Robert's Autobody

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response submitted by the business and have determined that the response does not satisfy or resolve my issues and/or concerns in reference to complaint # [redacted]. Please add your rejection comments below.                                             
 I have several issues with the response from the business. While they claim to have treated us better than the average customer due to the fact that we are neighbors and did not charge us labor rates. Maine State law Title 29 section 1751 item 3a, states that the inspection fee for my 2010 [redacted] and 2003 [redacted] shall be $12.50. It is true that a hand written note was given to us describing the repairs necessary to pass an inspection. This note identified brake pads and rotors needed to be replaced and calipers where questionable. I did in fact speak to a representative of the dealership after being informed the vehicle failed inspection, I was informed over the phone that the pads and rotors were "paper thin", and that this excessive wear (the brakes were new 12 months ago), was probably caused by defective or corroded calipers. Having no reason to disbelieve the diagnosis and being familiar with vehicle maintenance and repair, I chose to repair myself. After purchasing all the required parts, I began the repairs. Upon removing the tires, I noticed the condition of the pads and rotors were actually very good. All of which is documented by photos. Maine State law requires 2/32" in pad thickness for safe, passable inspection. The pads removed are almost identical in thickness to the new ones purchased. Again, this is documented and I have kept the parts. The rotors also showed little wear and are within legal tolerances. And as stated by the service representative, they do show the usual signs of corrosion consistent with winter road treatment chemicals (salt). With little wear on the pads and rotors, no areas of the caliper piston were visible, or exposed to the elements. No cleaning or lubrication required or needed. And upon testing the calipers without pads or rotors installed, the performed flawlessly. At no time did my wife state the [redacted] was taken to another dealer and passed inspection. It still has last years inspection sticker on it, which according to Maine State law Title 29 Section 115.03 should have been cut diagonally, showing the vehicle failed inspection. This cutting process was not done on either vehicle. Until this situation with failed inspections arose, I was not well versed in Maine state law, having only been a resident for a year. It has been my experience that when a car fails inspection, only the technician that failed the vehicle can verify repairs where done. We had no reason to believe that Maine rules differed, as the representative from the repair facility stated that when repairs were completed (no matter who completed them), that his technician would verify the parts were replaced and finalize the inspection by placing a sticker on the vehicle. So why would we as consumers think we could take our vehicle elsewhere for a second opinion, after being told their tech would need verify the repairs? The facilities claim of a perfect track record may be true in the eyes and lack of documentation with the Revdex.com, but the dealer representative also stated to me during our phone conversation, that they had hired a new technician, and "between you and me", they were not sure if he was going to work out. This statement was also verified by another one of their employees whom I spoke with after hours along with my wife in the shops parking lot. The bottom line truly is, a lot of money was wasted on repairs we led to believe were necessary to operate our vehicle legally. The [redacted] remains untouched and uninspected in the event this situation cannot be resolved. Laws/rules were broken, consumers were treated unfairly, not neighborly. Information given to the consumer was misleading and costly. We sincerely hoped the business owner, upon returning from vacation, would attempt to work with us in resolving this matter. We do not wish to tarnish the perceived image of our neighboring business. If attempts through this agency to resolve the matter fail, we have the parts, photos, notes and the remaining uninspected vehicle to prove our case with the Maine State Police Motor Vehicle Department, and small claims court if necessary.