With regard to the above referenced complaintFirstly, to save money, the customer herself opted for a used transmission unit to be installed in her vehicle as a replacement of her failed transmissionShe fully knew and acknowledged that this used transmission unit came with only a 90-day warrantyOther longer-warranty options were given to the customer at an additional cost and she declined those optionsThe customer took delivery of the vehicle with the used replacement transmission on 06/24/Then, literally days before the expiration of the 90-day warranty, on 09/22/the customer returned complaining of improper shifting in the transmissionWe tested the transmission to find operation, no codes registered in the vehicle's computer, fluid was clean and at the proper level, without any leaks detected at that timeWe test-drove the vehicle to find the transmission shifted normallyWe also test drove the vehicle with the customer, including letting her drive, and again there were no problems with the way the transmission shiftedWell after the transmission replacement was out of its 90-day warranty, on 4/14/2016, this customer returned again, this time complaining of a fluid leakWe inspected and found an axle seal was leakingWe reminded the customer that the replacement transmission was a used unit, per her own choice, and that it carried only a 90-day warranty that had now expired seven months priorHowever, we offered to work with her to resolve the matter and offered to perform the repair for her at our bare-bones costShe refused our offer and instead filed a complaint with the California Bureau of Automotive Repair (B.A.R.)The B.A.R, conducted an investigation to conclude there was absolutely no wrongdoing whatsoever on our partWe at that point reiterated our offer to perform the repair at our cost but never heard back from this customerIt has now been over months since the original repair and over months since the finding of the leaking axle sealWe reject this customer's demand for a refund, based on all the forgoing factsHowever, we continue to offer to perform the repair for her at our cost
I am rejecting this response because: The manager at Meineke offered me an extremely large credit line, no money down and no interest for 6months on any work they preformed at their shopThe shop manager claimed I wouldn't have to make a payment for months with no interest for monthsHowever, I unexpectedly got late bill of $so my $ dollar payment made toward the original $1,$only decrease my bill to 1,not to $as expectedThis explains why the manager keep pressuring me to get other work done to increase the credit owed knowing I would have a payment due immediately the next month and the amount would depend on the amount of credit extendAnd if I couldn't pay the full amount within months and at that rate they determined, I could possibly be forced to pay up to 17,for 1, dollars worth of work over time had I not paid the total amount due with in months not months as the managers promise The facts of this case are, On June 18, 2015, my van was taken to Meineke Econo Lube to be serviced The shop manger Jessie claimed they would do a great job and the transmission should last up to at least 75,miles which I depended on and he gave me a six month warranty on parts and labor for the repair of the van transmissionOn June 24, manage Oscar claimed that manger Jesse move to the other shop and the van was ready for pick upUpon leaving Meineke that evening, I immediately heard something dragging on the freeway before I could pull to the right side of the freeway it stop as if it detaching from the vanI looked under the van but could not diagnose the problemNext the van popped out of gearThe van pop out of gear cause the van to slow down in traffic putting us in fear of our livesI have allowed Meineke the opportunity to fix the problem on several occasionsI brought the van back several times within the time of the warrantyMeineke shop were given several opportunities to fix the mishaps and haven'tThe Van after each visit became increasing worse than before with the cost has running well into several thousand dollarsSince July, 2015, to February 2016, I have had to return to the shop a total of timesIt was tough getting them to look at the vanI called the shop on several occasion and made several online appointments to start documenting my visits and problems because they claimed they were so busyI explain the problems as frequently and as accurately as possible, because obvious the problem wasn't fix and it would only be fair to repair any small problems to prevent them from becoming big problems I was currently having the following problems with my vehicle at the time the troubleshooting warning indicator lights came on; popping out of gearThe codes read several transmission codes on Meineke's code read which I seen with my own eyes The van started to roll backwards while in the gear was in drive position even on drive way when taking my foot off the brake The van had a slow or a ruff take off at timesI left my van on a number of occasion to be diagnosed they claimed nothing was wrong however everything would happen all over again although the shop manage claimed the van was fine when they drove itI would explain the problem to the technicians and service manager as detailed as possible, any unusual sound, leaks, improper shifting in the transmission, warning lights and codesThey would take a fake a look at the van and claim it was fine I need to dive it moreI would pick it up after closing when I and people got off work could to give me a rideThe spare key was locked under mate in vanIn December after the shop closed , As I drive off, the van drove differently and nothing was normalI would notice the van having more issue, more service lights , to much play in the steering wheel (brake lights popping on while car was off, brake light indicator misreading, head lights come on by themselves when van was off and no one was in van) and more codesEarly I allowing Meineke one final opportunity to repair my van and when they refused and the problem could not be resolvedI informed the manger that I will file a law suitOn that day, my father and I drove to the shop to request that Meineke shop fix the van as promised because they was a lot of transmission fluid linkingThe shop manage refused and is being extremely dishonest and never wanted to hold up to their end of the warrantyNever offered to fix the van at any costThey refused to fix the van and that's when I threaten to file a law suiteThat is when I filed a complaint with the Bureau of Automotive RepairThe vehicle has been out of service for more than monthsThe van is currently being thoroughly inspected and repaired by a licensed smog test and repair and transmission shop Meineke's manager avoid vehicle warranty and declined to research issue to prevent serious problems following their repair defectsThe Licensed smog shop claimed that someone intentional tamper with the harness to the ECM (van's computer) and possible more I have not read full report Meineke claimed they offered option of how I would like my van repaired and to save money I opted out and also refused extended warrantyThey did not offer any other warranty's nor options but to fix the van except that they would do a good job guaranteeing the work with a warranty month warranty Meinekee representative claimed there were no codes and van was shifting there were no problems however the evidence will show that to be and untrueThe B.A.RDid conduct an investigation however contrary to Meineke's representative statement there was absolutely no wrongdoing, is also and untrue as the evidence will showI did not save any money as a matter of fact, normally for this type of job, other shops offer the same price with a warranty of months or 12,miles not months 6,milesI never test drove the van with anyone at Meineke or anyone for that matter nor did the offerDue to those facts I had no choice but to decline the extremely late and very bad offer to repair the mishaps after filing the complaint with the B.A.R., I am therefore requesting a full refund
I am rejecting this response because:
The manager at Meineke offered me an
extremely large credit line, no money down and no interest for 6months
on any work they preformed at their shop. The shop manager claimed I
wouldn't have to make a payment for 6 months with no interest for 6
months. However, I unexpectedly got late bill of $289.00 so my $300
dollar payment made toward the original $1,500. $300. only decrease my
bill to 1,456. 31 not to $1200 as expected. This explains why the
manager keep pressuring me to get other work done to increase the credit
owed knowing I would have a payment due immediately the next month and
the amount would depend on the amount of credit extend. And if I
couldn't pay the full amount within 3 months and at that rate they
determined, I could possibly be forced to pay up to 17,000 for 1,500
dollars worth of work over time had I not paid the total amount due with
in 3 months not 6 months as the managers promise.
The facts of this case are, On June 18,
2015, my van was taken to Meineke Econo Lube to be serviced The shop
manger Jessie claimed they would do a great job and the transmission
should last up to at least 75,000 miles which I depended on and he gave
me a six month warranty on parts and labor for the repair of the van
transmission. On June 24, 2015 manage Oscar claimed that manger Jesse
move to the other shop and the van was ready for pick up. Upon
leaving Meineke that evening, I immediately heard something dragging on
the freeway before I could pull to the right side of the freeway it
stop as if it detaching from the van. I looked under the van but
could not diagnose the problem. Next the van popped out of gear. The van
pop out of gear cause the van to slow down in traffic putting us in
fear of our lives. I have allowed Meineke the opportunity to fix the
problem on several occasions. I brought the van back several times
within the time of the warranty. Meineke shop were given several
opportunities to fix the mishaps and haven't. The Van after each visit
became increasing worse than before with the cost has running well into
several thousand dollars. Since July, 2015, to February 2016, I have had
to return to the shop a total of 8 times. It was tough getting them to
look at the van. I called the shop on several occasion and made several
online appointments to start documenting my visits and problems because
they claimed they were so busy. I explain the problems as frequently and
as accurately as possible, because obvious the problem wasn't fix and
it would only be fair to repair any small problems to prevent them from
becoming big problems.
I was currently having the following
problems with my vehicle at the time the troubleshooting warning
indicator lights came on; popping out of gear. The codes read several
transmission codes on Meineke's code read which I seen with my own eyes.
The van started to roll backwards while in the gear was in drive
position even on drive way when taking my foot off the brake The van had
a slow or a ruff take off at times. I left my van on a number of
occasion to be diagnosed they claimed nothing was wrong however
everything would happen all over again although the shop manage claimed
the van was fine when they drove it. I would explain the problem to the
technicians and service manager as detailed as possible, any unusual
sound, leaks, improper shifting in the transmission, warning lights and
codes. They would take a fake a look at the van and claim it was fine I
need to dive it more. I would pick it up after closing when I and people
got off work could to give me a ride. The spare key was locked under
mate in van. In December after the shop closed , As I drive off, the van
drove differently and nothing was normal. I would notice the van having
more issue, more service lights , to much play in the steering wheel
(brake lights popping on while car was off, brake light indicator
misreading, head lights come on by themselves when van was off and no
one was in van) and more codes. Early 2016 I allowing Meineke one final
opportunity to repair my van and when they refused and the problem could
not be resolved. I informed the manger that I will file a law suit. On
that day, my father and I drove to the shop to request that Meineke shop
fix the van as promised because they was a lot of transmission fluid
linking. The shop manage refused and is being extremely dishonest and
never wanted to hold up to their end of the warranty. Never offered to
fix the van at any cost. They refused to fix the van and that's when I
threaten to file a law suite. That is when I filed a complaint with the
Bureau of Automotive Repair. The vehicle has been out of service for
more than 11 months. The van is currently being thoroughly inspected and
repaired by a licensed smog test and repair and transmission shop.
Meineke's manager avoid vehicle warranty and declined to research issue
to prevent serious problems following their repair defects. The Licensed
smog shop claimed that someone intentional tamper with the harness to
the ECM (van's computer) and possible more I have not read full report.
Meineke claimed they offered option of how I
would like my van repaired and to save money I opted out and also
refused extended warranty. They did not offer any other warranty's nor
options but to fix the van except that they would do a good job
guaranteeing the work with a warranty 6 month warranty.
Meinekee representative claimed there were
no codes and van was shifting normal there were no problems however the
evidence will show that to be false and untrue. The B.A.R. Did conduct
an investigation however contrary to Meineke's representative statement
there was absolutely no wrongdoing, is also false and untrue as the
evidence will show. I did not save any money as a matter of fact,
normally for this type of job, other shops offer the same price with a
warranty of 12 months or 12,000 miles not 6 months 6,000. miles. I never
test drove the van with anyone at Meineke or anyone for that matter nor
did the offer. Due to those facts I had no choice but to decline the
extremely late and very bad offer to repair the mishaps after filing the
complaint with the B.A.R., I am therefore requesting a full refund.
With regard to the above referenced complaint.. Firstly, to save money, the customer herself opted for a used transmission unit to be installed in her vehicle as a replacement of her failed transmission. She fully knew and acknowledged that this used transmission unit came with only a 90-day...
warranty. Other longer-warranty options were given to the customer at an additional cost and she declined those options. The customer took delivery of the vehicle with the used replacement transmission on 06/24/2015. Then, literally 2 days before the expiration of the 90-day warranty, on 09/22/2015 the customer returned complaining of improper shifting in the transmission. We tested the transmission to find normal operation, no codes registered in the vehicle's computer, fluid was clean and at the proper level, without any leaks detected at that time. We test-drove the vehicle to find the transmission shifted normally. We also test drove the vehicle with the customer, including letting her drive, and again there were no problems with the way the transmission shifted. Well after the transmission replacement was out of its 90-day warranty, on 4/14/2016, this customer returned again, this time complaining of a fluid leak. We inspected and found an axle seal was leaking. We reminded the customer that the replacement transmission was a used unit, per her own choice, and that it carried only a 90-day warranty that had now expired seven months prior. However, we offered to work with her to resolve the matter and offered to perform the repair for her at our bare-bones cost. She refused our offer and instead filed a complaint with the California Bureau of Automotive Repair (B.A.R.). The B.A.R, conducted an investigation to conclude there was absolutely no wrongdoing whatsoever on our part. We at that point reiterated our offer to perform the repair at our cost but never heard back from this customer. It has now been over 18 months since the original repair and over 9 months since the finding of the leaking axle seal. We reject this customer's demand for a refund, based on all the forgoing facts. However, we continue to offer to perform the repair for her at our cost.
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/09/18) */
First fact that needs to be emphasized is that we are extremely interested in and anxious to get this matter resolved for the customer. We ask her to return to our shop and promise to be very fair in resolving the matter.
Meinke Corporate...
notified us that this customer contacted them regarding the fact that her car still has oil leaks. So, on September 4, 2015 we reached out to the customer by telephone and told her we'd like her to return to our shop for further inspection and resolution. The customer agreed to come in and we told her that, since it was Friday, we'd call her Monday to arrange a time to come in. On Monday Sept. 7, we called the customer and left a message attempting to arrange for her to bring her car back in. Until this Revdex.com complaint, we have yet to hear back from the customer. So we tried to push for an equitable resolution but never heard back from the customer.
As for the repairs on the customer's car... when the car came in, there was oil all over the engine and it appeared to have multiple leaks. After very careful examination, we identified two oil leaks for sure but believed there could be more. These two leaks were coming from the valve cover gasket and the oil pan gasket. Therefore, we notified the customer that we would have to start by fixing what we know for sure is leaking and inspect further after that to see if there are any other leaks. We further told her, prior to doing any work, that if after the leaks are repaired we see no other leaks while at the shop, it's possible other leaks become evident after some driving. We explicitly told her that these situations "require a process of elimination." That is, we must fix what is definitely known to be a problem and then look for other possible leaks, either right after the repairs or after some driving.
After this explanation, the customer agreed to proceed with the replacement of the valve cover gasket and oil pan gasket. She seemed to understand and acknowledge what we told her that there are possibly and maybe even likely other leaks. We performed the replacement of these two gaskets and inspected to find no other obvious leaks. We advised the customer to keep an eye out for any other leaks. BUT THE LAST THING WE WERE GOING TO DO AT THE POINT WAS RECOMMEND REPAIRS THAT WE COULDN'T DETERMINE ARE NECESSARY.
That all being said, we are prepared to inspect the vehicle again and determine any other leaks that are active. As for the cost of these additional repairs, we are here to please and would be willing to work with this customer in every possible way, including applying some of what she has already spent toward the additional repairs. To be perfectly clear, we are willing to make monetary concessions toward the additional needed repairs purely for the sake of good customer service - not because we believe we did anything wrong. If anything, we simply protected this customer from spending money on repairs that were not apparent at the time we had her car in the shop.
To do this, the customer will have to bring the car back to the shop. We promise to treat her right and be very fair. However, a refund is not something we can accommodate, because we did not do anything wrong and the actual work we performed was both necessary as a first step and that work has no defects. We warranty all work performed and will fix it during the warranty period in the event of a parts or labor defect.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2015/09/24) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
At no moment did the manager said that the car may have any other leaks after any repairs, to my understanding he assured me that the leak was fixed. So I proceeded to pay the amount thinking that my car was fixed. The manager did not explain anything about cross elimination at the beginning nor upon my return. If they said that my car had apparently many leaks, I don't understand why wouldn't they did not tell that same day I took my car in the beginning, instead the manager assured me that the leak was gone, yet I left their shop with the leak. Apparently he was just eager for me to pay for any repairs. To my surprise the leak was worse, so that is when I took my car back to the shop. They had not fixed the leak that they supposedly inspected for, upon my return the Manager said that I had another "problem" (they mentioned a part near the coolant hose, said it needed some sealing to be done and that a hose needed repacement) that's when he said that it would cost me extra to fix it. After my return that is when he said I had multiple leaks. He did not say that in the begining, so it makes me assume his employees didn't inspect the car right. He wanted me to pay 180 for something my car didn't need. Again Meineke didn't inspect the car right because Meineke the "problem" that I metioned above was not the problem. I know because I took my car elsewhere and they replaced a part in the filter, a total of $110 dollars is what I got charged. And yes my car is not leaking anymore after I got it fixed elsewhere.
Meineke failed to inspect the first problem, they did not even follow their warranty policy on fixing the leak after I brought the car back to them. When a business does not finish the job right and gets paid for it, they are not honoring the customer.
Just to be clear I don't want Meineke to inspect my car, I only want the money that I paid for the last repair of $110 dollars.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2015/10/06) */
While we stick by our initial response, as we know full well what we determined on Ms. [redacted]'s car, we would be happy to provide Ms. [redacted] a prorated refund of $110. We do so in the interest of customer satisfaction.
However, we will need both a copy of the invoice from the other shop as well as we'll need to inspect the vehicle to verify both the repair from the other shop as well as make sure there are no other leaks. Again, when there are multiple leaks, it's best to replace the worst or most obvious leak first and then reassess the remaining leaks. And we want to be sure there are no further problems.
We request that Ms. [redacted] contact us to make arrangements to receive the $110 refund.
Final Consumer Response /* (2000, 11, 2015/10/07) */
(The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)
Thank you and I will contact the shop as soon as possible.
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 8, 2015/05/26) */
Ms. [redacted] came in for an oil change and multi-point vehicle inspection and singed the work order authorizing this work, INCLUDING the vehicle inspection. Upon inspection of vehicle, drive axles, ball joints, and sway bar links were found in...
need of replacement. Ms. [redacted] was physically shown these items and their faults/failures were pointed out and demonstrated to her. She was given a quote of approximately $750 for replacement of these items but (with specials and coupons utilized) the discounted price was $498 + Tax. There was never any pressure; Ms. [redacted] was merely given an option to do repairs or opt not to do them. She verbally approved the repairs at the quoted price and the technicians commenced the work on her vehicle. Quite some time later, Ms. Findley approached one of the technicians and told him that, after reaching her mother on the telephone, she changed her mind and doesn't want to do the work. The technician notified the shop manager who came out and spoke to Ms. [redacted]. She told the shop manager the same thing... that she "changed her mind after speaking to her mother." The shop manager then explained and showed her that the original (old) parts are already off. He offered to put those same parts back on but explained that there would be some labor charge for having removed them. It wasn't until she was notified of the labor charge that she changed her story and alleged that she "never authorized the repairs." Ms. [redacted]'s mother came down and spoke to me (personally) by telephone. I assessed the situation, reviewed the paperwork, documentation, and the surveillance video; then explained to Ms. [redacted]'s mother that her daughter had in fact authorized the work but that we'd be happy to reinstall the original parts but if she chooses that option there would be a nominal labor charge for the work already done. With those choices on the table, Ms. [redacted] elected to continue with the full repairs as originally authorized. She asked if we would give her the oil change for free as goodwill. I agreed to do so as a goodwill gesture and repeated to her that the work she had authorized was being done at a huge discount, as the shop manager applied coupon specials to the price even though Ms. [redacted] did not actually have the coupons. (What otherwise would've cost $750 + $30 for oil change came to $498 total after discounts and the free oil change).
Additionally, please note that at no time was anyone rude to Ms. [redacted]. In fact, it was she who became confrontational to the extent of even calling the police, all after she was told there would be a labor charge for work authorized by her and already performed. Also, the price never changed... what she was quoted and authorized is what she was charged. ($250 was the approximate amount of the discount off the regular price, not a varying repair quote as she alleges in her complaint).
Given the fact that our shop did nothing wrong and the repairs were discounted by about 33% on top of a free oil change provided to Ms. [redacted], we are unable to provide any further gestures at this time.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 11, 2015/05/27) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I do not accept the response from the business because it is worded incorrectly and only to protect one's self. As the business responder reported I came in asking for oil change that is correct. I did not ask for multi-point vehicle inspection because I know there is nothing wrong with my car. I needed an oil change and that was it. I was not aware of their services ever providing an inspection of vehicles. The work order I signed said oil change for $29.99 which when asked I did not receive a copy of this original documentation. As for the quote of $750 was not mentioned to be exact. As the responder says I agreed to the quoted price, which is claimed of $750, in that case why not charge me $750 instead of the $472.98 (final result) since the responder has falsely claimed I agreed to quote price of $750. My original quotes were stated by [redacted], "Front axles, front lower ball joints, and sway bar link ends would cost $130 + tax for both driver sides. Which is a total of $260 + plus tax. If I was given a quote of $750 then that is to tell me that tax is about $490 which is greater than repairs itself, now that is incorrect. I was never told of discounted prices nor coupons. Therefore if the work actually would result in $750 and I did not present a coupon why was I given a discount without presentation of correct materials. Am aware that he made the price exactly enough for my card to pay because without my permission he somehow checked the available balance, yet in the beginning only telling me it was a gas card. I in no way agreed to these repairs, I clearly answered, "Yes, let me ask my mom first?." (before any work is to be repaired)[redacted] says, "Okay." I asked for permission with my mother and she said, "No, you only need an oil change." [redacted] within 3 feet of my presence while I made the call, as the call ended I simply said, "No, my mother said oil change only that is what I will do today." Once again he yells angrily the f word and exited outside walking towards his technicians, and I took a seat in the lobby. I assumed he went to tell his techs, no to the job. (ONLY OIL CHANGE) Shortly after is when I noticed a sledgehammer being used to hit something on my car. (front tire area - tires are off) That is when I exited to ask what is being done the tech responded, "Front axles, front lower ball joints, and sway bar link ends. That is what [redacted] said to do." I responded, "No, oil change only." That is when [redacted] came back outside to confront me saying I agreed to it. So I asked if my parts are to be placed back on my car, and to ONLY COMPLETE OIL CHANGE. That is when I was informed that I must pay for labor to put my parts back onto my vehicle. I then responded, "No, I never agreed for you to take them off, so why am paying for labor." That is when [redacted] told the techs, "Leave her car where it is until she pays." The techs immediately dropped their tools and walked away. There is not one point when I changed my story, by the way stories are fairytales and I do not find this being a fairytale situation. In what way possible has the responder reviewed the surveillance when I was told it cannot be reviewed nor rewinded as for myself to see where I allegedly agreed to repairs. There is not one point when I verbally asked for free oil change as good-will. At the time of repairs being concluded that is when I was told by [redacted], "I gave you free oil change, it's not included within the $472.98." I said, "Okay." Therefore I agreed to free oil change after he suggested it first, I did not ask him for it. [redacted] was rude from the time I said no to repairs, so why should I ask him for good-will if he was already being a negative nancy. The responder states, "Ms. [redacted]'s mother came down and spoke to me (personally) by telephone. I assessed the situation, reviewed the paperwork, documentation, and the surveillance video; then explained to Ms. [redacted]'s mother that her daughter had in fact authorized the work but that we'd be happy to reinstall the original parts but if she chooses that option there would be a nominal labor charge for the work already done." Yes my mother did speak with the shop's owner on the phone, when explained the situation the only response was, "Whatever [redacted] says goes." So how if the owner was on the phone and spoke to my mother yet he somehow claims to have assessed the situation, reviewed paperwork, documentation, and surveillance. The owner of the shop in no way corresponded with the situation, nor was he present. Once again he said, "Whatever [redacted] says goes" and that was the end of the phone call. However, [redacted] dialed the number and spoke privately before handing my mother the telephone, therefore who is to know if that was actually the owner we've spoken to. When I entered into the business on that morning of 5/5/15 approx. 925 I asked for oil change, which I was told $29.99 and it would take about half an hour to complete. In what way possible did the responder confirm a result of myself asking for "goodwill oil change" when I already signed and confirmed the $29.99 oil change. (original document) And again I did not receive a copy of. The final copy I received showed oil change at $0.00 and repairs of $472.98.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 13, 2015/06/08) */
As much as we'd like to do more for this customer - NOT because we did anything wrong but for the sake of customer service - we cannot lose money over the situation, given that we did nothing wrong. The discounts already provided, including the free oil change creates a situation where any other concessions would create a loss for our company. Again, this is a loss that we cannot endure - having done nothing wrong. Our original position and response has to stand.
Ms. [redacted] seems to question the veracity of the conversation that took place between her mother and the shop owner and that, candidly is insulting and further evidences Ms. [redacted]'s unreasonableness in this whole incident. The shop owner in no way ever said, "Whatever [redacted] says goes." It is a fact that the owner assessed the situation objectively and reviewed all facts, including all documentation. This was done remotely at the time through offsite access to the computer system and camera surveillance system. We are happy to demonstrate this technology of remote access anytime to Ms. [redacted].
One final note: The work performed on Ms. [redacted]'s vehicle, all told, was a job of several hours. Ms. [redacted]'s assertions and accusations do not make logical sense in that the components being replaced were already dismantled by the time she notified [redacted] and the technicians that "she did not want to do the work." This point in time would've been quite some time after the original authorization to proceed. The timing is very much indicative of Ms. [redacted] changing her mind well after the work commenced. In other words, if Ms. [redacted]'s story were to hold any water a phone call to her mother would've taken only minutes. There's no possible way the vehicle could've been dismantled in the brief few minutes that it would've taken for that phone call to mom. No, fact is, Ms. [redacted] authorized the work and long after that authorization and after the vehicle was dismantled she changed her mind.
Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 16, 2015/06/09) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
Once again my statement will remain the same. This company has falsely stated the full and truthful description of what happened on the day of 05/05/15. The reason the car was dismantled in minutes was strictly because there were two technicians working on the car. [redacted] clearly stated for both techs working on the car it would be $85/hr a piece. The situation was plotted and both techs played as [redacted]'s puppets. Clearly [redacted] is very good at taking advantage of people. Both techs worked rapidly to meet [redacted]'s hunger of money. Therefore my statement of the car being dismantled in the matter of minutes is a very valid and a true statement. When my mother arrived she asked [redacted], "How did [redacted]'s parts get off so fast." His response, "Well I have two techs working on it." [redacted] clearly understood and plotted such money hungry situation. Once again I was fully pressured into using my credit card which I was told in the beginning "...it cannot be used here, it is a gas card." My problem and concern remains because the company speaks "we cannot lose money over the situation..." Therefore why must myself, a college student with no income lose out on money that is not even in existence, why must I be taken advantage of? Just to be clear I asked [redacted] upon arrival if the card could be used here only because it was a card I have had over one year and did not know how or where it could be used. The description of the CarCareONE card clearly stated in the manual "can be used for auto care at certain businesses/locations if acceptable." In my case it was up to me to see where and who would accept the credit. So I took the effort to ask if it could be used here, I not once agreed to any auto repairs. Upon arrival I was told the oil change would cost $29.99, which was money I had cash in my pocket. I strongly believe I was tricked into this situations. [redacted] told me it was a gas card, I placed the card back into my possession. Moments later am confronted with a large amount of repairs. I strongly remember myself asking [redacted], "Are these repairs important." He says, "Not really, but within a year or so you should consider it." I replied well I do not have money for that today. I only want an OIL CHANGE." That is when he replied well you have a $500 dollar limit on that card." From my understanding [redacted] is very manipulative and pressuring. I gave him permission to see if the card was acceptable of usage at the Econo Lube N Tune, [redacted] went behind my back and checked my balance which resulted in myself spending the full amount. As a total of $472.98. I have received my statement from CarCareONE with a balance of $497.40. [redacted] in every way possible knew exactly what he was doing. Providing me with a bill that clearly used every penny of the card's limit. I was very much so pressured into this whole situation because of a sneaky employee who seen a young girl who he wanted to rob for the day. This whole situation has made myself quite miserable because of the pressure of a business' employee taking advantage. [redacted] became very arrogant and demanding. Since he wanted the money of my credit card so badly, I advise him to apply for one himself. I strongly believe I deserve awarded credit/refund of these repairs, being that I was pressured to use such card. I was pressured because I was told, "You will not receive your car until paying." Once again pressured to pay for repairs I did not confirm. [redacted] masterminded the situation which was something I did not see coming. He even got to the point when handing me a pen stating, "Here's a lawyer right here, you can sue us and get your money back (laughing obnoxiously)." While the responder clearly says, "It is a fact that the owner assessed the situation objectively and reviewed all facts, including all documentation. This was done remotely at the time through offsite access to the computer system and camera surveillance system." When I asked to view footage I got the response of "I don't know how it works." (shrugging shoulders). So if the owner was able to review camera, why not act as a RESPONSIBLE OWNER and bring the footage to the location to verify the event occurred on the day of while I continuously asked his employee to view footage. [redacted] carried himself very rudely. His customer service skills are not satisfactory. Once again when my mother had spoken to the owner over the phone, while he was explained the situation the exact response was, "WHATEVER [redacted] SAYS GOES." These are words directly spoken from owner to customer's mother. Overall I deserve a refund for being manipulated by [redacted] and taken advantage of.
With regard to the above referenced complaintFirstly, to save money, the customer herself opted for a used transmission unit to be installed in her vehicle as a replacement of her failed transmissionShe fully knew and acknowledged that this used transmission unit came with only a 90-day warrantyOther longer-warranty options were given to the customer at an additional cost and she declined those optionsThe customer took delivery of the vehicle with the used replacement transmission on 06/24/Then, literally days before the expiration of the 90-day warranty, on 09/22/the customer returned complaining of improper shifting in the transmissionWe tested the transmission to find operation, no codes registered in the vehicle's computer, fluid was clean and at the proper level, without any leaks detected at that timeWe test-drove the vehicle to find the transmission shifted normallyWe also test drove the vehicle with the customer, including letting her drive, and again there were no problems with the way the transmission shiftedWell after the transmission replacement was out of its 90-day warranty, on 4/14/2016, this customer returned again, this time complaining of a fluid leakWe inspected and found an axle seal was leakingWe reminded the customer that the replacement transmission was a used unit, per her own choice, and that it carried only a 90-day warranty that had now expired seven months priorHowever, we offered to work with her to resolve the matter and offered to perform the repair for her at our bare-bones costShe refused our offer and instead filed a complaint with the California Bureau of Automotive Repair (B.A.R.)The B.A.R, conducted an investigation to conclude there was absolutely no wrongdoing whatsoever on our partWe at that point reiterated our offer to perform the repair at our cost but never heard back from this customerIt has now been over months since the original repair and over months since the finding of the leaking axle sealWe reject this customer's demand for a refund, based on all the forgoing factsHowever, we continue to offer to perform the repair for her at our cost
I am rejecting this response because: The manager at Meineke offered me an extremely large credit line, no money down and no interest for 6months on any work they preformed at their shopThe shop manager claimed I wouldn't have to make a payment for months with no interest for monthsHowever, I unexpectedly got late bill of $so my $ dollar payment made toward the original $1,$only decrease my bill to 1,not to $as expectedThis explains why the manager keep pressuring me to get other work done to increase the credit owed knowing I would have a payment due immediately the next month and the amount would depend on the amount of credit extendAnd if I couldn't pay the full amount within months and at that rate they determined, I could possibly be forced to pay up to 17,for 1, dollars worth of work over time had I not paid the total amount due with in months not months as the managers promise The facts of this case are, On June 18, 2015, my van was taken to Meineke Econo Lube to be serviced The shop manger Jessie claimed they would do a great job and the transmission should last up to at least 75,miles which I depended on and he gave me a six month warranty on parts and labor for the repair of the van transmissionOn June 24, manage Oscar claimed that manger Jesse move to the other shop and the van was ready for pick upUpon leaving Meineke that evening, I immediately heard something dragging on the freeway before I could pull to the right side of the freeway it stop as if it detaching from the vanI looked under the van but could not diagnose the problemNext the van popped out of gearThe van pop out of gear cause the van to slow down in traffic putting us in fear of our livesI have allowed Meineke the opportunity to fix the problem on several occasionsI brought the van back several times within the time of the warrantyMeineke shop were given several opportunities to fix the mishaps and haven'tThe Van after each visit became increasing worse than before with the cost has running well into several thousand dollarsSince July, 2015, to February 2016, I have had to return to the shop a total of timesIt was tough getting them to look at the vanI called the shop on several occasion and made several online appointments to start documenting my visits and problems because they claimed they were so busyI explain the problems as frequently and as accurately as possible, because obvious the problem wasn't fix and it would only be fair to repair any small problems to prevent them from becoming big problems I was currently having the following problems with my vehicle at the time the troubleshooting warning indicator lights came on; popping out of gearThe codes read several transmission codes on Meineke's code read which I seen with my own eyes The van started to roll backwards while in the gear was in drive position even on drive way when taking my foot off the brake The van had a slow or a ruff take off at timesI left my van on a number of occasion to be diagnosed they claimed nothing was wrong however everything would happen all over again although the shop manage claimed the van was fine when they drove itI would explain the problem to the technicians and service manager as detailed as possible, any unusual sound, leaks, improper shifting in the transmission, warning lights and codesThey would take a fake a look at the van and claim it was fine I need to dive it moreI would pick it up after closing when I and people got off work could to give me a rideThe spare key was locked under mate in vanIn December after the shop closed , As I drive off, the van drove differently and nothing was normalI would notice the van having more issue, more service lights , to much play in the steering wheel (brake lights popping on while car was off, brake light indicator misreading, head lights come on by themselves when van was off and no one was in van) and more codesEarly I allowing Meineke one final opportunity to repair my van and when they refused and the problem could not be resolvedI informed the manger that I will file a law suitOn that day, my father and I drove to the shop to request that Meineke shop fix the van as promised because they was a lot of transmission fluid linkingThe shop manage refused and is being extremely dishonest and never wanted to hold up to their end of the warrantyNever offered to fix the van at any costThey refused to fix the van and that's when I threaten to file a law suiteThat is when I filed a complaint with the Bureau of Automotive RepairThe vehicle has been out of service for more than monthsThe van is currently being thoroughly inspected and repaired by a licensed smog test and repair and transmission shop Meineke's manager avoid vehicle warranty and declined to research issue to prevent serious problems following their repair defectsThe Licensed smog shop claimed that someone intentional tamper with the harness to the ECM (van's computer) and possible more I have not read full report Meineke claimed they offered option of how I would like my van repaired and to save money I opted out and also refused extended warrantyThey did not offer any other warranty's nor options but to fix the van except that they would do a good job guaranteeing the work with a warranty month warranty Meinekee representative claimed there were no codes and van was shifting there were no problems however the evidence will show that to be and untrueThe B.A.RDid conduct an investigation however contrary to Meineke's representative statement there was absolutely no wrongdoing, is also and untrue as the evidence will showI did not save any money as a matter of fact, normally for this type of job, other shops offer the same price with a warranty of months or 12,miles not months 6,milesI never test drove the van with anyone at Meineke or anyone for that matter nor did the offerDue to those facts I had no choice but to decline the extremely late and very bad offer to repair the mishaps after filing the complaint with the B.A.R., I am therefore requesting a full refund
I am rejecting this response because:
The manager at Meineke offered me an
extremely large credit line, no money down and no interest for 6months
on any work they preformed at their shop. The shop manager claimed I
wouldn't have to make a payment for 6 months with no interest for 6
months. However, I unexpectedly got late bill of $289.00 so my $300
dollar payment made toward the original $1,500. $300. only decrease my
bill to 1,456. 31 not to $1200 as expected. This explains why the
manager keep pressuring me to get other work done to increase the credit
owed knowing I would have a payment due immediately the next month and
the amount would depend on the amount of credit extend. And if I
couldn't pay the full amount within 3 months and at that rate they
determined, I could possibly be forced to pay up to 17,000 for 1,500
dollars worth of work over time had I not paid the total amount due with
in 3 months not 6 months as the managers promise.
The facts of this case are, On June 18,
2015, my van was taken to Meineke Econo Lube to be serviced The shop
manger Jessie claimed they would do a great job and the transmission
should last up to at least 75,000 miles which I depended on and he gave
me a six month warranty on parts and labor for the repair of the van
transmission. On June 24, 2015 manage Oscar claimed that manger Jesse
move to the other shop and the van was ready for pick up. Upon
leaving Meineke that evening, I immediately heard something dragging on
the freeway before I could pull to the right side of the freeway it
stop as if it detaching from the van. I looked under the van but
could not diagnose the problem. Next the van popped out of gear. The van
pop out of gear cause the van to slow down in traffic putting us in
fear of our lives. I have allowed Meineke the opportunity to fix the
problem on several occasions. I brought the van back several times
within the time of the warranty. Meineke shop were given several
opportunities to fix the mishaps and haven't. The Van after each visit
became increasing worse than before with the cost has running well into
several thousand dollars. Since July, 2015, to February 2016, I have had
to return to the shop a total of 8 times. It was tough getting them to
look at the van. I called the shop on several occasion and made several
online appointments to start documenting my visits and problems because
they claimed they were so busy. I explain the problems as frequently and
as accurately as possible, because obvious the problem wasn't fix and
it would only be fair to repair any small problems to prevent them from
becoming big problems.
I was currently having the following
problems with my vehicle at the time the troubleshooting warning
indicator lights came on; popping out of gear. The codes read several
transmission codes on Meineke's code read which I seen with my own eyes.
The van started to roll backwards while in the gear was in drive
position even on drive way when taking my foot off the brake The van had
a slow or a ruff take off at times. I left my van on a number of
occasion to be diagnosed they claimed nothing was wrong however
everything would happen all over again although the shop manage claimed
the van was fine when they drove it. I would explain the problem to the
technicians and service manager as detailed as possible, any unusual
sound, leaks, improper shifting in the transmission, warning lights and
codes. They would take a fake a look at the van and claim it was fine I
need to dive it more. I would pick it up after closing when I and people
got off work could to give me a ride. The spare key was locked under
mate in van. In December after the shop closed , As I drive off, the van
drove differently and nothing was normal. I would notice the van having
more issue, more service lights , to much play in the steering wheel
(brake lights popping on while car was off, brake light indicator
misreading, head lights come on by themselves when van was off and no
one was in van) and more codes. Early 2016 I allowing Meineke one final
opportunity to repair my van and when they refused and the problem could
not be resolved. I informed the manger that I will file a law suit. On
that day, my father and I drove to the shop to request that Meineke shop
fix the van as promised because they was a lot of transmission fluid
linking. The shop manage refused and is being extremely dishonest and
never wanted to hold up to their end of the warranty. Never offered to
fix the van at any cost. They refused to fix the van and that's when I
threaten to file a law suite. That is when I filed a complaint with the
Bureau of Automotive Repair. The vehicle has been out of service for
more than 11 months. The van is currently being thoroughly inspected and
repaired by a licensed smog test and repair and transmission shop.
Meineke's manager avoid vehicle warranty and declined to research issue
to prevent serious problems following their repair defects. The Licensed
smog shop claimed that someone intentional tamper with the harness to
the ECM (van's computer) and possible more I have not read full report.
Meineke claimed they offered option of how I
would like my van repaired and to save money I opted out and also
refused extended warranty. They did not offer any other warranty's nor
options but to fix the van except that they would do a good job
guaranteeing the work with a warranty 6 month warranty.
Meinekee representative claimed there were
no codes and van was shifting normal there were no problems however the
evidence will show that to be false and untrue. The B.A.R. Did conduct
an investigation however contrary to Meineke's representative statement
there was absolutely no wrongdoing, is also false and untrue as the
evidence will show. I did not save any money as a matter of fact,
normally for this type of job, other shops offer the same price with a
warranty of 12 months or 12,000 miles not 6 months 6,000. miles. I never
test drove the van with anyone at Meineke or anyone for that matter nor
did the offer. Due to those facts I had no choice but to decline the
extremely late and very bad offer to repair the mishaps after filing the
complaint with the B.A.R., I am therefore requesting a full refund.
With regard to the above referenced complaint.. Firstly, to save money, the customer herself opted for a used transmission unit to be installed in her vehicle as a replacement of her failed transmission. She fully knew and acknowledged that this used transmission unit came with only a 90-day...
warranty. Other longer-warranty options were given to the customer at an additional cost and she declined those options. The customer took delivery of the vehicle with the used replacement transmission on 06/24/2015. Then, literally 2 days before the expiration of the 90-day warranty, on 09/22/2015 the customer returned complaining of improper shifting in the transmission. We tested the transmission to find normal operation, no codes registered in the vehicle's computer, fluid was clean and at the proper level, without any leaks detected at that time. We test-drove the vehicle to find the transmission shifted normally. We also test drove the vehicle with the customer, including letting her drive, and again there were no problems with the way the transmission shifted. Well after the transmission replacement was out of its 90-day warranty, on 4/14/2016, this customer returned again, this time complaining of a fluid leak. We inspected and found an axle seal was leaking. We reminded the customer that the replacement transmission was a used unit, per her own choice, and that it carried only a 90-day warranty that had now expired seven months prior. However, we offered to work with her to resolve the matter and offered to perform the repair for her at our bare-bones cost. She refused our offer and instead filed a complaint with the California Bureau of Automotive Repair (B.A.R.). The B.A.R, conducted an investigation to conclude there was absolutely no wrongdoing whatsoever on our part. We at that point reiterated our offer to perform the repair at our cost but never heard back from this customer. It has now been over 18 months since the original repair and over 9 months since the finding of the leaking axle seal. We reject this customer's demand for a refund, based on all the forgoing facts. However, we continue to offer to perform the repair for her at our cost.
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/09/18) */
First fact that needs to be emphasized is that we are extremely interested in and anxious to get this matter resolved for the customer. We ask her to return to our shop and promise to be very fair in resolving the matter.
Meinke Corporate...
notified us that this customer contacted them regarding the fact that her car still has oil leaks. So, on September 4, 2015 we reached out to the customer by telephone and told her we'd like her to return to our shop for further inspection and resolution. The customer agreed to come in and we told her that, since it was Friday, we'd call her Monday to arrange a time to come in. On Monday Sept. 7, we called the customer and left a message attempting to arrange for her to bring her car back in. Until this Revdex.com complaint, we have yet to hear back from the customer. So we tried to push for an equitable resolution but never heard back from the customer.
As for the repairs on the customer's car... when the car came in, there was oil all over the engine and it appeared to have multiple leaks. After very careful examination, we identified two oil leaks for sure but believed there could be more. These two leaks were coming from the valve cover gasket and the oil pan gasket. Therefore, we notified the customer that we would have to start by fixing what we know for sure is leaking and inspect further after that to see if there are any other leaks. We further told her, prior to doing any work, that if after the leaks are repaired we see no other leaks while at the shop, it's possible other leaks become evident after some driving. We explicitly told her that these situations "require a process of elimination." That is, we must fix what is definitely known to be a problem and then look for other possible leaks, either right after the repairs or after some driving.
After this explanation, the customer agreed to proceed with the replacement of the valve cover gasket and oil pan gasket. She seemed to understand and acknowledge what we told her that there are possibly and maybe even likely other leaks. We performed the replacement of these two gaskets and inspected to find no other obvious leaks. We advised the customer to keep an eye out for any other leaks. BUT THE LAST THING WE WERE GOING TO DO AT THE POINT WAS RECOMMEND REPAIRS THAT WE COULDN'T DETERMINE ARE NECESSARY.
That all being said, we are prepared to inspect the vehicle again and determine any other leaks that are active. As for the cost of these additional repairs, we are here to please and would be willing to work with this customer in every possible way, including applying some of what she has already spent toward the additional repairs. To be perfectly clear, we are willing to make monetary concessions toward the additional needed repairs purely for the sake of good customer service - not because we believe we did anything wrong. If anything, we simply protected this customer from spending money on repairs that were not apparent at the time we had her car in the shop.
To do this, the customer will have to bring the car back to the shop. We promise to treat her right and be very fair. However, a refund is not something we can accommodate, because we did not do anything wrong and the actual work we performed was both necessary as a first step and that work has no defects. We warranty all work performed and will fix it during the warranty period in the event of a parts or labor defect.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2015/09/24) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
At no moment did the manager said that the car may have any other leaks after any repairs, to my understanding he assured me that the leak was fixed. So I proceeded to pay the amount thinking that my car was fixed. The manager did not explain anything about cross elimination at the beginning nor upon my return. If they said that my car had apparently many leaks, I don't understand why wouldn't they did not tell that same day I took my car in the beginning, instead the manager assured me that the leak was gone, yet I left their shop with the leak. Apparently he was just eager for me to pay for any repairs. To my surprise the leak was worse, so that is when I took my car back to the shop. They had not fixed the leak that they supposedly inspected for, upon my return the Manager said that I had another "problem" (they mentioned a part near the coolant hose, said it needed some sealing to be done and that a hose needed repacement) that's when he said that it would cost me extra to fix it. After my return that is when he said I had multiple leaks. He did not say that in the begining, so it makes me assume his employees didn't inspect the car right. He wanted me to pay 180 for something my car didn't need. Again Meineke didn't inspect the car right because Meineke the "problem" that I metioned above was not the problem. I know because I took my car elsewhere and they replaced a part in the filter, a total of $110 dollars is what I got charged. And yes my car is not leaking anymore after I got it fixed elsewhere.
Meineke failed to inspect the first problem, they did not even follow their warranty policy on fixing the leak after I brought the car back to them. When a business does not finish the job right and gets paid for it, they are not honoring the customer.
Just to be clear I don't want Meineke to inspect my car, I only want the money that I paid for the last repair of $110 dollars.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2015/10/06) */
While we stick by our initial response, as we know full well what we determined on Ms. [redacted]'s car, we would be happy to provide Ms. [redacted] a prorated refund of $110. We do so in the interest of customer satisfaction.
However, we will need both a copy of the invoice from the other shop as well as we'll need to inspect the vehicle to verify both the repair from the other shop as well as make sure there are no other leaks. Again, when there are multiple leaks, it's best to replace the worst or most obvious leak first and then reassess the remaining leaks. And we want to be sure there are no further problems.
We request that Ms. [redacted] contact us to make arrangements to receive the $110 refund.
Final Consumer Response /* (2000, 11, 2015/10/07) */
(The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)
Thank you and I will contact the shop as soon as possible.
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 8, 2015/05/26) */
Ms. [redacted] came in for an oil change and multi-point vehicle inspection and singed the work order authorizing this work, INCLUDING the vehicle inspection. Upon inspection of vehicle, drive axles, ball joints, and sway bar links were found in...
need of replacement. Ms. [redacted] was physically shown these items and their faults/failures were pointed out and demonstrated to her. She was given a quote of approximately $750 for replacement of these items but (with specials and coupons utilized) the discounted price was $498 + Tax. There was never any pressure; Ms. [redacted] was merely given an option to do repairs or opt not to do them. She verbally approved the repairs at the quoted price and the technicians commenced the work on her vehicle. Quite some time later, Ms. Findley approached one of the technicians and told him that, after reaching her mother on the telephone, she changed her mind and doesn't want to do the work. The technician notified the shop manager who came out and spoke to Ms. [redacted]. She told the shop manager the same thing... that she "changed her mind after speaking to her mother." The shop manager then explained and showed her that the original (old) parts are already off. He offered to put those same parts back on but explained that there would be some labor charge for having removed them. It wasn't until she was notified of the labor charge that she changed her story and alleged that she "never authorized the repairs." Ms. [redacted]'s mother came down and spoke to me (personally) by telephone. I assessed the situation, reviewed the paperwork, documentation, and the surveillance video; then explained to Ms. [redacted]'s mother that her daughter had in fact authorized the work but that we'd be happy to reinstall the original parts but if she chooses that option there would be a nominal labor charge for the work already done. With those choices on the table, Ms. [redacted] elected to continue with the full repairs as originally authorized. She asked if we would give her the oil change for free as goodwill. I agreed to do so as a goodwill gesture and repeated to her that the work she had authorized was being done at a huge discount, as the shop manager applied coupon specials to the price even though Ms. [redacted] did not actually have the coupons. (What otherwise would've cost $750 + $30 for oil change came to $498 total after discounts and the free oil change).
Additionally, please note that at no time was anyone rude to Ms. [redacted]. In fact, it was she who became confrontational to the extent of even calling the police, all after she was told there would be a labor charge for work authorized by her and already performed. Also, the price never changed... what she was quoted and authorized is what she was charged. ($250 was the approximate amount of the discount off the regular price, not a varying repair quote as she alleges in her complaint).
Given the fact that our shop did nothing wrong and the repairs were discounted by about 33% on top of a free oil change provided to Ms. [redacted], we are unable to provide any further gestures at this time.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 11, 2015/05/27) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I do not accept the response from the business because it is worded incorrectly and only to protect one's self. As the business responder reported I came in asking for oil change that is correct. I did not ask for multi-point vehicle inspection because I know there is nothing wrong with my car. I needed an oil change and that was it. I was not aware of their services ever providing an inspection of vehicles. The work order I signed said oil change for $29.99 which when asked I did not receive a copy of this original documentation. As for the quote of $750 was not mentioned to be exact. As the responder says I agreed to the quoted price, which is claimed of $750, in that case why not charge me $750 instead of the $472.98 (final result) since the responder has falsely claimed I agreed to quote price of $750. My original quotes were stated by [redacted], "Front axles, front lower ball joints, and sway bar link ends would cost $130 + tax for both driver sides. Which is a total of $260 + plus tax. If I was given a quote of $750 then that is to tell me that tax is about $490 which is greater than repairs itself, now that is incorrect. I was never told of discounted prices nor coupons. Therefore if the work actually would result in $750 and I did not present a coupon why was I given a discount without presentation of correct materials. Am aware that he made the price exactly enough for my card to pay because without my permission he somehow checked the available balance, yet in the beginning only telling me it was a gas card. I in no way agreed to these repairs, I clearly answered, "Yes, let me ask my mom first?." (before any work is to be repaired)[redacted] says, "Okay." I asked for permission with my mother and she said, "No, you only need an oil change." [redacted] within 3 feet of my presence while I made the call, as the call ended I simply said, "No, my mother said oil change only that is what I will do today." Once again he yells angrily the f word and exited outside walking towards his technicians, and I took a seat in the lobby. I assumed he went to tell his techs, no to the job. (ONLY OIL CHANGE) Shortly after is when I noticed a sledgehammer being used to hit something on my car. (front tire area - tires are off) That is when I exited to ask what is being done the tech responded, "Front axles, front lower ball joints, and sway bar link ends. That is what [redacted] said to do." I responded, "No, oil change only." That is when [redacted] came back outside to confront me saying I agreed to it. So I asked if my parts are to be placed back on my car, and to ONLY COMPLETE OIL CHANGE. That is when I was informed that I must pay for labor to put my parts back onto my vehicle. I then responded, "No, I never agreed for you to take them off, so why am paying for labor." That is when [redacted] told the techs, "Leave her car where it is until she pays." The techs immediately dropped their tools and walked away. There is not one point when I changed my story, by the way stories are fairytales and I do not find this being a fairytale situation. In what way possible has the responder reviewed the surveillance when I was told it cannot be reviewed nor rewinded as for myself to see where I allegedly agreed to repairs. There is not one point when I verbally asked for free oil change as good-will. At the time of repairs being concluded that is when I was told by [redacted], "I gave you free oil change, it's not included within the $472.98." I said, "Okay." Therefore I agreed to free oil change after he suggested it first, I did not ask him for it. [redacted] was rude from the time I said no to repairs, so why should I ask him for good-will if he was already being a negative nancy. The responder states, "Ms. [redacted]'s mother came down and spoke to me (personally) by telephone. I assessed the situation, reviewed the paperwork, documentation, and the surveillance video; then explained to Ms. [redacted]'s mother that her daughter had in fact authorized the work but that we'd be happy to reinstall the original parts but if she chooses that option there would be a nominal labor charge for the work already done." Yes my mother did speak with the shop's owner on the phone, when explained the situation the only response was, "Whatever [redacted] says goes." So how if the owner was on the phone and spoke to my mother yet he somehow claims to have assessed the situation, reviewed paperwork, documentation, and surveillance. The owner of the shop in no way corresponded with the situation, nor was he present. Once again he said, "Whatever [redacted] says goes" and that was the end of the phone call. However, [redacted] dialed the number and spoke privately before handing my mother the telephone, therefore who is to know if that was actually the owner we've spoken to. When I entered into the business on that morning of 5/5/15 approx. 925 I asked for oil change, which I was told $29.99 and it would take about half an hour to complete. In what way possible did the responder confirm a result of myself asking for "goodwill oil change" when I already signed and confirmed the $29.99 oil change. (original document) And again I did not receive a copy of. The final copy I received showed oil change at $0.00 and repairs of $472.98.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 13, 2015/06/08) */
As much as we'd like to do more for this customer - NOT because we did anything wrong but for the sake of customer service - we cannot lose money over the situation, given that we did nothing wrong. The discounts already provided, including the free oil change creates a situation where any other concessions would create a loss for our company. Again, this is a loss that we cannot endure - having done nothing wrong. Our original position and response has to stand.
Ms. [redacted] seems to question the veracity of the conversation that took place between her mother and the shop owner and that, candidly is insulting and further evidences Ms. [redacted]'s unreasonableness in this whole incident. The shop owner in no way ever said, "Whatever [redacted] says goes." It is a fact that the owner assessed the situation objectively and reviewed all facts, including all documentation. This was done remotely at the time through offsite access to the computer system and camera surveillance system. We are happy to demonstrate this technology of remote access anytime to Ms. [redacted].
One final note: The work performed on Ms. [redacted]'s vehicle, all told, was a job of several hours. Ms. [redacted]'s assertions and accusations do not make logical sense in that the components being replaced were already dismantled by the time she notified [redacted] and the technicians that "she did not want to do the work." This point in time would've been quite some time after the original authorization to proceed. The timing is very much indicative of Ms. [redacted] changing her mind well after the work commenced. In other words, if Ms. [redacted]'s story were to hold any water a phone call to her mother would've taken only minutes. There's no possible way the vehicle could've been dismantled in the brief few minutes that it would've taken for that phone call to mom. No, fact is, Ms. [redacted] authorized the work and long after that authorization and after the vehicle was dismantled she changed her mind.
Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 16, 2015/06/09) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
Once again my statement will remain the same. This company has falsely stated the full and truthful description of what happened on the day of 05/05/15. The reason the car was dismantled in minutes was strictly because there were two technicians working on the car. [redacted] clearly stated for both techs working on the car it would be $85/hr a piece. The situation was plotted and both techs played as [redacted]'s puppets. Clearly [redacted] is very good at taking advantage of people. Both techs worked rapidly to meet [redacted]'s hunger of money. Therefore my statement of the car being dismantled in the matter of minutes is a very valid and a true statement. When my mother arrived she asked [redacted], "How did [redacted]'s parts get off so fast." His response, "Well I have two techs working on it." [redacted] clearly understood and plotted such money hungry situation. Once again I was fully pressured into using my credit card which I was told in the beginning "...it cannot be used here, it is a gas card." My problem and concern remains because the company speaks "we cannot lose money over the situation..." Therefore why must myself, a college student with no income lose out on money that is not even in existence, why must I be taken advantage of? Just to be clear I asked [redacted] upon arrival if the card could be used here only because it was a card I have had over one year and did not know how or where it could be used. The description of the CarCareONE card clearly stated in the manual "can be used for auto care at certain businesses/locations if acceptable." In my case it was up to me to see where and who would accept the credit. So I took the effort to ask if it could be used here, I not once agreed to any auto repairs. Upon arrival I was told the oil change would cost $29.99, which was money I had cash in my pocket. I strongly believe I was tricked into this situations. [redacted] told me it was a gas card, I placed the card back into my possession. Moments later am confronted with a large amount of repairs. I strongly remember myself asking [redacted], "Are these repairs important." He says, "Not really, but within a year or so you should consider it." I replied well I do not have money for that today. I only want an OIL CHANGE." That is when he replied well you have a $500 dollar limit on that card." From my understanding [redacted] is very manipulative and pressuring. I gave him permission to see if the card was acceptable of usage at the Econo Lube N Tune, [redacted] went behind my back and checked my balance which resulted in myself spending the full amount. As a total of $472.98. I have received my statement from CarCareONE with a balance of $497.40. [redacted] in every way possible knew exactly what he was doing. Providing me with a bill that clearly used every penny of the card's limit. I was very much so pressured into this whole situation because of a sneaky employee who seen a young girl who he wanted to rob for the day. This whole situation has made myself quite miserable because of the pressure of a business' employee taking advantage. [redacted] became very arrogant and demanding. Since he wanted the money of my credit card so badly, I advise him to apply for one himself. I strongly believe I deserve awarded credit/refund of these repairs, being that I was pressured to use such card. I was pressured because I was told, "You will not receive your car until paying." Once again pressured to pay for repairs I did not confirm. [redacted] masterminded the situation which was something I did not see coming. He even got to the point when handing me a pen stating, "Here's a lawyer right here, you can sue us and get your money back (laughing obnoxiously)." While the responder clearly says, "It is a fact that the owner assessed the situation objectively and reviewed all facts, including all documentation. This was done remotely at the time through offsite access to the computer system and camera surveillance system." When I asked to view footage I got the response of "I don't know how it works." (shrugging shoulders). So if the owner was able to review camera, why not act as a RESPONSIBLE OWNER and bring the footage to the location to verify the event occurred on the day of while I continuously asked his employee to view footage. [redacted] carried himself very rudely. His customer service skills are not satisfactory. Once again when my mother had spoken to the owner over the phone, while he was explained the situation the exact response was, "WHATEVER [redacted] SAYS GOES." These are words directly spoken from owner to customer's mother. Overall I deserve a refund for being manipulated by [redacted] and taken advantage of.