Benchmark Autoworks

Benchmark Autoworks was hired on 9/26 to perform an engine evaluation and possible replacement on a 1994 Chevy P30 Step Van, a vehicle similar to a Fed Ex truck. Prior to having the vehicle delivered I meet with the owner [redacted]. During this conversation Mr. [redacted] reassured me of his staffs abilities and stated he had an outdoor lift so vehicle size was not an issue. I received an initial quote of $1710.00 to perform the work. I was contacted by [redacted] a couple of days later and was told a new engine would be needed. That being the case I purchased and delivered an used engine on 9/30.My Compliant is as follows:Charged additional labor for mechanics mistake requiring engine to be uninstalled then reinstallReoccurring leak from transmission due to Benchmark using incorrect partsCharged labor and for parts not used, three separate transmission gasketsDamages from screwdriver used by [redacted] to attempting to remove old vinyl letteringBroken side view mirrorCatalytic converter removed and not replacedHorn left off vehicleOverall poor quality work numerous, nuts and bolts nut tightenedLeaking master cylinderLou, the owner wants to blame the age of the vehicle for the issues it is having not the quality of work of his shop. When I contacted [redacted] about this issues he stated he'd be happy to repair them for additional money. Not trusting his shop any longer and based on the owners replay it was taken to a third party for transmission repairs. During the repair on at least two occasions I expressed my concerns to [redacted] about how long it was taking, the vehicle being left exposed during inclement weather and if his staff was capable of completing the repairs. He stated it was hard to work on because they could not get under it. I asked about the outdoor lift he mentioned previously and was told it was and has been broken for a long time. Benchmark Auto Works misrepresented themselves from the beginning,overcharged me for their mistakes due to lack of knowledge.Product_Or_Service: Engine RepairAccount_Number: XXXXXDesired SettlementMy original estimate was for $1710.00. My final bill was $3587.32.I am seeking reimbursement of $1092.98 for: the additional parts and labor related to the transmission repair performed by Benchmark Autoworks that was done incorrectlyreimbursement for charges related to multiple transmission gaskets reimbursement for the transmission repair performed by a third partyreimbursement for labor in regards to engine reinstallreimbursement for installation of catalytic converterBusiness Response /[redacted]/Prior to the date of this case with the Revdex.com, Mr. [redacted] had already initiated an action with his attorney, to which I have responded directly. I am concerned about the implications of this use of Revdex.com as a backup or parallel effort relative to the legal action through his attorney. The vehicle in question is a large panel truck that had been inoperative for 11 years before being purchased by Mr. [redacted] and towed to us to evaluate if the engine could be revived, or should be replaced. We advised him to have the engine replaced, for which we provided an estimate of $2175.90 (confirmed by the letter from his attorney, dated Nov 19, 2014) since this is all he wanted to contract us for at the time. I did personally advise him that the 11yr storage of the vehicle outdoors and my visual inspection of the vehicle after it was towed to us, that he would very likely also have brake, cooling, transmission/driveline, and fuel system issues. I pointed Mr. [redacted] to the leaking brake master cylinder when he first delivered the vehicle off the tow truck. Tires were cracked, leaked air, and his exhaust was also visibly rotted and bent, furthering our early advise that he had more issues to deal with. For the exhaust work Mr. [redacted] indicated that he would have that rebuilt by another shop he had used in the past, so our only work there was to remove the clogged catalytic converter which was blocking the engine by not allowing gasses to flow, and to add a section of pipe (no charge) to route the exhaust fumes out from under the vehicle. Mr. [redacted] was a frequent visitor on the project and sourced many of his own parts, including a junk yard engine. He also arranged to outsource the tires elsewhere so we only added air to facilitate our test drives. In the course of the project Mr [redacted] did authorize additional work for replacing a rusted transmission torque converter, brake master cylinder, adjusting brakes, cleaning of fuel tank which had gasoline that had gone bad, replacement of failed fuel pump and filter. We also fixed the bad wiring for his brake lights and replaced the rear fixtures, so that the vehicle could be test driven on public roads. The transmission torque converter and the brake master cylinder were also sourced by the customer. The final invoice was $3587.32 including all the extra work he had agreed. The claims regarding the outdoor lift, which Mr. [redacted] claims we misrepresented, are wrong. The lift does indeed work and could have been used if needed. We worked on the vehicle at that lift area as a convenience, but the engine was replaced through the nose of the truck in accordance with the recommended procedure for engine removal and installation in the Chevy P30 van truck. Mr. [redacted] did complain about a drip related to transmission fluid, which he had earlier associated with a old transmission line connection at the frame of the vehicle, away from the connections that we had to disconnect for the engine replacement. For this we did quote him a price for that new repair, which he declined. Some days later he complained via telephone that the leak was at the transmission pan and he was going to have it repaired elsewhere at my expense. I offered Mr. [redacted] warranty service if the problem indeed proved to be related to our work, but he would have to bring the vehicle back to our shop for the work, consistent with industry practice. He declined this warranty service, indicated he was going to have the work done elsewhere instead, and sent a demand for reimbursement via his attorney afterward. Regarding Mr. [redacted]'s claim that the transmission part was incorrect, we used the transmission pan gasket that was OE equivalent for the vehicle. The photocopy of the bill for the other shop that Mr. [redacted] sent indicates only that it was a "cheap pan gasket", though it was sourced from a reputable vendor, not that it was in any way incorrect. At no time did Mr. [redacted] ask us to keep the vehicle indoors. He acknowledged through his Revdex.com complaint that he was aware we would be keeping it at the outdoor lift. The paint and lettering on the vehicle were very sun-faded and peeling from many years of outdoor storage, and hood had many growths resembling barnacles on it. Contrary to the complaint, we did no work on the paint or lettering beyond washing it so that we could work on the vehicle. The mirrors similarly were out of scope for the work we were doing as they were mounted high, away from the engine area.Mr. [redacted] did request multiple discounts over the course of the project as we proved that there were more issues than his original engine-only repair desires. He complained that each new problem should have an extra discount associated with it in spite of our early warnings of such very likely issues. We did accommodate him with several discounts. We have made multiple attempts to make Mr. [redacted] a happy customer. His request for reimbursement of charges that he chose contrary to our consent is unrealistic. He had been kept informed of the work, approved the repair of the other items, most of which were the result of a decade of the vehicle sitting stationary and uncared for, and we offered warranty in-house where it might apply. We must decline his request for partial refund. Consumer Response /[redacted]/The age of the vehicle is not relevant to this complaint. The complaint is solely based on worked performed by Benchmark Auto Works. Two separate repair shops both agreed that the gasket was not only cheap but indeed the wrong type for the vehicle. When I returned for warranty work due to the leak the vehicle was test driven and the mechanic for Benchmark determined the leak was from the "Top Hat" seal on the transmission. I was told it could possibly be the lines and that was actually my original suggestion. They cleaned the area several times and test drove the vehicle to confirm it was the "Top Hat". I was told that I was wrong but if I wanted the lines replaced it would be an additional $300.00. Mr [redacted] is making statements out of context and was not present during many conversations with his mechanics. The parts that were sourced by me were done so via vendors approved by Benchmark Autoworks and based on part numbers received from their mechanics. The mechanic even accompanied me to the parts supplier to ensure the parts were correct. The stated repairs were not done correctly and only lasted a mere 48 hours not days later as stated. The vehicle was only driven 30 miles before the leak reoccurred. The invoice for the second repair shop does clearly state the wrong gasket was used.The discounts Mr. [redacted] refers to were in reference to statements made by his son regarding using my old engine for his El Camino, the engine that I was told had to be replaced. The brake lights that were replaced was done by myself with lights that I supplied. The issue was with the wiring of the brake pedal switch that had been removed by Benchmark when they were working on the master cylinder.Mr. [redacted] makes no reference to his employee being injured by the transmission falling on him, the repeated comments that the vehicle was too bid to lift, making repairs difficult. The numerous times the vehicle stalled requiring it be returned. Clearly this repair was out of the scope of his abilities. Continued work on this vehicle was declined by the apparent inability of his staff to perform lasting repairs correctly. The original amount that I asked for reimbursement was $218.00. Benchmark Auto was given the opportunity to perform warranty work and each time the warranty work and to be repaired again. Based strictly on the repairs performed by Benchmark Auto, not the age of the vehicle it is not unrealistic to ask for reimbursement for sub standard work. Mr. [redacted] stated he wanted to make me a happy customer yet refuses a 6% reimbursement. That is unrealistic!Final Business Response /[redacted]/On Mr. [redacted]'s point regarding the age of the vehicle, please note that I did not make any reference to its age (which happens to be 20 years), instead the issue is how long it sat broken down (11 years). Mr. [redacted]'s truck exhibited a number of issues from this period of non-use, parked on an unprotected lot, as years of moisture and humidity took their toll on the mechanical components that rely on normal operation and maintenance to lubricate them. These, plus the visible evidence upon being towed in from the location where he purchased the vehicle, are the reasons why we advised Mr. [redacted] that he would have problems beyond the engine repair he originally contracted us for.I personally spoke to Mr. [redacted] on most of the occasions when he visited. I reviewed with him the items we had found in need of repair on his vehicle, and was told by him directly that he planned to drive it to his "tire guy" and "exhaust guy" as well as other vendors after our engine replacement to have additional work done on other aspects of the vehicle. Mr. [redacted]'s personal attack on me is unwarranted.Mr. [redacted]'s contention that we unhooked his brake light wiring to replace the master cylinder is wrong. The bad wiring that we fixed as a favor for him was under the dash. I personally also installed two new brake light fixtures in the rear, using the assortment of lights he had purchased, so that the vehicle could be driven on public roads. The master cylinder, on the other hand, is hydraulic and was a completely separate issue as the brake fluid had absorbed moisture and rusted the inside of the reservoir area, including some seepage at the tubing connections. Mr. [redacted]'s arguments of leaking dipstick top hat are not relevant. His instructions where to install the junkyard engine he had purchased himself, and reuse as many existing components as possible. Mr. [redacted] was advised of items that were critical to the operation of the vehicle, he continually complained that he had not anticipated nor budgeted for items beyond the engine replacement. He should have heeded our early advice and budgeted for such eventualities. Mr. [redacted] only approved the bare necessities. The slow seepage from the original dipstick did not fall within this category. He also demanded at one point that we replace for free a line near the truck frame that he self-diagnosed as leaking. Again, this was out of scope for what he contracted but we did provide an estimate for the work should he want to have it replaced. This he declined as well. On his point about the old scrap engine, Mr. [redacted] had commented that he dreaded having to haul it to the scrap yard, so he agreed to sell it to us at the price documented on his invoice. This is not at all related to the 15% discount on transmission torque converter labor that is documented in his invoice, nor the other discounts he argued for verbally when approving the work.Mr. [redacted] makes the accusation that the repairs were outside of our abilities and that the lift, which we opted not to use, was a major issue. Neither was the case. We succeeded in making this neglected inoperative vehicle into an operational truck. The vehicle drove out under its own power, proved to run well after the fuel settings adapted to the new environment (whereby we had advised Mr. [redacted] that it needed to be driven through the break-in cycle to set these). None of his complaints indicate any issue with this. Instead, the bulk of his complaints relate to pre-existing components failing and a seeping OE style transmission pan gasket. We have repaired vehicles as large as a tractor-trailer semi at this facility. Also, as I stated before, the recommended engine replacement procedure for this vehicle is to come in through the nose rather than underneath, which is exactly how we addressed this project. On the issue of reimbursement, when Mr. [redacted] called me from another shop to demand that I pay for the estimated cost of replacing a transmission pan gasket, I reminded him personally that he needed to bring the vehicle back to us for warranty repair and that we do not cover work done by another shop. This is consistent with the written warranty statement he had been provided at time of estimate as well as final invoice. He acknowledged my statement, refused to bring it back, and threatened to have his attorney contact us, which he has done. Mr. [redacted] has violated the terms of the warranty, even after being forewarned, and is not entitled to any reimbursement.Final Consumer Response /[redacted]/(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)A lot of other information is being included to cloud the issue that when I returned for warranty work I did think it was a line near the frame. I was told by the mechanic that I was wrong and it it was the top hat causing blow back on the frame. [redacted] even went with me to get the replacement while on a test drive. It is relevant because that was the part that was supposed to fix the leak and it did not.