Pierce's Siding and Windows

Dear Business Bureau; Dear Business BureauI understand that these are the holidays and perhaps are not , taking the time to investigate the case furthermore, you have only acted as a third party who is passing our response to Onsale, and Onsale's response back to us. After explaining the events that have happened between the employee and the business , we have not heard your  input in the case  and as  a business Onsale  is trying to benefit themselves. We have provided a photograph of the affected tire after the blowout, which exploded at a low speed of 35mph. If the incident  had occurred at a higher speed, (being a front tire ) we would be talking about greater consequences rather then the cost of the tire( which we would like refunded and or the affected tire belongs to us( we have a receipt to prove that the tire belongs to us   ). But we ask ourselves,,,, What is the reason why the store does not want to return the tire if we paid for the tire and it belongs to us? if I as a client does not have the right to reclaim the tire,,, why does the company not want to return the tire!? Or is  the company afraid of bigger consequences? I hope that the business bureau analyzes and give a final verdict and is not just serving as a third party. Because all the client wants Is a good experience ,service , and our rights  We appreciate your attention and Happy Holidays!                                   �...⇄ Regards,                                    ...⇄ [redacted]              
    
Regards,
[redacted]

Neither our written documents nor
our sales staff's recollections are in agreement with Mr[redacted]'s complaint
Furthermore, we feel that engaging in an online "he said, she said" type argument is
both unprofessional and counter-productive.
Mr[redacted] had a life-time factory warranty against defects. The factory investigated his claim that the
tire was defective and determined that the cause of the blowout was road hazard
and they will not replace the tire. The
warranty is the factory's not the store's.
However, in an attempt to benefit our customer we have offered a
reduction in future services. We have no
further offer

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
In attempt to bring this matter to a close you are offering us a 10% discount correct ? Wow ! That really helps out! Not! We lost about 330 dollars with your company it is ubsurd that that's all the company has to offer. We want our money back and the tire and that's final!  it is Johnny's fault that you are unable to return the tire he spoke to my grandfather and after being 2 weeks out of contact with my grandfather Johnny told him that the tire was back in the store and we could pick it up at any time . How is this not being deceitful ? You lied to us thinking that we would not return to the tire and when we go pick it up Johnny says/ stutters that he never said that. Charles the store manager is being deceitful by saying that we never spoke to Johnny .... Tell me how this isn't being deceitful? Johnny the salesperson is being deceitful by saying that he never spoke about a 30 day warranty that was on both tires ? We get it ! You just can't return the money because you can not help the customer . Therefore we will continue to reject your offer ! 
Regards,
[redacted]

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:Gentlemen:Please include my response to On Sale's very late response to my complaint per following:Regarding the Kumho warranty, as I believe I stated in my original complaint, at the time of tire purchase, I was not given the warranty document (terms and conditions).Nor was I able to currently access on-line the warranty terms and conditions that were in effect when I purchased the tires.  Unless either Kumho or On Sale can provide me withthe original document, they cannot argue what were the terms and conditions in effect at that time.I went on-line to access the CURRENT Kumho warranty terms and conditions and filed an on-line warranty claim asking for a dollar amount that was calculated using theirpercentage representing the number of miles actually provided by the tires vs. the 85,000-mile warranty amount.  The claim was denied.On Sale wanted the old tires back to return to Kumho.  They did actually have one of the tires in their possession which could have been used to evidence the tread depth and/orreturn to Kumho.  They removed this tire on a Saturday morning.  On Sale was closed the following day, Sunday.  By the next dayMonday morning, I returned to On Sale and inquiredabout the tire in their possession.  However, amazingly, the tire had supposedly already been "picked up" and they claimed to no longer have it.On Sale claims to have made some type of "offer" to me to remedy this problem.  The only thing On Sale did was attempt to "match" the better-priced tire purchase deal I was alreadygiven by another vendor.  Nothing was offered as it related to the "warranty".In my complaint filed with Revdex.com, I asked for an amount of compensation representing the return of the original purchase price of the five Kumho tires - due to customer dissatisfaction. On Sale never addressed the fact that the most recent inspection it performed on my vehicle (evidenced by invoice backup I e-mailed to you) failed to indicate a need for either analignment nor tire rotation.  How do they explain this?  Yet, they insist I did not properly maintain my vehicle.  They also ignored the service record I provided by another service centerwhich shows my attention to vehicle maintenance. On Sale's response to my complaint obviates its "business and customer service philosophy".  Rather than negotiate a mutually-agreeable resolution, On Sale demonstrated itsunacceptable approach to business.
Regards,
[redacted] [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, the consumer must give a reason why they are rejecting the response. If the consumer does not provide a reason if he complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

I am writing in response to Ms. [redacted]’s complaint concerning her tire warranty.Ms. [redacted] did purchase Kumho tires from us at OnSale Tire and Accessories in July of 2010.  The tires were guaranteed by Kumho for 85,000 miles and the warranty is for replacement Kumho tires....

 The only requirement is that the customer have a record that they performed the standard required maintenance.When Ms. [redacted] came in she wished to file a claim against all four tires however; she could not provide the maintenance records, she did not want Kumho tires, and she did not want to purchase tires from our business.  Both Kumho and OnSale attempted to offer accommodations to keep Ms. [redacted]’s business however, Ms. [redacted] refused.   Basically, Ms. [redacted] wishes to make up her own warranty with her own rules.  We respectfully decline to offer her any compensation.

We are rejecting this response because:  We are disappointed for the dishonesty of the manager (Charles S[redacted]) and the salesperson whom we talked to (Johnny), The only day we spoke to Charles S[redacted] was on the 20th of November,  and the 9th of December when we tried to pick up the defected tire, The rest of the time my grandfather was in contact with Johnny and never spoke to Charles. Johnny sold us the original two tires on the 17th of November and we were told that the tires had the 30 day factory warrantee. The reason why my grandfather was in contact with Johnny was because he asked for someone who speaks Spanish (since he is not fluent in English and blind). So I'm not sure why Charles is saying that we never spoke to Johnny ( how is it possible to know an employees name (Johnny) if Charles is saying that we never spoke to Johnny. The Day we went in to pick up the defected tire we were speaking to Johnny, when Charles interrupted and began to put his input in the  issue , my grandfather cut him off and told him that he was speaking to Johnny and not Charles. What is the reason for not wanting to return the defected tire ,when my grandfather talked to Johnny , and Johnny said that the truck would return the defected tire to the store ( and that it had arrived at the store) . Is there a reason why the company does not want to return the tire even thoughwe paid for the tire and they  know belongs to us?. Attached is a photo of the tire after it exploded, and if the company does not want to pay for the tires, we are in the right that they return the defected tire because it belongs to us.We appreciate the attention and help from the Revdex.com so that this type of company's , can keep their word on the product and its guarantee.  Once again we are angry with this type service and would like a refund of the tires and the road hazard warrantee that we were forced to buy, The company offering to give us a 10% discount on a future purchase and free warrantee , but we will not return to onsale tire after the bad service we received .
Regards,
[redacted]