KMO Auto Repair

July 1, 2014To whom it may concern;This letter is in response to the complaint about our service to ***'s Auto Repair***'s Auto Repair called us to program the *** key Immobilizer Module (***) for one of their customersWe are a sublet for ***'s Auto Repair and many
other auto repairsWhenever an auto shop called us to program a fob key, they are given two options:We could perform a diagnostic on whatever issue they have, and guarantee our laborWe could go by their diagnostic, but our labor is not guarantee.If they decide to go with their "own" diagnostic, than we do only what they asked us to do, and do not guarantee that the issue will be solved because they might do a mis-diagnostic-If we do the diagnostic for them, then our labor is guaranteein this case ***'s auto repair decided to go with their diagnostic, therefore, we just went and do what they asked us to do, a programming of a *** Key ImmobilizerWhen we got there the car wasn't staring, after we did the programming the car was starting, any additional issues they had with the car was not part of the programmingThey also asked us to program one of their key fobs which we did programmed it as a favor to them.According to the owner of the car, she has a few issues with her key fob, which we have nothing to do with, the programming could in no way have created the issues the owner of the car is referring toObviously, she might have had issues to begin with and ***'s Auto Repair came with a diagnostic saying that the key fob needed to be program, in this case, I told the owner that we are not responsible for this, because we did not diagnose her carWe did not get into an agreement with the owner of the car, the agreement was between ***'s Auto Repair and my company KMO General Service, INCdoing business as KMC Auto RepairI have no idea why the owner of the car contacted me, She should have contacted the Auto shop she took her car to, However, offered the owner of the car to do a diagnostic for on her car, but that she would have to pay for my time, which she refused to do it.Sirìcerely,Oscar *B***Owner of KMU

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the responseIf no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because: this is not an accurate reflection of the event that happened ***'s Auto contacted this business and explained that after the programming was completed the vehicle had new problems Problems that ***'s attested to did not exist with the car prior to the programming I contact KM Auto because they refused to come to ***'s Auto and see the problem that arose after the programming I spoke with Oscar, the owner, and he never informed about his work diagnosis/guarantee differentiation of services Never the less, the car did not have any problems before the programming was completed Subsequent to the programming by KM Auto the trunk of my car pooped open every time the door locks are pressed and my trunk release no longer works These problems are in addition to the malfunctioning remote where only two of the three buttons work My contention is that the programming was done wrong, much like misinstalled software on a computer I asked MrB*** to come examine the work done by his employee and he refused I do not need a diagnostic of the vehicle; the skim module that was installed was new Yes, the car does start, but I have these additional things that no longer work (trunk button on key fob, trunk release button in car, trunk popping open when door lock on the car door are pushed.) It should not matter if MrB*** was called by ***'s or directly by myself, what matters is he was called to perform work on my car and my car had new problems that I noticed less than one hour after his employee performed the programming serviceI am not able to use my car as intended The sheer fact that MRB*** refuses to even look at the car and observe the problem is shocking to me and the fact that he says something is impossible is further shocking Nothing is impossible and his response demonstrates that he does not have a clear understanding of the problems my car demonstrated after his employee performed a service If his work is not guaranteed, does not mean he gets free reign to damage property of customers
Regards,
*** ***

Review: My car was at [redacted]'s Auto Repair in [redacted], MD. Sarah, an employee of KMO Auto came out to program the [redacted] module and key and key fob for my 2004 [redacted]. abiout 1 hour after the programming was done I observed some problems with my car. 1) when I push the door lock button on the key fob my trunk pops open. 2) when I push the door lock button on my car door, my trunk pops open. 3) when I push the trunk release button in my glove box, my trunk does not pop open. Prior to programming my door lock button on the car door and my trunk releas button functioned as normal. [redacted]'s Auto employees examined my car and came to the conclusion that the malfunction was related to a programming problem. [redacted]'s Auto employees also assured me that they used both the door lock button on the car door and trunk release button recently before programming was complete and they both functioned normally (i.e., with no trunk pop). [redacted]'s Auto contacted Oscar B[redacted] of KMO Auto on my behalf and he refused to come look at the car stating it was impossible for his company to be at fault. I contacted KMO Auto and spoke to Oscar B[redacted] and explained the problem and concern on 6/5/14. He agreed verbally to examine the car and said he would consider coming to my home or to [redacted]'s Auto to do so. Today I received a text message from him stating he would not examine the vehicle. He instead chose to tell me it was impossible for him to be at fault. I am simply trying to figure out who broke my car and so far the trail has lead me to KMO. I am now left with a vehicle that does not operate to my expectations.Desired Settlement: I would like for KMO Auto to send a tech to examine my car and analyze whether the programming was done correctly at no charge to myself. This is all that I asked for verbally and in writing and KMO, specifically Mr. Oscar B[redacted] has refused.

Business

Response:

July 1, 2014To whom it may concern;This letter is in response to the complaint about our service to [redacted]'s Auto Repair. [redacted]'s Auto Repair called us to program the [redacted] key Immobilizer Module ([redacted]) for one of their customers. We are a sublet for [redacted]'s Auto Repair and many other auto repairs. Whenever an auto shop called us to program a fob key, they are given two options:1. We could perform a diagnostic on whatever issue they have, and guarantee our labor. 2. We could go by their diagnostic, but our labor is not guarantee.If they decide to go with their "own" diagnostic, than we do only what they asked us to do, and do not guarantee that the issue will be solved because they might do a mis-diagnostic. -If we do the diagnostic for them, then our labor is guarantee. in this case [redacted]'s auto repair decided to go with their diagnostic, therefore, we just went and do what they asked us to do, a programming of a [redacted] Key Immobilizer. When we got there the car wasn't staring, after we did the programming the car was starting, any additional issues they had with the car was not part of the programming. They also asked us to program one of their key fobs which we did programmed it as a favor to them.According to the owner of the car, she has a few issues with her key fob, which we have nothing to do with, the programming could in no way have created the issues the owner of the car is referring to. Obviously, she might have had issues to begin with and [redacted]'s Auto Repair came with a diagnostic saying that the key fob needed to be program, in this case, I told the owner that we are not responsible for this, because we did not diagnose her car. We did not get into an agreement with the owner of the car, the agreement was between [redacted]'s Auto Repair and my company KMO General Service, INC. doing business as KMC Auto Repair. I have no idea why the owner of the car contacted me, She should have contacted the Auto shop she took her car to, However, offered the owner of the car to do a diagnostic for on her car, but that she would have to pay for my time, which she refused to do it.Sirìcerely,Oscar *. B[redacted]Owner of KMU

Consumer

Response:

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because: this is not an accurate reflection of the event that happened. [redacted]'s Auto contacted this business and explained that after the programming was completed the vehicle had new problems. Problems that [redacted]'s attested to did not exist with the car prior to the programming. I contact KM Auto because they refused to come to [redacted]'s Auto and see the problem that arose after the programming. I spoke with Oscar, the owner, and he never informed about his work diagnosis/guarantee differentiation of services. Never the less, the car did not have any problems before the programming was completed. Subsequent to the programming by KM Auto the trunk of my car pooped open every time the door locks are pressed and my trunk release no longer works. These problems are in addition to the malfunctioning remote where only two of the three buttons work. My contention is that the programming was done wrong, much like misinstalled software on a computer. I asked Mr. B[redacted] to come examine the work done by his employee and he refused. I do not need a diagnostic of the vehicle; the skim module that was installed was new. Yes, the car does start, but I have these additional things that no longer work (trunk button on key fob, trunk release button in car, trunk popping open when door lock on the car door are pushed.). It should not matter if Mr. B[redacted] was called by [redacted]'s or directly by myself, what matters is he was called to perform work on my car and my car had new problems that I noticed less than one hour after his employee performed the programming service. I am not able to use my car as intended. The sheer fact that MR. B[redacted] refuses to even look at the car and observe the problem is shocking to me and the fact that he says something is impossible is further shocking. Nothing is impossible and his response demonstrates that he does not have a clear understanding of the problems my car demonstrated after his employee performed a service. If his work is not guaranteed, does not mean he gets free reign to damage property of customers.

Regards,