Anderson Carpet Cleaning Inc

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
 
Admittedly, my vehicle was "extremely soiled;" my mother understood this as the reason for being charged $200 for the gift certificate (as opposed to $150), as did I. I have had guardianship of my niece and nephew, have a son of my own, and provide in-home daycare services as a living. As I have stated, it is a much-used vehicle, both personally and professionally. I was given no warnings that because of the toys, food pieces, etc., my passenger side slider door might break during/after them detailing it, nor did they provide me with a waiver/disclaimer stating as much. 
 
I can understand that the plastic guide might be a common issue for this particular vehicle, and believe me, this is certainly good to know now. But the simple fact remains that when I dropped off to [redacted]'s my minivan, the door WORKED; when I picked it up, it DID NOT WORK. 
 
According to the business's response, "Mr. [redacted] was under the impression that the customer [myself] verbally agreed to [paying half of the repair]." As I stated in my original complaint, I had never been asked, by [redacted]'s NOR Central Paint & Body, about this solution until the work was already finished and I was told to pay more than $250. I authorized no such work, verbally, by signature or otherwise, and had I been consulted by Mr. [redacted] or Mr. Garner at Central Paint & Body, having this situation and proposed solution explained to me, I would have graciously accepted Mr. [redacted]'s offer to split the bill. Instead, they just proceeded and left me completely in the dark and with a $250+ bill, which I think even Mr. [redacted] himself could understand as being a major stressor. I did authorize Mr. Garner to put the old motor back in, again, not having any idea as to what was going on or what had been discussed between the two businesses. It seemed like the best idea at the moment. Further, Mr. Garner told my husband that the part would NOT be sent back, but would be at the shop should we ever change our mind and want it to be fixed. I think it's clear that there was a serious lack of communication between these two businesses and their communication to/with me, which may not be illegal nor outlined in their waivers, but it's unethical and unfair to customers who are left with a bad taste in their mouths from such business practices. And expression of distrust and unhappiness travels fast.    
 
The business's response says that it couldn't be proved that it had caused damage to the door, yet they accused, "the damage was most likely caused by a child’s toy." Well, this cannot be proven either, and at the end of the day, my vehicle is still broken, and I am still extremely dissatisfied and left with a vehicle that cannot be used to its fullest potential. No, an electronic sliding door is not a necessity, but it sure is convenient when loading and unloading, children especially. It's also one of the reasons why I even got this vehicle to begin with; I was really excited about and grateful for the feature. 
In my claim, I had requested that [redacted]'s fully pay for the replacement and installation of the part. Ideally, this would still be my request. However, I would concede, now being somewhat more in the circle of understanding as to how all of this happened, to split the cost with Mr. [redacted], but I would request to choose my own mechanic, a friend of my family who pities me regarding this whole MESS and said he would install it for free. 
Regards,
[redacted]

Response to Complaint, 
Our base charge for Minivans are $150. We charge an extra $50 for EXTREMELY SOILED vehicles. This was the case for this customer. This van had several small objects from children, i.e. Lego’s, Hard Candy, small toys. The Detail was...

performed and the door shut without any problems when the vehicle was pulled out of our shop for customer pickup. We received a call from the customer the next day and she stated her door would not open. Our technician asked her to make sure it’s unlocked, as we have had that happen before. The customer stated it was and it still wouldn’t open. The technician suggested waiting till the afternoon to see if moisture was built up in the electronics, which can happen if the customer leaves the vehicle shut up with moist carpets. The customer called later and said it still didn’twork. Mr. [redacted] suggested we have CP@B look at it to determine the problem. Mr. [redacted] stated if the problem could be determined beyond a doubt one of our technicians caused the problem he would take care of it. When inspected by CP@B, it was determined a very small plastic guide had broken, causing the cable to get caught up and damaged the motor. When CP@B attempted to order a new motor they could only locate 1 in the entire country. This made us call other mechanics and dealerships to question the resiliency of this part. We were informed by several shops that they replace these constantly due to bad design that is easily broken by small objects getting in the track. Even though we believed this was “damage beyond our control” as per our liability waiver, Mr. [redacted] offered to pay half of the cost for the repair. Mr. [redacted] was under the impression the customer verbally agreed to this. CP&B ordered and installed the part, and the door was in working condition. When the customer arrived to get the van from CP&B, the party stated they would not pay anything for the repair. CP&B removed the new motor, and put the old one back in, per the customer. Mr. [redacted] paid CP&B for their labor, but the part was returned. As per our work orders, we are not liable for damages beyond our control, and as we did not damage the door intentionally or with any of our equipment, and the damage was most likely caused by a child’s toy, and the fact we had the door repaired, but the customer had the old part put back on, we feel we are not responsible for any further action on our part.