Montesi Motors, Inc.

I wanted to add something else to my response, but don't see that I can now that I've respondedWhile we disagree with Mr*** complaint against us, none the less, I would like to extend a 15% discount on this repair needed as he has been a good and valued customer Thank You, *** ***

Dear Ms. [redacted],
I have reviewed the complaint submitted to the CT Revdex.com by [redacted]. For the sake of this response I would like to provide you with a recap of Mr. [redacted] recent services with our dealership. On December 26 2014 Mr. [redacted] brought his car to us because the engine light...

was on and it failed an emmissions test. The mileage at that time was 179,985. We performed a diagostic review and found that the car needed a intake manifold and an exhaust particulate filter. There were no other fault codes present. The customer declined repairs at that time. Mr. [redacted] came back to us on January 9 2015 with mileage of 183,778. We replaced the intake manifold and particulate filter as requested. Mr. [redacted] did not supply us with the emmissions test failed paperwork. When he came in to pick up his car on Saturday , he was upset that we did not fill out that same paperwork, but we could note as we did not have it. Subsequently, the customer brought us the paperwork and it was filled in by our service advisor. On January 19 2015 with mileage at 184,502. Mr. [redacted] returned to us because the car did not pass an emmissions test. We checked our readiness codes and they were set properly. Our advisor [redacted], suggested the customer go right down the road from us to [redacted], a state licensced emissions test center. The car did pass the emmissions test.On February 17 2015 with mileage at 186,062 Mr [redacted] returned because the engine light had come back on. This was approximately 1 month and 2.284 miles after our repair wherby we replaced the intake manifold and particulate filter. Mr. [redacted] car was diagnosed  as needing a turbo that failed. The impellar was cracked. There was no relation to the previuos repair.  We are sincerely sorry for Mr. [redacted] troubles but we assume no responsibility for work done incorrectly.Sincerely,[redacted] [redacted]
[redacted] Volkswagen

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
Dear Ms. [redacted],
I returned my car to [redacted] to be serviced on January 7,
2015, not the 9th (see service receipt #[redacted]).  I picked up my car on Jan. 10th.  From what I recall, parts had to be ordered
and the schedule presented to me conflicted with my work schedule due to the holiday
season resulting with the drop off date of Jan 7. 
Regarding the emissions paperwork, I disagree with Mr.
[redacted] as I did provide them with the paperwork and that paperwork was handed
back to me not filled out as required by the Department of Motor Vehicle.  When I returned to the emissions center in
[redacted] I was told the paperwork was not filled out by the repair service
center.  That is the reason I called back
and [redacted] staff tried to assist by verbally advising me what he thought should be filled out (dealership
repair section was blank).  I subsequently
returned to the service station and administrative staff filled out the
paperwork.  However, after returning to
the emissions station again my car did not pass the test. This supports my
claim that my car issues were not complete.
At the time in question, I worked in New Jersey and traveled there daily
from Connecticut; this explains all of the highway mileage.   A few days prior to a preplanned cruise
between February 2 and February 13 2015 (I can provide trip information upon
request), my car engine light came back on and I called Montesi.  Given my departure time for an international
11-day cruise vacation, and purported available service dates, I decided to
bring the car back after our return.   When
I returned from vacation, the earliest date provided to me was Feb. 17th.  After another car engine diagnostic test by
Montesi, I was told I needed to have some more work done on my engine and that
it would cost another $3,000.  I asked
why this other issue was not discovered previously and I was informed that
there could be several reasons why the engine light came back on.  In my estimation, if I have one car engine I
expect the entire car engine to be thoroughly reviewed the first time.  For example, if my tire was flat I expect the
entire tire to be checked for a complete repair; I would not expect just one
punctured area to be serviced without completely ruling out other potential leaks and or issues like the rim that supports the tire.  That is why I believe a thorough diagnosis
was not completed the first time.  I made
several trips going to and from [redacted] for incomplete [redacted] paperwork. My car did
not pass a post car repair emissions test after my car was purportedly serviced
combined with having the same engine light come back on after it was supposedly
fixed.  Finally, my car was not emitting
smoke when I took the car into Montesi. 
After their review, my car tail pipe was discharging so much smoke I questioned
the service representative who responded that was normal after checking the car
out.  I wholeheartedly disagree as that
was not the situation when the car was in my possession.  The smoke was so bad my wife could not follow
me home in her car without creating a significant distance between the
cars for fear of poor visability and breathable air. 
I would not be requesting assistance from the RevDex.com if I received satisfactory service from the [redacted] dealership.  I do not believe my car was properly
diagnosed and that failure resulted in another significant car engine repair
issue.  Your assistance is appreciated.
 
Sincerely,
[redacted]

Review: In early January 2015, I took my 2010 [redacted] to [redacted] for service because my engine light came on and the vehicle failed emissions testing. I paid $2909.88 for repairs and took my car for an emissions test on January 17, 2015. Montessi did not provide me with the proper documents routinely required by the [redacted] to show the work they completed preventing me from taking the test. I had to call Montesi, documentation in hand, and review that documentation over the phone with a service technician in order to take the vehicle back for testing that day. We could not believe that the person that took our call had no record of the work done after we had just spent thousands of dollars in repairs. After the technician hypothesized about the type of work that may have been done to the vehicle, we took it back to the emissions testing center. The vehicle failed. I had to take the vehicle back to [redacted] in order for them to evaluate it a second time. After they did so, they referred me to an emissions testing facility owned by a person known to the service department and it passed. On January 31, 2015, another blinking light came on the dash and I was unable to accelerate the vehicle beyond 30mph. Because I went on vacation for the first two weeks of February, I was unable to immediately return the car to Montessi. On February 16, 2015, I took the vehicle in a third time and I was told that there could be 50 potential reasons that a car engine light would be on. More importantly, they said the repairs for this problem they identified would cost ANOTHER $3,000 not including taxes. My response was why didn't [redacted] staff perform a standard 50 part checklist review that would confirm or rule out all potential deficiencies the first time? I did not get a satisfactory answer and my car engine light is back on putting me back in the same condition I was in when I first requested service from Montesi. I believe the services rendered wer substandard and fall short of completion.Desired Settlement: I respectfully request the engine repair job they started be completed and that any additional charges at their cost.

Business

Response:

Dear Ms. [redacted],I have reviewed the complaint submitted to the CT Revdex.com by [redacted]. For the sake of this response I would like to provide you with a recap of Mr. [redacted] recent services with our dealership. On December 26 2014 Mr. [redacted] brought his car to us because the engine light was on and it failed an emmissions test. The mileage at that time was 179,985. We performed a diagostic review and found that the car needed a intake manifold and an exhaust particulate filter. There were no other fault codes present. The customer declined repairs at that time. Mr. [redacted] came back to us on January 9 2015 with mileage of 183,778. We replaced the intake manifold and particulate filter as requested. Mr. [redacted] did not supply us with the emmissions test failed paperwork. When he came in to pick up his car on Saturday , he was upset that we did not fill out that same paperwork, but we could note as we did not have it. Subsequently, the customer brought us the paperwork and it was filled in by our service advisor. On January 19 2015 with mileage at 184,502. Mr. [redacted] returned to us because the car did not pass an emmissions test. We checked our readiness codes and they were set properly. Our advisor [redacted], suggested the customer go right down the road from us to [redacted], a state licensced emissions test center. The car did pass the emmissions test.On February 17 2015 with mileage at 186,062 Mr [redacted] returned because the engine light had come back on. This was approximately 1 month and 2.284 miles after our repair wherby we replaced the intake manifold and particulate filter. Mr. [redacted] car was diagnosed as needing a turbo that failed. The impellar was cracked. There was no relation to the previuos repair. We are sincerely sorry for Mr. [redacted] troubles but we assume no responsibility for work done incorrectly.Sincerely,[redacted] Volkswagen

Business

Response:

I wanted to add something else to my response, but don't see that I can now that I've responded. While we disagree with Mr. [redacted] complaint against us, none the less, I would like to extend a 15% discount on this repair needed as he has been a good and valued customer. Thank You, [redacted]

Consumer

Response:

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because: