Complete Auto Repair of Sellersburg

Business Response to a Complaint
nowrap;">
Complaint ID#:


[redacted]


Company Name:


Complete Auto Repair of Sellersburg


Company Contact:


[redacted]


Company Phone:


812[redacted]


Company Email:


[redacted]


Person Who Sent the Complaint:


[redacted]


Staff Member:


[redacted]


Response:
Complainant contacted Complete Auto Repair
to request we inspect her 1999 Isuzu Rodeo which was towed to our shop due to a
broken (i.e., badly rusted) chassis rear suspension mount. We inspected the
vehicle and agreed it was unsafe to drive. We determined repair exceeded the
scope of our operations and made arrangements for a professional body and frame
repair specialist to inspect the vehicle. He declined the repair also, stating
there was simply no way to repair the rust damage, warranty the work and ensure
the safety of the owner. I researched on-line and found a recall by the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) with three distinct
stages of repair: 1) a modified replacement suspension mount, 2) a substantially
strengthened replacement mount, both installed free of charge by the
dealership, or, in the event neither of these repairs were possible, 3)
repurchase of the defective vehicle by the manufacturer. I gave copies of this
recall to the owner. When the dealership failed to honor the recall, and with
the owner’s consent, I contacted [redacted] Troubleshooter [redacted] and explained
the customer’s quandary. I also advised the customer to seek competent legal
counsel because the damage was not a result of misuse or negligence by the
owner. During this time, the vehicle remained at our facility for a period of
three or four weeks, with no charge whatsoever for storage or our ongoing
involvement. I advised the complainant it would be possible to replace the
chassis with one from a desert state, such as Texas, Arizona or New Mexico free
of rust damage. This would be time intensive and therefore expensive
(replacement chassis + freight + disassembly + reassembly) and would cost more
than the vehicle was worth. When the owner declined this solution, I suggested
she contact [redacted] Technical College, since they work on individual’s cars
with only a small charge for labor. This would have been an optimal solution
since few parts are involved, just the intensive labor required to change out
the chassis. At every opportunity, I encouraged the owner to seek a practical
solution to the rusted chassis, and advised her to pursue the recall issue
vigorously. Complainant declined our repeated offers to inspect the rusted
chassis with her vehicle raised on a hoist so she could see for herself the
extent of the damage Then, the complainant and her husband arrived on 4/30/14
to tell us they would not be pursuing the repair any further and they were
ready to accept an offer from an automotive salvage yard. [redacted] owner [redacted] offered them $100 more and threw in a headlight bulb repair valued at
$17.00 which the complainant accepted. They returned with the title fifteen
minutes later and accepted payment for the vehicle. At no time did CARS make an
offer to purchase the vehicle – until, of course, the complainant stated she
had decided to sell the vehicle for salvage and that her decision was final and
definitive. At this point, I must question the validity of this “customer”
complaint. Despite the several hours invested in the inspection, research and
advice provided, as well as three or four weeks storage of the vehicle at our
facility, CARS never issued an invoice or charged complainant any fees. Since
complainant was never billed or charged by CARS, they cannot be considered a
“customer.” To the contrary, CARS owner paid the complainant for the vehicle
only after she had made the decision to sell it for salvage. Following
purchase, the chassis was summarily patched by the owner for use on the
premises as a push vehicle while awaiting the acquisition of a replacement
chassis as described above. This temporary fix is not intended as a permanent
solution and does not provide a satisfactory long term repair. CARS would not
perform a similar repair for a customer because of the legal liability involved
and because we would not have control or oversight to monitor the ongoing
condition and reliability of the temporary fix.
Sent on:
6/3/2014 4:04:17 PM