American Publication

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the complaint appear below.I have uploaded further documentation with regard to this disputeI have reached out to the Merchant who has at this point not contacted me. I would like your help in resolving this matter. Please review those documents and assist me in bringing this matter to a close.
Regards,
*** *** Response to Merchant Letterll.D.#***April 25, 2018Dear Ms***,First let me thank you and your organization for making itself available to help amicably resolve disputes between customers and merchants.Please also be advised that per recommendations on the Revdex.com's website I did reach out by phone to the Merchant on the morning of April 24,Before continuing I should state here that I vigorously disagree with the Merchant on this issue, believing that he MrB*** has a fundamental misunderstanding of what this dispute is about.HoweverWhen I contacted the Merchants Place of business I was told by his associate that MrB*** was out with a customerI attempted to leave my name and phone number so he could contact me (As of this time he has not) and was immediately subjected to a defensive and combative responseThis individual began by informing me that I had no case and that I was wasting his timeHe then informed me, incorrectlyThat "this is now a Legal issue "because you had contacted the Revdex.com.I asked him to clarify that statement and informed him that he misunderstands how this process works I explained to him that a consumer contacts the Revdex.com to avoid making the dispute a legal issueHe ignored that and informed me, again incorrectly, that since Citicards had reversed the charge back on March 25th that I was wrong and he (AAmco) had won the disputePlease see the letter from Citicards dated March 27,of which I have included that clearly states that although they had come to a conclusionI had the right to contest by signing the letter sending in further information about this disputeI did so on April 9,I have included my response to Citicards with this letter(Subsequent to receiving the merchants response letter to the Revdex.com)I contacted Citicards Dispute resolution on April 25,and was told that indeed this dispute has not yet been resolved.I proceeded to inform this individual that his understanding of the Citicards Dispute process was incorrect and that they (Citicards) were in no way making a judgment on the merits of the caseBut only review the steps taken by the individual parties in the disputeThe process that they are bound to follow (A process outlined in the Mastercard Merchant Agreement) is thisIf a card holder disputes a charge it is conditionally removed by Citicards awaiting a response from the merchant's bankIf the merchant then disputes the creditThe conditional credit it is then reversed and it is up to the customer to contact the merchant or seek other remedies such as mediation or the use of remedies available under the consumer protection acts of their individual statesCiticards cannot make a judgement as to whether there was a misrepresentation at the time of the saleAll they can do is review the records to see if an authorized charge was made for the purchase of the product and then decide if that product was cancelled by the customer before being purchased by the MerchantCiticards has no way of knowing whether the Merchant did or did not misrepresent the need for that part or service to induce the client to make a purchase.Let me be very clearThis dispute is not simply about the purchase of a bumper coverWe all know that a bumper cover was purchasedThis dispute revolves around the fact that the purchase of the bumper cover and the necessity of other repairs were never required or necessary in order for this vehicle to pass PA State InspectionFurther, the gross misrepresentation that the bumper cover was "Badly Damaged" and hanging off the car and therefore needed to be replaced for the vehicle to pass PA State Inspection is clearly not the case as the photos of which I included with my initial complaint and again with this complaint clearly demonstrateIn addition, if you examine the photos you can plainly see that both the left and right marker lights are onThere is nothing wrong with either of them.It is my understanding that under PA State Consumer Protection Law Code Section P.S201-2(4).That when a consumer (layman) relies upon the expertise of the Merchant (Expert) that results in the sale of a product or service that is not neededThen the cost of the purchase of those parts or services should not be charged and be refunded to the customerBeing a layman the only way that I could know that the parts and services that were recommended by AAmco Total Auto care were not necessary was to have the vehicle re-inspected at additional cost to myself by another PA State authorized inspection stationI did just that four days after the Inspection was completed by AAmco(I have included a copy of that inspection report)I should also add, that the four day period between the time of the initial inspection by AAmco and the re-inspection by *** included a weekend and therefore it was impossible for me to get the vehicle re-inspected more expeditiously.As you may recall from my previous letterAccording to AAmco for the vehicle in question to pass PA State Inspection it would require the followingThe replacement of the front bumper cover; The replacement of the left turn signal assembly and; the repair of the right turn signalNot one of these required repairs were found necessary by *** AutomotiveBeing a Layman I can only rely on the expertise of the individuals doing the inspectionObviously, we have a substantial disagreement between professionalsHowever, from a logical perspectiveIf the repairs were indeed necessary what incentive would *** have in finding them unnecessary? Indeed finding that no repairs were necessary*** Automotive duty of care as a State Inspection Station would be to fail the car and recommend the repairs if they were necessaryIn addition, if the repairs were necessary would not *** want to make the sale of the parts and complete the repairs themselves ? After all, they are in the automotive repair business.MrB*** in his letter of response attempts to make a case that there is no way of knowing what may have been done to the car between the time AAmco Inspected the car and when it was re-inspected four days later by ***It unlikely that I would have, or even could have, somehow found a new bumper cover and signal lights (right and left) installed them myself and then took the car to *** so it could now pass inspectionWhat would be the point? Why not just let AAmco repair the car in the first place ? If those repairs were indeed necessaryThe fact of the matter is as demonstrated by the Inspection completed by ***Those repairs were not necessary nor needed and therefore should never have been represented as required in the first place.Finally, MrB*** aptly points out, that I was willing to pay for all the repairs upfrontThat is correctAnd certainly demonstrates my good faith and clearly shows that I expected to complete the repairs as recommended by MrB***It is only after finding through a re-inspection that those repairs were never necessary that I find my trust was misplaced.Due to the facts and circumstances of the dispute presented aboveI am requesting that the Merchant AAmco Total Car Care refund all monies charged to my Citibank Credit Card for all parts and services that have been shown to be unnecessary by the Inspection performed by *** Automotive.Sincerely,*** *** Enclosures:Citicards Letter of March 25, 2018Letter in Response to Citicards letter of March 25, 2018Photos Front Bumper and Marker Lights*** Inspection Report

I.D. # [redacted] Dear Ms.[redacted],Attached you will find all of the information that we submitted to Mr. [redacted] credit card company when he attempted to stop his payment to us. After reading this Information we hope you will see that Mr. [redacted] approved the ordering of the part that was non returnable...

after being advised repeatedly that the part cost was non refundable. We feel that by returning the labor payment to Mr. [redacted], which we did on our own, because we had not performed the labor to install the bumper cover, that we provided a fair return. Mr. [redacted] was the one who insisted on paying his entire bill up front, which would suggest that he knew that the part price was non refundable. For reasons only Mr. [redacted] can explain, he decided to not return to finish the inspection here at AAMCQ and took it elsewhere. We can not possibly know what work Mr. [redacted] may have had done between the Friday that he initially brought in his car to us for inspection and the Monday following when he called us and told us he would not be returning to finish the inspection because he had sold the car, yet took it elsewhere for an inspection at a different location?Mr. [redacted]s vehicle failed inspection because the front bumper cover was damaged and the left front turn signal would not secure to the bumper because the clips that hold ft onto the bumper were broken and the right front turn signal was not sealed and holding water in the lens. We also found his right rear brake light and left rear reverse light were inoperative. We discussed these concerns with Mr. [redacted] who agreed to have the front bumper cover with turn signal lenses replaced by us to complete the inspection but that if we ordered the bumper cover the part cost was non refundable because the part was non returnable from the supplier. Mr. [redacted] agreed to these terms and paid ail charges up front but then called us Monday February 19th to tell us he would not be returning to finish the inspection and that he had sold the car on Saturday February 17th. At that point we advised Mr. [redacted] that we would only charge him for the State and Emissions Inspection because we had performed that work and for the non returnable bumper cover and he agreed. In March we received a dispute summary from Mr. [redacted]s credit card company and provided them with the information I have attached and they agreed with us and did in fact find in our favor and returned the payment to us. Although it is unfortunate that this situation has developed, we advised Mr. [redacted] that the part cost was non refundable more than once yet he paid his entire bill up front and we properly reimbursed him for labor we did not perform. Any other payments that we were paid for were agreed to by Mr. [redacted].If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at [redacted].Thank You!Nick B[redacted]AAMCQ Total Gar Care[redacted] F 412-661-5570