Paul E. Witmer Garage

January 24, 2016Dear Sirs:In response to complaint ID of ***:As the customer states, the car was presented for Pennsylvania Safety InspectionIt was determined that the front brake pads and rotors needed to be replaced due to brake pad de-laminationAlso the right-handball joint had play and
therefore was rejected for InspectionThe customer declined these repairs,The customer also described the car as having an automatic transmission shifting issue, which did not present itself to usThe customer did tell us not to pursue this issue; however, during a road test in preparation to return the car to the customer, a misfire was detected in cylinder #(which the customer had described as a shifting problem)A new coil was installed in cylinder #and no misfire was detected on the next road testThe cost of the coil was $We determined it logical to leave the part on the car, rather than remove it and have the customer drive the car with a misfire.After taking the car, the customer called and stated that a "plastic covering had been broken while at our facilityShe was told to bring the car back so we could examine the part before committing to replace the partThe car was never returned to allow us to examine the part.We are not attempting to take advantage of the customer, but do feel it is only reasonable to examine the part before committing to providing a replacement part.Sincerely,Leon H

January 24, 2016Dear Sirs:
In response to complaint ID of ***:
As the customer states, the car was presented for Pennsylvania Safety InspectionIt was determined that the front brake pads and rotors needed to be replaced due to brake pad de-laminationAlso the
right-handball joint had play and therefore was rejected for InspectionThe customer declined these repairs,
The customer also described the car as having an automatic transmission shifting issue, which did not present itself to usThe customer did tell us not to pursue this issue; however, during a road test in preparation to return the car to the customer, a misfire was detected in cylinder #(which the customer had described as a shifting problem)A new coil was installed in cylinder #and no misfire was detected on the next road testThe cost of the coil was $We determined it logical to leave the part on the car, rather than remove it and have the customer drive the car with a misfireAfter taking the car, the customer called and stated that a "plastic covering had been broken while at our facilityShe was told to bring the car back so we could examine the part before committing to replace the partThe car was never returned to allow us to examine the partWe are not attempting to take advantage of the customer, but do feel it is only reasonable to examine the part before committing to providing a replacement partSincerely,Leon H

December 17, Dear *** ***:
Response to complaint # *** As per customer’s claim the customer’s ** *** was serviced at our facility, on December 12, The service requested by the customer required the vehicle to be raised on a hoistBefore raising the
vehicle, the technican noticed a crack in the lefthand lower portion of the windshieldFollowing the service work, (which was not in the vicinity of the windshield) it was noted that the crack had traveled.Because of a pre-existing crack, we feel we are not responsible to replace/repair the windshield at our expense.Included is a signed statement from our customer stating the crack pre-existed his submitting his vehicle to our service facilityThis fact was not disclosed in his complaint to Revdex.comRegards,
Leon H

Review: We brought my wife's car in for regular maintenance and to investigate a clicking sound. We were told that the problem might be a timing belt due to the age of the car so we gave the garage permission to correct that problem. Upon further investigation we were told that it was not the timing belt it was in fact the crank shaft which we were told was worn and needed to be replaced. We asked for an estimate on the cost and were told that with parts and labor it would cost about $1,500. We decided to have the garage complete the work. While they were completing the work they informed us that we should consider a new clutch which would be an additional $200-300, for a total of an $1800 at the top end estimate. We agreed to the work. When my wife picked up the car, the bill was $2,238, or $438 more than the estimate. My wife paid the bill and began driving home. She made one stop about 2 miles from the garage and noticed a puddle of liquid on the pavement, but assumed that it was from the air conditioner since it was a very hot day. When she arrived home she again saw dripping liquid but assumed it was the air conditioner again. The following day she drove the car about one mile and the dashboard lights came on saying that the car was over heating. She stopped the car and when she opened the hood she observed coolant fluid leaking from a pipe near where the engine work was performed. We called the garage and they admitted that this pipe was not broken when we brought the car to them, and that it was damaged by them while they were working on the car, however they also stated that we would need to pay an additional $87 for the part and an estimated $100 in labor for them tho fix the car that was now not drivable unlike when we brought the car to them originally.Desired Settlement: I think that the garage should fix the pipe that they damaged and not charge us for the labor.

Business

Response:

Please see attached response.