Fort Pitt Classic Cars

On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 9:23 AM, Ron L[redacted]> wrote:Ms [redacted] Please find attached a copy of the [redacted] Mustang parts Invoice of 8/13/15 in the amount of $300 that was inadvertently left out of the previously sent receipt package and has been requested by the customer.  Thank you Ron

Fort Pitt Classic Cars in Pittsburgh , Pa. took my 1973 Imperial and [redacted] it up from one end to the other. They were suppossed to rebuild the motor, clean up the engine bay, and do all the work for it to pass Pa inspection. What they did was yank the motor out of my car and shoved my car into a field for almost two years, I have pictures. Then when I started to raise hell the car was put back together half of the work was not completed and they charged me almost 10,000 dollars. I now have a car sitting beside my house under a tarp that after a so called complete rebuild misses and leaks every fluid in it, they didn't attach the exhaust manifolds properly and they leak and make noise, all vaccuum hoses were removed and not replaced instead they put on caps so it would run, they broke the automatic release on the emergency brake, and can honestly say that multiple parts are missing or were stolen from my car if they even put my motor back in and didn't steal it. This was a car I drove for twenty years with no problems in [redacted] until they got ahold of it now it's undriveable. Every time I called them about the problems they played the blame game and of course it was never their fault and wanted to charge me more money to fix what they were supposed to have done in the first place. I HAVE PHOTOGRAPHIC PROOF OF WHAT THEY DID IF ANYONE WANTS TO SEE IT. In fact I think I'll post them on Facebook under [redacted]. Their manager is lying piece of [redacted] too who tries to talk down to you when he's in the wrong. I contemplated suing them but it just would have been even more expense. Don't ever use this shop the other 5 star reviews are bogus too. Search around this shop has a lousy reputation with any reputable car people. I will do my [redacted] to make sure this shop never hurts another car or it's owner again.

Review: Fort Pitt Classic Cars was selected to complete vehicle body work begun and significantly completed by another now defunct body shop. Fort Pitt did not complete the scope of work promised and delivered inferior quality on the work performed. Fort Pitt failed to provide completion cost estimates when asked and then engaged in price gouging for admittedly inferior workmanship.Desired Settlement: Fort Pitt Classic Cars should adjust bill and refund all monies paid in excess of the reasonable and customary charge for the incomplete and inferior work.

Consumer

Response:

Rust repair incomplete - Gas door not repaired, floor pan rust not addressed/not paintedBody work inferior. Areas not filled. Areas not sanded.Paint job defective. Contains dirt, runs, pits, sand scratches. Unpainted body edges. Hood scratch painted with a brush. Roof not wet sanded.Body moldings not straight.Air conditioner leaks condensate on passenger floor. Max-recirculate door not operating.Disabled remote door lock system.Doors hitting strike posts. Not aligned.

Consumer

Response:

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 9:52 AM, [redacted]> wrote:Hell[redacted]

Review: I contact this company 4 years ago to restore a 1969 Camaro. I received a signed agreement stating that this vehicle would be completed 1 year later. It is now 4 years later and the owner refuses to complete this vehicle. There were a number of issues that are left to repair in order to complete these vehicle. However, every time I have contact the owner "[redacted]", he stated it would only be a few weeks longer. He stated this vehicle would be completed on atleast 10 different occasions over the past 4 years. None of which were true. I have nearly 100 emails that go back and forth promising this car would be completed. Roughly around 6 months ago I came to the shop to see that a number of mistakes have been made when restoring the vehicle. [redacted] stated he would resolve these issues and was responsible for the charges since the job was not done right the first time. Out of frustration and the simple fact they he refused to complete this car, I told him I was going to pick this car up and have it completed at another shop. To my surprise he sent a bill totaling 4,835.53 for labor charges. He claims these charges are for fixing the issues that he first claimed he was responsible for. This is has an absolute nightmare and now he is resulting to downright criminal behavior. Please help me resolve this issue by getting my vehicle back without these extortion charges. Thank you for your help.Desired Settlement: I want my vehicle back. I refuse to pay the charges that I am not responsible for and did not agree to in no way shape or form.

Business

Response:

[redacted] from company called Revdex.com and indicated he spoke with you and the issue is being resolved. If this is not the case, please let Revdex.com know asap.

Consumer

Response:

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

On March 16th 2016, I purchased a vehicle from Ron, of Fort Pitt Classic Cars. I found that everything I was told over the phone, by Flynn, his detail man, was 100% accurate, and exactly as described. Flynn, did a beautiful job detailing the car, and he was a big factor in our purchase. There were no surprises and we are 100% satisfied with the car and the experience we had at Fort Pitt Classic Cars. They were very easy to work, very professional and we highly recommend Fort Pitt Classic Cars to anyone looking to buy a classic car.

Review: Contracted in December 2015 to have some modern upgrades performed on my 66' Mustang and submitted down payment. Long story short, finally received car back in late October. Once I received the car back I discovered a number of issues to be addressed with the work performed. A remanufactured Ford rack was installed instead of the brand stated in the contract. The brake calipers are too large and do not clear the wheels without spacers. The sway bar hits the tie rods on bumps due to a lack of clearance. The steering column is held in place by a primitive homemade rig made of an old piece of metal and a muffler clamp.

I had requested from the beginning of this ordeal for a list of parts used so I would be able to buy replacement brake pads, rotors, calipers, etc. when needed. For example, if I needed brake pads, all I know is they are Ford. No year or model.

Also, the contract states parts are invoiced at 115% the cost of the parts. I do not trust that this was the case. I have been promised this information both verbally and by e-mail numerous times, however after my most recent conversation with the owner I do not feel he has any intention of supplying me with this information. Something to hide?

Despite a written warranty on the work performed, I have no intention of returning my car to this shop. I simply have no confidence any future work would be done with any more competence.

I want copies of the receipts so I can determine what I need to do to correct the issues and to determine if I have been overcharged for the parts. After being paid for what I consider substandard work, I would think the owner would want this resolved as much as do.Desired Settlement: I want copies of all parts receipts so I can contact the vendors for help in correcting the issues, and if overcharged for the parts, a refund for the overcharges. If I find incorrect parts were used for the application, I will return the wrong parts to Fort Pitt for a refund.

Business

Response:

February 15, 2016 Re: Complaint ID [redacted] I am in receipt of the referenced complaint dated 2/2/2016 and herein provide a response. The complainant first contacted my company in November 2014 not December 2015 as he stated to upgrade the steering and brakes of his 66 Mustang. His car was not delivered to us until late April (due to the weather) and the car was returned to him in mid-September not late October as he has stated. Throughout the upgrade of his car we kept him up to date by email and photographs of the work in process. Due to a large number of defects of his car that were unrelated to the proposed initial work but had to be addressed, we recognized the cost of the upgrade and repairs was going to be substantially greater than the initial upgrade estimate. On July 12th we advised the customer it was necessary to change the supplier for some parts to be installed on his car to reduce the total cost and offset the work for the additional, unplanned repairs. In the end, the total cost for the upgrade was 23% higher than the original budget in spite of the fact that we achieved the initial contracted scope or work at a lesser cost than originally proposed. We expected the customer was pleased with all the work since he promptly paid the invoice and reported on October 8th that 'he had put some miles on the car' and was satisfied except for the turning radius. As we were requested to keep the costs at a minimum, we did put a spacer on the wheel to gain space between the present wheel and the newly installed brake caliper. However the spacer could have been eliminated with the added cost to purchase new 14" wheels with a greater 'offset' or purchase 15" wheels - either of those options would have greatly increased the cost significantly. Those options are still available to the owner on his own. The complainant commented about a fabricated item in the steering column. He should understand that item was necessary to allow the steering column to be removable if necessary in the future otherwise it could have been permanently welded.To satisfy the complainant's request for a listing of parts and to satisfy that he was not charged more than 115% of our parts and supply cost, I have attached a link to a file that presents a complete listing with costs of the parts used in the repair and upgrade of his car and a copy of all of the parts receipts/invoices. This listing is more detailed than the parts list we provided to the complainant on October 12th. An analysis of the parts cost to the billed cost will clearly show that overhead markup was significantly less than 15% at was allowed.Finally, I must apologize that our work was not done as promptly as we had expected primarily due to our Mustang specialist not being able to work full time as he was recovering from triple bypass surgery - a fact of which the customer was aware.Regardless, we have attached the final invoice for the repair and upgrade work that shows that we provided a 10% discount to the customer as consolation for the delay in not completing the upgrade as quickly as he had desired.Respectfully submitted,Ron L[redacted], Owner and Manager

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.Received business response. In my original complaint I stated I contracted (signed contract) in December 2015. It was December 2014. I stated I received car back late October 2015. I got the car back the 1st time, September 23rd, not October. I apologize for the errors. I did not intend to misrepresent the timeline. I have received most of the parts receipts and now know most of the parts installed, so now can move forward with corrections. I was overcharged on some, undercharged on some, double charged for some parts and not charged for some parts. Assuming I find no major surprise with the final receipt, we can most likely move on and I will consider it all a valuable lesson. I have decided not to even respond to the many untruths in the business' responses, most of which I have e-mail correspondence to prove untrue. It is clear the owner will say anything to try to protect his business. The only thing I will mention is the ridiculous response regarding the steering column bracket. I have attached a picture. No other words are necessary. Please submit to me a copy of the receipt from [redacted] Mustang for 300.00

Regards,

Business

Response:

On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 9:23 AM, Ron L[redacted]> wrote:Ms [redacted]

Review: We Delivered the '67 corvette on January 02, 2015 to be repaired and painted. Car was initially painted and after exchanging numerous emails and phone calls they decided to paint it again. They added multi parts, more paint, and additional expenses. The job was suppose to take until spring, and we insisted on picking up the car after leaving it there for many months. We finally got it in early September 2015, and with it came an additional $5400. bill. After limping the car home with transmission problems, and inspecting it we found that it had sags, chips, dry spots, paint rubbed to the primer, paint over dirt. It needs a complete new paint job.Desired Settlement: We feel Fort Pitt Classic Car is not capable of painting the car correctly to a standard. So we want the car painted by some other body shop and paid for by Fort Pitt Classic Cars.

Business

Response:

February 24, 2016Re: Complaint ID [redacted]I am in receipt of the referenced complaint dated 2/11/2016 received at our office on 2/18/2016, and herein provide a response.The customer's car arrived to us in January, 2015. After taking possession, we noticed a problem with the transmission shifter and advised the customer. The customer said it had been that way for years. Later the problem got worse. Again we contacted the customer and offered to fix the problem at minimum cost. The customer said , "No, [redacted] and [redacted] will fix the shifter problem." and agreed to pick up and take the car home with the problem.In the course of preparing the car for the painting process, several serious body problems were found that had to be repaired prior to painting. These items included a damaged windshield pillar and window gutter, and cracks in the fiberglass body that were not evident until after the old paint was removed. After painting, during the reassembly process, we found it was necessary to replace all deteriorated window gaskets, repair a non-functioning window gear system, and repair defective headlight mechanism. All of these repairs were documented, discussed with the owner, and approval was given to make the repairs. Each of these problems caused the project timeline to be lengthened and the cost of the project to increase.Upon completion of our work, the owners came, inspected the car in a well lit area and took the car without paying the final invoice, saying he inadvertently 'left the checkbook at home'. Subsequently, they complained about several minor paint issues. We went to their home, verified their assertions that the defects in questions should be repaired and agreed to fix them at our expense. They have yet to return the car or allow us to pick it up, choosing instead to damage our reputation via the Internet.At the beginning, the customer demanded the car be prepared as a 'daily driver' since they had planned to drive the car without concern for stone clips and other potential damage that might occur, and to keep the cost of repainting the car at a minimum. The car was repaired and painted in that light. Certainly at Fort Pitt Classic Cars, we know what it takes to repair and repaint a Corvette to meet and exceed the National Corvette Restoration Society (NCRS) standards as we have successfully completed several Corvettes at that level. The cost for those projects is substantially more then what was agreed to in this case and at no time was there a requirement that this is a 'show quality' or NCRS level car. That being said, we acknowledge there are fixable blemishes in the paint of the car. We stand behind our work and our offer to rework the trouble spots at no additional cost to the customer.Respectfully submittedRonald L[redacted], Owner & Manager

Consumer

Response:

29 February 2016ID #[redacted]Dear Sir/Madam,I would like to open with: our vehicle was painted in a warehouse atmosphere and NOT in a paint booth. We thought that when we hired Fort Pitt Classic Cars to paint our vehicle it would be done in a professional environment by professionals. What we hired were incompetent people with no experience in what they advertise. To our dismay we received a $15,000 paiht/repair job on a '67 Classic corvette that is worse off now than when we delivered it to the business. We delivered our vehicle 02 January 2015, and were originally told our price would be $11,385. + taxes. With the delivery we paid $2,000 up front to get the work started. On January 28th they asked for another $2336.18, and again on Feb. 8th $1,320, and on Feb 12th $3869.03 and on March 13, $5313.15 for a grand total of $14,838.36. We paid all this up front and before the jobs were completed. After 8 months of patiently waiting and exchanging emails we began to suspect something was wrong. We found out that the car was painted in March and then they wanted to paint it again in July. They lied about removing the windows to paint the car, they lied about many things and we trusted them. We trusted them to do a decent job and that is not what we received. We wanted our car back! So late August early September we said enough is enough we want our car now. So we went to pick it up and they presented it to us in a dimly lit area which we couldn't see the bad paint job that was lurking in that unlit area. By email they presented us with another bill for $5495 in addition to the $14,838.36 for the 2nd paint job and extra materials.FPCC sent three employees to our home to view the vehicle and they came to the conclusion that the car did indeed need repainting and they would send a trailer to tow our vehicle back down to their location and paint 2/3 of the car. We were advised to not let them take the car and we did not want them to repaint the vehicle for the 3rd time. Why would we have them paint it again when they couldn't do a proper job the first two times? This is ludicrous! The quality control of FPCC is poor and the car should have not been released in its current condition. And furthermore if FPCC believes they are qualified with the NCRS, we can and will have them judge the car for the quality and standard that go with that label. We asked for a good paint job and did not by any means receive what we paid for. They scratched the windows with buffers, scratched and nicked the paint, painted over dirt and sags are noted all over. They replaced rubber gaskets and charged us for the materials which if done properly would have been ok. But the replaced gaskets were cut short and replaced like someone who doesn't know what they were doing. Upon receiving our keys to remove our vehicle from this business, we were told to not use 1st and 2nd gear and reverse as the transmission would lock up and not be able to drive. Our son drove it home in 3rd gear. Not sure what they did to it there but upon getting it back home and getting it repaired, a screw was found in the transmission. The boot around the shifter was totally destroyed by one of their workers. This transmission fix cost us several more hundred dollars to repair.This whole charade makes us sick to look at this vehicle now with great sadness. Ron L. proudly says that he works with older adults and helps them with their prized vehicles. We totally disagree with this. We have owned this vehicle for over 30 years and finally in our golden years would have it painted and enjoy some fun time with it. Not in this case, it sits in the garage and just creates much sadness for us. We saved for this and for what, our money be tossed in the garbage. We are so disappointed in what they have done to us and we trusted them.Enclosed is a copy of an estimate we acquired to have this vehicle repaired and repainted by a professional who knows how to get the job done right. Also attached please review the copy of the inconsistencies found on the invoice which was presented to us for the $5495.Thank you.[redacted]PLEASE WARN CONSUMERS OF THIS BUSINESS. THEY ARE NOT PROFESSIONAL IN THEIR BUSINESS AND WORK ETHICS AND FALSE ADVERTISING. We learned the hard way.

Review: I use Fort Pitt Classic Cars (FPCC) winter storage service. The most recent usage was November 2013 to May 2014. As per agreement my vehicle was delivered to the facility with a required car cover for storage.I retrieved my vehicle from FPCC on 05/09/2014 (a Friday).Once home, I discovered the car cover I provided FPCC for use on my vehicle was torn and poorly repaired. Damage acquired while the vehicle was in their possession.Confused, I returned to FPCC thinking I had another customers car cover since this matter was never mentioned during my retrieval earlier in the day. I spoke with one of [redacted] employees and I left with the assurance that [redacted] would contact me regarding this matter.Later I took a call from the employee I spoke to earlier admitting my cover was damage while moving the vehicle. The cover was not removed from the car for repositioning, the material caught on the front wheel as well as passenger side mirror causing the side seams to burst destroying the side mirror pocket.FPCC gave my damaged car cover to their auto interior guy for repair. The stated reason as to why no one mentioned the damage or incident during my retrieval of the vehicle was, during & after the repair my vehicle was not covered for storage.This employee assured me [redacted] would contact me & to give [redacted] a copy of my car cover invoice. After this phone call, on Friday May 9th, I went to FPCC with a copy of my cover invoice, and handed it to said employee. I also emailed a copy to [redacted] with a message regarding this matter.On Tuesday May 27th I contacted [redacted] regarding my car cover since I had not heard from him. We agreed to meet on the afternoon of May 30th to review the damaged cover. [redacted] also wanted the part number from the physical cover. We met, [redacted] reviewed the damage, noted the part number, instructed me accidents happen and agreed to replace the cover.June 19th, July 18th, July 30th are my attempts to have [redacted] contact me. [redacted] made no effort to return.Desired Settlement: $319.99 for the cost of my damaged car cover.$732.95 for improperly storing my vehicle without a cover. Not contacting me when the damage happened. Not being straight or forthright when I retrieved the vehicle. No attempt to rectify the issue or to follow through after-the-fact.Total: $1052.94

Business

Response:

This letter is in response to a complaint submitted by a [redacted] regarding a cover for his car during winter storage at our facility. From reviewing the complaint, I find the allegations and statements by Mr. [redacted] are not correct, and he has not responded to my offers to resolve the matter before and, now, after the complaint was filed.

In the complaint, Mr. [redacted] correctly states he used our winter storage services most recently from November 2013 to May 2014. Mr. [redacted] failed to say, he, as well as each of his parents, separately, used our storage services for each of their individual cars for three previous years and were satisfied with our service.

Mr. [redacted]'s reporting of the situation whereas the cover of his car was damaged during the most recent storage period is basically correct. However, Mr. [redacted] failed to mention my immediate attempt to resolve the problem by loaning him a replacement cover until I could obtain an exact replacement.

Mr. [redacted]'s statement that his vehicle was not covered during the entire storage period is absolutely not correct. From recent conversation with Mr. [redacted]'s representative (his father) I learned that his father came to our facility on a particular day and on that day and at that particular time the car was uncovered for a short period of time in support of a photo­shoot for an article to appear in the Pittsburgh Tribune. At all other times, including immediately before the photo-shoot and after the photo-shoot, Mr. [redacted]'s car was covered. Therefore, Mr. [redacted]'s request for refund of his entire storage fee has no basis.

It is correct Mr. [redacted] and I met on May 30th and I agreed to replace the cover. I followed up on the meeting by attempting to purchase a new cover for Mr. [redacted]. Since the cover was custom made, it was out of stock and not available. I called and left a message for Mr. [redacted] informing him I had a cover to loan him until the other cover was obtained. Mr. [redacted] never acknowledged my call.

In the compliant Mr. [redacted] claims he made an attempt to contact me on June 19th, July 18th and July 30th. My office has no record of any such attempt to contact me. It is strange Mr. [redacted] would have made such a comment since he lives very close to our business and could have stopped in anytime.

Upon receiving this complaint, I called for Mr. [redacted] but had to leave a message. In that message I requested Mr. [redacted] call or stop in to discuss the complaint. We have had no response from Mr. [redacted].

Mr. [redacted]'s father stopped in last week (after his son's compliant was filled) to check on the status of the cover. Interestingly, his son had not told him he filed the complaint or of our offer to loan him a cover while I was getting a direct replacement.

Since that time we have received a direct replacement for Mr. [redacted]'s cover and have offered that cover to him. His father is expected to pickup the cover in the near future.

In summary, allegations regarding the car not being covered during the storage period are not true therefore a refund of the storage fee has not basis, and a direct replacement cover has been offered therefore no reimbursement of the cost of the cover is warranted.