Frenchy's Auto

To whomever it may concern,This letter is in response to the complaint filed by Mr. David [redacted] with theRevdex.com, whom purchased a vehicle from my dealership at the beginningof August 2016. As a dealer for the past 27 years, I confidently stand on my record andbehind the product I sell...

to the public. As of July 2015, my company has retailed over8,000 vehicles, and to date I hold an A rating with the Revdex.com. Mr.[redacted]’ arbitrary complaints over his purchase state that now after having his vehicle forthree months the inspection now needs updated. The inspection station Mr. [redacted] dealswith has quoted him a very broad figure of $2,000-3.000 of work needed on thesuspension just to pass inspection. I find it very peculiar that Mr. [redacted] could drive avehicle, unbeknownst of any symptoms or problems, for an entire three months with$2,000-3,000 worth of supposed preexisting suspension problems. In my professionalopinion, a vehicle with that dollar amount of necessary suspension work would not evenbe drive able. I say this with a level of confident certainty because prior to my 27 years atmy company I spent 13 years as a professional mechanic for Oldsmobile and Chevrolet,for a substantial amount of time as the shop foreman in charge of any and all auto repairs.I personally feel that this claim against my company borders on absurdity. I do not meanfor the statements made in my response to come across with any amount of arrogance. Isimply take pride in my business and the vehicles that I work so very hard to procure. Ithink that it would be in Mr. [redacted]’ best interest to seek out a second opinion perhapswith a more reputable shop having greater ethics and a higher level of honesty.Sincerely Yours,Robert T[redacted]Owner

Review: I am filing this complaint against [redacted]s Auto, [redacted] ###-###-####. I am also noting that [redacted], PA; ###-###-#### is the automotive repair shop that performs maintenance and inspections on cars sold by [redacted] and makes repairs according to orders from [redacted]'s. This complaint is based upon the fact that [redacted] sold us a car that is not in the condition he stated it to be and he, in his collaborative relationship with [redacted] Automotive, used a falsified Pennsylvania state inspection to secure this transaction. My husband made numerous attempts to work this problem out with [redacted]s and [redacted] and they refuse to address the issues appropriately. We called in PennDOT Department of Transportation, Vehicle Emissions Inspection and Safety auditors, and they performed a referee inspection on the car, and determined a faulty inspection was performed. The car (1) failed for emissions, and (2) failed for safety. According to PA state inspection and emissions auditor's, [redacted]'s/[redacted] placed junk-yard parts on the vehicle to repair the emissions problem; my husband was told new parts were being ordered. The emissions problem is still outstanding and we have had to replace all four brakes. A report will be available from PA state inspection and emissions once it has been filed; should be within the next couple of weeks. All parts have been photographed and are in the possession of the state. [redacted] guaranteed the car would be properly inspected and we relied upon that information in making the purchase. There should have been full disclosure about brakes and the emissions problem but PA auditors state: The emissions monitors for the emissions components were not set. These components were, in fact, not ready for testing. Rather than do the work and perform the job cycle to ready the components, [redacted]s and/or [redacted] Automotive issued a 5000 exemption (auditor's say illegally) to avoid repairs.Desired Settlement: My husband made every attempt to resolve this with [redacted]'s. We are in the process of making the necessary repairs. We want a full refund for the purchase price of all parts for emissions, and four sets of brakes and plus labor. Repairs have started, we will have receipts for all parts and labor but emissions is to be determined. A total for all work will be provided so we are putting the cost of purchase plus trade value as disputed amount at this time - our cost is much higher.

Business

Response:

See attached File

To whom it may concern,

I am writing this letter concerning a complaint filed with your

organization with the ID#[redacted]. On 8/22/13 Mr. and Mrs. [redacted] made a purchase

of an Infinity 135. At that time the car just came in and had no Pennsylvania state

inspection and the check engine light was on. 1 never retail a vehicle to the public

without a N EW Pa. inspection regardless of the sticker that was on the car when I

got it. My dealership does not have a service department and all service is

subletted to other service shops. 1 have service done at either Critchlow Service

Center, [redacted] Auto or [redacted] Automotive. I have used these three repair shops

for MANY years and have not had any complaints up till now. I am in no way

affiliated with any of these businesses financially or contractual 1. As a matter of

fact. 1 don't even know the last name of the owner of [redacted] Automotive but I know

that his staff of mechanics are quite professional and knowledgeable in their

profession.

When the [redacted]s decided to purchase this car. they left a "good faith”

deposit of $100.00 and the car was sent to [redacted] Auto for the necessary inspection

and repair of the cause of the check engine being on. Please look at the mileage

and date on the invoice that 1 received from [redacted] Auto. There was 128,856 miles

on the car at time of inspection. As one can see, the check engine light issue was

addressed also at that time. This invoice is marked with a large # 1. As with all

vehicles that I have sold over the 23 years that I have owned this business, I

PERONALL re-road tested the car prior to deliver the car to the buyer. During

this final road test the check engine light came back and the car was returned to

[redacted] Auto for further diagnosis. Please inspect the invoice marked with a large #2.

Please note the miles on this invoice is 128.904. At this time the camshaft sensor

was replaced I personally road tested his vehicle again for another 45 miles and

all was well when they picked up their purchase on 8/22/13. A week later. Mr.

[redacted] called my office to notify me that the check engine light came back on

and he. took the Infinity to his Mechanic for diagnosis. 11 is mechanic also told him

that the brake rotors were defective. This greatly concerned me and 1 asked Mr.

[redacted] to come to my office and we would BOTH drive to [redacted] Auto and look

at this ourselves. Upon arrival at [redacted] Auto Mr. [redacted] said that his mechanic

diagnosed the check engine light was the evaporator box and the owner of [redacted]

Auto, myself and Mr. [redacted] personally inspected the brake rotors and were told

that were perfectly normal. 1 authorized the replacement of the evaporator box at

an additional expense of $235.00. Please inspect invoice marked with a #3. Mrs.

[redacted] states that they made numerous attempts to rectify this problem. That

accusation is completely False. I only saw Mr. [redacted] once concerning this matter and

that was the day 1 asked HIM to come down to my office and we would Both go to [redacted]

Auto and get to bottom of this. On our drive back to my office I called the local parts

store to price new Rotors. This was the last and only time I spoke to him. Mrs. [redacted]

was not present and I never spoke with her. Please examine I [redacted] Auto Parts invoice

marked with a #4. The total costs to replace all four rotors cost only$ 120.54. I started this

company on January 7,1990 and as of July 1. 2013 1 have retailed to the public 8.031 cars

and have an A+ Revdex.com rating! It is completely absurd that I would risk

damaging my reputation as a Christian businessman for $120.54 Up until this letter from

the B B B I had no inkling that there was a DMV investigation going on concerning the

inspection done at [redacted] Automotive. I thought that all was well after I authorized the

$235.00 repair for the evaporator box. I have not seen the DMV report and neither has

[redacted] Auto. Mrs. [redacted] makes mention that she has not seen it either. However in The

[redacted]s defense, if the DMV report claims that [redacted] auto was erroneous concerning the

brake rotors then I would be more than happy to reimburse them the cost of rotors. After

all I would have had to replace them the first time. Concerning her claim of a 5000

exemption, 1 must say that I never heard of that and had to google that term. Dealers do

not qualify for a 5000 exemption. I harbor no animosity toward MRS. [redacted]'s stinging

and slanderous remarks concerning my business practices. I have rights too and took this

matter up with two attorneys in my church. I understand that her emotions got the best of

her. However I will use this format to state that I will pursue litigation for slander and

defamation if she and the B B B do not remove these allegations from my stellar record.

Reading her complaint, her verbage is accusing me of collusion to what may be illegal.

By posting this on the internet she and all involved in posting this to the net is willfully

inhibiting my ability to provide for my family. My business has no .say or control over

what another business does. If a doctor writes a script for a CT scan and the hospital

screws it up how is the doctor to blame. Her own mechanic had his hands in this

Consumer

Response:

First, I take very seriously the fact that [redacted] has issued a direct threat in the attempt to intimidate us out of our right as consumers to file a complaint with the Revdex.com. We do have the right to seek the assistance of the Revdex.com in our attempt to resolve the highly dissatisfactory experience we have had in the purchase of this vehicle; the vehicle we purchased from [redacted]’s. As such, I am the co-owner of this car, was present during every moment of negotiations and the final sale of the car and therefore have a clear understanding as to what took place. In addition, I am equally responsible financially for the cost of the extensive repairs we have had to make to the vehicle since the purchase.

I make no assumptions about what French did or did not know about the 5,000 mile exemption. I am reporting on the facts as they took place following the purchase of the vehicle. This complaint is not about my emotional state, which as a trained professional is not consistent with my credentials, and this actually has nothing to do with the question as to whether he knew or knows anything about an exemption. We purchased a vehicle in a serious state of disrepair and now, as a result of this complaint [redacted] does know that there is a problem; that is the purpose of the Revdex.com.

I do stand behind the facts as I presented them in my original complaint. After having the car examined by one mechanic my husband took the vehicle to [redacted] with [redacted], as he acknowledged in his response, and at that time [redacted] stood by the original inspection. In [redacted]’s presence the [redacted] employee who reexamined the vehicle stated that the brakes passed inspection. During the visit to [redacted] with [redacted], my husband stated that he was going to have the car examined by yet another mechanic; not our regular mechanic but a third party in making it clear that he was not satisfied. [redacted], at no time offered to pay for a replacement of the brakes during that visit; not in the shop in the presence of the [redacted] employee and not in the return ride with my husband. [redacted] told my husband to work directly with [redacted] to have the repairs for the emissions parts performed but there was no offer to pay for brakes at that time. He stated that he would have [redacted] order parts and complete the repairs for the emissions parts. My husband reiterated that he was not happy about the brakes and would be taking the car to a third mechanic which we did only to receive the same recommendation that brakes had to be replaced. In fact, we were told not to drive the car. [redacted] made it clear to my husband that they were not authorized to replace the brakes and were not willing to do so.

As a result, we contacted Pennsylvania State Inspection and Emissions and they performed a referee inspection with a mechanic who had not previously inspected the car and had no prior relationship with us. This was highly inconvenient for us because during this process we were unable to drive the car and PennDOT did note the mileage. When two state auditors and two mechanics inspected the car, they told us the car failed for safety and emissions. Not only did we learn that the brakes failed but according to the referee inspection the two emissions parts [redacted] put on the car, the Charcoal Canister, and the Vent Valve Solenoid were from a junk yard which is determined by specific markings that are placed on junk yard parts. Both of those parts were bad (the canister was leaking fluid) and we have incurred the additional expense of replacing both parts. We have been told that the report from that referee inspection can be obtained through PennDOT. We did not choose to get the assistance from the state. This was a royally unpleasant and burdensome situation but we had no other choice.

Frankly, it is of no concern to us whether [redacted] knows anyone at [redacted] by name; he now knows that there is a serious problem. I will grant him that he did tell my husband to deal directly with [redacted] for the emissions repairs. Now, if, following the conversation with my husband, [redacted] did in fact order [redacted] to replace the brakes and [redacted] failed to follow that order then [redacted] now has the opportunity to examine the relationship with [redacted] and decide whether he wants to deal with them or not. That is of no concern to us. What we are concerned with is now, as a result of learning about this problem through this complaint, whether [redacted] will decide to take this opportunity to make this situation right and cover the cost of repairs. We purchased this car from [redacted]’s not [redacted]. We drove the car off of the lot believing it was a good car but it was not. I have no reason to doubt [redacted] when he says this bothers him; I will take him at his word that his conscience is offended at this state of affairs. And if [redacted] simply did not follow his order to make all of the necessary repairs as he contends; then he will decide to cover the cost of the repairs; both - for the junk yard parts, that had to be replaced again, and the brakes which we also had to replace.

Business

Response:

I am writing this letter response to a complaint filed with your department

by [redacted]. Enclosed is a letter that she has sent to

the Pa. attorney general’s office concerning this matter. Please read her letter care

fully as she begins to reveal the truth in her own words. I have highlighted the

parts that directly contradict her accusations in her first letter to the Revdex.com.

I. Her mechanic does not wish to be named. WHY IS THAT?

2. When the check engine light came on days after an attempt was made to repair

this issue, [redacted] auto asked them to return to their shop as she states to CHECK

ONE MORE THING. She stated that they made NUMEROUS attempts to

resolve this problem. In her own words she stated that she decided to get the

Pa. inspection people involved and not return to [redacted] Auto as asked by that

shop. You would not treat your doctor that way if he could not diagnose your

illnesson your first visit. WOULD YOU? ATTEMPTS WERE made by [redacted]

to satisfy thu [redacted]s but SHE decided to invite a bureaucracy of govern

ment into this matter It is now

the end of October and WHERE IS THIS REPORT that she keeps referring to?

3. The use of sallvage parts is standard procedure in All forms of mechanical re

pairs from whether the military, Airlines, automotive, and railroads. Look in

your household Yellow Pages under auto parts and you will find literally a

hundred salvage yards. It is IMPOSSIBLE for a new car store to stock parts

for all the makes and models that they sell What is sold today most likely will

be outdated in six months and not compatible for use with existing parts. THIS

WOULD BE A LOGISTICAL NIGHTMARE to try and stock every part.

4. Why did the Pa inspection officers investigate [redacted] Auto and not my company?

THE ANSWER IS CLEAR. It is common sense that Walmart has no say in

how Target conducts their business. The same holds true With [redacted] Auto and

my company. If the Pa. inspectors thought for a second that there was

criminal collusion to rip the [redacted]s out of a $120.00 in parts, they certainly

would have come to my dealership.

5. LASTLY and most disturbing to me are the personal assaults that she makes

concerning my faith and what she calls religious TOTEMS that are on the

walls of MY office! REALLY? REALLY? I think that these statements

made by her are a reflection to the kind of person that I am dealing with. I

honestly feel that no matter what you do for her l will never make her happy or satisfied.

Consumer

Response:

The response provided is not acceptable and does not in any way address the issues we have identified. First, as I have stated on numerous occasions, there were two separate mechanics who examined the brakes. My husband took the car back to [redacted]

upon his request and the two of them drove the car to [redacted]. While at [redacted], [redacted] made no attempt to have the rotors repaired and has produced a receipt for rotors dated October 1, 2013; well after we initiated this complaint. He stood by the assessment of [redacted] that the brakes were fine. At that time, my husband made it very clear that he would have the car examined by a third mechanic which we did. It was after [redacted]'s refusal to have the rotors replaced that we were forced to have the car examined by a third mechanic; upon the assessment of that third party, we were forced to seek help from the state. The original mechanics who looked at the car merely advised us to have the rotors and emissions parts replaced; they were not acting in an official capacity but they did tell us the car was not safe to drive. It was Pennsylvania State Auditors who, by the authority of PennDOT, examined the car and issued findings detailed in their report. It was Pennsylvania State Auditors, who, by the authority of PennDOT failed the car for safety.

Second, the junk yard parts placed on the car never passed inspection; the PA auditors report reveals that the car also failed for emissions after the junk yard parts had been placed on the car. Again, Pennsylvania State Auditors failed the car also for emissions.

"[redacted]" suggests that he has nothing to do with this matter. However, as the owner of the vehicle, it was his financial responsibility to cover any costs associated with replacing parts and labor; costs [redacted] would have incurred in performing the work. [redacted] was not authorized to perform any work on the car without [redacted]'s approval as the owner of the vehicle. After we purchased the vehicle and found these issues, we took the car back to [redacted] within days to address the problems and it was his decision ultimately as to whether the rotors and emissions parts would be replaced. He made the decision not to do so which left us with no choice.

Again, we purchased the car from [redacted]'s; not from [redacted] and even though it was difficult, time consuming, and very inconvenient to go to the state, it was a good thing that we did because had we not done so, we would have placed the safety of our family at risk had we continued to drive the car in the state it was in at the time of purchase.

It is [redacted] who has numerous times within his own statements, made references to his faith as the guide by which he runs his business. However, it is clear from his last reply that [redacted] does not intend to make this situation right. Considering his own words, his response to this entire situation is highly disappointing. This is not the experience one should have in purchasing a vehicle; there should not be such a tremendous struggle in seeking to have problems responsibly addressed that should have been taken care of in the first place and without question.

Finally we have not fabricated this story. I repeat as the report shows; Pennsylvania State Auditors, by the authority of PennDOT failed the car for safety and failed the car for emissions; not our mechanic. As a result, we had to pay for the repairs [redacted] refused to cover. We are merely filing this report in our attempt to receive fair treatment from [redacted].