Braham Motor Service

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint The Company's response is found lacking as it does NOT address the failure of the Company to the use of "best business practices" in providing customers with WRITTEN estimates (of costs) of work TO BE PERFORMED, and which should be presented to the customer, who will provide SIGNED APPROVAL of any part, or all, such work TO BE PERFORMED, before such work BEGINS The presentation of a SIGNED INVOICE and CREDIT CARD CHARGE RECEIPT to the customer as a claim that the work was performed, with or without the customer's prior approval, renders the customer captive to the Company as the Company can place a"mechanic's lien" against the customer's property if the customer refuses to pay the INVOICE IN FULLTherefore, the INVOICE AND CREDIT CARD RECEIPT represents the authorization by the customer to the invoice paid by the credit card issuer (and thus the parties to the dispute are the customer and his/her credit card issuer) so as to avoid having his/her property encumbered by a lien being placed upon his/her propertyThat is to say, the INVOICE AND CREDIT CARD CHARGE RECEIPT is NOT an AUTHORIZATION BY THE CUSTOMER TO HAVING WORK PERFORMED BEFORE such work is ACTUALLY PERFORMED Instead, the INVOICE represents a CLAIM BY THE BUSINESS that such work was performed, whether or NOT such work was approved by the customer prior to the commencement of such workLacking written documentation that the customer approved such work to be performed prior to its performance makes the customer captive to the Company's claimsSuch failure as to provide the customer a written estimate of the costs of the recommended work to be performed, for which the customer must provide his/her signed approval before the work is commenced is the cause of many such complaints as thisIn this complaint, the Company failed to provide the customer such written estimates for recommended workThe customer DID NOT SIGN NOR DID HE PROVIDE APPROVAL of any such work to be performed (save the charges for an oil change = $35.99) PRIOR TO it being performed (as is claimed by the company, whether or not if it had actually been performed at all)Therefore, the INVOICE DOES NOT represent PRIOR APPROVAL or ESTIMATE of work to be done or performedInstead, it represents a claim by the Company for charges for work performed by the Company AFTER such work has been performed (as claimed by the Company) whether the work was or WAS NOT APPROVED by the customer PRIOR TO its commencementThus the "contract" between the customer and the Company was lacking consideration as the customer approved ONLY the oil change work to be performed BEFORE ANY work was performedThis lack of legal consideration (i.eprior written approval by the customer for work beyond the requested oil change service) renders the "contract" unenforceable.As it is an objective of the Revdex.com to assist its members in making their businesses better, the Revdex.com may wish to provide guidance to the company in how to avoid future complaints, and the time consuming aspects of such complaint resolutions, by offering the Company suggestions as to "best practices"In this case, an example of "best practices" would be that the Company offer the customer written estimates of the costs to which the customer may approve (by providing his/her signature to the written document) or disapproval Finally, it is noted as being curious that the Revdex.com had closed this complaint on September 5, (as per the email communication of that date) for the failure of the Company to respond to the Revdex.comThen on September 29, the Company eventually does provide a response, even though the original complaint was was submitted on August 19, 2015, a full days after submission of the original complaintThe Company's failure to respond in a timely fashion to any complaint seems rather curious to me, as well as being somewhat of a failure to apply "best business practices"Whatever sanctions, reprimands, or other actions the Revdex.com wishes to take against the Company is a matter for the Revdex.com aloneHowever, it is suggested that the Revdex.com may wish to offer instruction and/or advice to the Company so that it may imporve it business practices so as to avoid such complaints in the future Regards, [redacted] ***

Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 9:AM Subject: Revdex.com customer complaint ID# *** In response to the customer complaint filed on August 31, (ID #***), the claims made by the customer is entirely and, by his own admission, tried to state that he had requested the old
gaskets back when in fact he did not as evidenced by our video recordingFirst, our videos showed that our technician took the customer out to the work area and, with the car up on the lift, showed the customer the areas where the oil leak was occurring underneath the vehicle. Our technician then provided an estimate which the customer approved PRIOR to the work being done. The customer then decided to wait in the lobby for the approximate hours while the work was being done. To our disbelief, he claimed that he was just waiting for the oil change to be done when he can clearly see from the lobby that his car was on the lift and was having the entire oil pan dropped. When asked why he waited so long for just an oil change, he claimed that we looked like we were busy. Further, he claimed that he had asked for the gaskets (parts) which were removed from the vehicle when he was paying for his invoice. We reviewed the video tape which also records voice and he did NOT in fact ask for any parts. When confronted with this fact, he retracted his statementAs far as the light lens on the vehicle, all of the lenses were visibly on the car and headlights were working when it left the premises. We have the video to prove that as wellThe customer was in our shop on August 17, and came back on August 19, claiming that he did not authorize this work and that he wanted the old parts back. First, we cannot understand why it took the customer two days to realize that he may have not authorized the work when he was in the shop the entire time the work was being performed AND he paid for the work after completion. Second, we do not keep old items like gaskets in the shop. All of our trash gets thrown out at the end of the day. For the customer to want the old parts a couple of days later is not possible when it is an item like a gasketWe completed the work and fixed his leaks with the customer fully aware of the costs and the work being performed as evidenced by his SIGNED INVOICE AND CREDIT CARD CHARGE RECEIPT. As with any customer complaint, we investigate thoroughly and report back our findings as quickly as possible

Sent: Saturday, October 03, 1:PM To: drteam Subject: Complaint ID# *** In response to the reply made on September 30, 2015, to our original reply made on September 29, 2015, the claims made by Mr*** is unfounded. As stated in our original response, Mr*** was made aware of the total cost and type of work being completed on his vehicle. Further, he was witness to the work being done on the vehicle as evidenced by the video tape we have in our shop Why Mr*** decided to complain about the work completed on his vehicle TWO DAYS AFTER he had paid for the work is beyond our understanding. Again, Mr*** lost all credibility when he stated on the phone that he had asked for the original gasket parts back when cashing out his invoice only to discover that, after reviewing our video tapes with audio and video recordings of the transaction, he DID NOT ask for the parts while paying for his invoice. He admitted on the phone that he had made not asked for the parts after being confronted with the facts These are the facts: Mr*** was made aware of the type of work and the total cost of the work prior to the work being performed and he was witness to the work being performed as he was in the shop for over hours. He DID NOT ask for the parts when paying for his invoice. He came back TWO DAYS LATER to complain about the work. The work was completed and Mr*** does not have a leak coming from the pan any longer. We find his complaint to be frivolous and unfounded. Please close this file

Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 8:AM Subject: RE: Revdex.com of Houston and South Texas- Complaint regarding Your Business #*** To Whom It May Concern, Regarding the complain submitted on 6/22/(ID#***), our response is as follows: When a customer comes to our shop for an oil change, as
part of our service review, we check all of the fluids in the vehicle My technician noticed that this vehicle was due for an oil change over 5,miles ago! The old sticker on her windshield stated that the oil change should have been done at mile 107,and the current odometer read 113, As a matter of fact, the customer admitted as she was getting out of her car that she was way overdue for an oil change When we checked her oil level and condition, it was about one quart low on oil and was significantly dirty When a vehicle is this past due for an oil change, we recommend getting the engine flushed as it starts to build up sludge Yes, we checked the other fluids such as a the power steering and recommended service on that as well However, if you look at the actual invoice, we only RECOMMENDED the power steering flush We DID NOT do that service We only did the engine flush service after the customer gave us the go ahead for that service She did come out after we started the service to cancel; however, we had already put the engine cleaner in the engine For the customer to claim that we stated the power steering fluid to be a quart low is a misunderstanding We stated that the "oil" was about a quart low and that is common in cases where the car is 5,miles overdue in the oil change Again, the signed invoice states that the powering steering service was only RECOMMENDED The customers' statement in his complaint about us doing the powering steering flush is incorrect The invoice clearly states that an engine flush was performed (which includes the oil change)As far as the fuel injection service is concerned, per recommendations by the manufacturer, an injection service is "RECOMMENDED" by certain mileage intervals I explained to the customer that there is no way for us to tell if the injection service was done unless the customer tells us it had been performed Again, we only go off of the recommended intervals We did not do this service We only recommended the service If the customer had told us that this service was performed, we would not have recommended the service but, at the time, the customer did not state that the service had already been performed She actually stated to my technician that she will do that injection service on her next visit so she didn't even know it had been done She declined the service so we only RECOMMENDED the serviceThe customer also stated that according to another shop, the engine flushing service should be $ Our service is $as our regular oil change is $ Yes, our flush is a little higher but we use BG products which has an initial cleaning element to clean out the engine and then we add an oil modifier (MOA) to the new oil as an extra protection element in the process Please inquire about this service by going to the BG website at www.bgprod.com

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  
The Company's response is found lacking as it does NOT address the failure of the Company to the use of "best business practices" in providing customers with WRITTEN estimates (of costs) of work TO BE PERFORMED, and which should be presented to the customer, who will provide SIGNED APPROVAL of any part, or all, such work TO BE PERFORMED, before such work BEGINS.
The presentation of a SIGNED INVOICE and CREDIT CARD CHARGE RECEIPT to the customer as a claim that the work was performed, with or without the customer's prior approval, renders the customer captive to the Company as the Company can place a"mechanic's lien" against the customer's property if the customer refuses to pay the INVOICE IN FULL. Therefore, the INVOICE AND CREDIT CARD RECEIPT represents the authorization by the customer to the invoice paid by the credit card issuer (and thus the parties to the dispute are the customer and his/her credit card issuer) so as to avoid having his/her property encumbered by a lien being placed upon his/her property. That is to say, the INVOICE AND CREDIT CARD CHARGE RECEIPT is NOT an AUTHORIZATION BY THE CUSTOMER TO HAVING WORK PERFORMED BEFORE such work is ACTUALLY PERFORMED.  Instead, the INVOICE represents a CLAIM BY THE BUSINESS that such work was performed, whether or NOT such work was approved by the customer prior to the commencement of such work. Lacking written documentation that the customer approved such work to be performed prior to its performance makes the customer captive to the Company's claims. Such failure as to provide the customer a written estimate of the costs of the recommended work to be performed, for which the customer must provide his/her signed approval before the work is commenced is the cause of many such complaints as this. In this complaint, the Company failed to provide the customer such written estimates for recommended work. The customer DID NOT SIGN NOR DID HE PROVIDE APPROVAL of any such work to be performed (save the charges for an oil change = $35.99) PRIOR TO it being performed (as is claimed by the company, whether or not if it had actually been performed at all). Therefore, the INVOICE DOES NOT represent PRIOR APPROVAL or ESTIMATE of work to be done or performed. Instead, it represents a claim by the Company for charges for work performed by the Company AFTER such work has been performed (as claimed by the Company) whether the work was or WAS NOT APPROVED by the customer PRIOR TO its commencement. Thus the "contract" between the customer and the Company was lacking consideration as the customer approved ONLY the oil change work to be performed BEFORE ANY work was performed. This lack of legal consideration (i.e. prior written approval by the customer for work beyond the requested oil change service) renders the "contract" unenforceable.As it is an objective of the Revdex.com to assist its members in making their businesses better, the Revdex.com may wish to provide guidance to the company in how to avoid future complaints, and the time consuming aspects of such complaint resolutions, by offering the Company suggestions as to "best practices". In this case, an example of "best practices" would be that the Company offer the customer written estimates of the costs to which the customer may approve (by providing his/her signature to the written document) or disapproval.   Finally, it is noted as being curious that the Revdex.com had closed this complaint on September 5, 2015 (as per the email communication of that date) for the failure of the Company to respond to the Revdex.com. Then on September 29, 2015 the Company eventually does provide a response, even though the original complaint was was submitted on August 19, 2015, a full 41 days after submission of the original complaint. The Company's failure to respond in a timely fashion to any complaint seems rather curious to me, as well as being somewhat of a failure to apply "best business practices". Whatever sanctions, reprimands, or other actions the Revdex.com wishes to take against the Company is a matter for the Revdex.com alone. However, it is suggested that the Revdex.com may wish to offer instruction and/or advice to the Company so that it may imporve it business practices so as to avoid such complaints in the future 
Regards,
[redacted]