Public Complaint

I. CASE SUMMARY

The purpose of this website is to publicly disclose a series of events that, in our view, reflect a serious consumer experience during the purchase of two new vehicles at Automotora Sergio Escobar y Cía. Limitada, Paicaví 2613 branch, Concepción, Chile.

The information presented here is based on documents, emails, conversations, claims filed with SERNAC (Chile's National Consumer Service), photographic records and communications held with the company.

Our aim is to report what happened, to place our experience on public record, and to warn other consumers to carefully review their contracts, sales notes, financing terms and the commercial benefits offered during similar purchase processes.

The main facts are summarized below:

1. Questioned commercial information about the financing: During the negotiation we were told that it was possible to initially take out a “smart loan” (crédito inteligente) and later switch it to a conventional loan through partial prepayment. This information was decisive in our accepting the commercial terms offered.

Later, when we consulted directly with the financial institutions involved, we were told that this mechanism was not available under the terms described during the sale.
2. Delay and delivery of a new vehicle with damage: The Suzuki Jimny 3-door GL 2026 was delivered late relative to the timeframes initially indicated. At the time of delivery, the vehicle showed visible bodywork damage, including a deep scratch on the hood and dents on the rear door.

The situation was reported to the dealership immediately, through photographs, messages and email.
3. Insufficient repair and contradictory accounts: The vehicle was taken in for repair. However, when we inspected it again, the damage persisted.

At that point, we discussed several alternatives with company staff, including the possible cancellation of the transaction. The company later changed that position and limited the solution to replacing the unit with a new one. After further steps, the company issued a partial refund and direct communication between the parties ended, as detailed in the timeline and current status. The case, however, continues through the courts and before the relevant authorities.
4. Disputed charges and documentary inconsistencies: During our subsequent review of the documentation, we detected differences and inconsistencies in the amounts associated with both transactions.

The company later sent sales notes, invoices and internal breakdowns. Those records include an item associated with maintenance, even though a free first service was advertised and offered as a commercial benefit during the sale.

The company has maintained that this item would be offset by internal discounts. However, in our view, the explanations provided do not resolve the inconsistencies. Despite the company's repeated attempts to justify the disputed charges, the final amounts still do not add up, and there is no documentation transparently supporting the differences.
5. Registration error on the Suzuki Swift's pledge: When reviewing the Suzuki Swift's registry certificate, we detected an additional pledge and prohibition to sell (prenda y prohibición de enajenar) in favor of a financial institution that actually corresponded to the other vehicle purchased.

The situation was reported to the company, which later stated it was processing the corresponding release.

6. Current status: On August 5, 2026, and after more than three months of claims and follow-up, the company issued a refund of approximately CLP $16,500,000. This allowed us to recover at least part of what was paid and brought the direct interaction between the parties to an end. However, this amount does not cover the total sum disbursed during the transaction, and therefore the case continues through the courts and before the competent authorities, in defense of the rights we consider to have been violated.

II. TIMELINE OF EVENTS

Date	Description of the event
16 Apr 2026	Gonzalo visits the Paicaví branch, while Doris takes part in the coordination by phone. A commercial benefit of a free first service and a fuel bonus tied to the “smart loan” is offered. It is stated that this loan could later be switched to a conventional loan through partial prepayment.
28 & 30 Apr 2026	A used vehicle is handed over as part payment, the remaining down payment is paid, and the first vehicle purchased, a Suzuki Swift GL 2026, is delivered.
~10 May 2026	Inquiries made to financial institutions indicate that switching from the smart loan to a conventional loan was not available under the terms described during the sale.
22 May 2026	The Suzuki Jimny is delivered late. At delivery, visible damage is detected on the hood and rear door. The dealership is notified immediately.
02 Jun 2026	The Jimny is taken in to the workshop. The repair is carried out without first providing clear, detailed information about the work to be done.
04 Jun 2026	An erroneous pledge is detected on the Suzuki Swift in favor of a financial institution linked to the other vehicle. A first partial response from the company to the filed claims is also received.
10 & 11 Jun 2026	The Jimny is inspected after the repair and the damage persists. Cancellation of the transaction is discussed, but the company later limits the solution to replacing the unit.
18 Jun 2026	The company responds formally, attaching sales notes and internal breakdowns, and reports the replacement of the Jimny unit and the process to release the Swift's pledge.
22 Jun 2026	The company refuses to refund amounts and provide financial compensation, maintains only the unit replacement, and states it will wait for stock or a shipment.
27 Jun 2026	There is still no firm delivery date for the new unit, nor a comprehensive solution regarding the other reported facts.
08 Jul 2026	The company reports that the new replacement vehicle, arrived in a shipment, is available and invites us to inspect it in order to approve the exchange and begin registering the new unit.
13 Jul 2026	The proposed vehicle is inspected. It is in good condition and better than the initial unit; however, wear with minor scratches is observed on the upper part of the hood, repairable by polishing.
14 Jul 2026	The new vehicle is accepted, on the condition that this wear be repaired before delivery.
20 Jul 2026	Given the toll of once again receiving a vehicle that required repair, the option of ending the transaction through cancellation of the purchase and a refund of the amount disbursed is raised with the company.
29 Jul 2026	We go to the branch to ask about the response timeframe. The company states it must validate the procedure with the financial institution and that it will respond on Friday.
31 Jul 2026	The company acknowledges an approximate amount of CLP $16,500,000 and offers to refund it within 5 business days, once the corresponding legal documentation is signed. That same day we reply, noting that the amount does not cover the total disbursed (prepayment, paid installment, down payment, insurance kept at the company's request, and discounts for handing over the previous vehicle), and that it would not be appropriate to condition the refund on a new signature, given that a prior sworn statement already annulled the first purchase.
03 Aug 2026	The company provides no response.
04 Aug 2026	We formally insist, warning that a claim will be filed, since — in our view — withholding and conditioning the refund on a signature is improper, given that the credit note had already been issued and full payment confirmed with the financial institution. The company states it will refund the amount within the following 10 business days.
05 Aug 2026	The company issues the refund of the reported amount. This brings the direct interaction between the parties to an end; the case continues through the courts, as the amount refunded is less than the total disbursed during the transaction.

III. PUBLISHED SUPPORTING RECORDS

To support this public complaint, only some relevant records are published, avoiding the disclosure of personal, financial or sensitive data. The complete documentation is safely kept and will be submitted to the competent administrative and judicial authorities. The supporting images are in Spanish, as they are the original records of the case.

1. Information provided about the loan during the sale

During the sales process we were told it was possible to take out a smart loan and later switch it to a conventional loan through partial prepayment.

This information was decisive in our accepting the transaction, since from the outset we made clear that we did not want to keep a smart loan or face a large final residual payment (a “cuotón”).

Published record: screenshot/excerpt of a conversation where this possibility is stated.

2. The company's formal response, records and disputed charges

After multiple claims and requests for information, the company sent records and internal breakdowns of the transaction. In that communication it also reported the replacement of the Suzuki Jimny unit and the process to regularize the erroneous pledge on the Suzuki Swift. However, these records were provided late and, in our view, did not resolve the observed inconsistencies.

Likewise, among the documents sent there is an item associated with maintenance, even though a free first service was offered as a commercial benefit during the sale. The company later maintained that this item would be offset by internal discounts. In our view, this explanation is neither sufficient nor clear, especially considering that the complete documentation was provided only after repeated insistence and claims.

Published record: excerpt of the formal email sent by the company, sales note/breakdown, and advertising offering a free first service.

3. Detail of the disputed charges

In its latest formal response, the company refused the requested refund of amounts and financial compensation, argued that there were no improper charges, and stated that its role in the financing had been only as an intermediary.

This response does not resolve, in our view, the main reported facts: the commercial information provided during the sale, the financial harm, the disputed charges, the advertising of benefits, the pledge error, the damage to the new vehicle, and the lack of a comprehensive solution.

Published record: excerpt of the company's final response email.

Evidence of the disputed charges detail 1

Evidence of the disputed charges detail 2

4. Claims filed with SERNAC

The facts were formally reported to SERNAC on several matters, including financing, disputed charges, delivery delay, vehicle damage and administrative errors.

Published record: receipts or excerpts of SERNAC claims, with personal data protected.

Note on the documentation:
The published images and excerpts have been edited only to hide personal, financial or sensitive data. The relevant content remains visible to support the described facts. The complete documentation is kept in full to be submitted to SERNAC, the courts or other competent authorities.

IV. FINAL REFLECTION

What should have been a simple purchase and a good experience ended up becoming a draining, frustrating and deeply unfair process that stretched on for more than three months.

Throughout all this time, and despite the number of facts we had to report — delivery delays, a new vehicle received with damage, disputed charges, commercial information that did not match what we were promised, and even a registration error on a pledge — the company, in our view, never took clear responsibility nor provided coherent explanations. On the contrary, we faced late responses, contradictory accounts and successive changes of position that forced us to insist again and again to obtain something that should have been resolved from the very first moment.

Over these months we have had to review contracts, request records, file claims, gather documents, log communications and chase responses that, in our view, should have been provided clearly and promptly. The refund finally obtained does not repair the full financial harm nor the enormous personal toll all of this entailed, which is why the case continues through the courts.

This public complaint does not seek to replace the formal channels already initiated, but rather to place our experience on record and to warn other consumers about the importance of reviewing every document before and after signing, especially in transactions involving auto financing, smart loans, commercial discounts, services offered as free, bonuses and sales notes.

We invite other consumers who have gone through similar situations to carefully review their contracts, breakdowns, registration certificates, pledges, prohibitions, credit terms and the commercial benefits offered.

If you detect irregularities, we recommend filing the corresponding claims with SERNAC and keeping all documentation, emails, messages, audio, photographs and receipts.

File a claim with SERNAC

I am Gonzalo Honorato, son of Doris. I write and publish this site to expose the situation our family has experienced during this purchase process.

Do you have information or questions?

If you have records to contribute, went through a similar situation, or need to get in touch, write to us at hola@gonzalohonorato.cl.

Note:
The purpose of this publication is to share our experience as consumers and to exercise our legitimate right to inform and to file complaints. It does not declare any person, whether an individual or a legal entity, guilty or liable. The determination of any liability rests exclusively with SERNAC, the courts of justice and the other competent authorities, to whom the records of the case have been and will continue to be submitted.

CONSUMER CASE INVOLVING AUTOMOTORA SERGIO ESCOBAR Y CÍA. LIMITADA