In regards to the Revdex.com concern for *** and *** [redacted] and their *** ***, I am not finding the factual specifics of that service visit to be entirely consistent to the statements made in their complaintI am responding to their comments in the order that they appear in their complaint: **and *** [redacted] brought their *** *** in to Rosenthal Land Rover on 08/15/for diagnosis of a “transmission gear fault” warning message displayed on the dashAt the time the vehicle was worked on, there were no warning messages displayed on the dash and the vehicle was operating like normalThere were however, several historic fault codes that were saved in the vehicle’s on-board computer, ***, [redacted] , ***, *** and ***The *** code signified that the rear differential actuator mode was most likely defectiveThere is no specific pin point test to prove the failure of that part beyond actually replacing it so the customer was advised of the cost to replace that part Additionally, it is our obligation to report any other items that the technician sees during his inspection which in this case was front brakes worn down to the minimum spec, worn tires and no evidence of a recent maintenance having been completedThe customer was given an estimate for these items purely from an informative standpoint but was in no way made to believe that these items were directly related to the warning messages The customer opted not to proceed with any of the repairs and they took their vehicle They were charged the minimum diagnostic fee of $plus tax/etc for the technicians’ time spent diagnosing the vehicleThey were not charged anything for the recall that was completed during that same visit, which was in fact authorized by the customer as proven by their signature on the original repair order write-up containing that recall descriptionOn September 24, 2015, we received a report from Land Rover Corporate who had just received a call from *** [redacted] lodging a similar complaint about the rear differential motorIt is uncertain at that time if they had been to [redacted] [redacted] yet or notIn response to that case with Land Rover corporate, it was offered to the customer to bring the car back in for us to look at the fault codes again to see if the computer had found anything newWe offered to do this at no charge and we offered to provide a free loaner car to the customerThe Land Rover customer service agent also forwarded the file to Land Rover’s technical supervisor who is in charge of the North American Technical HelplineHe was able to log in to our server and pull the “session files” from the [redacted] ’s last visit and verify the fault codes that were present at that time and he agreed with our findings on that dateHe also offered to oversee the results of the follow up visit and confirm our findingsAll of this would have been offered to **And *** [redacted] on or about 09/28/and is documented in Land Rover Consumer Affair’s case# [redacted] [Land Rover CRC [redacted] ] For whatever reason the [redacted] ’s opted not to follow through with the offer to have Land Rover engineers oversee the repairs to their vehicle and instead took their vehicle to [redacted] [redacted] As stated in their complaint the fault codes that [redacted] [redacted] found on that visit were completely different than the fault codes that were found on the previous visit at Rosenthal Land Rover so obviously that would have rendered a different course of actionIf the [redacted] ’s were indicating in their Revdex.com complaint that [redacted] [redacted] came up with a different diagnosis than Rosenthal did, that is why, completely different fault codes that each require completely different repairs It is true that fault code *** does indicate the need to replace the transmission but at no point was that fault code present during Rosenthal’s diagnosis so there would have been no reason to recommend that repairThey also stated in their complaint that when they took the car for a second opinion “the rear differential showed no leaking, oil was full and the sound of the rear differential motor seemed fine.” The component that we recommended is electrical and it contains no fluid or makes no sound so clearly they misunderstood our recommendation In summary, they brought their vehicle in for diagnosis which was performed in good faith and Land Rover Engineering agreed with the resultsThey were charged the minimum fee for time spent working on a vehicle The customer was offered the opportunity to have the vehicle re-investigated at no charge with a free loaner car and with the assistance of Land Rover Technical Assistance but they declined to follow through with that offer.The [redacted] ’s have since repaired their vehicle and are happy with the service that they received and the price that they paidThey were not charged any additional charges other than the diagnostic fee, therefore there will be no such reimbursement
In regards to the Revdex.com concern for *** and *** [redacted] and their *** ***, I am not finding the factual specifics of that service visit to be entirely consistent to the statements made in their complaintI am responding to their comments in the order that they appear in their complaint: **and *** [redacted] brought their *** *** in to Rosenthal Land Rover on 08/15/for diagnosis of a “transmission gear fault” warning message displayed on the dashAt the time the vehicle was worked on, there were no warning messages displayed on the dash and the vehicle was operating like normalThere were however, several historic fault codes that were saved in the vehicle’s on-board computer, ***, [redacted] , ***, *** and ***The *** code signified that the rear differential actuator mode was most likely defectiveThere is no specific pin point test to prove the failure of that part beyond actually replacing it so the customer was advised of the cost to replace that part Additionally, it is our obligation to report any other items that the technician sees during his inspection which in this case was front brakes worn down to the minimum spec, worn tires and no evidence of a recent maintenance having been completedThe customer was given an estimate for these items purely from an informative standpoint but was in no way made to believe that these items were directly related to the warning messages The customer opted not to proceed with any of the repairs and they took their vehicle They were charged the minimum diagnostic fee of $plus tax/etc for the technicians’ time spent diagnosing the vehicleThey were not charged anything for the recall that was completed during that same visit, which was in fact authorized by the customer as proven by their signature on the original repair order write-up containing that recall descriptionOn September 24, 2015, we received a report from Land Rover Corporate who had just received a call from *** [redacted] lodging a similar complaint about the rear differential motorIt is uncertain at that time if they had been to [redacted] [redacted] yet or notIn response to that case with Land Rover corporate, it was offered to the customer to bring the car back in for us to look at the fault codes again to see if the computer had found anything newWe offered to do this at no charge and we offered to provide a free loaner car to the customerThe Land Rover customer service agent also forwarded the file to Land Rover’s technical supervisor who is in charge of the North American Technical HelplineHe was able to log in to our server and pull the “session files” from the [redacted] ’s last visit and verify the fault codes that were present at that time and he agreed with our findings on that dateHe also offered to oversee the results of the follow up visit and confirm our findingsAll of this would have been offered to **And *** [redacted] on or about 09/28/and is documented in Land Rover Consumer Affair’s case# [redacted] [Land Rover CRC [redacted] ] For whatever reason the [redacted] ’s opted not to follow through with the offer to have Land Rover engineers oversee the repairs to their vehicle and instead took their vehicle to [redacted] [redacted] As stated in their complaint the fault codes that [redacted] [redacted] found on that visit were completely different than the fault codes that were found on the previous visit at Rosenthal Land Rover so obviously that would have rendered a different course of actionIf the [redacted] ’s were indicating in their Revdex.com complaint that [redacted] [redacted] came up with a different diagnosis than Rosenthal did, that is why, completely different fault codes that each require completely different repairs It is true that fault code *** does indicate the need to replace the transmission but at no point was that fault code present during Rosenthal’s diagnosis so there would have been no reason to recommend that repairThey also stated in their complaint that when they took the car for a second opinion “the rear differential showed no leaking, oil was full and the sound of the rear differential motor seemed fine.” The component that we recommended is electrical and it contains no fluid or makes no sound so clearly they misunderstood our recommendation In summary, they brought their vehicle in for diagnosis which was performed in good faith and Land Rover Engineering agreed with the resultsThey were charged the minimum fee for time spent working on a vehicle The customer was offered the opportunity to have the vehicle re-investigated at no charge with a free loaner car and with the assistance of Land Rover Technical Assistance but they declined to follow through with that offer.The [redacted] ’s have since repaired their vehicle and are happy with the service that they received and the price that they paidThey were not charged any additional charges other than the diagnostic fee, therefore there will be no such reimbursement