Bruckner's Truck Sales, Inc

January 15, 2018 Revdex.com [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist Complaint ID [redacted] Dear Ms. [redacted], We are in receipt of your complaint notification. We understand the customer's frustration with the mechanical problems they experienced with their Volvo truck. However we...

believe the evidence provided with our official reply to this complaint is compelling in that we provided adequate financial relief in a most timely manner related to any and all workmanship complaints. There were no duplicate repair expenses the customer incurred related to our repair invoice [redacted] completed October 10, 2017. We are providing [redacted] invoice [redacted] in the amount of $1641.95 as evidence that Bruckner Truck Sales, Inc., paid [redacted] directly to repair all workmanship related issues. We are also providing extensive details regarding the overall repair timeline that was indeed extensive but was completely out of our control. We are also providing our original response dated December 15, 2017 to the customer's original demand for $6399.03 of combined truck payment, insurance, and IRP registration which goes into great detail regarding the facts surrounding the customer's complaint against us. None of these dollar amounts were substantiated by the customer yet that played no role in our decision to decline the customer's demand. After receiving our response the customer changed their overall demand to $3912.80 which continued to be unsubstantiated. We again declined to offer any further financial assistance. Our repair invoice [redacted] was a relatively major repair to the engine timing gears located at the rear of the engine. Near the completion of the repairs we encountered a problem with the starter motor attached to the rear of the engine. The very last two sentences of our invoice clearly states the starter remained engaged after the engine started. The customer was notified of this starter problem and they declined to allow Bruckner's to replace the starter and that was clearly noted on our invoice. We are providing an email exchange between our Albuquerque dealership and the customer that was initiated October 10, 2017 which was standard procedure to finalize payment of invoice [redacted]. The next email we received from the customer was on October 24, 2017 at 10:25 AM alerting us that they were having problems with their truck which they believed were related to our repair. In that email exchange the customer states the truck was towed at their request on October 17, 2017 from their fleet repair facility to [redacted] who are the closest Volvo authorized repair facility to minimize any further potential engine damage. [redacted] repair invoice [redacted] was written the same day at 2:52 PM local time recording the customer's complaint as "Inspect and report on possible gear train failure. See attached invoice. Customer states repairs were not done correctly and didn't want to start engine for fear of doing more damage". This is the first evidence that the overall repair timeline was very much out of Bruckner's control as there was a one week delay simply notifying us they had experienced additional mechanical problems with their Volvo truck. In this same email exchange the customer states "As of 10/23/17 truck has not been touched because they are looking for a mechanic specialized in gear repairs": The assumption was obviously made by the customer and shared by [redacted] that the engine had suffered a major mechanical failure that required special technical expertise to diagnose and repair. These shared assumptions contributed significantly to the overall repair delays. In reality the "engine noise" was ultimately repaired by simply replacing the starter which requires relatively minimal technical skills. Albuquerque Service Manager Ray K[redacted] called the customer October 24, 2017 shortly after receiving their email to obtain further details regarding the mechanical problems they were experiencing. Mr. K[redacted] also made a phone call to [redacted] on the same day in an attempt to gain further details. At that time Mr. K[redacted] requested a written estimate for parts and labor to repair all workmanship issues related to our original repair. There were emails and phone calls from October 26, 2017 through November 3, 2017 before we finally received enough detail from [redacted] to determine what overall repairs were necessary and which of those repairs Bruckner's was financially obligated to incur. Our response to this complaint includes time stamped notes from [redacted] estimate case number [redacted] that clearly indicate Bruckner's Albuquerque Service Manager Ray K[redacted] approved our portion of the repairs November 3, 2017. The notes also clearly indicate the customer did not approve the remaining unrelated repairs to their Volvo truck until November 27, 2017. This is further indication that Bruckner's had no control over the overall repair timeline and related delays. Repair invoice [redacted] paid by the customer clearly indicates the cause of the engine noise to be the same failed starter that was reported to the customer prior to their truck leaving our Albuquerque dealership October 10, 2017. Please read the detailed technician stories recorded on that repair invoice. The important items are highlighted for ease of reference but please feel free to read the entire invoice. There is no dispute on our part that there were workmanship issues related to the repairs performed on our repair invoice [redacted]. Bruckner's paid [redacted] repair invoice [redacted] totaling $1641.95 in good faith to settle the customer's complaint against our Albuquerque dealership. Their only previous claim against us was "down time" related to the [redacted] repair timeline. When we provided this same timeline evidence and we declined their original demand for $6399.03 they lowered their demand to $3912.80 which we also promptly declined. Once again they provided nothing to support their financial demand. In summary the customers Volvo truck was out of service for a total of 45 calendar days from October 17, 2017 through December 1, 2017. All repair delays have been documented in great detail with our reply. Please refer to page 8 of repair invoice [redacted]. There was a total of 12.54 actual technician working hours associated with the repairs approved by the customer. Please refer to page 4 of repair invoice [redacted]. There was a total of 10.13 actual technician working hours associated with the repairs approved by Bruckner Truck Sales, Inc. The total combined technician working hours for both repair invoices was 22.67 hours which is less than three average business days. We continue to believe we did nothing to delay any of these repairs. It is our belief by way of regular and documented communication with [redacted] and [redacted] that we actually helped expedite the overall repair timeline. Our view of the customer's financial demands remains unchanged and we respectfully deny their third attempt to gain financial advantage on our behalf. Please accept this as our official response to your claim [redacted]. Please contact me directly if you have any further questions regarding our response and the evidence provided. Sincerely,Keith M[redacted] V.P. and Director of Parts and Service Bruckner Truck Sales, Inc. [redacted]###-###-#### Direct line