Meineke Discount Mufflers, Inc.

------ Forwarded message ----------
sans-serif;">From: Revdex.com of Metro Washington DCDate: Mon, Oct 26, at 10:AMSubject: Fwd: Complaint StatusTo: Cynthia Cameron ---------- Forwarded message ----------From: *** *** ***>Date: Fri, Oct 23, at 1:PMSubject: Complaint StatusTo: "*** ***
Dear *** *** of The Revdex.com,
They vendor has not attempted to contact me to resolve this matter and I was waiting to hear back from you thus starting my email belowIt is a shame that business-conducting service to the people of Lancaster PA cannot respond to a simple memo to provide a resolution action planI have all the facts and evidence showing their work done and estimate of other vendors doing the exact same job at a much cheaper rateWhat bothers me the most is that another *** miles down the road is charging 50% less for the same work
If there are any other suggestions that you may have, I am open to those suggestionsI just wanted to be treated fairly based off the evidence I found
Best Regards,
***
*** ***
*** ***

[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]
 Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
RevDex.com,
It is my
understanding that I am now to respond to what Meineke stated in the company’s
response to my complaint.  What Meineke
failed to mention in the statement was that the employees held my car hostage
when I asked to take the car home. 
Before I could make any decisions on what would be done to be my car,
beyond the initial request for an inspection and tire change (which, I was
quoted a price around $600.00), the employees had taken my car apart and would
not put it back together until I agreed to paid for the other changes they
wanted to make to the car.  Actually,
even after I was forced to sign up for the card and the extra changes/extra charges, Meineke
still refused to give me my car. Even if the correct part was not available, they refused to put the old parts back in, or to release the car to me in any form.  It is
obvious that the employees were trying to force me into a situation in which I
was afraid to go for outside help, because I would be fearful that I would never
get back my car.  As we all know, Pennsylvania
inspection law mandates that a customer be given the right to take her/his car
to another inspection location to look into the changes that were
suggested.  Meineke’s employees took this
right away from me, because they were holding my car hostage.
The fact that
Meineke provided me with a loaner car, even though one of the employees gave us
permission to break the rules of his boss and smoke in the car, was just part
of the same power-grab by these employees. 
They wanted to make sure that I was well aware that I did not have
access to my car.  As a matter of fact,
it was when they told me to leave for a few hours (when I was promised my car
would be finished at four o’clock in the afternoon), that the employees
dismantled my car.  I was not given any
of the promised phone calls to give them permission to do these frivolous
actions.  Every action by these
employees, including the sexual-harassment to which I was subjected (which I am
looking to take care of in a different venue), was done to take away any
feelings of control I would have on the situation.  These employees were determined to scare me
into spending roughly $1,800.00 more than I was quoted. 
Meineke, in
the statement, claimed that surveillance would prove that **. and [redacted]
were involved in the situation. While I
can’t be sure the names of the other men in the building, I was only
accompanied by my husband, [redacted].  I am not sure the identity of this [redacted]
to whom Meineke is referring.  It is my
guess, that this is another lie on the part of the company.  Of course, since it is my car, because the title and registration are in my name only, no other
person would play any part in the decision-making process.  I do wonder if Meineke was trying to state
that because I was with a man (a man they assumed to be controlling and
insecure to the point that he would force his wife to change her last name and label her as
property), that they would not try to take advantage of me.  That is very insulting, but that is not a
surprise in this situation. 
I am eager to move forward on getting a resolution to this part of my issue with
Meineke.  The company held my car hostage
in an effort to extort more money out of me, and  to get me to sign up for a credit card I
would not have needed if I was charged the price that was quoted.  The company also broke Pennsylvania
inspection law by refusing to allow me to take my car to another location to
get an inspection, which was not due until November of 2014.
I would also
like to state that the rushed, sloppy, and unprofessional response from Meineke
should prove the company’s lack of seriousness in dealing with the RevDex.com.  One paragraph, a
paragraph that was full of inaccuracies, is not sufficient to deal with an
issue of this severity.  
Thank you for
your prompt attention to this situation.
Regards,
[redacted]

------ Forwarded message ----------From: Revdex.com of Metro Washington DC<[email protected]>Date: Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 10:54 AMSubject: Fwd: Complaint StatusTo: Cynthia Cameron <[email protected]>---------- Forwarded message ----------From: [redacted]...

[redacted]>Date: Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 1:27 PMSubject: Complaint StatusTo: "[redacted]
Dear [redacted] of The Revdex.com, They vendor has not attempted to contact me to resolve this matter and I was waiting to hear back from you thus starting my email below. It is a shame that business-conducting service to the people of Lancaster PA cannot respond to a simple memo to provide a resolution action plan. I have all the facts and evidence showing their work done and estimate of other vendors doing the exact same job at a much cheaper rate. What bothers me the most is that another [redacted] 20 miles down the road is charging 50% less for the same work. If there are any other suggestions that you may have, I am open to those suggestions. I just wanted to be treated fairly based off the evidence I found. Best Regards,[redacted]
 [redacted]
[redacted]

[redacted] did come in to get her vehicles state safety and emissions
test and also purchased tires. [redacted] was provided a free courtesy vehicle
because we were squeezing her vehicle in. After her tires and inspection where completed
there was a few things her car needed for the safety part of...

the inspection.
Our surveillance showed that both **. and [redacted] where walked out to the car
and shown what was needed for inspection. [redacted] was explained the price for
the repair and offered the Meineke store card as a payment option. Our time
stamps on all invoices and applications confirms this. We were unable to
complete all of the vehicle on that date because of a split production issue
with the parts and we could not get the parts because of how late in the day as
it was. We gave her the courtesy car for the remainder of the weekend for no
charge to her. On Monday the work was completed and she came in and put the
charges for the repairs on her Meineke card.

[redacted]’s vehicle came in for state and emissions
inspection and tires (about $600). The inspection was performed. Both [redacted]
and [redacted] were shown what the car needed for the state inspection. [redacted] was prequalified for a Meineke store card and opted to finish the
application process and get approved for the card (Meineke Store application
and approval time and date stamp after quote was given). After she was approved
[redacted] did authorized the repairs that were needed for inspection to be done.
Employees stayed after store closing to work on vehicle. The part for the right
front control arm was not right due to a model year split. The first sign of
[redacted] being upset was when the Vehicle was not completed due to the wrong
part. Due to it being a couple hours after close and not being able to complete
the car we let [redacted] take one of our Courtesy cars for the remainder of the
weekend at no charge.

Review: My wife took her car in for an oil change. They broke one of the valve stems on a tire and replaced it. The stems are equipped with a sensor. It did not work after they replaced it. I took it back and they said they fixed it , but now another stem is not working. They told me that it was bad. I had no problems before that oil change that had nothing to do with the tires. Now I will have to go to the dealer and pay to have my vehicle fixed . They did not offer any type of compensation.Desired Settlement: I would like to be compensated for both tires that were obviously damaged at their place of business. Whatever the dealer cost is to have this issue fixed, that is what I would like to be compensated. I do not want them to repair my car. Obviously they cannot or do not have the expertise.

Review: A verbal and in-person estimate was given at approximately 1:30 on 9/13/14 for a PA state inspection and a set of 4 new [redacted] tires, of about $600. Also, an estimated time was given of when the vehicle would be ready, and the employees told me they would call when they were done. The employees did not call, and I returned around the estimated completion time, around 4:00pm. The employees informed me that additional things would be needed in order to pass inspection (such as brakes, shocks, front control arms with bushings/ball joints). The employees looked up the cost of parts and gave me an estimate of over $2,400. I refused the services, but the employees stated that it was "too late" and the work had already been done, because the work was needed for the inspection, and that they would not pass the vehicle for inspection without performing the work. I stated that I had not authorized them to make the repairs, and that it was not necessary for the inspection to pass, since it did not expire until November 2014. Again, I refused the additional charges and services, said I wanted to take the vehicle home, and asked for the vehicle to be released to me, but they said they could not release the vehicle until the work they wanted to do was done and until the charges they came up with for said work were paid in full. I said I could not pay for the charges and did not want to pay for the charges, and they took my social security number. They then applied me for a Meineke [redacted] card, and said they would put the charges on this new card. Following this, they said that the vehicle was not completely put back together, and to give them 1 more hour, and that they would call when the vehicle was done. They did not call, but I returned to the shop after 6:00pm. I was informed that one of the parts they ordered (control arm) did not fit and was the wrong part, and they could not get the correct part until Monday 9/15/14. I stated that I wanted to take the vehicle home with the old parts, and they refused, and showed me that the car was still in pieces, and refused to put the old parts back in or to put the car back together, or to release it to me in any form. I asked them to call me on Monday, and to have the vehicle ready to be picked up before 2:00pm that day. Again, they did not call, but I called them shortly after 12:00 on Monday 9/15/14. They said the vehicle still would not be ready, and I finally got them to promise to have it done by 1:30. I arrived around 1:40pm, waited for them to draft the final bill, and then signed the bill for $2,438.34, under duress, and my vehicle was finally released to me.Desired Settlement: 1) refund for multiple erroneous charges, as well as unauthorized services/repairs/charges, or full refund

2) disciplinary action for the 2 employees with whom I dealt

3) an explanation of Meineke's policies regarding authorized/unauthorized services, repairs, and charges

Business

Response:

[redacted] did come in to get her vehicles state safety and emissions

test and also purchased tires. [redacted] was provided a free courtesy vehicle

because we were squeezing her vehicle in. After her tires and inspection where completed

there was a few things her car needed for the safety part of the inspection.

Our surveillance showed that both **. and [redacted] where walked out to the car

and shown what was needed for inspection. [redacted] was explained the price for

the repair and offered the Meineke store card as a payment option. Our time

stamps on all invoices and applications confirms this. We were unable to

complete all of the vehicle on that date because of a split production issue

with the parts and we could not get the parts because of how late in the day as

it was. We gave her the courtesy car for the remainder of the weekend for no

charge to her. On Monday the work was completed and she came in and put the

charges for the repairs on her Meineke card.

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:

RevDex.com,

It is my

understanding that I am now to respond to what Meineke stated in the company’s

response to my complaint. What Meineke

failed to mention in the statement was that the employees held my car hostage

when I asked to take the car home.

Before I could make any decisions on what would be done to be my car,

beyond the initial request for an inspection and tire change (which, I was

quoted a price around $600.00), the employees had taken my car apart and would

not put it back together until I agreed to paid for the other changes they

wanted to make to the car. Actually,

even after I was forced to sign up for the card and the extra changes/extra charges, Meineke

still refused to give me my car. Even if the correct part was not available, they refused to put the old parts back in, or to release the car to me in any form. It is

obvious that the employees were trying to force me into a situation in which I

was afraid to go for outside help, because I would be fearful that I would never

get back my car. As we all know, Pennsylvania

inspection law mandates that a customer be given the right to take her/his car

to another inspection location to look into the changes that were

suggested. Meineke’s employees took this

right away from me, because they were holding my car hostage.

The fact that

Meineke provided me with a loaner car, even though one of the employees gave us

permission to break the rules of his boss and smoke in the car, was just part

of the same power-grab by these employees.

They wanted to make sure that I was well aware that I did not have

access to my car. As a matter of fact,

it was when they told me to leave for a few hours (when I was promised my car

would be finished at four o’clock in the afternoon), that the employees

dismantled my car. I was not given any

of the promised phone calls to give them permission to do these frivolous

actions. Every action by these

employees, including the sexual-harassment to which I was subjected (which I am

looking to take care of in a different venue), was done to take away any

feelings of control I would have on the situation. These employees were determined to scare me

into spending roughly $1,800.00 more than I was quoted.

Meineke, in

the statement, claimed that surveillance would prove that **. and [redacted]

were involved in the situation. While I

can’t be sure the names of the other men in the building, I was only

accompanied by my husband, [redacted]. I am not sure the identity of this [redacted]

to whom Meineke is referring. It is my

guess, that this is another lie on the part of the company. Of course, since it is my car, because the title and registration are in my name only, no other

person would play any part in the decision-making process. I do wonder if Meineke was trying to state

that because I was with a man (a man they assumed to be controlling and

insecure to the point that he would force his wife to change her last name and label her as

property), that they would not try to take advantage of me. That is very insulting, but that is not a

surprise in this situation.

I am eager to move forward on getting a resolution to this part of my issue with

Meineke. The company held my car hostage

in an effort to extort more money out of me, and to get me to sign up for a credit card I

would not have needed if I was charged the price that was quoted. The company also broke Pennsylvania

inspection law by refusing to allow me to take my car to another location to

get an inspection, which was not due until November of 2014.

I would also

like to state that the rushed, sloppy, and unprofessional response from Meineke

should prove the company’s lack of seriousness in dealing with the RevDex.com. One paragraph, a

paragraph that was full of inaccuracies, is not sufficient to deal with an

issue of this severity.

Thank you for

your prompt attention to this situation.

Regards,

Business

Response:

[redacted]’s vehicle came in for state and emissions

inspection and tires (about $600). The inspection was performed. Both [redacted]

and [redacted] were shown what the car needed for the state inspection. [redacted] was prequalified for a Meineke store card and opted to finish the

application process and get approved for the card (Meineke Store application

and approval time and date stamp after quote was given). After she was approved

[redacted] did authorized the repairs that were needed for inspection to be done.

Employees stayed after store closing to work on vehicle. The part for the right

front control arm was not right due to a model year split. The first sign of

[redacted] being upset was when the Vehicle was not completed due to the wrong

part. Due to it being a couple hours after close and not being able to complete

the car we let [redacted] take one of our Courtesy cars for the remainder of the

weekend at no charge.

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:

First, I am disappointed that [redacted] Meineke is not

dealing with this situation in a professional manner. Their responses continue

to include lies. At no time did I give permission for them to make the

changes/repairs that they wanted to make, except for the new tires and state inspection.

It was not until I was told by them that “it was too late” to refuse the

charges, because they had already done the work, and they would not release my

vehicle to me, that I was FORCED into paying the bill and FORCED to leave my

vehicle with them until they finished all of the work on the vehicle that THEY

WANTED to do, so that I could get my car back. They held my car hostage,

and I was powerless and at their mercy to pay whatever they wanted to

charge me, because they refused to give me my vehicle back unless I

would agree to pay for the charges that THEY WANTED to make. They did NOT

PERMIT me to have the option of taking the vehicle somewhere else to have the

work done that they felt was needed in order to pass inspection. I was never

called, as I was promised, in order to discuss anything that might be needed

beyond new tires in order to pass the state inspection. I was coerced into

taking a loaner vehicle so that I would not be on the premises while they

worked on my vehicle, and they were only supposed to be putting on new tires,

and performing the inspection during this time. They were supposed to call if

any other changes were needed to the vehicle in order to pass inspection, but

they FAILED to do so, and instead, tore the car apart and proceeded to do

UNAUTHORIZED work. Upon returning to the

shop the first time, around 4:00pm, when I was told my vehicle would be done

and ready to take home, I was told to come into the garage (and only me, not

[redacted], because I am the car owner, not [redacted]; and it is once again

insulting to me that you think that I need him to make decisions for me) to

view some things that the employees/techs found, which they felt, in their

opinion, should be fixed/changed in order to pass inspection. Since I am a

chemist and not a car mechanic, I was not sure what they were showing me.

However, they offered to get an estimate for the parts, and I only agreed to

take a look at the estimate. Upon discussing and viewing the estimate, I stated that I did not want

to make those recommended changes, because:

1) The car was not due for inspection until November 2014, and 2) I

could not afford the charges at that time, and 3) My third reason was that I

wanted to research where I could get the parts for cheaper or where I could get

the work done for cheaper. However, even though it is my right, under the law,

to have taken my vehicle back into my possession at that time and “failed inspection”

at that time (as we know, under the state law, I would have had 30 days to have

the vehicle re-inspected) I was not given this option. The employees told me

that it was “too late, ” because they had already done the work, and that they were going to fail the vehicle for inspection if I did not get the

work done that they wanted to perform. I definitely expressed being upset, but

did so in a polite manner. I expressed frustration that they were telling me

that it was “too late” and that I couldn’t back out of the work being done

because it was already done without my permission. I stated that it was a

terrible policy to take apart a car and start replacing parts without the permission

of the owner of the car, and the employee(s) shrugged and said “Oh well, that

is what we did, and here is the bill.” I also stated that under the old

owner (Romeo) I had been told that the only thing I would need to pass

inspection would be a new set of tires. They stated that “We do things a little

differently” and that “We are making in only 1 week what the old owner made

in about 7 months.” Again, I said that the changes did not make sense to me

and that I did want to make the changes and could not afford to pay for the

charges. They refused to release the vehicle to me because they told me the

work was already done, and it had been done without my permission, and that

I could not leave until I paid for the bill. After again stating that I

could not pay for the bill, the only answer they had for me was to see if I

qualified for the Meineke credit card, so they took my social security

number. I am not sure what they would have done if I would not have

qualified for the card, since I could not pay the bill. They were illegally

holding my car hostage until I paid for this bill, which supposedly only was

supposed to be an estimate. (However, I realize that Meineke’s breaking of the

state inspection law will have to be addressed and dealt with in a separate

claim, in a different venue, as will the sexual harassment, which included the

employees showing me pictures on their phones and discussing the size of their “[redacted]”) Secondly, [redacted] Meineke still has not addressed all of

my concerns that I brought up in my complaint against them, such as: Were the

employess disciplined for breaking the law and giving me horrible customer

service, or were they re-trained or fired? If not, why? Am I to believe that the way I was mistreated and the way

in which money was extorted from me is routine practice and/or routine policy

for [redacted] Meineke? Or was I targeted and singled out for some reason? While

it is true that my main concern is the fact that unauthorized work was

performed on my vehicle without my permission, I would also like to know what

some of the other charges were on my bill that were associated with the new

tires, such as “other charges – tires -- $8.00” and “road hazard – 4 -- $47.96”.

These charges, in addition to “tire disposal fee” were never discussed with me

at any point, but since the final bill that I signed for on 9/15/14 was exactly

or almost exactly the same as the estimate/bill I was quoted on 9/13/14 (over

$2,400), and I was going to be late for work, I did not see these other charges

on the bill before I signed for it. Lastly, [redacted] Meineke has offered no

apology for the various horrible ways in which I have been treated, nor have

they addressed how they are going to reimburse me for the approximately $1,800

which should not have been charged to me.

Regards,