Precision Tune Autocare/Webster Getty

On [redacted] 2015 I received a Passed safety inspection sticker from the [redacted] BP, located at [redacted] St [redacted] Before my safety inspection my vehicle was in good working order with no warning lights on the dash or issues with the steering or suspension. Upon driving my vehicle away from the station I noticed that my steering felt loose. I continued to experience a loose steering wheel. Within another mile of leaving my ESP/BAS warning light came on (see attached photo) and my vehicle lost responsiveness in both the wheel and acceleration. I immediately pulled over to the side of the road and inspected my front tires. I noticed no obvious tire damage and decided to try to make it to my home (only another mile away). I contacted the [redacted] station where I asked the individual who picked up the phone what was done to my vehicle. He stated nothing we do not touch it, he further denied any wrongdoing and proceeded to tell me my only recourse was the Motorist Hotline. I contacted the Motorist Hotline and have completed the attached complaint (XXXXXXX). I have also had to have the vehicle inspected to determine the damage. It was inspected by [redacted] Automotive Technician/Mechanic of [redacted] of [redacted] Based upon his inspection, he concluded the [redacted] BP station, during the inspection process of the steering, lifted the vehicle by placing the jack under the tie rods, instead of using the proper lifting points. Lifting the vehicle improperly caused the tie rod to bend. The incorrect lifting of the vehicle significantly damaged the steering mechanics of the vehicle, directly causing the following: the wheel not to return to center, loose and non-responsive steering and engagement of the ESP/BAS warning light. In short the vehicle became unsafe to drive.Desired SettlementI would like to be reimbursed for the repairs to my vehicle caused by the station. Business Response [redacted] Street[redacted], [redacted] XXXXX[redacted] 2015Revdex.com:On [redacted] 2015, [redacted], of 5 [redacted], [redacted] received a pass ** safety and emissions inspection from [redacted] BP on his late model [redacted] claims his vehicle became unsafe to drive following the state inspection at [redacted] BP. However, [redacted]'s vehicle passed the safety inspection (and emissions) tests. All vehicles that come in for a state inspection go through emissions and safety testing. For the safety portion of the test, the licensed state inspector examines 14 keys areas regulated and enforced by the [redacted] of [redacted] including 1) visual overview, 2) exhaust system, 3) brake tests, 4) steering and suspension, 5) glazing, glass and windshield wipers, 6) horn, 7) rear view mirror, 8) lighting devices, 9) bumper, fenders and fuel tank, 10) tires and wheels, 11) altered vehicle height, 12) seat belts, 13) fuel tank cap and 14) airbags.This is the standard procedure by the licensed inspector following the rules and regulations of the [redacted] of [redacted] On [redacted]'s vehicle, there were no loose front-end safety parts, such as the tie rod, or the other 13 remaining key areas examined by the licensed state inspector.[redacted] claims that his vehicle was improperly lifted, causing the tie rod to bend, and caused the ESP/BAS warning light to come on after he left the state inspection facility, significantly damaging the steering and causing the wheel not to return to the center. In order for [redacted] BP to evaluate the front-end of a vehicle, including [redacted]'s, the vehicle must be raised up.In [redacted]'s complaint, he contradicts himself by claiming that "the vehicle became unsafe to drive" and that he "decided to try to make it to my home (only another mile away)." However, according to the facts, [redacted] drove the vehicle from [redacted] BP to his [redacted] home, which is not about another mile away. It is about 5 miles away. [redacted] then proceeded to drive to [redacted] of [redacted] which is another 20 miles away. [redacted]'s vehicle passed [redacted] state inspection because it was safe to drive. He had no problem driving about 25 miles total. Therefore, his argument is not plausible.It is impossible for [redacted] BP to have caused damages claimed by [redacted] because the vehicle must be jacked up by the pinch weld, which is the body of the vehicle - the same area used by the spare tire jack on all vehicles such as the process of replacing a flat tire. This is nowhere near the location of damages [redacted] claims [redacted] BP caused to his vehicle. (Note: every state inspection jack in the [redacted] BP facility has protective padding to prevent pinch weld damages). The licensed inspector always places the jack under the lift area that is closest to the back of the front tire (proper lifting area). The lifting point of the vehicle is nowhere near the tie rod which is located on the front suspension underneath the engine.As a [redacted] licensed state inspection facility for more than 10 years with no violations and in good standing with the [redacted] of [redacted] BP disputes [redacted]'s claims that we improperly jacked up his vehicle and caused damages.Sincerely,[redacted] BPConsumer Response (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)I stated that [redacted] OF [redacted] inspected my car, he inspected it in my garage, as the car was not safe to drive. He performed the repairs to my vehicle in my garage, since the vehicle could not be driven. If [redacted] BP had used the correct jack and procedure to lift the vehicle, there would have been no damage to the vehicle. The damage was evident upon pulling out of the [redacted] BP station, as the steering was 'loose' and not responding as it should have. The mileage on the vehicle at the time of inspection was 198,120. Upon completion of the necessary repairs, a front end alignment was performed at [redacted] in [redacted] with mileage of 198,168, a total of 48 miles were on the car, of which, approximately 5 miles from the [redacted] BP to my home, and approximately 31 miles to [redacted] Square Tire in Worcester. The remaining miles were testing the vehicle after the tie rod was replaced to ensure no further damage existed.The [redacted] BP station may claim they have proper jacks and lifting procedures; however, I have physical proof, in the form of a severely bent tie rod end that indicates they did not actually use those correct procedures.I re-assert my request that [redacted] BP reimburse me for the costs incurred to repair the damage they inflicted upon my vehicle.Final Business Response [redacted], Mass. XXXXX[redacted]Revdex.com:[redacted]'s late model Dodge Charger with nearly 200,000 miles was inspected by [redacted] BP on [redacted] 2015, and received a pass ** the safety and emissions inspection. His vehicle was deemed safe by our [redacted] inspection facility licensed by the [redacted] of [redacted] says his "vehicle could not be driven," but then admits he drove it for 48 miles. [redacted] claims his vehicle was inspected in the garage of his home by [redacted] of [redacted] of [redacted] who then decided the damages were caused by [redacted] BP. Whittemore was not present during the [redacted] 29 inspection in [redacted] BP's state inspection facility.The licensed inspector at [redacted] BP jacked up [redacted]'s vehicle by the pinch weld, which is nowhere near the location of damages [redacted] claims [redacted] BP caused to his vehicle. [redacted]'s claims that [redacted] BP improperly jacked up his vehicle and caused damages is unrealistic because the lifting point of the vehicle is nowhere near the tie rod, which is located on the front suspension underneath the engine.[redacted] BP is dedicated to satisfying our customers and believe in respecting our customers and their questions and concerns. However, [redacted] BP has no record of [redacted] contacting us or even returning to the inspection facility to notify us about his concerns so that we may address them. The first time we heard about [redacted]'s concerns was solely through the Revdex.com. [redacted] never reached out to us.And while [redacted] demands reimbursement for the costs he claims he incurred to repair his vehicle, [redacted]'s claim for damages is unreasonable and not supported by any proof that the inspection occurring on [redacted] at [redacted] BP was the actual and proximate cause of his claimed vehicle damages. Therefore, [redacted] BP cannot accept responsibility for those damages because they were not caused by [redacted] BP.Sincerely,[redacted] BP