Five Star Glass & Mirror, Inc.

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the responseIf no reason is received your complaint will be closed as Answered]
Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:Date: Tue, Dec 26, at 9:PMSubject: Re: You have a new message from the Revdex.com of Metro Washington DC & Eastern Pennsylvania in regards to your complaint #***.To: Revdex.com of Metro Washington DC Good evening,This messge just arrived in my emailI would like to respondI was not pleased with the option to trade due to thje fact thje retailer and manager Sean stated the would buy back the Vehicle not tradeIf I wanted to make the trade I would have the 3rd day after the purchaseI would not have held on to the vehicle for the next days.
Regards,
*** ***

*** *** had concerns with her vehicle shortly after deliveryHer concerns were expressed to our General Sales Manager, Shawn S***, about the vehicle not having voice command available as well as a manufacture paint defectUpon completion of paint work, we submitted a claim with Jaguar Land
Rover to initiate a possible buy back since she was not 100% satisfied with the carSince the vehicle is fully operational and repaired, Land Rover did not approve the buy back but did issue an employee deal on another vehicle to help compensate the loss of value of her current EvoqueEven though Rosenthal Jaguar Land Rover has no control over the buyback decision, we understand why the client was upsetWe initiated this process knowing the client was not happy with her current car and it's unfortunate that the outcome is not what she expectedThe customer is currently in talks with our General Manager, Ogun Y***, regarding her extending her warranty out further for the inconvenience.?

In? regards? to? the? Better? Business? Bureau? concern? for? ***? and? ***? ***? and? their?
2008? ***? ***,? I? am? not? finding? the? factual? specifics? of? that? service? visit? to? be?
entirely? consistent to? the? statements? made? in? their? complaint.? I am responding to? their?
comments? in? the? order? that? they? appear? in? their? complaint:
**.? and? ***? ***? brought? their? 2008? ***? ***? in? to? Rosenthal? Land? Rover? on?
08/15/15? for? diagnosis? of? a? “transmission? gear? fault”? warning? message? displayed? on? the?
dash.? At? the? time? the? vehicle? was? worked? on, there? were no? warning? messages? displayed? on?
the? dash? and? the? vehicle? was? operating? like? normal.? There? were however,? several? historic?
fault? codes? that? were? saved? in? the? vehicle’s? on-­board? computer,? ***,? ***,? ***,?
***? and? ***.? The? ***? code? signified? that? the? rear? differential? actuator? mode? was
most? likely? defective.? There? is? no? specific? pin ­point? test? to? prove? the? failure? of? that? part?
beyond? actually? replacing? it? so? the? customer? was? advised? of? the? cost? to? replace? that? part.?
Additionally,? it? is? our? obligation? to? report? any? other? items? that? the? technician? sees? during?
his? inspection? which? in? this? case? was? front? brakes? worn? down? to? the? minimum? spec,? worn?
tires? and? no? evidence? of? a? recent? maintenance? having? been? completed.? The? customer? was?
given? an? estimate? for? these? items purely? from? an? informative? standpoint? but? was?
in? no? way? made? to? believe? that? these? items? were? directly? related? to? the? warning? messages.?
The? customer? opted? not? to? proceed? with? any? of? the? repairs? and? they? took? their? vehicle.?
They? were? charged? the? minimum? diagnostic? fee? of? $137.00? plus? tax/etc? for? the?
technicians’? time? spent? diagnosing? the? vehicle.? They? were? not? charged? anything? for? the?
recall? that? was? completed? during? that? same? visit,? which? was? in? fact? authorized? by? the?
customer? as? proven? by? their? signature? on? the? original? repair? order? write-­up? containing? that?
recall? descriptionOn? September? 24,? 2015,? we? received? a? report? from? Land? Rover? Corporate? who? had? just?
received? a? call? from? ***? ***? lodging? a? similar? complaint? about? the? rear? differential?
motor.? It? is? uncertain? at? that? time? if? they? had? been? to? ***? ***? yet? or? not.? In?
response? to? that? case? with? Land? Rover? corporate,? it? was? offered? to? the? customer? to? bring?
the? car? back? in? for? us? to? look? at? the? fault? codes? again? to? see? if? the? computer? had? found?
anything? new.? We? offered? to? do? this? at? no? charge? and? we? offered? to? provide? a? free? loaner?
car? to? the? customer.? The? Land? Rover? customer? service? agent? also? forwarded? the? file? to?
Land? Rover’s? technical? supervisor? who? is? in? charge? of? the? North? American? Technical?
Helpline.? He? was? able? to? log? in? to? our? server? and? pull? the? “session? files”? from? the?
***’s? last? visit? and? verify? the? fault? codes? that? were? present? at? that? time? and? he? agreed?
with? our? findings? on? that? date.? He? also? offered? to? oversee? the? results? of? the? follow? up? visit?
and? confirm? our? findings.? All? of? this? would? have? been? offered? to? **.? And? ***? ***?
on? or? about? 09/28/15? and? is? documented? in? Land? Rover? Consumer? Affair’s? case#?
***.? [Land? Rover? CRC? ***]
For? whatever? reason? the? ***’s? opted? not? to? follow? through? with? the? offer? to? have?
Land? Rover? engineers? oversee? the? repairs? to? their? vehicle? and? instead? took? their? vehicle? to?
***? ***.? As? stated? in? their? complaint? the? fault? codes? that? ***?
***? found? on? that? visit? were? completely? different? than? the? fault? codes? that? were?
found? on? the? previous? visit? at? Rosenthal? Land? Rover? so? obviously? that? would? have?
rendered? a? different? course? of? action.? If? the? ***’s? were? indicating? in? their? Revdex.com?
complaint? that? ***? ***? came? up? with? a? different? diagnosis? than? Rosenthal?
did,? that? is? why,? completely? different? fault? codes? that? each? require? completely? different?
repairs.? ? It? is? true? that? fault? code? ***? does? indicate? the? need? to? replace? the? transmission?
but? at? no? point? was? that? fault? code? present? during? Rosenthal’s? diagnosis? so? there? would?
have? been? no? reason? to? recommend? that? repair.? They? also? stated? in? their? complaint? that?
when? they? took? the? car? for? a? second? opinion? “the? rear? differential? showed? no? leaking,? oil?
was? full? and? the? sound? of? the? rear? differential? motor? seemed? fine.”? The? component? that?
we? recommended? is? electrical and­? it? contains? no? fluid or makes? no? sound? so? clearly? they?
misunderstood? our? recommendation
In? summary, they? brought? their? vehicle? in? for? diagnosis? which? was? performed? in?
good? faith? and? Land? Rover? Engineering? agreed? with? the? results.? They? were? charged? the?
minimum? fee? for? time? spent? working? on? a? vehicle? The? customer? was? offered? the? opportunity? to?
have? the? vehicle? re-investigated? at? no? charge with? a? free? loaner? car? and? with? the?
assistance? of? Land? Rover? Technical? Assistance? but? they? declined? to? follow? through? with?
that? offer.The? ***’s? have? since? repaired? their? vehicle? and? are? happy? with? the? service? that? they?
received? and? the? price? that? they? paidThey were not charged any additional charges other than the diagnostic fee, therefore there will be no such reimbursement

Date: Fri, Dec 8, at 8:AMSubject: Re: *** *** Rebuttal (***)Customer has not responded to usWe brought another car in for her to trato and she didn't want to proceedShawn S