Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2016/02/26) */
February 23, 2016
RE: Case # [redacted]
This customer has presented a considerably less than complete portrayal of her visit to our shop.
Customer came to the shop to have an Uber inspection performed on her vehicle. Our shops are among the...
small collection of service groups in the Twin Cities that Uber has authorized to perform these inspections. It is Uber's mandate that the inspection is very meticulous. A shop is not to give a vehicle a "passing" inspection if there is any safety issue, or if there is a cosmetic or non-safety mechanical issue of significance. The inspection form is provided by Uber.
The typical vehicles our shops see for Uber inspections are 1-3 years old and have less than 50,000 miles on them. Customer's vehicle is a 7 year old Volkswagen with 110,000 miles. The inspection on customer's vehicle was performed by the shop's Service manager, a technician with 10+ years' experience and numerous ASE Certifications.
After performing the inspection, the Service Manager went over the results with the customer. There were several issues of concern with the vehicle. There was a nail in one tire, and the rim on that wheel was bent. Two of the tires had 4/32" of an inch of remaining tread life. Though above the discard point on the tires, 4/32" is certainly at a point where any competent shop will recommend new tires. Of greater significance, the rear brakes had been worn to the discard point. Finally, there was a slight tear/leak in the right CV boot.
The Service Manager explained to the customer that her vehicle did not pass the Uber inspection. He had the customer accompany him out to the shop in order to show/explain the issues with the vehicle. He showed her the rear tire with the nail as well as showed her the worn rear brake components. While in the shop, the Service Manager asked the customer if she wanted to look at the CV boot at the front of the vehicle. The customer declined.
The Service manager explained to the customer that her vehicle failed the Uber inspection because the worn brakes created a safety issue. He made clear that the CV boot was a secondary issue, but would not, by itself, lead to failing the inspection.
The Service Manager then asked the customer if she wanted a price estimate on any of the issues identified. The customer indicated that she did.
Ultimately, the customer declined to address any of the identified issues other than having the nail removed and that tire repaired. She was charged $19.99 for this service and $35 for the Uber inspection.
Several days later, the customer contacted the store requesting a refund for her failed inspection. She made reference to the CV boot. The manager invited her to bring the vehicle to the shop. He indicated that they would be happy to raise the vehicle on a hoist and take another look at the CV boot. The customer responded that she bring the vehicle by, but apparently became uncomfortable with this idea, opting instead to file a complaint.
By way of response, it is important to remember that the customer's vehicle failed the UBER inspection because her brakes were in an unsafe condition. This was clearly communicated to the customer, and nowhere in her complaint does she raise an issue with this assessment. Additionally, it was never communicated to the customer that she had to have any of the suggested repairs performed at our shop as a condition of passing the Uber inspection. Quite the contrary was communicated to her. It is a significant point of emphasis on all Uber inspections that failure causing issues can be addressed at any shop, but they do need to be addressed before the vehicle will pass.
This customer has requested a refund for the $35 inspection fee. The function of the Uber inspection is to ensure that any vehicle put into service in the Uber system has met some threshold level of safety and appearance. The customer's vehicle did not meet that threshold level due to the worn condition of her rear brakes. At no point in her complaint does this customer indicate that she had any issue regarding the assessment of her brakes. Indeed, her complaint indicates that she had "all the work done" at a different shop. I'm assuming the brakes were addressed at that point. I am assuming as well that the customer understands that the Uber inspection fee is applicable irrespective of whether the vehicle fails or passes the inspection. Assuming that level of understanding, the customer's complaint is based upon a recommendation for a repair that she chose not to take a look at while at the shop when the opportunity to do so was offered, and that she declined to bring back to the shop in order to have the damaged part identified, and most significantly, a recommended repair that she was specifically told did not impact the Uber inspection.
The fee for an Uber inspection, relative to the amount of time spent performing, it is nominal. The fee itself is set by Uber. This customer has zero grounds for a refund of that fee. A complete inspection was performed. Unfortunately, the vehicle did not pass the inspection. The customer has indicated nothing that disputes the basis of the failure.
It is unfortunate that she has an issue with one of the ancillary suggested service issues on her vehicle. Similarly it is unfortunate, if as she states, she is uncomfortable with that shop. Fortunately, we have other locations within the Twin Cities, including two within 10 minutes of this customer's stated address.
She is welcome to visit either of these shops and have her vehicle inspected, at no charge, to determine whether the CV boot in question is damaged. If, as this customer suggests, there is no visible damage, we will happily refund the$35 inspection fee, notwithstanding the CV boot's lack of relevance to the Uber inspection.
I am happy to arrange for this inspection at any of our shops at whatever time is convenient for the customer.
Response is attached. Let me know of any difficulties in receipt. Thank you.
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2016/02/26) */
February 23, 2016
RE: Case # [redacted]
This customer has presented a considerably less than complete portrayal of her visit to our shop.
Customer came to the shop to have an Uber inspection performed on her vehicle. Our shops are among the...
small collection of service groups in the Twin Cities that Uber has authorized to perform these inspections. It is Uber's mandate that the inspection is very meticulous. A shop is not to give a vehicle a "passing" inspection if there is any safety issue, or if there is a cosmetic or non-safety mechanical issue of significance. The inspection form is provided by Uber.
The typical vehicles our shops see for Uber inspections are 1-3 years old and have less than 50,000 miles on them. Customer's vehicle is a 7 year old Volkswagen with 110,000 miles. The inspection on customer's vehicle was performed by the shop's Service manager, a technician with 10+ years' experience and numerous ASE Certifications.
After performing the inspection, the Service Manager went over the results with the customer. There were several issues of concern with the vehicle. There was a nail in one tire, and the rim on that wheel was bent. Two of the tires had 4/32" of an inch of remaining tread life. Though above the discard point on the tires, 4/32" is certainly at a point where any competent shop will recommend new tires. Of greater significance, the rear brakes had been worn to the discard point. Finally, there was a slight tear/leak in the right CV boot.
The Service Manager explained to the customer that her vehicle did not pass the Uber inspection. He had the customer accompany him out to the shop in order to show/explain the issues with the vehicle. He showed her the rear tire with the nail as well as showed her the worn rear brake components. While in the shop, the Service Manager asked the customer if she wanted to look at the CV boot at the front of the vehicle. The customer declined.
The Service manager explained to the customer that her vehicle failed the Uber inspection because the worn brakes created a safety issue. He made clear that the CV boot was a secondary issue, but would not, by itself, lead to failing the inspection.
The Service Manager then asked the customer if she wanted a price estimate on any of the issues identified. The customer indicated that she did.
Ultimately, the customer declined to address any of the identified issues other than having the nail removed and that tire repaired. She was charged $19.99 for this service and $35 for the Uber inspection.
Several days later, the customer contacted the store requesting a refund for her failed inspection. She made reference to the CV boot. The manager invited her to bring the vehicle to the shop. He indicated that they would be happy to raise the vehicle on a hoist and take another look at the CV boot. The customer responded that she bring the vehicle by, but apparently became uncomfortable with this idea, opting instead to file a complaint.
By way of response, it is important to remember that the customer's vehicle failed the UBER inspection because her brakes were in an unsafe condition. This was clearly communicated to the customer, and nowhere in her complaint does she raise an issue with this assessment. Additionally, it was never communicated to the customer that she had to have any of the suggested repairs performed at our shop as a condition of passing the Uber inspection. Quite the contrary was communicated to her. It is a significant point of emphasis on all Uber inspections that failure causing issues can be addressed at any shop, but they do need to be addressed before the vehicle will pass.
This customer has requested a refund for the $35 inspection fee. The function of the Uber inspection is to ensure that any vehicle put into service in the Uber system has met some threshold level of safety and appearance. The customer's vehicle did not meet that threshold level due to the worn condition of her rear brakes. At no point in her complaint does this customer indicate that she had any issue regarding the assessment of her brakes. Indeed, her complaint indicates that she had "all the work done" at a different shop. I'm assuming the brakes were addressed at that point. I am assuming as well that the customer understands that the Uber inspection fee is applicable irrespective of whether the vehicle fails or passes the inspection. Assuming that level of understanding, the customer's complaint is based upon a recommendation for a repair that she chose not to take a look at while at the shop when the opportunity to do so was offered, and that she declined to bring back to the shop in order to have the damaged part identified, and most significantly, a recommended repair that she was specifically told did not impact the Uber inspection.
The fee for an Uber inspection, relative to the amount of time spent performing, it is nominal. The fee itself is set by Uber. This customer has zero grounds for a refund of that fee. A complete inspection was performed. Unfortunately, the vehicle did not pass the inspection. The customer has indicated nothing that disputes the basis of the failure.
It is unfortunate that she has an issue with one of the ancillary suggested service issues on her vehicle. Similarly it is unfortunate, if as she states, she is uncomfortable with that shop. Fortunately, we have other locations within the Twin Cities, including two within 10 minutes of this customer's stated address.
She is welcome to visit either of these shops and have her vehicle inspected, at no charge, to determine whether the CV boot in question is damaged. If, as this customer suggests, there is no visible damage, we will happily refund the$35 inspection fee, notwithstanding the CV boot's lack of relevance to the Uber inspection.
I am happy to arrange for this inspection at any of our shops at whatever time is convenient for the customer.