We contacted Mr. [redacted] upon receipt of his letter and asked him to bring the vehicle back so we could evaluate it. The vehicle was recently state inspected and was running and driving well while here. Mr. [redacted] returned the vehicle to us on Friday, August 1st and it has been discovered an...
oil line seal within the turbo was leaking causing his mechanical issues. The repair part has been ordered and we have been in direct contact with Mr. [redacted] regarding the problem and solution. Mr. [redacted] seems satisfied with the resolution. We wish he had contacted us directly to advise of any problems first as we would have been more than happy to help him with this.
In answer to your questions:
1. My husband was the one who spoke to the salesperson directly
2. My name [redacted] is on ALL CORRESPONDENCE
Thanks
[redacted]
On May 19th, Mr. [redacted] purchased a used 1999 Chevrolet 2500 pickup engine, that was special ordered from a third party supplier. This engine came with a 90 day parts warranty. Mr. [redacted] picked up the engine on May 22nd. On May 29th, Mr. [redacted] brought the vehicle to our...
facility claiming it had low oil pressure. We had our mechanic check the engine with a mechanical gauge and according to [redacted] specifications the oil pressure was within specifications for that engine. We advised Mr. [redacted] at that time that if he wanted us to get him another engine he would need to return the engine within the 90 day warranty period. Mr. [redacted] stated the engine was running well, made no noise, and did not smoke and that he would continue to drive the vehicle. On September 25th (32 days beyond his 90 day warranty), Mr. [redacted] contacted us and said the vehicle quit running and that he already had started to remove the engine and was going to have the engine rebuilt. Per Mr. [redacted], he never had his vehicle professionally diagnosed for the engine failure. We at that time offered Mr. [redacted] a discount on a replacement engine in an effort to help him. Please see attached signed documentation with the warranty details.
I have reviewed the response offer made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear.
I informed them after a week of me installing the engine that it was bad. They had me come by there so their mechanic could look at it and he also agreed with me that it had bad oil pressure. I went back within 10 day of my warranty running out they said that there was nothing they could do because they already had paid the third party the money.
Regards,
[redacted]
I just received the response from [redacted] saying that she called me and I didn't talk to her which is correct as I had told the Revdex.com in response to a question back on 04/14/2014 when I stated that it was my husband who spoke to the salesperson directly and that my name is on ALL CORRESPONDENCE. So yes [redacted] I had my husband call you back as he was the one involved from the get go and I am the one handling the correspondence on his behalf. This is no different than [redacted] Aznavorian calling my husband back and not you as he is more versed. So right now you are the one who is simply doing the correspondence for another which is no different nor is it relevant to any of the complaint.
As I have always maintained I am the one doing the responses with my husband right over my shoulder to insure correctness in everything that has occurred. I originally sent the complaint well after the fact as the car (which by the way is still not running) as [redacted] who lied to us about the water damage being "FRESH WATER" when in fact it was "SALT WATER" told us to get back to him and East Coast Auto would help with some of the repair costs, and that has taken several months. It had nothing to do with a deal on some seats and definitely has nothing to do with East Coast Auto's joke of a compromise to rectify [redacted]s VERY EXPENSIVE LIE with purchasing back some parts and the wrecked car as [redacted] Aznavorian stated at a " reasonable market SALVAGE PRICE" So [redacted] or should it be [redacted] now that my husband speaks to is East Coast Auto going to pay to have the parts and the wrecked car shipped back? Salvage pricing? Why on earth would my husband Larry take up this menial offer. . . he will be selling the wrecked car and parts at 'FAIR MARKET VALUE" not 'SALVAGE"
[redacted] you state in your response that my husband seemed pleased with the resolution of East Coast Auto NOT COMING THROUGH WITH ANY OFFER TO OFFSET SOME OF THE HUGE COST TO REPAIR A SALT WATER DAMAGED CAR but would ascertain buying back at salvage pricing parts. . . [redacted] response to this line was far different than your interpretation. [redacted] one should not assume pleasure coming from an individual who is not confrontational nor one to show any type of dissatisfaction through voice tone.
This will be the last response as it is clear that East Coast Auto's resolve is not fair and we will not be taking [redacted] up on his salvage offer. Due to the fact the initial agreement of [redacted] coming through with some monies to help offset the expensive repairs due to his lie are gone as he no longer works at East Coast Auto and [redacted] and [redacted]'s offer does not compensate for the lie (think about it, we had to buy all these parts, seats and a wrecked car because of the extensive SALT WATER DAMAGE and we paid $19,900 for what we were told was FRESH WATER DAMAGE, that would have come with a cost to repair but not ANYTHING COMPARED TO WHAT IT HAS BECAUSE OF THE SALT CORROSION). I do realize that East Coast Auto was put in a situation that they didn't ask for but having said that, [redacted] was employed by them and my husband had absolutely no reason to lie about what [redacted] had offered. But enough, as now it is simply a stale mate, mute issue as both [redacted] and [redacted] believe they have done their due diligence.
[redacted]
We contacted Mr. [redacted] upon receipt of his letter and asked him to bring the vehicle back so we could evaluate it. The vehicle was recently state inspected and was running and driving well while here. Mr. [redacted] returned the vehicle to us on Friday, August 1st and it has been discovered an...
oil line seal within the turbo was leaking causing his mechanical issues. The repair part has been ordered and we have been in direct contact with Mr. [redacted] regarding the problem and solution. Mr. [redacted] seems satisfied with the resolution. We wish he had contacted us directly to advise of any problems first as we would have been more than happy to help him with this.
In answer to your questions:
1. My husband was the one who spoke to the salesperson directly
2. My name [redacted] is on ALL CORRESPONDENCE
Thanks
[redacted]
On May 19th, Mr. [redacted] purchased a used 1999 Chevrolet 2500 pickup engine, that was special ordered from a third party supplier. This engine came with a 90 day parts warranty. Mr. [redacted] picked up the engine on May 22nd. On May 29th, Mr. [redacted] brought the vehicle to our...
facility claiming it had low oil pressure. We had our mechanic check the engine with a mechanical gauge and according to [redacted] specifications the oil pressure was within specifications for that engine. We advised Mr. [redacted] at that time that if he wanted us to get him another engine he would need to return the engine within the 90 day warranty period. Mr. [redacted] stated the engine was running well, made no noise, and did not smoke and that he would continue to drive the vehicle. On September 25th (32 days beyond his 90 day warranty), Mr. [redacted] contacted us and said the vehicle quit running and that he already had started to remove the engine and was going to have the engine rebuilt. Per Mr. [redacted], he never had his vehicle professionally diagnosed for the engine failure. We at that time offered Mr. [redacted] a discount on a replacement engine in an effort to help him. Please see attached signed documentation with the warranty details.
I have reviewed the response offer made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear.
I informed them after a week of me installing the engine that it was bad. They had me come by there so their mechanic could look at it and he also agreed with me that it had bad oil pressure. I went back within 10 day of my warranty running out they said that there was nothing they could do because they already had paid the third party the money.
Regards,
[redacted]
I just received the response from [redacted] saying that she called me and I didn't talk to her which is correct as I had told the Revdex.com in response to a question back on 04/14/2014 when I stated that it was my husband who spoke to the salesperson directly and that my name is on ALL CORRESPONDENCE. So yes [redacted] I had my husband call you back as he was the one involved from the get go and I am the one handling the correspondence on his behalf. This is no different than [redacted] Aznavorian calling my husband back and not you as he is more versed. So right now you are the one who is simply doing the correspondence for another which is no different nor is it relevant to any of the complaint.
As I have always maintained I am the one doing the responses with my husband right over my shoulder to insure correctness in everything that has occurred. I originally sent the complaint well after the fact as the car (which by the way is still not running) as [redacted] who lied to us about the water damage being "FRESH WATER" when in fact it was "SALT WATER" told us to get back to him and East Coast Auto would help with some of the repair costs, and that has taken several months. It had nothing to do with a deal on some seats and definitely has nothing to do with East Coast Auto's joke of a compromise to rectify [redacted]s VERY EXPENSIVE LIE with purchasing back some parts and the wrecked car as [redacted] Aznavorian stated at a " reasonable market SALVAGE PRICE" So [redacted] or should it be [redacted] now that my husband speaks to is East Coast Auto going to pay to have the parts and the wrecked car shipped back? Salvage pricing? Why on earth would my husband Larry take up this menial offer. . . he will be selling the wrecked car and parts at 'FAIR MARKET VALUE" not 'SALVAGE"
[redacted] you state in your response that my husband seemed pleased with the resolution of East Coast Auto NOT COMING THROUGH WITH ANY OFFER TO OFFSET SOME OF THE HUGE COST TO REPAIR A SALT WATER DAMAGED CAR but would ascertain buying back at salvage pricing parts. . . [redacted] response to this line was far different than your interpretation. [redacted] one should not assume pleasure coming from an individual who is not confrontational nor one to show any type of dissatisfaction through voice tone.
This will be the last response as it is clear that East Coast Auto's resolve is not fair and we will not be taking [redacted] up on his salvage offer. Due to the fact the initial agreement of [redacted] coming through with some monies to help offset the expensive repairs due to his lie are gone as he no longer works at East Coast Auto and [redacted] and [redacted]'s offer does not compensate for the lie (think about it, we had to buy all these parts, seats and a wrecked car because of the extensive SALT WATER DAMAGE and we paid $19,900 for what we were told was FRESH WATER DAMAGE, that would have come with a cost to repair but not ANYTHING COMPARED TO WHAT IT HAS BECAUSE OF THE SALT CORROSION). I do realize that East Coast Auto was put in a situation that they didn't ask for but having said that, [redacted] was employed by them and my husband had absolutely no reason to lie about what [redacted] had offered. But enough, as now it is simply a stale mate, mute issue as both [redacted] and [redacted] believe they have done their due diligence.
[redacted]