Midas Auto Service

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2014/03/14) */
I am writing with regard to Mr. [redacted]'s recent visit to our Ridgedale Midas store, and Mr. [redacted]'s ensuing complaint.
I will certainly get into more detail, but our abridged response is that performance of the requested service...

would have put the vehicle in an unsafe condition. This would have been in violation of our industry's standards of service, and would have increased the consumer's risk of accident. Additionally, the customer did not pay for a service that was not performed.
On February 28th, Mr. [redacted] went to the store to have the oil changed and the tires rotated on his 2002 Oldsmobile Alero. Mr. [redacted] had a coupon to have these services performed for $19.99. This is a nationally issued coupon. There are varying oil change/tire rotation prices nationwide. However, at our 5 west metro locations, a standard oil change is always $19.99, and tire rotations are always offered, when advisable, at no additional charge.
The Ridgedale shop, like all of our shops, acts in accordance with the guidelines as set forth by the Motorist Assurance Program (MAP). MAP provides the standards for uniformity in repair recommendations and vehicle inspection in the auto repair industry. The MAP guidelines are designed for the benefit of consumers, and all of our shops have agreed to adhere to the MAP Pledge of Assurance to Customers and the MAP Standards of Service.
In the situation at issue, Mr. [redacted]'s vehicle was brought in to the shop to perform the requested services. As is the case with all vehicles serviced at the shop, a Visual Courtesy Check of the vehicle was performed. This is a free, standard service, designed to give our customers an update on the state of the state of their vehicle. As part of the Courtesy Check, the wear pattern and tread depth of the vehicle's tires are inspected and measured. A new tire typically has 11/32" of tread depth. Assuming the wear patterns are even, a measurement over 5/32" is viewed as safe. According to the MAP guidelines, at a tread depth of less than 5/32" a shop should recommend replacement. Further, according to the MAP guidelines, at a tread depth less than 2/32" a tire is viewed as no longer capable of performing its intended purpose and replacement is required. Obviously, a shop cannot require a consumer to do anything; however, a shop acting in accordance with the MAP Standards can only perform services consistent with those Standards.
With respect to Mr. [redacted]'s vehicle, the tread depth of the front tires ranged from 3/32" on the outer edge to 1/32" on the inner. Consistent with this, the wear pattern was uneven. In layman's terms, these tires were "bald". As per the MAP standards, the shop recommended replacing the tires. The rear tires on Mr. [redacted]'s vehicle had remaining life. At various points, they measured at between 5/32" and 7/32". Upon Mr. [redacted]'s declining the recommendation of replacing the front tires, this discrepancy between the tread depths of the front and rear tires became very germane to the issue of whether the tires should be rotated.
In addition to Standards of tire replacement, the MAP Standards also specifically address the procedures for tire rotation. These Standards are also supported by among others, the Rubber Manufacturers Association and the Tire and Rim Association. Applicable here are two specific mandates from the MAP Standards:
Do Not Rotate tires that have a tread depth variance of 3/32" or more. MAP stresses the need to educate the customer on why the risk of hydroplaning is much greater with the lowest tread depth on the rear.
Do Not Rotate tires that are less than 2/32". As was referenced above, a tire is required to be replace when is worn out no longer performs its intended function.
Both of these MAP standards prohibited the shop from rotating Mr. [redacted]'s tires. The tread depth variance per axle greatly exceeded 3/32" and the front tires were below 2/32". There is no doubt that rotating these tires (particularly given the realities of Minnesota's climate) would have exacerbated the safety what already was an unsafe vehicle.
Not surprisingly, in his discussions with [redacted], the shop Service Manager, Mr. [redacted] made several references to how bad the traction on his vehicle was and that he had even been experiencing difficulty on his own driveway. [redacted] explained to Mr. [redacted] the danger posed by his current tires and more specifically, why it would be ill-advised to rotate the "bald" front tires to the rear. Mr. [redacted] seemed to understand this. The situation became more problematic when a gentleman who was apparently Mr. [redacted]'s grandfather entered into the equation.
It is our understanding that Mr. [redacted]'s grandfather was serving as Mr. [redacted]'s advisor on, and perhaps paying for, the service to Mr. [redacted]'s vehicle. Following Mr. [redacted]'s explanation, Mr. [redacted] contacted his grandfather, gave him an update, and handed the phone to Mr. [redacted]. Mr. [redacted] attempted to have a conversation with the grandfather, but was unsuccessful due to the grandfather's yelling. The grandfather insisted that there was nothing wrong with the vehicle, that they should rotate the tires, and that he was going to contact the Revdex.com. The grandfather then hung up. Shortly thereafter, the grandfather called the shop. At the time, Mr. [redacted] was engaged with another customer. The grandfather then proceeded to yell at the employee who answered the phone, again insisting that they should have rotated the tires and again hanging up.
Certainly the path of least resistance for the shop would have been to rotate the tires. We perform dozens of them at no charge every week. We have had many internal discussions as a company on whether we should invest in rubber stamps and red ink and just stamp "Definitely Against Shop Recommendation" on the customer's invoice and then perform an ill-advised service the customer insists upon. Perhaps that day will
come, but at this point, we are not of the opinion that it is advisable to knowingly perform a service that will most certainly put a vehicle in an unsafe condition.
Finally, with reference to Mr. [redacted]'s comment that the shop "also recommended doing other totally unnecessary things"; the two areas of recommendation were the replacement of the intake manifold gasket
and some fluids replacement. The intake gasket is visibly leaking and would easily be confirmed by visiting any shop, and the fluids were mileage-based recommendations as per Oldsmobile, the vehicle's manufacturer.
As always, we take any customer comments, criticism or complaints very seriously, but in this instance, the complaint is absolutely without merit.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or need additional information.
Thank you,
[redacted]
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2014/03/21) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I would like to respond that some of the things that Mr. [redacted] said were just not the case! He said that my grandfather was yelling on the phone. Anyone who knows my grandfather would tell you that he does not respond in that way. He simply told the shop foreman or whatever his title is that he felt the tires were to be rotated. It did not say anywhere that they would rotate the tires if they met their requirements. Then it states that my grandfather said on that initial call that he would call the Revdex.com. That is simply not true. After I came home, and midas had not rotated the tires, he called back and said he was referring this matter to the Revdex.com. As far as the leaky manold gasket, we took it to another approved shop and asked about the manifold gasket, and were told that yes, there is a small leak, but no need to do anything at this point. After checking on his computer he said that the replacement, when we need it would be 600.00, as opposed to 800.00 plus at Midas.
At this point I think a refund would be in order, as well as a apology for them treating me in this way
Sincerely
[redacted]
Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2014/03/31) */
I am sorry that my earlier response did not meet with Mr. [redacted]'s satisfaction. Just to touch upon a couple of his most recent comments; there is no recorded audio of his grandfather's conversations with the two employees he spoke with, but they both made it quite clear that his volume was high, and it was very much one-way conversations. Additionally, the gasket replacement, like the maintenance work, was a recommendation. The fact of the leak was confirmed by another shop. An intake manifold gasket leak will not improve over time.
The primary issue remains the tire rotation. Mr. [redacted]'s comment was that "it did not say anywhere that they would rotate the tires if they met their requirements". They are not our requirements. As I, in great detail, elaborated in my initial response, these standards are set forth by MAP, the Motorist Assurance Program. These standards were specifically created with the safety and well-being of the consumer as the goal. Rotating these tires would have created an unsafe condition. Had we rotated them, and had Mr. [redacted]'s then been involved in a traction related incident, I suspect our ill-advised rotation would have justifiably been brought against us.
Our objective is not to make it difficult for our customers to get their vehicles serviced at our shops. However, I would rather deal with a disgruntled customer than have our shops knowingly endanger the safety of one of their customers.
I will be happy to send Mr. [redacted] a voucher for a free oil change and a tire rotation. It will be good at any of our west metro shops.

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: Once again - the repairs suggested 2 years ago is not relevant to the reason I am requesting this refund. To recap: I asked "If I fix the cooling lines will that fix the issue or is my transmission damaged?" Answer from Midas employee: "Yes, it will definitely not be a problem - your transmission is in great shape." That is textbook misrepresentation and a borderline scam. After completing this work the issue persisted. That alone proves you either did faulty work, or lied to me. Which is it? I would have never authorized that work had I know you were misrepresenting the work. Furthermore you suggested even more work which I completed 3 days later, even then the issue was not resolved. Then you called to tell me in fact, the transmission was damaged. You essentially stole $1000 dollars from me. You can not deny that. And I want it back.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

Lat day after driving over a bump on the road, my exhaust pipe disattached from the muffler, so the car become loudly noisily and this was very disturbing.
I stop and check under the vehicle and I found out that to fix the problem I just need to tie the 2 bolts on the bracket that connect the muffler to the terminal exhaust pipe.
Practically 5 minutes if you have the tools. I did not have the tools.
After a mile or so I stop by Midas auto services in [redacted], at the counter explained the problem and I asked a quote to fix the problem.
They lifted my jeep and they start to check all around, also open the hood to check fluids etc... I told them that I DO NOT Need a check out I need to fix the muffler problem ASAP, the answer was ( It is a Company policy to check all and is no charge for it) OK i
I sad do it quickly and give me a quote for the muffler.
I wait almost an HOUR, till the guy at the counter bring me to the jeep and start with a long story that I have to change brakes, transmission fluid, oil, steering fluid also the car has serious lick etc... I ask again how Much cost fix the muffler but he begin again a long story and try to scare me that I drive a dangerous car....
Transmission fluid was flushed 2,000 miles ago, Oil was changed 1,500 miles ago, brakes are ok ( I do a lot fixing by myself) He was upset that I do not want do any work he listed, after for the 3rd time I ask the cost to tie the 2 bolts $.39.99 plus tax
That was the answer.
So after almost an hour waiting and other 10 minutes arguing they ask me 40+ back to tie 2 bolts???? This is a rip of and they try to rip me off hundreds and hundreds of dollars in services no needed.
And when I asked to drop my car from the lif and give me the keys, they make me wait an other 15 minutes with no reason
Total I spend an hour an half for NOTHING.
This company should not be in business!
If you have no idea about car mantenence they will make you spend a lot of money.
I think that they are absolutely NOT honest with the people
People avoid Midas

First of all, thank you for giving us the opportunity to present our explanation on this matter. It's unfortunate that Mr. [redacted] feels that we harmed his vehicle. His vehicle was in for service, there are 4 to 5 lugnuts on each wheel, based on his claim only one stud was over-torqued. We use...

torque sticks, which means we can only torque each lugnut to the maximum of manufacturer's specs, and why was only one lugnut worn out and not the others. Second, Mr. [redacted]'s last trip in this shop was in May of 2014 - we have no way of knowing that he had no body worked on his vehicle in the meantime.Midas customer relations department was involved in this matter, and they agree with our approach, they also contacted Mr. [redacted]. We hope that Mr. [redacted] will understand our explanation and will consider us in the future for his vehicle needs.Best Regards,[redacted]

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: my check engine light came on March 1,2016 and is still on I was there on January 23, 2016 I did not see any parts truck come to shop so they did not change the parts  they do not have parts in the store. I want to see the parts they change I did not see them. The mechanic at the store said the computer came from california. I want to know abouts these questions.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: This business did not resolve the issue nor did it offer to help me resolve the issue.  I am not slandering I'm just  not pleased the way business was conducted. My insurance company has resolved the issue and not the business.  Based on the aforementioned you can close this case but not because of me being acceptable or pleased on the behalf of the business.  This is now a moot issue as I can said I'm pleased with the resolution given by my insurance company after jumping thru hoops.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/09/20) */
Mr. [redacted] brought in his 1978 Chevrolet G20 van on August 1st. During this time, Mr. [redacted] was informed his A/C belt was worn during our routine courtesy check. He informed us that he had known this was maintenance coming up, and in fact...

opted to pay us to install all the engine's belts he already owned for $78, a strictly labor fee. We installed all belts he provided per his request, and declined the use of our own recommended belt as seen on his invoice in the "Declined Services" section.
A few days later we received a call stating that he was stranded thousands of miles away on the side of the road. Having recently serviced his vehicle doing not only the belts, but a brake flush, and an oil change and a couple other odds and ends, we instructed him to get it looked at as soon as he can by a local repair shop, and to keep us informed as to what they said the problem was. In good faith we were still willing to help remedy a problem to the vehicle had it been within any provided warranty on the work performed.
Later the customer had his vehicle serviced by a facility in Yakima Washington. He provided a picture of his alternator where the belt was no longer installed. The customer at this point informed us he believed our work to be the cause of his vehicle's failure. After his car was inspected by the local service facility however, he learned that his water pump internally locked up and seized, causing the vehicle to overheat and the belts to dishevel due to the lockup. The overheating causing the failure.
Once hearing that the water pump failed, and this was the cause of his vehicle's breakdown, we informed Mr. [redacted] that there would be no involvement from Midas warranty as his breakdown was unrelated to his recent maintenance. We reached out to the repair facility during this process, and stayed informed of the situation through them, and the customer, and even had them send their invoice via fax once the work was completed - which only indicates the water pump as the cause, and correction, of the vehicle's breakdown. Mr. [redacted] paid them $529.03, for the new water pump.
As far as the condition of his belts after the failure; even a properly installed belt will be dislodged if the water pump seizes. There will be rubber fragments of the water pump belt spinning at thousands of revolutions per minute the moment it seizes, taking out everything in it's path. The motor's harmonic balancer will come off the belt train and the motor will rock violently back and forth. If there was a missing washer on an alternator bolt after the fact - that isn't even touched during the servicing of the belt by the way- that still would not prove negligence, as many parts involved with that belt train would be expected to be damaged or missing after that type of failure.
Even If there was a relation to the belts failing and the vehicle's breakdown during this incident; being that the customer opted out of our warrantable part, and elected to provide his own parts, there is no warranty on the belts failing from Midas.
Had Midas been at fault, we would have paid the repair facility to correct the issue at an agreed upon price with them, paid directly to said facility. Not reimbursing an arbitrary dollar amount to the customer weeks after we had proven not to be involved. His request is unreasonable and outside any warranty agreement.
Since we informed him we would not take financial involvement in this issue, Mr. [redacted] has initiated a flame campaign, complaining to all available outlets with a vague description of the events slandering our workmanship. His dollar amount requested continues to increase and does not reflect actual repair bill from facility. Seeking out so many online avenues, including the Revdex.com, after already working with our corporate complaint department is now bordering harassment from Mr. [redacted] as he continues to falsify blame as an attempt to hurt our business.
Midas is not initiating any warranty claim process for [redacted], as the event described is unrelated to any prior servicing done by Midas.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
First of all, I would like to point out that it sounds to me like Mr. [redacted] didn't actually review the complaint. I did say IN CAPITAL LETTERS that ALL FIVE studs were stretched out,not just one. Also if Mr. [redacted] had actually read the description that Tires Plus manager wrote at the top of page 2 of the Tires Plus receipt, he would have seen the following:I have attached once again the receipt from Oct. 16, 2014 from Tires Plus, clearly he mentions STUDS and also on page 1 of the receipt it also states I had to purchase FIVE lug nuts as all FIVE of the old ones were also damaged.I take offense to the fact that Mr. [redacted] is implying I am somehow lying about the service to my vehicle. NO ONE had the right rear tire removed from the service done @ Midas on May 7, 2014 until October 16, 2014 when I had the new tires installed. The service manager (Torrey) at Tires Plus told me that in 5 months there certainly was sufficient time for the damage that was caused to be done. I also was shown the "torque stick" at Tires Plus and was told that it has to be set by the USER to the manufacturer's specs, and since ALL FIVE studs were over-torqued, it's possible the Midas mechanic set it wrong for the right rear wheel. So, how does Mr. [redacted] or the Revdex.com or me know that his mechanic set the right specs?? Was Mr. [redacted] there while the work was being done on my vehicle?? Again, I stand by what the manager @ Tires Plus told me, and I stand by the fact that NO ONE removed the right rear tire from May 7, 2014 till October 16, 2014. I think it is quite possible that the Midasmechanic over-torqued all 5 lug nuts on the right rear wheel, which in time stretched out all 5 studs, and luckily for me one or all of them didn't break off while I was driving! I think Mr. [redacted] should at least acknowledge there is the possibility his mechanic COULD HAVE set the specs wrong??Regards,
[redacted]

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 7, 2014/09/16) */
I am writing with regard to Miss [redacted]'s recent visits to our Ridgedale Midas store, and her ensuing complaint.
I will certainly get into more detail, but our abridged response is that though we are very empathetic of the issues Miss...

[redacted]'s experienced with her vehicle, her efforts at attributing responsibility for these issues upon Ridgedale Midas are misdirected. It is our unequivocal position, and one which is supported by the 3rd party repair facility that ultimately performed the engine service on Miss [redacted]'s vehicle, that the damages to Miss [redacted]'s vehicle are directly correlated with her vehicle's engine being run out of oil. This damage occurred prior to Miss [redacted] ever visiting Ridgedale Midas.
Miss [redacted]'s vehicle was towed to Ridgedale Midas on August 2, 2014. As stated in her complaint, she informed the shop manager that the "Stop Engine, Oil Pressure Warning" dashboard indicator light was on and that she had noticed some oil leaking.
The vehicle was pushed into the shop for inspection. Immediately after the car was raised in the air, it was quite evident where the oil leak originated. The oil pan had a gaping hole/crack from which the oil had escaped. The oil pan is external to the engine and is bolted to its bottom. Its function is to serve as a reservoir to collect the oil when the engine isn't running. When the engine is running, there is a pick-up tube in the pan that functions to draw oil from the pan and send it to the top of the engine in order to start the oil cycle through the engine components. In the case of Miss [redacted]'s oil pan, it had clearly sustained significant impact damage. Oil pans do have a gasket, which are prone to leaking, but they do not experience damage of this nature without striking or being struck by something. Miss [redacted]'s Passat rides relatively low to the ground, and its oil pan is beneath the engine, so it is likely that it hit or ran over something.
Upon further inspection of the vehicle, it was determined that the vehicle had virtually no oil. The oil pan was completely empty. The only oil found was a small amount in the oil filter. Certainly, operating an engine, for any period, with no oil to lubricate the metal components, is not advisable.
The logical starting point in repairing Miss [redacted]'s vehicle was to install a new oil pan and gasket set and to refill the oil. The shop suggested and Miss [redacted] authorized this course of action. Obviously, to this
point, the vehicle had never been started at Ridgedale Midas. Throughout this process, the shop manager and Miss. [redacted] discussed the obvious fact that operating a vehicle with no oil was certainly a potentially engine damaging situation.
After the repairs were performed on Miss [redacted]'s vehicle, the vehicle was ready to be started. Somewhat surprisingly, the vehicle did start. Not surprisingly, the engine made a tremendous amount of noise upon initial start-up. This was to be expected, because until oil reached all of the previously lubricant-free engine components, these components were essentially running metal on metal.
As oil cycled through the engine, the noise abated. The technician working on the vehicle noted there was an "engine malfunction" dashboard indicator light on. The technician connected a diagnostic scan tool up to the vehicle in order to determine the specific engine codes that had caused the indicator light to trip. The codes were oil pressure related. This was consistent with the fact circumstances involved. In the simplest terms, the oil levels in Miss [redacted]'s vehicle are controlled by hydraulic cam shaft tensioners. This means that they run off of, and are reliant on oil pressure to function correctly. The loss of oil led to a loss of all pressure for the tensioners.
The technician cleared the codes and took the vehicle for a test drive. The technician noticed that the engine appeared to be somewhat hesitant at idle. However, as he drove the vehicle, the engine smoothed out. This is consistent with the tensioner pressure being increased as the vehicle was driven. The technician noted that the engine malfunction indicator light had re-tripped almost immediately after starting the test drive. This was consistent with the oil pressure to the tensioners having not yet been fully restored.
Upon completion of the test drive, the technician noted that the engine appeared to be operating smoothly. More so when driven than at idle, but that no discernable irregular noise was emanating from the engine.
The shop manager advised Miss. [redacted] of the situation, including the nature of the indicator light. He indicated that perhaps she had been one of the fortunate few owners who run a vehicle out of oil and don't sustain major engine damage. He also advised her to contact the shop if she experienced issues.
On August 12th, Miss [redacted] contacted the shop, and indicated that the vehicle was running poorly. She was told to bring it right in.
Upon pulling into the shop, it was clear that Miss [redacted]'s vehicle was running roughly and that the indicator light was still on. The technician hooked up the scan tool and again retrieved the same oil pressure codes from the engine. At this point Miss. [redacted]'s recollection/characterization of what transpired differs greatly from what actually occurred. Miss [redacted] states that, "Midas was unable to accurately diagnose what was wrong". What actually occurred is that Miss [redacted] declined to allow Midas to determine what was wrong with her vehicle.
Prior to this visit, Midas had never looked at the internal functioning of the vehicle's engine. The only service performed was replacing the damaged oil pan external to the engine. As it was apparent that there
was internal damage, the store manager and the lead technician decided that the best course of action was to try and educate Miss [redacted] on what the next logical step was. This would involve explaining to Miss [redacted], at her vehicle, the steps necessary to diagnose her vehicle. Curiously, Miss [redacted]'s complaint is entirely silent on the matter, but the lead technician spent 15-20 minutes with Miss [redacted], on the shop floor, explaining what determining the issue with her vehicle would entail.
The technician was very clear with Miss [redacted] that given the symptoms her vehicle was exhibiting, she should not drive the vehicle. At the vehicle he explained the process of what he would do in order to correctly diagnose the vehicle. As this involved the internal operation of the engine, he showed and explained to her what would need to be disassembled and what specifically would be looked at and tested. Coincidentally, that same technician was working on a Saab which had sustained sufficient damage to necessitate replacement. He explained to Miss [redacted] what the issue with that vehicle had been and how it could have been avoided. The technician explained to Mr. [redacted], that diagnosing her vehicle was merely a matter of time. He suggested that she authorize an hour of diagnostic time and he would start the process of identifying the issue. The shop's hourly diagnostic charge is $109. Miss [redacted] indicated that she did not have the money at that time, but that she would bring the vehicle back on Friday when she got paid. The technician reiterated that his recommendation was for her to not drive the vehicle until the engine issues were resolved.
Miss [redacted] declined that recommendation and that was the last time she was at Ridgedale Midas.
Ultimately, Miss [redacted] had her vehicle serviced at [redacted] Autoworks. In her complaint, she quotes that shop as stating that the problems with her car were a direct result of Midas's negligence. We contacted that shop to see if that actually was their position. According to [redacted] at [redacted] Autoworks, "When it ran out of oil it wrecked it. Unless we (Midas) tore it apart and looked, we wouldn't know." He said that if the motor had been making noise after the oil pan was installed, they would have recommended, "tearing the engine apart to look". As all would agree, at the time Miss [redacted] left Midas on August 2nd, her engine was not making any unusual noise. [redacted]'s final comment was that, "the tensioner was damaged when she ran it out of oil, and eventually it failed."
On the day that Miss [redacted]'s oil pan was replaced, had her vehicle been exhibiting any of the issues that were present at the time of the second visit (engine noise, running poorly, burnt oil smell), she would have received exactly the same advice she received at her second visit. Let Midas correctly diagnose the vehicle. Ultimately she would have had the exact same repairs as those performed at [redacted] Auto works. At that first visit however, those symptoms were not present.
It is not our practice to condemn engines that are not giving any indication that they are failing. Our customers are not going to authorize what they would perceive to be unnecessary diagnostic time. It is somewhat disingenuous of Miss [redacted] to essentially take the position that we should have identified and
repaired issues that did not manifest themselves at her first visit when she would not even authorize the diagnosis of those issues when they were readily apparent at her second visit.
Again it is unfortunate that Miss [redacted]'s vehicle was damaged. However, that damaged preceded her ever visiting Midas. If Miss [redacted] was going to pursue a path of redress, she should have turned this into an insurance claim, as clearly her vehicle was in some sort of collision. Notwithstanding Miss [redacted]'s desire to place responsibility for this situation upon Midas, the inescapable reality is that she drove her vehicle without any oil in the engine. That the engine sustained damage as a result of this should come as a surprise to no one.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or need additional information.
Thank you,
[redacted]

In regards to the complaint that Ms. [redacted] has filed with the Revdex.com, we went beyond in trying to assist her out. She brought her car into the shop and we replaced her transmission filter along with doing a transmission service for her.  If I am not mistaking, she went out of town to Dallas and...

was returning when she started to have issues with her car.  The car was brought back into our shop and after inspecting the car it was found that the transmission filter had collapsed and that the internal parts had failed. At that time we told Ms. [redacted] that the previous repairs done to her car was not related the current problem with her transmission.    We called the supplier for the part that we used and spoke with there Regional Manager and informed him about their part failing and possibly causing the damage to the car.  Under normal situations they would have had us pull the transmission again so that they could send it out and have if inspected.  This normally takes several weeks. We pressured the Supplier to expedite this matter.  Supplier went ahead a authorized for a used transmission to be replaced for our customer.  We at Midas replaced the transmission at no charge for the labor as well. We also told Ms. [redacted]  that we would not be able to provide any relief for any out of pocket expense for a rental car since we did not cause the damage to the transmission.  We provided the name of the Supplier of the part and instructed her to contact them for any rental car reimbursement

I HAVE AGREED TO REFUND [redacted] THE 82.59 REQUESTED.
I CALLED SPOKE WITH [redacted]Y AND SHE IS OK WITH THE RESOLUTION.
 
IF YOU NEED FURTHER ASSISTANCE PLEASE CALL ME AT [redacted]

The customer agreed  to have his truck towed to our repair facility in Bloomfield,CT and leave it with us up to a week so we can duplicate the issue.The vehicle is running and for the last 3 days no issues starting and running.
Truck will be delivered to the customer in running...

order on March 1st 2016, we found issues with the electric system and fixed them free of charge.

The complaint is not coming from the owner of the vehicle. Our courtesy inspection does not address rust issues as the State of Ct does not have a safety requirement for passenger vehicles.
When we are repairing vehicles we sometimes find major issues and advise the customer not...

to drive the vehicle. This did occur in the [redacted] store this week. We advised a customer not to repair the vehicle and park it.
In regards to this complaint the vehicle was in at the very beginning of June. We have no way of knowing what condition the vehicle was in at that point. It may have a rust covering the the places that are now holes. Based in the pictures I have seen it appears that a sub frame replacement would get the vehicle back on the road. It is an unfortunate situation,but he customer is indeed responsible to repair the rust issue regardless of when or where it was found.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID...

[redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below. This does not resolve anything because I have stated to the Midas [redacted] I needed my brakes to be fixed now as they are unsafe, with the installation process Midas has taken to install my brake lines, at no time was I ever told that they did not have the tools or knowledge to fix my vehicle. the only phone call was that they found rust and were going to replace more of the line. I went even as far as to ask why the OEM parts were not ordered and installed. the cost of the original OEM parts was only $256.00 and not to replace all of these parts it is going to cost me more to replace the hack job they have done to my brake lines leaving my vehicle  more unsafe.     They even installed DOT 3 Brake Fluid also when my car calls for DOT 4 brake fluid: As already stated, DOT4 handles higher heat. If your car is calling for DOT4, that means that the manufacturer does not feel comfortable that the braking system will not raise the brake fluid above a temperature that DOT3 can handle.With the fact of the installation process done by Midas Located on [redacted] in Green Bay Wisconsin and the statements made from the [redacted] that  he didn't even think about or even consider ordering these parts is unacceptable when if done right it could have costs the same but everything was a retrofit to installation.      If I was to get in an accident because of brake failure this would be a serious concern to me as I have two children and a wife who are always with me, also with the fact I am always traveling for business across the state. With that being said I am rejecting this letter received  because they have not only put my life at risk, but my children's and my wife's at risk of injury. With the statements made from the [redacted] I have documented I am and will be working with my attorney to address these issues as I have included him in on this email as well as consumer protection. It is clear the [redacted] did not take the correct steps of notifying me they would not be able to do the work, he even went as far as to say he will just be more careful on how he talks about the BMWS going forward. I would have not known the workmanship is I did not remove my clip from my vehicle and  leave it off so I was able to inspect it. then for the [redacted] of Midas to tell me I may need to go to BMW only after he handed my keys is showing that he did not at any time  have the knowledge to work on my vehicle, but was worried about taking a dollar.  
[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, we would like to know your view on the matter.]
Regards,
Travis [redacted]

Complaint: 10925439
I am rejecting this response because:
My computer is in the shop. I will have it back by Friday and will provide you a full complete response with documentation to the reply you received from Midas. In short the reply you received from Midas contains more half truths, deceptive answers and lies than truth.
Regards,
S[redacted]

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/08/03) */
Hi this is Mike the manager at the Maple grove Midas shop. Mrs. [redacted] came into our shop for repairs on 5/29/15 we informed her that her vehicle needed brake pads and brake rotors in the front and the back and both front lower control...

arms. Mrs. [redacted] declined doing the rear brake rotors so at her request we installed just the brake pads only. We informed her that other issues may occur due to the declined brake work. On 7/11/15 Mrs. [redacted] came back in for brake noise, after inspecting the vehicle again one of her rear brake calipers had gone bad as a result of the previous work being declined. I gave her a quote on a new brake caliper in the back and even offered to sell it to her at my cost and would not charge any labor to try and make her happy. Once again she declined the work needing to be done and we yet again just installed a rear set of brake pads at her request. I told her this was a temporary fix as the caliper is bad and will cause her brake pads to wear out soon. We received a call from her after she had it at another shop I'm guessing and they told her we never replaced the pads and that is not true. Not only have we put two sets of pads on if needed I can produce the invoices from our parts stores to prove we did install them. To resolve this I am still willing to install a brake caliper in the rear and rotors at our cost to help Mrs. [redacted] out. Car repairs can be expensive I understand that but its not our fault when parts fail if work we recommend is declined I tried explaining that to Mrs. [redacted]. I also provided all this information to Midas international and they closed the case due to the fact I have all of the paper work that had the declined brake work on it.
Thanks for your time I hope we can resolve this quickly
Mike [redacted]
Manager Midas
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2015/08/04) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I went to midas for servicing on 5/29. The brake pads were not installed although I paid for them. I was advised that rear rotors were recommended. I was not advised they were required. I was told that they could be replaced at a later date. The rotors did not result in damage to my car as alleged. My calipers were documented as passing inspection and no recommendations were given on 5/29. I returned to Midas on 7/11 and was told that now my caliper was not working, less than 2,500 miles later. At that point I was informed that my brake pads would be replaced for the "second" time in which did not happen as I was only at the store 15 minutes. My brake pad was allegedly replaced with a seized caliper? I declined additional services as my brake pads were never repaired and I am not willing to pay for additional services when the original services were never performed. Is Midas claiming that my brake pads wore down to metal twice within 1,000 miles each time?
Midas did not recommend calipers on 5/29 and they are correct that it resulted in further damage to my car. The lack of replacement of the rotors did not cause the caliper to seize, but the lack of replacement of the brake pad did.
I wasn't aware midas was in the financial services industry. I didn't request to receive financial services or advice from them.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2015/08/10) */
Hi this is Mike the manager at the Maple grove Midas shop. Mrs. [redacted] came into our shop for repairs on 5/29/15 we informed her that her vehicle needed brake pads and brake rotors in the front and the back and both front lower control arms. Mrs. [redacted] declined doing the rear brake rotors so at her request we installed just the brake pads only. We informed her that other issues may occur due to the declined brake work. On 7/11/15 Mrs. [redacted] came back in for brake noise, after inspecting the vehicle again one of her rear brake calipers had gone bad as a result of the previous work being declined. I gave her a quote on a new brake caliper in the back and even offered to sell it to her at my cost and would not charge any labor to try and make her happy. Once again she declined the work needing to be done and we yet again just installed a rear set of brake pads at her request. I told her this was a temporary fix as the caliper is bad and will cause her brake pads to wear out soon. We received a call from her after she had it at another shop I'm guessing and they told her we never replaced the pads and that is not true. Not only have we put two sets of pads on if needed I can produce the invoices from our parts stores to prove we did install them. To resolve this I am still willing to install a brake caliper in the rear and rotors at our cost to help Mrs. [redacted] out. Car repairs can be expensive I understand that but its not our fault when parts fail if work we recommend is declined I tried explaining that to Mrs. [redacted]. I also provided all this information to Midas international and they closed the case due to the fact I have all of the paper work that had the declined brake work on it.
Thanks for your time I hope we can resolve this quickly
Mike [redacted]
Manager Midas

From: [redacted] <[redacted].com>Date: Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 11:40 AMSubject: complaint-midas mt. poconoTo: "[redacted]@myRevdex.com.org" <[redacted]@myRevdex.com.org>on 6/12/15 met with mike J[redacted] manenger at midas,he told me my rear and axels were heated up and and needed to be replaced,he...

told me he had nation wide access to junk yards for the axel rear unit that he said I needed ,He said they come with 12 month 12,000 mile warenty. Mike said he would call me when he found something,because it is midas policy that the custermer must call the junk yard to pay for it and have it shipped to midas for them to install it. I was home from work with a wrist injury 6/15-6/19 waiting by my house and cell phone  for a call from midas saying they found something,then on Friday 6/19 at 3pm mike called and said my van was fixed and redy to pick up.I went down Saturday to pick it up,they installed rear and axel unit with 90,000 miles on it and it only came with 3 months 3,000 mile warenty, when I asked why they did not call me like we had talked about,He said they found this one and the owner of that midas said to put it in. I had no clue this was happening until I got the phone call Friday after. I paid them $874.46 for the work with my credit card,which I had no choice,I have to be able to get to work.So with the$874.46 and the original $163.95 for the pinion seal which was only prevenative maintenance ,I have a total of$1,038.41.If they did not screw installing the new pinion seal and refilling the differential then I would not be writing this now. my oppion is that they did not call me so they could cover up their mistakes,so now with a 3 month warrenty it sounds like I could go through this all over again by the end of the summer. Here is my new complaint, I want to be paid back the $1,038.41 and I want the rear differential and axels  totally rebuilt with brand new parts at another service garage,not midas,and I want midas to pay for it.   thank you [redacted]

We have accepted responsibility and turned it over to our insurance company. If you need further assistance please let me know.
I am checking with the insurance company to insure the customer is contacted and the matter resolved.

We sincerely regret that we were unable to meet Mr. [redacted]'s expectations in repairing his vehicle.   For this reason he was given a complete 100% refund on June 19, 2017.

Complaint: 10925439
I am rejecting this response because:
 
This is my reply to the most recent comments from MIDAS.
 
1-    The person responding to my complaint (which I presume to be J[redacted], the owner of the shop) wrote that he is “writing with deep regret that I am unhappy…” If he wrote this with deep regret or with any regret at all, why would the respondent fail to act on the promise he made to me in our last phone conversation? His commitment to me was to provide me with the written reply to the multiple issues I brought to his attention in the letter I sent to Midas corporate, in June and again in August of this year. Both of these letters were sent months before the respondent and I had the phone conversation wherein he promised to provide me with his written reply. That conversation included the respondent committing to provide me with a written reply within an agreed upon timeframe. A conversation that included a third party, a representative from Midas corporate. This comment appears to me to be little more than another in a pattern of examples of misleading and deceptive replies provided by the respondent. 
2    The information I provided the Revdex.com clearly reflects that if the respondent believes “we have tried to take care of him…” then I would have received the written reply he committed to provide memonths ago. Once again this comment appears to me to be little more than another in a series of misleading and deceptive replies.
3-    “Price” is not and never has been the primary reason behind my complaint. It may be convenient for the respondent to focus his reply on price since he cannot support the action and lack of action by everyone at Midas, starting with the respondent and going up to the COO at Midas. That said what I paid for the work done at this Midas location was one of more than a half dozen points addressed in the two copies of my letter sent to Midas Corporate. The very same letter that despite his commitment to do so the respondent has never responded to. For the respondent to try to make it seem as if price was my reason for filing a complaint is nothing more than another misleading and deceptive reoly.  The Revdex.com is in possession of a copy of the letter referred to that the respondent has not replied to. I believe the facts speak for themselves.
4-    In his reply the respondent mentioned: “book time” and “standard rates” and “market price” as if any of these were topics I raised. Not one of these topics appear in my letter to Midas or in my complaint to the Revdex.com. They do however appear in the respondents’ replies to the Revdex.com, perhaps in an attempt to draw attention away from the respondents’ lack of facts in support of his position and his failures including his failure to live up to his commitment to do what he said he would do. Nothing new here, just another in a series of misleading and deceptive statements.
5-    In his reply the respondent mentioned things like “he has stated another shop would charge less and this may be the case of cheaper products or service offered…” What I actually stated is this: “The entire brake job I had done at MIDAS in Simi Valley on June 2, 2015, (replacing two front pads and replacing the two front rotors) took less than one hour. For that I was charged $160.00 for labor. Maybe this is the real cost related to the MIDAS free brake pads for life program. This charge seems twice the labor charge it should have been for less than an hour of labor and much more than it ever has been at MIDAS in the past. I guess the old saying is true: “There is no such thing as a free brake pads lunch.” I don’t see a single reference to another shop here, but that fact didn’t stop the respondent from providing the Revdex.com with yet another misleading and deceptive comment.
6-    It only serves to make my point that the respondent would say something as absurd as: “I believe we have his best interest in mind.” If failing at every opportunity to live up to his commitment, failing to answer my questions or doing anything besides write two replies to the Revdex.com that were deceptive and misleading, than I would have to agree with the respondent, he has had my best interest in mind.
7-    The respondent stated that: “if he can return his parts not worn or damaged I would be willing to refund his parts costs only.”
a.     Where do I start? First the respondent has failed to mention a relevant fact anywhere in either of his two replies to the Revdex.com. That fact is that the rotors (half of the parts associated with the work his shop performed) were free, not because the respondent is / was a benevolent business owner, or he gave me a good deal, as his reply implies, but because I paid Midas a premium price up front years ago for the right to receive free replacement of the rotors on this car for as long as I own the car. Once again the reply you received is deceptive and misleading while at the same time managing to include what I believe may be the respondents most bizarre and ridiculous statement to date.
b.      The respondent stated: “We pride ourselves on being honest and fair, after all we are here for him.” I have no idea what “after all we are here for him” means in the context of this complaint. Clearly the respondent and I differ on our definition of the words honest and fair.
                                        ...⇄ definition of honest includes: free of deceit and untruthfulness; sincere, morally correct or even a little virtuous.
                                        ...⇄ definition of fair includes: just or appropriate, without trying to achieve unjust advantage.
c.      The respondent mentioned he believes this is getting close to the point of harassment. Given this statement I looked up the definition of the word “harassment”. It reads: “aggressive pressure or intimidation.” Where is the aggressive pressure, where is the intimidation?
If the facts of this complaint show anything they reflect a respondent that since June of this years has done nothing to move towards a settlement. In fact the record shows that he has done the opposite in his ongoing attempts to deceive the Revdex.com, deflect the focus away from the issues, ignore facts, and by failing to reply as he promised.
It is my opinion that in the roughly six months since I first contacted Midas that facts clearly reflect that no one at Midas at the Simi location or at the corporate level has addressed my complaint with me or with the Revdex.com professionally, honestly, sincerely, or fairly.
Since Midas has been unwilling to open a dialog regarding a settlement here is my proposal to settle this matter: J[redacted] at the Simi Midas location and Roger Bell from corporate provide me their own type written apology. These apologies will be in my possession on or before December 21, 2015. That is it. No money need change hands. Provide me with the apologies I am requesting. Apologies that satisfy me by addressing no less than the following seven topics in my possession on or before December 21, 2015 and we will be done. These apologies will include:
1-    J[redacted] acknowledging the pattern of misleading and deceptive replies.
2-    J[redacted] acknowledging (A) I did not meet with him at his shop after the work was done in June AND (B) I never accused him of ripping me off.
3-    J[redacted] acknowledging his failure to keep his commitment and provide me with a written reply to my letter dated June 17, 2015.
4-    J[redacted] acknowledging the mistake his shop made on multiple occasions telling me I needed work done on my car that was not needed.
5-    J[redacted] acknowledging I have not harassed him or his business.
6-    J[redacted] acknowledging his failure to act professionally and in a business manner throughout this process.
7-    Roger acknowledging his role in this by failing to keep his word and get back to me after our initial phone conversation and his failure to reply to my two follow up text messages to him when I did not receive his follow up call.
That is it. Proof that money was not and is not the issue or the reason behind me filing my complaint with the Revdex.com. That said, if the respondent would prefer to continue to make his position about money I would be willing to consider ending this by either of the following options in lieu of my receipt of the two apologies on or before December 21, 2015:
1-    Midas will perform the break job on the rear axle of my car at a date and Midas location of my choosing with Midas picking up the cost for all of the parts and labor that J[redacted]’s shop stated were needed back in June 2015.
2-    Here is a third option I would consider: Midas sends me a cashier’s check for $305.52, the amount I paid Midas in June 2015, with that check in my possession on or beforeDecember 21, 2015.
I end my reply to the Revdex.com by asking you the same question I ask myself every time I read an email, text or letter from J[redacted] at Midas: “What am I missing?” In his replies to the Revdex.com the respondent has made false statements, ignored facts, failed to respond to specifics, failed to acknowledge any mistakes, let alone any wrong doing. He has also failed to offer any type of a settlement that would move this to a conclusion, at the same time failing to acknowledge the commitment he made and has not kept while routinely attempting to mislead and draw attention away from the real issues when writing to the Revdex.com.
Regards,
[redacted] B[redacted]