Barrett, Alan Graphic Design

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 6, 2016/07/13) */
The customer first came in to Honest-Auto Care on April 5th, for a valve cover gasket replacement and an oxygen sensor that had been diagnosed as faulty elsewhereI told the customer that we would be happy to install the oxygen sensor
but cautioned her that we could not guarantee that it would fix the problem as we did not do the diagnostic work on the vehicleOn the next visit, April 26th, we found that the check engine light had come back on, this time indicating that the catalytic converter was inoperative and needed replacementAt that time we also performed a rear drum brake service in which the drums, shoes, and hardware were replacedThe customer then scheduled another appointment with us in order to get the catalytic converter repaired, which was completed on May 2ndThe customer then returned to the shop twice within a week's time, the first time with concerns about noise from the new rear brakes, and then again as the check engine light had returnedAt that time we found an exhaust leak from the intermediate pipe (the section in between the catalytic converter and the mufflerA section of pipe was welded onto one side and bolted onto the other along with a new exhaust gasket, repairing the leakAt no time was the muffler ever removed completely from the vehicle, and if there was some reason to replace it then the cost would be transferred to the vehicle ownerThe final visit to our shop was on May 12th, 2016, once again for the check engine lightAfter performing diagnostic testing under warranty, the technician found that the oxygen sensor that was replaced was faulty and as such was replaced under warranty, and as a sign of good faith we also replaced the second oxygen sensor at no charge to the customerAt time same time another code had emerged indicating a lean running condition - diagnostic labor was performed (once again at no charge) - and it was found that the mass air flow sensor was faultyThe customer declined that service at the time due to budgetary constraints
Over the course of a month the customer came to the shop for multiple issues, all of which were addressed at the timeTwo months after the final service, I received a phone call from the customer and her husband, complaining about noise from the car and claiming that we had replaced the factory muffler with one from a "big truck." I explained that there is only one circumstance under which we would replace a muffler without charging the customer for said muffler - if damage to the muffler was sustained during the repair, then it would be replaced by the shop with a OE equivalent replacement partNo damage was sustained, the muffler that was on the vehicle when it arrived was the same muffler with which it leftAs for the claim that we were unwilling to help resolve the issue, I told the customer's husband that they were welcome to bring the car over to us so that I could inspect the "big truck" muffler and work from there - not that I was unwilling to do anything elseThe desired resolution also makes little to no sense - if the complaint is about a muffler, then what was misdiagnosed? The initial diagnostic work was performed elsewhere, and we were left to pick up the mess caused by the off-site diagnosisWe went above and beyond to accommodate the customer, so when, after two months, I received a phone call complaining about issues unrelated to the services performed, red flags went upI am still willing and happy to take a look at the issues that the customers claim to have and work together to a mutually agreeable solution

In this case the customer was indeed correctWe attempted to perform the alignment and were unable to complete the service due to the worn out suspension componentsOn site management and advisers have been reprimanded for charging the customer for a service we could not complete and a full refund
has been issued to the customer

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/08/26) */
Ms. [redacted] arrived complaining that she had seen a puff of white smoke roughly two days prior to her visit. In addition to the smoking issue she had a check engine light on - we requested one hour of diagnostic time to diagnose the problem,...

which was approved by the customer in person on Friday, August 21. The check engine code came back as a faulty coolant temperature sensor, and the technician then tested the sensor manually to verify that it was inoperative. The faulty sensor had caused her cooling fan to remain running as a precaution against overheating as the car could not tell the temperature of the coolant. We called Ms. [redacted] for approval for the work (which she subsequently approved) and replaced the coolant sensor.
About 10 minutes later Ms. [redacted] called the shop saying that the smoking had returned and that the issue had grown worse. She returned to the shop and upon further investigation the technician found a large breach in the radiator reservoir that had not been present during the first inspection. We then advised Ms. [redacted] that her radiator had failed after the replacement of the coolant temperature sensor, most likely caused by the buildup of heat and pressure in the radiator assembly that had previously been over-cooled by the perpetually running radiator cooling fan. We worked up an estimate for Ms. [redacted] for a new radiator assembly and advised her that, although we could not acquire a radiator for her car that afternoon, we could do so the following week, and that she should not operate the vehicle until such time due to the risk of irreparable damage from overheating. Ms. [redacted] informed us that she would leave the car at the shop and get back in touch on Tuesday when she returned from a trip out of town.
On Tuesday morning Ms [redacted] arrived along with her mother, who was wondering why we had charged Ms [redacted] for services that her vehicle did not need. We explained that in this case both the coolant temperature sensor and radiator needed replacement, but that as there was not an obvious hole in the radiator during her first visit on Friday that all signs pointed to a faulty sensor. Once the sensor had been replaced, the cooling fan was cycling on and off, allowing the radiator to heat up to normal operating temperatures, thereby causing the breach. After discussing the case at great length with the customers, printing out copies of both work orders with totals printed clearly, and getting approval from Ms. [redacted] to complete the radiator replacement service, the technician found that one of the plastic supports on the top end of the radiator was cracked and had come off of the top of the radiator assembly, leading to the gross reservoir breach. When asked about the broken support and whether she had been in a front end collision (minor or otherwise), Ms [redacted] reported that yes, she tends to run up on curbs and generally drives "all over the place," and that she may have caused the radiator support to break.
In this case, two separate items within the cooling system were inoperative and both needed replacement. In both instances, Ms. [redacted] was informed in advance of, and approved of, all charges for each service.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2015/09/07) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
The issue is not the radiator repair. The issues are the sensor repair and the additional 98 charge. It is suppose to be free to diagnose with the machine and when I ret with my mother he admitted that is how it was diagnosed so why was I charged an additional 98.00. I returned when the smoking started again but as I tol him it did not get worse it was doing the exact same thing that I just paid to get fixed 10 minutes prior. I was also never quoted the additional 98.00 when I originally agreed to the repair. The repair on the repair was valid and I am not disputing it but I am disputing the sensor repair am all charges associated with it.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2015/09/09) */
From our last response, submitted on August 26, 2015:
"Ms. [redacted] arrived complaining that she had seen a puff of white smoke roughly two days prior to her visit. In addition to the smoking issue she had a check engine light on - we requested one hour of diagnostic time to diagnose the problem, which was approved by the customer in person on Friday, August 21. The check engine code came back as a faulty coolant temperature sensor, and the technician then tested the sensor manually to verify that it was inoperative. The faulty sensor had caused her cooling fan to remain running as a precaution against overheating as the car could not tell the temperature of the coolant. We called Ms. [redacted] for approval for the work (which she subsequently approved) and replaced the coolant sensor.
"About 10 minutes later (on Friday the 21st) Ms. [redacted] called the shop saying that the smoking had returned and that the issue had grown worse. She returned to the shop and upon further investigation the technician found a large breach in the radiator reservoir that had not been present during the first inspection. We then advised Ms. [redacted] that her radiator had failed after the replacement of the coolant temperature sensor, most likely caused by the buildup of heat and pressure in the radiator assembly that had previously been over-cooled by the perpetually running radiator cooling fan. We worked up an estimate for Ms. [redacted] for a new radiator assembly and advised her that, although we could not acquire a radiator for her car that afternoon, we could do so the following week, and that she should not operate the vehicle until such time due to the risk of irreparable damage from overheating. Ms. [redacted] informed us that she would leave the car at the shop and get back in touch on Tuesday when she returned from a trip out of town.
"On Tuesday morning Ms [redacted] arrived along with her mother, who was wondering why we had charged Ms [redacted] for services that her vehicle did not need. We explained that in this case both the coolant temperature sensor and radiator needed replacement, but that as there was not an obvious hole in the radiator during her first visit on Friday that all signs pointed to a faulty sensor. Once the sensor had been replaced, the cooling fan was cycling on and off, allowing the radiator to heat up to normal operating temperatures, thereby causing the breach. After discussing the case at great length with the customers, printing out copies of both work orders with totals printed clearly, and getting approval from Ms. [redacted] to complete the radiator replacement service, the technician found that one of the plastic supports on the top end of the radiator was cracked and had come off of the top of the radiator assembly, leading to the gross reservoir breach. When asked about the broken support and whether she had been in a front end collision (minor or otherwise), Ms [redacted] reported that yes, she tends to run up on curbs and generally drives "all over the place," and that she may have caused the radiator support to break.
"In this case, two separate items within the cooling system were inoperative and both needed replacement. In both instances, Ms. [redacted] was informed in advance of, and approved of, all charges for each service."
Concerning the diagnostic charges that were "not explained": On Friday the 21st of August Ms. [redacted] came to the shop with her boyfriend and stayed in the lobby while we did the initial inspection. After pulling the code, the technician requested one hour of diagnostic time - which was approved by Ms [redacted] ON SITE that day - that was in fact conducted using "the machine" (also known as a scanner). At no point was Ms. [redacted] told that diagnostics using a scanner were free - some of the most complicated diagnostics are completed using a scan tool. Ms. [redacted] was then quoted one hour of labor plus the parts cost for the sensor IN ADDITION to the diagnostic time. In this case, all charges were explained to and approved by the customer, Ms. [redacted].