Aamco Transmissions

Delay in services and unsatisfactory repair service.On February 4, 2013, my husband brought my car to AAMCO to have the transmission repaired (it had been repaired 2 1/2 yrs. ago by them). Throughout the weeks following my husband called to check the status of the vehicle repair. He was frequently told that they were waiting on a part. The car was finally ready for pick up on Monday, March 11. We immediately felt that the car was still having problems. A week later my husband called AAMCO concerned that the car was still having transmission problems. He was told to bring the car back. On Monday, March 25, we had the car towed to AAMCO because over the weekend it stopped running. I called Tuesday to check on the car and I was told it would be ready Friday, March 29. When I called Friday to find out what time the car would be ready, I was told it wouldn't be ready until Tuesday, April 2, because they were waiting for a part. On Tuesday, my husband called to ask what time the car would be ready and he was told that the part had arrived and the car was on the lift and would be ready Wednesday. As much as we have tried to be patient and understanding, it's been really frustrating dealing with this business. Not having my car has been a great inconvenience, but worst of all is the excuses we keep hearing and no apology. We waited to file a complaint because it's not what we wanted to do. At this point we feel we need a third party to help us with this situation. We appreciate your support with this matter.[redacted] and [redacted]Desired SettlementWe would like a refund for the service provided. Business' Initial Response Contact Name and Title: [redacted]Contact Phone: XXX-XXX-XXXXContact Email: [redacted]While I generally don't dispute the facts contained in the complaint, before responding to it I would like to provide some important additional information that will help to provide a more balanced perspective on the issue at hand.The transmission in the complainant's vehicle was originally built at my shop in October of 2010 when the vehicle odometer was registering 81,074 miles. The transmission was rebuilt and carried a 12 month/12,000 mile warranty. At that time, the complainants had the option to upgrade to a 36 month, 36,000 mile warranty for an additional charge but declined to do so.The vehicle returned to the shop 27 months later,on February 4, 2013, with a suspected transmission failure. At that time the odometer was reading 110,816 miles (an additional 29,742 miles), placing the vehicle out of warranty by 15 months and 17,700 miles. Despite the fact that the vehicle was so far out of warranty, I offered to do a complete rebuild for just the price of the parts; I would not only eat the labor cost but would also provide a 36 month, 50,000 mile warranty at no extra cost. The combined labor and extended warranty on this transmission would normally cost over $1,400. The complainants accepted my offer and we proceeded with the repair.Once the transmission was rebuilt and installed back in the vehicle, we found that the engine was running so poorly that it was all but impossible to properly road test the vehicle. We ended up taking a significant amount of time to diagnose and correct the problems with the engine and get it to the point that we could actually verify that the transmission was functioning correctly throughout its entire operating range. We are not an engine diagnostic shop so this process took longer than we would have liked. However, the complainants were not charged for any of the additional time spent correcting the engine-related issues with the vehicle.During the period the vehicle was under repair, the complainant's husband would call for periodic updates. At no time did he express any concern or make us aware that having the vehicle in the shop was creating a significant inconvenience for him and/or his wife. He was always polite, patient and courteous when he called. On one occasion I explained to him that the transmission work was completed but we were having problems trying to correct the poor running of the engine. He seemed entirely satisfied with my explanation.A couple of weeks after taking delivery of the vehicle, the complainants had it towed back in with a suspected transmission problem. When the transmission was removed and disassembled, it was found to be extensively damaged inside. One of the new parts that we installed had failed resulting in extensive damage to adjacent components. I decided to source replacement parts from a different vendor in case the failed part was one of a batch of similarly defective parts. Unfortunately, this resulted in a delay of a couple of days. Once we were in receipt of the necessary parts, they were immediately installed in the transmission and the transmission installed in the vehicle. The vehicle was then returned to the complainants. These repairs were carried out under warranty. AS a point of observation, the vehicle was in the shop for 8 workdays which is not considered unusual for a major transmission repair.In addressing the specifics of the complaint I would like to first apologize for the inconvenience that the complainants have experienced. It was never our intent to keep the vehicle in the shop any longer than is absolutely necessary but sometimes things don't always go as planned and delays are the inevitable outcome. I have sent a letter of apology to the complainants and hope that they accept my apology as being sincere. In addition, I have now acquired a loaner car to assist customers who may have a need for transportation while their vehicles are being repaired.As far as the Desired Resolution is concerned, and while I accept that the complainants have been subject to some inconvenience, I feel that their request for a "refund for the service provided" is disproportionate given the facts of the case. I provided them a heavily discounted service when I had no obligation to do so, spent a significant amount of additional time correcting an engine problem that was not of my doing, provided a comprehensive warranty upgrade at no additional cost and have incurred significant additional expense replacing parts in a transmission that was driven to a standstill when it should have been returned to the shop immediately it became apparent something was wrong.I feel, given the circumstances, that I have acted in good faith and in the best interests of the complainants. I hope they can see their way to being accepting of this.Consumer's Final Response (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)Thank you for your response. I understand the initial warranty confusion was my problem. At no time did I expect you to repair the transmission for free. I was only questioning a rebuilt transmission lasting barely 2 ½ years. You also did not explain your statement , "I provided them a heavily discounted service when I had no obligation to do so?" You said this job would normally cost $1400, yet you charged me $1500. You also did not explain the engine problem you blamed the delay on. I also never received any explanation as to why the transmission failed after the 2nd rebuild. I do not think it is unreasonable for me to expect a completely rebuilt transmission to last more than the 29,742 miles my wife drove the car, let alone have it rebuilt 2 times more at an additional cost of $1500. My only expectation was to have a car I can depend on once it's fixed. If this transmission fails again I expect a full refund so I can take the car to another shop.Business' Final Response Contact Name and Title: [redacted]Contact Phone: XXXXXXXXXXI have to admit to being a little confused as to why the complainant thought he had a 3year 36,000 mile warranty on his vehicle from the original repair in 2010. On the 2010 repair order it very clearly states "AAMCO RECONDITIONED TRANSMISSION WITH AAMCO 12 MONTH/12,000 MILE LIMITED WARRANTY" The same repair order also states that a 36 month/36,000 mile extended warranty can be purchased for an additional charge of $315.00. There is no record on the repair order,(or any other repair order for that matter) of the extended warranty having been purchased by the complainant. My experience with the manager at the time, [redacted], was that he was very thorough in explaining to customers their warranty coverage and also the various warranty options available at additional cost. I have no reason to believe he was any less thorough when dealing with the complainant.As a point of observation, the repair order for the repairs completed in 2013 clearly states on its face "AAMCO RECONDITIONED TRANSMISSION WITH AAMCO 36 MONTH 50,000 MILE LIMITED WARRANTY AT THE SPRINGFIELD MA.LOCATION". Clearly, there is little if any room left for misunderstanding on the length of warranty coverage.As far as the complainants assertions regarding "poor quality work" are concerned he should consider the following. Whenever a transmission is repaired at my facility, the repair is covered by a warranty that includes all parts and labor. The parts covered include the parts that we install during the repair in addition to all other parts inside the transmission. If one of the original manufacturer's parts fails more than 2 years after we repair the transmission, it can hardly be considered poor quality work; it's nothing more than failure of an original factory installed part. Similarly, if I am repairing a transmission that is to be covered by a 3 year, 50,000 mile warranty, does the complainant really believe that I would install inferior quality parts given that when they fail I will have to cover the cost of the repairs out of my own pocket? Once again, I sincerely regret the inconvenience that the complainants have experienced with the repairs on their vehicle and wish things had turned out differently. Most of the repairs we do are completed in a timely manner and without any unnecessary inconvenience to customers but sometimes due to factors beyond our control we suffer unavoidable delays. We strive to keep these instances to a minimum.