Rainforest Market

She signed a paper authorizing us to drive her vehicleIn the course of driving it we had a flat tireRather than calling a tow truck and charge her $an hour pending the arrival of the tow truck and the transportation of her vehicle back to the shop, we took on the initiative to have the
tire replaced by using HER spare tire and we bought a used tire from our own pocketWe incurred a lost in time of hours ($which is $75.00/hr) plus another $for the used tireThus her extra balance should have been $She claims that we should have notified her and pay for the tire since it was in our possessionWe CANNOT do thatWe are not responsible for the condition of her tireShe should have compensated us rather than us compensating herShe stated it was a hazard to driveI concurred and we almost got killed when the tire blew up. She did not mention that in her complaint as she gives no value to our livesWe tested a vehicle brought by the customer with her written consent and we could have gotten in a car wreckThat is the real hazardWe are an auto repair shop and we do not fix, nor do we sell tires, nor do we profess to know about tiresIt was her responsibility to inform us that her tire may blow up as we driveShe did not have the financial means to pay for a new ABS module and we had to buy it from a junk yard and to accommodate her needsWe bought more than one since they were defective and we had to pay $to reprogram itWe were simply trying to help her and even when it was finished she could not pick up the vehicleThere was a $storage fee a day once the vehicle is completed which we waivedWe should be compensated for our time for the defective tireWe should never pay her for this

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: I did not state at any time that my vehicle was a hazard to drive. My tires were in great condition and I have all of the maintenance records to prove that. I had the means to pay the price quoted to me to replace the ABS module, which that has nothing to do with covering up the flat tire and putting the financial burden on me. The point is that the owner of Master Auto Tech had a blowout while driving my vehicle, disposed of the flat tire, used my spare to change it, replaced the spare with an incorrect tire, and did not inform me of any of it. They intentionally kept this from me and caused me to incur additional fees. If the owner of Master Auto Tech really did incur a $50 fee to replace my spare with an incorrect tire, then why wouldn't he want to pay for the correct tire? He could have done the right thing in the beginning. If Master Auto Tech wasn't responsible for anything they claimed to have done, then why did they go through all of the trouble to do it? That leaves me to believe all of that was done to cover up their mistake while test driving my vehicle. 
Regards,
[redacted]