Sign in

Midas Auto Service

Sharing is caring! Have something to share about Midas Auto Service? Use RevDex to write a review

Midas Auto Service Reviews (143)

We have spoke to [redacted] a few times. There was a oil pressure issue with this motor before we ever looked at the vehicle. The vehicle left our shop and wasnt returned for sometime. The motor was not in good condition, when it was brought into our shop. The work we did had nothing to do with a...

faulty motor. We did exhaust and a oil change on a tired motor with low oil pressure and the motor failed, after it left our shop. As I said, I have spoken to [redacted] a few times, and I let him know if there was a reason for us to take responsibility, we would. But there is no reason for us to be responsible for this motor, Thank you. Steve [redacted], General Manager.

The customer brought a car into the shop requesting the replacement of the water pump and battery on 3/25/2017.  Upon inquiry about the water pump issue, the customer said they already had a diagnosis, declined a new diagnosis, and just wanted the repairs completed.  We agreed to replace...

those parts, but additionally recommended the thermostat be replaced as well while doing the water pump.  The repairs were completed and the customer received their car back.  On 4/21/2017, approximately one month later, the customer returned stating the car was overheating.  We inspected the car and found the radiator had sprung a leak.  (Cooling systems are pressurized systems, so sometimes when a repair is done to a cooling system, the renewed pressure can cause failures of other weak components).  We explained this to the customer and also conducted a pressure test of the system to check for leaks and a "block test" which tests for indications of a head gasket failure, which can happen after an overheating issue.  We allowed the car to run in the shop for several hours to see that all was functioning properly. No issues were detected.   Five days later, the customer returned again with similar issues.  This time, the coolant temperature sensor, which turns on the cooling fans had failed.  Upon further investigation with the customer, we found that the car had severely overheated 3 years ago, and the customer did not have the money for repairs.  It sat for three years before coming to the shop.  The head gasket has now failed on the car.  All these problems stem from a severe overheating of a car with a lot of aluminum components.  It would be difficult to ever anticipate the series of component failures under these conditions.  We tried very diligently to test components as we went and completed several "block tests" upon each repair.   I fully understand the frustration of this customer, and we have made several adjustments to later repair orders to lessen the sting.  We are very sorry to see them have such troubles, and will continue to assist in every way we can.

Customer has an appointment with us tomorrow 3/8/2016 
We replaced a Ignition coil for free, we will show him the new part and give him the receipt.

To Whom it May Concern,I have contacted Ms[redacted] in regards to this issueWe have worked out a resolution and will be sending a new MiFi unit to Ms[redacted] to see if we can meet her needs. The customer has my contact information and will reach out to me if the new MiFi is not performing as
expected.Thank you,
Michael
[redacted]
Director
of Call Center OperationsCarolina West Wireless
[redacted]

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2016/02/26) */
February 23, 2016
RE: Case # [redacted]
This customer has presented a considerably less than complete portrayal of her visit to our shop.
Customer came to the shop to have an Uber inspection performed on her vehicle. Our shops are among...

the small collection of service groups in the Twin Cities that Uber has authorized to perform these inspections. It is Uber's mandate that the inspection is very meticulous. A shop is not to give a vehicle a "passing" inspection if there is any safety issue, or if there is a cosmetic or non-safety mechanical issue of significance. The inspection form is provided by Uber.
The typical vehicles our shops see for Uber inspections are 1-3 years old and have less than 50,000 miles on them. Customer's vehicle is a 7 year old Volkswagen with 110,000 miles. The inspection on customer's vehicle was performed by the shop's Service manager, a technician with 10+ years' experience and numerous ASE Certifications.
After performing the inspection, the Service Manager went over the results with the customer. There were several issues of concern with the vehicle. There was a nail in one tire, and the rim on that wheel was bent. Two of the tires had 4/32" of an inch of remaining tread life. Though above the discard point on the tires, 4/32" is certainly at a point where any competent shop will recommend new tires. Of greater significance, the rear brakes had been worn to the discard point. Finally, there was a slight tear/leak in the right CV boot.
The Service Manager explained to the customer that her vehicle did not pass the Uber inspection. He had the customer accompany him out to the shop in order to show/explain the issues with the vehicle. He showed her the rear tire with the nail as well as showed her the worn rear brake components. While in the shop, the Service Manager asked the customer if she wanted to look at the CV boot at the front of the vehicle. The customer declined.
The Service manager explained to the customer that her vehicle failed the Uber inspection because the worn brakes created a safety issue. He made clear that the CV boot was a secondary issue, but would not, by itself, lead to failing the inspection.
The Service Manager then asked the customer if she wanted a price estimate on any of the issues identified. The customer indicated that she did.
Ultimately, the customer declined to address any of the identified issues other than having the nail removed and that tire repaired. She was charged $19.99 for this service and $35 for the Uber inspection.
Several days later, the customer contacted the store requesting a refund for her failed inspection. She made reference to the CV boot. The manager invited her to bring the vehicle to the shop. He indicated that they would be happy to raise the vehicle on a hoist and take another look at the CV boot. The customer responded that she bring the vehicle by, but apparently became uncomfortable with this idea, opting instead to file a complaint.
By way of response, it is important to remember that the customer's vehicle failed the UBER inspection because her brakes were in an unsafe condition. This was clearly communicated to the customer, and nowhere in her complaint does she raise an issue with this assessment. Additionally, it was never communicated to the customer that she had to have any of the suggested repairs performed at our shop as a condition of passing the Uber inspection. Quite the contrary was communicated to her. It is a significant point of emphasis on all Uber inspections that failure causing issues can be addressed at any shop, but they do need to be addressed before the vehicle will pass.
This customer has requested a refund for the $35 inspection fee. The function of the Uber inspection is to ensure that any vehicle put into service in the Uber system has met some threshold level of safety and appearance. The customer's vehicle did not meet that threshold level due to the worn condition of her rear brakes. At no point in her complaint does this customer indicate that she had any issue regarding the assessment of her brakes. Indeed, her complaint indicates that she had "all the work done" at a different shop. I'm assuming the brakes were addressed at that point. I am assuming as well that the customer understands that the Uber inspection fee is applicable irrespective of whether the vehicle fails or passes the inspection. Assuming that level of understanding, the customer's complaint is based upon a recommendation for a repair that she chose not to take a look at while at the shop when the opportunity to do so was offered, and that she declined to bring back to the shop in order to have the damaged part identified, and most significantly, a recommended repair that she was specifically told did not impact the Uber inspection.
The fee for an Uber inspection, relative to the amount of time spent performing, it is nominal. The fee itself is set by Uber. This customer has zero grounds for a refund of that fee. A complete inspection was performed. Unfortunately, the vehicle did not pass the inspection. The customer has indicated nothing that disputes the basis of the failure.
It is unfortunate that she has an issue with one of the ancillary suggested service issues on her vehicle. Similarly it is unfortunate, if as she states, she is uncomfortable with that shop. Fortunately, we have other locations within the Twin Cities, including two within 10 minutes of this customer's stated address.
She is welcome to visit either of these shops and have her vehicle inspected, at no charge, to determine whether the CV boot in question is damaged. If, as this customer suggests, there is no visible damage, we will happily refund the$35 inspection fee, notwithstanding the CV boot's lack of relevance to the Uber inspection.
I am happy to arrange for this inspection at any of our shops at whatever time is convenient for the customer.

In responding to [redacted] issues, to my knowledge, they have all been addressed.   There must have been a miscommunication on when the appliances would be installed.   We told her it is against our guidelines to install appliances when the home is not occupied as things such as...

refrigerator line can blow and cause another claim or further damage.  We were waiting for her to tell us when she was moving in and she hadn't done that.  There are many times where this customer has gone missing for large periods of time.  She had contacted us before this complaint and all items are installed with exception to shelves which she just added last week and part of a washer that she purchased.

As part of our oil change process we visually inspect the vehicle for needed repairs. The customer was...

advised that the check engine light was on,valve cover gasket leaking oil,oil pan gasket leaking oil,transmission pan gasket leaking oil and a right axle seal leaking. This was documented by the Technician on his Inspection Form and also as declined repairs on the work order. We are not responsible for the customers current issues as a result of the customers failure to perform needed repairs.

Customers vehicle came in to the [redacted] Midas for both front lower ball joints.  Normal Ball Joints do not take that long but due to the fact that the bottom of the ball joint goes into the the steering knuckle instead of the top of the ball joint added with the amount of rust in that...

area the technician was taking his time to extract the ball joint so that there would not be any damage to the steering knuckle on the passenger side.  After numerous times of heating and soaking the area, the pinch bolt had broken off inside the knuckle at which time we attempted to extract the bolt.  On Saturday afternoon the affected area had broken resulting in the replacement of the steering knuckle.  At which time we contacted the customer to let them know that we would need to replace the knuckle at no charge to them but it would take time to receive it from the salvage yard.  Monday morning we called the customer to let them know that the latest the vehicle would be done is Thursday with the part arriving Wednesday at an unknown time.  On the other hand the Driver side ball joint is complete with little issues.

I am writing because this seems to be the only way that I can actually get a response or results concerning my issues. I have had a replacement MiFi device for quite a few months now and I have maintain the same address as I did when I first started my service with CarolinaWest Wireless. With my initial device, I was constantly being charged roaming charges even though I only use my device at home. I expressed my concern before and they made and adjustment to my device where it would not incur the roaming charge. On the new device the same process was done. Sometimes and especially Sundays my MiFi device will not connect to internet. I am never able to contact customer service on Sunday because they are closed. I called with my concerns Monday and the customer service agent told me that they would have to take the block for roaming off of my MiFi to get it to work and that I would have to pay the additional $10 per month to have my internet working. The agent also told me that they could not adjust my bill every month to take the fee off that I am constantly being charged for without cause. I explained that my service had been working with the roaming block on. I cannot understand why all of a sudden to get my service to work I have to pay for roaming when I only use my service at home. If it was going to be such an issue, CWW should have given me the option to eliminate that service and return the device. CWW offered the service to me with confidence that the service would work, but it is one issue after another. I am really tired of going back and forth with over this issue. I need results becuse if it is not going to work as promised I can take my business elsewhere.I would like to have working service without the constant billing issue or I would like to return the device and be released from my contract without penalty.I am writing because this seems to be the only way that I can actually get a response or results concerning my issues. I have had a replacement MiFi device for quite a few months now and I have maintain the same address as I did when I first started my service with CarolinaWest Wireless. With my initial device, I was constantly being charged roaming charges even though I only use my device at home. I expressed my concern before and they made and adjustment to my device where it would not incur the roaming charge. On the new device the same process was done. Sometimes and especially Sundays my MiFi device will not connect to internet. I am never able to contact customer service on Sunday because they are closed. I called with my concerns Monday and the customer service agent told me that they would have to take the block for roaming off of my MiFi to get it to work and that I would have to pay the additional $10 per month to have my internet working. The agent also told me that they could not adjust my bill every month to take the fee off that I am constantly being charged for without cause. I explained that my service had been working with the roaming block on. I cannot understand why all of a sudden to get my service to work I have to pay for roaming when I only use my service at home. If it was going to be such an issue, CWW should have given me the option to eliminate that service and return the device. CWW offered the service to me with confidence that the service would work, but it is one issue after another. I am really tired of going back and forth with over this issue. I need results becuse if it is not going to work as promised I can take my business elsewhere.I am writing because this seems to be the only way that I can actually get a response or results concerning my issues. I have had a replacement MiFi device for quite a few months now and I have maintain the same address as I did when I first started my service with CarolinaWest Wireless. With my initial device, I was constantly being charged roaming charges even though I only use my device at home. I expressed my concern before and they made and adjustment to my device where it would not incur the roaming charge. On the new device the same process was done. Sometimes and especially Sundays my MiFi device will not connect to internet. I am never able to contact customer service on Sunday because they are closed. I called with my concerns Monday and the customer service agent told me that they would have to take the block for roaming off of my MiFi to get it to work and that I would have to pay the additional $10 per month to have my internet working. The agent also told me that they could not adjust my bill every month to take the fee off that I am constantly being charged for without cause. I explained that my service had been working with the roaming block on. I cannot understand why all of a sudden to get my service to work I have to pay for roaming when I only use my service at home. If it was going to be such an issue, CWW should have given me the option to eliminate that service and return the device. CWW offered the service to me with confidence that the service would work, but it is one issue after another. I am really tired of going back and forth with over this issue. I need results becuse if it is not going to work as promised I can take my business elsewhere.I am writing because this seems to be the only way that I can actually get a response or results concerning my issues. I have had a replacement MiFi device for quite a few months now and I have maintain the same address as I did when I first started my service with CarolinaWest Wireless. With my initial device, I was constantly being charged roaming charges even though I only use my device at home. I expressed my concern before and they made and adjustment to my device where it would not incur the roaming charge. On the new device the same process was done. Sometimes and especially Sundays my MiFi device will not connect to internet. I am never able to contact customer service on Sunday because they are closed. I called with my concerns Monday and the customer service agent told me that they would have to take the block for roaming off of my MiFi to get it to work and that I would have to pay the additional $10 per month to have my internet working. The agent also told me that they could not adjust my bill every month to take the fee off that I am constantly being charged for without cause. I explained that my service had been working with the roaming block on. I cannot understand why all of a sudden to get my service to work I have to pay for roaming when I only use my service at home. If it was going to be such an issue, CWW should have given me the option to eliminate that service and return the device. CWW offered the service to me with confidence that the service would work, but it is one issue after another. I am really tired of going back and forth with over this issue. I need results becuse if it is not going to work as promised I can take my business elsewhere.

Here are the emails we sent telling him telling him we could not ship pepper spray out of the country. We did not receive a reply from him.  I would love to see a copy of the emails he said he sent to verify he sent to correct email address. I'm not sure why he just didn't call us to find out...

what was going on.We are refunding his money. ·  Mar 7, 2017 2:45:14 PM|Processing Customer Notified [redacted], I wanted to reach out one last time to see if you would like this order to ship to your billing address as we are unable to ship to APO, FPO/DPO addresses.  ·  Mar 6, 2017 3:32:25 PM|Processing Customer Notified [redacted], unfortunately we cannot ship directly to APO or FPO addresses. Would you like us to send this to your billing address instead, in [redacted]

On January 3, 2015 Midas of [redacted] rebuilt the transmission on [redacted]'s [redacted]. Three months later [redacted] returned and at that time an estimate was given to her for a transmission cooler/A.C. condenser (Est. 60182 on 4-6-15). She declined to complete this necessary work at that...

time. According to [redacted]'s letter the technician told her to have it done within two months. She delayed repairs for almost two years, until December 8, 2016 to have the cooler lines replaced and until December 20, 2016 to replace the condenser.  In good faith we did pay for the tow bill and offered to split the cost of rebuilding her [redacted]'s transmission even though it was out of warranty. She declined this offer.

In response to ID #10925439. we have had many conversation with mr b[redacted] about his concerns. me and my gm. and corporate have addressed all his...

allegation. he still keep stating we have not. he brought his car to us a few times for brake. one time he ask me to est, all four rotors and brake calipers.to see how mutch all of those would cost, he at that time only needed pads and rotor on front of car, we noticed left front caliper had torn seal or dust boot. he declined caliper repair and only wanted pad and rotor front, when he returned a years later his file showed all caliper and rotors. he than questioned why he need all of those repairs. I explained to him what was needed again and showed him the caliper on left front still has seal damage. in the repair manuel for m.a. p standards of service any torn or missing dust seal should be fixed.he declined again to fix caliper, and requested pads and front rotors only. he received free pads and a discount on labor and two rotors on front only. he has stated we tried to over sell him and our prices are to high.after we did those repairs. what we charged him for service not only is very cheap but discounted more than we are allowed to . I am Sorry for the way he fells and I have reached out to him many times. he does not seem to remember what he stated when he was in the shop and is telling us we ripped him off. we don’t feel this is the case. we even had a three way phone call with corporate going over all his concerns he never asked for his money back until this letter. please feel free to call me at [redacted] my name is j[redacted].

The [redacted] dealership called me yesterday to let me know that Midas finally paid for the repairs . I want to close out the claim. Thank you for your help.

Please note attached photo.   Photo shows tire with uneven wear and exposed cords and steel belts.  Also clearly visible is the chalky white appearance of the rest of this vehicle.  ROAD SALT.   This "salt patina" cover all of the underside of the car.  All parts look the...

same.  Old parts, new parts, middle age parts.  Will tire wear patterns like this cause a pull or vibration?  YES   Are they unsafe?  YES   Those are the facts.Upon initial alignment check the front toe settings were off 1.78 degrees.  This is a LARGE and SIGNIFICANT amount.  Normal alignment adjustments are in the fraction of a degree.  For this reason and before we proceeded with any work the customer who was waiting - Mrs Swain (not the individual complaining)  was SPECIFICALLY asked if she had had any steering or suspension components replaced?   The customer was ADAMANT that she had NO work done on the steering or suspension of the vehicle.  (Two witnesses collaborated this.)  Again I revert back to the photo--everything looks the same.   Based on the visual inspection, age and mileage of the vehicle, and information provided DIRECTLY FROM THE CUSTOMER PRESENT replacement struts were recommended along with at least two tires.  An alignment would NOT resolve vibration or pull caused by bad tires.  The customer declined all other work and requested that just the alignment be done.  The alignment was completed.  The RF camber setting was still out of specification.  There is NO factory adjustment built into this vehicle for that setting.  It requires additional parts and labor.  Toe and caster setting were in specification when the vehicle left the shop.  This was communicated directly to the customer present.At no point in time were we untruthful with this consumer.  At no point in time did we state or suggest to the customer that their struts were a safety issue.  Their tires YES those were a safety issue.  The consumer has already been credited $71.65 via their charge account ending in [redacted].

I have reviewed the response offer made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.     In Paragraph One, the response from Midas was that they never offered to sell me tires.  This is absolutely false.  The older female desk clerk called me at my office down the street and stated that the technician thought that it was the tires and that they sold tires, did I want them to replace the front tires.  I told them absolutely not, that the tires were not that old.  When I spoke to the garage manager, he looked at the tires and told me that he didn't think that they needed replacing either.     In Paragraph Two, when I saw the garage manager getting ready to check out at [redacted] I told him how disappointed I was with the work I had completed at his shop.  I never expressed disappointment that they would not work on the vehicle, this is also false.  He told me to please come back and he would personally look into the matter.     Paragraph Three is also completely false.  We did go for a test drive.  The garage manager told me he thought it was the other front wheel bearing, and that would take care of it that day.  They did not put it on the rack and test it first before they diagnosed it as a wheel bearing.  We absolutely did not take a 40 minute test drive through town and on the interstate.  I drove it by myself off of the lot and immediately noticed a noise now coming from my back end, where there was not a problem before.  It was later diagnosed b by another mechanic that both of my shocks/struts had been broken off at the top on my rear.       I called Midas to see what they would do to compensate me for the damages they did to my car and was given the owner of Mida's phone number to call.  I tried calling him several times and he would not answer the phone or return my phone call after I left a polite message.  When I did not receive a call back I left several emails with the garage manager, [redacted], who then quit responding to the emails.        Thank you for your time and interest in this matter.  It has been a very costly and disappointing experience.  I have attached the emails and other garage repair mechanic's statements for your review.  In addition, the second mechanic that had to repair the work from Midas stated that the machine shop that put the bearing back in the casing stated to him that Midas had never replaced the bearing at all, that it was the original bearing.Respectfully,[redacted]          
Regards,
[redacted]

The technician went to remove the oil drain plug and it just spun in the pan. We advised the customer she needed a new oil pan. We did not cause the issue. It was the 1st time we had ever had the vehicle in our shop. The customer was not charged for an oil change as we were unable to perform service...

do to drain plug not be able to be removed.[redacted]

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. The problem will be settled once I receive my gift card for 3 oil changes, tire rotations, and courtesy checks in the mail.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. 
Regards,
[redacted]

To Whom it May Concern,Our records of customer [redacted] account shows the following notes in regards to this issue:• June 25, 2016: Port Request came from T-Mobile with incorrect account information.  Per porting guidelines the port request was declined based on incorrect customer...

address submitted by T-Mobile.• July 14, 2016: [redacted] contacted Carolina West Wireless to inquire on account balance.  During this phone call Ms. [redacted] realized that her line of service [redacted] was not disconnected.  At that time she worked with a Team Lead and line [redacted] was set to disconnect.  As a courtesy the remaining charges on this line that would have billed to the customer were waived.  Notes reflect that the customer was happy with the outcome.• July 19, 2016: Notes reflect that we attempted to contact Ms. [redacted] in regards to changing her billing cycle date.  The balance must be paid in full before lines can be moved from one billing due date to another.  A voicemail was left for Ms. [redacted] asking that she return a call to Carolina West Wireless so we could get payment and move the billing date as she had requested.• July 23, 2016: Carolina West Wireless attempted to contact Ms. [redacted] again regarding the billing date change. The attempt was unsuccessful and a voicemail was left for Ms. [redacted] asking for a return call. • July 26, 2016:  Carolina West Wireless attempted to contact Ms. [redacted].  Ms. [redacted] indicated that it was not a good time for her to speak with the representative that was speaking to her.  Notes of the account state she Ms. [redacted] was notified that we would call her back the next day.• July 27, 2016: Carolina West Wireless attempted another follow-up call with Ms. [redacted] and she once again indicated it was not a good time for her to speak with the representative that was speaking with her.• July 28, 2016: Carolina West Wireless attempted another follow-up call with Ms. [redacted], the attempt was unsuccessful and a voicemail was left asking that she return a call to Carolina West Wireless at her convenience.• September 1, 2016: Records show that Ms. [redacted] contacted Carolina West Wireless to review her account balance.  Notes show that she felt she had indicated that she wanted all three lines on her account disconnected when she spoke to Carolina West Wireless on July 14, 2016.  The call recording from the July 14, 2016 call was reviewed to see what discussion was had between Ms. [redacted] and Carolina West Wireless.  The recording shows that the only line being discussed to disconnect was line [redacted].  The remaining lines on the account were never discussed during the July 14, 2016 conversation. The timeline listed above shows that we attempted to contact Ms. [redacted] multiple times with no success.  The call that took place on July 14, 2016  was reviewed and it was verified that the only line being requested to close was line [redacted].  We strongly feel that we were attempting to work with the customer as the multiple attempts to contact her above reflect.  Even though we were specifically following the customers’ requests, as a courtesy Carolina West Wireless has waived the charges for service for the August and September billing dates.  A credit of $320.34 has been posted to Ms. [redacted] account. We feel that this issue should be considered closed and resolved based on this information.

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
Sincerely,
[redacted]       I disd not see the parts they change on the vehicle they said that the pump was knew the computor came from california and I was there on january 23, 2016 I did not see the sensors my check engine light is still on I didnot get a rental from them had to find my own transportaion to work for 4weeks and my light is on need transportaion to work. I need better results why do I have to take day off for work with no pay may be Midas can pay me my weekly salary.

Check fields!

Write a review of Midas Auto Service

Satisfaction rating
 
 
 
 
 
Upload here Increase visibility and credibility of your review by
adding a photo
Submit your review

Midas Auto Service Rating

Overall satisfaction rating

Description: AUTO REPAIR & SERVICE, TIRE DEALERS, TRANSMISSIONS-AUTOMOBILE, MUFFLERS & EXHAUST SYSTEMS, BRAKE SERVICE

Address: 2880 Highway 80 E, Pearl, Mississippi, United States, 39208-3407

Phone:

Show more...

Web:

This website was reported to be associated with Midas Auto Service.



Add contact information for Midas Auto Service

Add new contacts
A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | New | Updated