Hy-Tech Roofing

The law firm of [redacted] , PLLC, through attorney [redacted] , has been retained as legal counsel on behalf of I-Honda Mazda regarding Ms [redacted] ’s claimTherefore, all future communications regarding Ms [redacted] ’s complaint, if any, should be directed to attorney [redacted] s attentionI-Honda Mazda is in receipt of the Revdex.com complaint filed by Ms [redacted] on October 18, I-Honda Mazda has been successfully operating in Mount Morris, Pennsylvania for over yearsIn order to maintain a successful car dealership throughout the years, I-has developed numerous policies and procedures to ensure satisfied customers and delivery of a quality productAfter conducting an investigation into the matters raised by Ms [redacted] in her complaint, I-Honda Mazda believes that it adhered to those policies in its dealings with Ms [redacted] and has taken all reasonable steps to ensure Ms [redacted] ’s satisfaction To address the specific allegations in Ms [redacted] complaint, I-has a policy to always deliver purchased vehicles in the designated piarea which is well lit and clear of any obstructionsThe purpose of this piarea is to allow customers, and the I-salesperson, the opportunity to inspect the vehicle and ensure it is in an acceptable conditionIn the present case, Ms [redacted] received the car at 7:p.mon August In August, a typical sunset would not occur until well after 8:pmThus, Ms [redacted] received the vehicle in I-79’s designated, well lit, piarea at a time when sufficient day light would have provided ample opportunity to point out defects in the vehicle, despite the wet weather conditionsAfter speaking with its salesperson who sold the vehicle, as well as others knowledgeable about the condition of the vehicle at or around the time of pick-up, I-strongly believes the Honda Fit Ms [redacted] purchased was in acceptable condition when it left the dealership on August 16, When Ms [redacted] brought the vehicle back a week later, she advised the salesperson on staff that she had run the vehicle through an automated car washUpon information and belief, Ms [redacted] also advised the Honda representative noted in her complaint that she ran the vehicle through a car washWhen the I-customer service representative advised Ms [redacted] that automated car washes have the potential to damage the clear coat finish on the exterior of the car, Ms [redacted] stated that she took the vehicle to a car wash but only sprayed the vehicle with a wandNonetheless, I-79, in an effort to satisfy its customer, agreed to pay for a third party to buff and wax the vehicleWhen Ms [redacted] came to pick up the vehicle, she appeared satisfied with its condition and, again, accepted the vehicle A few days after taking the vehicle, Ms [redacted] again contacted the dealership about the alleged scratches on the vehicleThis time, I-requested that Ms [redacted] take the vehicle to a reputable auto body repair shop in the area, Center Service Auto, located in Morgantown, West VirginiaWhen Ms [redacted] took the vehicle to [redacted] Auto, she advised one of their employees that she had run the vehicle through an automated car washThis is consistent with what she told the I-customer service representative, but later redacted Itis I-79’s belief, based upon its investigation, that it delivered the vehicle in an acceptable condition on August 16, 2016, and that any allegeddamage to the vehicle was caused by an automated car wash, some other washing technique, or some other cause occurring after delivery and acceptance of the vehicle on August 16, Notwithstanding I-79’s belief that it was not responsible for any alleged damage to the vehicle, I-79offered to monetarily resolveMs [redacted] ’s claimMs [redacted] rejectedthe settlement offer In closing, I-asserts that the subject vehicle was delivered to Ms [redacted] on August 16, 2016, free from the damages Ms [redacted] alleges is now present In an effort to obtain Ms [redacted] ’s customer satisfaction, I-nonetheless had the vehicle buffed and waxed, at its expense, and offered Ms [redacted] monetary consideration Unfortunately, Ms [redacted] has rebuked I-79’s efforts to address and resolve her claims amicably If you have any questions regarding I-79’s response above, please do not hesitate to contact me [redacted] Esq [redacted] [redacted] ***PHONE: ###-###-####

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
Regards,
*** ***

To whom it may concern:Both Tim and myself discussed the situation with Mr*** and we asked him to bring the vehicle to us so we could get the correct parts and resolve the problemWe also offered to replace the fuel he used bringing it hereWe have not heard back from himWe will refund the
amount he requested. We will send him a check since we do not have his credit card information on file. Sincerely,John W***

The law firm of [redacted], PLLC, through attorney [redacted], has been retained as legal counsel on behalf of I-79 Honda Mazda regarding Ms. [redacted]’s claim. Therefore, all future communications regarding Ms. [redacted]’s complaint, if any, should be directed to attorney...

[redacted]s attention. I-79 Honda Mazda is in receipt of the Revdex.com complaint filed by Ms. [redacted] on October 18, 2016. I-79 Honda Mazda has been successfully operating in Mount Morris, Pennsylvania for over 16 years. In order to maintain a successful car dealership throughout the years, I-79 has developed numerous policies and procedures to ensure satisfied customers and delivery of a quality product. After conducting an investigation into the matters raised by Ms. [redacted] in her complaint, I-79 Honda Mazda believes that it adhered to those policies in its dealings with Ms. [redacted] and has taken all reasonable steps to ensure Ms. [redacted]’s satisfaction.                 To address the specific allegations in Ms. [redacted] complaint, I-79 has a policy to always deliver purchased vehicles in the designated pick-up area which is well lit and clear of any obstructions. The purpose of this pick-up area is to allow customers, and the I-79 salesperson, the opportunity to inspect the vehicle and ensure it is in an acceptable condition. In the present case, Ms. [redacted] received the car at 7:00 p.m. on August 18. In August, a typical sunset would not occur until well after 8:00 pm. Thus, Ms. [redacted] received the vehicle in I-79’s designated, well lit, pick-up area at a time when sufficient day light would have provided ample opportunity to point out defects in the vehicle, despite the wet weather conditions. After speaking with its salesperson who sold the vehicle, as well as others knowledgeable about the condition of the vehicle at or around the time of pick-up, I-79 strongly believes the Honda Fit Ms. [redacted] purchased was in acceptable condition when it left the dealership on August 16, 2016.                 When Ms. [redacted] brought the vehicle back a week later, she advised the salesperson on staff that she had run the vehicle through an automated car wash. Upon information and belief, Ms. [redacted] also advised the Honda representative noted in her complaint that she ran the vehicle through a car wash. When the I-79 customer service representative advised Ms. [redacted] that automated car washes have the potential to damage the clear coat finish on the exterior of the car, Ms. [redacted] stated that she took the vehicle to a car wash but only sprayed the vehicle with a wand. Nonetheless, I-79, in an effort to satisfy its customer, agreed to pay for a third party to buff and wax the vehicle. When Ms. [redacted] came to pick up the vehicle, she appeared satisfied with its condition and, again, accepted the vehicle.                 A few days after taking the vehicle, Ms. [redacted] again contacted the dealership about the alleged scratches on the vehicle. This time, I-79 requested that Ms. [redacted] take the vehicle to a reputable auto body repair shop in the area, Center Service Auto, located in Morgantown, West Virginia. When Ms. [redacted] took the vehicle to [redacted] Auto, she advised one of their employees that she had run the vehicle through an automated car wash. This is consistent with what she told the I-79 customer service representative, but later redacted.  Itis I-79’s belief, based upon its investigation, that it delivered the vehicle in an acceptable condition on August 16, 2016, and that any allegeddamage to the vehicle was caused by an automated car wash, some other washing technique, or some other cause occurring after delivery and acceptance of the vehicle on August 16, 2016. Notwithstanding I-79’s belief that it was not responsible for any alleged damage to the vehicle, I-79offered to monetarily resolveMs. [redacted]’s claim. Ms. [redacted] rejectedthe settlement offer.                 In closing, I-79 asserts that the subject vehicle was delivered to Ms. [redacted] on August 16, 2016, free from the damages Ms. [redacted] alleges is now present.  In an effort to obtain Ms. [redacted]’s customer satisfaction, I-79 nonetheless had the vehicle buffed and waxed, at its expense, and offered Ms. [redacted] monetary consideration.  Unfortunately, Ms. [redacted] has rebuked I-79’s efforts to address and resolve her claims amicably.                   If you have any questions regarding I-79’s response above, please do not hesitate to contact me.     [redacted] Esq. [redacted]PHONE: ###-###-####