EHS Electric Ltd

While we understand the customer is not happy, the vehicle was completed gone over by both our staff and the customer upon delivery. No issues were noted at the time of delivery.Had we repaired or replaced the windshield, we would have been obliged to disclose same to the customer. We are unaware how *** would report that. In addition, we have yet to receive documentation that the customer reported that *** had provided to them regarding a previous repair

In response to your letter of 10/20/17; I can only assume that our folks are human and can make an error, which is the Case here.Had *** *** called it to the attention of our service department manager as I did, upon receiving your letter this morning, they would have made the correction.The
Correct mileage at that service was 28,milesThe manufacturer's warranty has continued, without interruption, as this was not a warranty repair and thus, never reported to *** has been forwarded an acknowledgement of the correction to update their record.Please let me know if you need any additional information.Very truly yours,Louis ** C***

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed as Answered]
 Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
The inspection report is in error. The windshield was damaged and repaired prior to my ownership. It was probably inspected by the same dealer I have complained about. I have stated my reasons for filing this complaint. I currently have nothing further to add.
Regards,
[redacted]

In response to the complaint, I would like to address the items in order. 1. The vehicle leased to the customer was always represented as a previously driven new car. 2. [redacted] of Rockville did not have the vehicle advertised at any price. The advertising the customer is referring to was on the [redacted] NA national website not [redacted] of Rockville. The vehicle leased by the customer had a much higher option value than the vehicle advertised on the national website. 3. The customer leased a vehicle, he did not deposit any reserve that [redacted] FS drew down over any period of time. This was always a lease and always presented as a lease. 4. The customer chose to payoff the lease, there is not a $20,000.00 loss that can be documented, as far as the customers lack of trust in the dealership and the VP of the operation, we feel badly that there was not an opportunity to regain the customers trust in the process and develop an understanding in the finance instrument they chose to use to lease their vehicle.

The customer was made aware of this issue prior to culminating the purchase of a new vehicle.  Had we been given the opportunity, our service department would have immediately corrected the issue, provided documentation to the other dealership evidencing the absence of any actual mileage discrepancy, forwarded an acknowledgement of the correction to [redacted], and provided the other dealership with a copy of same. The vehicle would undoubtedly have been accepted for trade-in, and the customer would have avoided all of the losses alleged, had we been given the timely opportunity to remedy the issue. We respectfully disagree with the customer that he could not have contacted us to remedy the issue prior to him purchasing a new vehicle.

Unfortunately accidents happen and more unfortunate it was a vehicle recently purchased. The good thing is we have insurance and the capabilities to repair the vehicle to BMWs standards.   We had provided Ms. [redacted] with the use of a loner car while repairs were being...

completed.  As she was not accepting of any of the offers that we had made, we then asked Ms. [redacted] to return our loaner vehicle.  After Ms. [redacted] had authorized repairs to our Collission Center Manager, and  had engaged an Attorney as well, we had been corresponding with her Legal Counsel and apparently did not do anything that was not within the law, as we have not heard from him in over two (2) weeks, subsequent to our being 100% above board.   We had offered Ms. [redacted] 100% of the money she spent on her vehicle towards another vehicle.  Apparently this was not to her satisfaction.   Her vehicle has been repaired to  BMW Standards by our Certified Center and has been ready since June 17th.  The repair comes with a Certificate of Repair from BMW Certified Collission Repair Center.  As we are waiting for our insurance company to provide us with full documentation that we may give Ms. [redacted], Ms. [redacted] has elected not to pick up her vehicle as of yet.   We do have parts invoices to furnish her, but am awaiting the full statement from the insurance company to give to Ms. [redacted] as of this point. Jeremy W[redacted], our CCRC Manager will be contacting Ms. [redacted] shortly to see if there is anything else we can do.

Please take a look at the threads back and forward between us and the customer. this will provide the answer needed…Basically the customer is handled.

On September 5, 2017, this vehicle was brought in for service. At that time, the vehicle had been driven 63,534 miles. Per the customer, the low coolant light had come on multiple times even after topping off the coolant, and there was a burning smell coming from the vehicle after driving. One of...

our technicians performed a pressure check to inspect for leaks, and found that the turbo return lines for both engine banks were leaking coolant. Upon replacing those turbo return lines, another pressure check was performed to check for any additional leaks and confirm repairs. No further leaks were identified. Additional work was performed on the vehicle, including a tailgate repair (performed pursuant to a manufacturer recall at no cost to the customer), as well as diagnostics and related repairs in connection with a seat calibration message and tire pressure malfunction light on the dash. During the road test to confirm repairs, the vehicle’s check engine light came on. Upon inspection, our technician found a fault code for an injection cut-out for one of the engine cylinders and, after conferring with the customer, replaced the ignition coil for that cylinder and all spark plugs per the applicable [redacted] test plan. Once repairs were completed, the fault memory was cleared and the vehicle was road tested once again to confirm repairs. No further issues with the vehicle were identified, and the vehicle was returned to the customer on September 6, 2017. While repair charges totaled $2,239.44, the customer was only charged $1,214.66 plus tax to replace the turbo return lines.
On October 5, 2017, after being driven another 1,473 miles, the vehicle was brought back in for service. Per the customer, the low coolant light was coming on again and the customer could smell coolant burning. Another pressure check was performed at no cost to the customer. Our technician found that, unlike before, coolant was now leaking at the vent pipe lines for both engine banks and recommended replacing the lines and pressure checking for additional leaks. We explained to the customer that the repairs completed in September were performed properly, that the vehicle had been pressure checked for additional leaks after replacement of the turbo return lines and none were found, and that the new leaks were unrelated to those that had been repaired in September. The customer was quoted an estimated cost of $1,000.00 to replace the leaking vent pipe lines. As a goodwill gesture, we offered to complete those repairs for $750.00. Despite our best efforts, we couldn’t come to an agreement with the customer and the recommended repairs were declined.
Unfortunately, there are times when additional repairs are needed that, for a variety of reasons, aren’t diagnosed at the time a vehicle is originally brought in for repair. The fact that we or another repair facility might subsequently diagnose yet another coolant leak with yet another component of this customer’s vehicle does not negate the fact that we properly diagnosed and replaced the leaking turbo return lines when the vehicle was first presented for service in September. Indeed, all issues identified with the vehicle at that time were properly diagnosed and repaired. While we stand behind the quality of our work, we cannot guarantee that other issues requiring repair will not arise with a customer’s vehicle.
Moreover, the cost of repairs is tied to the scope of work performed. Had we identified additional coolant leaks with the vehicle in September, the vehicle would have needed more than just the turbo return lines replaced and the customer would have needed to pay for those additional repairs. Ultimately, it appears that this customer is seeking reimbursement for repairs that we properly diagnosed and performed because of the need for additional repairs that the customer is responsible for in any event. For the reasons outlined above, we must respectfully decline this customer’s request.

We certainly apologize for [redacted]' issue.Having spoken with the Service Director at [redacted] in Miami where [redacted]' car is being serviced, we are still awaiting an invoice to be emailed to us by their Service Manager, [redacted], so we can authorize payment.  We have notified them on a...

few occasions that we wish to pay the invoice and for them to please send it to us (invoice amount being sent is an accomodated dealer amount).The invoice should be sent to:  [redacted]rockville.com  (lance m[redacted], service manager).We hope to have this invoice as soon as possible so [redacted] may enjoy his vehicle. Robert O[redacted], General Manager[redacted] of Rockville[redacted]rockville.com

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed as Answered]
 Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: the Lien/Hold was for the purchase of the vehicle not the additional services that I did pay cash for.  The Tire and Wheel service was paid by check in full and your Finance Manager put my funds toward the down payment of of the vehicle which I did authorize and also was not explained to me during the purchase of the vehicle.  Not until I decided to cancel the service did he tell me this information.  The Bill of Sale states how the purchase was conducted. 
Regards,
[redacted]

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed as Answered]
 Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
The [redacted] of Rockville in-house counsel contacted me by phone and the response above is consistent with what he asserted as the solution to my problem.  The suggestion of the dealership is rediculous because the purchase of the other vehicle was on a Sunday on the last day of the month.  Contacting the [redacted] service department was impossible as they are not open on Sunday.  Delaying the sale was a ridiculous suggestion given all the factors of the situation:  month end, 3-days before turn-in date for my [redacted], dealership being an hour from my home, and the simple value of my time and energies.  Again the out-of-pocket costs and loss of equity I incurred were a directly result of the errors of [redacted] of Rockville's service department.  It was not practical, feasible nor reasonable for me to do as they now suggest.  The only reasonable course of action is for them to support their customer and make me whole on the losses incurred due to their incompetence.  The dealership is now expending significant efforts, time and money to tell me that this is somehow my fault and I failed to take the proper corrective actions.  The have gone to the lengths of having an attorney get involved, call me twice and to draft the Revdex.com response.  Their "alleged" suggestions are simply ridiculous and untenable.  They need to close the matter by covering the costs I incurred due to their actions.Regards,
[redacted]

We are saddened about [redacted]’s assessment of the situation. When [redacted] left the dealership, everything was fine with the vehicle.  It passed Maryland Inspection (could not have with a spot in windshield).  We have no records of ever repairing the glass on this vehicle....

Approximately an hour (or more) after leaving, [redacted] called the salesman while on I-495, indicating that there was a “star” in the windshield right in the line of vision.  Although we empathize with his position, this clearly did not happen here.  He did come back and reviewed the events with our Assistant GM, Nicholas P[redacted], and we assisted in helping him find someone to fix the windshield at his home in Ohio. After having his windshield repaired, he indicated that the repair person stated that it appeared that it had been repaired before.  We are still awaiting the documentation to this part, as we have stated above, we have not repaired the windshield on this vehicle.

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response.  If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the...

response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. 
Regards,
[redacted]

As we previously addressed in our original response, this customer is seeking reimbursement for repairs that we properly diagnosed and performed (replacement of leaking turbo return lines) because of the alleged need for additional repairs beyond those we performed (repair or replacement of components other than the turbo return lines). Had we diagnosed the need for those additional repairs, the customer would have had to pay for the cost of those additional repairs on top of the cost of replacing the leaking turbo return lines.   Here, the customer only paid us to replace the leaking turbo return lines, not an unrelated problem with a different component that another repair facility allegedly diagnosed after the vehicle had been driven another 1,473-plus miles. The fact that we or another repair facility might subsequently diagnose a separate and distinct issue with a different component of the customer’s vehicle does not negate the fact that we properly diagnosed and replaced the leaking turbo return lines when the vehicle was first presented for service in September.   Once again, we stand behind the quality of our work, but we cannot guarantee that other issues requiring repair will not arise with a customer’s vehicle. As the repairs for which this customer was charged were performed properly, we must respectfully decline his request for reimbursement.