APAC Paving

Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 17, 2017/08/11) */ Received business response by email Attn [redacted] Case # [redacted] The vehicle in question was purchased from Connell Chrysler Dodge thru our Preowned lot at its former location in Berwick NSOnce we received the complaint we reached out to the customer and invited her down to have the safety inspection redoneThe car was checked by our mechanics at no charge and found to pass provincial inspectionAfter informing the customer of this she proceeded to let us know that the car had recently failed inspection at another garage due to issues with the rear brakes and front strutsWe re check both of these areas and found the rear brakes did pass as presented, but appeared to have uneven wear and did not look to be a match setWe replaced the pads at no expense to the customer as a goodwill gestureThe technician also looked at the front struts, they were covered with what appeared to be undercoating and it was raining that dayIt was determined that they could not be failed because there was no obvious signs of leaking and they were wet from the rainWe cleaned the undercoating off the struts and asked the customer to return in week to have them re inspectedWe told the customer that we would replace them no charge if it was found they were leaking on re inspectionWe followed up with the customer after one week and left a voice mailThe customer did not return our call but arrived at the dealership and informed me that she had purchased struts that were nearly new at a salvage yard and a friend of hers was going to replace themI again stated that I was willing to take the car into the garage and properly inspect the struts and replace if required no charge to herShe stated that she wanted to have her friend replace them and did not want to have the car properly diagnosed by usI proceeded as goodwill to reimburse the customer for the money she paid for the struts As to an issue with the registration we reimbursed the customer plus extra money for having to go to the registry to get a copy of her registrationShe contacted me on this issue several months ago and we more than reimbursed her for the cost of the registration at the time The vehicle was purchased as is and no warranty or guaranteeThe customer was advised of this and was given the option to take it to her own mechanic prior to purchase but declined [redacted]

Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 8, 2015/09/21) */ We have reviewed the case and feel it was reasonable to charge the customer for checking his vehicle's cruise controlThe customer did sign a repair order authorizing us to check the operation of his cruise control to find out why it was not workingAt no point in time did we state that these services would be provided free of charge In regards to the customer's request for a print out of the alignment, we do have a copy on file which he can obtain from our service manager Initial Consumer Rebuttal / [redacted] (3000, 10, 2015/09/23) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) I accept the alignment response however I do not accept the cruise control responseI did sign a repair order but that order did not state that it would cost money to check the cruise controlAt no point in time was I told that the service was free of charge however I was not ever not that it would be done with a chargeTherefore I do not accept the response and am still asking for a refund for checking the cruise control [redacted] Final Business Response / [redacted] (4000, 12, 2015/09/28) */ Although a specific charge amount was not discussed, we did not offer to do the diagnostic for freeWhen signing and authorizing the diagnostic work order, the customer if concerned about a charge should have inquired at that timeI feel we are within our rights to have charged the customer for the diagnosticWe will refund the customer the $**[redacted] for the diagnostic and the $*[redacted] shop supplies associated with the diagnostic despite feeling the customer is taking advantage of the system designed to resolve legitimate concerns

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 17, 2017/08/11) */
Received business response by email
Attn. [redacted]

Case # [redacted]

The vehicle in question was purchased from Connell Chrysler Dodge thru our Preowned lot at its former location in Berwick NS. Once we received the complaint we...

reached out to the customer and invited her down to have the safety inspection redone. The car was checked by our mechanics at no charge and found to pass provincial inspection. After informing the customer of this she proceeded to let us know that the car had recently failed inspection at another garage due to issues with the rear brakes and front struts. We re check both of these areas and found the rear brakes did pass as presented, but appeared to have uneven wear and did not look to be a match set. We replaced the pads at no expense to the customer as a goodwill gesture. The technician also looked at the front struts, they were covered with what appeared to be undercoating and it was raining that day. It was determined that they could not be failed because there was no obvious signs of leaking and they were wet from the rain. We cleaned the undercoating off the struts and asked the customer to return in 1 week to have them re inspected. We told the customer that we would replace them no charge if it was found they were leaking on re inspection. We followed up with the customer after one week and left a voice mail. The customer did not return our call but arrived at the dealership and informed me that she had purchased struts that were nearly new at a salvage yard and a friend of hers was going to replace them. I again stated that I was willing to take the car into the garage and properly inspect the struts and replace if required no charge to her. She stated that she wanted to have her friend replace them and did not want to have the car properly diagnosed by us. I proceeded as goodwill to reimburse the customer for the money she paid for the struts.

As to an issue with the registration we reimbursed the customer plus extra money for having to go to the registry to get a copy of her registration. She contacted me on this issue several months ago and we more than reimbursed her for the cost of the registration at the time.

The vehicle was purchased as is and no warranty or guarantee. The customer was advised of this and was given the option to take it to her own mechanic prior to purchase but declined.



[redacted]

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 8, 2015/09/21) */
We have reviewed the case and feel it was reasonable to charge the customer for checking his vehicle's cruise control. The customer did sign a repair order authorizing us to check the operation of his cruise control to find out why it was not...

working. At no point in time did we state that these services would be provided free of charge.
In regards to the customer's request for a print out of the alignment, we do have a copy on file which he can obtain from our service manager.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 10, 2015/09/23) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I accept the alignment response however I do not accept the cruise control response. I did sign a repair order but that order did not state that it would cost money to check the cruise control. At no point in time was I told that the service was free of charge however I was not ever not that it would be done with a charge. Therefore I do not accept the response and am still asking for a refund for checking the cruise control. [redacted].
Final Business Response /* (4000, 12, 2015/09/28) */
Although a specific charge amount was not discussed, we did not offer to do the diagnostic for free. When signing and authorizing the diagnostic work order, the customer if concerned about a charge should have inquired at that time. I feel we are within our rights to have charged the customer for the diagnostic. We will refund the customer the $**.** for the diagnostic and the $*.** shop supplies associated with the diagnostic despite feeling the customer is taking advantage of the system designed to resolve legitimate concerns.