Please refer to the attachment for our response.We are sorry the customer felt misled about the condition of the transmission in the vehicle he brought in for a pre-purchase inspection. We strive to give accurate factual information with pre-purchase inspections and diagnostic recommendations. We do not try to get our customers to buy any particular used car they bring in for inspection. Our goal is to report observations and allow customers to make their own judgments and decisions. The customer seems to think it is obvious that they would not have bought the car if they had understood that it was shifting harshly (a fact that was documented on both the pre-inspection and on the additional diagnostic). From our perspective all old cars have issues and we see people make decisions to buy them anyway because the car is inexpensive compared to a new one. We also see people who pass by multiple deals after inspections until they find a car whose faults are ones they feel like they can live with or can afford. We feel bad for the customer that he is so stressed about whether the expert who updated the transmission software was a transmission expert or a computer expert. The employee and the customer believe very different things about what was initially said. If there was a communication breakdown we apologize. As far as the transmission diagnostic, however, the title of our expert does not change the basics of the situation; a competent person updated out-of-date software. This was per our directive and per our protocol as a logical next step in diagnosing the car’s harsh shifting problem. In many cases like this an update will fix the problem or bring up error codes that will be helpful in tracking down the problem. The owner has thoroughly examined this situation and has decided we cannot agree with the customer’s version of the events nor agree to satisfy their demand for $6,000 because:1. The customer signed and walked away from our shop with a copy of the invoice that documents the transmission shifting harsh between 2nd and 3rd., and verbal communication that the shifting problem was observed on the final test drive. 2. The owner has interviewed his staff and the account differs from the customer’s as to who said what. The owner has no reason to doubt his staff, especially in light of the inspection paperwork details and the written invoice documenting the transmission’s state.3. Standard protocols were followed correctly for both the pre-purchase inspection and the follow up transmission computer update/re flash. 4. We checked the transmission fluid (it was not discolored and did not have a burnt odor—therefore the transmission was not displaying signs of an internal mechanical problem); we recommended updating the software (as a first step, a possible solution to the shifting problem); at the time of the diagnostic procedure there were no transmission trouble codes stored in the computer memory; we gave a final test drive after the update and noted the shifting problem was still present and more drive time would be needed to reveal whether the computer update would relieve the symptoms. The customer was advised that more evaluation would be needed if the problem continued, should they choose to purchase this car.5. Community Automotive only inspected the car and updated the transmission software. Neither action would cause any damage to a transmission.6. In a phone discussion with the owner, the customer volunteered that the Community Automotive staff member had told him that updating the computer had a 70% chance of fixing the shifting problem. Logically, this also communicates that it’s a 30% chance that the problem would still be present. Since the final test drive revealed a continued shifting problem, the customer left the shop knowing the transmission was not performing optimally. Our job was to share information, which we did both verbally and in written form. 7. The “well-known 2002 [redacted] transmission problem” that the customer writes about did not appear to be an obvious match. The known Toyota problem with this model commonly comes with 5 transmission error codes in the computer, this car presented 0 error codes on the day we inspected and updated the software. The symptom was harsh shifting between 2nd and 3rd on this car, whereas the documented problem with this model is harsh shifting between 1st and 2nd. The 2001-2003 [redacted] model transmission problems also include other symptoms that were not present such as jerking and hesitating. Also, there are many 2002 [redacted]s on the road that do not have this problem. Because of [redacted] eventual recall and extended warranty, some consumers feel any transmission issue must be “the well-know problem” but in reality the problem is defined very specifically and is not a one-size fits all scenario. The problem can also be one that’s symptoms come and go.We don’t like that this customer is experiencing so many feelings of distrust and betrayal, we wish we could help him see that we did set out to deceive him in any way. Any honorable mechanic can only diagnose based on the present symptoms at the time of the evaluation. On the day of our inspection there was: clean fluids, no transmission error codes, out-dated software and harsh shifting between 2nd and 3rd . Based on what was observable on that day would not make us leap to the conclusion that the car needed a new transmission and computer. It was prudent to urge the customer to give it some more drive time and then bring it back (if he purchased the car) if problems continued. We make it a point at Community Automotive to protect our customers from the tactics that sometimes give our industry a bad name; we don’t push people to make repairs in the absence of clear proof that the work is necessary. We would have violated that principle if we had tried to talk the customer into assuming that this problem was surely the transmission failure problem that is well-advertised, based solely on harsh shifting without any other symptoms. We purposefully avoid scare tactics or high pressure or distortion of facts to get customers to do unnecessary work or premature work on their vehicles. Also, we don’t tell a customer what is wrong with a vehicle before we even examine it (as the customer says another shop did).It grieves us to have such an impasse with a first-time customer. Community Automotive had no vested interest in whether or not the customer chose to buy this particular car from a third party. It is disturbing that the customer has such different recall of events (but we hope that is due to heightened emotions versus dishonest intent). We are clear on two pieces of successful communication: first the customer has a copy of the invoice documenting the harsh shifting between 2nd and 3rd, and second both the customer and employee agree that the “70% chance of correcting the problem” discussion took place. We feel bad for the customer that his newly purchased car is not turning out to be a positive experience. Community Automotive has a long history of quickly resolving any problems to our customers’ satisfaction. This is the first time in 20 years of business that we’ve been unable to find resolve and the first time a customer has filed a complaint with the Revdex.com. We propose turning both sides of complaint and all documentation concerning the work done for this vehicle over to the Revdex.com. The Revdex.com could have an independent automotive repair shop examine these and give a ruling. We are willing to abide by their objective third-party decision. It is our continued goal to give customers caring and excellent service.
Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:As you can see in the screen shot of a [redacted] conversation between my wife and I, we were clearly informed by Roger, the manager at Community Auto, that it was a Transmission Specialist who looked at our vehicle, not a computer diagnostics expert. We were also explicitly told by the Roger, the manager at Community Auto, that the Transmission Specialist had told him, "This is a good transmission." That is an exact quote.Refunding us $364 is a pitiful attempt to fix $6,000 in damages. I called Roger and asked him what he or his Transmission Specialist could do to remedy this and he said, "Sorry it didn't work out." He did not put me in touch with the owner and would not listen to anything I had to say other than to lie and deny having ever told us that his Transmission Specialist had said, "This is a good transmission." Roger even denied having ever told my wife and I that it was a Transmission Specialist that looked at the Transmission, but insisted he had told us it was a computer guy who looked at the transmission computer. That is a lie. Even if it were true, which it is not, how come the computer specialist failed to know or detect the well known issue of defective transmission computers in 2002 [redacted]s, which the other transmission shop was able to predict would be their diagnosis before they even looked at the car? Being informed of the $1,800 cost to replace the defective transmission computer also would have stopped us from purchasing this car.Roger, the manager at Community Auto, left us no other recourse but to post far and wide how Community Auto has caused us $6,000 in damages by misleading us. These "inflammatory" posts were nothing but factual regarding our experience with Community Auto. Without having made these posts, the owner would never have been informed, or ever tried to contact us, which he did, because of these posts. While we appreciate him taking the time to call us and speak with us, he ultimately refused to remedy the situation. He even insinuated that we knew there was something wrong with the transmission and chose to purchase it anyways.Why would we go through the process of paying a mechanic to inspect a vehicle to make sure it didn't have something catastrophically wrong with it, like needing a rebuilt transmission, if we would gamble our money and purchase a car we weren't positive was a good car anyways?Community Auto's incompetence and inability to detect such a major flaw as the need for rebuilding a transmission, failure to communicate accurately who they were having look at the car, and failing to communicate their belief that there was still something wrong with the transmission, led my wife and I to buy a $6,000 car which now needs $6,000 in repairs.Since Community Auto's owner and I have already tried to reconcile this over the phone, and he was unwilling to make any reasonable attempt to repair the $6,000 damages beyond refunding us $364 for the inspection, we are forced to bring him to small claims court. We are in the process of filling out the paperwork.
Regards,
[redacted]
Please refer to the attachment for our response.We are sorry the customer felt misled about the condition of the transmission in the vehicle he brought in for a pre-purchase inspection. We strive to give accurate factual information with pre-purchase inspections and diagnostic recommendations. We do not try to get our customers to buy any particular used car they bring in for inspection. Our goal is to report observations and allow customers to make their own judgments and decisions. The customer seems to think it is obvious that they would not have bought the car if they had understood that it was shifting harshly (a fact that was documented on both the pre-inspection and on the additional diagnostic). From our perspective all old cars have issues and we see people make decisions to buy them anyway because the car is inexpensive compared to a new one. We also see people who pass by multiple deals after inspections until they find a car whose faults are ones they feel like they can live with or can afford. We feel bad for the customer that he is so stressed about whether the expert who updated the transmission software was a transmission expert or a computer expert. The employee and the customer believe very different things about what was initially said. If there was a communication breakdown we apologize. As far as the transmission diagnostic, however, the title of our expert does not change the basics of the situation; a competent person updated out-of-date software. This was per our directive and per our protocol as a logical next step in diagnosing the car’s harsh shifting problem. In many cases like this an update will fix the problem or bring up error codes that will be helpful in tracking down the problem. The owner has thoroughly examined this situation and has decided we cannot agree with the customer’s version of the events nor agree to satisfy their demand for $6,000 because:1. The customer signed and walked away from our shop with a copy of the invoice that documents the transmission shifting harsh between 2nd and 3rd., and verbal communication that the shifting problem was observed on the final test drive. 2. The owner has interviewed his staff and the account differs from the customer’s as to who said what. The owner has no reason to doubt his staff, especially in light of the inspection paperwork details and the written invoice documenting the transmission’s state.3. Standard protocols were followed correctly for both the pre-purchase inspection and the follow up transmission computer update/re flash. 4. We checked the transmission fluid (it was not discolored and did not have a burnt odor—therefore the transmission was not displaying signs of an internal mechanical problem); we recommended updating the software (as a first step, a possible solution to the shifting problem); at the time of the diagnostic procedure there were no transmission trouble codes stored in the computer memory; we gave a final test drive after the update and noted the shifting problem was still present and more drive time would be needed to reveal whether the computer update would relieve the symptoms. The customer was advised that more evaluation would be needed if the problem continued, should they choose to purchase this car.5. Community Automotive only inspected the car and updated the transmission software. Neither action would cause any damage to a transmission.6. In a phone discussion with the owner, the customer volunteered that the Community Automotive staff member had told him that updating the computer had a 70% chance of fixing the shifting problem. Logically, this also communicates that it’s a 30% chance that the problem would still be present. Since the final test drive revealed a continued shifting problem, the customer left the shop knowing the transmission was not performing optimally. Our job was to share information, which we did both verbally and in written form. 7. The “well-known 2002 [redacted] transmission problem” that the customer writes about did not appear to be an obvious match. The known Toyota problem with this model commonly comes with 5 transmission error codes in the computer, this car presented 0 error codes on the day we inspected and updated the software. The symptom was harsh shifting between 2nd and 3rd on this car, whereas the documented problem with this model is harsh shifting between 1st and 2nd. The 2001-2003 [redacted] model transmission problems also include other symptoms that were not present such as jerking and hesitating. Also, there are many 2002 [redacted]s on the road that do not have this problem. Because of [redacted] eventual recall and extended warranty, some consumers feel any transmission issue must be “the well-know problem” but in reality the problem is defined very specifically and is not a one-size fits all scenario. The problem can also be one that’s symptoms come and go.We don’t like that this customer is experiencing so many feelings of distrust and betrayal, we wish we could help him see that we did set out to deceive him in any way. Any honorable mechanic can only diagnose based on the present symptoms at the time of the evaluation. On the day of our inspection there was: clean fluids, no transmission error codes, out-dated software and harsh shifting between 2nd and 3rd . Based on what was observable on that day would not make us leap to the conclusion that the car needed a new transmission and computer. It was prudent to urge the customer to give it some more drive time and then bring it back (if he purchased the car) if problems continued. We make it a point at Community Automotive to protect our customers from the tactics that sometimes give our industry a bad name; we don’t push people to make repairs in the absence of clear proof that the work is necessary. We would have violated that principle if we had tried to talk the customer into assuming that this problem was surely the transmission failure problem that is well-advertised, based solely on harsh shifting without any other symptoms. We purposefully avoid scare tactics or high pressure or distortion of facts to get customers to do unnecessary work or premature work on their vehicles. Also, we don’t tell a customer what is wrong with a vehicle before we even examine it (as the customer says another shop did).It grieves us to have such an impasse with a first-time customer. Community Automotive had no vested interest in whether or not the customer chose to buy this particular car from a third party. It is disturbing that the customer has such different recall of events (but we hope that is due to heightened emotions versus dishonest intent). We are clear on two pieces of successful communication: first the customer has a copy of the invoice documenting the harsh shifting between 2nd and 3rd, and second both the customer and employee agree that the “70% chance of correcting the problem” discussion took place. We feel bad for the customer that his newly purchased car is not turning out to be a positive experience. Community Automotive has a long history of quickly resolving any problems to our customers’ satisfaction. This is the first time in 20 years of business that we’ve been unable to find resolve and the first time a customer has filed a complaint with the Revdex.com. We propose turning both sides of complaint and all documentation concerning the work done for this vehicle over to the Revdex.com. The Revdex.com could have an independent automotive repair shop examine these and give a ruling. We are willing to abide by their objective third-party decision. It is our continued goal to give customers caring and excellent service.
Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:As you can see in the screen shot of a [redacted] conversation between my wife and I, we were clearly informed by Roger, the manager at Community Auto, that it was a Transmission Specialist who looked at our vehicle, not a computer diagnostics expert. We were also explicitly told by the Roger, the manager at Community Auto, that the Transmission Specialist had told him, "This is a good transmission." That is an exact quote.Refunding us $364 is a pitiful attempt to fix $6,000 in damages. I called Roger and asked him what he or his Transmission Specialist could do to remedy this and he said, "Sorry it didn't work out." He did not put me in touch with the owner and would not listen to anything I had to say other than to lie and deny having ever told us that his Transmission Specialist had said, "This is a good transmission." Roger even denied having ever told my wife and I that it was a Transmission Specialist that looked at the Transmission, but insisted he had told us it was a computer guy who looked at the transmission computer. That is a lie. Even if it were true, which it is not, how come the computer specialist failed to know or detect the well known issue of defective transmission computers in 2002 [redacted]s, which the other transmission shop was able to predict would be their diagnosis before they even looked at the car? Being informed of the $1,800 cost to replace the defective transmission computer also would have stopped us from purchasing this car.Roger, the manager at Community Auto, left us no other recourse but to post far and wide how Community Auto has caused us $6,000 in damages by misleading us. These "inflammatory" posts were nothing but factual regarding our experience with Community Auto. Without having made these posts, the owner would never have been informed, or ever tried to contact us, which he did, because of these posts. While we appreciate him taking the time to call us and speak with us, he ultimately refused to remedy the situation. He even insinuated that we knew there was something wrong with the transmission and chose to purchase it anyways.Why would we go through the process of paying a mechanic to inspect a vehicle to make sure it didn't have something catastrophically wrong with it, like needing a rebuilt transmission, if we would gamble our money and purchase a car we weren't positive was a good car anyways?Community Auto's incompetence and inability to detect such a major flaw as the need for rebuilding a transmission, failure to communicate accurately who they were having look at the car, and failing to communicate their belief that there was still something wrong with the transmission, led my wife and I to buy a $6,000 car which now needs $6,000 in repairs.Since Community Auto's owner and I have already tried to reconcile this over the phone, and he was unwilling to make any reasonable attempt to repair the $6,000 damages beyond refunding us $364 for the inspection, we are forced to bring him to small claims court. We are in the process of filling out the paperwork.
Regards,
[redacted]