The man bought Lincoln for more than 1 million yuan, but was mocked by the customer service when defending his rights. 4S store： it was a misunderstanding.

Recently, a story about a man buying a Lincoln Navigator for more than 1 million yuan has aroused heated debate among netizens.

Mr. Lu, the party involved, reported that he spent more than 1 million yuan to buy a Lincoln Navigator car, but since purchasing the car, there have been problems such as "unable to start", "abnormal sound of the passenger seat" and "abnormal compass prompt".

Mr. Lu reported the vehicle failure to the 4S shop Henan Aojitong Aolin Automobile Sales Co., Ltd., but during the communication process, the director of the customer experience department of the 4S shop ridiculed "Isn’t it just a navigator?", which made him very dissatisfied and angry.

On the evening of Nov. 22, a staff member at Henan Aojitong Aolin Automobile Sales Co., Ltd. responded that "the relevant personnel did not mock Mr. Lu, which may be due to some misunderstandings in the communication."

On May 7 this year, Mr. Lu, the owner of Zhengzhou, bought an imported Lincoln Navigator car at the above 4S store. Since the purchase, the vehicle has had problems such as "unable to start", "abnormal sound of the passenger seat" and "abnormal compass prompt".

Mr. Lu believed that the car had quality problems and asked the 4S shop to replace it. But the 4S shop refused on the grounds that it "did not meet the conditions stipulated in the Three Guarantees Liability Regulation". It said that it was actively purchasing relevant accessories for Mr. Lu to solve the vehicle problems reported by the owner. The other party said that the two sides have signed a mediation agreement. If it cannot be repaired within 15 days from August 23, the 4S shop will coordinate and help Mr. Lu apply for a return and exchange.

After Mr. Lu complained to all parties, the problem of the vehicle was never properly resolved. The 4S shop did not repair the vehicle on the grounds that the vehicle was normal and the fault code could not be detected. In October this year, during an on-site negotiation process, the staff of the 4S shop involved told him that because the vehicle was not faulty, the 4S shop could not assist in returning and exchanging the vehicle according to the content of the mediation letter.

Even after the 4S store responded on November 22, Mr. Lu’s problem was still being dealt with.

Mr. Lu said that the handling attitude and handling of the 4S store involved made him unacceptable, and he would continue to complain about rights protection. If the 4S store did not resolve the issue, he would consider suing the court.