Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: It is clear that the business is skilled in responding to these kinds of complaintsWhomever the unnamed representative is, they are clearly more concerned with attacking my character than seriously addressing this claimHowever, there are many issues that require addressing here so I am going to address them each one at a time very simply so the business may more easily respond to them (The original Claim regarding Jim Falk Service stating my brakes were so bad that I should not drive my vehicle) The representative pointed out the fact that my claim was filed a full months after the initial service at which they recommended immediate replacementThe reason it was months later was because upon personal inspection my brakes did not need immediate replacementHowever, I did still trust that they needed replacedmonths later I set out to replace the brakes only to find that they in fact did not need replaced and were not even closeSo much so that I am still driving with the original factory brake pads at 65,milesI still have the brand new pads that I purchased at ***These are physical items I have as proof that this is true and cannot be disputed in addition to witnesses that were hired to perform the brake job and after removing the tires they pointed out the LACK of wear and that I could get much more life from the existing brakes and concluded replacement was not even close to necessaryThe representatives claim that my brakes were in the "yellow zone" is in clear contrast to what I was told when I arrived to pick up my car that dayI was told that my car was unsafe to drive and needed immediate brake service to which I was quoted $The fact you say you provided an inspection document that said 40% wear is preposterous because your service advisor was adamant that it needed done immediatelyThe issue here is that your service department lied and any document you have from your department was not what I was told or providedI am intelligent enough to know better and upon further questioning was confident my car was safe to drive away and I did, thankfullyFurther proof that your service department was trying to take advantage of me would be the assessment of the brakes at prior service intervals as well as following onesBrakes don't suddenly wear outPrevious inspections show wear as well as subsequent onesYour service department never requested brake service in the following years that I have been going for servicingNo one ever claimed to me that my car was unsafe or needed brakes againThis includes the recent service to which my year old brakes are still on my car What Jim Falk does to accommodate such a misrepresentation of the trust is not something I am familiar withI spent money on brake service that I did not need therefore when required to ask what I wanted as compensation I requested the money that I spent on the unnecessary partsIf you had something else to offer it was never communicated to meI dropped this case without resolution because of the treatment and rudeness of the people I was required to deal withThey did nothing but deny, deflect, and completely disregard my complaintTo which I at the time decided was no longer worth the stress and time it was causingI would like to point out that in the first paragraph the representative says I never responded to the claim, however, I did and was met with a runaround of phone calls between the service manager and someone at the Hana Hwy locationTheir rudeness and inability to help me was why I discontinued the conversationTherefore, the issue was not fully investigated or addressed as the representative contradicted in the last sentence of the 3rd paragraphThe unnamed representative also claimed that I was not specific about the issues I had prior with their service department and claimed that it was not even Jim Falk that I had issues with and it was actually [redacted] which closedThis is atrocious for them to so blatantly assert that I don't even know what service center gave me poor serviceThe reality is I very clearly rememberI remember when [redacted] closed and Jim Falk took over the servicing of my [redacted] because the friendly, efficient, fast service I had come to love and enjoy became a distant memoryIt was replaced with the cattle drive service that you expect at a DMV or emergency roomI have never been greeted when I walk into their service centerIn fact I will wait for minutes before my presence is even acknowledgedThis is so much a regular practice that I now just accept it and waitWhere as there was a time when I spoke up and said "Can someone help me?" To which I was ignored and finally after more assertively requesting assistance someone asked me my last name and sent me to the person that handles the B's and I waited another minutesGranted they are way busier than they have the staff to manage so I just wait and I try to be as nice to the poor overworked service advisersThe other issue is every time I drop my car off I am given a time to come pick it up which is how I plan my dayEvery time they fail to finish when they said it would be done nor have they even come closeI believe there was a policy change a few years ago because they stopped guessing times and offering a call when it is ready making it difficult to plan your dayHowever, each time a call is offered I do not receive oneInstead it nears closing time, my car is there all day and I receive no callSo I frantically try to get a hold of someone to which the service advisers are too busy to answer and I have to go physically down before they close or they will keep my car overnight with no callAnother time I was told it would be only an hour and I decided to wait in the waiting roomI was there for nearly hoursChecking with them constantly before [redacted] finally went and spoke personally to the serviceman and had them do the tune up so I could leaveThis is the kind of service I have come to expect from Jim FalkAt the very least they are consistentThis low level of service carries right through until you get in your car and drive away as it usually takes another or minutes if you are lucky to actually receive your car after you have paid for the serviceIf you would like me to be more specific or go into more detail just let me knowI am happy to do soHowever, I feel this is just distracting from the issue at handThe next issue is the most recent one regarding the cooling systemThe representative said that "I" disagree with their recommended services and even tries to deny what happened as if he/she were there themselves and a witnessI did not disagreeI picked up my car from your service center and took it directly to another for a second opinionWhen I arrived at the second shop (a minute drive away) we popped the hood and found the broken clips laying directly on top of the cover itselfThe car did not over heat despite the fact that your service department gave it to me still a gallon low even though I asked them if it would be safe to drive home and they knew exactly what I was doing with the car The second service center pressure checked the cooling system for hours straight at maximum psi and found no leaksYour denial of these facts does not make them any less trueIf you continue to act as though you know something to which you were not directly a party to knowing we will be unable to get anywhereI have a statement and witness from the other reputable establishment that did the second diagnosticYour service department did not replace the engine cover and the clips for the engine cover were broken and they said it was a gallon low on coolant when I arrived at Jim Falk and it was not refilled and safe for me to drive because it was still a gallon low when I drove it to the other service centerThe final issue is regarding the representatives final paragraph to which they state it is not reasonable for them to pay me the amount that they themselves quoted me to have done the repairs that they themselves recommendedWhat is ridiculous is the idea that I would allow them to ever service any vehicle of mine againThe representative also states that they charged a reasonable discounted rate for the service providedI am not disputing the charge for the diagnostic service itselfI paid for a diagnostic and received a laundry list of items found NOT to be faulty or they were only faulty as result of Jim Falks own negligent repairsI was clearly concerned for my car and wanted to know what was wrongThe amount you charge for that service is the amount you chargeHowever, the subsequent lies that were dispensed are not appreciatedI again ask for these charges to be refunded because I am required to come up with a reasonable ask for compensationIf you disagree with what I have offered as acceptable retribution than you may provide something elseHowever, as has always been the case the only thing you and your company are interested in is denial, deflection, and disregardThis is why I have turned to the Revdex.com for aid in resolving this very disturbing matter Now that I have addressed one by one the issues brought forward in Jim Falk's response to my complaintI need to bring up the items that were not addressed and disregarded by their unnamed representative On Jan 10, Jim Falk confirmed while in warranty a rattling that I had noticedThey told me before it was and I knew it was notFinally, after much coaxing they agreed to look into and they confirmed that the issue was a serious one that required repairThey did the repair which included removing and replacing the Timing chain cover and valve coverBoth of which they have now observed to be leaking and at this recent visit and quoted me $to repairI am sure at the time they did not look at my service records to realize that they were the ones that put the covers on only 20k miles priorI am requesting the $to complete the repair that they did not do properlyThere is no question that they did not do the repair properly as the covers were replaced at 45k miles and I now only have 65k on my car and not one but BOTH of the covers they replaced are leakingThis indicates that they either did not replace or seat the gaskets properly, or that they over-tightened or failed to tighten them enoughAny one of these things will cause a gasket to leakI have the receipt proving they did the service on the vehicle, I have the quote showing they inspected the covers and found them to be leaking and therefor need to be replacedI have the quote for the cost they would charge to replace these covers and I again remain firm in my belief that no one in my situation should be made to trust that Jim Falk would do these repairs honestly and effectively given the historyTherefor, I will not take my car back to them ever again and they will need to pay someone else to do this service that they botched I am willing and open to suggestions and motivated to find an agreeable solution to the myriad of issuesI will not, however, let some unnamed representative call me a liar and make claims regarding a specific situation to which they were not a party toThe facts remain that after the most recent service I received my car in unsafe and unsatisfactory driving condition as parts were left on the engine cover and broken and it was given to me gallon low on coolantA move that to me suggests they wanted my car to overheat so I would think the suggested repairs were actually necessary and therefor spend the $for the serviceWho knows if they would have actually done the service or if their intention was to just pocket that money As further proof to the facts presentedI picked up my car from the second service centerThey advised they could find no issue with the cooling systemI have been driving it daily one month now since I left Jim Falk's with zero issuesThere are no leaks and the coolant level has remained consistent after the second service center topped it offThe fact also remains that although it was years ago I was lied to regarding the condition of my brakes and the safety of my carThe physical proof I have to offer is that the original brakes are still performing perfectly and are only now at the point at which they need replacedI have witnesses as well as the physical proof to both of these primary issuesIt will not be satisfactory to deny or pretend that I have fabricated either of these very serious issues with your business and I find it very unprofessional that the person who responded to my claim not sign or provide their nameFurther example of the impersonal and poor service I have come to accept from them Sincerely, [redacted]
years and months ago, Mr*** filed a
complaint with your office which detailed a complaint from a
service inspection
at our company a full months prior to that in which he alleged that he was
advised that his brakes needed to be replaced.
The complaint was researched and responded to. The documentation revealed that Mr***
had been given a copy of the inspection sheet showing the exact measurements on
all of his brakes and that they showed wear in the "yellow" zone
which meant that they would likely need to be replaced in the near future. Mr***'s own complaint stated in one
instance that the brakes were "pristine" when examined at another
shop, but in the next sentence said that they had 40% wear left on them. Obviously that is not pristine and comports
completely with the inspection document that we gave him showing the wear. Mr*** stated that he bought brakes at
*** auto parts and wanted us to reimburse him for them and we did not think
that we had any responsibility for brakes that he bought somewhere else and
likely has had installed. We did attempt
to contact Mr*** and offer some other type of accommodation on future
service and to explain again the inspection issue but he never responded and he
never followed up with the Revdex.com on any further request. We assumed that the matter had been resolved
at that time almost years ago
It should also be noted that Mr*** complained
that he had numerous other problems with the dealership previously but was not
specific at all. In fact, if he had
issues previously, it was with a completely different company, *** ***,
who owned the company before it was purchased by present ownership
Mr*** wishes to revisit the issue of the brake
inspection now nearly years later, but it has already been investigated and
addressed
Mr***'s latest complaint is that he disagrees
with the diagnosis received when he brought his now approximately year old
vehicle with more than 65,miles on it for overheating. It is out of warranty and Mr***
presented his vehicle requesting that our mechanics diagnose the problem. He signed a preliminary estimate of $
for the investigative work to be done for which we ultimately only charged him
$118.00. Mr*** specifically
authorized both the diagnostic work and the charge
The inspection revealed multiple problems with the
cooling system and other recommended services.
Mr***'s vehicle was found to have a radiator leak and was down a
gallon in coolant. Coolant was replaced
as it is necessary to completely fill the system in order to perform a pressure
check. The system was found to be
leaking and losing coolant which is why it was overheating and shutting down
power to the engine, but he chose not to do any of the repairs
recommended. The vehicle left with coolant
at the proper level. If it was found to
be low again at a later time, that is because there is a leak in the system as
he was advised.
We have no idea to whom Mr*** presented his
vehicle after it left our company and what repairs have been made or not
made. However, Mr***'s request
that we pay him in excess of $to have someone else perform the work that
we recommended is not in any way reasonable.
The company returned the car to Mr*** in the condition that it
was presented and charged a reasonable and discounted rate to perform the
diagnostic evaluation that he expressly requested. Nothing was broken during the inspection
The company does not feel that Mr***'s
complaints or request that we pay for work that he wants to have performed at
another shop following our diagnosis are reasonable
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2014/04/10) */
This vehicle was sold shortly after Mr*** failed to come to terms agreeable to the dealership on the purchase of the subject vehicle and therefore his requested resolution is impossible
The Craig's List ad, which I will
forward, clearly indicates the advertised price plus documentation fee, tax, and plate transfer feeMr***'s request to purchase the vehicle at $20,"out the door" was deniedOur salesman's e-mail indicates an invitation to Mr*** to make an offer of $22,500, but it was not the "out the door" price (i.eexclusive of all taxes, licensing, and fee's) and the e-mail states nothing about an "out the door" priceI will also forward the salesperson's e-mail for reference
The price was never agreed to by either party and Mr*** is simply mistaken as to the termsThat is why an auto sale cannot be completed over the phoneThe documents need to be signed with the terms clearly agreed to and any vehicle is subject to sale to another party until terms are finalized in a contractMr***'s "out the door" price would never have been agreed to as it would have resulted in a loss to the company
Mr*** made quite a point of telling our salesperson that he was an ex-car sales manager and he was obviously quite familiar with this process
In sum, no agreement was ever reached and the vehicle was sold at full asking price to another party
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2014/04/14) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
This dealership has had many complaints about their advertising, marketing, and misleading consumers about the prices of vehicles in the pastNot just with the Revdex.com, but many other consumer review sites
The response from the dealership is completely dishonestI offered $20,000, out the doorThey wanted me to be at $24,700, out the door*** stated in his email, "meet me in the middle at $22,If we were only speaking about he door the prices, and he said "meet me in the middle", what does that mean? $22,is exactly the middle!
Additionally, when I spoke to the Salesperson, ***, on the phone, he admitted to me that he "screwed up" and was new at the dealershipHe stated that when he mentioned the situation to his manager that he was advised that the difference would come out of his paycheckAlthough empathetic to the salesperson, I told him that he's the authorized representative of the dealershipAnd whether the dealership 'made' him pay for the difference or not is between him and his employer, but that he would still have to honor the terms of the negotiation we've agreed upon
Lastly, the response from the dealership is typical and disappointingThey don't even have their facts correct about who I amI never worked as a "manager of a car lot" as they suggested in their response
But I will say, the business that I am in, I have a ton of positive reviews - this business simply does notJust like a lender who reviews someone's creditworthiness to determine if they can extend to him, in good faith, a line of credit, business's reviews from the general public act as their 'credit score' to determine their creditworthinessAnd the public as spoken; they are simply not credit worthy of even the smallest loan with the highest interest rate
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 6, 2014/07/01) */
Ms*** claims that her 7-year old vehicle broke down because the dealership failed to diagnose some unknown noiseThat report of a noise was some months prior to the breakdown and there is absolutely no way to know that the two
are related in any fashionOur technicians are all factory trained and expert in what they doWe get paid for the repairs that we make and there's simply no reason that we would not have made the repair if it was some cut and dry cause and effect as Ms*** seems to implyNotwithstanding the above, if Ms*** had a less than satisfactory experience with a service advisor who failed to keep her timely apprised of the repair process, for that we appologizeAnd while the dealership does not feel that it has any responsibility for the noise or part failure months later, we are happy to offer a customer accomodation to Ms*** in the form of a credit of the $she asked for at her next serviceShe should just bring this response in with her and we'll be happy to honor the discount
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 8, 2014/07/02) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I would like to accept the $credit but would ask that this be sent in a form other than a copy of this letterI don't even know who wrote the letter and doubt that it will be honored with only a copy of this emailSince they are the only Ford dealership on the island of Maui, I need to continue using their service deptand would appreciate this offer be in the form of a certificate or a signed letterThank You
Final Business Response /* (4000, 18, 2014/07/08) */
July 3,
Ms***
*** St
***, HI ***
Re: 6/22/complaint to Revdex.com
Dear Ms***,
Please let this letter serve as evidence of the $credit which we are extending to you as a customer accommodation which you may redeem at any time in our Valley Isle Motors service department
If there are any questions at all at the time that you seek to utilize this credit, please ask to speak to our service manager, Mr*** *** or, in his absence, your service writer may confirm the credit with the undersigned such that you are not inconvenieneed
On behalf of the company, I apologize for any service irregularities that you experienced and we appreciate your willingness to continue to service your vehicle at our company
Sincerely,
***
General Counsel
***
cc *** ***
Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
It is clear that the business is skilled in responding to these kinds of complaints. Whomever the unnamed representative is, they are clearly more concerned with attacking my character than seriously addressing this claim. However, there are many issues that require addressing here so I am going to address them each one at a time very simply so the business may more easily respond to them.
1. (The original Claim regarding Jim Falk Service stating my brakes were so bad that I should not drive my vehicle) The representative pointed out the fact that my claim was filed a full 8 months after the initial service at which they recommended immediate replacement. The reason it was 8 months later was because upon personal inspection my brakes did not need immediate replacement. However, I did still trust that they needed replaced. 8 months later I set out to replace the brakes only to find that they in fact did not need replaced and were not even close. So much so that I am still driving with the original factory brake pads at 65,000 miles. I still have the brand new pads that I purchased at [redacted]. These are physical items I have as proof that this is true and cannot be disputed in addition to witnesses that were hired to perform the brake job and after removing the tires they pointed out the LACK of wear and that I could get much more life from the existing brakes and concluded replacement was not even close to necessary. The representatives claim that my brakes were in the "yellow zone" is in clear contrast to what I was told when I arrived to pick up my car that day. I was told that my car was unsafe to drive and needed immediate brake service to which I was quoted $1000. The fact you say you provided an inspection document that said 40% wear is preposterous because your service advisor was adamant that it needed done immediately. The issue here is that your service department lied and any document you have from your department was not what I was told or provided. I am intelligent enough to know better and upon further questioning was confident my car was safe to drive away and I did, thankfully. Further proof that your service department was trying to take advantage of me would be the assessment of the brakes at prior service intervals as well as following ones. Brakes don't suddenly wear out. Previous inspections show normal wear as well as subsequent ones. Your service department never requested brake service in the following 3 years that I have been going for servicing. No one ever claimed to me that my car was unsafe or needed brakes again. This includes the recent service to which my 8 year old brakes are still on my car.
What Jim Falk does to accommodate such a misrepresentation of the trust is not something I am familiar with. I spent money on brake service that I did not need therefore when required to ask what I wanted as compensation I requested the money that I spent on the unnecessary parts. If you had something else to offer it was never communicated to me. I dropped this case without resolution because of the treatment and rudeness of the people I was required to deal with. They did nothing but deny, deflect, and completely disregard my complaint. To which I at the time decided was no longer worth the stress and time it was causing. I would like to point out that in the first paragraph the representative says I never responded to the claim, however, I did and was met with a runaround of phone calls between the service manager and someone at the Hana Hwy location. Their rudeness and inability to help me was why I discontinued the conversation. Therefore, the issue was not fully investigated or addressed as the representative contradicted in the last sentence of the 3rd paragraph.
2. The unnamed representative also claimed that I was not specific about the issues I had prior with their service department and claimed that it was not even Jim Falk that I had issues with and it was actually [redacted] which closed. This is atrocious for them to so blatantly assert that I don't even know what service center gave me poor service. The reality is I very clearly remember. I remember when [redacted] closed and Jim Falk took over the servicing of my [redacted] because the friendly, efficient, fast service I had come to love and enjoy became a distant memory. It was replaced with the cattle drive service that you expect at a DMV or emergency room. I have never been greeted when I walk into their service center. In fact I will wait for 30 minutes before my presence is even acknowledged. This is so much a regular practice that I now just accept it and wait. Where as there was a time when I spoke up and said "Can someone help me?" To which I was ignored and finally after more assertively requesting assistance someone asked me my last name and sent me to the person that handles the B's and I waited another 10 minutes. Granted they are way busier than they have the staff to manage so I just wait and I try to be as nice to the poor overworked service advisers. The other issue is every time I drop my car off I am given a time to come pick it up which is how I plan my day. Every time they fail to finish when they said it would be done nor have they even come close. I believe there was a policy change a few years ago because they stopped guessing times and offering a call when it is ready making it difficult to plan your day. However, each time a call is offered I do not receive one. Instead it nears closing time, my car is there all day and I receive no call. So I frantically try to get a hold of someone to which the service advisers are too busy to answer and I have to go physically down before they close or they will keep my car overnight with no call. Another time I was told it would be only an hour and I decided to wait in the waiting room. I was there for nearly 5 hours. Checking with them constantly before [redacted] finally went and spoke personally to the serviceman and had them do the tune up so I could leave. This is the kind of service I have come to expect from Jim Falk. At the very least they are consistent. This low level of service carries right through until you get in your car and drive away as it usually takes another 10 or 20 minutes if you are lucky to actually receive your car after you have paid for the service. If you would like me to be more specific or go into more detail just let me know. I am happy to do so. However, I feel this is just distracting from the issue at hand.
3. The next issue is the most recent one regarding the cooling system. The representative said that "I" disagree with their recommended services and even tries to deny what happened as if he/she were there themselves and a witness. I did not disagree. I picked up my car from your service center and took it directly to another for a second opinion. When I arrived at the second shop (a 5 minute drive away) we popped the hood and found the broken clips laying directly on top of the cover itself. The car did not over heat despite the fact that your service department gave it to me still a gallon low even though I asked them if it would be safe to drive home and they knew exactly what I was doing with the car. The second service center pressure checked the cooling system for 5 hours straight at maximum psi and found no leaks. Your denial of these facts does not make them any less true. If you continue to act as though you know something to which you were not directly a party to knowing we will be unable to get anywhere. I have a statement and witness from the other reputable establishment that did the second diagnostic. Your service department did not replace the engine cover and the clips for the engine cover were broken and they said it was a gallon low on coolant when I arrived at Jim Falk and it was not refilled and safe for me to drive because it was still a gallon low when I drove it to the other service center.
4. The final issue is regarding the representatives final paragraph to which they state it is not reasonable for them to pay me the amount that they themselves quoted me to have done the repairs that they themselves recommended. What is ridiculous is the idea that I would allow them to ever service any vehicle of mine again. The representative also states that they charged a reasonable discounted rate for the service provided. I am not disputing the charge for the diagnostic service itself. I paid for a diagnostic and received a laundry list of items found NOT to be faulty or they were only faulty as result of Jim Falks own negligent repairs. I was clearly concerned for my car and wanted to know what was wrong. The amount you charge for that service is the amount you charge. However, the subsequent lies that were dispensed are not appreciated. I again ask for these charges to be refunded because I am required to come up with a reasonable ask for compensation. If you disagree with what I have offered as acceptable retribution than you may provide something else. However, as has always been the case the only thing you and your company are interested in is denial, deflection, and disregard. This is why I have turned to the Revdex.com for aid in resolving this very disturbing matter.
Now that I have addressed one by one the issues brought forward in Jim Falk's response to my complaint. I need to bring up the items that were not addressed and disregarded by their unnamed representative.
On Jan 10, 2012 Jim Falk confirmed while in warranty a rattling that I had noticed. They told me before it was normal and I knew it was not. Finally, after much coaxing they agreed to look into and they confirmed that the issue was a serious one that required repair. They did the repair which included removing and replacing the Timing chain cover and valve cover. Both of which they have now observed to be leaking and at this recent visit and quoted me $977 to repair. I am sure at the time they did not look at my service records to realize that they were the ones that put the covers on only 20k miles prior. I am requesting the $1000 to complete the repair that they did not do properly. There is no question that they did not do the repair properly as the covers were replaced at 45k miles and I now only have 65k on my car and not one but BOTH of the covers they replaced are leaking. This indicates that they either did not replace or seat the gaskets properly, or that they over-tightened or failed to tighten them enough. Any one of these 4 things will cause a gasket to leak. I have the receipt proving they did the service on the vehicle, I have the quote showing they inspected the covers and found them to be leaking and therefor need to be replaced. I have the quote for the cost they would charge to replace these covers and I again remain firm in my belief that no one in my situation should be made to trust that Jim Falk would do these repairs honestly and effectively given the history. Therefor, I will not take my car back to them ever again and they will need to pay someone else to do this service that they botched.
I am willing and open to suggestions and motivated to find an agreeable solution to the myriad of issues. I will not, however, let some unnamed representative call me a liar and make claims regarding a specific situation to which they were not a party to. The facts remain that after the most recent service I received my car in unsafe and unsatisfactory driving condition as parts were left on the engine cover and broken and it was given to me 1 gallon low on coolant. A move that to me suggests they wanted my car to overheat so I would think the suggested repairs were actually necessary and therefor spend the $4000 for the service. Who knows if they would have actually done the service or if their intention was to just pocket that money.
As further proof to the facts presented. I picked up my car from the second service center. They advised they could find no issue with the cooling system. I have been driving it daily one month now since I left Jim Falk's with zero issues. There are no leaks and the coolant level has remained consistent after the second service center topped it off. The fact also remains that although it was 3 years ago I was lied to regarding the condition of my brakes and the safety of my car. The physical proof I have to offer is that the original brakes are still performing perfectly and are only now at the point at which they need replaced. I have witnesses as well as the physical proof to both of these primary issues. It will not be satisfactory to deny or pretend that I have fabricated either of these very serious issues with your business and I find it very unprofessional that the person who responded to my claim not sign or provide their name. Further example of the impersonal and poor service I have come to accept from them.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: It is clear that the business is skilled in responding to these kinds of complaintsWhomever the unnamed representative is, they are clearly more concerned with attacking my character than seriously addressing this claimHowever, there are many issues that require addressing here so I am going to address them each one at a time very simply so the business may more easily respond to them (The original Claim regarding Jim Falk Service stating my brakes were so bad that I should not drive my vehicle) The representative pointed out the fact that my claim was filed a full months after the initial service at which they recommended immediate replacementThe reason it was months later was because upon personal inspection my brakes did not need immediate replacementHowever, I did still trust that they needed replacedmonths later I set out to replace the brakes only to find that they in fact did not need replaced and were not even closeSo much so that I am still driving with the original factory brake pads at 65,milesI still have the brand new pads that I purchased at ***These are physical items I have as proof that this is true and cannot be disputed in addition to witnesses that were hired to perform the brake job and after removing the tires they pointed out the LACK of wear and that I could get much more life from the existing brakes and concluded replacement was not even close to necessaryThe representatives claim that my brakes were in the "yellow zone" is in clear contrast to what I was told when I arrived to pick up my car that dayI was told that my car was unsafe to drive and needed immediate brake service to which I was quoted $The fact you say you provided an inspection document that said 40% wear is preposterous because your service advisor was adamant that it needed done immediatelyThe issue here is that your service department lied and any document you have from your department was not what I was told or providedI am intelligent enough to know better and upon further questioning was confident my car was safe to drive away and I did, thankfullyFurther proof that your service department was trying to take advantage of me would be the assessment of the brakes at prior service intervals as well as following onesBrakes don't suddenly wear outPrevious inspections show wear as well as subsequent onesYour service department never requested brake service in the following years that I have been going for servicingNo one ever claimed to me that my car was unsafe or needed brakes againThis includes the recent service to which my year old brakes are still on my car What Jim Falk does to accommodate such a misrepresentation of the trust is not something I am familiar withI spent money on brake service that I did not need therefore when required to ask what I wanted as compensation I requested the money that I spent on the unnecessary partsIf you had something else to offer it was never communicated to meI dropped this case without resolution because of the treatment and rudeness of the people I was required to deal withThey did nothing but deny, deflect, and completely disregard my complaintTo which I at the time decided was no longer worth the stress and time it was causingI would like to point out that in the first paragraph the representative says I never responded to the claim, however, I did and was met with a runaround of phone calls between the service manager and someone at the Hana Hwy locationTheir rudeness and inability to help me was why I discontinued the conversationTherefore, the issue was not fully investigated or addressed as the representative contradicted in the last sentence of the 3rd paragraphThe unnamed representative also claimed that I was not specific about the issues I had prior with their service department and claimed that it was not even Jim Falk that I had issues with and it was actually [redacted] which closedThis is atrocious for them to so blatantly assert that I don't even know what service center gave me poor serviceThe reality is I very clearly rememberI remember when [redacted] closed and Jim Falk took over the servicing of my [redacted] because the friendly, efficient, fast service I had come to love and enjoy became a distant memoryIt was replaced with the cattle drive service that you expect at a DMV or emergency roomI have never been greeted when I walk into their service centerIn fact I will wait for minutes before my presence is even acknowledgedThis is so much a regular practice that I now just accept it and waitWhere as there was a time when I spoke up and said "Can someone help me?" To which I was ignored and finally after more assertively requesting assistance someone asked me my last name and sent me to the person that handles the B's and I waited another minutesGranted they are way busier than they have the staff to manage so I just wait and I try to be as nice to the poor overworked service advisersThe other issue is every time I drop my car off I am given a time to come pick it up which is how I plan my dayEvery time they fail to finish when they said it would be done nor have they even come closeI believe there was a policy change a few years ago because they stopped guessing times and offering a call when it is ready making it difficult to plan your dayHowever, each time a call is offered I do not receive oneInstead it nears closing time, my car is there all day and I receive no callSo I frantically try to get a hold of someone to which the service advisers are too busy to answer and I have to go physically down before they close or they will keep my car overnight with no callAnother time I was told it would be only an hour and I decided to wait in the waiting roomI was there for nearly hoursChecking with them constantly before [redacted] finally went and spoke personally to the serviceman and had them do the tune up so I could leaveThis is the kind of service I have come to expect from Jim FalkAt the very least they are consistentThis low level of service carries right through until you get in your car and drive away as it usually takes another or minutes if you are lucky to actually receive your car after you have paid for the serviceIf you would like me to be more specific or go into more detail just let me knowI am happy to do soHowever, I feel this is just distracting from the issue at handThe next issue is the most recent one regarding the cooling systemThe representative said that "I" disagree with their recommended services and even tries to deny what happened as if he/she were there themselves and a witnessI did not disagreeI picked up my car from your service center and took it directly to another for a second opinionWhen I arrived at the second shop (a minute drive away) we popped the hood and found the broken clips laying directly on top of the cover itselfThe car did not over heat despite the fact that your service department gave it to me still a gallon low even though I asked them if it would be safe to drive home and they knew exactly what I was doing with the car The second service center pressure checked the cooling system for hours straight at maximum psi and found no leaksYour denial of these facts does not make them any less trueIf you continue to act as though you know something to which you were not directly a party to knowing we will be unable to get anywhereI have a statement and witness from the other reputable establishment that did the second diagnosticYour service department did not replace the engine cover and the clips for the engine cover were broken and they said it was a gallon low on coolant when I arrived at Jim Falk and it was not refilled and safe for me to drive because it was still a gallon low when I drove it to the other service centerThe final issue is regarding the representatives final paragraph to which they state it is not reasonable for them to pay me the amount that they themselves quoted me to have done the repairs that they themselves recommendedWhat is ridiculous is the idea that I would allow them to ever service any vehicle of mine againThe representative also states that they charged a reasonable discounted rate for the service providedI am not disputing the charge for the diagnostic service itselfI paid for a diagnostic and received a laundry list of items found NOT to be faulty or they were only faulty as result of Jim Falks own negligent repairsI was clearly concerned for my car and wanted to know what was wrongThe amount you charge for that service is the amount you chargeHowever, the subsequent lies that were dispensed are not appreciatedI again ask for these charges to be refunded because I am required to come up with a reasonable ask for compensationIf you disagree with what I have offered as acceptable retribution than you may provide something elseHowever, as has always been the case the only thing you and your company are interested in is denial, deflection, and disregardThis is why I have turned to the Revdex.com for aid in resolving this very disturbing matter Now that I have addressed one by one the issues brought forward in Jim Falk's response to my complaintI need to bring up the items that were not addressed and disregarded by their unnamed representative On Jan 10, Jim Falk confirmed while in warranty a rattling that I had noticedThey told me before it was and I knew it was notFinally, after much coaxing they agreed to look into and they confirmed that the issue was a serious one that required repairThey did the repair which included removing and replacing the Timing chain cover and valve coverBoth of which they have now observed to be leaking and at this recent visit and quoted me $to repairI am sure at the time they did not look at my service records to realize that they were the ones that put the covers on only 20k miles priorI am requesting the $to complete the repair that they did not do properlyThere is no question that they did not do the repair properly as the covers were replaced at 45k miles and I now only have 65k on my car and not one but BOTH of the covers they replaced are leakingThis indicates that they either did not replace or seat the gaskets properly, or that they over-tightened or failed to tighten them enoughAny one of these things will cause a gasket to leakI have the receipt proving they did the service on the vehicle, I have the quote showing they inspected the covers and found them to be leaking and therefor need to be replacedI have the quote for the cost they would charge to replace these covers and I again remain firm in my belief that no one in my situation should be made to trust that Jim Falk would do these repairs honestly and effectively given the historyTherefor, I will not take my car back to them ever again and they will need to pay someone else to do this service that they botched I am willing and open to suggestions and motivated to find an agreeable solution to the myriad of issuesI will not, however, let some unnamed representative call me a liar and make claims regarding a specific situation to which they were not a party toThe facts remain that after the most recent service I received my car in unsafe and unsatisfactory driving condition as parts were left on the engine cover and broken and it was given to me gallon low on coolantA move that to me suggests they wanted my car to overheat so I would think the suggested repairs were actually necessary and therefor spend the $for the serviceWho knows if they would have actually done the service or if their intention was to just pocket that money As further proof to the facts presentedI picked up my car from the second service centerThey advised they could find no issue with the cooling systemI have been driving it daily one month now since I left Jim Falk's with zero issuesThere are no leaks and the coolant level has remained consistent after the second service center topped it offThe fact also remains that although it was years ago I was lied to regarding the condition of my brakes and the safety of my carThe physical proof I have to offer is that the original brakes are still performing perfectly and are only now at the point at which they need replacedI have witnesses as well as the physical proof to both of these primary issuesIt will not be satisfactory to deny or pretend that I have fabricated either of these very serious issues with your business and I find it very unprofessional that the person who responded to my claim not sign or provide their nameFurther example of the impersonal and poor service I have come to accept from them Sincerely, [redacted]
years and months ago, Mr*** filed a
complaint with your office which detailed a complaint from a
service inspection
at our company a full months prior to that in which he alleged that he was
advised that his brakes needed to be replaced.
The complaint was researched and responded to. The documentation revealed that Mr***
had been given a copy of the inspection sheet showing the exact measurements on
all of his brakes and that they showed wear in the "yellow" zone
which meant that they would likely need to be replaced in the near future. Mr***'s own complaint stated in one
instance that the brakes were "pristine" when examined at another
shop, but in the next sentence said that they had 40% wear left on them. Obviously that is not pristine and comports
completely with the inspection document that we gave him showing the wear. Mr*** stated that he bought brakes at
*** auto parts and wanted us to reimburse him for them and we did not think
that we had any responsibility for brakes that he bought somewhere else and
likely has had installed. We did attempt
to contact Mr*** and offer some other type of accommodation on future
service and to explain again the inspection issue but he never responded and he
never followed up with the Revdex.com on any further request. We assumed that the matter had been resolved
at that time almost years ago
It should also be noted that Mr*** complained
that he had numerous other problems with the dealership previously but was not
specific at all. In fact, if he had
issues previously, it was with a completely different company, *** ***,
who owned the company before it was purchased by present ownership
Mr*** wishes to revisit the issue of the brake
inspection now nearly years later, but it has already been investigated and
addressed
Mr***'s latest complaint is that he disagrees
with the diagnosis received when he brought his now approximately year old
vehicle with more than 65,miles on it for overheating. It is out of warranty and Mr***
presented his vehicle requesting that our mechanics diagnose the problem. He signed a preliminary estimate of $
for the investigative work to be done for which we ultimately only charged him
$118.00. Mr*** specifically
authorized both the diagnostic work and the charge
The inspection revealed multiple problems with the
cooling system and other recommended services.
Mr***'s vehicle was found to have a radiator leak and was down a
gallon in coolant. Coolant was replaced
as it is necessary to completely fill the system in order to perform a pressure
check. The system was found to be
leaking and losing coolant which is why it was overheating and shutting down
power to the engine, but he chose not to do any of the repairs
recommended. The vehicle left with coolant
at the proper level. If it was found to
be low again at a later time, that is because there is a leak in the system as
he was advised.
We have no idea to whom Mr*** presented his
vehicle after it left our company and what repairs have been made or not
made. However, Mr***'s request
that we pay him in excess of $to have someone else perform the work that
we recommended is not in any way reasonable.
The company returned the car to Mr*** in the condition that it
was presented and charged a reasonable and discounted rate to perform the
diagnostic evaluation that he expressly requested. Nothing was broken during the inspection
The company does not feel that Mr***'s
complaints or request that we pay for work that he wants to have performed at
another shop following our diagnosis are reasonable
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2014/04/10) */
This vehicle was sold shortly after Mr*** failed to come to terms agreeable to the dealership on the purchase of the subject vehicle and therefore his requested resolution is impossible
The Craig's List ad, which I will
forward, clearly indicates the advertised price plus documentation fee, tax, and plate transfer feeMr***'s request to purchase the vehicle at $20,"out the door" was deniedOur salesman's e-mail indicates an invitation to Mr*** to make an offer of $22,500, but it was not the "out the door" price (i.eexclusive of all taxes, licensing, and fee's) and the e-mail states nothing about an "out the door" priceI will also forward the salesperson's e-mail for reference
The price was never agreed to by either party and Mr*** is simply mistaken as to the termsThat is why an auto sale cannot be completed over the phoneThe documents need to be signed with the terms clearly agreed to and any vehicle is subject to sale to another party until terms are finalized in a contractMr***'s "out the door" price would never have been agreed to as it would have resulted in a loss to the company
Mr*** made quite a point of telling our salesperson that he was an ex-car sales manager and he was obviously quite familiar with this process
In sum, no agreement was ever reached and the vehicle was sold at full asking price to another party
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2014/04/14) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
This dealership has had many complaints about their advertising, marketing, and misleading consumers about the prices of vehicles in the pastNot just with the Revdex.com, but many other consumer review sites
The response from the dealership is completely dishonestI offered $20,000, out the doorThey wanted me to be at $24,700, out the door*** stated in his email, "meet me in the middle at $22,If we were only speaking about he door the prices, and he said "meet me in the middle", what does that mean? $22,is exactly the middle!
Additionally, when I spoke to the Salesperson, ***, on the phone, he admitted to me that he "screwed up" and was new at the dealershipHe stated that when he mentioned the situation to his manager that he was advised that the difference would come out of his paycheckAlthough empathetic to the salesperson, I told him that he's the authorized representative of the dealershipAnd whether the dealership 'made' him pay for the difference or not is between him and his employer, but that he would still have to honor the terms of the negotiation we've agreed upon
Lastly, the response from the dealership is typical and disappointingThey don't even have their facts correct about who I amI never worked as a "manager of a car lot" as they suggested in their response
But I will say, the business that I am in, I have a ton of positive reviews - this business simply does notJust like a lender who reviews someone's creditworthiness to determine if they can extend to him, in good faith, a line of credit, business's reviews from the general public act as their 'credit score' to determine their creditworthinessAnd the public as spoken; they are simply not credit worthy of even the smallest loan with the highest interest rate
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 6, 2014/07/01) */
Ms*** claims that her 7-year old vehicle broke down because the dealership failed to diagnose some unknown noiseThat report of a noise was some months prior to the breakdown and there is absolutely no way to know that the two
are related in any fashionOur technicians are all factory trained and expert in what they doWe get paid for the repairs that we make and there's simply no reason that we would not have made the repair if it was some cut and dry cause and effect as Ms*** seems to implyNotwithstanding the above, if Ms*** had a less than satisfactory experience with a service advisor who failed to keep her timely apprised of the repair process, for that we appologizeAnd while the dealership does not feel that it has any responsibility for the noise or part failure months later, we are happy to offer a customer accomodation to Ms*** in the form of a credit of the $she asked for at her next serviceShe should just bring this response in with her and we'll be happy to honor the discount
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 8, 2014/07/02) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I would like to accept the $credit but would ask that this be sent in a form other than a copy of this letterI don't even know who wrote the letter and doubt that it will be honored with only a copy of this emailSince they are the only Ford dealership on the island of Maui, I need to continue using their service deptand would appreciate this offer be in the form of a certificate or a signed letterThank You
Final Business Response /* (4000, 18, 2014/07/08) */
July 3,
Ms***
*** St
***, HI ***
Re: 6/22/complaint to Revdex.com
Dear Ms***,
Please let this letter serve as evidence of the $credit which we are extending to you as a customer accommodation which you may redeem at any time in our Valley Isle Motors service department
If there are any questions at all at the time that you seek to utilize this credit, please ask to speak to our service manager, Mr*** *** or, in his absence, your service writer may confirm the credit with the undersigned such that you are not inconvenieneed
On behalf of the company, I apologize for any service irregularities that you experienced and we appreciate your willingness to continue to service your vehicle at our company
Sincerely,
***
General Counsel
***
cc *** ***
Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
It is clear that the business is skilled in responding to these kinds of complaints. Whomever the unnamed representative is, they are clearly more concerned with attacking my character than seriously addressing this claim. However, there are many issues that require addressing here so I am going to address them each one at a time very simply so the business may more easily respond to them.
1. (The original Claim regarding Jim Falk Service stating my brakes were so bad that I should not drive my vehicle) The representative pointed out the fact that my claim was filed a full 8 months after the initial service at which they recommended immediate replacement. The reason it was 8 months later was because upon personal inspection my brakes did not need immediate replacement. However, I did still trust that they needed replaced. 8 months later I set out to replace the brakes only to find that they in fact did not need replaced and were not even close. So much so that I am still driving with the original factory brake pads at 65,000 miles. I still have the brand new pads that I purchased at [redacted]. These are physical items I have as proof that this is true and cannot be disputed in addition to witnesses that were hired to perform the brake job and after removing the tires they pointed out the LACK of wear and that I could get much more life from the existing brakes and concluded replacement was not even close to necessary. The representatives claim that my brakes were in the "yellow zone" is in clear contrast to what I was told when I arrived to pick up my car that day. I was told that my car was unsafe to drive and needed immediate brake service to which I was quoted $1000. The fact you say you provided an inspection document that said 40% wear is preposterous because your service advisor was adamant that it needed done immediately. The issue here is that your service department lied and any document you have from your department was not what I was told or provided. I am intelligent enough to know better and upon further questioning was confident my car was safe to drive away and I did, thankfully. Further proof that your service department was trying to take advantage of me would be the assessment of the brakes at prior service intervals as well as following ones. Brakes don't suddenly wear out. Previous inspections show normal wear as well as subsequent ones. Your service department never requested brake service in the following 3 years that I have been going for servicing. No one ever claimed to me that my car was unsafe or needed brakes again. This includes the recent service to which my 8 year old brakes are still on my car.
What Jim Falk does to accommodate such a misrepresentation of the trust is not something I am familiar with. I spent money on brake service that I did not need therefore when required to ask what I wanted as compensation I requested the money that I spent on the unnecessary parts. If you had something else to offer it was never communicated to me. I dropped this case without resolution because of the treatment and rudeness of the people I was required to deal with. They did nothing but deny, deflect, and completely disregard my complaint. To which I at the time decided was no longer worth the stress and time it was causing. I would like to point out that in the first paragraph the representative says I never responded to the claim, however, I did and was met with a runaround of phone calls between the service manager and someone at the Hana Hwy location. Their rudeness and inability to help me was why I discontinued the conversation. Therefore, the issue was not fully investigated or addressed as the representative contradicted in the last sentence of the 3rd paragraph.
2. The unnamed representative also claimed that I was not specific about the issues I had prior with their service department and claimed that it was not even Jim Falk that I had issues with and it was actually [redacted] which closed. This is atrocious for them to so blatantly assert that I don't even know what service center gave me poor service. The reality is I very clearly remember. I remember when [redacted] closed and Jim Falk took over the servicing of my [redacted] because the friendly, efficient, fast service I had come to love and enjoy became a distant memory. It was replaced with the cattle drive service that you expect at a DMV or emergency room. I have never been greeted when I walk into their service center. In fact I will wait for 30 minutes before my presence is even acknowledged. This is so much a regular practice that I now just accept it and wait. Where as there was a time when I spoke up and said "Can someone help me?" To which I was ignored and finally after more assertively requesting assistance someone asked me my last name and sent me to the person that handles the B's and I waited another 10 minutes. Granted they are way busier than they have the staff to manage so I just wait and I try to be as nice to the poor overworked service advisers. The other issue is every time I drop my car off I am given a time to come pick it up which is how I plan my day. Every time they fail to finish when they said it would be done nor have they even come close. I believe there was a policy change a few years ago because they stopped guessing times and offering a call when it is ready making it difficult to plan your day. However, each time a call is offered I do not receive one. Instead it nears closing time, my car is there all day and I receive no call. So I frantically try to get a hold of someone to which the service advisers are too busy to answer and I have to go physically down before they close or they will keep my car overnight with no call. Another time I was told it would be only an hour and I decided to wait in the waiting room. I was there for nearly 5 hours. Checking with them constantly before [redacted] finally went and spoke personally to the serviceman and had them do the tune up so I could leave. This is the kind of service I have come to expect from Jim Falk. At the very least they are consistent. This low level of service carries right through until you get in your car and drive away as it usually takes another 10 or 20 minutes if you are lucky to actually receive your car after you have paid for the service. If you would like me to be more specific or go into more detail just let me know. I am happy to do so. However, I feel this is just distracting from the issue at hand.
3. The next issue is the most recent one regarding the cooling system. The representative said that "I" disagree with their recommended services and even tries to deny what happened as if he/she were there themselves and a witness. I did not disagree. I picked up my car from your service center and took it directly to another for a second opinion. When I arrived at the second shop (a 5 minute drive away) we popped the hood and found the broken clips laying directly on top of the cover itself. The car did not over heat despite the fact that your service department gave it to me still a gallon low even though I asked them if it would be safe to drive home and they knew exactly what I was doing with the car. The second service center pressure checked the cooling system for 5 hours straight at maximum psi and found no leaks. Your denial of these facts does not make them any less true. If you continue to act as though you know something to which you were not directly a party to knowing we will be unable to get anywhere. I have a statement and witness from the other reputable establishment that did the second diagnostic. Your service department did not replace the engine cover and the clips for the engine cover were broken and they said it was a gallon low on coolant when I arrived at Jim Falk and it was not refilled and safe for me to drive because it was still a gallon low when I drove it to the other service center.
4. The final issue is regarding the representatives final paragraph to which they state it is not reasonable for them to pay me the amount that they themselves quoted me to have done the repairs that they themselves recommended. What is ridiculous is the idea that I would allow them to ever service any vehicle of mine again. The representative also states that they charged a reasonable discounted rate for the service provided. I am not disputing the charge for the diagnostic service itself. I paid for a diagnostic and received a laundry list of items found NOT to be faulty or they were only faulty as result of Jim Falks own negligent repairs. I was clearly concerned for my car and wanted to know what was wrong. The amount you charge for that service is the amount you charge. However, the subsequent lies that were dispensed are not appreciated. I again ask for these charges to be refunded because I am required to come up with a reasonable ask for compensation. If you disagree with what I have offered as acceptable retribution than you may provide something else. However, as has always been the case the only thing you and your company are interested in is denial, deflection, and disregard. This is why I have turned to the Revdex.com for aid in resolving this very disturbing matter.
Now that I have addressed one by one the issues brought forward in Jim Falk's response to my complaint. I need to bring up the items that were not addressed and disregarded by their unnamed representative.
On Jan 10, 2012 Jim Falk confirmed while in warranty a rattling that I had noticed. They told me before it was normal and I knew it was not. Finally, after much coaxing they agreed to look into and they confirmed that the issue was a serious one that required repair. They did the repair which included removing and replacing the Timing chain cover and valve cover. Both of which they have now observed to be leaking and at this recent visit and quoted me $977 to repair. I am sure at the time they did not look at my service records to realize that they were the ones that put the covers on only 20k miles prior. I am requesting the $1000 to complete the repair that they did not do properly. There is no question that they did not do the repair properly as the covers were replaced at 45k miles and I now only have 65k on my car and not one but BOTH of the covers they replaced are leaking. This indicates that they either did not replace or seat the gaskets properly, or that they over-tightened or failed to tighten them enough. Any one of these 4 things will cause a gasket to leak. I have the receipt proving they did the service on the vehicle, I have the quote showing they inspected the covers and found them to be leaking and therefor need to be replaced. I have the quote for the cost they would charge to replace these covers and I again remain firm in my belief that no one in my situation should be made to trust that Jim Falk would do these repairs honestly and effectively given the history. Therefor, I will not take my car back to them ever again and they will need to pay someone else to do this service that they botched.
I am willing and open to suggestions and motivated to find an agreeable solution to the myriad of issues. I will not, however, let some unnamed representative call me a liar and make claims regarding a specific situation to which they were not a party to. The facts remain that after the most recent service I received my car in unsafe and unsatisfactory driving condition as parts were left on the engine cover and broken and it was given to me 1 gallon low on coolant. A move that to me suggests they wanted my car to overheat so I would think the suggested repairs were actually necessary and therefor spend the $4000 for the service. Who knows if they would have actually done the service or if their intention was to just pocket that money.
As further proof to the facts presented. I picked up my car from the second service center. They advised they could find no issue with the cooling system. I have been driving it daily one month now since I left Jim Falk's with zero issues. There are no leaks and the coolant level has remained consistent after the second service center topped it off. The fact also remains that although it was 3 years ago I was lied to regarding the condition of my brakes and the safety of my car. The physical proof I have to offer is that the original brakes are still performing perfectly and are only now at the point at which they need replaced. I have witnesses as well as the physical proof to both of these primary issues. It will not be satisfactory to deny or pretend that I have fabricated either of these very serious issues with your business and I find it very unprofessional that the person who responded to my claim not sign or provide their name. Further example of the impersonal and poor service I have come to accept from them.
Sincerely,
[redacted]