Harry's Auto Repair, Inc. Reviews (2)
I am rejecting this response because:The complaint was not for whether they charged me or not for the service, the complaint is for the unethical way of trying to charge me for unnecessary repairs. Incorrect diagnose and then trying to get money from the customer seems to be their practice. When [redacted] was proven wrong with his diagnosis, he got mad and told me that he is not even going to give me a certificate. I had to spend more time and money to go get the certificate from another shop. Before I let him start the job, I had specifically told him that this needs to be done today before 4:30 so that I can go back to DMV and complete the registration process. He knew I was pressed for time and he wanted to score more money from me. I have a proof of their report where they signed and stamped for insurance company that all the tests were good and within specifications. When asked, he said it is a total different process for DMV. How could this be possible, so for insurance company, he said brakes are OK, but found moisture in brake fluid while doing it for DMV? Following are the incorrect diagnosis he used to charge me for the money:1. Moisture in brake fluid. - This test failed on the bottle he was going to use to flush the brake fluid with. (Charges would have been $130)2. Emergency brake is not working. - Emergency brake was working, but it was on the lower end of it. Might have needed one or two turns to make it where is engages when peddle pushed half way. It was engaging at 3/4 of the peddle push. In the same context, [redacted]'s shop has given me a certificate for insurance showing that the brakes were in working conditions. (Charges would have been $130)3. One of the Light bulbs are burnt. - took my car to different shop, and they didn't find any burnt bulb. (Charges would have been $28)These charges were going to be added on top of the fee that they were going to charge to give me the certificate ($130). I had also asked him to show me where DMV wants you to check the moisture in the brake fluid, or emergency brake engages at 3/4 the way is a failure. He had told me that he doesn't have to do business with me and go ahead and spend more time somewhere else (San Ramon). It was another way of saying that we are proven wrong so we are going to have you to go to different shop, spend more time, more money. Multiple shops had tested the brake fluid and never found any moisture as told by [redacted]. He has been charging this to different people as well. I believe, this is not the only one incident, this has been done for other car owners where they paid unnecessary charges with these incorrect diagnosis.I want their records to be check for these incorrect diagnosis and hold them responsible. The way I had to take another day off and get the certificates for registration, I want to be compensated, as they inconvenient me, just because he was proven wrong. Just think about the scenario, if I would have questioned him, he would have charged all these charges and the car would have been in the same state before bringing to this shop.Sincerely,
I was contacted by Mr. [redacted] on 17 August 2017. His vehicle, a 2005 Nissan Pathfinder, was at a local body shop. The body shop and I made arrangements and they delivered Mr. Singh's vehicle to [redacted]'s Auto Repair. Mr. [redacted] emailed an inspection form that his insurance agency required in...
order to insure his vehicle after it was labeled a total loss (salvage title) vehicle. During this phone conversation I informed Mr. [redacted] that a salvage title vehicle will require an official brake and lamp inspection and certification before the vehicle can legally be driven in California and asked if he would like us to perform this inspection as well. I told him that the inspection he was asking for was not sufficient for re-certifying a salvage title. He declined the service and told me he would not need the state mandated brake and lamp inspection. The vehicle was delivered around 3:00pm on the 17th. We performed the inspection Mr. [redacted] requested. This was a simple inspection and checklist and did not require any official measurements or certifications. At the time of this inspection the only problem we encountered was that his windshield wipers were separating and required replacement. We noted this in the appropriate box on the provided form. Mr. [redacted] returned on 25 August 2017 around 9:00am to discuss the negative mark made for the windshield wipers on the 17th. He agreed after some discussion to replace the disintegrating wiper blades and we filled out another inspection form with all passing marks. Later the same day, 25 August 2017, Mr. [redacted] returned and requested the official brake and lamp inspection. We charge $120 for this service. $110 for the inspection and $5 for each state certificate. Mr. [redacted] became combative and argumentative regarding the brake and lamp inspection fee. His position was that we should use the previous inspection form from 8 days prior and apply the findings to the brake and lamp inspection and issue his certifications at no additional charge. We explained to Mr. [redacted] that the brake and lamp inspection was very different from the inspection he requested on the 17th and that it was more invasive and would require measurements and a state licensed brake and lamp adjuster. After some discussion, we agreed to lower the inspection price to $100 (90 for inspection and $5 for each state certificate). Our state certified brake and lamp adjuster found the vehicle's parking brake out of adjustment (the pedal went to the floor and the parking brake would not hold the vehicle), he found a marker light bulb out, and the vehicle's brake fluid failed a moisture content test. Mr. [redacted] became angry and combative when we told him he would need some very minor services. We took the gentleman to the vehicle and had the technician demonstrate the moisture test. The fluid in Mr. Singh's vehicle measured between 3-4% moisture on our moisture tester. We established a control by performing the test in front of Mr. [redacted] with fresh brake fluid. This test showed less than 1% moisture on the same tool with the fresh brake fluid. Mr. [redacted] then argued the validity of our test procedure and tool. He argued that the burned out bulb should have been caught in the initial inspection 8 days prior. He also did not want to pay for the parking brake adjustment. Mr. [redacted] argued pricing and validity with every problem we found. Mr. [redacted] again became angered and combative and attempted to negotiate for better pricing and/or some kind of work-around. At this point, it became clear that Mr. [redacted] and [redacted]'s Auto Repair were not going to come to any agreeable terms on this matter. As Mr. [redacted] stated in his complaint, a lot of time had now been wasted. We informed the customer that we were no longer willing to service him or his vehicle and that he was welcome to have the service performed elsewhere and that we were not going to charge him for our time. Mr. [redacted] parted from [redacted]'s Auto Repair on the 25th having paid nothing for services rendered or shop time. Though we had several technicians involved with his service and several other employee's time invested, we did not charge Mr. [redacted] for the services or time described above. To date, Mr. [redacted] has paid [redacted]'s Auto Repair $95 for the insurance inspection on 17 August 2017 and $30.17 for windshield wipers on 25 August 2017. These services total $125.17. As stated in his complaint, Mr. [redacted] requested and agreed to, signed for, and paid for both of these services. The amounts disputed in his complaint ($130 and $418) are a mystery since we did not charge him for his brake and lamp inspection nor for any recommended repairs thereafter. As to what another shop found in their inspection is between Mr. [redacted] and that shop, the professional technicians at [redacted]'s Auto Repair perform their services to the best of their ability. Sometimes we find issues, especially as regards state mandated inspections. We understand that our findings are not always what the customer wants to hear as they sometimes lead to addition services and repairs. We are here to reach mutual satisfaction between the state's needs for clean air and safe vehicles and the consumers need for prompt and accurate service. The State of California charges us as a facility to perform these functions with a high level of accuracy and to predefined standards and guidelines. I wish Mr. [redacted] and [redacted]'s Auto Repair could have reached a mutually beneficial solution in the matter at hand. As for reaching a successful resolution, since we did not charge Mr. [redacted] for the services he is disputing, I am not sure what he expects at this point. It is our position that this matter was resolved when we waived the gentleman's fees and parted company. Thank you for your time and consideration, Justin Kramasz [redacted]'s Auto Repair [redacted]
Sent on: 9/5/2017 10:36:35 AM
Harry's Auto Repair, Inc. Rating
Add contact information for Harry's Auto Repair, Inc.