The customer's statement contains several factual errors The claim for damage is that the car was returned to the customer having been "overfilled" with oil Additional facts not noted by the customer: 1) Upon completion of the service the dip stick oil level was shown to the customer and the customer acknowledge that the oil level was "full" and documented this fact by initialing the invoice where it indicates that they "verified" the proper oil level 2) The customer drove nearly miles over days prior to the damaging event occurring 3) The customer added a quart of oil to his engine and did not disclose this fact until my managers' second visit to inspect the damaged vehicle 4) My manager drained quarts of oil from the car that normally holds approxquarts of oil 5) We took an oil sample to be sent to a lab for analysis Oil companies put "markers" in their products so that they can determine if the oil is theirs or if it has been contaminated with other product 6) The customer, after observing the steps that we were taking to investigate his claim, then confessed his deception The Jiffy Lube position is that there is no evidence to support the customers claim In fact there is evidence of deception and if the customer persists I will call and notify the police that an attempted fraud is being perpetrated against me Lastly, if the customers claim of overfilling the oil level is true then the damage would have manifest itself almost immediately, not some miles or days later
The customer's statement contains several factual errors. The claim for damage is that the car was returned to the customer having been "overfilled" with oil. Additional facts not noted by the customer: 1) Upon completion of the service the dip stick oil level was shown to the customer...
and the customer acknowledge that the oil level was "full" and documented this fact by initialing the invoice where it indicates that they "verified" the proper oil level. 2) The customer drove nearly 800 miles over 10 days prior to the damaging event occurring. 3) The customer added a quart of oil to his engine and did not disclose this fact until my managers' second visit to inspect the damaged vehicle. 4) My manager drained 3.5 quarts of oil from the car that normally holds approx. 5 quarts of oil. 5) We took an oil sample to be sent to a lab for analysis. Oil companies put "markers" in their products so that they can determine if the oil is theirs or if it has been contaminated with other product. 6) The customer, after observing the steps that we were taking to investigate his claim, then confessed his deception.
The Jiffy Lube position is that there is no evidence to support the customers claim. In fact there is evidence of deception and if the customer persists I will call and notify the police that an attempted fraud is being perpetrated against me. Lastly, if the customers claim of overfilling the oil level is true then the damage would have manifest itself almost immediately, not some 800 miles or 10 days later.
The customer's statement contains several factual errors The claim for damage is that the car was returned to the customer having been "overfilled" with oil Additional facts not noted by the customer: 1) Upon completion of the service the dip stick oil level was shown to the customer and the customer acknowledge that the oil level was "full" and documented this fact by initialing the invoice where it indicates that they "verified" the proper oil level 2) The customer drove nearly miles over days prior to the damaging event occurring 3) The customer added a quart of oil to his engine and did not disclose this fact until my managers' second visit to inspect the damaged vehicle 4) My manager drained quarts of oil from the car that normally holds approxquarts of oil 5) We took an oil sample to be sent to a lab for analysis Oil companies put "markers" in their products so that they can determine if the oil is theirs or if it has been contaminated with other product 6) The customer, after observing the steps that we were taking to investigate his claim, then confessed his deception The Jiffy Lube position is that there is no evidence to support the customers claim In fact there is evidence of deception and if the customer persists I will call and notify the police that an attempted fraud is being perpetrated against me Lastly, if the customers claim of overfilling the oil level is true then the damage would have manifest itself almost immediately, not some miles or days later
The customer's statement contains several factual errors. The claim for damage is that the car was returned to the customer having been "overfilled" with oil. Additional facts not noted by the customer: 1) Upon completion of the service the dip stick oil level was shown to the customer...
and the customer acknowledge that the oil level was "full" and documented this fact by initialing the invoice where it indicates that they "verified" the proper oil level. 2) The customer drove nearly 800 miles over 10 days prior to the damaging event occurring. 3) The customer added a quart of oil to his engine and did not disclose this fact until my managers' second visit to inspect the damaged vehicle. 4) My manager drained 3.5 quarts of oil from the car that normally holds approx. 5 quarts of oil. 5) We took an oil sample to be sent to a lab for analysis. Oil companies put "markers" in their products so that they can determine if the oil is theirs or if it has been contaminated with other product. 6) The customer, after observing the steps that we were taking to investigate his claim, then confessed his deception.
The Jiffy Lube position is that there is no evidence to support the customers claim. In fact there is evidence of deception and if the customer persists I will call and notify the police that an attempted fraud is being perpetrated against me. Lastly, if the customers claim of overfilling the oil level is true then the damage would have manifest itself almost immediately, not some 800 miles or 10 days later.