper, low credit high income don't generally get this treatment). Lojack the car, provide subprime financing, and repo and resell. Dirty and the definition of unethical lending, hell unethical business practices. This guy probably fit the definition and they never expected him to fulfill his obligation - usually the dealership sneaks this type of stipulation in the loan/lease.

Gotta say tho dude sent his mom... I man up and send my wife in these situations ;)
 
DejaWiz said:
I think you're missing the point of the story, here.

The dealership was at liberty to install the tracker on their LEASED vehicle.
When leasee lost his job, a family member purchased the car outright.
Dealer says they must pay an additional $200 to have their leased vehicle tracker removed.
Removal fee wasn't in the purchase contract, so they didn't pay that fee.
Dealer remotely disabled the vehicle, despite this.
Lawsuit against dealer incoming.
Click to expand...
I don't have all the facts obviously but I bet if you read the lease it may say different...
 
DejaWiz said:
Dick move by the dealership, especially since the fee wasn't in the contract. That's attempted extortion and tampering with private property...lawyer up and take them to the cleaners.
Click to expand...

Honestly this. Best way to teach them this is wrong and to help them understand the law is to get the dealership to have to pay their lawyers to explain it to them when they say how much it is going to cost to get this guy to go away.

Personally I think I would have lawyered up and then considered having another shop remove the device saying I didn't trust the dealership in question to do it correctly, then make the dealership pay for that.
 
Makes me feel better about having to drop a pretty penny learning how to rebuild a blown rear differential for my non-remote disable-able 30yo mustang

image.jpg
 
haste. said:
I don't have all the facts obviously but I bet if you read the lease it may say different...
Click to expand...

Terms of the lease don't matter. Two reasons:

1) In French Canadia land, you can't do this. Contract law cannot override statutory law.

2) Lease terms become irrelevant upon sale. If there's something outstanding, you have to clear it up prior to sale, or attach it to the sale price. Once money has changed hands it is done, you don't own the car anymore, you have no rights to it nor to enforce conditions upon it. Remember the dealership didn't have to sell it, they decided to. They decided the amount of money offered was fine and made the sale. It is done at that point, it's his. If they want more money later that's just too bad.
 
Damn big gov... oh wait it's a private business engaging in shady business practices that a "big gov" would prohibit. ;)
 
I would hope they verified the car was not in motion when they turned it off, could you image if he was flying down the highway...
 
Todd Walter said:
It technically was in the contract, per the article, he was a high-risk lease and the dealership uses the device to ensure payments are on time. It should have been included in the buy-out portion of the contract and wasn't. Non-disclosure is a big no-no in Canadian contract law and the dealer is going to get burnt by the court over it.
Click to expand...

I hope they do collect in court because that's some bullshit.
 
DukenukemX said:
I would have just removed the device. We are talking about a dealership who installs these so they probably just bypass the starter wire somewhere and use a cellphone type receiver to send and receive commands. Like allow car to start or don't allow car to start. Remove the device and reconnect the starter wire. I would take the GPS device and leave it at the dealership on the doorstep with a picture of a penis.
Click to expand...

....after having smashed it to pieces so it couldn't be used illegally again.
 
gxp500 said:
And you're missing my original point on why he bought a car he couldn't afford and not go for a cheaper one.
Click to expand...

dude, why don't you actually read the FULL article, not just the tidbit on the [H] home page, or just glancing over it.

AT THE TIME THAT HE BOUGHT THE CAR, HE HAD A JOB AND COULD AFFORD IT. HE THEN LOST SAID JOB (shit happens, happens all the time to lots of people). HIS GRANDMOTHER BOUGHT IT FOR HIM OUTRIGHT, SO IT WAS COMPLETELY PAID OFF, !!! INCLUDING THE $300 CHARGE FOR BEING PAST DUE !!!. THEN, AND ONLY THEN DID THE DEALERSHIP ILLEGALLY DISABLE THE CAR THAT THEY NO LONGER OWNED BECAUSE HE DIDN'T PAY A $200 FEE TO HAVE THE DEVICE REMOVED, WHICH I WOULD HAVE ALSO NOT DONE BECAUSE THEY. DID. NOT. INCLUDE. THE. REMOVAL. FEE. IN. HIS. CONTRACT.

werds r hard
 
gxp500 said:
Its like i'm talking to a wall here, your reading comprehension skills are non existent.

If you had bad credit would you buy a 13k car? There are 1k cars too, even without a job he could probably afford it.
Click to expand...

Why would anyone buy a $1k car if they didn't have to, $1k cars cost you way more in the long run because they are giant pieces of shit! You know how many people I have seen with their super cheap used car miss work and pay out hundred or thousands in repairs because they cheaped out and bought someones shitty run down $1k car. Guy had a job that let him afford the 13K car so he bought something more reliable, not his fault he lost the job afterwords. And besides WTF does that have to do with this article? He got the car paid for IN FULL and the dealership still fucked him over.
 
vegeta535 said:
This something a dealer adds to their cars. Typically used car sell and is something for their protections against people that default on their loan. The dealer is a shit bag for charging the customer to remove their equipment. My friend bought a used car with something like this installed years ago. Once he paid it off they took off the device at no charge.
Click to expand...
Unless it's installed way inside the dash where it's impossible to reach, removing it yourself doesn't seem like it should be terribly difficult, unless they have really sophisticated ones now that trigger the immobilizer. Just locate the suspicious looking black box spliced into the vehicle's wiring without a connector, remove it, and then repair the wiring harness.
 
Kongar said:
note to self - check that any future car I buy doesn't have this *feature*

Crazy...
Click to expand...

Note to eveyone, never wear a family guy Tshirt. Not just when the news is taking pictures, we're taling EVER.
 
Curious as to how that conversation went at the dealer as they were considering that option. Would have thought that someone might have suggested that it was a Really Bad Idea™.
 
I'd like to know if the dealership first checked to make sure car was not being driven. I didn't see it in article if they did that verification. You would think the $300 they paid on top of the payoff amount the dealership would be like, eff it, we don't need the stupid tracking device.
 
You know, car stealerships aren't manned by the best and the brightest, just some of the greediest. Hopefully they get raked over the coals on this bone headed decision. It's one thing to fight over an imaginary fee. It's another to remotely disable someone's car when they own it.
The dealership should be responsible and the person who actually did the remote disabling should be criminally liable.
 
xXaNaXx said:
dude, why don't you actually read the FULL article, not just the tidbit on the [H] home page, or just glancing over it.

AT THE TIME THAT HE BOUGHT THE CAR, HE HAD A JOB AND COULD AFFORD IT. HE THEN LOST SAID JOB (shit happens, happens all the time to lots of people). HIS GRANDMOTHER BOUGHT IT FOR HIM OUTRIGHT, SO IT WAS COMPLETELY PAID OFF, !!! INCLUDING THE $300 CHARGE FOR BEING PAST DUE !!!. THEN, AND ONLY THEN DID THE DEALERSHIP ILLEGALLY DISABLE THE CAR THAT THEY NO LONGER OWNED BECAUSE HE DIDN'T PAY A $200 FEE TO HAVE THE DEVICE REMOVED, WHICH I WOULD HAVE ALSO NOT DONE BECAUSE THEY. DID. NOT. INCLUDE. THE. REMOVAL. FEE. IN. HIS. CONTRACT.

werds r hard
Click to expand...

Exactly, gxp500 needs to exercise his own reading comprehension.
 
Monkey God said:

MOM SOLVE MY PROBLEMS FOR ME
Click to expand...

LOL, true but I'll admit these days I let my wife deal with certain things so I don't blow a head gasket.. What would us men do without a women in our life huh? Actually nevermind, don't answer that..
 
Todd Walter said:
When they defaulted on the court-mandated payment they sent a Bailiff to the guys house with my Dad and gave him the option of taking either his TV or Fridge (this was back in the 60s so not a small amount of cash to replace either). The guy paid promptly at that point!.
Click to expand...

Damn, Canadian small claims is awesome! I had to go to small claims 3 times just to "win" when the other party simply sent in letters the first 2 times saying they couldn't show up. Couldn't believe I didn't get a default judgement the first time around.
 
DejaWiz said:
Dick move by the dealership, especially since the fee wasn't in the contract. That's attempted extortion and tampering with private property...lawyer up and take them to the cleaners.
Click to expand...

So they didn't actually extort him?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top