No work was ever done. the denial will lead to your demise. Cheat, thief and deceitful it wonk bring you better or more repairs. Take the $88 and push it up your behind. You their. like I said money does not make. The $88 will not get you rich.THIEF: That How you rob people. You will be stopped.
[Provide details of why you are not satisfied with this resolution.]
Regards,
Your ability to steal from customers will come to an end.
Fake and money hungry
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.
[Provide details of why you are not satisfied with this resolution.]
Regards,
KAREN [redacted] Complaint #[redacted] Ms. [redacted] brought her vehicle, a 2007 Toyota Corolla Matrix, to Community Collision on 8/24/16. The vehicle had been in a collision on 8/19/2016. She brought the repair estimate from her Geico insurance adjuster, Anthony [redacted] with her and requested...
that we perform the requested repairs. It should be noted that there is no provision in the estimate for aligning the rear hatch. The estimate and the signed authorization to perform the repairs are attached. On 8/25/16, the vehicle was sent to Community Toyota’s service department to clear the SRS light as noted in the estimate, and the vehicle was returned to the collision center to begin repairs. The technician working on the vehicle immediately noted that extensive body work had previously been done to the vehicle. He found additional damage that had been hidden by the bumper, and we filed a supplemental claim to cover this damage. On 8/26/2016, Mr. [redacted] came to re-inspect the vehicle, and he approved the supplemental claim. He also found the left rear door handle did not fall off during the accident as claimed by Ms. [redacted], but had been previously broken, and removed that from the authorized repair. Geico authorized ten days to complete the repair. On 8/29/2016, Ms. [redacted] called to check on the vehicle, and asked if the check engine light had been cleared. We told her that only the SRS light had been cleared per the estimate. She stated that Mr. [redacted] had authorized this repair. We called Mr. [redacted] and he authorized this repair. On 9/6/2016, after completing the authorized body work, we sent the vehicle to Community Toyota service center for the check engine light. We were advised at that time that the vehicle has been presented to Community Toyota service on 8/5/2016, prior to the accident, for an E04 (passenger airbag) recall, and that the check engine light had been on at that time. The recall was performed, and the customer was advised at that time that the check engine light would require further attention, and was provided with a list of codes, which were the same codes as were now showing (Repair order and report attached). She denied repairs on 8/5/2016. This shows that the check engine light was not related to the accident, and when we reported this to Geico, they denied repairs. On 9/7/2016, Ms. [redacted] came to pick up the vehicle, she was not satisfied with a gap around the rear hatch and the fact that the left rear door handle was not replaced. We explained that the door handle had been denied as a pre-existing condition, and that the rear hatch could not be adjusted because of poor repairs done on the vehicle previous to this incident. We also explained that the check engine light had been denied. She refused to pick up the vehicle until it had been fixed to her satisfaction. She drove it to Community Toyota service, and they performed further diagnostics on the vehicle. They found a bad oxygen sensor and multiple cylinder misfires, all of which would require additional time to pinpoint the problem. She requested a report, and it was emailed to her on 9/8/2016 at 9:06am. In the meantime, as a courtesy to the customer, we filed a supplement to repair the rear hatch. Geico denied the supplement as unrelated to the current incident, and refused any further work on the check engine codes as unrelated as well. On 9/8/2016, we were instructed by Ms. [redacted] not to perform any further repairs until approved by her. On 9/9/2016, Ms. [redacted] called and asked about her vehicle. We told her that we had followed her instructions and had done nothing. She stated she would not pick up the vehicle until the gaps had been fixed, insisting that they had not been there when she brought the vehicle to us. We filed one more supplement with Geico, and Mr. [redacted] came out one more time. After further inspection it was found the vehicle had been repaired heavily on the rear end of the vehicle. It was found the lift gate was previously replaced, and still had the VIN from the vehicle it came from. The label itself had been painted over, the bolts that held the lift gate to the hinge were not the ones that are supposed to be on the vehicle, the hinges showed to have been hammered on for some type of adjustment, and stress cracks were visible, and rust was apparent on the bare metal exposed areas. Geico showed records of everything that was repaired on the vehicle by another shop in 2013, such as the rear bumper cover, lift gate, rear body panel, quarter panel and tail light. Geico also shared photos of the first inspection of the vehicle on 8/24/2016 (attached) and the photos show the vehicle having gaps prior to the customer bringing in the vehicle. Geico denied further repairs for the third time. There is nothing further that we can do for Ms. [redacted] at this time, unless she is prepared to pay for the repairs she would like us to complete. Geico will not pay for engine repairs related to the check engine light, the rear left door handle, or the rear hatch as they have all been determined to be unrelated to the accident on 8/19/2016. Any further discussion should be directed to Geico. The authorized repairs have been completed, and her vehicle is ready for pick up. Jim [redacted] Customer Relations Manager
[redacted]
[redacted]
208,Miles
[redacted]
After diagnosis, we discovered that Ms[redacted]'s vehicle had
a water leak in the trunk area that caused major electric problems with the
high voltage hybrid systemThere was corrosion on the
high voltage battery bus
connectors and the high voltage electronic control moduleWe quoted the appropriate
repair and Ms[redacted] declined the repair to the vehicle The
vehicle was not running upon return because we had to disconnect the main hybrid fuse to prevent the
possibility of fireAnything other than
that would have been negligent on our part.
Subsequently, Ms[redacted] sold the vehicle to a junkyard and
it was picked up at our dealershipAny repair
to the vehicle other than the battery replacement recommended would have had
the potential to be very dangerous and would have created a fire hazard. We regret this unfortunate circumstance,
however, any course of action other than what we recommended would have caused
a very dangerous situation. We stand by
our diagnosis of the necessary repair
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. When the dealership first contacted me and tell me what was wrong they told me $600 would fix it so they had me under misunderstanding and my car was sold to a junkyard because it was one of the things I should do that that service man at Toyota dealership told me to do he himself told me to sell it to a junkyard or just park it in my own yard until I can save up $4500
Regards,
Response Revdex.com Case #[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted] had an accident in October of 2014, and filed as a
claimant with [redacted].
The adjuster for [redacted]
(phone: [redacted]), went to [redacted]'s residence and
took pictures of the
vehicle on 10/16/illustrating the damage to the vehicle and authorized a
repair of accident related damage of $311.16.
[redacted] then contacted us and wanted an estimate which included many
repairs that were unrelated to the accident.
The total was approximately $1,100.00.
He then wanted us to file the supplement with the insurance agency
without bringing his vehicle in, which we refused to do. This occurred in February of 2015. We were notified that [redacted] would be
bringing his vehicle to us on 6/12/15.
He brought it on 6/22/15, at which time he signed a repair
authorization, which in part indicates that he agreed to be responsible for any
charges not covered by insurance. We
removed the bumper to inspect for hidden damage as part of procedure in
anticipation of the adjusterOn 6/23/15, [redacted], the above mentioned
adjuster, came to examine the vehicle and noted that there was more damage to
the bumper than existed in October of 2014.
He agreed to supplement the original estimate to $We explained
that the cumulative damage to the bumper would require replacement, but Mr
[redacted] would not authorize further repair since the need for replacement of the
bumper was caused by damage which occurred subsequent to the original claim
some months earlier. We prepared an
estimate for replacing the bumper of $638.27, a difference of $247.41. When we informed [redacted] of the situation,
he denied repairs
The $in question is for two hours of labor, one hour
to remove the bumper and one hour to put it back on. The minutes that he mentions as us being
reluctant to return his keys had nothing to do with reluctance, it was wait
time to put the bumper back on his vehicle.
This work was authorized when he signed the original repair
authorization on 6/22/15. His assertion
that we did nothing to his vehicle is false, we invested two hours of labor to
remove and reattach the bumper. It
should also be noted that [redacted] has been verbally abusive to several
employees during this entire time, both in person and over the phone. His request for refund of $is denied
The was no work performed on my vehicle. I will ensure that your fraudulent activities will be terminated. You and the rest of the community Toyota people including [redacted] [redacted] are thieves. Your rob customers by overpricing them and demanding that they pay for services that were never performed. I know that it hurt you dearly because I did not give you the chance to repair my vehicle, because you knew that you had me in a trap and you make some easy money from me. You are thief and you certainly rob customers. You day will come and you will not be able to do it anymore. I will certainly publicize this matte to ensure that you do not get more people to rob. I make money, money does not make me. Your job is not guarantee, yes you want to make this dealership stand out by making false claims and lies about repairs, but you and community Toyota will lose more than $88.00. No job was performed at anytime and you want to charge 2 hours of labor, this is so sinister. it does not take a rocket scientist to unscrew or loosen a few screws. False claims will not allow you to get more jobs. it is so easy to lie and fabricate stories, but the truth will not set you free as you have always been a blatant liar. We will both watch the demise of community Toyota in the near future and then you will have to be hunting for a job. Lets see how far $88 will take you all. Never worked on any repairs wow. Keep overcharging people I have put this issue over social media too. I look forward to your all down fall soon and you will pay someone else more the the $88Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.
[Provide details of why you are not satisfied with this resolution.]
Regards,
No work was ever done. the denial will lead to your demise. Cheat, thief and deceitful it wonk bring you better or more repairs. Take the $88 and push it up your behind. You their. like I said money does not make. The $88 will not get you rich.THIEF: That How you rob people. You will be stopped.
[Provide details of why you are not satisfied with this resolution.]
Regards,
Your ability to steal from customers will come to an end.
Fake and money hungry
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.
[Provide details of why you are not satisfied with this resolution.]
Regards,
There was no attempt to deceive. The work billed was done and billed correctly. Request is denied.
KAREN [redacted] Complaint #[redacted] Ms. [redacted] brought her vehicle, a 2007 Toyota Corolla Matrix, to Community Collision on 8/24/16. The vehicle had been in a collision on 8/19/2016. She brought the repair estimate from her Geico insurance adjuster, Anthony [redacted] with her and requested...
that we perform the requested repairs. It should be noted that there is no provision in the estimate for aligning the rear hatch. The estimate and the signed authorization to perform the repairs are attached. On 8/25/16, the vehicle was sent to Community Toyota’s service department to clear the SRS light as noted in the estimate, and the vehicle was returned to the collision center to begin repairs. The technician working on the vehicle immediately noted that extensive body work had previously been done to the vehicle. He found additional damage that had been hidden by the bumper, and we filed a supplemental claim to cover this damage. On 8/26/2016, Mr. [redacted] came to re-inspect the vehicle, and he approved the supplemental claim. He also found the left rear door handle did not fall off during the accident as claimed by Ms. [redacted], but had been previously broken, and removed that from the authorized repair. Geico authorized ten days to complete the repair. On 8/29/2016, Ms. [redacted] called to check on the vehicle, and asked if the check engine light had been cleared. We told her that only the SRS light had been cleared per the estimate. She stated that Mr. [redacted] had authorized this repair. We called Mr. [redacted] and he authorized this repair. On 9/6/2016, after completing the authorized body work, we sent the vehicle to Community Toyota service center for the check engine light. We were advised at that time that the vehicle has been presented to Community Toyota service on 8/5/2016, prior to the accident, for an E04 (passenger airbag) recall, and that the check engine light had been on at that time. The recall was performed, and the customer was advised at that time that the check engine light would require further attention, and was provided with a list of codes, which were the same codes as were now showing (Repair order and report attached). She denied repairs on 8/5/2016. This shows that the check engine light was not related to the accident, and when we reported this to Geico, they denied repairs. On 9/7/2016, Ms. [redacted] came to pick up the vehicle, she was not satisfied with a gap around the rear hatch and the fact that the left rear door handle was not replaced. We explained that the door handle had been denied as a pre-existing condition, and that the rear hatch could not be adjusted because of poor repairs done on the vehicle previous to this incident. We also explained that the check engine light had been denied. She refused to pick up the vehicle until it had been fixed to her satisfaction. She drove it to Community Toyota service, and they performed further diagnostics on the vehicle. They found a bad oxygen sensor and multiple cylinder misfires, all of which would require additional time to pinpoint the problem. She requested a report, and it was emailed to her on 9/8/2016 at 9:06am. In the meantime, as a courtesy to the customer, we filed a supplement to repair the rear hatch. Geico denied the supplement as unrelated to the current incident, and refused any further work on the check engine codes as unrelated as well. On 9/8/2016, we were instructed by Ms. [redacted] not to perform any further repairs until approved by her. On 9/9/2016, Ms. [redacted] called and asked about her vehicle. We told her that we had followed her instructions and had done nothing. She stated she would not pick up the vehicle until the gaps had been fixed, insisting that they had not been there when she brought the vehicle to us. We filed one more supplement with Geico, and Mr. [redacted] came out one more time. After further inspection it was found the vehicle had been repaired heavily on the rear end of the vehicle. It was found the lift gate was previously replaced, and still had the VIN from the vehicle it came from. The label itself had been painted over, the bolts that held the lift gate to the hinge were not the ones that are supposed to be on the vehicle, the hinges showed to have been hammered on for some type of adjustment, and stress cracks were visible, and rust was apparent on the bare metal exposed areas. Geico showed records of everything that was repaired on the vehicle by another shop in 2013, such as the rear bumper cover, lift gate, rear body panel, quarter panel and tail light. Geico also shared photos of the first inspection of the vehicle on 8/24/2016 (attached) and the photos show the vehicle having gaps prior to the customer bringing in the vehicle. Geico denied further repairs for the third time. There is nothing further that we can do for Ms. [redacted] at this time, unless she is prepared to pay for the repairs she would like us to complete. Geico will not pay for engine repairs related to the check engine light, the rear left door handle, or the rear hatch as they have all been determined to be unrelated to the accident on 8/19/2016. Any further discussion should be directed to Geico. The authorized repairs have been completed, and her vehicle is ready for pick up. Jim [redacted] Customer Relations Manager
Our issue has been resolved and we thank the Revdex.com with their assistance as well as Community Toyota for their fast and excellent response.
[redacted]
[redacted]
208,Miles
[redacted]
After diagnosis, we discovered that Ms[redacted]'s vehicle had
a water leak in the trunk area that caused major electric problems with the
high voltage hybrid systemThere was corrosion on the
high voltage battery bus
connectors and the high voltage electronic control moduleWe quoted the appropriate
repair and Ms[redacted] declined the repair to the vehicle The
vehicle was not running upon return because we had to disconnect the main hybrid fuse to prevent the
possibility of fireAnything other than
that would have been negligent on our part.
Subsequently, Ms[redacted] sold the vehicle to a junkyard and
it was picked up at our dealershipAny repair
to the vehicle other than the battery replacement recommended would have had
the potential to be very dangerous and would have created a fire hazard. We regret this unfortunate circumstance,
however, any course of action other than what we recommended would have caused
a very dangerous situation. We stand by
our diagnosis of the necessary repair
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. When the dealership first contacted me and tell me what was wrong they told me $600 would fix it so they had me under misunderstanding and my car was sold to a junkyard because it was one of the things I should do that that service man at Toyota dealership told me to do he himself told me to sell it to a junkyard or just park it in my own yard until I can save up $4500
Regards,
Response Revdex.com Case #[redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted] had an accident in October of 2014, and filed as a
claimant with [redacted].
The adjuster for [redacted]
(phone: [redacted]), went to [redacted]'s residence and
took pictures of the
vehicle on 10/16/illustrating the damage to the vehicle and authorized a
repair of accident related damage of $311.16.
[redacted] then contacted us and wanted an estimate which included many
repairs that were unrelated to the accident.
The total was approximately $1,100.00.
He then wanted us to file the supplement with the insurance agency
without bringing his vehicle in, which we refused to do. This occurred in February of 2015. We were notified that [redacted] would be
bringing his vehicle to us on 6/12/15.
He brought it on 6/22/15, at which time he signed a repair
authorization, which in part indicates that he agreed to be responsible for any
charges not covered by insurance. We
removed the bumper to inspect for hidden damage as part of procedure in
anticipation of the adjusterOn 6/23/15, [redacted], the above mentioned
adjuster, came to examine the vehicle and noted that there was more damage to
the bumper than existed in October of 2014.
He agreed to supplement the original estimate to $We explained
that the cumulative damage to the bumper would require replacement, but Mr
[redacted] would not authorize further repair since the need for replacement of the
bumper was caused by damage which occurred subsequent to the original claim
some months earlier. We prepared an
estimate for replacing the bumper of $638.27, a difference of $247.41. When we informed [redacted] of the situation,
he denied repairs
The $in question is for two hours of labor, one hour
to remove the bumper and one hour to put it back on. The minutes that he mentions as us being
reluctant to return his keys had nothing to do with reluctance, it was wait
time to put the bumper back on his vehicle.
This work was authorized when he signed the original repair
authorization on 6/22/15. His assertion
that we did nothing to his vehicle is false, we invested two hours of labor to
remove and reattach the bumper. It
should also be noted that [redacted] has been verbally abusive to several
employees during this entire time, both in person and over the phone. His request for refund of $is denied
The was no work performed on my vehicle. I will ensure that your fraudulent activities will be terminated. You and the rest of the community Toyota people including [redacted] [redacted] are thieves. Your rob customers by overpricing them and demanding that they pay for services that were never performed. I know that it hurt you dearly because I did not give you the chance to repair my vehicle, because you knew that you had me in a trap and you make some easy money from me. You are thief and you certainly rob customers. You day will come and you will not be able to do it anymore. I will certainly publicize this matte to ensure that you do not get more people to rob. I make money, money does not make me. Your job is not guarantee, yes you want to make this dealership stand out by making false claims and lies about repairs, but you and community Toyota will lose more than $88.00. No job was performed at anytime and you want to charge 2 hours of labor, this is so sinister. it does not take a rocket scientist to unscrew or loosen a few screws. False claims will not allow you to get more jobs. it is so easy to lie and fabricate stories, but the truth will not set you free as you have always been a blatant liar. We will both watch the demise of community Toyota in the near future and then you will have to be hunting for a job. Lets see how far $88 will take you all. Never worked on any repairs wow. Keep overcharging people I have put this issue over social media too. I look forward to your all down fall soon and you will pay someone else more the the $88Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.
[Provide details of why you are not satisfied with this resolution.]
Regards,