Centreville Collision Center

Written response to a complaint filed with The Revdex.com Complaint I.D [redacted] A complaint was filed against Centreville Collision Center by [redacted] in December [redacted] brought his [redacted] to Centreville Collision Center on September 6, for an estimate for some suspected vandalismPer [redacted] ***'s request, we wrote a C.O.DEstimate for the damages that were shown to our estimatorWe attempted to keep the repairs limited to small areas because the customer was at that time paying for the repairs out of pocketAfter the original estimate was written, because of the amount of the estimate, the customer elected to involve his insurance company and file a claim with themPer the rules of the insurance company the estimate was re-written in a format that was accepted by the company responsible for payment of the loss to cover the damage that was shown to the original estimatorThis estimate was actually a little bit higher than the C.O.DEstimate because of some allowed operations by the insurance company for a more complete repairWe contacted the customer to tell him that the repairs were done on September 15, 2016, just days after the car was dropped offThe customer came to pick up the car and pointed out additional damages that were not part of the original insurance approved estimateBecause of the nature of the damages, we notified the insurance company of what the additional repairs would be and asked if they would allow us to go on with the additional repairsIt took mere than a week for the insurance company to approve the additional repairs because of the nature damage and the description of the claimThey did finally approve the additional repairs as requested, so we completed the repairs on the vehicle and informed the customer that the vehicle was once again done on October 7, When the customer came to pick up the vehicle, as they stated, they questioned if the quarter glasses were replaced and why, they did find damage on a door glass and the tire was low, not flatTo respond to the main problems in order: First the question about the quarter panel glassesThe insurance company authorized removal of these two glasses to re-create a factory like paint job on the quarter panels which could be warrantied for lifeThe design of these pieces of glass make them very hard to remove even by qualified glass techniciansDuring the removal, the encapsulation or black rubber molding around the outside of the glass was damagedThis is not an uncommon problem, so the insurance company agreed to replace them bothWe have photos of the car with the glasses removed as well as an invoice from a local GM dealer for the price of the two pieces of glass which is not $800.00, it is under $which is what GM charges and what was approved by ***Second, the damage on the door glass was not consistent with any tool we use or the damage from the vandalism and we did not have record that door glass was replaced before the car came into our possession, so the insurance company approved replacement of the glassEven though [redacted] agreed to pay for the replacement door glass, after we were told that the glass was replaced just three days prior to dropping it off and not having any documentation of preexisting damage to that particular glass, we have credited the insurance company back for the authorized replacement of that glass and absorbed the cost ourselvesThird, we inspected the tire and put air in itIt did not appear to be leaking when it left and when the customer took it to a tire shop, they admitted that the puncture to the tire was from a drywall nailDrywall nails are not something that is found in an auto body shopIs it possible, that the nail was picked up either before or after the vehicle was in the possession of Centreville Collision Center? Fourth, the customer complains that the window that the door window that was installed in the car is not not working properlyWe do offer a lifetime workmanship warranty on the repairs on the car and would welcome the opportunity to look at it and make corrections if necessaryFinally, this vandalism repair was not an ordinary repairThe scope of the repairs was not that much in the course of auto body repairs, but because it was vandalism, we have to balance out what the customer complaints are and what the insurance company is relating to the claim and willing to pay for as a result of the claim statementThe repairs did take longer than collision repairs of this magnitude, but not the several months that the customer is complaining aboutWe do not charge insurance companies or individuals for repairs that we do not complete on their vehicle or for repairs that are not warrantedWe are honest people and run a respectable business just as in the case of the door glassWe cannot know for sure what happened, but have absorbed the cost ourselvesWe stand behind our workmanship with a lifetime warranty on repairs and are proud of the work that we doA final revised copy of the estimate of the repairs on the vehicle which has been authorized by [redacted] is attached for review to show the charges for the quarter panel glasses and the fact that there was no charge to the insurance company for the door glassPlease let us know if we can be of further assistance or what needs to be done to clear up this complaint and restore our excellent rating with The Revdex.comThank you, Ryan R [redacted] Managing Member Centreville Collision Center, LLC

[redacted] [redacted] I am rejecting this response because:Final amount agreed by Centreville Collision was $and I will not accept less then thatPlease review conversation history below for details (final paragraph from Centreville Collision or see attachment), and see that there's no misunderstandingFriday, April 7, 2017This is in response to your recent letter dated 3/29/regarding the complaint of [redacted] (customer) against our repair shop I know you have received an initial response from the shop manager, [redacted] My response is in an effort to provide more clarity and a final remedy to the situation.1/11/– Customer brought his [redacted] to our shop and requested repairs related to a recent accident and requested a [redacted] state safety inspection Customer provided an estimate from his insurance company, *** Customer gave written authorization to shop to make repairs while understanding that the costs for repairs he brought the shop were simply an estimate Copy of authorization attached.1/12/– Car went through cheprocess Approximately 156,miles, check engine light on, service light on Prior damage included many scratches and dents on exterior, scuffs on interior leather and trim, missing front wheel liner and power steering noise noted Copy of cheattached Car then went into disassembly process, where additional damage was noted (common in collision repair once you start taking things apart) Left a voice mail for customer about additional damage and that shop would contact ***.1/13/– Shop sent supplement info to [redacted] and requested them to inspect the car at shop location Called customer and left voice mail Customer called back ad discussed the supplement to the original [redacted] estimate.1/16/– Waiting on [redacted] to come and inspect the car at shop.1/19/– [redacted] inspected car further and declared it a total loss based on the cost to repair exceeding a threshold of it’s value An important note is that when [redacted] was adding up the supplemental repairs they stopped adding once the value was exceeded There were still more repairs not accounted for, but at the threshold point [redacted] stops and declares the car a loss Customer negotiates to maintain ownership of the car and accepts a payment from [redacted] to accept all responsibilities for repair [redacted] explained to customer that repairs will be in excess of the supplemental estimate of approx$3,since they stopped once the threshold was exceeded.1/20/– Shop discussed repairs with customer and that costs would exceed the supplemental estimate since the car was declared a total loss Customer understood that he now accepts financial responsibility for the repairs Parts were ordered.1/23/– Updated customer told him shop is waiting for parts.1/25/– Updated customer told him parts arrived.2/1/ - Updated customer told him car going to paint tomorrow.2/6/– Headlight had been backordered, but should be shipping from ** in days.2/9/– Updated customer told him car is in reassembly but waiting on another headlight since the first replacement didn’t meet quality standard Explained that replacement was more expensive and offered a $discount to help offset increase.2/13/– Customer called told him headlight arrived and will be installed tomorrow.2/14/– Headlight not installed as planned due to labor shortage in shop Customer had been told car would be ready today.2/15/– Body work complete Car sent to sublet shop for [redacted] safety inspection Safety inspection failed for various items and inspector noted that the sticker was from a [redacted] vehicleCopy of inspection sublet attached Shop was wrong to suggest prior that the sticker had been stolen The simple fact is the sticker didn’t match the car and was noted and copied by the inspector Customer was notified the car was ready for pickup and an additional $was due based on exceeding the [redacted] incomplete total loss supplement Customer picked up the car and paid balance by personal check.2/20/– Repair order was closed.3/3/– It was discovered by shop that customer placed stop payment on the $personal check from 2/15/17.3/7/– Shop accounts receivable contacted customer to return to shop and repay the $and a $fee to cover bank charges for insufficient check.3/8/– Customer returned and paid $498.54.The shop believes that there was a misunderstanding on the customer’s part with regard to buying a total loss vehicle from his insurance company It was explained in advance by both [redacted] and shop that the costs would absolutely exceed the supplemental estimate of approx$3, When this occurred (by $448.54) and the customer paid it, the shop believes that to stop payment was unreasonable.At this point a good faith remedy of $has already been offered to the customer in addition to the $headlight discount to help with the misunderstanding The shop is now willing to reimburse the customer with an additional $for bank fees related to the insufficient check In short, the final good faith remedy for the customer is $($additional) We believe this is more than fair given the facts in this matter.Monday, April 24, 2017[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]Revdex.com:I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me Regards, [redacted] Wednesday, August 2, 2017On April 2017, this case was closed without Chantilly collision Center respond to me which what they agreed settle $$$, at this point I haven’t receive any respond from Chantilly Collision, if Chantilly Collision Center not respond in the next days from today, I will open another case in that I will strong make a solution and pay what I ask from the beginning of my first case and make another step to take Chantilly collision center to court for small claim to recover my damage of my vehicle.Is being months this case was closed and they ignoring or think that they can do whatever they want with their customers? Now, I am asking for the total amount $For all this time cause me problems and make me wait[redacted]

I brought my car to this shop and I was given an estimate for the repairs due to a accident with a deer, nothing seriousI was also, given days for the repair timeAfter a few days I got a call explaining that the estimate was going to be higher than expected due to some other items, I called my car insurance and they went there to inspect and give a new estimateI called after the time given to see is the vehicle was ready and they said they needed more time, just a few days more because they were waiting on some partsIs been almost a month and they are not taking my calls, they said the person I need to talk is not available, and so onThey called me today 2/15/to tell me that my car was ready but now they have to charge me almost $more on the last estimateI had already settle this claim with my car insurance and now I have to pay this extra money out of my pocketI received a copy of the work that was done, and turns out they didn't even replaced all the parts t

Claims made by the repair shop are completely falseMy insurance carrier has since reversed payment for the window repairThe attached receipt will show that the said window had been replaced by another company a few days prior to delivery of my vehicle to this repair shopAdditionally, all damage was reviewed and discussed with owner; at no time did this individual write anything downTo claim that full disclosure of repairs had not been made at the onset of my original visit is utterly falseAs far as the damage to the window itself, it is completely consistent with the type of sanders utilized for paint removal, sanding down of primer, as well as buffingIf needed I can provide photos of the window damage as wellI demand that this company assume responsibility for the damage done to my brand new window, accept responsibility for puncturing my tire, and to provide the type of professional window installation that had been completed by SafeLite, the company that originally replaced my windowCurrently, the window makes a squeaky sound and there is a significant draft coming from the door as if something has been removeThis needs to be fixed Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: Regards, [redacted] ***

Sent my vehicle to repaired for superficial damage cause by vandalismNo major damage to the vehicle except for dents caused by a bat or similar object along parts of the side and small dents on the roofI provided a thorough description of the repairs to be done and I was quoted a price of $I accepted and then contacted my insurance carrier, ***, to inform them of the repairA *** representative then contacted them to authorize the repairNearly a month later I was contacted that the vehicle was readyPrior to accepting the vehicle I inspected it and found that most of the work had not been doneI informed the shop of the pending work, they stated that the remaining repairs would be an additional amountGiven that they would have to receive confirmation from my insurance I agreed
Another month later I was called to pick up the vehicle and again there were several items still pending repairAgain, I left the vehicle pending the remaining repairsA few weeks later

I brought my car to this shop and I was given an estimate for the repairs due to a accident with a deer, nothing seriousI was also, given days for the repair timeAfter a few days I got a call explaining that the estimate was going to be higher than expected due to some other items, I called my car insurance and they went there to inspect and give a new estimateI called after the time given to see is the vehicle was ready and they said they needed more time, just a few days more because they were waiting on some partsIs been almost a month and they are not taking my calls, they said the person I need to talk is not available, and so onThey called me today 2/15/to tell me that my car was ready but now they have to charge me almost $more on the last estimateI had already settle this claim with my car insurance and now I have to pay this extra money out of my pocketI received a copy of the work that was done, and turns out they didn't even replaced all the parts t

Written response to a complaint filed with The Revdex.comComplaint I.D***A complaint was filed against Centreville Collision Center by *** *** in December 2016.Centreville Collision Center composed a response and submitted it to The Bureau.*** *** is not happy with our response and will not accept it.At this time, there still appear to be a few problems The first is that *** *** is still complaining about his door glass and who paid for it and if it was replaced With no true evidence of weather or not the damage on the door glass was caused by us, we have replaced the door glass and not charged anyone for the repair The insurance company did not reverse their decision as *** *** says, but rather we told the our company that we would take care of it and we did If there is still a wind noise or another problem with the glass, we are happy to look at it and make adjustments.If *** *** does not want to come back, he can get the glass looked at and adjusted wherever he feels comfortable getting it done and we will reimburse him up to the amount that is customarily charged for full replacement of that glass The glass that was put in his car was a genuine GM part and the standard replacement labor for that piece of glass per our insurance approved estimating system is $ Any further expenses would have to be approved before reimbursement.In another response to the conversation that was had between *** *** and the adjuster at Centreville Collision Center I was not actually a part of the conversation, so I can only go by what I am told There is no question that there is a difference of opinion and an obvious high level of miscommunication from the date of the original estimate and I all I can do is apologize that things were not more clear from the beginning.As far as the tire goes, we are sticking with our original decision The customer admitted that he took it to a tire repair shop and they said that it was a a drywall nail in the tire If it was a part of a car or some sort of automotive hardware or anything else that could have been from some sort of negligence on our part, we would consider accepting liability, but a drywall nail could have been picked anywhere as some sort of road bed hazard, so we are not accepting liability for the tire.Sincerely,Ryan R***Managing MemberCentreville Collision Center, LLC

It's unfortunate that once again we have a misunderstanding Here is the final paragraph regarding the offer:At this point a good faith remedy of $has already been offered to the customer in addition to the $headlight discount to help with the misunderstanding The shop is now willing to reimburse the customer with an additional $for bank fees related to the insufficient check In short, the final good faith remedy for the customer is $($additional) We believe this is more than fair given the facts in this matter. If you read it carefully, it states that we have already given a $credit as part of the repair and that we will give $additional in good faith for a total of $ That is exactly what we offered and exactly what was originally accepted A check for $is in process This is the final amount we will offer in this matter Once the check has been cashed, we consider that an acceptance of this agreement and the matter is closed

Claims made by the repair shop are completely false. My insurance carrier has since reversed payment for the window repair. The attached receipt will show that the said window had been replaced by another company a few days prior to delivery of my vehicle to this repair shop. Additionally, all damage was reviewed and discussed with owner; at no time did this individual write anything down. To claim that full disclosure of repairs had not been made at the onset of my original visit is utterly false. As far as the damage to the window itself, it is completely consistent with the type of sanders utilized for paint removal, sanding down of primer, as well as buffing. If needed I can provide photos of the window damage as well. I demand that this company assume responsibility for the damage done to my brand new window, accept responsibility for puncturing my tire, and to provide the type of professional window installation that had been completed by SafeLite, the company that originally replaced my window. Currently, the window makes a squeaky sound and there is a significant draft coming from the door as if something has been remove. This needs to be fixed
 Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
Regards,
[redacted]

Written response to a complaint filed with The Revdex.com Complaint I.D. [redacted] A complaint was filed against Centreville Collision Center by [redacted] in December 2016. [redacted] brought his 2012 [redacted] to Centreville Collision Center on September 6, 2016 for an estimate...

for some suspected vandalism. Per [redacted]'s request, we wrote a C.O.D. Estimate for the damages that were shown to our estimator. We attempted to keep the repairs limited to small areas because the customer was at that time paying for the repairs out of pocket. After the original estimate was written, because of the amount of the estimate, the customer elected to involve his insurance company and file a claim with them. Per the rules of the insurance company the estimate was re-written in a format that was accepted by the company responsible for payment of the loss to cover the damage that was shown to the original estimator. This estimate was actually a little bit higher than the C.O.D. Estimate because of some allowed operations by the insurance company for a more complete repair. We contacted the customer to tell him that the repairs were done on September 15, 2016, just 9 days after the car was dropped off. The customer came to pick up the car and pointed out additional damages that were not part of the original insurance approved estimate. Because of the nature of the damages, we notified the insurance company of what the additional repairs would be and asked if they would allow us to go on with the additional repairs. It took mere than a week for the insurance company to approve the additional repairs because of the nature damage and the description of the claim. They did finally approve the additional repairs as requested, so we completed the repairs on the vehicle and informed the customer that the vehicle was once again done on October 7, 2016. When the customer came to pick up the vehicle, as they stated, they questioned if the quarter glasses were replaced and why, they did find damage on a door glass and the tire was low, not flat. To respond to the main problems in order: First the question about the quarter panel glasses. The insurance company authorized removal of these two glasses to re-create a factory like paint job on the quarter panels which could be warrantied for life. The design of these pieces of glass make them very hard to remove even by qualified glass technicians. During the removal, the encapsulation or black rubber molding around the outside of the glass was damaged. This is not an uncommon problem, so the insurance company agreed to replace them both. We have photos of the car with the glasses removed as well as an invoice from a local GM dealer for the price of the two pieces of glass which is not $800.00, it is under $400.00 which is what GM charges and what was approved by [redacted]. Second, the damage on the door glass was not consistent with any tool we use or the damage from the vandalism and we did not have record that door glass was replaced before the car came into our possession, so the insurance company approved replacement of the glass. Even though [redacted] agreed to pay for the replacement door glass, after we were told that the glass was replaced just three days prior to dropping it off and not having any documentation of preexisting damage to that particular glass, we have credited the insurance company back for the authorized replacement of that glass and absorbed the cost ourselves. Third, we inspected the tire and put air in it. It did not appear to be leaking when it left and when the customer took it to a tire shop, they admitted that the puncture to the tire was from a drywall nail. Drywall nails are not something that is found in an auto body shop. Is it possible, that the nail was picked up either before or after the vehicle was in the possession of Centreville Collision Center? Fourth, the customer complains that the window that the door window that was installed in the car is not not working properly. We do offer a lifetime workmanship warranty on the repairs on the car and would welcome the opportunity to look at it and make corrections if necessary. Finally, this vandalism repair was not an ordinary repair. The scope of the repairs was not that much in the normal course of auto body repairs, but because it was vandalism, we have to balance out what the customer complaints are and what the insurance company is relating to the claim and willing to pay for as a result of the claim statement. The repairs did take longer than normal collision repairs of this magnitude, but not the several months that the customer is complaining about. We do not charge insurance companies or individuals for repairs that we do not complete on their vehicle or for repairs that are not warranted. We are honest people and run a respectable business just as in the case of the door glass. We cannot know for sure what happened, but have absorbed the cost ourselves. We stand behind our workmanship with a lifetime warranty on repairs and are proud of the work that we do. A final revised copy of the estimate of the repairs on the vehicle which has been authorized by [redacted] is attached for review to show the charges for the quarter panel glasses and the fact that there was no charge to the insurance company for the door glass. Please let us know if we can be of further assistance or what needs to be done to clear up this complaint and restore our excellent rating with The Revdex.com. Thank you, Ryan R[redacted] Managing Member Centreville Collision Center, LLC

[redacted]
 [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:Final amount agreed by Centreville Collision was $270.00 and I will not accept less then that. Please review conversation history below for details (final paragraph from Centreville Collision or see attachment), and see that there's no misunderstanding. Friday, April 7, 2017This is in response to your recent letter dated 3/29/2017 regarding the complaint of [redacted] (customer) against our repair shop.  I know you have received an initial response from the shop manager, [redacted]  My response is in an effort to provide more clarity and a final remedy to the situation.1/11/17 – Customer brought his [redacted] to our shop and requested repairs related to a recent accident and requested a [redacted] state safety inspection.   Customer provided an estimate from his insurance company, [redacted].  Customer gave written authorization to shop to make repairs while understanding that the costs for repairs he brought the shop were simply an estimate.  Copy of authorization attached.1/12/17 – Car went through check-in process.  Approximately 156,000 miles, check engine light on, service light on.  Prior damage included many scratches and dents on exterior, scuffs on interior leather and trim, missing front wheel liner and power steering noise noted.  Copy of check-in attached.  Car then went into disassembly process, where additional damage was noted (common in collision repair once you start taking things apart).  Left a voice mail for customer about additional damage and that shop would contact [redacted].1/13/17 – Shop sent supplement info to [redacted] and requested them to inspect the car at shop location.  Called customer and left voice mail.  Customer called back ad discussed the supplement to the original [redacted] estimate.1/16/17 – Waiting on [redacted] to come and inspect the car  at shop.1/19/17 – [redacted] inspected car further and declared it a total loss based on the cost to repair exceeding a threshold of it’s value.  An important note is that when [redacted] was adding up the supplemental repairs they stopped adding once the value was exceeded.  There were still more repairs not accounted for, but at the threshold point [redacted] stops and declares the car a loss.  Customer negotiates to maintain ownership of the car and accepts a payment from [redacted] to accept all responsibilities for repair.  [redacted] explained to customer that repairs will be in excess of the supplemental estimate of approx. $3,450 since they stopped once the threshold was exceeded.1/20/17 – Shop discussed repairs with customer and that costs would exceed the supplemental estimate since the car was declared a total loss.  Customer understood that he now accepts financial responsibility for the repairs.  Parts were ordered.1/23/17 – Updated customer told him shop is waiting for parts.1/25/17 – Updated customer told him parts arrived.2/1/17  - Updated customer told him car going to paint tomorrow.2/6/17 – Headlight had been backordered, but should be shipping from ** in 2 days.2/9/17 – Updated customer told him car is in reassembly but waiting on another headlight since the first replacement didn’t meet quality standard.  Explained that replacement was more expensive and offered a $120 discount to help offset increase.2/13/17 – Customer called told him headlight arrived and will be installed tomorrow.2/14/17 – Headlight not installed as planned due to labor shortage in shop.  Customer had been told car would be ready today.2/15/17 – Body work complete.  Car sent to sublet shop for ** safety inspection.  Safety inspection failed for various items and inspector noted that the sticker was from a [redacted] vehicle. Copy of inspection sublet attached.  Shop was wrong to suggest prior that the sticker had been stolen.  The simple fact is the sticker didn’t match the car and was noted and copied by the inspector.  Customer was notified the car was ready for pickup and an additional $448.54 was due based on exceeding the [redacted] incomplete total loss supplement.  Customer picked up the car and paid balance by personal check.2/20/17 – Repair order was closed.3/3/17 – It was discovered by shop that customer placed stop payment on the $448.54 personal check from 2/15/17.3/7/17 – Shop accounts receivable contacted customer to return to shop and repay the $448.54 and a $50 fee to cover bank charges for insufficient check.3/8/17 – Customer returned and paid $498.54.The shop believes that there was a misunderstanding on the customer’s part with regard to buying a total loss vehicle from his insurance company.  It was explained in advance by both [redacted] and shop that the costs would absolutely exceed the supplemental estimate of approx.. $3,450.  When this occurred (by $448.54) and the customer paid it, the shop believes that to stop payment was unreasonable.At this point a good faith remedy of $100 has already been offered to the customer in addition to the $120 headlight discount to help with the misunderstanding.  The shop is now willing to reimburse the customer with an additional $50 for bank fees related to the insufficient check.  In short, the final good faith remedy for the customer is $270 ($150 additional).  We believe this is more than fair given the facts in this matter.Monday, April 24, 2017[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response.  If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]Revdex.com:I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.  Regards, [redacted] Wednesday, August 2, 2017On April 2017, this case was closed without Chantilly collision Center respond to me which what they agreed settle $$$, at this point I haven’t receive any respond from Chantilly Collision, if Chantilly Collision Center not respond in the next 30 days from today, I will open another case in that I will strong make a solution and pay what I ask from the beginning of my first case and make another step to take Chantilly collision center to court for small claim to recover my damage of my vehicle.Is being 4 months this case was closed and they ignoring or think that they can do whatever they want with their customers? Now, I am asking for the total amount $500. For all this time cause me problems and make me wait.[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]

My name is Joey K[redacted], I am the manager here at Centreville Collision Center. We did the repairs on [redacted]'s 2010 [redacted] that was dropped off at our facility on 12/19/2016. Within the next 30mins my staff made a damage report of all the damage on the vehicle prior to us starting the...

repairs in the same parking spot the vehicle was parked by the customer at drop off. We then completed the repairs on 12/28/16 which was the same day the customer came to pick up the vehicle. [redacted]'s son (who is the driver of the vehicle) came to pick up the vehicle. Had no complaints about any of the repairs that we did per the [redacted] insurance estimate of 1,828.84. He then pointed out the dent/scratch that was located on the right fender. We then showed him our damage report which includes photos and written documentation of dent/scratch. This damage was there before we did any repairs, [redacted] even has note and documentation of this damage as well which is clearly noted on the insurance estimate. He then left and then [redacted] came to our shop later that day screaming and yelling very loud to my receptionist. then stepped in to see what could do to assist [redacted]. At that time we did lose a customer that was booking at the time due to her screaming and yelling, then went out with [redacted] and reviewed the damage on her right fender. I showed her all the documentation/ photos of the damage that was clearly there before we began repairs. asked her if she had any photos before she dropped the vehicle or if her son saw if the damage on the right fender. They couldn't provide any photos and her son didn't remember if the damaged was there or not at the time of drop off. At that time wrote a cost estimate (estimate to pay for materials) to help her get the damage fix at a wery reasonable price to try and help her out. She then began screaming and yelling very loud and then threaten me multiple times to report me to [redacted] and the Revdex.com if I didn't fix the dent for free. At that point I felt threaten by the customer and told her there is nothing more that we could do to help her. If you need any photos or documentation I can proved both to you as well,Thank you,Joey K[redacted]

I would like to respond to [redacted] This customer brought his [redacted] [redacted] to our shop on 1/11/17; vehicle was disassembled on 1/12/17. [redacted] insurance was then called for a supplement for additional repairs needed on 1/13/17. [redacted] deemed this vehicle a total loss on 1/19/17....

We spoke with the customer and they decided they wanted to keep the vehicle and do the repairs. We advised the customer they we don't recommend this due to the price changing because of parts or additional repairs that may arise during the repair. Customer gave us approval on 1/20/17 for $3,552.39, at that time [redacted] and Centreville Collision Center advised the customer that this price could change depending on the condition the part come in. Customer understood at this point that we would follow the [redacted] which included [redacted] parts. He also understood that the price could go up if some of these alternative parts didn't come in insurance quality condition. On 2/9/17 we called the customer to let him know we have some part price differences and that the headlamp which is double the price. He approved estimate total for 4,948.54 which included a 10% part discount ($-120.93) that we applied to help the customer with the part price differenced. Customer also approved for us to do a ** state inspection at this time which failed because the ** safety sticker on his windshield was stolen would from another vehicle because it couldn't pass due to brake light bulbs, rear sway bar links, front brake rotors which was performed by [redacted] At this point Centreville Collision Center is willing to give him a little more discount of $100.00 back to the customer. Please advise us when you have read this letter and let us know what we else we can do or if you need any more information from us.Sincerely,Joey K[redacted]
[redacted] 
[redacted]