Chevrolet Buick GMC of Puyallup

Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: What Dale R [redacted] has said is only partly true and I will explain whyFirst off, the Revdex.com has addressed the complaint with Keith H [redacted] the General Manager whom I have never spoken to and tried multiple times to contact and second, I have only spoken to MrR [redacted] one time and he did not once ever mention taking my car to another Cadillac DealershipIt was a very short phone call because he didn't want to talk to me as he automatically assumed he knew everything that happened to my car right off the bat and blamed Firestone (which is my next point)He said it had to be either me, Firestone, or a coincidence but the fact is, my car started acting up the second I picked it up from you guys and Dale R [redacted] was no where in sightHe has no clue what happened to my car because he was not there so can he say all he wants to but YES, I did take my car to Chevy of Puyallup AFTER firestone, but that was about a week later and it was completely fine after Firestone had itThey said the car actuator requires special codes and pointed me to Chevy of PuyallupSo that is why I went thereThe second thing I want to mention is that of course the Door Lock cannot be damaged electronically from a flashBut that is not all you guys did and you know itThey obviously drive the car into the back and then park it for a bit, then bring it into the garage to get worked on when you have room, and then you drive it out of the garage to bring it to the front of the building for me to pick it upThat is a total of three times you would have had to put the key into the doorlock because my door does not open nor the handle work without inserting the key into the door and turning the old fashioned waySo Dale saying they didn't touch the doorlock is a lie plain and simpleAnd since he mentioned they checked the rods inside the door and went under the dash (whether they opened the hood or went inside my car) they would have had to use the key to open the door againI don't know exactly what happened but I'd be willing to bet that one of the workers got frustrated that you had to use my key to open the door and got a little angry and exercised the real wear and tear on my carAnd to answer the programming issues...yes, my keyfob was out of sync after the first day and NO I did not bring in a second fob that wasn't workingI only have keyfob and it is duct taped to my key ring so that was another lieThey messed that up and Dale is here again trying to cover for his guysWhy would Chevy of Puyallup need all of my key fobs? So they could make all them not work that's whyIt's pretty clear to me and the other witnesses at the service desk that when I went to pick up my car, the key would not go in at all and whoever worked on it broke the key holeLast but not least, I got in the car and saw that my engine light was onThat is not a coincidenceIf programming is all you did then why did my lights start turning on and why was my key hole broken??? Explain that.Sincerely, [redacted]

I personally just checked with our electronic pay system and see the amount completely refunded to the client's Visa.We have no control over whether or not a warranty covers any type of repairsWe get the client to authorize diagnosis up front and submit the claim to the warrantyIf they decline (in this case they did) the client is then responsible for paymentIf the client continues to have an issue with the repair, we would be more than happy to inspect againWe always stand behind our workI will have a staff member reach out to the client to see if they want to reschedule

This letter is in response to id# [redacted] : Mr [redacted] brought his car into our service department AFTER having the door and locks worked on at FirestoneHe asked us to reprogram the RCDLR (remote control door lock receiver) after another shop had installed a door lock actuatorThe process for programming the RCDLR is entirely electronicThere is no dis­assembly of the door or any door componentsWe plug a scan tool into the data port directly under the dash and perform a software resetThat is itThe only casualty of the event was that we did not have all of the clients' key fobs, so the key fob that wasn't in our possession lost it's programming as is commonWe had the client come back in and we reset the additional fobThe client then came back claiming these other issues were a result of the programmingAccording to our experience, the repair manual, and our phone call to General Motor's Technical Engineeringthat module update has no impact on any other area of the vehicleWe took a complimentary look at the vehicle, inspected the vehicle, inspected the lock rods in the driver's door suspecting that perhaps firestone left something looseAll was intactOur conclusion is that the door lock cylinder is wornThis cannot occur from ANY type of electrical software flast is a physical sealed component that is not affected by electronics at allIt's simply a wear and tear issueThe client believes we lack knowledge of the Cadillac product due to being a Chevrolet­ Buick-GMC franchise, so I suggested he take it to the local Cadillac dealer in fife for a second opinionIf they conclude that we somehow had anything to do with his vehicle issues, I would review with their Service Manager, and participate in the costs of fixing our work, if that were the caseIf there are any questions regarding this letter, feel free to contact me at (253)445-

Customer arrived at dealership with a dash light concernThe service advisor asked [redacted] to do a walk around for vehicle condition and for concern verificationThe customer declined and would not go with the advisor.Advisor noted the cracked multi function switch and described the concern that the switch would presentThe advisor was told yes that that was the concern she wanted addressedThe advisor generated a repair order stating the switch concern and it was signed by [redacted] and the repair was authorized.The signed document is the repair orderThis authorizes us to start and complete the repairsThe document that is not signed is the invoiceThis is the copy of payment and lists work completedWe do not obtain signatures on invoices.After the repair was complete and [redacted] came to pick up, the light was on again and we found a DRL bulb that was out alsoBoth concerns can affect the light on the dashWe replaced the bulb at our expense for missing the burned out bulb[redacted] wanted to talk to Keith H [redacted] our General Manager and he had me present and on speaker phone with him so I could answer technical questionsWe did tell [redacted] we had her on speaker at the beginning of the call and she seemed ok with itShe then stated she had to go to a meeting and that she would call us when she got out but never did.On 08/04/Keith H [redacted] offered [redacted] a refund for the multifunction switch and only charging her for the bulb that [redacted] stated was all she wanted done in the first placeToday 08/07/declined that offer.At this time the vehicle is repairedEnclosed you will find a copy of the repair order signed by [redacted] Best Regards, Jim T [redacted] Service ManagerPuyallup ChevroletRiver RoadPuyallup, WA

The client's service contract does NOT cover adjustments and/or repairs that require no partsHer money was however refunded, because the sales manager that was not familiar with the service contract committed to a refundWe do not make ANY service contract decisions without contacting the plan administratorNo repairs can be approved or declined without the service contract administrator making that decisionWe apologize for the miscommunication by the sales manager and we refunded the pre-authorized diagnosis feeThere was no "scamming" that took place here

Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: I would like to wait for the response from the CNA insuranceAnd also the report that they have from the consumption test is not the original documentI bring my SUV to their shop everybody 500-milesBut that's not what they have in their record which I think is falseLast time I was there at their shop they can't find the original consumption test record Sincerely, [redacted]

2/1/
We spoke to the client's warranty company AGAIN today
They confirmed the following:
1) They DO require an oil consumption test and one was never completed during the warranty period
2) Even if the vehicle did show consumption, the client would be responsible to authorize teardown of the motor until an inspector is sent out
3) Even if the vehicle was still under warranty (which it is not) the Extended Warranty Company does not cover piston ring repairs because they consider that failure "wear and tear"
Unfortunately, all of this decision making and/or negotiation is out of our handsWe have very little input with extended warranty companies
Had the Oil consumption test been completed and the vehicle had an actual broken component and not just worn rings, they would participate at the extended warranty levelThat is just not the case
Please let us know if we can help any other way

This letter is in response to the client's 2nd reply dated 8/12/
l) The client is the one that brought up "taking the vehicle to the Cadillac dealer in Fife".I supported that decision and gave him the manager's name and suggested that hehave the manager call me if he had any issue caused by work that we performed.2) The second key had to be reprogrammed because anytime key is re-flashed, allsubsequent keys lose their programming because they all share the same uniqueelectronic signal (like a garage door opener)If that signal is changed, the additionalkeys all need to be re-programmed as wellNothing was "damaged" by the actuatorflash simply as stated above.3) The programming performed to the RCDLR (remote control door lock receiver) has NOimpact on any other system in the vehicle and CANNOT trigger a "check engine" light.This fact was confirmed with General Motors technical engineering in DetroitTheclient's check engine light issue is not associated with any work performed in ourshop.4) The door cylinder in the driver's door is never touched during this process other thanto put the key in the door to unlock it.The client's issues with his vehicle were never impacted by the work performed reprogrammingthe RCDLRThis is a simple plug in software update that only communicateswith the vehicles RCDLR and no other systemsAgain, we are more than happy to scan forcodes for the clients if they would like, but we will not perform any diagnosis or repair at nochargeWe had no impact on his vehicle, have never worked on it before, and cannot speakto the condition of the vehicle beyond the RCDLR programming
If there are further questions regarding this issue, please feel free to contact us at theattached number and/or email

Complaint: ***
I reject the Business response because, once again, Chevrolet Buick GMC of Puyallup made statements, and failed to disclose all the important circumstances that took place during this event. First, I did not decline to go outside with the Advisor/Service Representative, MrPeter H***. When he asked me, I made no response….I just did not go outside. However, the Service Manager, MrJim T*** failed to mention that prior to being asked to do a walk around, I explained to MrH*** the reason why I made the appointment was to have my car serviced…I told him the problem I was experiencing. I told MrH*** that when I turned the car on, the daylight (referring to the daylight symbol on the dash) flickers then turns off. I told him this more than once. This was before he asked me to go outside to show him, so he was aware of the problem that when I turn the car on, the light flickers then turns off. I even explained this to the Service staff with whom I made my appointment for June 17, 2017. At no point in time did I talk about having problems with my multi-function switch. MrH*** went outside to the car, came back in and did in-processing. At that time he did ask me to sign a document when he wrote $(the amount on the document looks like $99.97). I inquired about the amount and he informed me that this was the cost for the technician to do an assessment/diagnostic on the car. This is when signing the document took place. At no point in time prior to the Service Technician conducting the assessment/diagnostic did MrH*** speak of a crack multi-function switch. It wasn’t until after the diagnostic was complete and he came to me while I was waiting in the customer waiting area. The attached signed document is not a repair order. MrT*** is misleading when he states that it is. There are no technician findings listed on it, nor any service recommendations and approval documentation for July 17, service repair. It does list a complaint, which the complaint information is incorrect as well. I never complained of a multi-function switch. Also, MrH*** made no documentation that I specifically, before I went to the waiting area, requested the technician check the sensor. I stated to MrH*** that I wasn’t sure if the sensor was the issues but to please have it checked. It is correct that I did not want a full cheon the car which I informed MrH***. That part is on the signed document. MrT*** statement that when MrH*** told me about the cracked multi-function switch that I told him that was the concern I wanted addressed and that he generated a repair order stating the switch concern and it was signed by me and the repair was authorized is incorrect. Again, prior to the technician performing the assessment/diagnostic, MrH*** input the multi-function complaint on his own accord. It wasn’t until after the assessment/diagnostic was completed and he came to me in the waiting area to tell me the findings that I was made aware of the multi-function switch crack. MrH*** told me that the problem to my light flickering and turning off is there is a crack in the multi-function switch. He did inform me at that time that it could eventually cause problems with the other lights as well. I informed him that I never had any problems with the mult-function switch before. I specifically asked if replacing the switch would fix the problem of the light flickering and turning off. He said yes that it would fix the problem. I asked how much the repair would cost, he told me. It was at that point, that I gave verbal authorization to make the repair. MrT*** is misleading when he stated that I told MrH***, yes, the multi-function switch was the concern that I wanted addressed. My concern was and never altered was the light flickering and turning off when I turned the car on. MrH*** lead me to believe, as he stated to me, that the crack in the multi-function switch was the problem, and he said yes, when asked that repairing the switch would fix the problem of the flickering light. MrT*** is making a statement when he said that MrH*** generated the repair order after talking to me about the multi-function switch and I signed it. When I gave verbal authorization, MrH*** did not generate the repair order, which MrT*** is claiming is the signed document, and ask me to sign In one of my conversations with MrT***, he informed me that it is policy to get the signature on the service repair order after the Advisor/.Representative talks to the customer about the findings from the technician assessment/diagnostic. This process is false…it does not happen at Chevrolet Buick GMC of Puyallup. I have been with Chevrolet Buick GMC of Puyallup for many years, since 2004. In all these years, the Service Advisor/Representative has never asked me to sign a service repair order after discussing technician findings and giving verbal authorization for repair. Documents signed are done during in-processing and the signed documents that MrT*** claims is the service repair order do not have assessment/diagnostic findings nor service recommendations on it. In all these years, I have never seen Service Advisors/Representatives generate repair order and ask for customers to sign them after discussing technician findings. They just move forward with repair upon getting verbal authorization. MrT*** is misleading with he stated that they also found the DRL bulb was out as well. The technicians, nor MrH*** said nothing of the bulb being out until I had to show them what was happing when I turned the car on. This was at the time that I was getting ready to leave the dealership. I turned the car on and, once again, the light was flickering and turned off. The problem was still there. I didn’t even get to put the car in drive. I immediately turned to car off, went back into the service office, and informed MrH*** that the problem (my original complaint) still existed. I had MrH*** come outside (two technicians came along) and showed them. That is when the technicians said that the bulb is possibly out and needs replacing. MrH*** and the technician failed to check on what I was telling them in the very beginning…they failed to test by turning the car on and looking at the light. I don’t even touch the multi-function switch when turning the car on, yet they disregarded what I was telling them multiple times and went in their own direction by going directly to the multi-function switch. After the technicians left to go and see about replacing a bulb, I asked MrH*** if he, in the beginning, turned the car on to see what I was talking about….no answer. I asked him if the gentleman that took my car to the back for the assessment/diagnostic paid any attention to the light…he said no. I asked MrH*** if the technician turned the car on when they were doing the testing…..once again, no answer. At one point during one of my conversations with MrT***, MrT*** said that I came in with two concerns, which is not true. The thought, at a later date, switched to there being two possible issues to the complaint. He even told me that as service specialists, it is their experience that my complaint with the flickering light was caused by a faulty multi-function switch In this case, the cause was that the DRL bulb needed replacing. It wasn’t the crack in the multi-function switch. Management of Chevrolet of Puyallup also misrepresented themselves. When I first requested to speak to management, I stated that I did not want to speak to the Service Manager, which is MrT***; I wanted to speak ti the General Manager, which I am told is MrKeith H***. I even left more that one message for MrH*** to call me. However, when I got my first call from management, it was MrT*** calling me. When he called, I specifically asked if he was the General Manager. He said, yes, that he was. He is not the General Manager, he is the Service Manager. I did not have the opportunity to speak to the General Manager, MrH*** until he finally called me while on the speaker phone with MrT***. This was two d*** after one of my previous conversation with MrT*** which occurred two days prior. Two days prior, MrT*** informed me that he needed to do further inquiry and would call me the next day. MrT*** did not call me the next day as he said he would. I had to call Chevrolet of Puyallup to find out why MrT*** did not call me like he said he would. His staff told me that he was behind closed doors in a meeting. I left a message. I also left messages for MrH*** again. MrT*** called with MrH*** two days later on speaker phone. When they called, MrH*** did let me know that he had me on speaker phone and MrT*** was on the call as well. However, he failed to inform me that he did this so MrT*** could answer technical questions, which MrT*** made in his recent statement. As they did call me right before I had to go into a meeting, in our brief conversation, I did acknowledge them and informed them, more than once during the conversation, that I had to go to a meeting, but I was willing to speak with them at a later time. MrT*** made a statement that I told them that I would call them. At no point, during my conversation with both MrT*** and MrH***, did they set up another tie to speak with me. I did not hear from anyone until Friday, August 4, 2017. MrH*** called me on August 4, 2017. In the conversation, he offered me a refund in the amount of $for the multi-function switch. It would come out that only out-of-pocket expense for me was replacing the DRL bulb. But he stated that they, Chevrolet of Puyallup would maintain their position. We would both have to write a letter to the Revdex.com accordingly. After offering me the refund, MrH*** followed by stating to me he just wanted this to go away. He stated that he wanted this to go away twice during this conversation. I asked if I could think about it and he said yes, I could but asked if I could call him back on Monday, August 7, 2017, with my answer. I said yes, that I would call him back on Monday, August 7, 2017. Before we concluded our conversation, he confirmed that I would call him on Monday. I called MrH*** on Monday, August 7, 2017. He wasn’t available. I left a message and he called me back later that day. I informed him that I decline he offer for a refund. I informed him that it wasn’t about the money. It is about the poor level of customer service addressed in the points I made in my last statement, which I informed him that they did not answer all of them (information is below). As of today, all items in my last statement have not been answered. Points to AddressThe Service Representative did not enter on the document that I specifically requested a check on the light sensor. Did the Technician even check the senor? I was never informed if the Technician checked it. There is no documentation of this. 2. Why did the Service Representative enter the incorrect complaint? I statedtheproblem was the daylight symbol would flicker then turn off when I turned the car on. The document (complaint) said that I complained that the multifunction switch was faulty causing the problem. I never said any such thing. The Service Representative brought up the multifunction switch to me. Why did he document that I said that? 3. Why is the Service Manager claiming that I signed the service repair document? That is not true…the document signed hasanincorrect complaint only. There is no “service repair” information on it. The document that has the “service repair” information is not signed. I attached the “service repair” document and it does not have my signature. Otherwise, what does the company consider this document that I attached that has the “service repair” information on it? Also, the Service Manager indicated that it is policy that the Service Representatives have the customers sign the service repair document when the course of repair is agreed upon. Why did this not happen? This has never happened in all the years going to this company. When the Service Representative came to me after the Technician did his assessment, the Service Representative told me that the problem was the multifunction switch. When the Service Representative came to me after the Technician did his assessment, he told me that the problem was the multifunction switch. I asked if this was going to fix the problem. He said, “Yes.” I asked how much it was and he told me. When I gave the verbal “Ok” to do the repair based off of the information given to me, I received no document to sign. 4. Why is the Dealership falsely claiming that I came in with two complaints? I only came in with one…when I turned the car on, the daylight would flicker then turn off. 5. Why did it take more than one phone call and message from me to get a call back from the Dealership? Why did the Service Manager tell me he was the General Manager when I finally got my first call back? I specifically asked if he was the General Manager with I first spoke to him because I indicated that I wanted to talk to the General Manager, not the Service Manager. He said, “Yes.” That was incorrect because on the voicemail he left for me, he identified himself as the Service Manager. 6. Why did the General Manager no contact me when I initially contacted him? I had to leave more than one message. Why did he think it was appropriate to put me on speaker phone and have the Service Manager on the call when he finally called me? The call came at a time when I was heading into a meeting. Also, although I did not tell them this, the fact that I was on speaker phone was highly inappropriate. I informed them that I had to go to a meeting but I am available to talk at another time. Why is it, to this date, that I have not heard back from the General Manager? Sincerely,
*** ***

Customer arrived for a light concernThe service advisor followed protocol and asked the customer to do the walk around with the advisor and to accurately identify the concern to be addressedThe customer told the advisor no she would not and was documented on the paperworkThe repair order was
generated with the description of the faulty multi function switchThen the customer signed the repair order and the repairs we startedUpon completion the customer said her concern was still presentShe also had a bulb that was outWe replaced her bulb at no charge to herThe bulb being out was never mentioned

The factory warranty was expired in
The client does have an aftermarket warranty that is in effect until or 100,miles, through CNA warrantiesCNA, is the company that required an oil consumption test to be ranWhen we started the test, the vehicle was only 1/4th of a quart low on
oilWe marked it in October and suggested that the client return every 500-miles for recheckThat was at 95,miles
The client returned in December at 97,miles and was quarts low in approximately miles of usageWe highly suspect a need for internal engine workThis call was placed to CNA warranties, but I do not see their reply yetThey are closed for the holiday but I will follow up with them on Tuesday the 3rd and reach out to the customer

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me
My bank confirmed that the $charge from April was refunded today, May 5,
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
*** ***

The client's service contract does NOT cover adjustments and/or repairs that require no parts. Her money was however refunded, because the sales manager that was not familiar with the service contract committed to a refund. We do not make ANY service contract decisions without contacting the plan...

administrator. No repairs can be approved or declined without the service contract administrator making that decision. We apologize for the miscommunication by the sales manager and we refunded the pre-authorized diagnosis fee. There was no "scamming" that took place here.

This letter is in response to id# [redacted]: Mr. [redacted] brought his car into our service department AFTER having the door and locks worked on at Firestone. He asked us to reprogram the RCDLR (remote control door lock receiver) after another shop had installed a door lock actuator. The process for...

programming the RCDLR is entirely electronic. There is no dis­assembly of the door or any door components. We plug a scan tool into the data port directly under the dash and perform a software reset. That is it. The only casualty of the event was that we did not have all of the clients' key fobs, so the key fob that wasn't in our possession lost it's programming as is common. We had the client come back in and we reset the additional fob. The client then came back claiming these other issues were a result of the programming. According to our experience, the repair manual, and our phone call to General Motor's Technical Engineering... that module update has no impact on any other area of the vehicle. We took a complimentary look at the vehicle, inspected the vehicle, inspected the lock rods in the driver's door suspecting that perhaps firestone left something loose. All was intact. Our conclusion is that the door lock cylinder is worn. This cannot occur from ANY type of electrical software flash. It is a physical sealed component that is not affected by electronics at all. It's simply a wear and tear issue. The client believes we lack knowledge of the Cadillac product due to being a Chevrolet­ Buick-GMC franchise, so I suggested he take it to the local Cadillac dealer in fife for a second opinion. If they conclude that we somehow had anything to do with his vehicle issues, I would review with their Service Manager, and participate in the costs of fixing our work, if that were the case. If there are any questions regarding this letter, feel free to contact me at (253)445-9392

I personally just checked with our electronic pay system and see the amount completely refunded to the client's Visa.We have no control over whether or not a warranty covers any type of repairs. We get the client to authorize diagnosis up front and submit the claim to the warranty. If they decline (in this case they did) the client is then responsible for payment. If the client continues to have an issue with the repair, we would be more than happy to inspect again. We always stand behind our work. I will have a staff member reach out to the client to see if they want to reschedule.

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: the fee has not been refunded as stated, as of April 28, 2017. Once this fee has been refunded, per the Chevrolet of Puyallup's initial response, I will be happy to close this complaint. 
Sincerely,
[redacted]

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because the business response is not completely accurate.  I did not tell the Service Representative/Advisor no to doing a walk around.  I explained what the problem was, which in not way shape or form did I ever mention that the problem was happening due to the multifunction switch.  I just did not go outside to do the walk around.  Also, I did not sign the repair order...I signed the complaint form which the Service Representative/Advisor did not document my request to have the light sensor checked because I did not know if that could have been causing the problem but I wasn't completely sure, which I did explain this to the Representative/Advisor.  There was no mention of a faulty multifuntion switch until the the Representative came to me after the assessment and told me that the multifunction switch was cracked.  I specifically asked him if replacing the switch would fix the problem and he said yes.  After giving the ok to replace the switch, under the understanding this would fix the problem, I was not given any repair order to sign.  Repairing the switch did not fix the problem I was complaining about.  I went back and told the Representative/Advisor that the problem was not fixed...this was contrary to being told that it would fix the problem.  I showed two Service Technicians and the Service Representative/Advisor what I initially explained was happening when I turned the car on.  One of the Technicians said lets check the manual because it may be the bulb.  When they replaced the bulb, that is what fixed the problem.  How the Service Department concluded I was talking about the multifunction switch when I kept saying that what was happening when I turned the car on is beyond me.  I even told the Service Representative/Advisor that nothing wrong was happening when I used the switch.  I do have a copy of the documents that was email to me.  My signature is on the complaint form, not the repair order.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: Dale, you are avoiding the problem by saying all you did was a flash reprogram attempt which is obviously not true. As you stated in #4 you had to put the key into they key hole which is exactly what you guys did to break the thing. You are missing the point. You guys obviously drove my car at least 3 times which means you would have had to put the key into the key hole because that is the only way to open the door. That is when your techs broke it. I don't if it was Zach or who but you obviously did more than a reprogram flash when you manhandled my keyhole. I understand you can't physically break anything with a software flash but we all know that is not all you guys did. Just man up for your mistakes and let's move on, please. As for the engine light and the key hole and the tire pressures not reading all happening the second I picked up the car from you guys is too much to be a coincidence. You guys work on cars and obviously messed it up because you don't get Cadillacs in very often and have no idea how to work on them. Your little flash reprogram didn't work either and all you did was damage the vehicle. Also, I only have 1 key and 1 key-fob for the second time, so you saying you needed to re-program a second one is a complete lie because I don't even own a second set. You are telling me what your techs did when you weren't even around. Neither was the General Manager who is never in sight and has yet to call me back. It took 2 weeks to get a hold of you Dale so please don't tell me what happened. I know my car and know it is isn't old. 
Sincerely,[redacted]

Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because: What Dale R[redacted] has said is only partly true and I will explain why. First off, the Revdex.com has addressed the complaint with Keith H[redacted] the General Manager whom I have never spoken to and tried multiple times to contact and second, I have only spoken to Mr. R[redacted] one time and he did not once ever mention taking my car to another Cadillac Dealership. It was a very short phone call because he didn't want to talk to me as he automatically assumed he knew everything that happened to my car right off the bat and blamed Firestone (which is my next point). He said it had to be either me, Firestone, or a coincidence but the fact is, my car started acting up the second I picked it up from you guys and Dale R[redacted] was no where in sight. He has no clue what happened to my car because he was not there so can he say all he wants to but YES, I did take my car to Chevy of Puyallup AFTER firestone, but that was about a week later and it was completely fine after Firestone had it. They said the car actuator requires special codes and pointed me to Chevy of Puyallup. So that is why I went there. The second thing I want to mention is that of course the Door Lock cannot be damaged electronically from a flash. But that is not all you guys did and you know it. They obviously drive the car into the back and then park it for a bit, then bring it into the garage to get worked on when you have room, and then you drive it out of the garage to bring it to the front of the building for me to pick it up. That is a total of three times you would have had to put the key into the doorlock because my door does not open nor the handle work without inserting the key into the door and turning the old fashioned way. So Dale saying they didn't touch the doorlock is a lie plain and simple. And since he mentioned they checked the rods inside the door and went under the dash (whether they opened the hood or went inside my car) they would have had to use the key to open the door again. I don't know exactly what happened but I'd be willing to bet that one of the workers got frustrated that you had to use my key to open the door and got a little angry and exercised the real wear and tear on my car. And to answer the programming issues...yes, my keyfob was out of sync after the first day and NO I did not bring in a second fob that wasn't working. I only have 1 keyfob and it is duct taped to my key ring so that was another lie. They messed that up and Dale is here again trying to cover for his guys. Why would Chevy of Puyallup need all of my key fobs? So they could make all them not work that's why. It's pretty clear to me and the other 3 witnesses at the service desk that when I went to pick up my car, the key would not go in at all and whoever worked on it broke the key hole. Last but not least, I got in the car and saw that my engine light was on. That is not a coincidence. If programming is all you did then why did my lights start turning on and why was my key hole broken??? Explain that.Sincerely,[redacted]

Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because: I would like to wait for the response from the CNA insurance. And also the report that they have from the consumption test is not the original document. I bring my SUV to their shop everybody 500-1000 miles. But that's not what they have in their record which I think is false. Last time I was there at their shop they can't find the original consumption test record Sincerely,[redacted]