C Harper Autoplex

Revdex.com 06-02-2015Customer Information [redacted] ***To whom it may concern:I understand that the customer is frustrated with the noises in his vehicleThe vehicleis a Cadillac with 78,miles on itThings wear outThe struts or the brakes didnot have to come apart to remove the transmissionThe struts were worn out that’s whywe recommended themAs the vehicle ages and gets higher miles on it I am sure morethings will wear outWe also replaced a rear panel in the vehicle that the customer statesthe third party shop damagedThat cost us about $dollarsYou have to do nothingin the rear of the vehicle to take out the transmissionThe customer did not even buy thecar hereWe do not have a transmission techWe could have easily sent them down theroad to the next dealership but we did notWe have paid for and done as much as we aregoing to do.Thank you [redacted] Service Director

While I do appreciate the apology for my inconvenience, the response by CHarper simply restates their position without any direct rebuttal to the specific issues raised in the complaintFrom my perspective, CHarper has chosen the easy road as a business entity by simply restating their original position without any supporting rebuttal or pertinent acknowledgement of the facts surrounding the complaintUnfortunately, their form of response was not unexpected given that any acknowledgement of wrongdoing would result in CHarper admitting fault in matters related to problems which developed after my vehicle was left in their possession, including their failure to properly diagnose the cause of the "new" front-end noise, and their subsequent recommendation to perform unnecessary repairs based on their misdiagnosis. Given the nature of CHarper's latest response, I see no practical way to resolve the complaint at this time and formally request that the Revdex.com maintain the complaint on file without formal resolution
Regards,*** ***

Revdex.comI.D *** * ***To Whom It May Concern: 07-09-2015After reviewing the last correspondence we continue to stand by our previousexplanation that the brake calipers and pads would not be affected during the removal,repair and replacement of the transmissionAs we have previously stated the vehicle is 4years old and has over 78,miles on itThe issues that were present are consideredwear and tear for a vehicle of this age and mileageWe do apologize for anyinconvenience experienced by Mr***.Thank You,*** ***Service Manager

The response by CHarper dated June 2, does not address the primary issues associated with the subject complaint, specifically that they returned the car to our possession with a "new" problem that did not exist when we dropped the car off for transmission repair, that they failed to properly diagnose the cause of the problem, and that they quoted us nearly $1,for unneeded repairsFurthermore, the response contains a number of misleading or statements as follows:
1. The response states that they "understand that the customer is frustrated with the noises in his vehicle." - This statement is misleading in that the primary frustration was with the "new" noises that did not exist before the car was dropped off for transmission repair
2. The response states that "the brakes did not have to come apart to remove the transmission." - This statement is misleading in that CHarper stated to us that *** *** failed to re-anchor the brake lines properly and that was the cause of the loud banging noises when we first returned the vehicle after the transmission serviceThis acknowledgement by CHarper is direct evidence that *** *** did disassemble the brakes to some degree when they worked on the carFurthermore, CHarper could not have any direct knowledge of the extent of brake disassembly unless they were present at *** *** when they were performing the work.
3. The response states that "the struts were worn out and that's why we recommended them." - This statement is since it was determined by a third party mechanic that the struts were fine. It is also misleading in that they quote the car's mileage as a contributor for them wearing out without considering the type of mileage the car has experiencedGiven its age, the car has been driven mostly highway miles which has much less of an adverse impact on the service life of struts than city miles
4. The response states that they "also replaced a rear panel in the vehicle that the customer states the third party damaged." - This statement is in that the complaint does not allege that *** *** caused the damageThe complaint simply states that the damage was new and CHarper repaired it.
5. The response states that "you have to do nothing in rear of the vehicle to take out the transmission." - This statement is misleading in that is related to the statement presented in Item #above. it should be noted that work was performed by CHarper on the interior of the vehicle on the same side the new interior damage was noted; that work was related to a recall for the driver's seat. From my perspective, who caused it is irrelevant and this particular issue was resolved to my satisfaction
6. The response states that "we have paid for and done as much as we are going to do." - This statement is misleading in that it has nothing to do with pertinent aspects of the complaint and infers that some form of compensation is sought through the filing of this complaint. The complaint specifically states that it is not about money. Furthermore, the acknowledgement by CHarper that they have done as much as they are going to do is irrelevant since the problem has already been repaired
Given the number of misleading and/or statements described above, I cannot accept CHarper's response as a form of resolution to the complaint. I can only hope that any further response offered by CHarper works toward the desired outcome as set forth in the original complaint filing.
Regards, *** ***

Revdex.com 06-02-2015Customer Information[redacted] [redacted]To whom it may concern:I understand that the customer is frustrated with the noises in his vehicle. The vehicleis a 2011 Cadillac with 78,440 miles on it. Things wear out. The struts or the...

brakes didnot have to come apart to remove the transmission. The struts were worn out that’s whywe recommended them. As the vehicle ages and gets higher miles on it I am sure morethings will wear out. We also replaced a rear panel in the vehicle that the customer statesthe third party shop damaged. That cost us about $200.00 dollars. You have to do nothingin the rear of the vehicle to take out the transmission. The customer did not even buy thecar here. We do not have a transmission tech. We could have easily sent them down theroad to the next dealership but we did not. We have paid for and done as much as we aregoing to do.Thank you[redacted]Service Director

The dispute for the damage on the vehicle is not between the customer and C. Harper, it is between the customer and Kia Motors Finance (###-###-####) as per pictures that are attached there was damage to the lease return which is in clear violation of the lease agreement signed at the time of...

purchase. Thank you for your consideration,David M[redacted]General Manager###-###-####

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below. The complaint was not about the vehicle damage!  And there was no damage, it was wear and tear on the tires and the charge was for tires and the disposition fee! The complaint was about the fact that we were told if we stayed with Kia we would not be charged for any of the wear and tear or a disposition fee under the Kia loyalty program!  Obviously we would have replaced the tires at a  much cheaper price ourselves had we known this information!  We were told a lot of wrong information and that is why I was asking for at least the disposition fee to be paid for!  I never got a response from CHarper when I emailed them and now it seems like they didn't even take the time to read the original complaint because I said nothing about disputing damage to the vehicle and I was not asking for the full about to be refunded, just the disposition fee of $400!  Maybe Charper should take the time to educate their sells team on what the clear policy for the Kia loyalty program is instead of just trying to make a sell!
Regards,
[redacted]

Review: We were told by C. Harper that if we leased or purchased a new Kia we would not have to pay any fees associated with our lease that we were turning in, so we stayed with Kia and purchased a brand new car. A few weeks later we received a bill for almost $1100 from Kia finance. When I called Kia finance we were told that the Kia loyalty program is only if you finance thru Kia which we were never told. We originally were going to finance thru Kia and were told that if we wanted a warranty to cover all the computer components of our vehicle we had to finance thru citizens so we did. When we called C.Harper they again told us it didn't matter who you financed thru under the Kia loyalty program we didn't have to pay the fees associated with the lease. We went back and forth between Kia and C.Harper and finally C. Harper said Kia must have changed their policy and basically said it didn't matter and there was nothing they could do for us because he told us that after we purchased our vehicle. Even though at least two people told us that before we purchased the vehicle but of course no-one will say they said it now and I guess we are liars!Desired Settlement: We would like to be refunded at least the $400 fee, if we were told the correct information we would have replaced the tires on our own and not have paid Kia's insane tire prices and would like to refunded the full amount however I fell at least the $400 should be refunded because we did stay with Kia and purchased a $43,000 vehicle. C.Harper didn't even apologize or offer us any type of compensation. I feel like they do not care about customer satisfaction or service at all!

Business

Response:

The dispute for the damage on the vehicle is not between the customer and C. Harper, it is between the customer and Kia Motors Finance (###-###-####) as per pictures that are attached there was damage to the lease return which is in clear violation of the lease agreement signed at the time of purchase. Thank you for your consideration,David M[redacted]General Manager###-###-####

Consumer

Response:

Review: C. Harper engaged a third-party repair shop [redacted] to repair a transmission problem with our 2011 Cadillac SRX in December of 2014. This was done because C. Harper stated that had recently lost their transmission technician. Upon returning the vehicle to our possession after approximately 7 weeks we noted new cosmetic damage to the interior of the car and abnormally loud banging noises coming from the underside and front of the car that did not exist when the car was left with C. Harper for repair. We returned the vehicle to C. Harper (in what was the first of three trips back) and they repaired the interior cosmetic damage and stated that the banging noises coming from the underside/front were due to the brake lines not properly being re-installed by [redacted] They also tightened the sway bar links alleging to us that [redacted]s did not put the car back together properly. Upon returning the vehicle to us (for the second time) the noises coming from the underside and front of the vehicle were much quieter, but remained. We returned the vehicle to C, Harper (in what was the second of three trips back) and they found that a heat shield was bent and they fixed it. Upon receiving the car back from C. Harper (now for the second time), we noted that they did quiet the noise coming from the underside (which presumably was the heat shield), but did not fix the noises coming from the front of the car. We returned the vehicle to C. Harper (in what was the third and final trip back for the same problem) and they stated that they "thought" it was the struts making the front end noise. After that diagnosis they quoted us a repair cost of approximately $1,500 to replace the struts and refused to repair the problem which we "inherited" from the work of their third-party repair shop, [redacted].

After C. Harper's refusal to repair the damage to our vehicle while in their possession and our refusal to accept their diagnosis and associated $1,500 repair cost, we picked up our car and expressed our dissatisfaction in their refusal to repair the car in writing via their standard comment card. To date, C. Harper has not reached out to us in response to our written expression of dissatisfaction even though they state repeatedly, both in person and in their paperwork, that their customer's "satisfaction is our #1 concern at C. Harper Auto Group."

In order to repair the damage caused to our vehicle while in C. Harper's possession, we took the car to a reputable local mechanic. He was able to diagnose the cause of the front end noise and it was, in fact, the brakes. It was determined that the anti-rattle clips holding the front brake pads were damaged, presumably by [redacted]. This damage allowed the brake pads to move up and down and "rattle" when the car would go over abrupt bumps. It was also determined that all of the suspension components, including the sway bar links and struts (which C. Harper proposed to replace), were fine. Had we accepted C. Harper's proposed resolution to pay approximately $1,500 to replace the struts, we would have still had the problem which, at the end of the day, cost us less than $100 to repair.

This complaint with the Revdex.com is not being filed because of money. Clearly, we have had to expend our own money to repair a problem that was caused by C. Harper (or more specifically their third-party repair shop). .This complaint is being filed because of C. Harper actions as they relate to failing to properly diagnose the damage caused by their third-party repair shop, failing to repair the damage caused while the vehicle was in their possession, and their subsequent attempt to charge us $1,500 for unneeded repairs. Lastly, they failed to honor their claim to make customer satisfaction their number one concern by not following up in any way after we sent in the comment card with our expression of dissatisfaction. From their inaction in following up with us we concluded that they did not care in any way about our satisfaction and, quite frankly, we expected much better business practices from a member of the Revdex.com.Desired Settlement: Practice what they preach! C. Harper's actions in my case are a clear violation of their stated commitment to customer satisfaction. Had they subscribed to their commitment to make my satisfaction their number one concern, they would have followed up with me in some manner after my last service visit. Perhaps a re-thinking of their business approach when it comes to satisfaction surveys would help. It seems that the level of effort given to "good" service appointments far exceeds the level of effort given to "bad" service appointments.

Business

Response:

Revdex.com 06-02-2015Customer Information[redacted]To whom it may concern:I understand that the customer is frustrated with the noises in his vehicle. The vehicleis a 2011 Cadillac with 78,440 miles on it. Things wear out. The struts or the brakes didnot have to come apart to remove the transmission. The struts were worn out that’s whywe recommended them. As the vehicle ages and gets higher miles on it I am sure morethings will wear out. We also replaced a rear panel in the vehicle that the customer statesthe third party shop damaged. That cost us about $200.00 dollars. You have to do nothingin the rear of the vehicle to take out the transmission. The customer did not even buy thecar here. We do not have a transmission tech. We could have easily sent them down theroad to the next dealership but we did not. We have paid for and done as much as we aregoing to do.Thank you[redacted]Service Director

Consumer

Response:

The response by C. Harper dated June 2, 2015 does not address the primary issues associated with the subject complaint, specifically that they returned the car to our possession with a "new" problem that did not exist when we dropped the car off for transmission repair, that they failed to properly diagnose the cause of the problem, and that they quoted us nearly $1,500 for unneeded repairs. Furthermore, the response contains a number of misleading or false statements as follows:

1. The response states that they "understand that the customer is frustrated with the noises in his vehicle." - This statement is misleading in that the primary frustration was with the "new" noises that did not exist before the car was dropped off for transmission repair.

2. The response states that "the brakes did not have to come apart to remove the transmission." - This statement is misleading in that C. Harper stated to us that [redacted] failed to re-anchor the brake lines properly and that was the cause of the loud banging noises when we first returned the vehicle after the transmission service. This acknowledgement by C. Harper is direct evidence that [redacted] did disassemble the brakes to some degree when they worked on the car. Furthermore, C. Harper could not have any direct knowledge of the extent of brake disassembly unless they were present at [redacted] when they were performing the work.

3. The response states that "the struts were worn out and that's why we recommended them." - This statement is false since it was determined by a third party mechanic that the struts were fine. It is also misleading in that they quote the car's mileage as a contributor for them wearing out without considering the type of mileage the car has experienced. Given its age, the car has been driven mostly highway miles which has much less of an adverse impact on the service life of struts than city miles.

4. The response states that they "also replaced a rear panel in the vehicle that the customer states the third party damaged." - This statement is false in that the complaint does not allege that [redacted] caused the damage. The complaint simply states that the damage was new and C. Harper repaired it.

5. The response states that "you have to do nothing in rear of the vehicle to take out the transmission." - This statement is misleading in that is related to the false statement presented in Item #4 above. it should be noted that work was performed by C. Harper on the interior of the vehicle on the same side the new interior damage was noted; that work was related to a recall for the driver's seat. From my perspective, who caused it is irrelevant and this particular issue was resolved to my satisfaction.

6. The response states that "we have paid for and done as much as we are going to do." - This statement is misleading in that it has nothing to do with pertinent aspects of the complaint and infers that some form of compensation is sought through the filing of this complaint. The complaint specifically states that it is not about money. Furthermore, the acknowledgement by C. Harper that they have done as much as they are going to do is irrelevant since the problem has already been repaired.

Given the number of misleading and/or false statements described above, I cannot accept C. Harper's response as a form of resolution to the complaint. I can only hope that any further response offered by C. Harper works toward the desired outcome as set forth in the original complaint filing.

Regards, [redacted]

Business

Response:

Revdex.comI.D [redacted]To Whom It May Concern: 07-09-2015After reviewing the last correspondence we continue to stand by our previousexplanation that the brake calipers and pads would not be affected during the removal,repair and replacement of the transmission. As we have previously stated the vehicle is 4years old and has over 78,000 miles on it. The issues that were present are considerednormal wear and tear for a vehicle of this age and mileage. We do apologize for anyinconvenience experienced by Mr. [redacted].Thank You,[redacted]Service Manager

Consumer

Response:

While I do appreciate the apology for my inconvenience, the response by C. Harper simply restates their position without any direct rebuttal to the specific issues raised in the complaint. From my perspective, C. Harper has chosen the easy road as a business entity by simply restating their original position without any supporting rebuttal or pertinent acknowledgement of the facts surrounding the complaint. Unfortunately, their form of response was not unexpected given that any acknowledgement of wrongdoing would result in C. Harper admitting fault in matters related to problems which developed after my vehicle was left in their possession, including their failure to properly diagnose the cause of the "new" front-end noise, and their subsequent recommendation to perform unnecessary repairs based on their misdiagnosis. Given the nature of C. Harper's latest response, I see no practical way to resolve the complaint at this time and formally request that the Revdex.com maintain the complaint on file without formal resolution.

Regards,[redacted]