To
Whom It May Concern:Seibert’s
Towing acknowledges receipt of the complaint from Ms***, but wishes to
express that not all of her facts are complete or consistent with our
information. The vehicle in question was
towed on June 10, 2016. It was
subsequently released
days later on June 28, 2016. At the time of her accident, Ms*** had
the option of choosing any towing provider she desired. Seibert’s Towing was only called out because
she had no other provider, and we were requested to assist by the Richmond
Police.After
the vehicle was loaded onto our truck it could have been taken to any
destination Ms*** chose as long as the tow bill was paid at that
time. Since we were not requested to
deliver the vehicle to a specific destination, the vehicle was brought to our
property. It is our company policy not
to enter vehicles or alter them upon arriving at our property. We do not want our employees to enter a
customer’s vehicle that contains personal property and valuables. We do not wish to be accused of removing
anything from the vehicle or tampering with a customer’s property or personal
information. There is also a safety risk
to our employees entering accident vehicles since there is frequently broken
glass, blood or other biohazards in the car’s interior.I
should also add that the complaint lists damages to the vehicle of
approximately $2,000. According to NADA
guidelines, a *** *** *** similar to Ms*** would have a clean
retail value of $2,425. Since her
vehicle had been damaged in an accident, the cost of the repairs she is seeking
would most likely exceed the value of the entire vehicle. Given the condition of the vehicle as well as
the age, it is reasonable to assume that the vehicle would have been considered
a total loss.Ms
*** could have come to our property to secure her vehicle in the manner she
desired or requested that we roll up the windows for her. In the days it was here, we have no record
of her coming to our property or even calling about the status of her car. We do not believe any further auction is
required on our part
I
am responding to a complaint initiated by Mr*** *** regarding a vehicle
that was towed by our company. There is
some confusion as to Mr*** complaint in that he is not the owner of the
vehicle in question, and we are unclear as to his connection to this
vehicle. I
would, however, like to
respond to his complaint about this vehicle and clarify some of his
misconceptions.A
*** *** was towed at the direction of the Richmond Police Department on
October 24, as an abandoned vehicle.
This vehicle had been tagged by an RPD officer as abandoned on October
20th, and had remained in the public right of way for a minimum of
four days prior to being towed. Mr***
has implied that someone on our property had gone through this vehicle, removed
the gas cap and siphoned the tank.
Vehicles in our possession our kept in a secure facility under the
surveillance of our personnel and video monitoring. No one on our property siphoned the tank or
went through the vehicle. It is
significantly more likely that this occurred while the vehicle was sitting
abandoned on a public street for at least four days with two flat tires.Although
Mr*** was not allowed to pick up this vehicle on a Saturday, he was not
charged any additional fees due to the delay.
He was charged the same rate on Monday that he would have paid if he had
removed the vehicle on Saturday. He
stated that he looked at our website prior to coming to our facility. On that website, we detail the hours for our
facility and “strongly recommended that you call ahead if you wish to pick up
your vehicle outside of business hours.”
If Mr*** had simply phoned prior to coming out on Saturday, he could
have saved himself a wasted trip or we could have moved the vehicle to an area
that was more accessible. We have a
large facility and this vehicle was kept in a part of our property where we
place vehicles that tend to stay for a longer period of time. The additional security on this part of our
property is for the protection of these vehicles and the possessions they may
contain.Mr
*** also complained about the first credit card he submitted for payment being
rejected. After speaking with our credit
card processing company, it appears that card being “rejected” was an operator
error on the part of our dispatcher. The
transaction was approved and put on hold, but never processed. Most likely, the dispatcher removed the chip
card from the reader prior to it being fully processed. I apologize for any inconvenience this may
have caused. Finally,
Mr*** claimed that the front and rear license plates were ripped from the
bumpers. Since Mr*** did not bring
this to our attention prior to leaving the property, it is difficult to
investigate this part of his complaint. I
am able to see from our video system that there was a license plate on the rear
of the vehicle as it left the property.
This evidence damages the credibility of Mr*** statement. Since Mr*** has
not requested a specific action, it would appear that his complaint is simply
rooted in the fact that he was towed by the police department and was unhappy at
having to pay to recover the vehicle.
This vehicle was left abandoned on a city street with two flat tires for
at least four days. Since Seibert’s
Towing does not tow abandoned vehicles without specific direction from the
police department, the proper venue to contest this tow is through the City of
Richmond
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 6, 2014/04/02) */
[redacted]response has been scanned in and converted to text below (original version is available using the online complaint system).
We are writing concerning the complaint from Daniel [redacted] case#57275734. [redacted] our warranty manager...
has been working with Mr. [redacted] to resolve the problem with his Jayco travel trailer. He first brought the unit to the dealership on July 8, 2013. We discovered the window seal had failed then replaced the seal water tested and found the problem to be corrected.
The second time Mr. [redacted] brought the unit in was July 22, 2013. This time it was leaking while driving on the road when raining. At that time we resealed the corner moldings and replaced any damaged wood and all insulation. We felt confident that we had the problem resolved but obviously it was not. Since that time the manufacturer has discovered a problem with the joint seals on the metal covering the front of the trailer. Jayco is sending us all new metal with the correct seals and we will replace the front metal complete and any materials that may have been affected by the water intrusion under warranty.
When Mr. and Mrs. [redacted] brought their Jayco to Hilltop Trailer Sales on March 28, 2014 they met with [redacted] and [redacted] showed them the digital pictures of the repair done in July 2013. [redacted] also showed Mr. [redacted] other new Jayco's of the same model as his to see how the wood storage covers in the dinette area are two different colors from the factory and Hilltop did not stain the wood in an attempt to conceal any water damage. [redacted] also assured Mr. and Mrs. [redacted] that he would personally drive the unit in the rain after the repairs were completed to make certain there would be no further problems.
Hilltop Trailer Sales has been in business since 1951 with customer service being our top priority. We truly apologize for the problems Mr. and Mrs. [redacted] have had with their Jayco travel trailer and promise to resolve the issue.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 8, 2014/04/03) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
We're still left in a situation where we purchased a brand new product(camper) that was not in brand new condition. Our family has taken a loss by purchasing a used quality condition camper for the price of a new one. We did not receive what we paid for! With no compensation for receiving a product of used quality and damage I cannot be happy. Four trips to the shop for warranty issues, three vacations with a wet bed/seat cushion, and left with a less that new quality camper, I cannot accept just an apology.
I'd like Hilltop to check their records and realize July 8, 2013 invoice clearly states "Complaint: unit is leaking in the front end doorside while travel in the rain". Along with the second invoice stating that as well. All three time you were told exactly where and how the leak occurred. Hilltop made it sound like the second time was a different leak but the invoice show's the true record of the leak. I think the window leak was an assumption and an easy fix for them instead of listening to their customer.
I still feel a return with full refund or exchange is due. I even thought Hilltop might offer some sort of compensation but they have not done so. I'm still looking to resolve this issue.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 13, 2014/04/22) */
The unit purchased by Mr. [redacted] was a brand new trailer at the time of purchase and is still under its manufacture warranty. Unfortunately we have a leak that was very difficult to locate. After our initial repair attempts, Jayco (the manufacture) discovered that the factory seams on the front metal panels were incorrect. Jayco has sent us the complete metal with the correct seams, which we will replace, and then test two when raining. This will insure that Mr. [redacted] will have no further problems with this issue.
We also reached out to Mr. [redacted] via phone in response to the previous letter from the Revdex.com dated April 3rd to see what Hilltop Trailer Sales could do for him for his inconvenience. Mr. [redacted] was going to talk this over with his wife and get back to us, but we have not heard from him at this point. Hilltop Trailer Sales is doing everything possible to resolve this problem permanently, and at no charge to the customer.
Final Consumer Response /* (3000, 11, 2014/04/14) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
We're still left in a situation where we purchased a brand new product(camper) that was not in brand new condition. Our family has taken a loss by purchasing a used quality condition camper for the price of a new one. We did not receive what we paid for! With no compensation for receiving a product of used quality and damage I cannot be happy. Four trips to the shop for warranty issues, three vacations with a wet bed/seat cushion, and left with a less that new quality camper, I cannot accept just an apology.
I'd like Hilltop to check their records and realize July 8, 2013 invoice clearly states "Complaint: unit is leaking in the front end doorside while travel in the rain". Along with the second invoice stating that as well. All three time you were told exactly where and how the leak occurred. Hilltop made it sound like the second time was a different leak but the invoice show's the true record of the leak. I think the window leak was an assumption and an easy fix for them instead of listening to their customer.
I still feel a return with full refund or exchange is due. I even thought Hilltop might offer some sort of compensation but they have not done so. I'm still looking to resolve this issue.
I was very dissatisfied with the customer service. I tried to get a hold of the manager to have repairs done to my vehicle because of my oil filter being taken while my vehicle was in there possession. I know someone sabotaged my vehicle by taking my oil filter because it has to be unscrewed with an oil wrench because I used to work for a company that does oil changes. My engine is ruined and Seiberts needs to do the right thing and replaced which cost around $2500 or have the one that's in it rebuilt. I think the driver was the one that has it personally.!!!
To
Whom It May Concern:Seibert’s
Towing acknowledges receipt of the complaint from Ms***, but wishes to
express that not all of her facts are complete or consistent with our
information. The vehicle in question was
towed on June 10, 2016. It was
subsequently released
days later on June 28, 2016. At the time of her accident, Ms*** had
the option of choosing any towing provider she desired. Seibert’s Towing was only called out because
she had no other provider, and we were requested to assist by the Richmond
Police.After
the vehicle was loaded onto our truck it could have been taken to any
destination Ms*** chose as long as the tow bill was paid at that
time. Since we were not requested to
deliver the vehicle to a specific destination, the vehicle was brought to our
property. It is our company policy not
to enter vehicles or alter them upon arriving at our property. We do not want our employees to enter a
customer’s vehicle that contains personal property and valuables. We do not wish to be accused of removing
anything from the vehicle or tampering with a customer’s property or personal
information. There is also a safety risk
to our employees entering accident vehicles since there is frequently broken
glass, blood or other biohazards in the car’s interior.I
should also add that the complaint lists damages to the vehicle of
approximately $2,000. According to NADA
guidelines, a *** *** *** similar to Ms*** would have a clean
retail value of $2,425. Since her
vehicle had been damaged in an accident, the cost of the repairs she is seeking
would most likely exceed the value of the entire vehicle. Given the condition of the vehicle as well as
the age, it is reasonable to assume that the vehicle would have been considered
a total loss.Ms
*** could have come to our property to secure her vehicle in the manner she
desired or requested that we roll up the windows for her. In the days it was here, we have no record
of her coming to our property or even calling about the status of her car. We do not believe any further auction is
required on our part
I
am responding to a complaint initiated by Mr*** *** regarding a vehicle
that was towed by our company. There is
some confusion as to Mr*** complaint in that he is not the owner of the
vehicle in question, and we are unclear as to his connection to this
vehicle. I
would, however, like to
respond to his complaint about this vehicle and clarify some of his
misconceptions.A
*** *** was towed at the direction of the Richmond Police Department on
October 24, as an abandoned vehicle.
This vehicle had been tagged by an RPD officer as abandoned on October
20th, and had remained in the public right of way for a minimum of
four days prior to being towed. Mr***
has implied that someone on our property had gone through this vehicle, removed
the gas cap and siphoned the tank.
Vehicles in our possession our kept in a secure facility under the
surveillance of our personnel and video monitoring. No one on our property siphoned the tank or
went through the vehicle. It is
significantly more likely that this occurred while the vehicle was sitting
abandoned on a public street for at least four days with two flat tires.Although
Mr*** was not allowed to pick up this vehicle on a Saturday, he was not
charged any additional fees due to the delay.
He was charged the same rate on Monday that he would have paid if he had
removed the vehicle on Saturday. He
stated that he looked at our website prior to coming to our facility. On that website, we detail the hours for our
facility and “strongly recommended that you call ahead if you wish to pick up
your vehicle outside of business hours.”
If Mr*** had simply phoned prior to coming out on Saturday, he could
have saved himself a wasted trip or we could have moved the vehicle to an area
that was more accessible. We have a
large facility and this vehicle was kept in a part of our property where we
place vehicles that tend to stay for a longer period of time. The additional security on this part of our
property is for the protection of these vehicles and the possessions they may
contain.Mr
*** also complained about the first credit card he submitted for payment being
rejected. After speaking with our credit
card processing company, it appears that card being “rejected” was an operator
error on the part of our dispatcher. The
transaction was approved and put on hold, but never processed. Most likely, the dispatcher removed the chip
card from the reader prior to it being fully processed. I apologize for any inconvenience this may
have caused. Finally,
Mr*** claimed that the front and rear license plates were ripped from the
bumpers. Since Mr*** did not bring
this to our attention prior to leaving the property, it is difficult to
investigate this part of his complaint. I
am able to see from our video system that there was a license plate on the rear
of the vehicle as it left the property.
This evidence damages the credibility of Mr*** statement. Since Mr*** has
not requested a specific action, it would appear that his complaint is simply
rooted in the fact that he was towed by the police department and was unhappy at
having to pay to recover the vehicle.
This vehicle was left abandoned on a city street with two flat tires for
at least four days. Since Seibert’s
Towing does not tow abandoned vehicles without specific direction from the
police department, the proper venue to contest this tow is through the City of
Richmond
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 6, 2014/04/02) */
[redacted]response has been scanned in and converted to text below (original version is available using the online complaint system).
We are writing concerning the complaint from Daniel [redacted] case#57275734. [redacted] our warranty manager...
has been working with Mr. [redacted] to resolve the problem with his Jayco travel trailer. He first brought the unit to the dealership on July 8, 2013. We discovered the window seal had failed then replaced the seal water tested and found the problem to be corrected.
The second time Mr. [redacted] brought the unit in was July 22, 2013. This time it was leaking while driving on the road when raining. At that time we resealed the corner moldings and replaced any damaged wood and all insulation. We felt confident that we had the problem resolved but obviously it was not. Since that time the manufacturer has discovered a problem with the joint seals on the metal covering the front of the trailer. Jayco is sending us all new metal with the correct seals and we will replace the front metal complete and any materials that may have been affected by the water intrusion under warranty.
When Mr. and Mrs. [redacted] brought their Jayco to Hilltop Trailer Sales on March 28, 2014 they met with [redacted] and [redacted] showed them the digital pictures of the repair done in July 2013. [redacted] also showed Mr. [redacted] other new Jayco's of the same model as his to see how the wood storage covers in the dinette area are two different colors from the factory and Hilltop did not stain the wood in an attempt to conceal any water damage. [redacted] also assured Mr. and Mrs. [redacted] that he would personally drive the unit in the rain after the repairs were completed to make certain there would be no further problems.
Hilltop Trailer Sales has been in business since 1951 with customer service being our top priority. We truly apologize for the problems Mr. and Mrs. [redacted] have had with their Jayco travel trailer and promise to resolve the issue.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 8, 2014/04/03) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
We're still left in a situation where we purchased a brand new product(camper) that was not in brand new condition. Our family has taken a loss by purchasing a used quality condition camper for the price of a new one. We did not receive what we paid for! With no compensation for receiving a product of used quality and damage I cannot be happy. Four trips to the shop for warranty issues, three vacations with a wet bed/seat cushion, and left with a less that new quality camper, I cannot accept just an apology.
I'd like Hilltop to check their records and realize July 8, 2013 invoice clearly states "Complaint: unit is leaking in the front end doorside while travel in the rain". Along with the second invoice stating that as well. All three time you were told exactly where and how the leak occurred. Hilltop made it sound like the second time was a different leak but the invoice show's the true record of the leak. I think the window leak was an assumption and an easy fix for them instead of listening to their customer.
I still feel a return with full refund or exchange is due. I even thought Hilltop might offer some sort of compensation but they have not done so. I'm still looking to resolve this issue.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 13, 2014/04/22) */
The unit purchased by Mr. [redacted] was a brand new trailer at the time of purchase and is still under its manufacture warranty. Unfortunately we have a leak that was very difficult to locate. After our initial repair attempts, Jayco (the manufacture) discovered that the factory seams on the front metal panels were incorrect. Jayco has sent us the complete metal with the correct seams, which we will replace, and then test two when raining. This will insure that Mr. [redacted] will have no further problems with this issue.
We also reached out to Mr. [redacted] via phone in response to the previous letter from the Revdex.com dated April 3rd to see what Hilltop Trailer Sales could do for him for his inconvenience. Mr. [redacted] was going to talk this over with his wife and get back to us, but we have not heard from him at this point. Hilltop Trailer Sales is doing everything possible to resolve this problem permanently, and at no charge to the customer.
Final Consumer Response /* (3000, 11, 2014/04/14) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
We're still left in a situation where we purchased a brand new product(camper) that was not in brand new condition. Our family has taken a loss by purchasing a used quality condition camper for the price of a new one. We did not receive what we paid for! With no compensation for receiving a product of used quality and damage I cannot be happy. Four trips to the shop for warranty issues, three vacations with a wet bed/seat cushion, and left with a less that new quality camper, I cannot accept just an apology.
I'd like Hilltop to check their records and realize July 8, 2013 invoice clearly states "Complaint: unit is leaking in the front end doorside while travel in the rain". Along with the second invoice stating that as well. All three time you were told exactly where and how the leak occurred. Hilltop made it sound like the second time was a different leak but the invoice show's the true record of the leak. I think the window leak was an assumption and an easy fix for them instead of listening to their customer.
I still feel a return with full refund or exchange is due. I even thought Hilltop might offer some sort of compensation but they have not done so. I'm still looking to resolve this issue.
I was very dissatisfied with the customer service. I tried to get a hold of the manager to have repairs done to my vehicle because of my oil filter being taken while my vehicle was in there possession. I know someone sabotaged my vehicle by taking my oil filter because it has to be unscrewed with an oil wrench because I used to work for a company that does oil changes. My engine is ruined and Seiberts needs to do the right thing and replaced which cost around $2500 or have the one that's in it rebuilt. I think the driver was the one that has it personally.!!!