Faulkner Oldsmobile Cadillac Subaru GMC Truck

[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.  I had an opportunity to meet with the General Manager. He was very understanding, listened to my concerns, and was able to offer me a resolution that I am satisfied with. Thank you for your time and attention.
Regards,
[redacted]

May 7, 2014Dear **. [redacted],Please accept this correspondence as response to the complaint filed by [redacted] on or about May 2nd, 2014. The vehicle in question was sold on April 11, 2014 with 36331 miles. It was inspected prior to the sale on March 6, 2014 with 36326 miles. The...

inspection records indicate the brakes on the vehicle to be 7/32 on the front and 4/32 on the rear. Pennsylvania state inspection laws require a minimum of 2/32 of brake material to be present to be considered "passing". Our records substantiate the vehicles braking system to be well in excess of PA state minimums and as such not requiring replacement.**. [redacted] states in his complaint that the brakes "failed". The repairs performed by [redacted] Tire and Auto Service include a complete replacement of the brakes and rotors. While we are in no position to contradict **. [redacted]'s concerns, our records indicate that there would be absolutely no reason to replace the brake pads or rotors on both the front and rear of the vehicle after only 267 miles of operation. The document provided as proof of the repair fails to include any measurement that would substantiate the need for replacement.**. [redacted] notified our organization only after the repairs were completed. Had we had the opportunity to verify his concerns and validate the need for a complete brake and rotor replacement then appropriate steps would have been taken to ensure a proper repair of his vehicle. As we were not provided that opportunity and the documentation fails to substantiate the immediate need for replacement we have determined that restitution in this matter would be inappropriate.

[redacted] <[redacted]>1:57 PM (20 hours ago)to me Good Afternoon.I am writing to advise that the above referenced complaint has been resolved to my complete satisfaction.The General Manager of Faulkner Subaru contacted me immediately upon...

receipt of the complaint and continued in contact with me until the issue was resolved.I would like to thank the General Manager for his prompt action in resolving this complaint.Please do not hesitate to contact me if you need any additional information.Thank you for your assistance.[redacted]

Please accept this letter in response to the complaint fled by [redacted] on or about 7/15/15. The damaged vehicle was received on June 4, 2015. Upon receipt of the initial parts deemed necessary, the repairs were commenced on June 10, 2015. During the process of repairing the vehicle...

additional parts were found to be damaged beyond repair. A supplement was initiated with the insurance company. There was a delay in locating and receiving the additional parts as the age of the vehicle is a 1998 and not all parts are readily available via local sources. The final parts necessary to complete the repair were received on June 23rd. All repairs were completed, the vehicle was cleaned and made available for pick up on June 29th.While we recognize that the repairs took an extended time, every effort was made to provide the customer with a quality repair completed within an acceptable time frame for a repair of this extent. In an effort to offset some of the customer's added loaner vehicle expense we would like to reimburse the customer $100.00 of their original $500 deductible. We sincerely hope that this offer will illustrate the commitment that Faulkner Chevrolet, Cadillac has to establishing the highest in customer satisfaction.
Thank you for your assistance in the matter.
Sincerely,David G.Controller

Review: FAULKNER OLDS HAS SENT FLYER OUT USING MY HOME PHONE NUMBER. ALMOST EVERY CALL I GET IS FOR THEM AND I AM TIRED ANSWERING THERE CALLS. I CALLED AND THEY SAID THERE WAS NOTHING THEY CAN DO AS THE FLYERS ARE OUT. I AM NOT THERE SECRETARY. THEY COULD AT LEAST COMPANSATE ME FOR ALL THIS IN CONVENIENCE. THEY ALSO COULD SEND OUT ANOTHER FLYER WITH THE PROPER PHONE NUMBER.

Business

Response:

Nov. 16, 2013

Dear **. [redacted],

In response to [redacted] claim of an error in a flyer sent to our customers; we are extremely sorry for any inconvenience the oversight may have caused. We have reviewed our current mailings but have yet to determine which mailing has the incorrect phone number listed. If [redacted] can provide a copy, or any additional information that would help us to narrow the search for problematic mailer we would most certainly rectify the situation and verify that no such error could occur in the future.

Sincerely

Review: On April 11, 2014 I purchased a used 2008 [redacted] from Faulkner [redacted] for $18,495.00. The vehicle was inspected according to Pennsylvania law on March 7, 2014 and the mileage recorded as 36,326 by this dealership. I drove the vehicle total of 267 miles from the date of purchase April 11, to April 14, 2014 and the brakes failed on the vehicle. I drove the car to the nearest garage([redacted]) where they repaired the vehicle by having to replace all four brakes and rotors on the vehicle for a cost of $770.00. I would simply like to be reimbursed for this expense as a buyer has a right to assume when the vehicle is newly inspected that the brakes should not fail after only 267 miles.Desired Settlement: Reimbursed $774.12 for the cost of the brakes

Business

Response:

May 7, 2014Dear **. [redacted],Please accept this correspondence as response to the complaint filed by [redacted] on or about May 2nd, 2014. The vehicle in question was sold on April 11, 2014 with 36331 miles. It was inspected prior to the sale on March 6, 2014 with 36326 miles. The inspection records indicate the brakes on the vehicle to be 7/32 on the front and 4/32 on the rear. Pennsylvania state inspection laws require a minimum of 2/32 of brake material to be present to be considered "passing". Our records substantiate the vehicles braking system to be well in excess of PA state minimums and as such not requiring replacement.**. [redacted] states in his complaint that the brakes "failed". The repairs performed by [redacted] Tire and Auto Service include a complete replacement of the brakes and rotors. While we are in no position to contradict **. [redacted]'s concerns, our records indicate that there would be absolutely no reason to replace the brake pads or rotors on both the front and rear of the vehicle after only 267 miles of operation. The document provided as proof of the repair fails to include any measurement that would substantiate the need for replacement.**. [redacted] notified our organization only after the repairs were completed. Had we had the opportunity to verify his concerns and validate the need for a complete brake and rotor replacement then appropriate steps would have been taken to ensure a proper repair of his vehicle. As we were not provided that opportunity and the documentation fails to substantiate the immediate need for replacement we have determined that restitution in this matter would be inappropriate.

Consumer

Response:

[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 Administratively Resolved]

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because:1. The response is totally dishonest and hypocritical, he describes 4/32 as being "well in excess" of 2/32. is it possible the mechanic was off by a fraction or 2or 3?2. I live 100 hundred miles from the dealership and I am trying to get to work and the brakes fail on the car. My concern was stopping to be safe and getting the car repaired in order to get to work. The mechanic assured me that it was not safe to drive. In as much as they are presupposing there mechanic is correct I should be afforded the same presupposition, my mechanic should also be considered correct. I just paid $18,500 for the car, what possible motive do I have for wanting to spend an additional $770.003. He states in his response that had I notified them before the repair they would have taken the "appropriate steps to ensure proper repair". This clearly indicates that they believe me and I am being punished for not bringing the car to them for the repair. 4. Whatever there rationale is for not assuming responsibility can be spun a thousand ways. But the truth is simply this: I bought a car from them in good faith expecting that the car would be in good mechanical order as they advertised the vehicle to be "Pre-Certified". It is not reasonable to expect that a buyer should have to pull the wheels off of vehicle before he/she buys it to see if the brakes are okay. It is however reasonable to expect that a dealership with the supposed reputation of Faulkner would listen to there customer and take care of the matter. If I bring in just one customer to the dealership it covers much more than a set of brakes. Thank you kindly.

Regards,