McGeorge Body Shop

The customer brought the vehicle to McGeorge Collsion for an estimate to repair minor damage resulting from a rear end collision.  The customer stated that along with the collision damage she had noticed the left rear suspension was damaged, the lift gate was not latching properly, and the...

power lift gate assist was not fully opening the hatch.  Upon a visual inspection it was explained to the customer the left rear air strut appeared to be leaking and was likely a wear and tear issue.  We also explained the lift gate lock was not latching or locking properly and needed to be replaced. We stated we were not aware if the latch would have any effect on the lift gate assist convenience function but the latch should be replaced as it was a safety concern. The customer was advised this too was likely a wear issue as there was no impact to the lift gate or visual structural damage to the rear body panel.  We provided the customer with a written estimate to repair the collision damage, replace the left rear strut air lift bag, and replace the rear hatch lock.  The customer left the vehicle with us for an inspection to be completed by the insurance company. The insurance company determined the customer's claim that the strut and lock were damaged as a result of the collision to be without merit and thus denied the replacement of these parts.  The customer was provided a separate estimate to replace the lock. The estimator who provided the customer with the estimate to replace the lock was not aware of the customers concerns regarding the lift gate assist function and only that she wanted the gate to latch and lock properly. The customer agreed to the price listed on the estimate.  The part listed on this estimate was superseded by the manufacturer. The correct replacement part cost more than originally stated on the estimate.  The customer agreed to pay the updated price for the repair. After completing the repair the vehicle was delivered to the customer.  The customer picked up and paid with a check for the updated amount of the repair and included the note: For “Rear Lock [redacted]”. She later returned the vehicle to the collision facility stating the convenience lift gate assist function was still not working properly.  Upon further inspection it was determined that one or more of the mechanical units that lift the gate were malfunctioning.  Our findings were explained at length including the repair process, likely cause, and an estimated cost for the repair.  The customer was advised the service department would be a better choice for the repair as it involved hydraulic controlled parts that are very rarely serviced as the result of a collision thus the service department has more experience with this particular repair.  Several days later we were notified the customer had place a stop payment on her check.  We reached out to the customer and she stated that she thought the replacing the lock would take care of both the locking and lift gate assist function and she would not have paid the amount quoted if it would have only repaired one of the functions.  We took the customer concerns into consideration and determined we could have given the customer a better explanation of the work to be preformed and what to expect as a result of the lock replacement. We chose not to pursue legal action against the customer for the returned check.  Considering the customer did not pay for the repairs made to her vehicle I would consider this issue resolved. Thank you