We are sorry we have not been able to satisfy the concerns of existing damage on Mr***' *** ***We discussed with them that we video every vehicle to make a record of its condition before and after work is completed (in which we have their signature authorizing these videos)I have
sent a picture of the damage I was able to take off of the "before" video of their truck, and a picture of Mr*** kneeling and looking directly at the damage at the time he dropped off the truckObviously we take no responsibility for the preexisting damage on their truck, but still have offered the following to him in an effort to put this matter behind both of us: *Shown him the video's of proof that his vehicle was not damaged in our parking lot or damaged being put into our bay*Shown him the before video of his truck that clearly shows the damage was preexisting*Having our third party Paintless Dent Removal contact complete repairs and then helping with paint repair costs -Which he then called him directly and he will no longer complete the work for fear of being put in the middle ?Providing him with $for repairs (what our cost would be to have the repairs completed) * Offered to contact *** *** Repair (who they originally told us was the lowest estimate of under $1,000)for our price etcand they told us they would only accept if their choice of shop completed the work We feel we have gone above and beyond to satisfy Mr*** and regret we have not been able to do soPlease contact me directly with any questions or concernsI have also attached a picture showing that while two of our video systems state their times are off by approximately 20minutues, it is merely a technical errorMy cell phone is ###-###-####Kyle RCrandall, Owner - Ziebart Rhino Linings of Jamestown
We are sorry we have not been able to satisfy the concerns of preexisting damage on Mr. [redacted]' 2012 [redacted]. As discussed in our last letter to you - we video every vehicle to make a record of its
condition before and after work is completed; in which we have their signature authorizing these videos. I have sent a picture of the damage I was able to take off of the "before" video of their truck, and a picture of Mr. [redacted] kneeling and looking directly at the damage at the time he dropped off the truck.
Obviously we take no responsibility for the preexisting damage on their truck,
but still have offered
many options to him in an effort to put this matter
behind both of us. Mr. [redacted] claims we
could be using our after-service video to show the damage on their truck, implying that our business operates in an unethical manner. The video (that Mr. [redacted] did watch) clearly shows that services had not yet been performed. If we did not have overwhelming proof that the damage did in fact already exist,or any doubt that it could have happened on our property we would have immediately paid for the repairs in full. This is not the case, and we cannot in good conscience pay for repairs for damage that we were not at fault for. Please refer to the proof of preexisting damage we have already submitted and let us know if we can be of any
other help. Kyle R. Crandall, Owner - Ziebart Rhino Linings of Jamestown
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 statement given to you by Kyle R. Crandall, Owner Zeibart Rhino Linings of Jamestown is riddled with half-truths and error. The damage to my 2012 [redacted] was not existing when I took it to Zeibart for rust protection and a bed liner on Monday, October 19, 2015. I first noticed the damage on Tuesday, October 20, 2015, when I returned to Zeibart to pick up my truck. At that time before driving my truck home, I called the damage to the attention of Zeibart's employees Donna and 2 others. Donna showed me a still picture of the damage on their computer. However, I did not see the time that the picture of the damage was taken. It could have been from the routine after-service video. She claimed the picture was taken from the routine "walk around before-service" video. Donna said that she could not pull up the outside videos showing the truck's condition on arrival, because she did not have that expertise, but in the morning another employee would be there who had the ability to show the videos. I returned to Zeibart the next morning, Wednesday, October 21st, @ 8:15 AM, but was told the employee had not arrived yet. I came back @ 11:30 AM. Donna and the employee showed me a video which showed me driving my truck into their driveway, parking my truck, exiting my truck, inspecting my truck, and approaching their entrance. The video did show my driver's door opening after I parked my truck, and me exiting. I disappeared from view as I was inspecting the brand new running boards that had just been installed on my truck @ .2 mile down the road at [redacted]. In the video I disappeared from view for quite a while as I admired the new running boards on the driver's side. then, the video shows me coming around the front of my truck and looking at the end of the running board on the passenger's side. I was admiring how the end of the running board was welded so no moisture could enter and corrode it. Then, I approached the entrance to Zeibart. (As stated in my original complaint, I had just purchased the truck from [redacted] with under 14,000 miles. It was in excellent/new condition. Half the cost of the work done by Zeibart was part of the sales agreement. The running boards were installed just prior to delivering my truck to Zeibart on Monday, October 19th.) Donna communicated that the fact that I was looking at my running boards in the location of the present damage implied that the damage had already occurred. I responded that if there had been damage to my truck and running board at that time, I certainly would have returned to [redacted] where the running boards had just been installed, so it was actually proof that there was no damage when I brought the truck to Zeibart. I left Zeibart with the issue unresolved as Zeibart denied responsibility for the damage. I was in [redacted] for the next 4 days from Thursday, October 22nd - Sunday, October 30th. When I returned home, I secured estimates to fix the damage: [redacted] and Repair $1,342.75; [redacted]'s Collision $1376.00; and [redacted] gave me an estimate to replace the dented running board $381.63. On Friday, October 30, 2015, my wife and I went to Zeibart @ 4:00 PM to present them with the estimates and to show them a draft of our complaint to the Revdex.com. We spoke to Kyle Crandall at that time. We told him we wanted to see all the videos of the truck and that the time of the videos would be important. He said he could not show us the videos until his brother came in to access them, so we made an appointment to return at 4:00 PM on Monday, November 2, 2015. When we returned at 4:00 PM on Monday, November 2nd, Kyle showed us the video of my arrival at Zeibart that I described above and also video of a Zeibart employee driving my truck into their garage. The times on the 2 videos indicated that they drove my car into the garage 20 minutes before I arrived. When my wife pointed this out, we were shown no more video and Kyle told us the videos were still down loading onto their computer and had been for 3 hours prior to our arrival. We were shown no video or pictures that showed my truck had damage. Kyle did offer to have his paintless dent removal man look at our truck, but since the paint on the truck is cracked we knew that would not be a feasible solution. Kyle wanted me to leave my truck at Zeibart so the dent removal man could look at it. There was no way that I wanted to leave my truck at Zeibart again. However, I learned in the days to follow that my preferred collision shop, [redacted]'s also used the same dent removal man, [redacted]. I had [redacted] look at the damage at [redacted]'s, and [redacted] said he could not remove the dents and make it look the way it should because of the dents' location. Kyle has made no further offers to resolve this situation. I will be faxing the estimates that I have referenced above. Obviously, Kyle's response stating the [redacted] estimate is less than $1,000.00 is incorrect, and the difference between [redacted] and [redacted], our preferred body shop is only $33.25, though Kyle implied in his statement that we were being unreasonable.
Regards,
[redacted]
We are sorry we have not been able to satisfy the concerns of existing damage on Mr***' *** ***We discussed with them that we video every vehicle to make a record of its condition before and after work is completed (in which we have their signature authorizing these videos)I have
sent a picture of the damage I was able to take off of the "before" video of their truck, and a picture of Mr*** kneeling and looking directly at the damage at the time he dropped off the truckObviously we take no responsibility for the preexisting damage on their truck, but still have offered the following to him in an effort to put this matter behind both of us: *Shown him the video's of proof that his vehicle was not damaged in our parking lot or damaged being put into our bay*Shown him the before video of his truck that clearly shows the damage was preexisting*Having our third party Paintless Dent Removal contact complete repairs and then helping with paint repair costs -Which he then called him directly and he will no longer complete the work for fear of being put in the middle ?Providing him with $for repairs (what our cost would be to have the repairs completed) * Offered to contact *** *** Repair (who they originally told us was the lowest estimate of under $1,000)for our price etcand they told us they would only accept if their choice of shop completed the work We feel we have gone above and beyond to satisfy Mr*** and regret we have not been able to do soPlease contact me directly with any questions or concernsI have also attached a picture showing that while two of our video systems state their times are off by approximately 20minutues, it is merely a technical errorMy cell phone is ###-###-####Kyle RCrandall, Owner - Ziebart Rhino Linings of Jamestown
We are sorry we have not been able to satisfy the concerns of preexisting damage on Mr. [redacted]' 2012 [redacted]. As discussed in our last letter to you - we video every vehicle to make a record of its
condition before and after work is completed; in which we have their signature authorizing these videos. I have sent a picture of the damage I was able to take off of the "before" video of their truck, and a picture of Mr. [redacted] kneeling and looking directly at the damage at the time he dropped off the truck.
Obviously we take no responsibility for the preexisting damage on their truck,
but still have offered
many options to him in an effort to put this matter
behind both of us. Mr. [redacted] claims we
could be using our after-service video to show the damage on their truck, implying that our business operates in an unethical manner. The video (that Mr. [redacted] did watch) clearly shows that services had not yet been performed. If we did not have overwhelming proof that the damage did in fact already exist,or any doubt that it could have happened on our property we would have immediately paid for the repairs in full. This is not the case, and we cannot in good conscience pay for repairs for damage that we were not at fault for. Please refer to the proof of preexisting damage we have already submitted and let us know if we can be of any
other help. Kyle R. Crandall, Owner - Ziebart Rhino Linings of Jamestown
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 statement given to you by Kyle R. Crandall, Owner Zeibart Rhino Linings of Jamestown is riddled with half-truths and error. The damage to my 2012 [redacted] was not existing when I took it to Zeibart for rust protection and a bed liner on Monday, October 19, 2015. I first noticed the damage on Tuesday, October 20, 2015, when I returned to Zeibart to pick up my truck. At that time before driving my truck home, I called the damage to the attention of Zeibart's employees Donna and 2 others. Donna showed me a still picture of the damage on their computer. However, I did not see the time that the picture of the damage was taken. It could have been from the routine after-service video. She claimed the picture was taken from the routine "walk around before-service" video. Donna said that she could not pull up the outside videos showing the truck's condition on arrival, because she did not have that expertise, but in the morning another employee would be there who had the ability to show the videos. I returned to Zeibart the next morning, Wednesday, October 21st, @ 8:15 AM, but was told the employee had not arrived yet. I came back @ 11:30 AM. Donna and the employee showed me a video which showed me driving my truck into their driveway, parking my truck, exiting my truck, inspecting my truck, and approaching their entrance. The video did show my driver's door opening after I parked my truck, and me exiting. I disappeared from view as I was inspecting the brand new running boards that had just been installed on my truck @ .2 mile down the road at [redacted]. In the video I disappeared from view for quite a while as I admired the new running boards on the driver's side. then, the video shows me coming around the front of my truck and looking at the end of the running board on the passenger's side. I was admiring how the end of the running board was welded so no moisture could enter and corrode it. Then, I approached the entrance to Zeibart. (As stated in my original complaint, I had just purchased the truck from [redacted] with under 14,000 miles. It was in excellent/new condition. Half the cost of the work done by Zeibart was part of the sales agreement. The running boards were installed just prior to delivering my truck to Zeibart on Monday, October 19th.) Donna communicated that the fact that I was looking at my running boards in the location of the present damage implied that the damage had already occurred. I responded that if there had been damage to my truck and running board at that time, I certainly would have returned to [redacted] where the running boards had just been installed, so it was actually proof that there was no damage when I brought the truck to Zeibart. I left Zeibart with the issue unresolved as Zeibart denied responsibility for the damage. I was in [redacted] for the next 4 days from Thursday, October 22nd - Sunday, October 30th. When I returned home, I secured estimates to fix the damage: [redacted] and Repair $1,342.75; [redacted]'s Collision $1376.00; and [redacted] gave me an estimate to replace the dented running board $381.63. On Friday, October 30, 2015, my wife and I went to Zeibart @ 4:00 PM to present them with the estimates and to show them a draft of our complaint to the Revdex.com. We spoke to Kyle Crandall at that time. We told him we wanted to see all the videos of the truck and that the time of the videos would be important. He said he could not show us the videos until his brother came in to access them, so we made an appointment to return at 4:00 PM on Monday, November 2, 2015. When we returned at 4:00 PM on Monday, November 2nd, Kyle showed us the video of my arrival at Zeibart that I described above and also video of a Zeibart employee driving my truck into their garage. The times on the 2 videos indicated that they drove my car into the garage 20 minutes before I arrived. When my wife pointed this out, we were shown no more video and Kyle told us the videos were still down loading onto their computer and had been for 3 hours prior to our arrival. We were shown no video or pictures that showed my truck had damage. Kyle did offer to have his paintless dent removal man look at our truck, but since the paint on the truck is cracked we knew that would not be a feasible solution. Kyle wanted me to leave my truck at Zeibart so the dent removal man could look at it. There was no way that I wanted to leave my truck at Zeibart again. However, I learned in the days to follow that my preferred collision shop, [redacted]'s also used the same dent removal man, [redacted]. I had [redacted] look at the damage at [redacted]'s, and [redacted] said he could not remove the dents and make it look the way it should because of the dents' location. Kyle has made no further offers to resolve this situation. I will be faxing the estimates that I have referenced above. Obviously, Kyle's response stating the [redacted] estimate is less than $1,000.00 is incorrect, and the difference between [redacted] and [redacted], our preferred body shop is only $33.25, though Kyle implied in his statement that we were being unreasonable.
Regards,
[redacted]