Lonnie Cobb Ford

Damage to motorhome roof while repairs were being made to ignition switch. Vehicle was under Cobb Ford care and control for 48 hours when damaged.Cobb was to repair motorhome ignition switch. Vehicle was left in their care Monday afternoon 9/1/14. Vehicle was parked inside service area by Vehicle owner. Service dept. was closed for Labor Day. Repair to switch was made Tuesday and Wednesday 9/3/14. When picking up motorhome owner found roof area above cab damaged. Service manager denied any fault saying it was that way when it arrived for service. Owner contends that damage occurred while it was under Cobb care and control. Vehicle was not damaged when left in their care. Vehicle normally is parked outside and recent rains would have leaked to interior if damage existed before the switch repair but no water damage can be seen nor moisture detected. If Cobb Ford has a surveillance system; that could show vehicle arriving undamaged and possibly when damage occurred; and who did it. The bottom line is Cobb Ford broke my motorhome and I want it fixed.Desired SettlementI want Cobb Ford to cover the cost of repairing the damage to my motor home roof while it was in their care and control.Business Response The vehicle in question VIN# [redacted] 1996 [redacted] was dropped off on 9-1-14 by Mr. [redacted]. The service department was not open on this day; however, our sales department was open on that day, and accommodated Mr. [redacted]s request and allowed him to park his[redacted] inside of our shop. Mr. [redacted] himself parked the[redacted] inside the shop. When the members of the parts and service departments arrived on Tuesday morning at around 7 am they immediately noticed a[redacted] parked in our shop, and noticed the front of the roof sticking up on the driver's side of the vehicle. The parts manager, service manager, and one service advisor all made note of the roof concern at the time of arrival; however, the customer was here to repair an ignition switch concern, and had asked us to park the vehicle inside if left overnight. We assumed it was to protect the roof from moisture damage in case of rain. The customer had left his name and number and was called to confirm the work he wanted done to the vehicle. We did not think anything more of the roof of the vehicle and concentrated on the ignition switch repair, as this is all we were asked to look at. We did not know if the roof had been this way all along or not, but assumed it had. Nothing else was thought of the roof concern until Mr. [redacted] arrived on Wednesday 9-3-14 to pick up his vehicle. He paid his ticket and left, a few minutes later he returned to complain of the damage to the roof. He was told that the damage was noted on the roof when checked in on Tuesday morning, but was adamant that we had ran his vehicle into something. The service manager went out to the vehicle and took a tall step ladder to inspect the roof, no visible damage was found on the roof. Mr. [redacted] was offered to visually inspect for himself to ensure no visible damage was present, but refused and said he had climbed up on the roof already and inspected the damage. Mr. [redacted] did offer several harsh words to the service manager, who tried to reassure Mr. [redacted] that this was an ongoing concern, and not the fault of the dealership. The damage was noted by the service manager as non-damage or naturally occurring. The roof had separated at the seam and dirt and debris was visible inside of the open seem; thus, pointing to this concern being an ongoing problem and not recent damage. The proposed damage is suspected to be that of rust/rot over time and the seam split from warping, not physical damage. The bottom line is that [redacted] did not cause this damage, and we feel appalled at the suggestion of Mr. [redacted] that we are responsible for this concern. Had we caused this damage, it would have left scratches, marks, paint transfer, or something of the like, and during the inspection no such evidence was found. Sincerely,Consumer Response (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)Thanks to[redacted] for their response. Two things need clarification. (1)I asked to park inside so I would not have to unload the storage bays of the[redacted] which had no locks, not to stay out of the rain. I called ahead to see if that would be possible since I expected to be there only overnight. (2)I recall no harsh words with the service manager but did say that I would leave before there were harsh words. My apology if offence was taken, none was intended. I thought I behaved myself quite well considering the circumstances. It continues to be my belief that[redacted] damaged the roof of my[redacted]. It certainly was not damaged prior to their having it in their possession for two days. The real bottom line is that my[redacted] was not damaged prior to it's visit to[redacted] and it was when I picked it up and I am appalled at their suggestion and insinuation that I have lied about it. My insurance has said they will cover the necessary repair so let's let that run it's course and leave this complaint on file with the Revdex.com as unresolved. Thank you for your time.Final Business Response Mr. [redacted], Regarding case #40099286, we do not feel [redacted] to be responsible for the opening in the roof on Mr. [redacted]. The hole in the roof is the result of deterioration, not damage, and is evidenced by deterioration and the lack of physical damage. There is no damage to the roof of the vehicle, the hole is from a seam in the roof that has split open as a result of the aging process. Had someone run this vehicle into something as it is being insinuated, then there would be physical damage; however, there simply is no physical damage. The bottom line is we nor anyone else caused any damage to the roof of this RV, the hole is a result of the aging process, there is no physical damage to this roof.Sincerely,[redacted]