Meineke Car Care Center #2345

Ms***,
The owner, Rob R***, knows that I left Meineke right when they were closing and returned my car the very next morning not long after they openedI only drove my car home, then backed it up and drove forward a few times to confirm my car was indeed making a strange soundWhen I took my car back, he and the mechanic would have been able to verify by my odometer that I had not driven my car hardly at all since they had worked on itSince I did not expect for Rob’s mechanic to damage my car, and I certainly didn’t expect for the owner of a business to lie about the circumstances, I did not take photos of my odometer; however, the invoice from Meineke shows my cars mileage listed at 139,and the invoice from Les Schwab shows that the odometer had only moved to 139,This proves my car had only been driven one mile
My husband and I did concluded that the mechanic who worked on my car must have removed the tires and somehow caused the clunking noise in the rear brakes; we inquired multiple times about if they had removed my tires or notRather than call the mechanic to find out, Rob wanted to wait until he came into workI will forever regret that I did not demand he take my issue more seriouslyInstead I tried to be a reasonable person and agreed to leave my car there while I went to workRob told me that he would contact us when he found out if the mechanic had removed my wheelsInstead of doing that, he failed to call us at allWe had to call him back hours later to find out they were claiming they had not taken my wheels off the previous day and, without calling to ask for permission, had decided to take not only the tires off, but attempt to take my drum brakes off as wellIt seems obvious to us that we were only wanting them to fix the problem if they were the ones who had taken my tires off and caused itIt seems even more obvious to us that if a customer brings their car back accusing you of possibly messing up their car, you don’t proceed to take the tires and brakes off their vehicle without their permission and then cause damage making it impossible to prove whether or not you did in fact damage the car the first time you worked on itRegardless, it no longer matters if they took my tires off and caused that initial sound or not because they did take them off and cause damage the second time I brought my car into them
They had not completed the inspection of my vehicle after having it for over hours because the mechanic working on it had incorrectly put a puller on my car which made the brake drum impossible to removeThe inexperienced mechanic had also pounded on the exterior of the drum brake to attempt to dislodge itI have photo evidence of this damage (photo attached to this email) and the mechanic told my husband this himselfLes Schwab’s initial diagnosis states that the right rear drum had been excessively hammered on which warped its wheel mounting surfaceThe repair invoice states that the right rear spindle had a divot on the top left side most likely caused by an off-centered pulley being usedI did send a copy of the invoice that had this diagnosis on it to the corporate office, they failed to share this with RobI will attach that invoice as well as the initial diagnosis invoice to this email
My husband and I decided to call the corporate resolution line rather than return Rob’s call to discuss the offer of partial payment because my husband felt that Rob himself is not knowledgeable enough about cars to understand that the drum brake of my car was damaged by his mechanic pounding on itMy husband told me Rob sounded as if he didn’t believe what Les Schwab had told him; that it was obvious Rob was not taking responsibility for his mechanics actions and was attempting to pay us just enough so we could not complain to corporateI was not about to call to haggle about how much responsibility he should be taking, instead I exercised my right as a consumer to report my experience to the Meineke corporate resolution office
If Rob had done the right thing and called to tell us that they were claiming to not have removed the tire, we would have told him not to touch my car because we wanted a second opinionInstead he and his mechanic acted guilty and took my tires off that day without calling to ask permission firstThe inexperienced mechanic damaged my car and if Rob had then taken responsibility for his mechanics actions and agreed to cover the full costs of the repairs I would not have needed to call the corporate resolution lineInstead he has decided to try to hide the fact that they know I only drove my car home and back to their shopHe is also trying to say that I would have had to replace one of the drums on my rear brakes as maintenanceThat is incorrect and shows his lack of mechanical knowledgeMy rear brakes were only worn to 35% (the Les Schwab invoice shows this), they had not caused any internal damage to the drumsOnly the right rear drum had to be replaced due to the damage done to the exterior wheel mounting surface; no internal parts were replaced
I am only asking that Rob pay for the replacement drum, the labor of installing it, and for two other small parts that were one-time-use parts that had to be replaced with the drumI am not asking for him to cover any repairs that would have had to be performed, in fact the Les Schwab invoice shows that other parts were replaced, but I am not asking for those to be covered because replacing them was ACTUAL routine maintenanceI know that I am only asking for Rob to be a respectable business owner who takes full responsibility for the actions of his employeesRob knows this as well, I hope he chooses to act accordingly
Sincerely,
*** ***
P.SMy husband also wanted me to note that he was cordial to the mechanic and Rob that day because he was trying to give them the benefit of the doubtAfter Les Schwab informed us that it was Meineke that had damaged the drum, and after speaking with Rob who was only offering to provide a drum, he fully supported contacting corporate and then the Revdex.com to pursue the full payment for the damage done by his mechanic

So, "at the end of the day", Meineke sold me tires not knowing that're not covered by any kind of warranty, even though on the day of my purchase, it was clearly stated that I am purchasing tires WITH WARRANTYIgnorance is not an excuse! Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:
Sincerely,
*** ***

Dear ***:
This letter is in response to your correspondence regarding complaint ID: ** *** ( ***).The *** brought their vehicle into our shop for a basic oil change on Tuesday, January This was an oil and filterchange and a cursory visual safety inspectionThe vehicle's
tires/whee ls were not removed during this serviceThevehicle developed a clunking noise after the vehicle was returned to the owners
The *** concluded that we must have removed the ti res and somehow caused the clunking noise in the rear brakes.They then requested that we investigate the cause of the noise the day following, but Mrs*** was then upset that weremoved the right rear wheel on the second visitHowever it's not possible to perform an actual inspection of brakeswithout removing the wheel in question
We did not complete the inspection by the time the *** returned for the vehicle unannouncedWe released thevehicle at their requestMr*** spent considerable time with us out in the shop at the vehicle and was verycongenialHe took the vehicle to another shop, and called us back to speak with our shop manager regarding their quote(which we have not seen) and was again extremely frie ndlyWe did offer to assist with the cost, and Mr*** told ushe would call us back the next morning about that offerHe did not call
Mrs*** instead called the corporate resolution line and demanded full payment for the brake repairBecause theclunk in the right rear wheel was not caused by our oil change in the fi rst place, we believed our offer to assist regardlesswith the repair cost to be fair- repairs that would have had to be performed even if there had never been an oil changecoincidentally involved
Rob R***Gresham Meineke

We fielded this call Monday morning, January 23, 2017, regarding sidewall damage to the tire in question. When attempting to research this tire with our distributor while on the call,the tire could not be found, of which the customer was advised. This turned out to be because the tire was...

discontinued by the manufacturer in the intervening time. As a result, we  gave the situation the benefit of the doubt that the tire would have a warranty with the intent of performing the research later so as to not waste the customer's time on the phone tracking down this tire's specifics. It was not a tire brand typically sold by us as we are a Cooper Tire seller by trade, so we were not immediately familiar with the warranty specifics of the tire in question.   Because the tire was discontinued, we ordered a similar  tire through our wholesale tire distributor along with submitting information regarding the issue. They called us back the following day (January 24) to inform us that the tire in question did not have any mileage warranty - only a defect warranty covering the first 2/32" of tread wear. Additionally they provided us this manufacturer's information with regards to sidewa ll damage not resulting from manufacturing defects so long after the date of manufacture (as referenced in the complaint), although not in an easy-to-transfer format. We provided a different easier-to-access link to the customer with why sidewall damage would not apply to a warranty, even if the tire purchased did come with a mileage warranty (which it did not).   Thank you for your consideration.       Gresham Meineke Car Care Center