Added on -, by Reviewer1171236
Review: We wanted specialized service performed by knowledgable, trained technicians at a Chevy Service Center so there wouldn't be any guessing games by a mechanic who might know what was wrong. That was a mistake! The service department took our working vehicle that we drove to your shop, and returned it; not working and un-drivable. We authorized $300 to find out what was wrong. They requested more. We authorized an additional $200 totaling $500. They called back to inform us they had expended $900 and were done working on our vehicle. They said there were "gremlins in the wiring" and thought it had been struck by lighting, and told us to bring a trailer to pick up our vehicle in parts and they would only charge us the original $500.We said no, we are going to drive it away, because the vehicle should leave the shop after service in AT LEAST the condition it was brought to them. They said if they put it back together, they would charge the full $900 PLUS whatever labor costs incurred to put it back together, AND it still would not run, and we would still need a trailer to get it. We told them they could tow it to our house, but that we weren't going to pay anything, and we would be on a letter writing campaign if that was the decision they chose. They decided to tow it back to our house. They parked it (not in the driveway as we requested) but on the street (illegally I might add) and, now, because that request was not followed, the city has notified us that we are in violation of Williams Municipal Codes 10.32.270 and 10.32.050. We are unable to resolve the code violation issue because our once working vehicle now does not work thanks to the shops service.It is absolutely unacceptable for a customer to drop off a working Chevrolet vehicle to a Chevrolet Certified Service Department, only to have it returned dismantled or inoperable. There is simply no reason why a vehicle that worked when they received it should not be returned in at least that same condition.Desired Settlement: We hereby request that the service department come back, pick up our vehicle, return it to the condition it was in when we dropped it off - i.e. in working order - and that it be completed by August 31, 2014. If that is not able to be done; they need to compensate us the trade-in value of the vehicle as it was when we dropped it off to their shop because we would have used it as a trade-in for a new vehicle, and are now not able to. KBB value: $11,350.
The ******** vehicle arrived at our dealership sometime over the weekend of July 12th-13th as it was parked in front of our facility when I arrived to work on July 14th at 6:45am, no keys present. Keys were dropped off later. Mr. ****** called at approximately 11:30 am. We discussed the concerns the vehicle was having which I listed on the complaint line of our repair order number 332212 dated 7/14/14. Included but were not limited to interior and exterior lamps flicker/dim while driving, battery charge system error, service 4wd lamp on, service engine soon lamp on and multiple other warning messages on the driver's information center. All indicative of large electrical issue(s) occurring. Mr. ****** okayed the initial $300.00 estimate to perform the diagnosis. The technician pulled the vehicle into the shop and proceeded to attain diagnostic fault codes; there were in excess of 100 codes stored, also indicative of major electrical issue(s) occurring. During this preliminary inspection the vehicle lost all ability to communicate with our test equipment. Plugging in a scan tool did not cause the vehicle to become inoperable. It was just at that time, whatever was causing the issues that the customer brought the vehicle to us in the first place, magnified itself/themselves and caused the vehicle to not to start and not to communicate. The technician exhausted the time that $300.00 allows and at 10:50am on July 15th I spoke with Mr. ****** again and he okayed the additional $200.00. We discussed under normal circumstances that $500.00 is sufficient time to diagnose most concerns. The technician spent the additional time and then some, thus my statement regarding the $900.00. The hit by lightning question came from GM technical assistance (Case # ** * **********). Never did I insinuate the ******s would be responsible for additional monies we invested trying to get to the root cause of failure. We as a company invested this time to resolve the issues at hand with no expectations. Unfortunately when a vehicle loses the ability to communicate the repair facility has to resort to manually looking for shorts and or trying known good modules to diagnose the issues. GM has a 36 page document (#*************) that maps approximate areas to inspect if loss of communication occurs. We investigated them with no good results. (At this time all of the monies the customer had authorized and some of our own time and money had been exhausted).
Again never did I even hint that the customer would owe more that the the money they okayed for putting the vehicle interior back together after we had to remove some interior trim pieces to examine wiring looms. I called Mr. ******s to discuss our options. During our free inspection that we provide to most vehicles, we discovered the vehicle was low on oil. The engine in the ******s Tahoe is known for a piston and ring problem, I speculated that this engine combined with the electrical condition- we had yet to diagnose- repairs might exceed the value of the vehicle. Mr. ******s insisted I provide a complete dollar estimate for the repair of the vehicle which we could not do as root cause failure had yet to be determined, much less the damage that might have occured as a result of whatever failed. He was frustrated that after time and money we still had no answer, He asked to speak to my supervisor. After Mr. ******s and I got off the phone I contacted my local Bureau of Automotive repair agent and asked his opinion on our situation. He felt, based on my explanation of what took place, that we had committed no wrong doing and to simply zero out charges on our repair order and paying to have the vehicle towed at our expense would be a nice gesture. My supervisor was off for several days and we all finally spoke on I believe Friday the 18th in the morning. During our conversation the 3 of us (Mr. ******s, **** ********* and I) were unable to come to a resolution that was agreeable to all. We offered to waive the diagnostic fees as no complete diagnostics were provided (We could only advise on what the issues was not, based upon our investigations) and pay to have the vehicle towed to their home in Williams, an additional $250.00 fee to ********. We made arrangements with the customer's approval to have the vehicle towed on Monday 21st. Never in our conversations was there a stipulation as to where the vehicle was to be towed other than the customer's home. The driveway was not specified, in fact when questioned the tow operator stated that upon arrival to the home there was another vehicle parked int he middle of the driveway with insufficient room on either side to leave the Tahoe. The tow operator knocked on the door with no answer he had no other choice but to leave the vehicle where he did.
So in closing, while it is unfortunate that the ******** Tahoe is not currently operable it was simply in our possession when whatever was causing multiple failures, (that caused the ******** to have brought their vehicle to us in the first place) caused it to fail completely. The vehicle was not here because it was not running great with no problems. We feel that with the $500.00 fee for diagnostics waived and the additional fees paid to the tow operator of $250.00, we should not be responsible for any further monies or repair attempts.
Wittmeier Chevrolets stance on this matter remains unchanged, Thank you for your time and input.
August 26, 2014
Better Business Bureau
Attn: ******* ***** - Information Specialist
Revdex.com Northeast California
RE: Complaint #********
Dear Mr. ******
Thank you for working on our complaint against Wittmeier Chevrolet in Chico. I am rejecting the response from Wittmeier for multiple reasons. First is because I do not believe the following blanket statement can be made with actual certainty: "...it was simply in our possession when whatever was causing multiple failures, caused it to fail completely." In all reality, yes, the vehicle had a number of dash lights on, however, the vehicle had dash lights on for months prior to us taking the vehicle to the shop. We finally took our vehicle to the shop because we saved up enough money to get a diagnostic done on the vehicle to see if we were going to keep it or trade it in; not because it was running terribly. Consequently, from our perspective, the procedures that the technicians took while diagnosing the vehicle did, in-fact, completely disable the vehicle.
Next, there is inconsistencies with Wittmeier's rebuttal. They state that, "plugging in a scan tool did not cause the vehicle to become inoperable." However, in the very next sentence, he further explains, "...it was just at that time, whatever was causing the issues that the customer brought the vehicle to us in the first place, magnified itself/themselves and caused the vehicle to not start and not to communicate." So, I must contend that plugging in the scan tool, and any further actions taken, did in-fact magnify the issue/issues and cause the vehicle to become inoperable. Therefore, the vehicle was not only in their possession when it failed, but the actions that they took in their service of the vehicle caused the Tahoe to become inoperable. Further, I would suggest that, had we not taken our vehicle in for a diagnostic service, it would still be running with dash lights on today.
Also, in a phone conversation; ***** ****, and **** discussed towing the vehicle back to our house, **** noted that we were going to be out of town and to leave the Tahoe in our driveway. **** and I are aware of the City's Municipal Code 10.32.270 regarding parked vehicles for more than 120 hours; which is why he specified put the Tahoe in the driveway. Knowing our vehicle was being returned inoperable and we would not be able to move it, we did not want to be in code violation thus the reason for specifying - put it in the driveway.
We only owned 2 vehicles. The Tahoe was in possession of Wittmeier, and the second vehicle was parked on the street leaving our 3 car driveway completely empty providing ample room on the driveway for the vehicle to be parked. Even if there had been a vehicle in the middle of the driveway (which there wasn’t since our second vehicle was parked on the street) there still would have been enough room on both sides of alleged vehicle since it is a large 3 car driveway. According to the response from Wittmeier, the tow operator had “…no other choice but to leave the vehicle where he did.” That is also incorrect. He did not have to leave the Tahoe parked illegally on the street. The front tire is 18 inches away from the curb, and the back tire is roughly 20 inches from the curb leaving the vehicle in violation of Williams Municipal Code Section 10.32.050 which states a vehicle must be parked no further than 18 inches from the curb.
Our last issue is the fact that **** is being dishonest. He more than insinuated to **** over the phone that we would be responsible for the full $900 PLUS whatever labor fees it would take to put the Tahoe back together. He also told **** in their phone conversation on Thursday, July 17th, that he didn’t have a supervisor. In ****’s phone conversation with both **** and **** Wittmeier on July 18th, **** was never represented as ****’s supervisor, rather just another service manager / coworker of ****’s. In the response letter to our initial Revdex.com complaint, he is stating that his supervisor (**** Wittmeier) was off for several days, which completely contradicts what was said over the phone about not having a supervisor.
These are issues that **** and I feel strongly about, and, as the Better Business Bureau, you should feel strongly about them as well since your vision is: “An ethical marketplace where buyers and sellers can trust each other.”
And your mission is “… to be the leader in advancing marketplace trust. Revdex.com accomplishes this mission by:
Creating a community of trustworthy businesses
Setting standards for marketplace trust
Encouraging and supporting best practices
Celebrating marketplace role models, and;
Denouncing substandard marketplace behavior”
The Better Business Bureau website further goes on to define Trust as “…Say what we mean and mean what we say. Communicate with honesty and candor.”
Clearly, in all the dealings we have had with Wittmeier Chevrolet, we are not able to trust them, which brings us back to our root concern: We can not trust their blanket statement that the Tahoe “…was simply in [their] possession when whatever was causing multiple failures, caused it to fail completely." Rather, we feel that the technicians working on our Tahoe mistakenly broke our vehicle, and rather than owning up to it, they are denying any wrongdoing by simply removing the Tahoe from their shop and returning it to us inoperable, all the while, claiming that they have provided quality service at no cost. The service that they claim to have provided is as follows:
In actuality, the service we received was:
incomplete diagnostic at no charge
previously working vehicle returned in inoperable state at no charge
illegally parked vehicle
violation of two City Municipal Code Sections due to the parking of the vehicle upon return from the service center
So, as far as this issue is concerned, Wittmeier has not complied with the Revdex.com’s standard to “Honestly represent products and services, including clear and adequate disclosures of all material terms.” in their contact with us nor in their response letter to our initial complaint of 8/11/2014.
At this time we again, hereby request that the Wittmeier Service Department come back, pick up our vehicle, return it to the condition it was in when we dropped it off - i.e. in working order - and that it be completed by August 31, 2014. Or, if this request is not met, they may elect to pay us the trade in value of the vehicle as it was when it was driven in their shop: KBB valued at $11,350; as we may have very well used it as a trade-in on a new vehicle (or tried to sell it), but can do neither now that it is inoperable.
I thank you in advance for taking the time to review our case. If you have any questions, I can be reached by phone or email: ###-###-#### or j********************
******** ** *******