Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/12/21) */
As stated in my response letter to Ms*** on 9/14/15, we thoroughly evaluate each of our trade ins and ensure they are in proper working order when they leave our dealershipWhen this was delivered, our technician did have to return to
town to fill with gas, but he then drove the pontoon across the lake to the cabin and it was in working conditionI then received a letter from Ms*** indicating they had spent over $1,in repairs to the motor for items such as a drive shaft, carburetor, and cablesShe never once notified us that she had issues with the pontoon or motor, yet she sent us invoices demanding reimbursement for repairs made at a different repair shopI do not feel that the repairs that were made to her motor by the repair shop were warrant-able repairs for us to coverMy opinion is that if the repairs truly were something that we should cover and she believed that they issues were due to something we should cover, she would have communicated with us immediately at the time of the issues rather than sending us an invoice months laterWe cannot speak to the credibility of the repair shop who made the repairs and if the replacement parts they installed were even neededShe made mention of not having a way to transport the pontoon to the repair shop so she incurred costs with having it transported, yet she knew we were capable of transporting it to and from our shop because at the time of purchasing the pontoon and motor, we delivered it to her lake for no charge
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2015/12/29) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
Having already pointed out to Channel Marine all of this information I will restate the essence of itTheir evaluation consisted of an evaluation check sheet that we were never told of, shown or given at the time of purchaseNow having received a copy it is clear to see that this is a simple, undated, superficial list that proves nothing about the operationIt is true that upon delivery the technician was able to drive it across the lake, after he put some gas in itThough it was hard to start we were able to drive it across the lake a couple of times during the next few days before we observed the gas leaking into the lakeWe were never told of or given the day 50/warranty that Channel Marine later referencedWe tried to remedy the problemsHad we been informed of this warranty that would have been the logical choice
Obviously there are arguments reflecting opposing perspectives on this matter and neither wants to be considered to be negligentThere remains a need for resolutionChannel Marine's acknowledgement of having some responsibility would be the place to begin
Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2016/01/06) */
As stated earlier in our reply, since we were never notified of the issues with the pontoon until a letter was sent to us months after the purchase of the unit, we are unable to reimburse for any invoices incurred at a totally different repair shopWe cannot verify that the issues she incurred were any responsibility of ours since the pontoon was delivered in working condition and driven across the lake for deliveryFurthermore, we cannot be certain that the repairs made by the other repair shop were even necessaryWe focus on service of our customers before and after the sale and do everything in our power to warrant our inventory and our service work, but our customers must first contact us and let us know they are experiencing issues so we can take care of them-not contact another repair shop and have them make the repairs and then expect us to pay for themHad we been notified of the issues when they arose, we would have picked up the pontoon at our expense, made the necessary repairs, and then delivered it back (again at our expense) to the customer to keep them satisfiedSince we were not notified until months later, we cannot be certain that the issues were not due to misuse by the customer and therefore do not feel liable for the repairs made by the other repair shop
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/12/21) */
As stated in my response letter to Ms*** on 9/14/15, we thoroughly evaluate each of our trade ins and ensure they are in proper working order when they leave our dealershipWhen this was delivered, our technician did have to return to
town to fill with gas, but he then drove the pontoon across the lake to the cabin and it was in working conditionI then received a letter from Ms*** indicating they had spent over $1,in repairs to the motor for items such as a drive shaft, carburetor, and cablesShe never once notified us that she had issues with the pontoon or motor, yet she sent us invoices demanding reimbursement for repairs made at a different repair shopI do not feel that the repairs that were made to her motor by the repair shop were warrant-able repairs for us to coverMy opinion is that if the repairs truly were something that we should cover and she believed that they issues were due to something we should cover, she would have communicated with us immediately at the time of the issues rather than sending us an invoice months laterWe cannot speak to the credibility of the repair shop who made the repairs and if the replacement parts they installed were even neededShe made mention of not having a way to transport the pontoon to the repair shop so she incurred costs with having it transported, yet she knew we were capable of transporting it to and from our shop because at the time of purchasing the pontoon and motor, we delivered it to her lake for no charge
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2015/12/29) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
Having already pointed out to Channel Marine all of this information I will restate the essence of itTheir evaluation consisted of an evaluation check sheet that we were never told of, shown or given at the time of purchaseNow having received a copy it is clear to see that this is a simple, undated, superficial list that proves nothing about the operationIt is true that upon delivery the technician was able to drive it across the lake, after he put some gas in itThough it was hard to start we were able to drive it across the lake a couple of times during the next few days before we observed the gas leaking into the lakeWe were never told of or given the day 50/warranty that Channel Marine later referencedWe tried to remedy the problemsHad we been informed of this warranty that would have been the logical choice
Obviously there are arguments reflecting opposing perspectives on this matter and neither wants to be considered to be negligentThere remains a need for resolutionChannel Marine's acknowledgement of having some responsibility would be the place to begin
Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2016/01/06) */
As stated earlier in our reply, since we were never notified of the issues with the pontoon until a letter was sent to us months after the purchase of the unit, we are unable to reimburse for any invoices incurred at a totally different repair shopWe cannot verify that the issues she incurred were any responsibility of ours since the pontoon was delivered in working condition and driven across the lake for deliveryFurthermore, we cannot be certain that the repairs made by the other repair shop were even necessaryWe focus on service of our customers before and after the sale and do everything in our power to warrant our inventory and our service work, but our customers must first contact us and let us know they are experiencing issues so we can take care of them-not contact another repair shop and have them make the repairs and then expect us to pay for themHad we been notified of the issues when they arose, we would have picked up the pontoon at our expense, made the necessary repairs, and then delivered it back (again at our expense) to the customer to keep them satisfiedSince we were not notified until months later, we cannot be certain that the issues were not due to misuse by the customer and therefore do not feel liable for the repairs made by the other repair shop