Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.
You still owe us $875 for the mold consultant we had to hire since your person didn't do their job properly. We were told we would receive this money back from Tracy [redacted] and we still do not have it.
Regards,
[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response. If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me.
[redacted]
Our local manager, [redacted] has confirmed that the customer has been contacted in an effort to resolve the complaint. Any further communication should be directed to [redacted] in Jacksonville. Revdex.com sends complaints to Houston; the management team in Jacksonville is best suited...
letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response. If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me.
We
have contacted the customer and offered to inspect the home. Our intent is to bring a third party engineer
to inspect the home. The customer may respond to
our local Project manager, Bryan [redacted], to arrange this inspection. Alternately, if the customer wants PWC to
inspect the home, he will have to file a demand in accordance with the PWC
instructions which were provided to him by PWC.
Either way, we are making efforts to address and resolve the complaint.
We do not think this is a construction defect, but that the problem was, in fact, caused by the customer's after-market humidifier. Nevertheless, we have attempted to contact the customer on several occassions and offered to contribute to the cost of repairs. We believe that all reasonable effeorts have been expended in an effort to resolve. We would suggest that the cusomter consider mediation and/or arbitration in accordance with the warranty and contract terms.
The matter was referred to a local manager. Further response will follow. Since Revdex.com now sends all complaints through our corporate office, response time will be delayed.
This matter can only be resolved through local management. You must communicate with Steve M[redacted]. He is the local manager with the knowledge and authority to resolve. Stephen M[redacted]Project ManagerDavid Weekley Homes[redacted] Division[redacted]
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 9, 2015/09/11) */
Contact Name and Title: Kristi [redacted], owner
Contact Phone: (417) 881.2240
Contact Email: [redacted]@bohannonautoservices.com
Darin and Kristi [redacted], owners of Bohannon Auto Services are directly responsible for this response. We...
appreciate the opportunity to resolve this issue. This recap is based on information recorded by ourselves and our staff members. We are more than happy to share our notes, emails from and to the customer, invoices, and other documents associated with this online complaint.
We would note the invoice total came to $2,223.82, of which the customer, [redacted] has paid to date $1,600. There is a second invoice of $20.00 for fuel, leaving a balance due of $643.82.
06/05/2015: [redacted]'s friend brought her 2007 Mazda with 160,680 miles to our shop. This is the first time this vehicle has been to our shop. It was checked in with the problem statement, "Diagnose Transmission". There are no other notes on our repair order for the check in, however we do perform an inspection of exterior lights, belts, hoses, tire pressures and tread depths, and brake wear as a courtesy when a vehicle is in our shop the first time.
During our inspection, we determined the transmission was operating as it should, so we proceeded to diagnose a run-ability issue. We found multiple codes in the computer, the timing chain had slack in it, and the chain was rubbing on the timing cover and valve cover. This resulted in the vehicle operating out of time. We removed the valve cover to properly diagnose the timing. Our recommendations included; a new timing chain, guides, and tensioner. In addition to the timing job, we provided an estimate to replace the valve cover seals, recommended a fuel system service, and an oil change.
We performed repairs per our estimate with the customer's authorization.
After the engine was put into proper time, we found another run-ability issue. The bearings in the turbocharger were bad. There was no way for us to determine the turbo was inoperative without the engine running in proper time. We then contacted the customer with an estimate to replace the turbo, which increased the cost of the original estimate significantly. We installed the turbo with customer authorization and released the vehicle on 06/12/2015.
06/12/2015: After the customer drove the vehicle approximately 10 miles, she returned with a run-ability complaint. At that time, we determined the turbo we installed was defective and replaced it under warranty. We released the vehicle with the warranty repair back to the customer on 06/18/2015.
Note: O'Reilly Auto Parts, where we purchased the defective turbocharger validated this and not only warrantied their part, they reimbursed our shop the labor time to remove and install the replacement turbo. This is customary when a job that requires a significant amount of labor time must be re-done due to a manufacturer's defect.
07/07/2015: We received an email notice from the customer that the vehicle was making a whistle noise, and we responded by inviting her to bring the Mazda to the shop for us to determine the cause.
07/20/2015: We received an email saying she would have her friend bring the Mazda to the Shop Tuesday, 07/21/2015.
07/21/2015: The customer's friend returned with the vehicle for us to diagnose the whistle noise, which we did as a follow up to our original repair for no cost.
During our runability test, we found an exhaust leak upstream of the turbo causing the turbo not to give boost. The exhaust leak is also the source of the whistle noise. We invited the customer's friend into the shop to view the exhaust leak, which he declined. During this follow up inspection, we provided an estimate to repair the exhaust leak.
Our estimate to remove and replace the exhaust manifold gasket requires 6 hours labor time $450.00, gasket $59.89, supplies $4.00, total $513.89.
Our labor rate is $75.00 per hour. We based our labor estimate on Motor & Parts Labor Guide.
07/22/2015: The last communication we had with the customer was by email following our diagnosis of the exhaust leak, inquiring of the status of our check out. We sent a response recounting the diagnosis and invited [redacted] herself, to return to our shop where we could review a diagram of the exhaust and show her the exhaust leak on her vehicle, but she declined saying she wanted to take the vehicle elsewhere for a second opinion.
In response to [redacted]'s statement: "Turbo parts installed on car incorrectly installed causing damage to a gasket that now makes a whistling sound," and accusation that we requested additional money to repair a part we damaged.
We stand behind our work and did not take advantage of our customer by providing an estimate to perform additional repairs to the vehicle. Had we discovered any fault on our part during the review of our work, we would have informed the customer and promptly repaired it at our cost, just like we did when we warrantied the turbo.
The exhaust manifold gasket on this vehicle is original equipment, and has not been previously removed. The exhaust manifold gasket is upstream, or in front of the turbo. The turbo does bolt to the exhaust, but is downstream of the manifold. The turbo does not apply positive pressure to the intake due to the leak in the exhaust manifold gasket, thus reducing power.
In [redacted]'s statement, there is no mention of documentation from an automotive professional to support the claim that we installed the turbo incorrectly and caused damage to the exhaust manifold gasket.
Our reputation is of the utmost importance to us.
We are willing to negotiate the cost of the exhaust repair that will make her vehicle run as it should, but we do not feel it is reasonable for us to pay for another shop to perform a repair to her vehicle that we did not damage.
It is our preference the customer, [redacted] return to the shop with the vehicle and let us show her personally where the problem is. As one might be able to tell, much of the discussion of the problems with this vehicle were conveyed to [redacted] indirectly. We pride ourselves on providing detailed explanations, showing our customers their vehicle in the shop to give them the best understanding of needed repairs, and though we are not perfect we always stand behind our work. Lastly, [redacted] has not paid the balance due on the original invoice. When we gave [redacted] the price to replace the turbo, and the cost was almost double the original timing chain job, in good faith, we agreed to accept payments on the balance. We understand [redacted] is not happy with the result of a costly repair, and another repair must be made in order for her Mazda to run correctly. We believe this could be resolved if she would accept our invitation to return with her vehicle to our shop herself and discuss this in person.
Best Regards,
Darin and Kristi [redacted], owners
Bohannon Auto Services
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 11, 2015/09/16) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
As stated in their own response as seen below, they did replace the defective Turbo part however when this was done they completed more harm including the damage to the gasket which probably should been installed originally with the Turbo installation and or replaced when the "defective" Turbo was replaced. I understand foreign cars need specialized services and the staffing at bohannons may not have been qualified to handle the situation. I also understand mistakes happen, and a simply apology and offer to fix the car the correct way should have been offered instead of wanting more money to fix what they did in fact break.
"06/12/2015: After the customer drove the vehicle approximately 10 miles, she returned with a run-ability complaint. At that time, we determined the turbo we installed was defective and replaced it under warranty. We released the vehicle with the warranty repair back to the customer on 06/18/2015.
Note: [redacted] where we purchased the defective turbocharger validated this and not only warrantied their part, they reimbursed our shop the labor time to remove and install the replacement turbo. This is customary when a job that requires a significant amount of labor time must be re-done due to a manufacturer's defect.
07/07/2015: We received an email notice from the customer that the vehicle was making a whistle noise, and we responded by inviting her to bring the Mazda to the shop for us to determine the cause.
07/20/2015: We received an email saying she would have her friend bring the Mazda to the Shop Tuesday, 07/21/2015.
07/21/2015: The customer's friend returned with the vehicle for us to diagnose the whistle noise, which we did as a follow up to our original repair for no cost.
During our runability test, we found an exhaust leak upstream of the turbo causing the turbo not to give boost. The exhaust leak is also the source of the whistle noise. We invited the customer's friend into the shop to view the exhaust leak, which he declined. During this follow up inspection, we provided an estimate to repair the exhaust leak. "
Final Business Response /* (4000, 13, 2015/09/24) */
09/22/2015:
We understand the Revdex.com's process, and are striving to resolve this issue. Our
reputation and trust with all customers is of the utmost importance to us.
In addition to following the Revdex.com's outline for resolve, we have tried to
contact the customer directly so we can both put this issue behind us. Our
calls have not been answered or returned.
From the onset, when the customer contacted us regarding the exhaust repair
by email, (as the customer was not present with the vehicle when the
diagnosis was performed) we presented the reasonable solution that the
customer return to our shop with the vehicle, so we can discuss the exhaust
repair in person.
Regarding our qualifications to repair import vehicles, we are a
professional auto repair shop. The owner Darin [redacted], is an ASE certified
master mechanic with 35 years experience for all makes and models. He with
all our technicians are required to attend continuing education courses to
keep in pace with modern automobile technology including domestic and Asian
imports. Our equipment is up to date with the latest software available, and
we subscribe to one of the industry's leading diagnostic tools, Identifix.
With regards to the probability statement made by the customer in the
response: "'however when this was done they completed more harm including
the damage to the gasket which probably should been installed originally
with the Turbo installation and or replaced when the "defective" Turbo was
replaced."
When this vehicle came in originally, the timing chain had slipped
and was out of time. A timing chain repair was necessary to further diagnose
issues. Upon replacing the timing chain and guides, it was noted turbo was
not boosting and further repairs were recommended. Again it is not necessary
to remove the exhaust manifold to replace the turbo.
We completely agree if something is broken by us, the proper thing to do is
apologize and fix it. That's exactly what we did when we replaced the turbo
without question. Then, when the vehicle returned with an additional 3,919
miles on it for us to diagnose a whistle noise, we did so for no charge as a
courtesy with appreciation for the customer's business, and provided an
honest estimate to repair the exhaust manifold. We do not believe the gasket
that is original equipment, (8 years old with 160,680 miles as of
06/05/2015) and has never been off the vehicle, was broken at our shop.
To date, the customer has not presented any facts or evidence supporting the
claim that we caused damage to the exhaust manifold gasket. The timing chain
and turbo jobs we performed are solid.
The facts we have stated regarding this vehicle are supported by the
attached documents, including the CARFAX report showing the last maintenance
oil change service prior to the vehicle being at our shop with 160,680 miles
on it was performed at 82,168 miles. (Note! The accuracy of the CARFAX
report that is attached depends on the reliability of its information.)
If the customer prefers to take the vehicle to a different shop for the
exhaust manifold gasket repair, we understand, but we cannot agree to the
request of a blank check. We have offered to capably perform the repair
here, and we did offer in our response, to negotiate the cost of the repair
that still needs to be completed as gesture of resolve. This would be the
most economical solution to the customer's problem. Additionally, while we
do not wish to focus on the fact that there is still a balance due, there is
$643.82 owed to us on the original invoice.
Best Regards,
Darin & Kristi [redacted], owners
Bohannon Auto Services
1462 S Enterprise Ave
Springfield MO XXXXX
(417) 881.2240
[redacted]@bohannonautoservices.com
Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 15, 2015/09/25) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
To start noone from Bohannon auto service has called or attempted to contact me since this issue has come about. Tbe last communication was thru email. The statement that 3900 miles were put on the car between the time Bohannon improperly serviced my car to the time we reported the whistle sound is totally obsurd. We do not drive that much and it was within the week of us taking the Mazda out of the shop that we notified Bohannon of the whistle noise. As a matter of fact we have had the car looked at and the turbo has been verified to have been installed incorrectly and the gasket should have been replaced at the time of the original replacement the first time it was installed incorrectly. The second time is simply a cover up from Bohannon s auto service. A very unexpected and not appreciated cover up to say the least being that family and friends did refer me to Bohannons. The fact that carfax is being thrown in here does not prove a thing. I chose to change the oil in my own car due to the trouble that I have encountered with "fast lubes". This does not reflect that I do not take care of my car as I do. Another distraction thrown in by Bohannons to distract from the fact they damaged my car. I simply want my car fixed, not by Bohannons by any means, but a reputable auto garage.
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed...
action would not resolve my complaint.
[As my complaint explained. I had already contacted the PWC Warranty company on my own to get the warranty booklet that Carlton with David Weekly said that he would provide me. When I requested warranty work via email to PWC they said to call their cust. Service. Customer Service told me to submit a warranty request to David Weekly, which I did. I did not get a response or call from David Weekly to address the written request for warranty work. I then sent a certified letter to PWC with details on the issue with my home. PWC called me and said they were forwarding the request to David Weekly. I also have an email from PWC stating this. I'm clearly not getting assistance withe warranty request and getting the run around..]
Regards,
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.
[The process is clearly broken. PWC referred me to David Weekly after I gave them a written request for warranty coverage. My case is clearly covered under a construction defect that has a negative and/or structural impact on the home. You guys came out to inspect it which tells me you can work with PWC on whether or not an issue is fixed. As you suggested I'm trying to connect with Bryan [redacted] (Project Manager) to schedule an engineer to come look at what it will take to fix the issue.]
Regards,
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.
I have had...
repeated conversations with Mr. [redacted] and his representatives since this problem began. There have been 3 unsuccessful repairs to date, none of them meeting the 100 year flood standard.If Mr. [redacted] is willing to assume the $5000 cost of a full hydrologic study, we may be able to proceed. I will have paperwork from [redacted] by next week.
Regards,
[redacted]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined...
that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.
From: [redacted] Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 11:27 AM To: drteam Subject: Claim # [redacted] Dear Revdex.com, Regarding claim # [redacted] - I want to confirm that my rejection to the response made by David Weakley (noted in Revdex.com email of 12/22/14) has been received by Revdex.com. Also, it appears that the corporate and local offices of David Weekley are trying to bounce the claim back and forth – neither wanting to take responsibility. Thank you, [redacted]
Regards,
A local maanger has been asked to evaluate; this should not be construed as a change in position. If further action is to be taken, the customer will be contacted directly.
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.
You still owe us $875 for the mold consultant we had to hire since your person didn't do their job properly. We were told we would receive this money back from Tracy [redacted] and we still do not have it.
Regards,
[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response. If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me.
[redacted]
Please see our previous reply. We believe we have addressed this.
Our local manager, [redacted] has confirmed that the customer has been contacted in an effort to resolve the complaint. Any further communication should be directed to [redacted] in Jacksonville. Revdex.com sends complaints to Houston; the management team in Jacksonville is best suited...
to resolve this issue.
A local manager hs been asked to address the issue with the customer.
[A default...
letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response. If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me.
We
have contacted the customer and offered to inspect the home. Our intent is to bring a third party engineer
to inspect the home. The customer may respond to
our local Project manager, Bryan [redacted], to arrange this inspection. Alternately, if the customer wants PWC to
inspect the home, he will have to file a demand in accordance with the PWC
instructions which were provided to him by PWC.
Either way, we are making efforts to address and resolve the complaint.
We do not think this is a construction defect, but that the problem was, in fact, caused by the customer's after-market humidifier. Nevertheless, we have attempted to contact the customer on several occassions and offered to contribute to the cost of repairs. We believe that all reasonable effeorts have been expended in an effort to resolve. We would suggest that the cusomter consider mediation and/or arbitration in accordance with the warranty and contract terms.
A local manager will respond after we have gathered more information.
The matter was referred to a local manager. Further response will follow. Since Revdex.com now sends all complaints through our corporate office, response time will be delayed.
This matter can only be resolved through local management. You must communicate with Steve M[redacted]. He is the local manager with the knowledge and authority to resolve. Stephen M[redacted]Project ManagerDavid Weekley Homes[redacted] Division[redacted]
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 9, 2015/09/11) */
Contact Name and Title: Kristi [redacted], owner
Contact Phone: (417) 881.2240
Contact Email: [redacted]@bohannonautoservices.com
Darin and Kristi [redacted], owners of Bohannon Auto Services are directly responsible for this response. We...
appreciate the opportunity to resolve this issue. This recap is based on information recorded by ourselves and our staff members. We are more than happy to share our notes, emails from and to the customer, invoices, and other documents associated with this online complaint.
We would note the invoice total came to $2,223.82, of which the customer, [redacted] has paid to date $1,600. There is a second invoice of $20.00 for fuel, leaving a balance due of $643.82.
06/05/2015: [redacted]'s friend brought her 2007 Mazda with 160,680 miles to our shop. This is the first time this vehicle has been to our shop. It was checked in with the problem statement, "Diagnose Transmission". There are no other notes on our repair order for the check in, however we do perform an inspection of exterior lights, belts, hoses, tire pressures and tread depths, and brake wear as a courtesy when a vehicle is in our shop the first time.
During our inspection, we determined the transmission was operating as it should, so we proceeded to diagnose a run-ability issue. We found multiple codes in the computer, the timing chain had slack in it, and the chain was rubbing on the timing cover and valve cover. This resulted in the vehicle operating out of time. We removed the valve cover to properly diagnose the timing. Our recommendations included; a new timing chain, guides, and tensioner. In addition to the timing job, we provided an estimate to replace the valve cover seals, recommended a fuel system service, and an oil change.
We performed repairs per our estimate with the customer's authorization.
After the engine was put into proper time, we found another run-ability issue. The bearings in the turbocharger were bad. There was no way for us to determine the turbo was inoperative without the engine running in proper time. We then contacted the customer with an estimate to replace the turbo, which increased the cost of the original estimate significantly. We installed the turbo with customer authorization and released the vehicle on 06/12/2015.
06/12/2015: After the customer drove the vehicle approximately 10 miles, she returned with a run-ability complaint. At that time, we determined the turbo we installed was defective and replaced it under warranty. We released the vehicle with the warranty repair back to the customer on 06/18/2015.
Note: O'Reilly Auto Parts, where we purchased the defective turbocharger validated this and not only warrantied their part, they reimbursed our shop the labor time to remove and install the replacement turbo. This is customary when a job that requires a significant amount of labor time must be re-done due to a manufacturer's defect.
07/07/2015: We received an email notice from the customer that the vehicle was making a whistle noise, and we responded by inviting her to bring the Mazda to the shop for us to determine the cause.
07/20/2015: We received an email saying she would have her friend bring the Mazda to the Shop Tuesday, 07/21/2015.
07/21/2015: The customer's friend returned with the vehicle for us to diagnose the whistle noise, which we did as a follow up to our original repair for no cost.
During our runability test, we found an exhaust leak upstream of the turbo causing the turbo not to give boost. The exhaust leak is also the source of the whistle noise. We invited the customer's friend into the shop to view the exhaust leak, which he declined. During this follow up inspection, we provided an estimate to repair the exhaust leak.
Our estimate to remove and replace the exhaust manifold gasket requires 6 hours labor time $450.00, gasket $59.89, supplies $4.00, total $513.89.
Our labor rate is $75.00 per hour. We based our labor estimate on Motor & Parts Labor Guide.
07/22/2015: The last communication we had with the customer was by email following our diagnosis of the exhaust leak, inquiring of the status of our check out. We sent a response recounting the diagnosis and invited [redacted] herself, to return to our shop where we could review a diagram of the exhaust and show her the exhaust leak on her vehicle, but she declined saying she wanted to take the vehicle elsewhere for a second opinion.
In response to [redacted]'s statement: "Turbo parts installed on car incorrectly installed causing damage to a gasket that now makes a whistling sound," and accusation that we requested additional money to repair a part we damaged.
We stand behind our work and did not take advantage of our customer by providing an estimate to perform additional repairs to the vehicle. Had we discovered any fault on our part during the review of our work, we would have informed the customer and promptly repaired it at our cost, just like we did when we warrantied the turbo.
The exhaust manifold gasket on this vehicle is original equipment, and has not been previously removed. The exhaust manifold gasket is upstream, or in front of the turbo. The turbo does bolt to the exhaust, but is downstream of the manifold. The turbo does not apply positive pressure to the intake due to the leak in the exhaust manifold gasket, thus reducing power.
In [redacted]'s statement, there is no mention of documentation from an automotive professional to support the claim that we installed the turbo incorrectly and caused damage to the exhaust manifold gasket.
Our reputation is of the utmost importance to us.
We are willing to negotiate the cost of the exhaust repair that will make her vehicle run as it should, but we do not feel it is reasonable for us to pay for another shop to perform a repair to her vehicle that we did not damage.
It is our preference the customer, [redacted] return to the shop with the vehicle and let us show her personally where the problem is. As one might be able to tell, much of the discussion of the problems with this vehicle were conveyed to [redacted] indirectly. We pride ourselves on providing detailed explanations, showing our customers their vehicle in the shop to give them the best understanding of needed repairs, and though we are not perfect we always stand behind our work. Lastly, [redacted] has not paid the balance due on the original invoice. When we gave [redacted] the price to replace the turbo, and the cost was almost double the original timing chain job, in good faith, we agreed to accept payments on the balance. We understand [redacted] is not happy with the result of a costly repair, and another repair must be made in order for her Mazda to run correctly. We believe this could be resolved if she would accept our invitation to return with her vehicle to our shop herself and discuss this in person.
Best Regards,
Darin and Kristi [redacted], owners
Bohannon Auto Services
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 11, 2015/09/16) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
As stated in their own response as seen below, they did replace the defective Turbo part however when this was done they completed more harm including the damage to the gasket which probably should been installed originally with the Turbo installation and or replaced when the "defective" Turbo was replaced. I understand foreign cars need specialized services and the staffing at bohannons may not have been qualified to handle the situation. I also understand mistakes happen, and a simply apology and offer to fix the car the correct way should have been offered instead of wanting more money to fix what they did in fact break.
"06/12/2015: After the customer drove the vehicle approximately 10 miles, she returned with a run-ability complaint. At that time, we determined the turbo we installed was defective and replaced it under warranty. We released the vehicle with the warranty repair back to the customer on 06/18/2015.
Note: [redacted] where we purchased the defective turbocharger validated this and not only warrantied their part, they reimbursed our shop the labor time to remove and install the replacement turbo. This is customary when a job that requires a significant amount of labor time must be re-done due to a manufacturer's defect.
07/07/2015: We received an email notice from the customer that the vehicle was making a whistle noise, and we responded by inviting her to bring the Mazda to the shop for us to determine the cause.
07/20/2015: We received an email saying she would have her friend bring the Mazda to the Shop Tuesday, 07/21/2015.
07/21/2015: The customer's friend returned with the vehicle for us to diagnose the whistle noise, which we did as a follow up to our original repair for no cost.
During our runability test, we found an exhaust leak upstream of the turbo causing the turbo not to give boost. The exhaust leak is also the source of the whistle noise. We invited the customer's friend into the shop to view the exhaust leak, which he declined. During this follow up inspection, we provided an estimate to repair the exhaust leak. "
Final Business Response /* (4000, 13, 2015/09/24) */
09/22/2015:
We understand the Revdex.com's process, and are striving to resolve this issue. Our
reputation and trust with all customers is of the utmost importance to us.
In addition to following the Revdex.com's outline for resolve, we have tried to
contact the customer directly so we can both put this issue behind us. Our
calls have not been answered or returned.
From the onset, when the customer contacted us regarding the exhaust repair
by email, (as the customer was not present with the vehicle when the
diagnosis was performed) we presented the reasonable solution that the
customer return to our shop with the vehicle, so we can discuss the exhaust
repair in person.
Regarding our qualifications to repair import vehicles, we are a
professional auto repair shop. The owner Darin [redacted], is an ASE certified
master mechanic with 35 years experience for all makes and models. He with
all our technicians are required to attend continuing education courses to
keep in pace with modern automobile technology including domestic and Asian
imports. Our equipment is up to date with the latest software available, and
we subscribe to one of the industry's leading diagnostic tools, Identifix.
With regards to the probability statement made by the customer in the
response: "'however when this was done they completed more harm including
the damage to the gasket which probably should been installed originally
with the Turbo installation and or replaced when the "defective" Turbo was
replaced."
When this vehicle came in originally, the timing chain had slipped
and was out of time. A timing chain repair was necessary to further diagnose
issues. Upon replacing the timing chain and guides, it was noted turbo was
not boosting and further repairs were recommended. Again it is not necessary
to remove the exhaust manifold to replace the turbo.
We completely agree if something is broken by us, the proper thing to do is
apologize and fix it. That's exactly what we did when we replaced the turbo
without question. Then, when the vehicle returned with an additional 3,919
miles on it for us to diagnose a whistle noise, we did so for no charge as a
courtesy with appreciation for the customer's business, and provided an
honest estimate to repair the exhaust manifold. We do not believe the gasket
that is original equipment, (8 years old with 160,680 miles as of
06/05/2015) and has never been off the vehicle, was broken at our shop.
To date, the customer has not presented any facts or evidence supporting the
claim that we caused damage to the exhaust manifold gasket. The timing chain
and turbo jobs we performed are solid.
The facts we have stated regarding this vehicle are supported by the
attached documents, including the CARFAX report showing the last maintenance
oil change service prior to the vehicle being at our shop with 160,680 miles
on it was performed at 82,168 miles. (Note! The accuracy of the CARFAX
report that is attached depends on the reliability of its information.)
If the customer prefers to take the vehicle to a different shop for the
exhaust manifold gasket repair, we understand, but we cannot agree to the
request of a blank check. We have offered to capably perform the repair
here, and we did offer in our response, to negotiate the cost of the repair
that still needs to be completed as gesture of resolve. This would be the
most economical solution to the customer's problem. Additionally, while we
do not wish to focus on the fact that there is still a balance due, there is
$643.82 owed to us on the original invoice.
Best Regards,
Darin & Kristi [redacted], owners
Bohannon Auto Services
1462 S Enterprise Ave
Springfield MO XXXXX
(417) 881.2240
[redacted]@bohannonautoservices.com
Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 15, 2015/09/25) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
To start noone from Bohannon auto service has called or attempted to contact me since this issue has come about. Tbe last communication was thru email. The statement that 3900 miles were put on the car between the time Bohannon improperly serviced my car to the time we reported the whistle sound is totally obsurd. We do not drive that much and it was within the week of us taking the Mazda out of the shop that we notified Bohannon of the whistle noise. As a matter of fact we have had the car looked at and the turbo has been verified to have been installed incorrectly and the gasket should have been replaced at the time of the original replacement the first time it was installed incorrectly. The second time is simply a cover up from Bohannon s auto service. A very unexpected and not appreciated cover up to say the least being that family and friends did refer me to Bohannons. The fact that carfax is being thrown in here does not prove a thing. I chose to change the oil in my own car due to the trouble that I have encountered with "fast lubes". This does not reflect that I do not take care of my car as I do. Another distraction thrown in by Bohannons to distract from the fact they damaged my car. I simply want my car fixed, not by Bohannons by any means, but a reputable auto garage.
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed...
action would not resolve my complaint.
[As my complaint explained. I had already contacted the PWC Warranty company on my own to get the warranty booklet that Carlton with David Weekly said that he would provide me. When I requested warranty work via email to PWC they said to call their cust. Service. Customer Service told me to submit a warranty request to David Weekly, which I did. I did not get a response or call from David Weekly to address the written request for warranty work. I then sent a certified letter to PWC with details on the issue with my home. PWC called me and said they were forwarding the request to David Weekly. I also have an email from PWC stating this. I'm clearly not getting assistance withe warranty request and getting the run around..]
Regards,
The complaint has been assigned to the local manager, who will contact the customer direclty.
A local manager will contact the customer in order to address the complaint.
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.
[The process is clearly broken. PWC referred me to David Weekly after I gave them a written request for warranty coverage. My case is clearly covered under a construction defect that has a negative and/or structural impact on the home. You guys came out to inspect it which tells me you can work with PWC on whether or not an issue is fixed. As you suggested I'm trying to connect with Bryan [redacted] (Project Manager) to schedule an engineer to come look at what it will take to fix the issue.]
Regards,
Because of the nature of the complaint, a response will be delayed pending legal review.
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.
I have had...
repeated conversations with Mr. [redacted] and his representatives since this problem began. There have been 3 unsuccessful repairs to date, none of them meeting the 100 year flood standard.If Mr. [redacted] is willing to assume the $5000 cost of a full hydrologic study, we may be able to proceed. I will have paperwork from [redacted] by next week.
Regards,
[redacted]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined...
that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.
From: [redacted] Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 11:27 AM To: drteam Subject: Claim # [redacted] Dear Revdex.com, Regarding claim # [redacted] - I want to confirm that my rejection to the response made by David Weakley (noted in Revdex.com email of 12/22/14) has been received by Revdex.com. Also, it appears that the corporate and local offices of David Weekley are trying to bounce the claim back and forth – neither wanting to take responsibility. Thank you, [redacted]
Regards,
A local maanger has been asked to evaluate; this should not be construed as a change in position. If further action is to be taken, the customer will be contacted directly.