You’re offline. This is a read only version of the page.
Pinnacle Car Sales & Leasing Ltd. dba Pinnacle Motors (Dealer #30793), Pioneer Garage Limited dba Pioneer Chrysler Jeep (Dealer #5224), Thomas Rayson (Salesperson #114104) and Raymond Hayes (Salesperson #100603)
Issues:• A hearing was called to review allegations against Pinnacle Car Sales & Leasing Ltd. dba Pinnacle Motors (“Pinnacle”), Pioneer Garage Limited dba Pioneer Chrysler Jeep (“Pioneer”), Thomas Rayson and Raymond Hayes (collectively the “Respondents”)
in relation to the sale of a 2008 Ford F350 (the “F350”) to Lauren Fellner (the “Complainant”). Pioneer and Pinnacle were operating a joint venture in this consumer transaction where Pinnacle would market, show and represent the F350 to the Complainant
while Pioneer would ultimately sell and secure financing for the transaction.
• The Complainant received a refund from Pioneer and she returned the F350. Pioneer agreed to address its role in this transaction by way of an Undertaking before the hearing. The hearing proceeded in order to review the allegations against Pinnacle,
Mr. Hayes and Mr. Rayson.
• The Registrar was satisfied that:
(a) The F350 was represented by Pinnacle as suitable for transportation and compliant with the Motor Vehicle Act at the time of the sale when it was not. Pinnacle advertised the F350 as having passed a comprehensive third party inspection, when it did
not. Pinnacle thus misrepresented the quality of the F350 – a deceptive act or practice. The F350’s track bar relocating bracket failed while the consumer was driving the vehicle. The F350 still failed a Provincial Private Vehicle Inspection with 12
violations, even after repairs were completed by Pinnacle.
(b) Pinnacle misrepresented the VIN number of the F350 on the transaction documents and the complainant insured a different vehicle and was thus driving uninsured.
(c) The changes made to the Complainant’s documents were with full knowledge of the Complainant, and at her request. There was no breach by Pinnacle on this issue.
(d) The Complainant left the documents behind at Pinnacle. There was no breach by Pinnacle for failing to provide the Complainant with the purchase and finance documents after purchase.
• The Registrar found that no compliance action was necessary to ensure Mr. Hayes is compliant in the future. Mr. Hayes’ actions were innocent and he attempted to assist the consumer the best that he could.
• The Registrar added a condition to the licence of Mr. Rayson to retake and successfully complete the Salesperson Certification Course within 60 days. His actions were negligent.
• The Registrar found that Pinnacle breached section 5(1) of the BPCPA and issued a Compliance Order that (1) Pinnacle is to pay 50% of the investigation and hearing costs in this case (Pioneer undertook to pay the remaining 50%), which is $12,032.84;
and (2) Pinnacle is to abide by the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act of B.C. The Registrar found Pinnacle’s conduct was reckless, which is legally consider being deliberate.
• The Registrar found it necessary to protect the public interest and consumers from future potential harm by canceling the registration of Pinnacle effective immediately. Pinnacle has a recent history of not abiding by its past undertakings and administrative
penalties have not deterred its recent non-compliant conduct.
• The Registrar will not accept an application from Pinnacle to be registered as a motor dealer or an application from its principal Carmine Risi to register another legal entity as a motor dealer for a period of six years from the date of the decision.
Whether any future registration will be issued will be assessed if an application is made.
