Empire Southwest

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
I am very disappointed that you assumed my complaint was resolved.  The company that I had made the complaint against not only caused severe damage to my truck but also kept my vehicle illegally for 44 days demanding cash up front after the credit card company started my dispute against the charges. 

 

MY RIGHTS UNDER ARS § 33-1022(A)   It is illegal for a repair shop to assert a lien on a vehicle when the amount of the charges are disputed or not agreed upon. 

 

Furthermore, the damaged they did to my truck is still not repaired.

 

I have since picked up my truck from them but they have refused to satisfy my lost revenues for those 44 days and the additional cost to repair my truck to working condition.

 

I am attaching a letter I sent to the Arizona Attorney General in response to the same letter they sent you.

 

I am hopeful that you will do your part and see this through and not just assume that their idea of a resolution is satisfactory.

 

Please look into the facts of my letter and compare it to what they have responded and you will see that they have wronged me and caused me much greater cost than what they are willing to resolve.

 

I will be looking for your response soon.

 

Regards,

 

Re: Complaint ID [redacted]) 

Dear Ms. Huffinan: 

I am the Service Operations Manager for Empire Truck & Trailer, a division of Empire Southwest, LLC ("Empire"). This letter is in response to the consumer complaint received on March 14, 2014 filed by [redacted],...

owner of[redacted]'s Crane Service ("Client"). 

On January 7, 2014, Client delivered her crane truck (Serial Number [redacted], Work Order #[redacted]) (the "Truck") to Empire's Tncson location. Client requested a wheel seal repair to the left front drive axle. Before any repairs are performed on a vehicle, it is Empire's practice to perform a complimentary pre¬inspection of the vehicle. A copy of the pre-inspection for the Truck is enclosed as Exhibit "} ". During the pre-inspection of the Truck, Empire found that the engine was covered in oil and was lacking in general maintenance. Empire contacted Client regarding the issues that were found during the pre-inspection. Client approved the following recommended repairs: wheel seal leak (Client's original complaint), oil leak at HEUI pump mount, front main seal leak, oil filter base leak, and an air leak. 

During the course of the repairs, after disassembly of the areas approved for repairs, Empire found additional items that needed to be addressed: the V belt was missing a groove and needed to be replaced; the crankshaft pulley had a groove cut into it by the front cranksbaft seal and needed to be replaeed; and the pass through manifold could not be reused once the fitting was removed. Empire explained to Client that it is common for the quick discounect to come completely out ofthe manifold during disassembly, which renders the manifold unusable. Empire gave Client the option to purchase the manifold from her own source in an effort to reduce cost, and Client chose to do so. 

Client then added a preventative maintenance service ("PM Service") to the scope of work and requested an estimate for all repairs. Empire provided Client with a verbal estimate of $3,000.00. Client verbally approved the estimate the same day. Empire proceeded with repairs. During the PM Service, Empire found that the coolant was very diluted and did not pass the Coolant Life test. The diluted coolant was likely due to lack of maintenance and adding water to the radiator instead of coolant. Empire recommended replacing the coolant. Client approved. 

On January 14, 2014, all repairs W"ere completed. Empire steanl cleaned the engine of the Truck which was covered in oil from the various leaks), perfonned a Quality Check (document enclosed as Exhibit "2") and contacted Client to inform her that the Truck was ready for pick up. The total cost ofrepairs to the Truck was just under the $3,000 estimate, The final invoice is enclosed as Exhibit "3", 

On January 15, Client picked up the Truck and paid for the approved repairs. Shortly after pick up, Client called back and said the Truck was still leaking oil. Empire dispatched a technician to the location of the Truck and found a minor oil leak at a fitting going into the cylinder head. Empire replaced an a-ring and offered to steam clean the engine again if Client brought the Truck 1 back to Empire's shop at her convenience. Client brought the Truck back to Empire's shop the same day, and Empire steam cleaned the engine again. The leaking 0-ring at the fitting going into the head was not a leak that was previously identified or repaired by Empire. It was explained to Client that it is common for additional, previously undetected leaks to become visible after an engine is steam cleaned. Empire perfonned the a-ring repair and steam cleaned the engine a second time at no additional charge to Client. 

On January 28, 2014, Client retunled the Truck to Empire's shop with additional oil Jeaks. Upon inspection, Empire found the rear main seal and PTO (power take oft) were leaking. Neither of these leaks were identified, quoted, repaired, or paid for during the Truek's first service visit. Client declined the repairs and took the Truck with her. Once again, as a goodwill gesture, Empire did not charge Client for the technician's troubleshooting time. 

On February 4, 2014, Client contacted the Tucson Service Manager, [redacted], to iruonn him that the Truck had lost a belt and overheated. The Service Manager advised Client that he was away from the office but would call the shop and have someone contact her immediately. The Service Manager contacted the Shop [redacted] and advised him of the situation. The Shop [redacted] contacted Client and told her that he could have a teclmician to her site in approximately thirt.y minutes. Client told the Shop [redacted] that her own technician was already on-site and would address the issue. In an effort to be helpful, the Shop [redacted] dispatched an Empire technician to the site to ensure that Client did not require additional assistance. The technician arrived and found that the lower AlC mounting bracket was missing the bolts that hold it in place and that the alternator pulley was worn. The Empire technician advised Client and her teclmician that those issues needed to be addressed and could CaUse the belt to become damaged or come off. Client stated that her technician would address those issues. Empire did not charge Client for this on-site service cal! and trouble shooting. 

On February 11, 2014, Client returned the Truck to Empire's shop with a complaint of fuclin the coolant. 

Client statcd that she believed this was due to the engine overheating, which was due to losing the belt 011 February 4. The Service Manager and the Shop [redacted] advised Client and her technician that an overheat situation can cause the injector cup seals to melt and cause fuel in the coolant. They also advised Client that due to the high engine hours ofthe Truck, the leaking injector cups were likely due to wear and that the only way to determine the root cause ofthe injector cup seal leak was to disassemble and inspect. At this point, Client started to insist that this current condition was due to a workmanship issue on Empire's part. The Service Manager and the Shop [redacted] again explained how injector cup seals on this model engine with very high miles could begin to lealc (Industry standard fonnula for converting engine hours to miles = 

1 On January 17.2014. Client brought another truck (Serial Number [redacted]. Work Order #[redacted]) to Empire's shop for a PM Service. Duriug tbe prior

inspection prior to performing the PM Service, Empire found that the carrier bearing was worn and that there was an ail-leak at the air brake manifold. Empire infurmed Client of these findings, and she approved all repairs. Client picked up this second truck and paid for repairs. Empire is not aware of any additional problems with CHent's second truck since the PM Service and repairs were performed on January 17,2014_ 

engine hours x 45 miles for a unit that averages 45 mph when driven. The Truck had 27,856 hours x 45 = 

1,114,240 miles.) They also explained that ifit was due to an overheat situation, there would be clear 

evidence of overheating on the seals. Further, they advised Client that ifthe unit were to overheat, the 

operator would be notified with a warning light and possible engine shutdown by the electronic control 

module ("ECM"). Client insisted that her operator would have no way ofknowing ifthe unit was 

overheating ifhe was operating the crane at the rear ofthe truck:, as he would not be in the cab to see the 

warning light indicators. The Service Manager advised installing additional warning indicators at the rear of 

the truck so the operator would be notified of a problem. 

During the February 11, 2014 visit to Empire's shop, Client was clearly frustrated but wanted the Truck repaired and requested that Empire proceed. Client then left the shop. Soon after Client left, the technician began inspecting the Truck and noted Ulat the AlC mounting bracket bolts were still missing and that the alternator pulley had not been replaced as advised by the Empire technician on February 4 and that the belt was starting to come off again. The Senice Manager immediately called Client and asked her to retunl to the shop so he could show her that these items had not been taken care of and could be causing the belt and overheat issues. Client returned to Empire minutes later and stated that Empire had sabotaged her truck and Ulat she did not believe the missing AlC mounting bracket bolts and worn pulley wcre causing any issues. Client left again with instructions for us to proceed with the injector cup seal repair. 

After Client left, the Service Manager contacted me to advise me of the current situation. r was not comfortable proceeding with further repairs without written authorization from Client. On February 12, 2014, the Service Manager prepared! a written estimate in the amount of $2,118.75 to replace the injector cup seals. This estimate was electronically sent to Client. On February 14, 2014, I personally contacted Client to discuss her concerns and the next course of action. I listened to Client's concerns and requested that she identify what she believed were workmanship issues on Empire's part. Client did not identify anything specific but kept insisting that it "just felt like Empire did something wrong" due to the multiple issues she was having with the Truck. I reviewed with Client all of the work Empire had done to the Truck, as well as the overall condition ofthe Truck and the lack ofmaintenance to the Truck. 

I also reviewed with Client the ECM download for the Truck, a copy of which is enclosed as J1xQibit "4". The ECM download clearly logged 19 codes for low coolant levels and 12 codes for very low coolant levels in a 65 engine hour period. Additionally, there were three high coolant temperature codes and three very high coolant temperature codes in a one hour period. Client suggested that Empire had somehow manipulated the ECM download. I explained that was not possible as this infonnation is stored in the Truck's on-board computer and that Empire can only extract the information, and she indicated that she understood. We then discussed the fact that the operator continued to run the Truck in spite of the multiple low coolant and overheat warnings. I also infonned Client that, due to the application ofthis crane truck, it often sat running in idle for long periods of time, which resulted in very high engine hours. Client indicated that she understood this message but insisted that she "felt Empire did something wrong". 

In order to look for solutions to her ongoing issues, I suggested opti.ons for additional warning lights that could be added to the rear of the unit within the operator's view, as well as setting the ECM engine protection parameters to automatically shut down in the event of various fault codes. Client declined any of these preventative ideas and requested that Empire just repair the Truck. I asked her if she had received the written estimate that was sent on February 12, 2014. She stated that she had received it. I told her that Empire would proceed with repairs as soon as she signed the estimate and returned it to the Tucson Service Manager. I also infonned Client that Empire would inspect the injector cup sleeve o-rings for signs of melting due to the overheat that occurred on February 4, 2014. Client signed the estimate and sent an electronic copy to the Service Manager, a copy of which is attached as ExhibiC',,'?:'. 

On February 18,2014, Empire completed the estimated and approved repairs. In addition to the estimated repairs, Empire replaced the missing AlC mounting bracket bolts that Were identified by the Empire technician during the February 4,2014 road service call. This additional repair was performed at no charge to Client. A Quality Check was performed (document enclosed as ~xhlQ.ti~~§5, and Client was notified that the Truck was ready for pick up. When Client arrived at the Tucson Shop, an Empire service technician showed her the o•rings that were removed from the injector cups. They were not melted but simply worn out, cra.cked and due to be replaced. The Empire service technician also informed Client that the missing AlC mounting bracket bolts had been repaired at no charge, but the alternator pulley still needed to be addressed. Client kept the o-rings, paid her invoice and took the Truck. 

On February 28, 2014, Client called the Service Manager and informed him that the new belt was starting to fray. The Service Manager contacted the Shop [redacted] who made a road service call to Client's location and replaced the belt at no charge. The Shop Forman also infornled Client that the truck needed to be troubleshot for the cause of the belts continuing to fail. Client stated that she had a busy schedule and would not have time to investigate the problem at that time. 

On March 5, 2014 Client brought the truck hack to the Tucson shop for yet another issue with the same belt. She did not have an appointment. However, Empire made her truck a priority and began troubleshooting the cause of failure immediately. Empire found the AlC compressor pulley was wobbly and the worn alternator pulley had not yet been replaced. Approximately 30 minutes after Client arrived at the shop, the Service Manager and I reeeived email notification from the accounting department that Client has disputed all payments made on her Cat Commercial credit card. I immediately called the Service Manager and instructed him to cease all repairs. 

On March 10, 2014, I contacted Client in an effort to resolve the issue. Client insisted that Empire did something wrong but could not tell me what, only that she had a "bad feeling." I asked her how Empire could resolve the issue to her satisfaction. Client stated that she wanted us to cancel all previous charges for work that had been done to both the Truck and the other truck that Client had brought in to Empire on January 17,2014 (see footnote I on page 2). I advised Client that rwas willing to work with her but that her proposed resolution was unreasonable. She insisted that this was the only fair resolution and hung up on me. 

On March 26, 2014 Empire offered to settle the issue and release Client's truck to her for $2,200.00. Client refused the offer. Empire has had no further communication from Client since she refused our offer. If you have any questions, please contact [redacted], Empire's corporate counsel, at ###-###-####. 

Regards,  

[redacted] Service Operations Manager

May 8, 2014

 

Revdex.com

 

Re: Complaint ID # [redacted]

 

Dear Sir or Madam:

 

This letter is in response to the Revdex.com letter Empire received on May 8, 2014.

 

Empire has been delivering exceptional service to our clients for over 60 years.  We value our standing in the community, and we take the client experience very seriously.   We believe that our March 31, 2014 response to the original consumer complaint adequately addresses Empire’s analysis of the mechanical issues associated with the vehicles owned by [redacted]’s Crane Service.

 

Please allow this letter to supplement our March 31, 2014 response in order to provide additional information regarding our decision to hold Truck #2. While Truck #2 was in Empire’s shop for repairs, we were notified by the credit card company used by [redacted]’s Crane Service to pay for previous repairs that the cardholder was disputing all charges.  Upon receiving this notice, we elected to hold Truck #2 in accordance with garagemen’s lien statutes. We were notified on April 10, 2014 that the credit card company had ruled in Empire’s favor, and Truck #2 has since been released to [redacted].  As such, her demand for the release of Truck #2 has been satisfied. 

 

We have been in negotiation with the law firm of [redacted], who represents [redacted] in this matter, and are hopeful a settlement can be reached.  All future correspondence from Empire on this matter will be directed to Ms. [redacted]’s legal counsel. 

 

Sincerely,

 

Vice President | Chief Financial Officer