Auto Service House LLC

This is in response to [redacted]... again. We are sorry you feel the way you do but if you are worried about safety and the way that somebody does something, maybe you shouldn't have had a "fly by night" mobile mechanic mess your car up badly. We have witnesses from [redacted], also a reputable business, and mechanics at our shop who can attest to the whole story. We are a very reputable business that we run here. If you didn't like the service we performed, trying to help you in desperate need, then you shouldn't be taking your car to a professional mechanic shop, just keep having the mobile mechanic take care of you because there are a lot of professional auto shops out there that would not even touch your car the way that it came into our shop for. So shame on us for helping you out in a time of desperate need.

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
Auto House has failed to make any headway in a resolution nor has this company presented any admittance to any wrong-doings. Due to the nature of the replier’s responses, it is safe to assume that the above issues will not have a happy ending either way. This conclusion is solely based on the premise of the said replier’s “blame game” responses and lack of a professional demeanor. Having said this, I typically would not bother responding to such “childish” rebuttals given by the responder, but, due to the nature of the situation, future clients should know the amount of chaos and horrible service that this company has provided. To start, this hopefully final response, [redacted] and my friend (the “fly by night mechanic” as Auto House has referred to) were both entities in which I was hoping to not to bring into this formal complaint on your company, having said this, you , whom I shall assume is the owner and/or the manager of Auto House, has decided to mention their names and, henceforth, has obligated me to further describe the wrong-doings, unethical and unprofessional behavior and corruption that I have thus witnessed at your establishment and the above mentioned entities involved in the situation leading to such situation. On May 19th, I purchased two tires (through a third party) and ask the two associates at [redacted] to put them on the rear of my car. Complications with the tire size created the need for [redacted] purchase specific hardware to proceed (a specific tool to remove a stripped star nut and an additional lug nut). While waiting on hardware to put on the tires. my friend (who, the responder to this complaint has, unjustifiably, labelled as a “fly by night” mechanic, although no payment was received and he was visiting for the sole purpose of accompanying me while I was strained at the establishment) stopped by and attempted to assist with the handling of the tires (in which I had obtained verbal approval by by [redacted]) my friend, given he is my friend, not once received payment nor was he able to fix the issue on hand.  On this date, a [redacted] associate accidentally sold my tire to another passing customer while I was waiting which thus served for the action of [redacted] having to keep my vehicle on the lift over night until a replacement tire and parts could be found. Although frustrated by this mistake made by this company, I went home with my friend that night to continue handling the vehicle the next day. May 20th, I arrived back to [redacted] in which I was presented with anxiety-filled employees who were concerned that their manager would be irate in finding that my vehicle was on the lift for over 24 hours. This is when Auto house became involved. Auto house was conveniently next door to [redacted] and the OWNER of Auto house offered to take my vehicle to his establishment next door and remove the stripped bolt and put in the new bolt to complete my tire change, so that the employees  at [redacted] would not suffer any sort of reprimand from their manager. I accepted this transferring of my vehicle on the given contingency that the new associate that would handle my vehicle would change this bolt for free to assist his friends. After three hours of awaiting my bolt to be replaced at this new location, (in which, twice I came back to the establishment to check on the status of my vehicle, in which, I suppose, I wrongfully assumed  would be a 20-30 minute project and no progress had been made) the job was finally completed. The owner, then, requested to do a test drive, which I felt uncomfortable allowing, but resisted acknowledging this concern. Mr then, sped off and I heard a metal scraping sound. When the owner returned, I voiced my concern, in which I received the response to the like of there being no worries or concern about the sound but to get a car wash. Upon the clear “brushing of the shoulder” attitude presented to me, I was then advised that the procedure given was no longer to remain free, and I would owe $220. I disputed this, as I was told differently at the beginning of transferring my vehicle.  When I began to explain this, I was told that my vehicle would be repo’d if I did not given the establishment the requested fee amount or provide an unjustified amount of documents (i.e. pictures of my car keys, the VIN for my vehicle, photos of my license plates, driver’s license, bank accounts, registration etc.). Due to the substantial amount of information being requested of me and threats of the secure placement of my vehicle, I reluctantly made a payment to the shop and proceeded to leave. About one mile proceeding my leave of the said establishment, the scraping metal sound I had heard before on my vehicle, had continued, and a fear for my safety struck my concern.  I drove back to the Auto House at 5:05 pm (the shop closes at 5:30 pm) to, again, voice my concern for my safety and the concern for my passengers (as my primary income source is through a ride sharing company. The owner advised me at this time that his shop was to close at 5:30 pm and refused to check on the vehicle and to drive home to handle the matter on Monday. I took note of the fact that there were many car lifts empty and and advised, again, that me and my passengers for the weekend (typically the highest amount of requested ride volume) and pleaded for a wrench to at least tighten the rim caps on the vehicle which the owner did not put on. At this time, he followed me outside. I glanced over to see something appearing to be a firearm on [redacted]’s right hip. I left the premises before I could get a second look to confirm this was an intimidation attempt by potential force.   My findings upon the inspection? Now remember, before driving my vehicle to [redacted], my vehicle was operable and safe and simply needed a tire exchange in which a striped bolt needed to be removed. Once the inspection was completed, it was found that all four tires were below 25 psi with the max pressure rating at 50 psi, this in of itself being dangerous. The back left tire had only four of five lug nuts. But here is the interested finding, the new noise that I was hearing, came from the parking brake, which was completely removed with no indication as to why since this was a completely unrelated component, and, oddly enough, the shrapnel from the dust guard components had been placed within the rotor, the main source of the metal scrapping sound. The new mechanic (who’s name and company affliction shall remain nameless) explained that the conclusion he could gather was this was done intentionally and my safety was at an extremely elevated risk. Now that the entire story has been developed, I would like to break this incident in more detail… From a liability standpoint, I have been confronted with a situation that all potential clients should take note of. The very idea that a car shop owner is knowledgable of my vehicle being used for livery services should allow for extra caution with handling and ensuring of the vehicles safety since my risk of exposure to an incident occurring with more than one person in the vehicle is vastly higher than the average consumer. The negligence presented by this establishment should voice some whispers, from not only the potential new business clientel to come to this company, but for the citizens of Denver knowing that vehicles are out there on this city streets that, most likely unbeknownst to the driver, have not been fixed appropriately, and have an risk for mechanic/physical failure. Now to discuss the possibility of a firearm being exposed on Auto House premise.There has been made mention of this in the initial complaint to this company with no mention of this made by the responder on this matter to date. Since this, I can safely assume as the average American citizen, is a major, if not controversial, discovery, the thought that the company did not offer an explanation on behalf of the establishment as to why customer handling/contact included possibly exposing a firearm at a coincidental, potential pressure point in the said interaction time line. A company that cared for the safety and well-being of their consumers, should put future customer’s at ease on this issue, however, this was not presented, but simply, omitted. In regards to your explanation to the public on the idea that the vehicle being disputed was in horrible condition, I would like to make a fact-based retort, as opposed to the childish excuse driven responses being facilitated from the responder. Upon leaving the shop, I went to another mechanic shop (we will call this company, Company C, for easier explanation here) and had Company C complete an inspection of the vehicle in which I had been previously declined by Auto house. As explained already, the Company C mechanic found the reasoning for the vehicle being an “inoperable” vehicle was based off of the removal of the parking brake and shrapnel being in the rotor. The mechanic was able to fix all the  issues that he found from the inspection with no complications arising with the completion of this. Opposed to the responder’s “rebuttal” (if we should call the rhetoric provided as such), the vehicle was easily accepted by the next mechanic shop the vehicle arrived to (although the responder indicated no mechanic would provide service to this vehicle) and was repaired within a couple of hours (a seemingly quick timeframe provided the “inoperable” nature of my vehicle. I do have verbal and written confirmation to back my findings on this, as well.  In further discussion of the payment that was added to this service. As already demonstrated in my above rhetoric, the service in which was provided on May 20th, for an agreeance of repairing the stripped bolt for no payment, but as a goodwill gesture to the fellow mechanics at [redacted]. There is photographic evidence to attest to my vehicle being at both [redacted] and being transferred to Auto House., as the responder is mutually in agreeance on it appears. To coincide with this, there is photographic evidence of the lone bolt that was awaiting its removal. These are time stamped and showed both the 19th and 20th in which the bolt had not been removed yet. This further supports my argument on the intended repair needed, this job was not over $200 and, quite frankly, due to their being a mutual verbal agreeance, no payment should have been expected nor should threats, negligence, and intimidation factors be used to find the monetary exchange you were hopeful for. A trade, legally speaking here, refers to the sale and delivery of an intangible product, called a service, between a producer and consumer. In order to allow for a trade to be valid, a mutual agreeance must be exchanged and accepted by both parties before the time of service. This agreeance can be made either verbally or written and, at that time, becomes legally binding. The service provided by the producer, accepted the exchange of service with no monetary exchange, which, since I have just exposed, becomes legally binding before the service was given and must remain as so. Red flags should be risen and there are points to remembered here. This company is corrupt, unethical, and unwilling to come to any compromise. Lesson learned from this situation; Always make a shop give written confirmation when promising to do a service free of charge and never assume that your verbal contract is guaranteed.  
[redacted] (A very upset customer)