*** *** brought her Mercedes-Benz Cbearing VIN: *** into Mercedes-Benz of Indianapolis on February 15, with a complaint of a check engine light on. We ran a computer scan and a found fault code indicating a faulty mass air flow sensor (I have included a copy of
the invoice and as well as the scan code). We had to order the part so *** *** was charged $for the diagnosis only and quoted the cost of replacement when the part came in. *** *** returned to the dealership on February 18, to have the part installed. After installation the code was cleared and the light did not return. *** *** was charged $for the repair. The following week I received a phone call from *** *** indicating that the check engine light had returned. I asked her to come back to the dealership so that we could evaluate her vehicle again. *** *** returned on February 22, and we ran another computer scan on her vehicle. The original code for the mass air flow sensor had not returned, however there was now a code indicating a problem with the secondary air injection system (I have included the invoice as well as the scan code). I explained that there are several components to the secondary air injection system, none of which are related to the mass air flow sensor, and when we cleared the fault code it did not return. I suggested to *** *** that she should drive the vehicle for the time being and let me know if the light came back on so we could then investigate further. *** *** was not charged for this visit, we performed the scan on good faith since we had recently worked on her vehicle. *** *** called back and indicated that the light was on again. I asked her to bring it in so that we could continue to diagnose the cause of the malfunction warning. She asked if we would charge her to investigate further and I told her that since we are dealing with a new problem unrelated to the repair that she originally paid for that we would charge for further diagnosis. She did not feel that this was fair since we had just worked on the vehicle and I did my best to explain that when dealing with a sixteen year old car, problems can occur at any time. We will not be refunding any of the money to *** *** as the problem that we originally diagnosed, we repaired and it is no longer an issue Thank you Adam *** General Manager Mercedes-Benz of Indianapolis Office: (317) *** *** *** Fax: (317) 920-
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below
[Provide details of why you are not satisfied with this resolution.]
Regards,
*** *** I continue to think my car problem was misdiagnosed the First Time I took my car in. Verna Moore
*** *** brought her Mercedes-Benz Cbearing VIN: *** into Mercedes-Benz of Indianapolis on February 15, with a complaint of a check engine light on. We ran a computer scan and a found fault code indicating a faulty mass air flow sensor (I have included a copy of
the invoice and as well as the scan code). We had to order the part so *** *** was charged $for the diagnosis only and quoted the cost of replacement when the part came in. *** *** returned to the dealership on February 18, to have the part installed. After installation the code was cleared and the light did not return. *** *** was charged $for the repair. The following week I received a phone call from *** *** indicating that the check engine light had returned. I asked her to come back to the dealership so that we could evaluate her vehicle again. *** *** returned on February 22, and we ran another computer scan on her vehicle. The original code for the mass air flow sensor had not returned, however there was now a code indicating a problem with the secondary air injection system (I have included the invoice as well as the scan code). I explained that there are several components to the secondary air injection system, none of which are related to the mass air flow sensor, and when we cleared the fault code it did not return. I suggested to *** *** that she should drive the vehicle for the time being and let me know if the light came back on so we could then investigate further. *** *** was not charged for this visit, we performed the scan on good faith since we had recently worked on her vehicle. *** *** called back and indicated that the light was on again. I asked her to bring it in so that we could continue to diagnose the cause of the malfunction warning. She asked if we would charge her to investigate further and I told her that since we are dealing with a new problem unrelated to the repair that she originally paid for that we would charge for further diagnosis. She did not feel that this was fair since we had just worked on the vehicle and I did my best to explain that when dealing with a sixteen year old car, problems can occur at any time. We will not be refunding any of the money to *** *** as the problem that we originally diagnosed, we repaired and it is no longer an issue Thank you Adam *** General Manager Mercedes-Benz of Indianapolis Office: (317) *** *** *** Fax: (317) 920-
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below
[Provide details of why you are not satisfied with this resolution.]
Regards,
*** *** I continue to think my car problem was misdiagnosed the First Time I took my car in. Verna Moore