AutoSafe

Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because: The Draeger XT interlock device has to be downloaded every thirty days if you have not made any payment Auto Safe will not let you download the device and then your vehicle will not start. The day I returned the device I drove my car to [redacted] a representative of Auto Safe where the device was removed from my vehicle. Auto Safe's claim that I made no payments can simply not be true. I informed Auto Safe of my intention to move and left a forwarding address with the post office all other mail seemed to have made it to my new address. My first contact with [redacted] I talked to a representative named [redacted] he had no detailed information about the debt and it was him who told me to contact Auto Safe for more detailed information it was a calm conversation that ended politely not with a hang up. That's when I called Auto Safe to try to resolve the issue and was told that they would give me no information about the account and yes I did ask to speak to a manager and was told no then the guy politely says if there's nothing else I can help you with and hung up. Since then I have also talked to [redacted] at [redacted] and there has never been an offer to give me a written statement from either party though both have and have had my current address for quite some time.The "claim" that [redacted] offered me "another" written copy of my statement I have received no copy ever from [redacted] that's the whole issue how allegedly two years of non payment at approximately 100$ per month can turn into a 5000.00$ bill. It is my intention to resolve this issue quickly but I'm NOT just going to fork out that much money without detailed account information.Sincerely,[redacted]

Thank you for the email. Auto Safe states  I did not blow into their machine. While their own data shows I did blow into their machine more than 10 times in a span of 8 minutes. Then the machine allowing me to start the engine. They need to be more truthfulAs my life was placed in danger and those around me we Auto Safe faulty machine.That s all I am writing.thank you,[redacted]

Revdex.com:Miss Linda have called me today after I submitted the complain , and I am looking forward , and appreciating  her help in solving the issues , I would like to leave the complain open till its solved if this ok with all party's , I also attached the errors I received from the car dealer for reference in here 
Sincerely, [redacted]

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:It is interesting that the first two arguments that the company provided, to me, have nothing to do with the equipment working properly. 1)    Yes, I failed to test on two different days because on both days I locked my keys in my truck (another draw back it seems to this device, because I had never done this before, not saying though that it is because of the equipment). I let the company know that happened on both occasions and have the credit card statements to prove both issues. I am not sure why this is relevant.2)    Yes, there was a gap in my equipment (three days). This is actually the reason, in my opinion, I went from having virtually no issues to having endless issues. I had one device for 8 moths or so and the only real issues I had were locking my keys in my truck (as previously described). However, I decided to get a new truck (switched from a Nissan Frontier 2005, to a Chevy Silverado 2012). I knew I would have to have the device switched from the old to the new. I called Autosafe and had them send the paperwork to the third party shop. However the 3rd party shop couldn’t complete the switch that day. I had instructed the shop and the auto dealer where I traded my old truck into to not touch the device in my Nissan until the swap could be complete (knowing I was the one responsible) but the dealership grew impatient and basically bullied the 3rd party shop into removing the device from the old truck but not putting it into the new truck (apparently it is the installation into the new vehicle that takes all the time). This is of course was out of my hands and if anything exposes yet another flaw in the Autosafe system, and does not point to any wrong doing on my end and certainly doesn’t prove anything about the malfunctioning device.  The company can say that everything works great in their labs but all I can point to is the 4 months of [redacted] that I had with the second and third devices that I had.  I also know that on at least one occasion the technicians at the 3rd party shops servicing my equipment had the same malfunction that I had (hundreds of time).  Another thing is that on the numerous occasions that I talked with technicians, many of them informed me that I was far from the only one having issues with my devices. Yes, I asked for a new device on more than once occasion….for an obvious reason: MINE WASN’T WORKING in a dependable and consistent manner! The Cellphone analogy is an interesting one because  I think that we can all relate to that problem. The issue with that argument is that I would leave the device in my truck plugged in but not running for no more than 5-10 minutes on a 70 degree day (windows cracked)  and it would have issues when I went to start it upon return. I can tell you that I have left my cellphone in my truck for a lot longer than that and had it function just fine. It is a matter of functionality. I should be able to stop and park my truck for 5-10 minutes if needed, without unplugging the device and carrying around something that is so big that it won’t fit in my pocket.  Most of my issues were right after school (I am a teacher and a coach) between 2-4pm.  One issue that I ran into was that I would blow and start the vehicle just fine but when the device would ask for a retest a few minutes later it would have issues with the temperature (although the environment, my breath, and how I administer the test, all remained the same). Unfortunately once the device asks for a retest, it would keep asking and asking, and usually it would keep malfunctioning. At that point there was nothing I could do, even if I was driving down the highway. Eventually it would lock the device out. I would then have to go get the device serviced, sacrificing time and money each time.  On that topic, I was never warned of any possible issues with temperature and the possibility of having to unplug and store the device in air-conditioning. I eventually figure it out through frustration and money/time spent having to get the device serviced.  I do not like the implications that are being made by this company when it comes to the malfunctioning of the device. They are either implying that the hundreds (yes hundreds) of blow tests that didn’t work due to some sort of temperature issue were caused my me either trying to circumvent it somehow, or by me being to incompetent to not eat or drink hot or cold items right before testing. When it comes to the former, I never drank alcohol and tried to use my and the only issues I had were when I used hand sanitizer right before I got into my truck (this only happened a couple times in a year). The latter is just laughable that I would continue to not learn from my mistake literally hundreds of times. On that note I know for a fact that one can drink ice water and hot coffee right before testing with no issues, so that argument goes right out the door.Again, this isn’t about the money as much as it is the principal. If I am paying for something ($160 or so a month) then I should not be nervous every time I go to start my truck. I should not fear be stranded at [redacted] for 2 and half hours, or worry that although the first test went through just fine, that the device will suddenly tell me there is an issue on the dozen plus retests, eventually locking me out from driving temporarily.  I would have given anything (even more money) to not have had the issues that I did. It was truly stressful, time consuming, and really frustrating! If the issues were due to weather (reasonable exposure in my opinion) and that I just needed to unplug the device and store it in air conditioned areas when not in use, then I should have been informed of that. I should not have had to learn that the hard way. I should not have been punished for not knowing that leaving the device in a vehicle for even minutes would be enough to leave me stranded, or even have me eventually locking out my device due to temperature issues.I am hoping that someone will do the right thing here because at the moment I am feeling like there is a seriously flawed and unjust system in place when it comes to state required ignition interlock devices.

This complaint was referred to the agency which governs interlock compliance, the Washington State Patrol (WSP) for assistance.  The nature of this complaint related directly to the RCW & WAC requirements regarding the final 4 months of compliance with ignition interlock restriction. ...

There was a disqualifying incident present in the data - AutoSafe is not permitted to "interpret" or "misinterpret" the statute.  The definition of disqualifying incidents is very clear.  While our client may not have intended non-compliance or may have a good explanation for the reason of the violation, our hands are tied - even in cases where the client did not ingest alcohol.  We understand the current language could benefit from minor revisions and AutoSafe has been actively involved in interlock legislation in Washington & continues to make recommendations which will improve the practical application of the law, but we are powerless to change the language ourselves.  In collaboration with WSP, AutoSafe was able to resolve the client's complaint.  Please note, the substance of the complaint was not accurate.  Copies of the data showing proof of disqualifying incident are available at your request.  For this reason, AutoSafe respectfully requests a retraction or striking of this complaint from the Revdex.com history.  AutoSafe has no latitude in applying the statute as we are ordered to do.  Each interlock report is sent to both WSP & court jurisdiction for review.  Interlock reports are legal documents - admissible in court.

Thank you for the opportunity to address this customer complaint.  Fraud is a very strong allegation & is factually not an accurate description of the fees charged to our client.  Mr. * has provided very limited information to Revdex.com, but upon review of our CRM system, it appears he is...

disputing the charges for a mobile service where he requested a mobile technician to come to his vehicle's location rather than bringing the vehicle in to our service center in Puyallup or Tacoma.  Records are available upon request to show proof of the services provided by ASF.  Mobile services are optional & the full responsibility of the customer when provided as a convenience.  Our records indicate the client first reported an issue with his interlock device, outside of normal business hours on Saturday, April 8th, 2017, after it was already locked out.  Device logs show that Mr. * last drove the vehicle on the prior Saturday, April 1st, 2017 when the "required service" message was displayed around 6:30 PM - he shut the vehicle off at 6:55 PM.  The device screen provided interactive instructions, but Mr. * failed to have the device serviced within the mandatory 5 day count down - which caused the state required lock out.  Clients are required by law to return IID's for services on demand.  The device is programmed to display reminder messages each time the ignition is turned on, for the full 5 days.  The countdown shows "Five Days to Lockout - Service Required";  "Four Days to Lockout - Service Required";  "Two Days to Lockout - Service Required".  After 5 days of warnings for the device to be serviced - the state mandates the device to lock out, which means the vehicle must be either towed into a service center or the client must pay to have a mobile technician deployed.  ASF does not charge clients for services resulting from a device error.  However, Mr. Y had a week to get the device serviced before it locked out.  Phone records reflect that Mr** admitted he wasn't driving the vehicle.  He let it sit for a week before calling to let ASF know there was a problem.  But at that point, it was already locked out so there was nothing ASF could have done to change the situation.  Mr. * is fully responsible for the mobile service provided at his request.  This was a service which could have been avoided by Mr. * in several ways, but he did request the service & is fully responsible to pay for it.  ASF has already paid the service center technician to perform the mobile service so this is true cost to ASF already borne.  Unfortunately, mobile services are very expensive due to the fact they must pull a technician out of the shop for more than an hour meaning they miss out on doing any jobs which might come in during that time.  Being down a technician is a significant drain at the service locations & their charges reflect this built-in cost, which was quoted to Mr. * prior to him authorizing the mobile service.  Had Mr. * brought the vehicle in any time from July 1st through July 6th, prior to letting it lock out, he would not have needed a mobile service & could have fully avoided these charges altogether.  Due to the cost involved with addressing this complaint, financial loss on the account, collections efforts since May & cost to prepare the account for 3rd party collections, ASF is not inclined to reduce the outstanding balance significantly.  If Mr. * makes his payment in full prior to the due date on August 10th, I will waive the late fees back to May as a good faith gesture.  Plus he can avoid the hassle & additional expense of dealing with our 3rd party collectors.  We look forward to an amicable resolution of this issue by next week.  If you have additional questions or require supporting documentation, don't hesitate to contact me.

Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because:I am on subsidy payments and have been the last couple years I have had interlock, as I am in school full time with a very limited income. This is nothing new. These payments were not a result of account not being current, but a error on companies part going back 8 months. Payment plan or not doesn't change the way I was talked to our the fact I have yet to receive so much as a apology. I have conracted [redacted] as they mandate interlock providers here in [redacted] and will seek further resolution through them regarding this incident. Sincerely,[redacted]

Revdex.com:I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. Sincerely, [redacted]

ASF is pleased to report we have resolved this complaint to the satisfaction of the complainant.  There are some specific discrepancies which are pertinent in consideration of the original complaint which we'd like to address as follows:
1)  Mr. * did receive services at several ASF...

authorized service centers in [redacted] & [redacted], starting in May 2015 on the XT interlock device which was installed in [redacted].  His contract was with a [redacted] affiliate out of state & ASF was not notified of his desire to transfer his lease agreement from [redacted] to [redacted].  Our arrangement with Mr. * was to simply to service the interlock device, as required by the state for as long as he was in [redacted].  He never signed a contract with ASF.  Mr. * received 4 services as an out of state visitor without any payment at the time of service.  ASF was wor[redacted] with the [redacted] company to determine best plan of action for continuing to service the client long-term but we did not have direct contact information in order to reach him regarding the outstanding balance.2)  Mr. [redacted] equipment lease was transferred by [redacted] from [redacted] to [redacted] in August ma[redacted] ASF responsible for the device, but we did not have the client's agreement or signature to enter our lease agreement.  ASF was also unable to access his account information due to privacy standards in place to protect customer data.  The first contact ASF had with him was a phone call on 10/7/15 when he asked about getting a removal service scheduled.  At that time, the representative submitted a request to audit his account so we could provide a final balance due in order to authorize removal of the interlock device.  In order to accurately address out of state accounts, it is essential for ASF to establish what was paid to the [redacted] company and on what date ASF was to "take over" the lease of the equipment being transferred so that he was not double-charged for the leased interlock device.  Our goal was to determine what date his agreement should end with them & what date his agreement would begin with ASF.  It was with that intent that we informed Mr. * it might take us longer to close out his account since we had not even yet completed the out of state transfer process.  Certainly, it would have been more efficient to have initiated the transfer process prior to the removal request.3)  [redacted] removed the interlock device on 10/23/15 following payment made by Mr. * for the retroactive outstanding balance & Gina was able to credit Mr. * $40 based on the account audit.  It's easy to understand how confusion may have occurred & ASF sincerely regrets the unavoidable delay in authorizing removal of Mr. *'s device.  Had Mr. * contacted ASF as soon as he determined he would not be returning to [redacted] to complete his interlock agreement, the transfer could have been processed well in advance of his request for removal.  Given the fact Mr. * was not a client of ASF, I respectfully request his complaint be removed from the record.  If you require additional information related to this case, don't hesitate to let me know.
Kind Regards,Corrie J. M.ASF Manager[redacted]

Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because:
There was no damage to the camera it was simply unplugged by the tow company. The tow company will not accept responsibility for unplugging the camera. I did not unplug the camera. Sincerely,[redacted]

Thank you for the opportunity to address this client's concerns.  First, allow me to apologize for the delay in response.  I believed this issue to have already been resolved as a result of subsequent phone calls from the client.  The foundation of the complaint is partially accurate...

but has been misrepresented in a way which compels clarification.  The charge referenced by Mr. * was the result of a delay in processing data.  Interlock devices must be recalibrated every 65 days in order to maintain state compliance.  Our records indicate the service was due on or before Christmas eve.  The required service was completed on 12/22/15, but the holiday schedule of our service center delayed processing of the data which resulted in our system billing Mr. * erroneously for a violation status called "failure to appear" as required by the state.  The reason he was charged before the mistake was identified was based on his selection of Autopay.  ASF offers several options to clients wanting Autopay processing.  The option selected by Mr. * requested ASF to charge his card on file for the full statement balance due, which is what we did.  Each month, Mr. * was provided the statement of charges around 2 weeks prior to the Autopay charge date to allow time to notify ASF he didn't want to pay for those charges before it ran.  This error was in the process of being corrected once the service data was updated & an adjustment crediting his account balance was in process when he contacted ASF a month after the charges on 1/25/16.  While we apologized for the mistake & explained we planned to apply the credit towards the current month's lease (Jan) by not running his card, Mr. * was very angry.  He insisted he was due an immediate refund.  ASF policy prevents refunds to clients who carry an outstanding balance based on the monthly relationship of on-going charges unless & until the balance is paid in full.  However, his call was escalated to a supervisor who was working to expedite a refund.  Following the calls on 1/25/16, Mr. H subsequently requested to terminate his lease agreement & have the interlock device removed.  Upon processing of a removal, it does typically take 45 days to issue a refund.  This is due to the state fees which are billed a month following service & lease dates.  The WA Dept of Licensing charges clients $20 per month regardless of how many days the interlock is installed.  This means, if the client schedules a removal for February 2nd, they are responsible to pay the state fee.  We don't know when the removal has been completed until we receive the data from the device upload & at that point, if it's into the following month, we must wait until we receive the state bill in order to reconcile the client statement reflecting the charges.  Once that process is complete, if there is a credit on the account, a refund is issued.  I certainly understand the frustration expressed by Mr. * but we do not control the external state requirements.  At one point in his phone calls to ASF reps, he seemed to be under the impression that ASF was charging him fees that other companies don't.  I assure you, we wish we were not responsible to collect fees on behalf of the state - it is very confusing to clients & does create issues given the 30-45 day delay in their billing process.  However, every interlock company in the state of WA must collect $20 per month remitted to WA DOL & $10 per install plus $10 per recalibration (every other month) remitted to WSP.  If Mr. * was not told about these fees by the interlock company he's switched to, then he didn't get an accurate quote.  We would welcome him back if he decides he would like to come back to ASF.  I believe the experience may have been a result of miscommunication on the part of our staff & was compounded by Mr. [redacted] impression that he was being overcharged.  ASF has among the highest customer ratings in the interlock business & is the only locally owned option in Washington.  If I may be of further assistance in resolving this complaint, please don't hesitate to let me know.

Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because:
Your explanation of services not transferred from state to state is faulty. I expressed every time I went in for services that I have resided in OR for several years but had an out of state situation where the interlock was installed. The original installer was also made aware of this fact. I am not in the business of interlock nor do I know the protocol for such services. That is your company's job, not mine. Clearly you need to rethink and possibly retrain your people to handle things differently when they have all the cues and proper responses to questions asked of a customer who has fully cooperated  I had, until your response, been at the very least satisfied with the level of courtesy, even if procedures weren't followed, provided by everyone I've talked to. Maybe you personally should think about take lessons from your "lower status" employees since they possess customer service skills and empathy you are seriously lacking there in your corporate bubble.
Sincerely,[redacted]

My apologies for the delay.  We have had no response from [redacted] regarding efforts to resolve this complaint directly.  He failed to reply to Gina's phone message from 2/9/17 @ 10:08AM.  We welcome the opportunity to respond to complaints about our company.  Hopefully the...

following information will assist in your assessment.  Because we did not have opportunity to speak directly with [redacted], I've done my best to investigate his allegations within our CRM system where all our customer interactions are documented.  Please don't hesitate if you require additional information.
1.      Fines & Fees – The majority of unnecessary & avoidable fees reflected on [redacted]’s statement are for late fees & finance charges for not paying his bill by the due date.  A copy of his bill & payment history is available to Revdex.com upon request – his current overdue balance is over $350.  He is not eligible for services until the balance is paid in full.  All of the service charges & any other fees for which our customers may be billed are outlined in complete detail on the last page of their lease agreement.  Unfortunately, AutoSafe is required to collect many fees which are NOT in our control & for which we wish we didn’t have to be responsible.  However, the state of WA mandates us to collect $20 per month for the DOL & $5 per month for WSP.  His account has been perpetually delinquent since installation in July 2015.  This means that ASF actually paid the state on his behalf in order for him to continue getting credit for his interlock device.  Review of his payment history shows that he only makes payments when the interlock device requires service, typically every 2 months.  His average outstanding balance is over $300 but he has been known to let it get as high as $650.  Our lease agreement, to which [redacted] agreed, requires payments monthly in order to avoid late fees & finance charges.
 
2.      Nonpayment – In 19 months of ASF providing interlock goods & services, [redacted] has only paid ASF consecutively 4 months & only achieved a zero balance on his account 5 times.
 
3.      Fair Resolution – [redacted] was not specific about how ASF should “fairly” resolve the claimed billing issues, which are also not entirely clear.  A complete review of his account reflects nothing unusual or erroneous.  It includes standard lease charges for the equipment monthly, service charges for services provided to the device which was requested by [redacted].  He received a FREE installation & FREE recalibrations every 60 days which ASF has provided, plus a discount for his first monthly lease as a returning customer.  However, [redacted] has failed to make monthly payments as he agreed to do.  At this point, with the unpaid state fees & leases, ASF has been more than fair in honoring credits for a client who doesn’t honor the financial agreement he entered.  If his opinion of “fair” resolution involves ASF losing more money for him to be a customer, I must respectfully decline that option.
 
4.      Billing Statements – [redacted] has paid his bill online demonstrating he knows how to access the ASF website customer portal.  His statements are generated on the 10th every month & is all available 24/7/365 via the online portal.  ASF was not notified by [redacted] that he is not receiving monthly
 
statements but he can access them any time using the portal.  The email address to which they are sent is the same one he provided to Revdex.com:  [redacted]@hotmail.com.  We are happy to assist him with troubleshooting what may be the cause of the delay in receiving them. 
 
5.      Rude & Demeaning – All of [redacted]’s documented phone conversations have been about unpaid balances.  Typically, it is ASF trying to reach [redacted]. to collect an overdue payment.  The last completed calls were on January 5th & 6th.  Tyler documented [redacted] asking for the balance he needed to pay to
 
get service.  He told Tyler he would call back.  Upon call back, [redacted] asked if Tyler could do him any “favors” to get the service approved even though he was still unable to make the payment.  Tyler explained the ASF policy, as is outlined in his lease agreement which requires payment in order to be authorized for service of the device & told [redacted] he couldn’t bend the rules.  [redacted] was not happy, but my review of the phone call reflects that Tyler handled the call professionally & following ASF guidelines.  Tyler has been part of the ASF customer support team for years & is subject to supervisory review of his phone calls on a regular basis.  Without more specific information about how & who [redacted] felt was rude to him, it is challenging to investigate further.  About an hour later, at 10:09 AM a payment receipt was sent for an online payment completed using the ASF portal.  I’d be happy to review this further if [redacted] would like to return our calls.
 
6.      Mandated & Company – ASF is one of several interlock companies where DUI offenders can receive interlock equipment & services.  [redacted] is welcome to try his luck with any of the other providers in Washington.  If he would like to pay his outstanding balance & the cost for removal services, we would be happy to help him transition to another company.  His current requirement appears to be through the end of the year – he should confirm that information with DOL & would want to have it done before his 4-month compliancy begins.  However, ASF offers the most comprehensive customer support & is the only local provider available. The IL7000 is the best interlock device available, easiest to use with no humming required & the fastest testing time of any other approved interlock in Washington.  We go above & beyond on customer service.  We welcome constructive feedback & as soon as [redacted] brings his account balance current, we’ll be better able to address any customer service issues he might have.

Revdex.com:I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. Sincerely, [redacted]

Thank you for the opportunity to address [redacted]'s complaint.  It is certainly understandable for her to request additional information regarding her account.  She has also filed a complaint through the [redacted] Traffic Safety Commission as well as the [redacted] State Patrol, Impaired...

Driving Section, which is the oversight agency for certified ignition interlock companies.  We have cooperated by providing the requested information to them & believe this issue to be resolved.  Below are the bullet points of resolution:
1) [redacted] receives subsidy assistance from the state Dept of Licensing which covers some of the interlock costs but not all.  The statements [redacted] receives reflects the full balance due until payments are received from DOL on her behalf which typically come 30-45 days following the invoiced dates.  This can be confusing, similar to receiving a bill from your doctor before your health insurance company pays for medical services.  It reflects all the charges, for which [redacted] is ultimately responsible regardless of her assistance status.  An estimated payment is quoted & [redacted] is allowed to pay the balance less the estimated payment we anticipate from DOL.  Late fees & finance charges are waived as a courtesy to all clients receiving subsidy assistance.
2)  [redacted] should pay around $40 per month in order to meet her "co-pay" for items not covered by the DOL assistance.  This includes $5 fee collected & remitted to WSP and $20 fee collected & remitted to DOL monthly.  It also includes theft & loss protection on the interlock device.  The last payment received by [redacted] was in August.  She did catch up her balance but needed to keep making the small co-payments monthly in order to stay on track.  Perhaps we didn't do an effective job of explaining this to [redacted] & we continued to work with her financial challenges.
3)  Recently, during a routine audit, ASF discovered [redacted] account had not been billed for state fees for WSP following a computer system upgrade.  We recognized the payments had been remitted to WSP on her behalf but we had failed to invoice [redacted] or collect the state fees.  These fees are not income to ASF but pass-through state required funding to support the interlock program.  Interlock companies are mandated to collect these fees just like taxes on behalf of the state & pay them every month.  Failure to pay these fees results in removal of the client's interlock device & possibly failure of client to get credit towards completing the interlock requirement.  [redacted] was given full credit for all the months of installation, even though she had not paid any of the fees.  This was not her fault & she was not penalized. 
4) Once the error was discovered, ASF invoiced the missing fees & provided a statement.  Unfortunately, we were unsuccessful at explaining how the error occurred to [redacted] resulting in this complaint.
ASF takes full responsibility for this error & has already remitted payments to WSP on behalf of [redacted].  ASF will allow [redacted] to repay the fees as she is able without penalty.  While it is completely understandable that [redacted] is frustrated at having not been billed these fees for multiple months, ASF is unable to refund fees which are due to the state.  In fact, [redacted] has been responsible for only a fraction of the full cost to have an interlock device as compared to a client who isn't eligible for state assistance.  ASF has authorized required services in order to assist [redacted] to stay in compliance & will continue to do so as long as [redacted] is making regular monthly payments toward the outstanding balance due, including the copayments which are in addition to the unpaid state fees.  On behalf of ASF I apologize to [redacted] for this unfortunate accounting oversight & we look forward to working with her until she is eligible to have the interlock device removed.
If I may provide additional information including statements or statutes in support of the position, please don't hesitate to let me know.
Kind Regards,
Corrie J. M.Manager

Dear Revdex.com,
 
I personally checked Ms. [redacted] downloaded data from her Ignition Interlock Device (IID).  I checked the prior and current calibration which included checking the dry gas setting, the set point, the accuracy checks and the elevation setting.  All aspects of the...

calibration were within the parameters set by law.  This means the device was detecting alcohol accurately.  All of the IIDs certified by the State of WA are alcohol specific devices.  They will detect alcohol in whatever form is introduced to the sensor. It is obvious from the downloaded data that Ms. [redacted] fail was not from ingested alcohol.  All of our clients are alerted to the need to read labels and make certain they are not using products which contain alcohol prior to testing with the device.  Products such as mouthwash, some energy drinks, some cleaning products, most spray products, etc. contain alcohol. The use of such products prior to testing with the device will cause a failed test.  The contract our client's sign educates them regarding this, as does the user manual. 
 
I can understand Ms. [redacted] frustration at being told she is responsible for the reset fee generated from this failed test.  Unfortunately, we have to pay our technicians to perform the reset service, in addition to overhead, etc. in order to be available to perform the service for our clients.  I also looked at Ms. [redacted] history with the device and can see she has obviously been very careful during the time she has had the device installed and has not had fails.  Given this fact, I have no problem waiving the reset fee as a courtesy for her. 
 
In summary, the reset fee is valid, however, I will waive the fee as a courtesy based on Ms. [redacted] excellent history with the device.   Best Regards, Linda R[redacted], President

First, there are several inaccuraciespresent in the client's complaint, as follows.  We'd like toensure he understands because misunderstanding his statement may be at theheart of this complaint: 1) Charges for the additional device totaled only 1...

month,not 3 (Feb) - attempts to review with client have beenunsuccessful.  We welcome the opportunity to review it with himline by line to ensure understanding. 2) Client was trained on device including video, hands-on &written manual.  The device locks out following failure to getrequired service within 3 days after violation.  Tech supportprovided this info via phone. 3) Outstanding balance includes unpaid lease & other fees. Client was aware his payments failed to satisfy balance in full & refusedto discuss payment terms when asked by multiple customer reps. 4) Client signed lease agreement of ASF terms which includesservice authorizations being dependent upon payment in full for goods& services.  This is mandated by WA Administrative Code governingIIDs. 5) ASF approved several required services without payment whileinvestigating the complaint.  Client was notified in plenty of timeto avoid device lock-out following the investigation.AutoSafe has made every effort to resolve this complaint without cooperation ofclient.  Staff fully investigated the client's report that [redacted]removed the interlock device from his vehicle.  His claimis not substantiated by the data pulled from interlock device (serialnumbers Control Box  - [redacted] / Handset - [redacted] /  Camera -[redacted]) nor from the detailed notes in our CRM system as well as a signedaffidavit from the WSP certified technician who received the equipment whichhad already been removed from the vehicle when it was returned on3/9/2015.  The data pulled from the device is legally binding & cannotbe modified.  The data reflects the following:        12/26/2014 - Installation ofinterlock (serial numbers referenced above) into 2014 Dodge Ram 2500 Pickup(Plate#[redacted])        01/20/2015 - Tech Report that hornon Dodge not working after collision - vehicle in repair shop.  Mobileservice provided by [redacted], to unlock due to violation.  Data receivedconfirming service performed.        01/22/2015 - ASF authorized shop totransfer interlock from vehicle above to new vehicle = 2005 Nissan Frontier(Plate#[redacted]) w/ payment of $206.53 via credit card.        01/26/2015 - Autopay formonthly leases canceled by system for declined card.  Notice sent toclient via his selected "preferred billing method" of email = [redacted]@gmail.com        02/04/2015 - ASF receiveduploaded data for installation of new device (serial numbers Control Box - ARAB1193 / Handset - ARDC7267 /  Camera - EREC0030) but no removaldata for prior device.        02/04/2014 - 03/09/2014 - Datadownload shows long power loss on original interlock from Dodge.         02/05/2015 - Phone call toclient who reported he traded the wrecked Dodge for the Nissan atdealership.  Problem - registration not in his name for new vehicle whichis required by WSP.  Client to send ASAP.        02/12/2015 - [redacted] shows noremoval service performed on original device in Dodge as is required by WSPcertified service center when performing removal.  Calls to client LAM on2/19 & 2/26 request return.        03/05/2015 - ASF has no datafor removal - client reported he traded the Dodge in but did not explain how heaccomplished it without having the interlock removed.          03/09/2015 - WSP certified techreported to ASF that client returned interlock from Dodge having alreadybeen removed.  Tech uploaded the data to ASF for removal data back to lastservice date.        03/10/2015 - ASF sent courtesyreminder for authorization of next service coming due - payment required due tooutstanding balance.                Statements were sent monthly roughly two weeks prior to his lease due datewhich is the 30th for this client.  Following the declined credit card, hecontinued to carry a balance which was quoted by ASF representatives duringmultiple phone calls.  This client refused to pay the outstanding portionclaiming he didn't owe it due to this dispute.  He was permitted to deferpayments related to the charges in dispute until the investigation wascompleted.  Unfortunately, since informing him of the determination thathe would be responsible for the charges without further proof of his claims,the client has failed to return repeated phone messages attempting to resolvehis account balance.  Interestingly, the client has called in to make apartial payment but failed to provide the missing receipts requested. All records above are available for review upon request by Revdex.com.  Insummary, while we were able to confirm the original device was powered down /removed from battery source on the same day as the installation of the newdevice on 02/04/2015, the receipt of the leased interlock device wasover a month later on 03/09/2015.  The service center did not bill ASF forremoval service & denies having performed the physical removal.  Inaddition, our Customer Care Team documented a phone call from client who saidhe was just going to have his mechanic do the removal so they could work on thewrecked truck.  The vehicle in question was not running at the time. The client has been asked for a receipt to prove he had the vehicletowed to [redacted], but he was unable to provide any substantiation.  Theclient failed to provide any documentation for 3rd party corroboration ofhis claims such as the name of the mechanic or the dealership for followup.  The basis for this claim is unfounded & has been disproved by thefacts gathered.  The client is responsible for lease charges incurredfor the time in which neither ASF nor [redacted] had possession of theinterlock device.  The reporting for tampering, which ismandated by WSP for unauthorized interlock removal was completed butgiven the time elapsed & due to the investigation opened following thecustomer dispute, ASF has waived the fees associated with tampering, which is avery serious matter & could impact the client's interlock compliance. It is understandable & the client does have motive to avoid confirmationthat the interlock device was removed by an unauthorized person. Because the equipment was returned, ASF has not pursued charges fortampering with the prosecuting attorney or the courts.  As for the delayin billing, the charges for dual leases was suspended while we investigated thefacts.  ASF supervisor has left multiple messages requesting callback from client in order to resolve the complaint.  As of this writingclient has not returned any of them.  ASF will continue to seek mutualagreement moving forward.

The complainant has not been a client of AutoSafe since 2011.  AutoSafe continues to be unpaid for goods & services rendered.This former client leased a Draeger XT interlock device from AutoSafe from 10/24/2009 through 11/28/2011 following DUI charges in King County. ...

Unfortunately, he made zero payments following the installation & AutoSafe spent over a year trying to recover the equipment before it was finally returned.  He was non-compliant with state required services starting in 4/2010.  Client agreed to make payments on debt several times between 2010-2012, but defaulted on every arrangement failing to make even a single payment.  Mail was often returned from the apartment complex where he lived & he reported he was moving but didn't provide a forwarding address.  After internal collections attempts were unsuccessful by AutoSafe staff, the unpaid debt was turned over to [redacted] a third party collections & legal company in 10/2012.  Certainly, the balance has grown over 5+ years of non-payment, but the calculations are accurate & balance is due per the contract signed by client when he enlisted AutoSafe as his interlock provider.Copies of statements / contract / forms provided to client as well as full history of phone & written correspondence is available to Revdex.com upon request.In direct response to his claims, I contacted [redacted], at [redacted] who provided notes showing on multiple dates this month, the former client was given a detailed accounting of the debt by [redacted] phone representatives, but reportedly "didn't agree with the charges."  They offered to provide him another written copy of the statement, at which point, he hung up & called AutoSafe.  He was informed that the debt no longer belongs to AutoSafe & he would need to work directly with [redacted] in order to resolve it.  He was not happy & threatened to file a Revdex.com complaint if AutoSafe wouldn't let him talk to a manager.  The customer service rep explained that he would be happy to follow up with [redacted] to ensure the client received what he needed in order to review the details of the balance but that the former client would need to make his requests through [redacted] which now legally "owns" the account.  Per contract, AutoSafe is not permitted to even discuss the account once it's been turned over to [redacted].Because the information provided by the complainant is not substantiated by fact, I respectfully request the Revdex.com close this complaint without impact to the AutoSafe Revdex.com rating.

Dear Revdex.com,
 
I personally talked with Mr. [redacted] this morning at 10:30 AM which is when our office learned of his issue.  I have been on the phone all morning gathering the facts.  We will most definitely resolve any issues for Mr. [redacted].  I will contact Revdex.com as soon as this is...

resolved to let you know. 
 
Best Regards,
 
Linda R[redacted], Owner/Manager
AutoSafe