From the Ground Up Inc.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 11, 2016/07/15) */
The customer did receive front brake service on June 10, 2016, which included ceramic brake pads and new front rotorsThe service is backed by a nationwide warranty valid at our store or any of the nearly 1,Meineke locations nationwide
The customer only contacted our store after visiting a non-Meineke location in Fargo and paying for additional serviceHad the customer reached out to us or meineke.com, a nearby location could have been sourced and Meineke would have honored any work performed by our storeIn fact, Meineke #is located in Fargo and could have easily handled any customer concernBy the customer's choice, Meineke was given no opportunity to remedy the customer's concern
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 13, 2016/07/15) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
If Meineke botched the repair the initial time why would my son want to give them a second time
My son took the car to shop he knew and trusted
Going to another Meineke would have been an unknown
Since I filed this complaint I have checked with Yelp site
And the Meinke brand from those sites appears to be lacking
Final Business Response /* (4000, 20, 2016/07/29) */
The warranty information regarding the initial service is on the front and back of the customer invoice with instructions as what to do to operate within Meineke's warrantyWe are sorry the customer failed to contact us with any concerns prior to voiding the warrantyMeineke #services several thousand customers every year and has one of the highest customer retention rates in the chainFurther, we sincerely regret the customer feels his initial experience was a negative one and that expectations were not metWhile we would have preferred to please the customer by operating within our warranty, we are willing to reimburse $of the customer's expense as a gesture of good faith and goodwill

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 8, 2017/06/13) */
On May the customer did come in and ask us to check into the cruise control light flashing and for us to look into the cause of the vehicle driving poorly at mphThe vehicle was first inspected mechanically for any worn or loose parts
and the tires were rotated and balanced in that process to address potential handling issuesAdditionally, the vehicle's computer system was scanned for diagnostic trouble codesApproximately codes were present, some of which may have related to the drivability issue the customer was originally concerned aboutThe next day the customer did call to check on the status of what was foundA service manager later contacted the customer to give an update and to seek approval for a $diagnostic charge to proceed furtherThe customer authorized and later paid the diagnostic charge of $During the conversation with the service manager, the customer indicated she was no longer interested in finding a cause for the cruise control light coming on or flashingThe diagnostic steps from there focused on only the trouble codes that may be related to the drivability issue onlyDuring this process the transmission fluid needed to be added due to a transmission related codeAs well, some vacuum hoses were found to be deteriorated and were leaking and were replacedUltimately, the customer was supplied a list of issues that needed to be addressed to return the vehicle to restored operating condition along with estimates for the workRegarding the defroster that no longer worked, the scope of our work did not put us anywhere around it's operationAnd with respect to the treatment of the customer over the phone when she called about the defroster, she was never hung up on and was never asked what she wanted us to do about itInstead, she was treated very professionally and was told we would look at the defroster operation if she brought the vehicle to usSince we were not working in any areas directly related to the defroster, we cannot accept responsibility for its inoperationIn the end, the vehicle drove markedly better than when it came in and the customer was charged only for what she authorizedThe other services and items provided by us during our diagnostic steps were provided at no charge to the customer

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2016/01/27) */
Meineke is not the correct company. It is actually Midas. Meineke in good faith however, offered Mr. Hicks a free oil change.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (2000, 7, 2016/01/27) */
(The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from...

the business.)
This is correct, I mistakenly filed against Meineke. I tried contacting the Revdex.com office yesterday, but was never able to reach anyone. I apologize for this inconvenience. I have, and still will continue to do business with Meineke.
The correct company I have filled against is Midas. Once again, I apologize for this mistake on my part.