Response received via e-mail to Revdex.com -- PDF is attached, including copy of service invoice, 'Buyer's Guide' disclosuresText of letter reads as follows: "In response to your letter and ID #*** Nate's Auto sold this vehicle AS IS to *** on 6/2/for a price of $1,She came in on
6/10/not 6/7/asking about what the squeaking was fromI took the vehicle for a test drive and noticed the brake pad was starting to squeakI informed her that it was going to need front brake pads for around $and it was $She also asked if the rotors were badWith a visual inspection of the rotors they did not seem to be metal on metal which also reflects in the mechanics report from Jeff Belzers (front brakes ALMOST metal to metal inspect and found front linings worn to squeal tabs not metal to metal)This obviously did not happen on 6/3/like she has stated because she came in on 6/6/asking how to turn on the radio and mentioned nothing about the brakesWe stand behind our customers but when it comes to regular wear and tear on your vehicle that is the customers responsibility not oursI have also attached the signed AS IS NO WARRANTY agreement and also the mechanics notes on this vehicle.Thanks,Nathan ***Owner"
I am rejecting this response because: the owner is just glossing over the facts to his advantage (he thinks). I may have been slightly confused about the exact dates as I was in a collision on May 23 and still have a mild concussion. But I am not confused about in what condition the brakes were on the car.
The vehicle wasn't just "starting" to squeak. It WAS squeaking badly. It was squealing the whole time from June 2nd on. After about 5-6 days later I knew I needed to bring it in for N. [redacted] to test drive it.
- Yes, I had come in and talked to his wife about how to turn on the radio, etc. BUT I also told her about the squeaking at that same time and she said it could be dust that had accumulated on brakes from sitting out so long. THIS CONVERSATION HAS SLIPPED HER MIND?!!
- [redacted]'s visual inspection of rotors was NOT accurate as the following info below shows ** (AND he told me, "The rotors are fine/ok" But they were NOT.)
- The Service Dept. Mgr. stated that the front brakes were ALMOST metal to metal & that is hazardous enough in my estimation! Also, it was found that the front linings were worn to the squeal tabs, that also indicates a hazard. NATE [redacted] IS NOT A MECHANIC.
**Measuring Rotor Thickness** - It's impossible to tell how much life is left on the brake rotors by simply looking at it. As a matter of fact, it's dangerously misleading! By simply looking at brake rotors, most rotors seem to be wearing fine unless there are cracks or huge chunks missing. However, that is where the huge misconception lies. Unlike brake pads, which show how much pad is left and have warning sensors, brake rotors have no such indicators. It's important for the safety and performance of your car to inspect these properly. We recommend to inspect your brake rotors every 10,000 miles to make sure they are within specs.
-The mgr. said I should have new rotors but said he'd re-surface them since I am so financially crippled now since my accident. So that's what we did.
-Nate does NOT stand behind his customers, and wear and tear on a vehicle that old is OF COURSE to be expected but the BRAKES ARE A DIFFERENT MATTER. Bad brakes could be very very dangerous for a customer and I expect some recompense for the cost of having new brake pads installed and the rotors re-surfaced.
-In closing, the Service Dept. Mgr. said, "I would NEVER have sold someone a car like yours with brakes that bad." These are his exact words.
-I don't care if [redacted] puts a sign on a car that says, As Is" or not, he has a moral obligation to sell a vehicle that is not dangerous.
Response received via e-mail to Revdex.com -- PDF is attached, including copy of service invoice, 'Buyer's Guide' disclosuresText of letter reads as follows: "In response to your letter and ID #*** Nate's Auto sold this vehicle AS IS to *** on 6/2/for a price of $1,She came in on
6/10/not 6/7/asking about what the squeaking was fromI took the vehicle for a test drive and noticed the brake pad was starting to squeakI informed her that it was going to need front brake pads for around $and it was $She also asked if the rotors were badWith a visual inspection of the rotors they did not seem to be metal on metal which also reflects in the mechanics report from Jeff Belzers (front brakes ALMOST metal to metal inspect and found front linings worn to squeal tabs not metal to metal)This obviously did not happen on 6/3/like she has stated because she came in on 6/6/asking how to turn on the radio and mentioned nothing about the brakesWe stand behind our customers but when it comes to regular wear and tear on your vehicle that is the customers responsibility not oursI have also attached the signed AS IS NO WARRANTY agreement and also the mechanics notes on this vehicle.Thanks,Nathan ***Owner"
I am rejecting this response because: the owner is just glossing over the facts to his advantage (he thinks). I may have been slightly confused about the exact dates as I was in a collision on May 23 and still have a mild concussion. But I am not confused about in what condition the brakes were on the car.
The vehicle wasn't just "starting" to squeak. It WAS squeaking badly. It was squealing the whole time from June 2nd on. After about 5-6 days later I knew I needed to bring it in for N. [redacted] to test drive it.
- Yes, I had come in and talked to his wife about how to turn on the radio, etc. BUT I also told her about the squeaking at that same time and she said it could be dust that had accumulated on brakes from sitting out so long. THIS CONVERSATION HAS SLIPPED HER MIND?!!
- [redacted]'s visual inspection of rotors was NOT accurate as the following info below shows ** (AND he told me, "The rotors are fine/ok" But they were NOT.)
- The Service Dept. Mgr. stated that the front brakes were ALMOST metal to metal & that is hazardous enough in my estimation! Also, it was found that the front linings were worn to the squeal tabs, that also indicates a hazard. NATE [redacted] IS NOT A MECHANIC.
**Measuring Rotor Thickness** - It's impossible to tell how much life is left on the brake rotors by simply looking at it. As a matter of fact, it's dangerously misleading! By simply looking at brake rotors, most rotors seem to be wearing fine unless there are cracks or huge chunks missing. However, that is where the huge misconception lies. Unlike brake pads, which show how much pad is left and have warning sensors, brake rotors have no such indicators. It's important for the safety and performance of your car to inspect these properly. We recommend to inspect your brake rotors every 10,000 miles to make sure they are within specs.
-The mgr. said I should have new rotors but said he'd re-surface them since I am so financially crippled now since my accident. So that's what we did.
-Nate does NOT stand behind his customers, and wear and tear on a vehicle that old is OF COURSE to be expected but the BRAKES ARE A DIFFERENT MATTER. Bad brakes could be very very dangerous for a customer and I expect some recompense for the cost of having new brake pads installed and the rotors re-surfaced.
-In closing, the Service Dept. Mgr. said, "I would NEVER have sold someone a car like yours with brakes that bad." These are his exact words.
-I don't care if [redacted] puts a sign on a car that says, As Is" or not, he has a moral obligation to sell a vehicle that is not dangerous.