In response to Mr. [redacted]’s complaint submitted on 2/23/16: Prior to the customer purchasing the Chrysler Town and Country van, Dorschel did perform a battery test with a passing result. While Mr. [redacted] did purchase an Extended Warranty, this warranty does not cover items...
such as a battery. As of 2/24/2016, Dorschel has credited Mr. [redacted] for the purchase of a battery as a good will gesture and a sign of our appreciation for his continued business. Sincerely, Johnathan M[redacted] MINI of Rochester Dorschel Automotive Group
Mr. [redacted] brought his 2011 Kia Forte in for service on 10/25/16 with the engine light illuminated. After scanning the vehicle for engine codes, we found the VCM motor was seized and needed replacement. The vehicle warranty for this part had expired on 6/26/16, as well 1330 miles out of warranty. Mr....
[redacted] approved the work and the repair was completed successfully. Mr. [redacted] then reached out to Kia Motors America for any possible help with the charges. Kia Motors America approved his request, and Mr. [redacted] stated that Kia Motors America would contact Dorschel for a refund. Unfortunately, Kia Motors America did not contact Dorschel KIA. I have reached out to Kia Motors America and have received approval to reimburse the customer when Dorschel receives the payment from Kia. I called Mr. [redacted] to let him know that Dorschel will be sending him a reimbursement check soon, and that Dorschel will keep him updated when payment is received from Kia Motors America.Sincerely,Chris B[redacted]
The Dorschel Group 3817 West Henrietta Road Rochester, NY 14623 April 20th, 2016 Revdex.com 100 Bryant Woods South Amherst, New York 14228 RE: Revdex.com Complaint ID [redacted] Attention: [redacted], Complaint Handler, ext. [redacted] In response to Mr. [redacted]...
[redacted] complaint dated April 9th, 2016: The Dorschel Automotive Group structures its business systems and processes to best ensure a quality service visit through our Express Service operations. Upon examination of the service visit last had by Mr. [redacted], more work was done on his vehicle than just the oil change that the customer requested, including a car wash along with a tire rotation. With the additional steps of having the car washed and tires rotated, the time taken to complete the transaction was longer then just having the oil changed on the vehicle. On average, each of the additional steps – the car wash and the tire rotation – adds approximately 15 minutes to the process. While reviewing this complaint, we have determined that we can make improvements in what we do, but we have no intention of making changes to our marketing strategy. Sincerely, Scott [redacted] The Dorschel Group [redacted]
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.
When I brought my Mini into Dorschel, in fact I had previously had my Alternator Clip and Serpentine Belt repaired, but the mechanic that fixed those, agreed that there were no longer any issues with my alternator, or he would've repaired it at his shop. When I came back into Dorschel after my car would not go above 10MPH, and Kyle, the man at the counter stated that he was not sure why this occurred, but it could've been overpowered by the repairs that you made. If this was in fact not true, you should advise your employees to not speak on a matter that they do not know about. My alternator was not damaged, but in "limp mode" and your technicians could not figure out why, so they opted to just repair this. I do not feel that your business should claim to be "Mini Experts" when everything about my car was a mystery to your technicians. I do not accept 213$ for the original repair, when that is not my whole concern in this matter. I do not feel that this makes up for the loss that I had for not having a vehicle for a long period of time, as well as not ever having a clear answer as what was going on with my vehicle.
Regards,
[redacted]
Hi, the vehicle did come with a warranty on it. It came with 60 days or 3,000 miles. I was told my leak was not covered by John Marriotti. The details of the warranty are attached.
Good Morning,Due to several unforeseen issues surfacing with the customers vehicle, The Dorschel Automotive Group...
has settled with
full reimbursement for the needed repair as described. We appreciate the customers business and look forward to
continuing our business relationship in the future.
The Dorschel Group
3817 West Henrietta Road | Rochester, NY 14623
| www.dorschel.com
Good Afternoon, Please see the attached response to complaint ID 11017146. Feel free to contact me with any questions. Thank you,[redacted]Administrative Assistant - Executive Officesp. ###-###-#### | f. ###-###-####[redacted] The...
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.
In my initial complain to the Revdex.com, I stated what I wanted to see from the outcome of this, which was a refund for all the service done at the Dorschel Automotive Group Mini Cooper Service Department. I cannot settle for the current and previous offer of $609 because this completely disregards my entire complaint that the work done to my car was not necessary as well as misinformation was given to me by the technicians at the facility. I cannot accept this offer due to the fact that I paid the dealership a little under 2000$ for an issue that was never taken care of. I was lied to that my alternator needed to be replaced, when in reality it was only in limp mode, and the technicians failed to find out why this was occurring, which ended up being because the initial issue was never taken care of with my Body Control Module. I cannot begin to explain the distress I felt for the entire 6 weeks that my car was at the facility. I have never experienced anything close to what I did with this group, with regards to Communication, Misinformation and the quality of work that was done by the people there. I continued to trust them, and believe that what they were informing me of was in fact the truth, until we neared the end, when no answers could be given, and they wanted me to continue to give more money towards a solution that was not related to the actual problem that my car was in for.
Regards,
[redacted]
Mr. [redacted]’s 2010 GMC Terrain has been brought in to Dorschel Toyota. We are currently working toward a solution with Mr. [redacted].Sincerely,[redacted]
December 14, 2015 Revdex.com 100 B[redacted]t Woods South Amherst, New York 14228 RE: Revdex.com Complaint #[redacted] Attention: Schrell, Complaint Handler In response to the complaint issued by [redacted] 12/2/15: [redacted] vehicle was first towed to Dorschel Toyota at 3399 West Henrietta Road on Tuesday, November 24th , 2015. I was notified by an employee at that location that there was a 2006 Lexus GS300 in the parking lot. Using the Vehicle Identification Number, I was able to find the customers information in our system. I contacted the customer to let her know that the vehicle needed to be towed to Dorschel Lexus at 3817 West Henrietta Road. The vehicle was towed to our Lexus location later that day. I then called the customer to discuss what needed to be done, and she stated the alternator had failed. She also explained that she has a third party warranty on the vehicle. I informed [redacted] that the Dorschel company policy states that we do not work with third party warranty providers. We had the same discussion the previous time her vehicle was in for service on Tuesday, June 9th, 2015. [redacted] declined any diagnostic work and stated she would be calling her selling dealer to make other arrangements. No repair order was written, as we were not authorized by the customer to perform any diagnostic or repair. On Friday, November 27th, 2015, [redacted] husband came to pick up the key for the vehicle. The missing plastic cover [redacted] describes on her center console near the shifter sounds like the shift interlock cover, which has to be removed to tow the vehicle. I have not seen the vehicle since it left Dorschel, so I can’t be certain, but what she describes in the written complaint sounds exactly like the shift interlock cover. The vehicle was towed twice, so the towing provider would certainly have removed the cover to shift the vehicle from park to neutral to allow it to roll. When [redacted] called to express her concern I suggested that she contact the towing providers used to inquire as to where the plastic cover may have been left. [redacted] Beattie Service Manager Dorschel Automotive
The Dorschel Group3817 West Henrietta RoadRochester, NY 14623October 5th, 2015Revdex.com, Inc.100 Bryant Woods SouthAmherst, NY 14228RE: Revdex.com Complaint ID [redacted]Attention: [redacted], Complaint Handler ext 283Response to Complaint:Response to 2nd rejection from customer dated 10/14/2015 (complaint ID [redacted]) is below.To Whom It May Concern:The Dorschel Group has made every effort to resolve this issue in a fair, timely, and reasonable manner. We feel our most recent offer of $609.00 is extremely reasonable given the fact that we neither performed nor caused unnecessary repairs. Each offer we have made has been rejected, with no indication from the customer what the acceptable outcome would be. To continue our good faith effort to take care of this issue, we will keep the offer of $609.00 on the table for 90 days from the date of this letter. The Dorschel Group goes above and beyond to resolve customer issues as exhibited by our continued commitment to resolve this matter.Should you have any questions or need further information, please feel free to contact us.Sincerely,Tom W[redacted]Mini of Rochester Service ManagerThe Dorschel Group
The Dorschel Group3817 West Henrietta RoadRochester, NY 14623September 4, 2015Revdex.com, Inc.100 Bryant Woods SouthAmherst, NY 14228RE: Revdex.com Complaint ID [redacted] (submitted on August 31st, 2015)Attention: [redacted], Complaint HandlerTo Whom It May Concern:It is Dorschel’s goal to have our...
customers leave the Service Department completely satisfied with the service performed on their vehicles. We find it unfortunate that [redacted] had an unsatisfactory experience, and that he felt he was not given all the information that should have been provided to him regarding the estimate for service work on his Volkswagen Jetta GLI.To resolve [redacted]’s concern, we have reached out to him and provided him with a full refund for the estimate, in the amount of $97.20.This issue has been resolved with the customer.Should you have any questions or need further information, please feel free to contact us.Sincerely,Todd T[redacted]Volkswagen Service ManagerThe Dorschel Group###-###-####
September 17, 2015Revdex.com, Inc.100 Bryant Woods SouthAmherst, NY 14228RE: Revdex.com Complaint ID [redacted]Attention: [redacted], Complaint Handler ext [redacted]Response to Complaint:In response to the recent complaint dated September 16th, 2015 (complaint ID [redacted]) regarding a 2005 Mini Cooper with 87,826 miles.Customer’s desired settlement:1) A refund of the money paid towards the brake light and tachometer issue.2) A refund for the unrelated repairs of the alternator and pulley.To Whom It May Concern:Below you will find documentation summarizing events regarding two repairs listed in the customer’s complaint letter. The first issue is the brake lamp and tachometer concern. The second is the alternator, pulley and belt concern. After receiving this complaint by the Revdex.com, Mini of Rochester offered a refund to the customer as a goodwill gesture to resolve issue 1, leaving only issue 2 in question. We believe the documentation listed below supports no wrong doing on the part of Mini of Rochester, specifically issue 2. The documentation outlines and supports a recent repair performed elsewhere regarding issue 2. The repairs recommended and performed by Mini of Rochester resolved the customer’s issue. Mini of Rochester respectfully declines an offer for issue 2.July 17th 2015[redacted] Nobrega brought her 2005 Mini Cooper in to Mini of Rochester for the brake lamps staying on after the vehicle was turned off, and a tachometer that was inoperative.Our technician performed a compensative energy test along with replacement of some shorted fuses.During this process the brake lamps, along with the tachometer, began to operate as designed by the manufacturer, indicating the possibility of an intermittent issue. Due to the fact we could go no further, the customer was notified to pick up her vehicle.July 20th 2015[redacted] picked up her vehicle and returned stating the vehicle will not go over 10mph. The vehicle was left with our service department for a diagnosis.July 21st 2015Our technician diagnosed the vehicle as needing an alternator replacement. The alternator had a low voltage and charge rate reading causing a loss of power, which is what the customer experienced. The service advisor also advised the customer that the vehicle may have other issues relating to this repair, he stated we will need to get the voltage to manufactures specifications to be able to test further. The customer authorized replacement of the alternator.Note: The customer stated on July 21st, 2015 at 3:18pm that an alternator clip and serpentine belt were recently replaced prior to arriving at our dealership. This repair is noted in the customers letter regarding a July 4th no start issue that occurred in a car wash.July 22nd 2015A message was left with the customer by our service advisor at 8:30am on July 22nd, 2015 stating the vehicle is running better, although a burning smell was detected by the technician.At 8:48am, the customer called back and was advised by the service writer that our technician found a belt pulley worn to a point where it was allowing the belt to rub against a bolt, damaging the belt. The service advisor recommended replacement of the serpentine belt and pulley. The customer stated she would call back after speaking with her parents. At 8:56am, the customer called back and requested the service advisor call her father, [redacted].At 9:13am, the service advisor spoke with [redacted] and explained what the technician found, along with the recommendation. [redacted] mentioned the belt in question is new and just replaced elsewhere, which supported the prior statement by [redacted] (The pulley will continue to damage the belts until replaced). The repairs were authorized by[redacted] along with a request that the service advisor return the failed alternator to him. The advisor put the alternator in a box in the customer’s vehicle on the back seat.The vehicle was completed and picked up by the customer, the customer states in her letter the vehicle was running okay after these repairs.July 24th 2015The customer experienced the original concern regarding the brake lamps and tachometer issue. I received an email regarding the service issue and at 3:56pm, I responded and apologized along with inquiring about a previous accident repair that was mentioned to my advisor by the customer. At 5:21pm, [redacted] responded by email and stated the collision center said they did all they can do.July 28th 2015A repair order was written to diagnose the brake lamps and tachometer issue at no charge to the customer as a goodwill gesture, continuing where we left off.July 31st 2015The service advisor left a message with [redacted] stating our BMW field technician was helping diagnose and he felt it was one of the modules associated with this circuit.August 3rd 2015The service advisor left a message with [redacted] at 5:22pm offering the use of a loaner vehicle to drive to ease the inconvenience while we were diagnosing her issue.August 6th 2015The service advisor left an additional message at 1:51pm with [redacted] due to no response on the prior attempt offering a loaner vehicle to drive. We also requested the repair receipt from an accident repair the customer mentioned she had completed elsewhere.August 12th 2015The service advisor left a message with [redacted] at 2:43pm requesting information on when this issue occurred in relation to the accident, whether it occurred before, during or after the accident. The advisor also mentioned there was wiring the technician found that raised some concerns. The advisor recommended we go further behind the dash to trace the wiring. A return message was left by [redacted] stating the brake lamp and tachometer issue occurred during the accident.August 18th 2015[redacted] emailed at 1:22pm stating she was not going to continue with the repairs and was taking the car back where the vehicle was originally purchased. She asked if she could keep the rental car from the current date (Tuesday) until Friday, where I replied at 1:23pm that returning the rental on Friday was fine.August 21st 2015[redacted] arrived to pick up her vehicle. As her vehicle was driven around the building to be delivered back to her, it was realized the right rear tire was very low on air, which apparently leaked out during the time the vehicle sat in our lot that week. The tires on the vehicle were mismatched and the tread on this specific tire was extremely low. As a goodwill gesture, the service advisor drove home and picked up a used tire he owns for his vehicle that has the same size tire. The tire was installed free of charge.Resolution Offer:Although the aforementioned issues are truly unfortunate, the responsibility of the customer’s repairs fall on the customer. The original concern of the brake lamp and tachometer issue was an involved diagnosis, not only to locate the issue which was narrowed down to one of the modules and subsequently replaced elsewhere, but also determining if there was any additional wiring issues that may have contributed to the module failure. Based on the wire we observed that was installed incorrectly, there was concern other issues may be present. As stated on repair order [redacted] dated July 28th, 2015, our technician repaired at no charge one overlaid wire that was installed in a connector in the wrong pin.As a goodwill gesture after receiving this complaint from The Revdex.com, Mini of Rochester reached out to the customer offering a refund in the amount of $213.79, which is the only amount paid to us by the customer for the brake lamp and tachometer issue. This refund, along with absorbing the cost of the rental vehicle and the additional wire tracing with the BMW field technician, should resolve this particular concern leaving no money paid to Mini of Rochester for the aforementioned issue.Regarding the alternator, pulley and belt issue; these repairs are not related to the original concern and as documented in the customer’s letter along with phone correspondence with both [redacted] and [redacted], the alternator and belt were an issue prior to the vehicle coming in to Mini of Rochester. As documented, the alternator along with the belt and pulley replacement performed by Mini of Rochester did in fact resolve the customer’s issues regarding the loss of power.It appears, as stated in her letter, the customer is seeking reimbursement for this issue purely due to the fact the vehicle was in our care when the failure occurred. This alone is not an indication of any wrong doing on the part of Mini or Rochester any more than the car wash would be liable for the vehicle not starting which led to the original alternator clip and belt replacement performed elsewhere. It is clearly documented the alternator and belt were already the subject of issues prior to arriving at Mini of Rochester. Subsequently this issue was repaired and resolved at Mini of Rochester. Mini of Rochester respectfully declines an offer for issue 2.After offering [redacted] a refund in the amount of $213.79, [redacted] replied she does not accept the offer. We would be happy to leave this offer on the table feeling it is a fair resolution.Should you have any questions or need further information, please feel free to contact us.Sincerely,Tom W[redacted]Mini of Rochester Service ManagerThe Dorschel Group
The manager of the Dorschel Collision Center has checked with the [redacted] Insurance Group (the insurer of the vehicle repaired) and has learned that [redacted] Insurance inspected the windshield and it was replaced by [redacted] Auto Glass as an addition to the insurance claim ($665.97). [redacted]...
Insurance also sent a reimbursement check to the customer for $156.56 for one tire to match the new one that was replaced. [redacted] Insurance also discovered the same issue that the Dorschel Collision Center experienced with matching the original tread pattern for the tires on Ms. [redacted]’s vehicle; the tire/tread pattern has been discontinued. The [redacted] Insurance representative stated that the customers vehicle was inspected by another repair shop and diagnosed the excessive noise as rear tire chop wear, a prior unrelated condition. This was the same diagnosis that the Dorschel Collision Center provided to the customer. As Vice President of Fixed Operations for the Dorschel Automotive Group, I have attempted to contact the customer, without success, to set up a meeting to discuss the issue, as the customer has requested. I have left voice mails and provided my personal cell phone number for the customer to to call me to minimize inconvenience. Ms. [redacted] attempted to return my call on 4/19/16, but I was unavailable to answer the phone at that time. I attempted to return Ms. [redacted]’s call on 4/19/16, and have not heard back from the customer as of yet. The Dorschel Automotive Group stands ready to discuss Ms. [redacted]’s concerns verbally over the phone or face to face as she has requested. Sincerely, Scott R. VP of Fixed Operations The Dorschel Group
In response to Ms. [redacted]’s complaint dated March 13, 2016: Ms. [redacted] visited Dorschel Toyota anticipating a $25 gift card for test driving as advertised on our website. The gift card request was improperly processed through our third party vendor, which lead to Ms. [redacted] not receiving a...
card. She brought this to the attention of her salesperson several times without satisfaction. I called her when I was alerted to the issue and left a message letting her know that I not only reprocessed the original request, but sent an additional $75 in physical gift cards for a total of $100 in gift cards to solidify the importance of Dorschel Toyota operating at the highest level of integrity when dealing with our customers. When she returned the call I emphatically apologized for her inconvenience. Ms. [redacted] is satisfied with the planned resolution and that I will follow up with her until she receives all that was promised as well as the additional amount previously mentioned. That envelope is in the outgoing mail with an apology letter, 2 gift cards for $75 and my contact info. Sincerely, Russell C[redacted] Sales Manager Dorschel Toyota
Good Morning,We have reached out to Mr. [redacted] to address the concern detailed in his complaint regarding the oil change on his
vehicle. It does appear that we overfilled the oil a little bit, and we have agreed to pay for an oil change closer to his
home, as well as cover his next two oil changes...
at Dorschel KIA. The customer agreed that this was an acceptable offer
and has accepted. We apologize for inconveniencing the customer. Thank you, Caryn E. M[redacted]Executive Assistant to President[redacted] | f. [redacted] The Dorschel Group3817 West Henrietta Road | Rochester, NY 14623 | www.dorschel.com
Mrs. [redacted]’s 2013 Nissan Armada was brought to Dorschel Service on 9/19/16 for two primary concerns. Her first concern was water getting past the seal on the rear hatch. We were able to duplicate the concern and replaced the rear hatch weather stripping using Nissan Goodwill Warranty, as the part...
was not covered by her extended warranty and it had been an issue in the past. Her second concern was regarding the heat, radio and GPS systems in the vehicle. We were not able to duplicate anything with this complaint. We reached out to Mrs. [redacted] to obtain authorization to drive the vehicle to see if we could duplicate the problem, and we have the phone call documented, as all the calls in and out of the dealership are recorded. After driving the vehicle, we were still never able to duplicate the concern. Mrs. [redacted] then came to pick her vehicle up on 9/27/16. Mrs. [redacted] returned with her vehicle on 10/7/16 stating that the problem with the heat, radio, and GPS system had gotten worse. We were able to duplicate her concern on Monday 10/10/16. It took two more days for it to be a consistent enough problem that we could contact Nissan Technical for some assistance. Nissan Technical Assistance advised us to replace the A/V unit on 10/13/16. This unit needs to be removed, sent to United Radio, diagnosed by them, and then repaired by them. This is a three-week process. Mrs. [redacted] stated that she was scheduled to go on vacation, leaving town 10/19/16, and she had to have a vehicle like hers, same size and it had to be able to tow. Needing the tow capacity immediately eliminated any kind of rental. Her vehicle is not common by any means, but we were lucky to have one available for sale on our lot. With no obligation, as we just felt it was a good thing to do, we downed one of our inventory vehicles and borrowed the needed part from it to replace on her vehicle. We tested Mrs. [redacted]’s vehicle several times and it worked for us every time. I was confident that the vehicle was fixed. We filled her fuel tank at no charge to her for her trip and she then came to Dorschel and picked it up. While Mrs. [redacted] was on vacation, she phoned me stating the problem with the heat, radio and GPS had returned. I asked her to contact me upon her return so that she could bring the vehicle back in and we could have another look. Mrs. [redacted] returned to Dorschel with the vehicle on 11/1/16. We tried it on 11/1/16 and couldn’t get the issues to reoccur. We tried again the next day, 11/2/16, and we were able to duplicate the heating problem, but could not duplicate the GPS and radio problem. We replaced the heater control assembly and tested it multiple times. The heating concern never returned, but we still had not duplicated the GPS and radio concerns. Mrs. [redacted] had stated that the GPS/radio concern may take some time while driving the vehicle, so we asked permission to drive the vehicle to try and duplicate the concern. Mrs. [redacted] said yes, we could drive the vehicle to duplicate the problem, on a recorded line. The Master Nissan Technician that was working on her vehicle put his home address into the GPS and had no problems going home or coming back into work the next day. We called her on 11/3/16 to tell her the news and see how she would like to proceed. We told her we would be happy to drive it more if she wanted us to. During that phone call, Mrs. [redacted] suddenly accused us of damaging her truck on the previous visit. Mrs. [redacted] had been driving the truck for the last several weeks but had not mentioned the damage until this phone call. Our Service Advisor then simply asked why she had not mentioned the damage until that time, and Mrs. [redacted] then threatened to show up with the police and make a scene in our showroom, and then hung up the phone. Mrs. [redacted] then left me a voicemail saying the same thing. I called her back, got her voicemail, and left a message to please call me so we could try and resolve the issue. I did not receive a return call from Mrs. [redacted]. The next morning, 11/4/16, Mrs. [redacted]’s husband came in to pick up the vehicle. We discussed what had transpired on the phone the day before. Mr. [redacted] was going to drive the vehicle over the weekend to help us confirm that it was fixed, or to see if the problems arose again. At that time, Mr. [redacted] and I went out to the vehicle to look for the damage that Mrs. [redacted] stated happened while at Dorschel. Together we found a little door ding that we could fix, no problem. Mr. [redacted] was appreciative, and stated that he had told Mrs. [redacted] that the damage could have happened anywhere, as it had been a few weeks since her vehicle was last in for service. Mrs. [redacted] returned my voicemail at some point over the weekend (11/5 or 11/6), as it was on my phone on the morning of 11/7/16. She clearly stated that she didn’t want to talk with us about her vehicle anymore and that all communication would need to go through her husband going forward. Mrs. [redacted] also claimed in the voicemail that we damaged her vehicle again. She stated that there was now a chip in the windshield that wasn’t there before. I spoke with Mr. [redacted] around the lunch hour on 11/7/16. He was unaware that she had contacted the Revdex.com, and was also unaware of a new chip in the windshield. Mr. [redacted] stated he had not noticed anything while driving it over the weekend. On 11/7/16, Dorschel was notified that Mrs. [redacted] contacted the Revdex.com again and stated that we told her that we would take action if she shared her experience with the public in any way. We have not, and will never, threaten a customer in this way. I had asked Mr. [redacted] if he would consider removing the claim to the Revdex.com, as we are continuing to try and make good on Mrs. [redacted]’s experience. Dorschel Nissan’s Position: Mrs. [redacted] claims there was damage to the right side of the vehicle when she picked it up. We were not notified of this damage for several weeks. We give our customers a 24-hour timeframe to notify us of any damage they feel happened while in our care. Whenever there is doubt, we always favor on the side of our customer. In this matter, it had been several weeks between picking up the vehicle and notifying us of the damage. I had discussed this with Mr. [redacted] and he had agreed that the damage could have happened anywhere as it had been several weeks since the vehicle had been picked up.Mrs. [redacted]’s request to repair the windshield on her vehicle is denied. All communications and business dealings of any kind with the [redacted] family will be done through Mr. [redacted] solely. Any business request for service or communications from Mrs. [redacted] will be denied.
The Dorschel Group3817 West Henrietta RoadRochester, NY 14623June 30, 2015Revdex.com, Inc.100 Bryant Woods SouthAmherst, NY 14228RE: Revdex.com Complaint ID [redacted] (submitted on June 25, 2015)Attention: [redacted], Complaint HandlerTo Whom It May Concern:We are in receipt of the notice from your...
office regarding Complaint ID [redacted] and the situation with the customer’s vehicle. Thank you for allowing us an opportunity to respond to the customers concerns.On December 20, 2012, the customer purchased a certified pre-owned 2011 Lexus GX 460 with 15,988 miles on the vehicle. During the next 26 months, the vehicle had been driven over 33,000 miles and had never been serviced by Dorschel Lexus.The first visit to our service department was on February 16, 2015, at which time the vehicle had 49,092 miles on it. The vehicle had a malfunction light on and it was discovered to have a faulty Accumulator Assembly and corroded connector wire. The vehicle was out of service for 17 days during which time the customer was provided a complimentary loaner vehicle. The repair was made and the vehicle returned on February, 24, 2015.On May 2, 2015, the customer returned to our service department a second time with the vehicle having 52,107 miles and concerns of a malfunction light. At this time, the vehicle was no longer covered under the manufacturer warranty. A diagnosis confirmed a poor connection by a corroded wire located on the opposite side of the repair made in February. This wire had been exposed to salt and was an entirely separate repair. As a goodwill gesture, Dorschel absorbed the cost of this repair for the customer.It has been brought to our attention that the customer contacted the Lexus manufacturer directly for consideration of a buy back. This request has been denied by the manufacturer. Dorschel is not in a position to “take the car back” after 26 months of ownership. However, we will continue to provide automotive service to this vehicle should the customer choose to bring the vehicle back to Dorschel Lexus for future repairs and maintenance.Should you have any questions or need further information, please feel free to contact us.Sincerely,Todd T[redacted]Lexus Service Manager###-###-#### Please contact me with any questions.Thank you,[redacted]
Administrative Assistant -
Executive Offices
p. ###-###-#### | f.
###-###-####
[redacted]@dorschel.com
The Dorschel Group
3817 West Henrietta Road |
Rochester, NY 14623 | www.dorschel.com
Please see the attached response to complaint ID [redacted]Please contact me with any questions.Thank you,Caryn. M[redacted]Administrative Assistant - Executive Offices[redacted]
The Dorschel Group3817 West Henrietta Road | Rochester,...
NY 14623 | www.dorschel.comFebruary 24th, 2016Revdex.com100 Bryant Woods SouthAmherst, New York 14228RE: Revdex.com Complaint ID [redacted]Attention: [redacted], Complaint Handler ext. [redacted]In response to Mr. [redacted]’ complaint submitted on 2/13/16 regarding Nissan Service, are the following facts:On February 1st, 2016, [redacted] came into our repair facility, Dorschel Nissan, requesting that he have his ECM reprogrammed because he had just replaced the Mass Air Flow sensor (Non OEM) in his 2011 Maxima. Having the MAF sensor replaced set off his check engine light, and he was informed that having his ECM reprogrammed would do the trick and turn the check engine light off.The aftermarket facility he took his vehicle to have the MAF air flow sensor replaced did not have the equipment capable of doing this. Mr. [redacted] asked about the ECM being covered under the Federal Emissions 8/80,000 mile warranty. A replacement and reprogram of the ECM would be covered under the warranty if there were an issue with the ECM. There was no operational issue with the ECM.Had an Original Equipment Nissan MAF sensor been installed, no reprogramming would be required. There were no internal faults or anything wrong the ECM on Mr. [redacted]’ 2011 Maxima, he only requested it to be reprogrammed and the check engine light off, due to the replacement of the MAF sensor for free. A simple reprogram of the ECM via customer request is not something that is covered under warranty. It was explained to Mr. [redacted] and he left Dorschel Nissan Service as if he understood.Sincerely,Scott J. R[redacted]VP of Fixed OperationsDorschel Automotive Group
May 3rd, 2016 Revdex.com 100 Bryant Woods South Amherst, New York 14228 RE: Revdex.com Complaint ID [redacted] Attention: [redacted], Complaint Handler, ext. [redacted] In response to Mr. [redacted] complaint: On Tuesday, December 1st, 2015, in anticipation of offering for sale a 2010 GMC Terrain (VIN#...
ending in [redacted]), Dorschel Toyota performed a full used vehicle inspection on the said vehicle which included a New York State Safety Inspection and many other services, such as an engine oil change. At delivery of the vehicle on Monday, December 21st , Mr. [redacted] was made fully aware of what coverage’s came with the purchase and signed the disclosure outlining his coverage under the New York State Dealer Limited Used Passenger Vehicle Warranty. Mr. [redacted]’s vehicle falls in the state category of vehicles between 36,000 and 80,000 miles that has some component coverage for 60 days or 3,000 miles. The customer was offered additional coverage in the event of an unfortunate failure and he signed a statement declining the extra coverage. At that time, Mr. [redacted]’s Retail Certificate of Sale shows the mileage to be 53,766. Mr. [redacted] visited the Dorschel Service Department on Tuesday, January 5th , with 54,410 miles on the vehicle stating that an air bag light was coming on when you opened a door and that there was a scraping noise from the right side. The airbag sensor in the door was found to need adjustment, which was performed and solved the concern. The scraping noise was not able to be duplicated on the road or on a lift. Mr. [redacted] was not charged for any repairs at this time. On Thursday, January 7th , with 54,482 miles on the vehicle, Mr. [redacted] returned stating that the noise on the right side of the vehicle had returned. A heat shield was found at that time to be vibrating against the driveshaft, which was tightened in the Service Department, eliminating the concern. Mr. [redacted] was not charged for any repairs at this time. On Friday, February 5th , with 55,605 miles on the vehicle, Mr. [redacted] returned to the Service Department stating a check engine light was on, but went out on the way to the service appointment. The intake and exhaust camshaft position actuators were replaced eliminating the concern. The oil level was noted at the appropriate level at that time. Mr. [redacted] was not charged for any repairs at that time. On Thursday, April 7th, with 58,223 mile on the vehicle, Mr. [redacted] returned to the Service Department at the request of the Service Manager, even though his warranty coverage had expired. It was determined that the failure was unrelated to the previous concerns. The customer was not charged for the diagnosis. At this point in time, Mr. [redacted] was over 1,400 miles and almost 45 days past the end of his coverage. At delivery, Mr. [redacted] was strongly urged to provide for unforeseen repairs in the future, but declined to do so. Inside the coverage period, several issues were addressed that were outside of our responsibility. Dorschel Toyota goes to great lengths in the name of customer service. While it is very unfortunate that this vehicle is in need of repair, we went beyond our contractual agreement in providing a good vehicle for Mr. [redacted]. We are reaching out to Mr. [redacted] to see if there are any options to trade-in the vehicle, with some value concessions on our part, which will provide a mutually acceptable way for Mr. [redacted] to move forward.
In response to Mr. [redacted]’s complaint submitted on 2/23/16: Prior to the customer purchasing the Chrysler Town and Country van, Dorschel did perform a battery test with a passing result. While Mr. [redacted] did purchase an Extended Warranty, this warranty does not cover items...
such as a battery. As of 2/24/2016, Dorschel has credited Mr. [redacted] for the purchase of a battery as a good will gesture and a sign of our appreciation for his continued business. Sincerely, Johnathan M[redacted] MINI of Rochester Dorschel Automotive Group
Mr. [redacted] brought his 2011 Kia Forte in for service on 10/25/16 with the engine light illuminated. After scanning the vehicle for engine codes, we found the VCM motor was seized and needed replacement. The vehicle warranty for this part had expired on 6/26/16, as well 1330 miles out of warranty. Mr....
[redacted] approved the work and the repair was completed successfully. Mr. [redacted] then reached out to Kia Motors America for any possible help with the charges. Kia Motors America approved his request, and Mr. [redacted] stated that Kia Motors America would contact Dorschel for a refund. Unfortunately, Kia Motors America did not contact Dorschel KIA. I have reached out to Kia Motors America and have received approval to reimburse the customer when Dorschel receives the payment from Kia. I called Mr. [redacted] to let him know that Dorschel will be sending him a reimbursement check soon, and that Dorschel will keep him updated when payment is received from Kia Motors America.Sincerely,Chris B[redacted]
The Dorschel Group 3817 West Henrietta Road Rochester, NY 14623 April 20th, 2016 Revdex.com 100 Bryant Woods South Amherst, New York 14228 RE: Revdex.com Complaint ID [redacted] Attention: [redacted], Complaint Handler, ext. [redacted] In response to Mr. [redacted]...
[redacted] complaint dated April 9th, 2016: The Dorschel Automotive Group structures its business systems and processes to best ensure a quality service visit through our Express Service operations. Upon examination of the service visit last had by Mr. [redacted], more work was done on his vehicle than just the oil change that the customer requested, including a car wash along with a tire rotation. With the additional steps of having the car washed and tires rotated, the time taken to complete the transaction was longer then just having the oil changed on the vehicle. On average, each of the additional steps – the car wash and the tire rotation – adds approximately 15 minutes to the process. While reviewing this complaint, we have determined that we can make improvements in what we do, but we have no intention of making changes to our marketing strategy. Sincerely, Scott [redacted] The Dorschel Group [redacted]
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.
When I brought my Mini into Dorschel, in fact I had previously had my Alternator Clip and Serpentine Belt repaired, but the mechanic that fixed those, agreed that there were no longer any issues with my alternator, or he would've repaired it at his shop. When I came back into Dorschel after my car would not go above 10MPH, and Kyle, the man at the counter stated that he was not sure why this occurred, but it could've been overpowered by the repairs that you made. If this was in fact not true, you should advise your employees to not speak on a matter that they do not know about. My alternator was not damaged, but in "limp mode" and your technicians could not figure out why, so they opted to just repair this. I do not feel that your business should claim to be "Mini Experts" when everything about my car was a mystery to your technicians. I do not accept 213$ for the original repair, when that is not my whole concern in this matter. I do not feel that this makes up for the loss that I had for not having a vehicle for a long period of time, as well as not ever having a clear answer as what was going on with my vehicle.
Regards,
[redacted]
Hi, the vehicle did come with a warranty on it. It came with 60 days or 3,000 miles. I was told my leak was not covered by John Marriotti. The details of the warranty are attached.
Good Morning,Due to several unforeseen issues surfacing with the customers vehicle, The Dorschel Automotive Group...
has settled with
full reimbursement for the needed repair as described. We appreciate the customers business and look forward to
continuing our business relationship in the future.
The Dorschel Group
3817 West Henrietta Road | Rochester, NY 14623
| www.dorschel.com
Good Afternoon, Please see the attached response to complaint ID 11017146. Feel free to contact me with any questions. Thank you,[redacted]Administrative Assistant - Executive Officesp. ###-###-#### | f. ###-###-####[redacted] The...
Dorschel Group[redacted]
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.
In my initial complain to the Revdex.com, I stated what I wanted to see from the outcome of this, which was a refund for all the service done at the Dorschel Automotive Group Mini Cooper Service Department. I cannot settle for the current and previous offer of $609 because this completely disregards my entire complaint that the work done to my car was not necessary as well as misinformation was given to me by the technicians at the facility. I cannot accept this offer due to the fact that I paid the dealership a little under 2000$ for an issue that was never taken care of. I was lied to that my alternator needed to be replaced, when in reality it was only in limp mode, and the technicians failed to find out why this was occurring, which ended up being because the initial issue was never taken care of with my Body Control Module. I cannot begin to explain the distress I felt for the entire 6 weeks that my car was at the facility. I have never experienced anything close to what I did with this group, with regards to Communication, Misinformation and the quality of work that was done by the people there. I continued to trust them, and believe that what they were informing me of was in fact the truth, until we neared the end, when no answers could be given, and they wanted me to continue to give more money towards a solution that was not related to the actual problem that my car was in for.
Regards,
[redacted]
Mr. [redacted]’s 2010 GMC Terrain has been brought in to Dorschel Toyota. We are currently working toward a solution with Mr. [redacted].Sincerely,[redacted]
December 14, 2015 Revdex.com 100 B[redacted]t Woods South Amherst, New York 14228 RE: Revdex.com Complaint #[redacted] Attention: Schrell, Complaint Handler In response to the complaint issued by [redacted] 12/2/15: [redacted] vehicle was first towed to Dorschel Toyota at 3399 West Henrietta Road on Tuesday, November 24th , 2015. I was notified by an employee at that location that there was a 2006 Lexus GS300 in the parking lot. Using the Vehicle Identification Number, I was able to find the customers information in our system. I contacted the customer to let her know that the vehicle needed to be towed to Dorschel Lexus at 3817 West Henrietta Road. The vehicle was towed to our Lexus location later that day. I then called the customer to discuss what needed to be done, and she stated the alternator had failed. She also explained that she has a third party warranty on the vehicle. I informed [redacted] that the Dorschel company policy states that we do not work with third party warranty providers. We had the same discussion the previous time her vehicle was in for service on Tuesday, June 9th, 2015. [redacted] declined any diagnostic work and stated she would be calling her selling dealer to make other arrangements. No repair order was written, as we were not authorized by the customer to perform any diagnostic or repair. On Friday, November 27th, 2015, [redacted] husband came to pick up the key for the vehicle. The missing plastic cover [redacted] describes on her center console near the shifter sounds like the shift interlock cover, which has to be removed to tow the vehicle. I have not seen the vehicle since it left Dorschel, so I can’t be certain, but what she describes in the written complaint sounds exactly like the shift interlock cover. The vehicle was towed twice, so the towing provider would certainly have removed the cover to shift the vehicle from park to neutral to allow it to roll. When [redacted] called to express her concern I suggested that she contact the towing providers used to inquire as to where the plastic cover may have been left. [redacted] Beattie Service Manager Dorschel Automotive
The Dorschel Group3817 West Henrietta RoadRochester, NY 14623October 5th, 2015Revdex.com, Inc.100 Bryant Woods SouthAmherst, NY 14228RE: Revdex.com Complaint ID [redacted]Attention: [redacted], Complaint Handler ext 283Response to Complaint:Response to 2nd rejection from customer dated 10/14/2015 (complaint ID [redacted]) is below.To Whom It May Concern:The Dorschel Group has made every effort to resolve this issue in a fair, timely, and reasonable manner. We feel our most recent offer of $609.00 is extremely reasonable given the fact that we neither performed nor caused unnecessary repairs. Each offer we have made has been rejected, with no indication from the customer what the acceptable outcome would be. To continue our good faith effort to take care of this issue, we will keep the offer of $609.00 on the table for 90 days from the date of this letter. The Dorschel Group goes above and beyond to resolve customer issues as exhibited by our continued commitment to resolve this matter.Should you have any questions or need further information, please feel free to contact us.Sincerely,Tom W[redacted]Mini of Rochester Service ManagerThe Dorschel Group
The Dorschel Group3817 West Henrietta RoadRochester, NY 14623September 4, 2015Revdex.com, Inc.100 Bryant Woods SouthAmherst, NY 14228RE: Revdex.com Complaint ID [redacted] (submitted on August 31st, 2015)Attention: [redacted], Complaint HandlerTo Whom It May Concern:It is Dorschel’s goal to have our...
customers leave the Service Department completely satisfied with the service performed on their vehicles. We find it unfortunate that [redacted] had an unsatisfactory experience, and that he felt he was not given all the information that should have been provided to him regarding the estimate for service work on his Volkswagen Jetta GLI.To resolve [redacted]’s concern, we have reached out to him and provided him with a full refund for the estimate, in the amount of $97.20.This issue has been resolved with the customer.Should you have any questions or need further information, please feel free to contact us.Sincerely,Todd T[redacted]Volkswagen Service ManagerThe Dorschel Group###-###-####
September 17, 2015Revdex.com, Inc.100 Bryant Woods SouthAmherst, NY 14228RE: Revdex.com Complaint ID [redacted]Attention: [redacted], Complaint Handler ext [redacted]Response to Complaint:In response to the recent complaint dated September 16th, 2015 (complaint ID [redacted]) regarding a 2005 Mini Cooper with 87,826 miles.Customer’s desired settlement:1) A refund of the money paid towards the brake light and tachometer issue.2) A refund for the unrelated repairs of the alternator and pulley.To Whom It May Concern:Below you will find documentation summarizing events regarding two repairs listed in the customer’s complaint letter. The first issue is the brake lamp and tachometer concern. The second is the alternator, pulley and belt concern. After receiving this complaint by the Revdex.com, Mini of Rochester offered a refund to the customer as a goodwill gesture to resolve issue 1, leaving only issue 2 in question. We believe the documentation listed below supports no wrong doing on the part of Mini of Rochester, specifically issue 2. The documentation outlines and supports a recent repair performed elsewhere regarding issue 2. The repairs recommended and performed by Mini of Rochester resolved the customer’s issue. Mini of Rochester respectfully declines an offer for issue 2.July 17th 2015[redacted] Nobrega brought her 2005 Mini Cooper in to Mini of Rochester for the brake lamps staying on after the vehicle was turned off, and a tachometer that was inoperative.Our technician performed a compensative energy test along with replacement of some shorted fuses.During this process the brake lamps, along with the tachometer, began to operate as designed by the manufacturer, indicating the possibility of an intermittent issue. Due to the fact we could go no further, the customer was notified to pick up her vehicle.July 20th 2015[redacted] picked up her vehicle and returned stating the vehicle will not go over 10mph. The vehicle was left with our service department for a diagnosis.July 21st 2015Our technician diagnosed the vehicle as needing an alternator replacement. The alternator had a low voltage and charge rate reading causing a loss of power, which is what the customer experienced. The service advisor also advised the customer that the vehicle may have other issues relating to this repair, he stated we will need to get the voltage to manufactures specifications to be able to test further. The customer authorized replacement of the alternator.Note: The customer stated on July 21st, 2015 at 3:18pm that an alternator clip and serpentine belt were recently replaced prior to arriving at our dealership. This repair is noted in the customers letter regarding a July 4th no start issue that occurred in a car wash.July 22nd 2015A message was left with the customer by our service advisor at 8:30am on July 22nd, 2015 stating the vehicle is running better, although a burning smell was detected by the technician.At 8:48am, the customer called back and was advised by the service writer that our technician found a belt pulley worn to a point where it was allowing the belt to rub against a bolt, damaging the belt. The service advisor recommended replacement of the serpentine belt and pulley. The customer stated she would call back after speaking with her parents. At 8:56am, the customer called back and requested the service advisor call her father, [redacted].At 9:13am, the service advisor spoke with [redacted] and explained what the technician found, along with the recommendation. [redacted] mentioned the belt in question is new and just replaced elsewhere, which supported the prior statement by [redacted] (The pulley will continue to damage the belts until replaced). The repairs were authorized by[redacted] along with a request that the service advisor return the failed alternator to him. The advisor put the alternator in a box in the customer’s vehicle on the back seat.The vehicle was completed and picked up by the customer, the customer states in her letter the vehicle was running okay after these repairs.July 24th 2015The customer experienced the original concern regarding the brake lamps and tachometer issue. I received an email regarding the service issue and at 3:56pm, I responded and apologized along with inquiring about a previous accident repair that was mentioned to my advisor by the customer. At 5:21pm, [redacted] responded by email and stated the collision center said they did all they can do.July 28th 2015A repair order was written to diagnose the brake lamps and tachometer issue at no charge to the customer as a goodwill gesture, continuing where we left off.July 31st 2015The service advisor left a message with [redacted] stating our BMW field technician was helping diagnose and he felt it was one of the modules associated with this circuit.August 3rd 2015The service advisor left a message with [redacted] at 5:22pm offering the use of a loaner vehicle to drive to ease the inconvenience while we were diagnosing her issue.August 6th 2015The service advisor left an additional message at 1:51pm with [redacted] due to no response on the prior attempt offering a loaner vehicle to drive. We also requested the repair receipt from an accident repair the customer mentioned she had completed elsewhere.August 12th 2015The service advisor left a message with [redacted] at 2:43pm requesting information on when this issue occurred in relation to the accident, whether it occurred before, during or after the accident. The advisor also mentioned there was wiring the technician found that raised some concerns. The advisor recommended we go further behind the dash to trace the wiring. A return message was left by [redacted] stating the brake lamp and tachometer issue occurred during the accident.August 18th 2015[redacted] emailed at 1:22pm stating she was not going to continue with the repairs and was taking the car back where the vehicle was originally purchased. She asked if she could keep the rental car from the current date (Tuesday) until Friday, where I replied at 1:23pm that returning the rental on Friday was fine.August 21st 2015[redacted] arrived to pick up her vehicle. As her vehicle was driven around the building to be delivered back to her, it was realized the right rear tire was very low on air, which apparently leaked out during the time the vehicle sat in our lot that week. The tires on the vehicle were mismatched and the tread on this specific tire was extremely low. As a goodwill gesture, the service advisor drove home and picked up a used tire he owns for his vehicle that has the same size tire. The tire was installed free of charge.Resolution Offer:Although the aforementioned issues are truly unfortunate, the responsibility of the customer’s repairs fall on the customer. The original concern of the brake lamp and tachometer issue was an involved diagnosis, not only to locate the issue which was narrowed down to one of the modules and subsequently replaced elsewhere, but also determining if there was any additional wiring issues that may have contributed to the module failure. Based on the wire we observed that was installed incorrectly, there was concern other issues may be present. As stated on repair order [redacted] dated July 28th, 2015, our technician repaired at no charge one overlaid wire that was installed in a connector in the wrong pin.As a goodwill gesture after receiving this complaint from The Revdex.com, Mini of Rochester reached out to the customer offering a refund in the amount of $213.79, which is the only amount paid to us by the customer for the brake lamp and tachometer issue. This refund, along with absorbing the cost of the rental vehicle and the additional wire tracing with the BMW field technician, should resolve this particular concern leaving no money paid to Mini of Rochester for the aforementioned issue.Regarding the alternator, pulley and belt issue; these repairs are not related to the original concern and as documented in the customer’s letter along with phone correspondence with both [redacted] and [redacted], the alternator and belt were an issue prior to the vehicle coming in to Mini of Rochester. As documented, the alternator along with the belt and pulley replacement performed by Mini of Rochester did in fact resolve the customer’s issues regarding the loss of power.It appears, as stated in her letter, the customer is seeking reimbursement for this issue purely due to the fact the vehicle was in our care when the failure occurred. This alone is not an indication of any wrong doing on the part of Mini or Rochester any more than the car wash would be liable for the vehicle not starting which led to the original alternator clip and belt replacement performed elsewhere. It is clearly documented the alternator and belt were already the subject of issues prior to arriving at Mini of Rochester. Subsequently this issue was repaired and resolved at Mini of Rochester. Mini of Rochester respectfully declines an offer for issue 2.After offering [redacted] a refund in the amount of $213.79, [redacted] replied she does not accept the offer. We would be happy to leave this offer on the table feeling it is a fair resolution.Should you have any questions or need further information, please feel free to contact us.Sincerely,Tom W[redacted]Mini of Rochester Service ManagerThe Dorschel Group
The manager of the Dorschel Collision Center has checked with the [redacted] Insurance Group (the insurer of the vehicle repaired) and has learned that [redacted] Insurance inspected the windshield and it was replaced by [redacted] Auto Glass as an addition to the insurance claim ($665.97). [redacted]...
Insurance also sent a reimbursement check to the customer for $156.56 for one tire to match the new one that was replaced. [redacted] Insurance also discovered the same issue that the Dorschel Collision Center experienced with matching the original tread pattern for the tires on Ms. [redacted]’s vehicle; the tire/tread pattern has been discontinued. The [redacted] Insurance representative stated that the customers vehicle was inspected by another repair shop and diagnosed the excessive noise as rear tire chop wear, a prior unrelated condition. This was the same diagnosis that the Dorschel Collision Center provided to the customer. As Vice President of Fixed Operations for the Dorschel Automotive Group, I have attempted to contact the customer, without success, to set up a meeting to discuss the issue, as the customer has requested. I have left voice mails and provided my personal cell phone number for the customer to to call me to minimize inconvenience. Ms. [redacted] attempted to return my call on 4/19/16, but I was unavailable to answer the phone at that time. I attempted to return Ms. [redacted]’s call on 4/19/16, and have not heard back from the customer as of yet. The Dorschel Automotive Group stands ready to discuss Ms. [redacted]’s concerns verbally over the phone or face to face as she has requested. Sincerely, Scott R. VP of Fixed Operations The Dorschel Group
In response to Ms. [redacted]’s complaint dated March 13, 2016: Ms. [redacted] visited Dorschel Toyota anticipating a $25 gift card for test driving as advertised on our website. The gift card request was improperly processed through our third party vendor, which lead to Ms. [redacted] not receiving a...
card. She brought this to the attention of her salesperson several times without satisfaction. I called her when I was alerted to the issue and left a message letting her know that I not only reprocessed the original request, but sent an additional $75 in physical gift cards for a total of $100 in gift cards to solidify the importance of Dorschel Toyota operating at the highest level of integrity when dealing with our customers. When she returned the call I emphatically apologized for her inconvenience. Ms. [redacted] is satisfied with the planned resolution and that I will follow up with her until she receives all that was promised as well as the additional amount previously mentioned. That envelope is in the outgoing mail with an apology letter, 2 gift cards for $75 and my contact info. Sincerely, Russell C[redacted] Sales Manager Dorschel Toyota
Good Morning,We have reached out to Mr. [redacted] to address the concern detailed in his complaint regarding the oil change on his
vehicle. It does appear that we overfilled the oil a little bit, and we have agreed to pay for an oil change closer to his
home, as well as cover his next two oil changes...
at Dorschel KIA. The customer agreed that this was an acceptable offer
and has accepted. We apologize for inconveniencing the customer. Thank you, Caryn E. M[redacted]Executive Assistant to President[redacted] | f. [redacted] The Dorschel Group3817 West Henrietta Road | Rochester, NY 14623 | www.dorschel.com
Mrs. [redacted]’s 2013 Nissan Armada was brought to Dorschel Service on 9/19/16 for two primary concerns. Her first concern was water getting past the seal on the rear hatch. We were able to duplicate the concern and replaced the rear hatch weather stripping using Nissan Goodwill Warranty, as the part...
was not covered by her extended warranty and it had been an issue in the past. Her second concern was regarding the heat, radio and GPS systems in the vehicle. We were not able to duplicate anything with this complaint. We reached out to Mrs. [redacted] to obtain authorization to drive the vehicle to see if we could duplicate the problem, and we have the phone call documented, as all the calls in and out of the dealership are recorded. After driving the vehicle, we were still never able to duplicate the concern. Mrs. [redacted] then came to pick her vehicle up on 9/27/16. Mrs. [redacted] returned with her vehicle on 10/7/16 stating that the problem with the heat, radio, and GPS system had gotten worse. We were able to duplicate her concern on Monday 10/10/16. It took two more days for it to be a consistent enough problem that we could contact Nissan Technical for some assistance. Nissan Technical Assistance advised us to replace the A/V unit on 10/13/16. This unit needs to be removed, sent to United Radio, diagnosed by them, and then repaired by them. This is a three-week process. Mrs. [redacted] stated that she was scheduled to go on vacation, leaving town 10/19/16, and she had to have a vehicle like hers, same size and it had to be able to tow. Needing the tow capacity immediately eliminated any kind of rental. Her vehicle is not common by any means, but we were lucky to have one available for sale on our lot. With no obligation, as we just felt it was a good thing to do, we downed one of our inventory vehicles and borrowed the needed part from it to replace on her vehicle. We tested Mrs. [redacted]’s vehicle several times and it worked for us every time. I was confident that the vehicle was fixed. We filled her fuel tank at no charge to her for her trip and she then came to Dorschel and picked it up. While Mrs. [redacted] was on vacation, she phoned me stating the problem with the heat, radio and GPS had returned. I asked her to contact me upon her return so that she could bring the vehicle back in and we could have another look. Mrs. [redacted] returned to Dorschel with the vehicle on 11/1/16. We tried it on 11/1/16 and couldn’t get the issues to reoccur. We tried again the next day, 11/2/16, and we were able to duplicate the heating problem, but could not duplicate the GPS and radio problem. We replaced the heater control assembly and tested it multiple times. The heating concern never returned, but we still had not duplicated the GPS and radio concerns. Mrs. [redacted] had stated that the GPS/radio concern may take some time while driving the vehicle, so we asked permission to drive the vehicle to try and duplicate the concern. Mrs. [redacted] said yes, we could drive the vehicle to duplicate the problem, on a recorded line. The Master Nissan Technician that was working on her vehicle put his home address into the GPS and had no problems going home or coming back into work the next day. We called her on 11/3/16 to tell her the news and see how she would like to proceed. We told her we would be happy to drive it more if she wanted us to. During that phone call, Mrs. [redacted] suddenly accused us of damaging her truck on the previous visit. Mrs. [redacted] had been driving the truck for the last several weeks but had not mentioned the damage until this phone call. Our Service Advisor then simply asked why she had not mentioned the damage until that time, and Mrs. [redacted] then threatened to show up with the police and make a scene in our showroom, and then hung up the phone. Mrs. [redacted] then left me a voicemail saying the same thing. I called her back, got her voicemail, and left a message to please call me so we could try and resolve the issue. I did not receive a return call from Mrs. [redacted]. The next morning, 11/4/16, Mrs. [redacted]’s husband came in to pick up the vehicle. We discussed what had transpired on the phone the day before. Mr. [redacted] was going to drive the vehicle over the weekend to help us confirm that it was fixed, or to see if the problems arose again. At that time, Mr. [redacted] and I went out to the vehicle to look for the damage that Mrs. [redacted] stated happened while at Dorschel. Together we found a little door ding that we could fix, no problem. Mr. [redacted] was appreciative, and stated that he had told Mrs. [redacted] that the damage could have happened anywhere, as it had been a few weeks since her vehicle was last in for service. Mrs. [redacted] returned my voicemail at some point over the weekend (11/5 or 11/6), as it was on my phone on the morning of 11/7/16. She clearly stated that she didn’t want to talk with us about her vehicle anymore and that all communication would need to go through her husband going forward. Mrs. [redacted] also claimed in the voicemail that we damaged her vehicle again. She stated that there was now a chip in the windshield that wasn’t there before. I spoke with Mr. [redacted] around the lunch hour on 11/7/16. He was unaware that she had contacted the Revdex.com, and was also unaware of a new chip in the windshield. Mr. [redacted] stated he had not noticed anything while driving it over the weekend. On 11/7/16, Dorschel was notified that Mrs. [redacted] contacted the Revdex.com again and stated that we told her that we would take action if she shared her experience with the public in any way. We have not, and will never, threaten a customer in this way. I had asked Mr. [redacted] if he would consider removing the claim to the Revdex.com, as we are continuing to try and make good on Mrs. [redacted]’s experience. Dorschel Nissan’s Position: Mrs. [redacted] claims there was damage to the right side of the vehicle when she picked it up. We were not notified of this damage for several weeks. We give our customers a 24-hour timeframe to notify us of any damage they feel happened while in our care. Whenever there is doubt, we always favor on the side of our customer. In this matter, it had been several weeks between picking up the vehicle and notifying us of the damage. I had discussed this with Mr. [redacted] and he had agreed that the damage could have happened anywhere as it had been several weeks since the vehicle had been picked up.Mrs. [redacted]’s request to repair the windshield on her vehicle is denied. All communications and business dealings of any kind with the [redacted] family will be done through Mr. [redacted] solely. Any business request for service or communications from Mrs. [redacted] will be denied.
The Dorschel Group3817 West Henrietta RoadRochester, NY 14623June 30, 2015Revdex.com, Inc.100 Bryant Woods SouthAmherst, NY 14228RE: Revdex.com Complaint ID [redacted] (submitted on June 25, 2015)Attention: [redacted], Complaint HandlerTo Whom It May Concern:We are in receipt of the notice from your...
office regarding Complaint ID [redacted] and the situation with the customer’s vehicle. Thank you for allowing us an opportunity to respond to the customers concerns.On December 20, 2012, the customer purchased a certified pre-owned 2011 Lexus GX 460 with 15,988 miles on the vehicle. During the next 26 months, the vehicle had been driven over 33,000 miles and had never been serviced by Dorschel Lexus.The first visit to our service department was on February 16, 2015, at which time the vehicle had 49,092 miles on it. The vehicle had a malfunction light on and it was discovered to have a faulty Accumulator Assembly and corroded connector wire. The vehicle was out of service for 17 days during which time the customer was provided a complimentary loaner vehicle. The repair was made and the vehicle returned on February, 24, 2015.On May 2, 2015, the customer returned to our service department a second time with the vehicle having 52,107 miles and concerns of a malfunction light. At this time, the vehicle was no longer covered under the manufacturer warranty. A diagnosis confirmed a poor connection by a corroded wire located on the opposite side of the repair made in February. This wire had been exposed to salt and was an entirely separate repair. As a goodwill gesture, Dorschel absorbed the cost of this repair for the customer.It has been brought to our attention that the customer contacted the Lexus manufacturer directly for consideration of a buy back. This request has been denied by the manufacturer. Dorschel is not in a position to “take the car back” after 26 months of ownership. However, we will continue to provide automotive service to this vehicle should the customer choose to bring the vehicle back to Dorschel Lexus for future repairs and maintenance.Should you have any questions or need further information, please feel free to contact us.Sincerely,Todd T[redacted]Lexus Service Manager###-###-#### Please contact me with any questions.Thank you,[redacted]
Administrative Assistant -
Executive Offices
p. ###-###-#### | f.
###-###-####
[redacted]@dorschel.com
The Dorschel Group
3817 West Henrietta Road |
Rochester, NY 14623 | www.dorschel.com
Please see the attached response to complaint ID [redacted]Please contact me with any questions.Thank you,Caryn. M[redacted]Administrative Assistant - Executive Offices[redacted]
The Dorschel Group3817 West Henrietta Road | Rochester,...
NY 14623 | www.dorschel.comFebruary 24th, 2016Revdex.com100 Bryant Woods SouthAmherst, New York 14228RE: Revdex.com Complaint ID [redacted]Attention: [redacted], Complaint Handler ext. [redacted]In response to Mr. [redacted]’ complaint submitted on 2/13/16 regarding Nissan Service, are the following facts:On February 1st, 2016, [redacted] came into our repair facility, Dorschel Nissan, requesting that he have his ECM reprogrammed because he had just replaced the Mass Air Flow sensor (Non OEM) in his 2011 Maxima. Having the MAF sensor replaced set off his check engine light, and he was informed that having his ECM reprogrammed would do the trick and turn the check engine light off.The aftermarket facility he took his vehicle to have the MAF air flow sensor replaced did not have the equipment capable of doing this. Mr. [redacted] asked about the ECM being covered under the Federal Emissions 8/80,000 mile warranty. A replacement and reprogram of the ECM would be covered under the warranty if there were an issue with the ECM. There was no operational issue with the ECM.Had an Original Equipment Nissan MAF sensor been installed, no reprogramming would be required. There were no internal faults or anything wrong the ECM on Mr. [redacted]’ 2011 Maxima, he only requested it to be reprogrammed and the check engine light off, due to the replacement of the MAF sensor for free. A simple reprogram of the ECM via customer request is not something that is covered under warranty. It was explained to Mr. [redacted] and he left Dorschel Nissan Service as if he understood.Sincerely,Scott J. R[redacted]VP of Fixed OperationsDorschel Automotive Group
May 3rd, 2016 Revdex.com 100 Bryant Woods South Amherst, New York 14228 RE: Revdex.com Complaint ID [redacted] Attention: [redacted], Complaint Handler, ext. [redacted] In response to Mr. [redacted] complaint: On Tuesday, December 1st, 2015, in anticipation of offering for sale a 2010 GMC Terrain (VIN#...
ending in [redacted]), Dorschel Toyota performed a full used vehicle inspection on the said vehicle which included a New York State Safety Inspection and many other services, such as an engine oil change. At delivery of the vehicle on Monday, December 21st , Mr. [redacted] was made fully aware of what coverage’s came with the purchase and signed the disclosure outlining his coverage under the New York State Dealer Limited Used Passenger Vehicle Warranty. Mr. [redacted]’s vehicle falls in the state category of vehicles between 36,000 and 80,000 miles that has some component coverage for 60 days or 3,000 miles. The customer was offered additional coverage in the event of an unfortunate failure and he signed a statement declining the extra coverage. At that time, Mr. [redacted]’s Retail Certificate of Sale shows the mileage to be 53,766. Mr. [redacted] visited the Dorschel Service Department on Tuesday, January 5th , with 54,410 miles on the vehicle stating that an air bag light was coming on when you opened a door and that there was a scraping noise from the right side. The airbag sensor in the door was found to need adjustment, which was performed and solved the concern. The scraping noise was not able to be duplicated on the road or on a lift. Mr. [redacted] was not charged for any repairs at this time. On Thursday, January 7th , with 54,482 miles on the vehicle, Mr. [redacted] returned stating that the noise on the right side of the vehicle had returned. A heat shield was found at that time to be vibrating against the driveshaft, which was tightened in the Service Department, eliminating the concern. Mr. [redacted] was not charged for any repairs at this time. On Friday, February 5th , with 55,605 miles on the vehicle, Mr. [redacted] returned to the Service Department stating a check engine light was on, but went out on the way to the service appointment. The intake and exhaust camshaft position actuators were replaced eliminating the concern. The oil level was noted at the appropriate level at that time. Mr. [redacted] was not charged for any repairs at that time. On Thursday, April 7th, with 58,223 mile on the vehicle, Mr. [redacted] returned to the Service Department at the request of the Service Manager, even though his warranty coverage had expired. It was determined that the failure was unrelated to the previous concerns. The customer was not charged for the diagnosis. At this point in time, Mr. [redacted] was over 1,400 miles and almost 45 days past the end of his coverage. At delivery, Mr. [redacted] was strongly urged to provide for unforeseen repairs in the future, but declined to do so. Inside the coverage period, several issues were addressed that were outside of our responsibility. Dorschel Toyota goes to great lengths in the name of customer service. While it is very unfortunate that this vehicle is in need of repair, we went beyond our contractual agreement in providing a good vehicle for Mr. [redacted]. We are reaching out to Mr. [redacted] to see if there are any options to trade-in the vehicle, with some value concessions on our part, which will provide a mutually acceptable way for Mr. [redacted] to move forward.