Masters Collision

Review: I brought my vehicle to Master Auto Collision after an accident. They had my car for 8 weeks! After picking up my car, there were many things still wrong with the car. The windshield was cracked, the AC was still broken, the condensor is crushed, the tire pressure gauges are broken & the car needed all fluids put back in. The engine mounts are broken & the check engine light is on. The leather ceiling is collapsed & the GPS does not work. There is liquid leaking from the car. [redacted] agreed that all these issues still exist & were not taken care of. We were told at [redacted] that Master AC work was a 0 on a scale of 5. After speaking to the [redacted] countless times, I am now being ignored after leaving three messages in the last week. The repairs cost more than half of what the car is worth & should have been totaled out. Instead, [redacted] claimed he would fix the car & has done nothing but lie time & time again. My windshield is about to shatter & he will not return calls. He made 42,000$ on this job and sadly the majority of it is in his pocket. The car is now UN drivable since the engine light will not go off. I should not be help responsible to have this car repaired, Master Auto Collision should be held liable.Desired Settlement: I would like my car fully repaired as promised!!!!!!!!

Business

Response:

To whom it may concern, I am writing in response to complaint number ID #[redacted]. I have reviewed this claim in depth, and my findings are as follows; First I will attach the complainant’s statement, then I will respond to the claims. “I brought my vehicle to Master Auto Collision after an accident. They had my car for 8 weeks! After picking up my car, there were many things still wrong with the car. The windshield was cracked, the AC was still broken, the condensor is crushed, the tire pressure gauges are broken & the car needed all fluids put back in. The engine mounts are broken & the check engine light is on. The leather ceiling is collapsed & the GPS does not work. There is liquid leaking from the car. [redacted] agreed that all these issues still exist & were not taken care of. We were told at [redacted] that Master AC work was a 0 on a scale of 5. After speaking to the [redacted] countless times, I am now being ignored after leaving three messages in the last week. The repairs cost more than half of what the car is worth & should have been totaled out. Instead, [redacted] claimed he would fix the car & has done nothing but lie time & time again. My windshield is about to shatter & he will not return calls. He made 42,000$ on this job and sadly the majority of it is in his pocket. The car is now UN drivable since the engine light will not go off. I should not be help responsible to have this car repaired, Master Auto Collision should be held liable.” Upon review of the file, notes, [redacted] photos/documents, measurements, and parts time lines, I conclude that this matter was in fact addressed correctly, within a timely manner, and within specifications of said repair. Repairs were also concluded to be in compliance with the [redacted] repair estimate in which it was negotiated in good faith and compliance with NYS regulation 64. Complaint reponse: - Windshield cracked – prior damage check in sheet signed and acknowledged by [redacted] of vehicle indicates no prior damage to windshield. In addition, photo dated 9/**/14 – approximately 3 months post repair indicated a crack in the windshield, in which indicated a “stone chip” directly under the registration/inspection sticker location. If it was a structural crack, the crack would’ve originated in hard formed area of the windshield where energy will travel under stress of removal. My reponse to this complaint is that the windshield damage occurred post repair, and was sustained by a “stone” or “object” striking the windshield causing the glass to “spider crack” horizontally from its point of impact. This has no bearing on the claim repair and would require an additional glass claim to address. - The “AC” or air conditioning system: I also reviewed photos dated 9/*/2014 – approximately 3 months post repair. Damages are not consistent with impact sustained during claim and our repair. As per those photos, it can be concluded that the damages were sustained from the vehicle striking an object or fixed object on the road surface as angle of impact does not match the impact sustained during repair and [redacted] claim. An indicator of this is the “crush” indicators coming from below, compressing the condenser fins. If the damages were consistent with the facts of loss, the damages resulting would be a “frontal” damage, or “bowing” condition on the ac condenser. My conclusion to this complaint is that this damage is not result of this accident. - Engine mount damage. Considering the last conclusion, this damage also not related to this loss. Like the AC condenser, only an impact from the road surface can cause this damage. Photos dated 9/*/14 were reviewed to conclude that these damages again, are not from this loss. - Tires low – I reviewed the vehicle check in sheet signed by [redacted] at drop off of vehicle for repair. And this document revealed that wheels/tires were acknowledged to be a pre-existing condition. T herefore, [redacted] was not responsible to indemnify the customer for those damages. My conclusion is that these damages are not the responsibility of the repair facility and [redacted] alike. - Check engine light/leaking fluids – directly related to AC damages as if there is a leak/malfunction in any system monitored by electronics, it will trigger a DTC(diagnostic trouble code) in turn lighting a MIL(malfunction indicator lamp) which be revealed through a check engine light. My conclusion is that these damages are contributory of the undercarriage damage, and are not the responisibility of the repair facility nor [redacted]. - As far as the net sales taken on this repair. We have invoices for parts and labor hours to repair. The net parts bill was $32,137.20. the total labor was $5,680.40(body), and paint labor was $1,874.40. The total repair was $43,119.78. So our net revenue is 12% of the repair, hardly the majority of the repair. - The time frame could not be avoided. We took the vehicle in april [redacted], initiated the first parts order, and received the first quote april [redacted] and received the first part order(drop shipped from London, England) May [redacted], and received the rest of the parts May [redacted]. At that time we began repair. The repair in total took 58 days. The actual repair hours were 171.7(measured by [redacted] repair estimate) which equates to 43 days according to [redacted]’s repair day formula, not to include weekend days(18 weekend days). So according to this formula, the repair is on target and in line with the listed repair hours listed on the [redacted] repair estimate. My conclusion is that we could not have repaired the vehicle faster based on parts arrival and labor hours. - As far as value of vehicle. As per New York State, the vehicle’s title can brand at 75% of the market value(post sales tax) if the vehicle is newer than 8 years old. In this case, the vehicle is 11 years old(including model year) and is not subject to title branding laws. Hence, the repair amount must reach the actual cash value to deem the vehicle a total loss. The value on the low side is listed at $54,300(low trade value) and 69,100(high trade in value) both values exceed the amount of repairs, therefore the vehicle shoud NOT have been deemed a total loss. In conclusion, the damages that occurred from this loss are in the rear of the vehicle. Undercarriage and glass had nothing to do with the loss. [redacted] also inspected the vehicle post repair at [redacted] of Long Island, and concurred with us, stating that these damages in question are not related to this loss. We would be happy to resolve this matter if in fact it is a result of improper workmanship, failure to comply to regulation, or if we deviated from the repair estimate. Since these damages all occurred post repair, we cannot be held responsible.