Newbold Toyota Scion

In this matter, we did charge the customer $dollars to diagnose a problem with his radio Our technician found a problem with the head unit The customer declined to do the work in our shop We have not seen the vehicle since then We do not know the following.1.The customer claims that our diagnosis was wrong We did not have an opportunity to check if our diagnosis was correct or not, or whether both the radio head and the amplifier were defective We do not know whether the units the customer used actually fixed the problem for the same reasons listed above.At the very least, we provided a diagnosis by a factory trained union master technician which our charge for the labor is typical for the industry If we had performed the work and discovered that we were mistaken in our initial inspection, we would have credited back the charge for the diagnosisWe respectively decline to refund the $[redacted] Newbold Toyota

Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 5, 2015/07/22) */ Mr [redacted] brought his Toyota van to us for servicing in JuneHis vehicle currently has 170,miles on the odometerHe was there because of the advice of his local mechanic in CollinsvilleHis mechanic diagnosed the issues but refered it to us because "he did not have the tools to make the repair" according to Mrs***We performed the repair that was referred by that mechanic, by the error codes thrown out by the onboard computer, and by referring to the Toyota Service Bulletin(TSB)Note: a TSB is not a recall or campaign but an advisory bulletinDuring the actual process of repairing the vehicle, we noticed that the motor was full of sludge, an indication that the owners had not followed a proper maintenance and oil change scheduleSince we had not worked on this vehicle since and 100,miles ago, we had no maintenance records to refer toIt is Newbold Toyotas position that the diagnosis of the problem was correct, that the repair was necessary , and that we performed the repair correctlyThe ongoing problems with the engine are because of poor maintenance which is the responsibility of the ownersNewbold respectively declines to refund the customers money in this case [redacted]

This is a mistake that we are efforting to correct, but sometimes it takes time to pull down all posts I strongly reject that this action was intentional*** ***

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/06/23) */
Without launching into a character assasination of Mr*** on his claims in this matter, I think it will suffice to say that Mr*** account of his dealings with Newbold Toyota and our version of those events differ greatlyIt is a fact
that Mr*** was so dissatisfied by the way that he perceived that we handled his complaints with his Toyota that we did tell him that he would probably not be able to have his expectations met with our company and that he would probably be happier taking his service to another Toyota dealerFrom his complaint, it appears, by his own admission, have all of his complaints rectified by Alton Toyota, a Toyota dealer that my research shows is a two minute longer drive time ffrom his home than Newbold Toyota(Google Maps)The buyback of any vehicle purchased new is handled under law commonly known as "Lemon Laws" which provides relief for defects on a vehicle that cannot be corrected in a reasonable amount of repair attemptsAccording to his recital of facts in his complaint, he has no outstanding unrepaired defects, therefore he has no claim for a buybackThe law does not provide relief for perceived inconvenience
We respectively decline to buy back his vehicle
*** ***

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 6, 2015/10/13) */
To whom it may concern,
Mr*** is incorrect in one instance in his complaint(the ABS light was off when it left Newbold) and has omitted volumes of information about how Newbold BMW attempted to convince Mr*** to not attempt to have the
issues on his vehicle repaired by Newbold BMWThe vehicle in question is a year old vehicle with 129,miles on the odometerBy the customers own admission the vehicle has had an issue for two years where water leaks into the dashboard area from the outside, an area that contains many electronic modules, including one that are mentioned in his complaintWhen the vehicle was first brought to us we explained the difficulties of finding inexpensive and isolated fixes to the problems and advised Mr*** that we would look at his car if he agreed to pay diagnosic fee's at $per hourMr*** agreed to pay for three hours of diagnostic timeBecause of moisture damage we were not able to diagnosis after three hoursNewbold then spent an additional hours of time, without charging Mr*** to diagnose the carA technical specialist from BMW was brought in and spent another hours on the carAt that point we could only guess at a fix for the vehicle, and informed Mr*** of thatPersonel at Newbold BMW then attempted to talk Mr*** out of spending any money on the vehicle at all, because of the number of issues with the carWe made our case to him repeatedly over a weeks timeHe still insisted on going forward and we succeded in fixing the digital speedo and one of the light issues, but uncovered more problems as we went alongWe did our best to point out that what he would initially spend would probably not fix his car, but he insisted on going forward with attempted repairsWe have taken nearly a $of diagnostic work out of our own pocket in order to help the customerAfter we fixed the speedometer and replaced some other modules, it became obvious that the problems that we envisioned would pop up after beginning the repairs did pop upAt that point we contacted the customer and informed him that all of the things that we advised him that could go wrong in attempting to talk him out of fixing his car,di go wrongAt that point, he declined to authorize any further repairs, paid for, and picked up his carWe feel that is disingenious for Mr*** to call foul at this point after he was made fully aware of the risks in fixing his carAs far as the customers demands, we respectfully decline either option he has tendered

We will take Mr*** off of our mailing listWe apologize for any inconvenience

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me
Sincerely,
*** ***

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/07/22) */
Mr. [redacted] brought his Toyota van to us for servicing in June. His vehicle currently has 170,000 miles on the odometer. He was there because of the advice of his local mechanic in Collinsville. His mechanic diagnosed the issues but refered it...

to us because "he did not have the tools to make the repair" according to Mrs. [redacted]. We performed the repair that was referred by that mechanic, by the error codes thrown out by the onboard computer, and by referring to the Toyota Service Bulletin(TSB). Note: a TSB is not a recall or campaign but an advisory bulletin. During the actual process of repairing the vehicle, we noticed that the motor was full of sludge, an indication that the owners had not followed a proper maintenance and oil change schedule. Since we had not worked on this vehicle since 2009 and 100,000 miles ago, we had no maintenance records to refer to. It is Newbold Toyotas position that the diagnosis of the problem was correct, that the repair was necessary , and that we performed the repair correctly. The ongoing problems with the engine are because of poor maintenance which is the responsibility of the owners. Newbold respectively declines to refund the customers money in this case.
[redacted]

In this matter, we did charge the customer $130 dollars to diagnose a problem with his radio.  Our technician found a problem with the head unit.  The customer declined to do the work in our shop.  We have not seen the vehicle since then.  We do not know the following.1.The...

customer claims that our diagnosis was wrong.  We did not have an opportunity to check if our diagnosis was correct or not, or whether both the radio head and the amplifier were defective.  2. We do not know whether the units the customer used actually fixed the problem for the same reasons listed above.At the very least, we provided a diagnosis by a factory trained union master technician which our charge for the labor is typical for the industry.  If we had performed the work and discovered that we were mistaken in our initial inspection, we would have credited back the charge for the diagnosis. We respectively decline to refund the $130[redacted]Newbold Toyota