Kern River Power Equipment Inc

KERN RIVER POWER EQUIPMENT INCNCHESTER AVEBAKERSFIELD, CA Reply to complaint submitted 5/24/17, ID 7/17/It really difficult to think how this situation could have been revised in retrospectTo have a customer come in with a damaged piece of equipment is something we deal with on an everyday basis. We do our best to be fair and honest with all customers, particularly in instances where the customer is expecting that the equipment will be repaired at no cost to them under the manufacturer's warranty. The dealership is only the “eyes and ears” of the company and cannot make any modifications to the warranty that the manufacturer offers the customer. The dealer cannot guarantee that the situation will meet the conditions that the manufacturer outlines in the warranty statement, nor should the dealer make promises that they are not authorized to make on behalf of the manufacturerOn the morning that the equipment was brought into the shop, the customer now says that he knows that the machine was not under warranty, but he spent a great deal of time arguing that he expected that it would be repaired under warranty because of the low hours of use that were on the unit regardless of the fact that the warranty conditions were no longer in effect. No matter how much explanation that was offered as to the limitations of the warranty situation, he continued to press his position to the point of being very abrasive. The dealership's position in this situation is to take the unit in as a REPAIR, not as WARRANTY, in order to begin the process of examination of the cause of the damage, and then based on the findings present the situation to the manufacturer for their consideration to see whether any accommodation would be possible. This option was offered, but as the customer says, he balked at paying the customary Repair Deposit of $as is prominently posted in the shop (and has been so posted and the practice followed for more than years.) His comment: “As far as the $deposit, I have never had to pay anyone labor prior to working on something.” is incorrect, as he did pay a deposit for the repair of another piece of equipment when he brought it in on 1/18/11! (See attached) During this lengthy back and forth about warranty or not warranty I expected many times that the customer would simply take the saw and walk out of the store. But he really wanted the saw repaired so the offer to contact the manufacturer on his behalf was his best hope to deal with the problemThe customer finally agreed to leave the equipment and required depositIt is not due to the entry of the new customer that the equipment was accepted, it was because the customer finally agreed to the terms of the repairIn instances of warranty repair, our usual practice is to take a deposit from the customer with the proviso that it will be refunded in the event that the repair is paid by the manufacturer under warranty. Many situations may not be warrantable and the customer is then responsible for the repair, and at a minimum the diagnostic of the repairIn this case, the customer agreed to the offer from the manufacturer to share the cost of the repair (labor) while they provided the recommended parts to complete the repairThe parts that were installed were part # CYLINDER WITH PISTON and part # GASKET. The labor cost, including a chain that was sharpened at the customer's request, came to $120.25. His $deposit was applied to the invoice and he paid $As was stated in the original reply to this complaint, the action both the dealership and the manufacturer would have wanted to take is the further analysis to determine not only the cause of the second failure of the saw, but also to inspect again the original piston and cylinder from the original failure to determine the cause of that failure. This is important to the manufacturer to improve the quality of their manufacturing processes whenever possibleIn light of this,the manufacture's representative has requested the return of the complete power head and all the parts that were returned to the customer in exchange for a new replacement power head of the same model as a POLICY ADJUSTMENT from the manufacturer. This offer is contingent on receipt of the complete damaged saw including the return to the dealership of ALL parts that were given to him when he left the storeIt would be expected that the customer will accept this move on the part of the manufacturer and contact the dealership to make arrangements to accept the new replacement and make the return of the damaged saw with all the parts as required by the manufacturerThere can be no better solution for the customer at this time and we trust that through your (Revdex.com) efforts this issue can be successfully resolved and closed,

The saw in question was purchased on 8/22/13. The Stihl Inc. Limited Warranty Policy states that "Limited warranty time period... for gasoline powered chain saws... One year from date of purchase when used for personal non-income producing household purposes."In addition, Stihl offers the option to...

double this warranty coverage "if the consumer purchases a 6-pack of Stihl HP Ultra 2-cycle engine oil..." The customer did purchase this option, thereby granting the saw a full 2 years Limited Warranty.The warranty is a statement by the manufacturer and the dealer is unable to modify or extend that warranty.On 3/27/17 the customer brought the saw in for repair expecting that the repair would be done under his warranty. Explanations were attempted as to the nature and the term of the warranty to no avial. The fact that this saw had used less than 1 gallon of fuel during the past 3 and a half years would not have extended the TERM of the warranty which ended by 8/22/15. The customer simply refused to accept that statement from the store owner. The only option that the owner could offer would be to take the unit, examine it and report to the manufacturer the findings and let them make their decision in the situation. The owner then offered to take the equipment in on that basis. It is customary, and posted in the store, that a REPAIR DEPOSIT is to be paid at the time equipment is left for repair and the deposit was requested. At that point the customer was ready to leave the store, telling the owner that she was refusing to help him. She pointed out that she was trying to help him but that this was the only way that he would be able to get any determination of the cause of the problem with his saw and determine how any repairs could be handled. As the saw was clearly out of the warranty period, as the customer states in his complaint, a normal warranty cannot be submitted by the dealer. In addition, for a piece of equipment to be used so infrequently, it is common to find that fuel related problems due to old/stale fuel must be addressed. Such issues are specifically excluded in the Warranty Exclusions stated within the Limited Warranty Policy. Under the best circumstance we anticipated that charges would have to be made to the customer at some point.Finally the customer agreed to pay the deposit ($35.00, which was ultimately applied to sharpening of the chain that he requested).The technician at KRPE examined the equipment thoroughly and made the recommended tests that would normally determine where/if there were defects in materials or work-manship. Finding nothing that he could demonstrate to Stihl that would cause the damage, the only other probable cause may have been related to the condition of the fuel. But Stihl offered to make a GOOD WILL Policy Adjustment for the customer, provided that the customer contribute to the repair by paying the labor cost. Stihl was no longer obligated under the term of warranty.The repair was made using the new parts as directed and provided by Stihl. All tests after the repair showed that the unit was properly repaired and would be again serviceable as per factory specification. The saw was returned to the customer on 4/27/17 with the admonition that he make sure that he was using the proper octane fuel in the unit.On 5/9/17 the saw was again brought back to store, with the same catastrophic damage to the piston and cylinder. In speaking to the customer about the damage the technician noted to the customer that he found some evidence of water in the fuel that had been removed from the saw. His intent when he spoke of the water in the fuel was primarily to advise the customer that he might have water in whatever fuel supply/tank that he has been using and for him to check his supply containers with this in mind. The unfortunate part of this situation is not just that the engine again failed, but that the opportunity to determine WHY it failed, and to possibly explain the first failure is that the customer in his anger falsely accused the KRPE technician of deliberately putting the water in the fuel!!!When he made that statement the technician felt that the customer no longer trusted us and with such a "break of trust" he refused to continue to work on his equipment. With this, the saw was returned to the customer and he left the store,Under other circumstances that would normally have occurred in such a repeat of damage is both our technician and definitely also the Stihl technical staff would have wanted to do extensive additional study of the saw. Now, with the customer leaving in his anger neither we, nor Stihl can know who or what is at fault to cause the failure.At this point it is thought that the customer may have been using fuel that has been stored at this cabin well past the viable shelf life. then, when the saw was repaired, if he continued to use fuel from the same source, the result was predictable the same. As to the DESIRED SETTLEMENT requested by the customer of "repair" and "stand behind their product", Kern River Power Equipment has always stood behind their repairs, as does Stihl Inc. stand behind their product. But the "break in trust" that was initiated by the customer's remarks about the technician putting water in his fuel, and unless the customer is willing to return the saw to our facility for further examination neither option will happen. Both KRPE and Stihl would have liked to have had the opportunity to make the determination of the cause of failure to have put this situation to rest. It will be up to the customer to decide what he wants done.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID 12174610, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.