Bell's Auto Repair & Service

Review: During routine maintenance on our vehicle, the owner of the shop ([redacted]) suggested that we have one of the front axles replaced. We did just that, however, immediately afterward, we noticed that the car was idling a little more violently. We called the shop to inquire and the owner disregarded our concern. A little later we started hearing loud ticking when the car would turn. We took the car back and it was decided that the new part was defective and the axle was again replaced. The clicking noise reduced for a short time but returned so [redacted] suggested that the other front axle be replaced, as it had worn out as well. After this repair the car was now idling even more violently and ticking even louder while making turns. We took the car back in for a fourth time and were told that the axles that were installed on both sides were too short and needed to be replaced with the correct length axles. The owner of the shop also said that the violent shaking was likely due to worn engine mounts. We decided to just have the axles replaced at that time. The car was finally making turns without loud clicking, but continued to shake violently while idling. A family illness arose that forced us to move out of state shortly after, and we didn't get a chance to have the engine mounts repaired at [redacted] Auto. Shortly after moving, we took the car in to have the engine mounts replaced and were told that the engine mounts were in good shape and it was the new axles, an incorrect product, that were causing the violent idling. After thorough demonstration we reluctantly allowed for the axles to be replaced again. The car was no longer violently idling. We contacted [redacted] Auto to inform them of the situation and let them know that we wanted a full refund. The owner arrogantly disagreed that he had installed the wrong parts and after multiple attempts to resolve the situation [redacted] Auto has stopped communication and ultimately denied our requests for remediation.Desired Settlement: Full refund of parts and labor. If [redacted] Auto would like to pay for the shipping of the incorrect axles back to there shop, then we [redacted] happily return them. Axles(2) plus tax = $403.00 Labor = $340.00 Previously quoted shipping cost with insurance (possibly changed) = $33.65

Business

Response:

[redacted] F. [redacted] Jr. APRIL 3, 2014

[redacted] N. [redacted] AVE.

STE. "D"

ORANGE,CA [redacted]

DEAR Revdex.com,

IN RESPONSE TO [redacted]'S LETTER THE FIRST (3) AXLES WERE INCORRECT, WE RESOLVED THE ISSUE'S OF THE FIRST (3) AXLES AT NO COST TO THE CONSUMER PARTS OR LABOR, BY REPLACING BOTH AXLES WITH DIFFERENT AXLES FROM A DIFFERENT SUPPLIER.

WE VERIFIED THE AXLES TO BE CORRECT BY SPEAKING TO NO LESS THAN (6) PART TECHNICIANS ONE OF THEM BEING A PART'S TECHNICIAN IN A SUBARU ONLY REPAIR SHOP.

I SPOKE TO HIM OF THE CUSTOMER'S COMPLAINT AND HIS RESPONSE WAS THAT THEY HAVE INSTALLED HUNDRED OF AXLE'S TO THESE SUBARU'S WITH OUT ANY COMPLAINTS. THROUGH OUT THIS ORDEAL, WE HAVE OFFERED THE CUSTOMER TO INSTALL FACTORY AXLES AT NO ADDITIONAL COST OTHER THAN THE DIFFERENCE OF THE PRICE OF THE AXLES, THE CUSTOMER DECLINED.

CUSTOMER'S MOVED OUT OF STATE AND CHOSE TO HAVE SOMEONE ELSE TO INSTALL DIFFERENT AXLES AT THERE COST WITH OUT ANY AUTHORIZATION FROM [redacted]'S AUTOMOTIVE.

THE COMPLAINT'S FROM SAID CUSTOMER ABOUT VIBRATION'S IN THE CABIN WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS NOT IN MOTION ARE NOT PROBABLE COMPLAINTS WITH FAULTY AXLES.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA LAW IS FIRST RIGHT OF REFUSAL, [redacted] AUTOMOTIVE WAS NOT GIVIN THIS OPPORTUNITY.

SINCERELY,

[redacted] F. [redacted] Jr.

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID 9970231, and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

[redacted] has offered no resolution. Regardless of checking with references, the fact remains that the wrong parts were installed. There was never any proof provided to us that [redacted] contacted other mechanics for advice. We suggested [redacted] contact the mechanic who installed the correct parts in order to become informed of the mistake [redacted] most definitely made by installing the wrong axles, but [redacted] never made the effort. The proof that he installed the wrong parts is simply that once the correct axles were installed, the issue of the car shaking was immediately fixed. Factory parts may have been suggested, but were not necessary as the parts that eventually fixed the problem were not factory. [redacted]'s claim that he had not been given right to refusal is irrelevant because he had multiple attempts to right the problem and failed up until the point that we had to move out of state. Additionally, [redacted] blamed the problem on another part failing (engine mounts) and would have performed unnecessary repairs had he been given the opportunity.

[redacted] & [redacted]