Builders Affiliated Mortgage Services

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below Regards, [redacted]

To Whom It May Concern,This letter is in regards to a complaint filed by [redacted] , ID [redacted] First, I would like to address the timeline of events pertaining to the incidentThe customer had called to schedule the repair and was advised that we were roughly a week out on our schedule but he was more than welcome to drop off the bike in advance and we could work it into our schedule and was quoted a job based on a fuel system cleaning & flushThe bike was dropped off at our facility 8/2/11:27AM and we were able to get a technician onto it the afternoon of 8/4/I had then advised the customer that the fuel tank was in very poor condition internally and we had stopped at that point for further authorization, no lines were flushed, nothing had been cleaned and we would not proceed further until the tank situation was addressedThe customer was advised that I would have to make calls to our sublet repair facilities to get quotes to repair the tank, look into the possibility of us cleaning/treating the tank, as well as look up pricing on a replacement tank to cover all available options before proceeding any further.On the morning of 8/10/the customer contacted me via phone and I explained that our sublet repair facility would charge roughly $for hot tanking and lining the tank, however, it would then require repainting due to the chemicals involved stripping paint off of itIt was then explained to the customer that based on the available options and the opinion of the technician and me that it would be recommended to replace the tank and that I would call him back as soon as I worked up a price quoteThe customer called back shortly after this call on 8/10/2016, prior to me obtaining an accurate quote for him, and requested his bike be ready for pickup with no further action taken because he did not want to put a lot of money into it at this timeI asked what he based his decision on since I had not quoted him a price on the replacement tank, he informed me that he found prices online and wanted to attempt to clean his tank himself and we discussed methods of trying to clean itI advised the customer that I would ensure that the bike would be ready to pick up and that if the technician had anything taken off that it would be put back together as soon as possibleThis is where the misunderstanding/miscommunication has apparently taken place.The customer arrived to pick up the bike and asked what was done and if anything had been flushed, I had repeated what had been explained before that the lines were not flushed due to the tank needing to be addressed firstThe customer was good with the explanation and asked why we did not attempt to clean the tank ourselvesI explained that attempting to clean the tank in the condition it was in would be extremely labor intensive, costly, and not guaranteed to be-effectiveThe customer wasgood with this explanation as well and left the buildingAfter a few minutes an older gentleman came into the store visibly upset and began to accuse me of lying about the fuel tank and telling me the tank had never been off the bikeI attempted to calm down the situation and explained that I am not a technician and that I did not personally work on the bike and that I would go back to ask the technician the exact details pertaining to this situationI then Informed the older gentleman that the technician explained that he had the air cleaner assembly removed to inspect throttle bodies & fuel injectors and that the tank had not been removed due to the technician scoping the tank and diagnosing while it was still installedThe accusations of lying continued and it was explained to the man that whether the tank was removed or not it would not have changed the outcome of the situation and that they were billed only for the time the technician had into the diagnosis/inspectionThe accusations of lying about fuel tank removal were then taken to Facebook by the older gentleman (now known to be [redacted] ) in the form of a review in which I had responded with the information I have listed above [redacted] pointed out that the repair order had in fact had hazardous waste removal charges for fuel and I responded that the charges were part of the original job estimate and was overlooked when the repair order was modified for the bike to be taken as-isI then asked for the customer to come in at his earliest convenience to have the overlooked charges refunded to him.To sum up the situation, the overall timeline of the job considering the current workload and busy time of the year is on par with other similar jobsThe labor charges were based on the amount of time the technician had into the inspection and diagnosis of the fuel system, they paid for time spent and were not charged for work not performedThere were no lies, deception, or lack of integrity, simply a misunderstanding or miscommunication of the overall procedure used to diagnose the fuel tank.As far as the desired settlement, the original repair order total charged to the customer was $As previously stated in this letter as well as to the customer, I will be more than happy to refund the $hazardous waste removal fees that were overlooked from the original job estimateThis would then take the overall bill to $which would be the labor charges of hours at our $80/hour shop labor rate that the technician had into inspecting and diagnosing the bikeI had explained in person and on Facebook that it was simply a misunderstanding/miscommunication whether the tank was removed or not and was not a factor in the overall bill or outcome of the situationI apologize if things were misunderstood or communicated ineffectively on my end.Matt T [redacted] Service Manager

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
Regards,
[redacted]

To Whom It May Concern,This letter is in regards to a complaint filed by [redacted], ID [redacted]. First, I would like to address the timeline of events pertaining to the incident. The customer had called to schedule the repair and was advised that we were roughly a week out on our schedule but...

he was more than welcome to drop off the bike in advance and we could work it into our schedule and was quoted a job based on a fuel system cleaning & flush. The bike was dropped off at our facility 8/2/2016 11:27AM and we were able to get a technician onto it the afternoon of 8/4/2016. I had then advised the customer that the fuel tank was in very poor condition internally and we had stopped at that point for further authorization, no lines were flushed, nothing had been cleaned and we would not proceed further until the tank situation was addressed. The customer was advised that I would have to make calls to our sublet repair facilities to get quotes to repair the tank, look into the possibility of us cleaning/treating the tank, as well as look up pricing on a replacement tank to cover all available options before proceeding any further.On the morning of 8/10/2016 the customer contacted me via phone and I explained that our sublet repair facility would charge roughly $100 for hot tanking and lining the tank, however, it would then require repainting due to the chemicals involved stripping paint off of it. It was then explained to the customer that based on the available options and the opinion of the technician and me that it would be recommended to replace the tank and that I would call him back as soon as I worked up a price quote. The customer called back shortly after this call on 8/10/2016, prior to me obtaining an accurate quote for him, and requested his bike be ready for pickup as-is with no further action taken because he did not want to put a lot of money into it at this time. I asked what he based his decision on since I had not quoted him a price on the replacement tank, he informed me that he found prices online and wanted to attempt to clean his tank himself and we discussed methods of trying to clean it. I advised the customer that I would ensure that the bike would be ready to pick up and that if the technician had anything taken off that it would be put back together as soon as possible. This is where the misunderstanding/miscommunication has apparently taken place.The customer arrived to pick up the bike and asked what was done and if anything had been flushed, I had repeated what had been explained before that the lines were not flushed due to the tank needing to be addressed first. The customer was good with the explanation and asked why we did not attempt to clean the tank ourselves. I explained that attempting to clean the tank in the condition it was in would be extremely labor intensive, costly, and not guaranteed to be-effective. The customer wasgood with this explanation as well and left the building. After a few minutes an older gentleman came into the store visibly upset and began to accuse me of lying about the fuel tank and telling me the tank had never been off the bike. I attempted to calm down the situation and explained that I am not a technician and that I did not personally work on the bike and that I would go back to ask the technician the exact details pertaining to this situation. I then Informed the older gentleman that the technician explained that he had the air cleaner assembly removed to inspect throttle bodies & fuel injectors and that the tank had not been removed due to the technician scoping the tank and diagnosing while it was still installed. The accusations of lying continued and it was explained to the man that whether the tank was removed or not it would not have changed the outcome of the situation and that they were billed only for the time the technician had into the diagnosis/inspection. The accusations of lying about fuel tank removal were then taken to Facebook by the older gentleman (now known to be [redacted]) in the form of a review in which I had responded with the information I have listed above. [redacted] pointed out that the repair order had in fact had hazardous waste removal charges for fuel and I responded that the charges were part of the original job estimate and was overlooked when the repair order was modified for the bike to be taken as-is. I then asked for the customer to come in at his earliest convenience to have the overlooked charges refunded to him.To sum up the situation, the overall timeline of the job considering the current workload and busy time of the year is on par with other similar jobs. The labor charges were based on the amount of time the technician had into the inspection and diagnosis of the fuel system, they paid for time spent and were not charged for work not performed. There were no lies, deception, or lack of integrity, simply a misunderstanding or miscommunication of the overall procedure used to diagnose the fuel tank.As far as the desired settlement, the original repair order total charged to the customer was $58.51. As previously stated in this letter as well as to the customer, I will be more than happy to refund the $8.48 hazardous waste removal fees that were overlooked from the original job estimate. This would then take the overall bill to $50.03 which would be the labor charges of .59 hours at our $80/hour shop labor rate that the technician had into inspecting and diagnosing the bike. I had explained in person and on Facebook that it was simply a misunderstanding/miscommunication whether the tank was removed or not and was not a factor in the overall bill or outcome of the situation. I apologize if things were misunderstood or communicated ineffectively on my end.Matt T[redacted]Service Manager