Barkhouser Ford Lincoln

Upon receipt of Mr***’s complaint via the Revdex.com, we
retrieved our records concerning Mr***’s repair and I reviewed them with
our Service Manager, *** ***, Service
Advisor, *** ***, and the technician working on the car, *** ***Our
records indicate that Mr
*** brought his Ford Taurus to Barkhouser on
02/20/to check for battery drain and to test the charging system. Mr*** stated that his battery dies
overnight after recently having installed an aftermarket MPplayer and power
switch Ms*** noted on the appointment
print-out for Mr*** that the car
had body damage on the hood and door of the carShe also relayed that
information to Mr***, the technician In diagnosing the battery and charging system
of the car, the technician found that the MPplayer was draining power from
the battery after the car was turned offThe battery and the factory charging
system were found to be in proper working orderMr*** was informed that the
MPplayer that he had installed was causing the battery to drain
overnight. We advised him that either
the MPplayer would need to be disconnected, or a different power switch used
to turn the player off. We charged Mr
*** $for diagnosing his problem.
After reviewing the repair order and Mr***’s complaint,
I contacted him by phone on 02/25/I
asked Mr*** to bring his car to the dealership for us to inspect the
damageHe was out of town but offered to send pictures of his carMr***
asked if we had cameras on our lot and whether our tow truck driver or any
other employee had seen anything that could explain how his car may have
sustained the damage I checked, but no
one had seen any activity that could have cause the door damage Mr*** also told me that he had reported
the damage to his insurance company, ***
While reviewing the pictures, we observed other damage on
the vehicle as well as on the door. The door
damage noted in Mr***'s complaint was worse than anticipated and, in our judgment,
could not be repaired satisfactorily by paintless dent repair but would require
a collision facility repair As mentioned
previously, Ms*** noted some damage on the car hood and door when she
inspected the vehicle for write-up. The
question is when and where the door damage occurred Barkhouser policy includes the following:damage occurring inside the repair facility is
the financial responsibility of Barkhouser;damage caused by a company employee is the
financial responsibility of Barkhouser;damage occurring in our public parking lot by
any 3rd party will be assumed by the vehicle owner (consistent with
other businesses with parking lots open to the public);damage caused by an employee is to be reported
immediately to his or her supervisor;Barkhouser assumes 100% financial responsibility
for employee-caused damage, and does not financially penalize the
employee. This policy is to encourage our employees to immediately report damage,
and the policy has worked very well for decades
Given the location of the damage on the car driver’s door,
at the door handle, I feel that it is reasonable to expect that Mr***
would notice any “new” damage to his car It may have happened on our public parking
lot However, after interviewing our
employees and given our policy of not penalizing our employees when damages
occur, I don’t believe the door damage occurred while in the direct possession
by our employees
My second
conversation by phone with Mr*** was on 03/02/I told him I felt that
his insurance company was his best course of action He said the estimate was for $1,and that
he didn’t want to file a claim. He instead
wanted Barkhouser to pay for the repair.
I explained to Mr*** that I would cooperate with him or his
insurance company any way I could but that, given the circumstances, Barkhouser
Motors would not pay for the repair
*** ***
General Manager

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that it does not resolve my complaint. The response does not offer anything
Mr *** has been very polite and I think the description of his investigation sounds pretty accurate.Reading between the lines, however, it seems that Barkhouser was initially willing to repair the damage to my vehicle and accept responsibility (by paintless dent repair) until they realized that it would be costly (evidenced by the $1,insurance estimate)To initially accept responsibility and then renege on that responsibility once it becomes expensive does not seem right to meFortunately, my insurance has agreed to cover most of the costs for the damageHowever, this stlil obligates me to a $deductible that I do not feel is my responsibilityTo deny responsibility, Mr *** compares his parking lot to something you might find at a mallAs I see it, the key difference is that when I gave Barkhouser my keys, I entrusted them with my vehicle as if it were their ownThey have not responded to this damage as if it were on their own vehicle.Regards,
*** ***

We still hold firm to our original response to Mr. [redacted]’s complaint. You asked me if Mr. [redacted]  notified us of the alleged “new” dents before he left the premises, and for the record, he did. I would like to address a couple of points that Mr. [redacted] made in his response as follows:  #1. His car wasn’t repaired.  We were asked to check the battery and charging system, and  identify the cause of the battery going dead overnight, and we did that. We charged $65.00 for the diagnosis, and gave Mr. [redacted] a solution to his problem. #2. Renege on original offer.  Before  I had seen the car to inspect the damage, I indicated to Mr. [redacted], that hopefully we could get the car repaired by paint-less dent repair. After seeing the pictures of his car, and then realizing the extent of the damage, I felt that the area of   concern on the door could not be fixed adequately by that method, and may even risk further damage if the paint were broken during the repair process. #3.Accepting and then denying  responsibility for the damage.       In offering a solution of paint-less dent repair as an option for fixing a dent, before inspecting the damage, cannot be viewed as taking responsibility for the dents in the door.   #4. Possession of keys dictating responsibility of property.  We continue to maintain that our policy of 100% company responsibility for damage incurred by an employee to a vehicle while under direct control of the employee, best serves our customers, the company, and our employees.  Our property is privately owned, but open to the public, the same as a mall parking lot, or [redacted]’s parking lot, or [redacted] parking lot.  Possession of the key doesn’t constitute responsibility for damage incurred to a vehicle in a public parking lot.   #5. Why don’t we have cameras?  I called and surveyed the other 4 franchised car dealers in Danville, and only one uses surveillance cameras outside the building, so it’s not as if we are the only dealership in town that doesn’t have cameras.Respectfully,[redacted]General ManagerBarkhouser Ford Lincoln

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.In addition to my initial proposal to resolve the compalint, I will offer two more possible solutions. Understanding Mr [redacted]'s concerns about paintless dent repair, I am willing to attempt paintless dent repair to resolve this incident. I would also be satisfied if Barkhouser covered the $200 deductible my insurance requires. Here are some details regarding my dissatisfaction with Mr [redacted]'s responses.#1: Barkhouser simply did not repair my car. I asked them to fix the problem that made my battery die overnight, not just diagnose it. Even so, they offered a weak diagnosis at best. (They said "The mechanic thinks it has something to do with the radio"). On top of this, they charged me for a battery and alternator check that the local auto parts store had already done for free. I had told them that the battery and alternator worked fine, so Barkhouser charged me for information I already knew. A feeble diagnosis is certainly not the same thing as a repair.#3: I disagree that offering paintless dent repair is not a form of taking resposibility. I doubt that Barkhouser makes a habit of offering to repair cars towards which they feel no obligations. They clearly recognized a large degree of fault and wished to cheaply correct the solution. I maintain that they reneged once they found out that the repairs would be costly. I also maintain that this is a bad business practice.#4: I disagree that Barkhouser's responsibility policy is the best for its customers. Under that policy, I, a customer, have been left out to dry in a bad way because of this policy. It's not even certain that this incident does not fall under the policy because Barkhouser conveniently does not have cameras.
Finally, I do not accept the anecdotal evidence that local dealerships' lack of cameras somehow justifies Barkhouser's negligence. Regardless of the cameras, Barkhouser has a responsibility to correct damage that occurs under their watch. I have also asked around about similar situations where cars were damaged at an auto repair facility (not by the employees, but by a third party). Two similarly costly situations were described to me in which the repair shop fully repaired the vehicles on their private property. That sounds like better business practices to me.
I hope Barkhouser considers my offers to resolve this conflict. I am not a fan of bickering and would greatly like to see this issue resolved. Regards,
[redacted]

Review: On February 26th, I found a 2015 Ford Flex Limited listed on [redacted] and called and spoke with a Sales Manager to verify availability. Upon explaining that my wife and I would be driving from [redacted] and wanted to ensure the vehicle would be available, he assured me that it was. My wife and I drove from our residence the morning of February 27th and upon arrival (4 hour drive time), we discovered that the listing was not accurate as it did not have a power moonroof (no moonroof at all in fact). We immediatly discussed our dissatisfaction of the inaccurate information listing it having the installed option, we returned to our vehicle and returned home.Desired Settlement: I would like to be reimbursed for my time ($42.24 per hour for 8 hours total) and fuel cost ($37) for my trip.

I would also like to ensure the company develops a method of ensuring its website is accurately advertising the information of the vehicles as time is not something that can be refunded or made up for.

Business

Response:

Response to [redacted]Mr. [redacted] called Barkhouser Ford Lincoln on 02/26/2016 verifying the availability of a certain used 2015 Ford Flex listedonline in Barkhouser's inventory. Mr. [redacted] was told by a Sales Manager [redacted] that the vehicle was available. Mr. [redacted] explained that he would be driving from [redacted] on Saturday morning, 02/27/2016, to take a look at the vehicle. [redacted] asked him to call that Saturday morning to make sure we had not sold the vehicle and let us know that he was in route so we could then "hold" the vehicle until Mr. [redacted]'s arrival. Sales Manager [redacted] greeted Mr. and Mrs. [redacted] when they arrived. Upon inspecting the vehicle, Mr. [redacted] pointed out that the Flex had no moon roof, though the website listing showed moon roof as an included option. Like most dealers, Barkhouser Ford Lincoln pays a third party vendor to upload vehicle photos and descriptions to various online listing services. Although every effort is made to avoid erroneous vehicle information listings, errors do occur on rare occasions due to the sheer volume of data handled. Most are caught and corrected quickly without incident. To protect against the rare but inevitable error, Barkhouser includes the following disclaimer on all vehicle listings: “Images and options shown are examples, only, and may not reflect exact vehicle color, trim, options, pricing or other specifications.” In this specific case, no one at the dealership realized that the moon roof option was listed erroneously for the Flex in question. Unfortunately, there had beenno prior discussion of amoon roof in the phone conversations that would have prompted a visual confirmation by our Sales Manager prior to the [redacted]'s trip to Danville. Pictures of the actual vehicle were shown in the online listing; however, none showed clearly that the vehicle had no moon roof. Sales Manager [redacted] apologized profusely to the [redacted]’s and explained how this situation, thoughrare, canoccur. [redacted] offered to fill up their gas tank for their troubles and asked if there was anything else he could do. Mr. [redacted] declined, stating that "We don't want anything from you". [redacted] called Mr. [redacted] approximately 2 hours after they had left the dealership to apologize again.I immediately contacted our third party vendor that Saturday afternoon, and explained the circumstances to them. They agreed to meet with me the following Tuesday. We met and talked about avoiding situations like this going forward. I told them that these types of issues were completely unacceptable. We both agreed to work more closely together to avoidsimilar situations.In summary, we deeply regret the erroneous option listed and take numerous steps to avoid these type situations. Our disclaimer alerts the consumer to possible discrepancies for the rare occasions which, unfortunatelydo occur. Regarding Mr. [redacted]’s request for monetary compensation, we offered to reimburse gas for the [redacted]’s trip and were turned down. We're still willing to reimburse the [redacted]'s for gas and any meal expenses they may have incurred, in the total amount of $100 which should more than cover such expenses.[redacted]General Manager

Consumer

Response:

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. I will wait for the business to perform this action and, if it does, will consider this complaint resolved.

Regards,

Review: I left my vehicle at the dealership to be repaired at its 10AM appointment. I was charged for one hour of service, but at the end of the day, my car wasn't repaired. When I brought this up with the customer service lady (who refused to share her name), she said that other cars were in need of work.

When I was leaving I noticed that there were also two huge new dents on my door! The customer service lady and her boss took zero responsibility for the damage. They claim that the dents were there when they checked in the car, but they were not. They claim there are no cameras to figure out who dented my door.Desired Settlement: I would like for Barkhouser Ford to please take responsibility and fix my door (or pay for it to be repaired).

Business

Response:

Upon receipt of Mr. [redacted]’s complaint via the Revdex.com, we

retrieved our records concerning Mr. [redacted]’s repair and I reviewed them with

our Service Manager, [redacted], Service

Advisor, [redacted], and the technician working on the car, [redacted]. Our

records indicate that Mr. [redacted] brought his 1999 Ford Taurus to Barkhouser on

02/20/2015 to check for battery drain and to test the charging system. Mr. [redacted] stated that his battery dies

overnight after recently having installed an aftermarket MP3 player and power

switch. Ms. [redacted] noted on the appointment

print-out for Mr. [redacted] that the car

had body damage on the hood and door of the car. She also relayed that

information to Mr. [redacted], the technician. In diagnosing the battery and charging system

of the car, the technician found that the MP3 player was draining power from

the battery after the car was turned off. The battery and the factory charging

system were found to be in proper working order. Mr. [redacted] was informed that the

MP3 player that he had installed was causing the battery to drain

overnight. We advised him that either

the MP3 player would need to be disconnected, or a different power switch used

to turn the player off. We charged Mr.

[redacted] $65.00 for diagnosing his problem.

After reviewing the repair order and Mr. [redacted]’s complaint,

I contacted him by phone on 02/25/2015. I

asked Mr. [redacted] to bring his car to the dealership for us to inspect the

damage. He was out of town but offered to send pictures of his car. Mr. [redacted]

asked if we had cameras on our lot and whether our tow truck driver or any

other employee had seen anything that could explain how his car may have

sustained the damage. I checked, but no

one had seen any activity that could have cause the door damage. Mr. [redacted] also told me that he had reported

the damage to his insurance company, [redacted].

While reviewing the pictures, we observed other damage on

the vehicle as well as on the door. The door

damage noted in Mr. [redacted]'s complaint was worse than anticipated and, in our judgment,

could not be repaired satisfactorily by paintless dent repair but would require

a collision facility repair. As mentioned

previously, Ms. [redacted] noted some damage on the car hood and door when she

inspected the vehicle for write-up. The

question is when and where the door damage occurred. Barkhouser policy includes the following:damage occurring inside the repair facility is

the financial responsibility of Barkhouser;damage caused by a company employee is the

financial responsibility of Barkhouser;damage occurring in our public parking lot by

any 3rd party will be assumed by the vehicle owner (consistent with

other businesses with parking lots open to the public);damage caused by an employee is to be reported

immediately to his or her supervisor;Barkhouser assumes 100% financial responsibility

for employee-caused damage, and does not financially penalize the

employee. This policy is to encourage our employees to immediately report damage,

and the policy has worked very well for decades.

Given the location of the damage on the car driver’s door,

at the door handle, I feel that it is reasonable to expect that Mr. [redacted]

would notice any “new” damage to his car. It may have happened on our public parking

lot. However, after interviewing our

employees and given our policy of not penalizing our employees when damages

occur, I don’t believe the door damage occurred while in the direct possession

by our employees.

My second

conversation by phone with Mr. [redacted] was on 03/02/2015. I told him I felt that

his insurance company was his best course of action. He said the estimate was for $1,000.00 and that

he didn’t want to file a claim. He instead

wanted Barkhouser to pay for the repair.

I explained to Mr. [redacted] that I would cooperate with him or his

insurance company any way I could but that, given the circumstances, Barkhouser

Motors would not pay for the repair.

General Manager

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that it does not resolve my complaint. The response does not offer anything.

Mr [redacted] has been very polite and I think the description of his investigation sounds pretty accurate.Reading between the lines, however, it seems that Barkhouser was initially willing to repair the damage to my vehicle and accept responsibility (by paintless dent repair) until they realized that it would be costly (evidenced by the $1,000 insurance estimate). To initially accept responsibility and then renege on that responsibility once it becomes expensive does not seem right to me. Fortunately, my insurance has agreed to cover most of the costs for the damage. However, this stlil obligates me to a $200 deductible that I do not feel is my responsibility. To deny responsibility, Mr [redacted] compares his parking lot to something you might find at a mall. As I see it, the key difference is that when I gave Barkhouser my keys, I entrusted them with my vehicle as if it were their own. They have not responded to this damage as if it were on their own vehicle.Regards,

Business

Response:

We still hold firm to our original response to Mr. [redacted]’s complaint. You asked me if Mr. [redacted] notified us of the alleged “new” dents before he left the premises, and for the record, he did. I would like to address a couple of points that Mr. [redacted] made in his response as follows: #1. His car wasn’t repaired. We were asked to check the battery and charging system, and identify the cause of the battery going dead overnight, and we did that. We charged $65.00 for the diagnosis, and gave Mr. [redacted] a solution to his problem. #2. Renege on original offer. Before I had seen the car to inspect the damage, I indicated to Mr. [redacted], that hopefully we could get the car repaired by paint-less dent repair. After seeing the pictures of his car, and then realizing the extent of the damage, I felt that the area of concern on the door could not be fixed adequately by that method, and may even risk further damage if the paint were broken during the repair process. #3.Accepting and then denying responsibility for the damage. In offering a solution of paint-less dent repair as an option for fixing a dent, before inspecting the damage, cannot be viewed as taking responsibility for the dents in the door. #4. Possession of keys dictating responsibility of property. We continue to maintain that our policy of 100% company responsibility for damage incurred by an employee to a vehicle while under direct control of the employee, best serves our customers, the company, and our employees. Our property is privately owned, but open to the public, the same as a mall parking lot, or [redacted]’s parking lot, or [redacted] parking lot. Possession of the key doesn’t constitute responsibility for damage incurred to a vehicle in a public parking lot. #5. Why don’t we have cameras? I called and surveyed the other 4 franchised car dealers in Danville, and only one uses surveillance cameras outside the building, so it’s not as if we are the only dealership in town that doesn’t have cameras.Respectfully,[redacted]General ManagerBarkhouser Ford Lincoln

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.In addition to my initial proposal to resolve the compalint, I will offer two more possible solutions. Understanding Mr [redacted]'s concerns about paintless dent repair, I am willing to attempt paintless dent repair to resolve this incident. I would also be satisfied if Barkhouser covered the $200 deductible my insurance requires. Here are some details regarding my dissatisfaction with Mr [redacted]'s responses.#1: Barkhouser simply did not repair my car. I asked them to fix the problem that made my battery die overnight, not just diagnose it. Even so, they offered a weak diagnosis at best. (They said "The mechanic thinks it has something to do with the radio"). On top of this, they charged me for a battery and alternator check that the local auto parts store had already done for free. I had told them that the battery and alternator worked fine, so Barkhouser charged me for information I already knew. A feeble diagnosis is certainly not the same thing as a repair.#3: I disagree that offering paintless dent repair is not a form of taking resposibility. I doubt that Barkhouser makes a habit of offering to repair cars towards which they feel no obligations. They clearly recognized a large degree of fault and wished to cheaply correct the solution. I maintain that they reneged once they found out that the repairs would be costly. I also maintain that this is a bad business practice.#4: I disagree that Barkhouser's responsibility policy is the best for its customers. Under that policy, I, a customer, have been left out to dry in a bad way because of this policy. It's not even certain that this incident does not fall under the policy because Barkhouser conveniently does not have cameras.

Finally, I do not accept the anecdotal evidence that local dealerships' lack of cameras somehow justifies Barkhouser's negligence. Regardless of the cameras, Barkhouser has a responsibility to correct damage that occurs under their watch. I have also asked around about similar situations where cars were damaged at an auto repair facility (not by the employees, but by a third party). Two similarly costly situations were described to me in which the repair shop fully repaired the vehicles on their private property. That sounds like better business practices to me.

I hope Barkhouser considers my offers to resolve this conflict. I am not a fan of bickering and would greatly like to see this issue resolved. Regards,