Initial Business Response /* (1000, 9, 2017/02/27) */
In response to the consumer's complaint, I currently hold the same position as when previously speaking with the consumer. That position is; that neither the bill charged at this location ($[redacted]) nor the subsequent bill the consumer paid to...
repair the failed part ($[redacted], which contains a new set of four tires), will be reimbursed. Reasoning for declining payment of these bills, primarily comes from the length of time between the inspection of the component in question (lower control arm) and the time of failure; appx 2 months. Furthermore, the inspection of metal structure of the control arm is one which is purely visual, technicians are not allowed to hammer on rusty metal in order to create failure. I am not disagreeing that this component was in not perfect condition at time of inspection; however I am very confident it was absent of any holes which would fail the inspection.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 17, 2017/03/09) */
The company's response is unacceptable.
The Safety Inspection performed is to The purpose of the inspection is to ensure that the vehicle meets a minimum safety standard at the
time of inspection. The inspection sticker is valid for a two year period, thus the inspection to take that length of time into consideration.
We drive our car once a week, at most; sometimes every two weeks, and in winter, having an alternative vehicle with 4x4 capability, even less.
Instead of reassurance that our vehicle could be safely operated for two years, we got about a week's worth of normal driving out of it before the controller arm failed.
The company can verify the low usage of this vehicle via their own records, since the company has been our primary service provider.
[redacted]), [redacted]), [redacted]), [redacted]), [redacted]), [redacted]), [redacted]), [redacted]), [redacted]).
There has been some remark made regarding the purchase of four (4) tires including in the repair bill. One tire, as the pictures clearly show, was destroyed. Driving with different make tires is never recommended. Four new tires were required.
Additionally, the body work required to repair the front driver's panel is not included in the bills. That work will be done in spring and we'll cover that ourselves.
The opportunity to do the right thing in this situation is hereby presented. Any reasonable person will recognize our request as a reasonable one. Positive response would be appreciated.
Final Business Response /* ([redacted]) */
Once again, our position on this matter has not changed.
Furthermore, a [redacted] is merely a visual inspection encapsulating a snapshot in time.It is in no way a guarantee a vehicle will meet [redacted] for the duration of the sticker given.
[redacted]:
"[redacted]."
Final Consumer Response /* ([redacted]) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
The reason we find the company's position unacceptable is because it is unreasonable. Visual inspection, as quoted to defend their position, merely enforces our position. The component which failed after so few kilometers would have been "visually" compromised at the time of the inspection, and brought to our attention. That is the simple truth of this issue. We insist on a better resolution than denial, despite the facts.
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2017/03/07) */
Customer was called 03/06/2017. No answer. A voicemail was left explaining a full refund will be issued for the wheel alignment, tire balancing, tire recycling fees and shop supplies charged to the customer.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /*...
(2000, 7, 2017/03/09) */
(The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 9, 2017/02/27) */
In response to the consumer's complaint, I currently hold the same position as when previously speaking with the consumer. That position is; that neither the bill charged at this location ($[redacted]) nor the subsequent bill the consumer paid to...
repair the failed part ($[redacted], which contains a new set of four tires), will be reimbursed. Reasoning for declining payment of these bills, primarily comes from the length of time between the inspection of the component in question (lower control arm) and the time of failure; appx 2 months. Furthermore, the inspection of metal structure of the control arm is one which is purely visual, technicians are not allowed to hammer on rusty metal in order to create failure. I am not disagreeing that this component was in not perfect condition at time of inspection; however I am very confident it was absent of any holes which would fail the inspection.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 17, 2017/03/09) */
The company's response is unacceptable.
The Safety Inspection performed is to The purpose of the inspection is to ensure that the vehicle meets a minimum safety standard at the
time of inspection. The inspection sticker is valid for a two year period, thus the inspection to take that length of time into consideration.
We drive our car once a week, at most; sometimes every two weeks, and in winter, having an alternative vehicle with 4x4 capability, even less.
Instead of reassurance that our vehicle could be safely operated for two years, we got about a week's worth of normal driving out of it before the controller arm failed.
The company can verify the low usage of this vehicle via their own records, since the company has been our primary service provider.
[redacted]), [redacted]), [redacted]), [redacted]), [redacted]), [redacted]), [redacted]), [redacted]), [redacted]).
There has been some remark made regarding the purchase of four (4) tires including in the repair bill. One tire, as the pictures clearly show, was destroyed. Driving with different make tires is never recommended. Four new tires were required.
Additionally, the body work required to repair the front driver's panel is not included in the bills. That work will be done in spring and we'll cover that ourselves.
The opportunity to do the right thing in this situation is hereby presented. Any reasonable person will recognize our request as a reasonable one. Positive response would be appreciated.
Final Business Response /* ([redacted]) */
Once again, our position on this matter has not changed.
Furthermore, a [redacted] is merely a visual inspection encapsulating a snapshot in time.It is in no way a guarantee a vehicle will meet [redacted] for the duration of the sticker given.
[redacted]:
"[redacted]."
Final Consumer Response /* ([redacted]) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
The reason we find the company's position unacceptable is because it is unreasonable. Visual inspection, as quoted to defend their position, merely enforces our position. The component which failed after so few kilometers would have been "visually" compromised at the time of the inspection, and brought to our attention. That is the simple truth of this issue. We insist on a better resolution than denial, despite the facts.
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2017/03/07) */
Customer was called 03/06/2017. No answer. A voicemail was left explaining a full refund will be issued for the wheel alignment, tire balancing, tire recycling fees and shop supplies charged to the customer.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /*...
(2000, 7, 2017/03/09) */
(The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)