Smart Start

Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because:You guys are not taking into account that YOUR equipment was NOT functioningThat is my whole point! Yes if I failed and received a fail over that is my faultWhat I am saying is that YOUR device failed to advise me of ANY of the fails I receivedI got this supposed fail on 9/24, why didn't my device give me a hour lockout? Why was I able to drive my car with no issues until I went to my regular appointment on 10/6? Why wasn't I charged a lockout fee? Nobody is looking into thatNo one has given me answers in regards to that!! The first fail was below a if I knew of that first fail I wouldn't have gotten the 2nd or 3rd, meaning I wouldn't have this issue if YOUR device was simply functioning correctly Regards, [redacted] [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, the consumer must give a reason why they are rejecting the responseIf the consumer does not provide a reason the complaint will be closed Answered]

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response If you wish, you may update it before sending it.] Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me Regards, [redacted]

Regarding the complaint filed by [redacted] , the following is Smart Start’s response to this complaint: Ms [redacted] states in her complaint that on September (2017) her ignition interlock “device was not functioning properly I was attempting to start my car and the device kept telling me to please retry I kept attempting to start my car many times within a short period of time.” An ignition interlock device is designed to test for alcohol and requires that the person submitting the test is at a breath alcohol content below a level determined by State Authorities which is a level of pursuant to state regulations The data from Ms [redacted] ’s device registered three positive (failed) tests, the first being at 6:46AM @ .077; the second at 6:50AM @ .083; and the third at 7:53AM @ All three of these tests are above the state threshold of and would cause Ms [redacted] to be unable to start her vehicle in accordance with state rules and regulations All test results are logged, and the test data indicates that the ignition interlock device was working properlyTest data is all sent to the state MVD who makes the determination of the test validity and if additional sanctions should be imposed such as an additional period of ignition interlock being required Based on Ms [redacted] ’s complaint it appears that the state imposed an extension of the ignition interlock period Ms [redacted] is responsible for the payment of all costs of the ignition interlock device, therefore, her request for a refund is deniedRespectfully, Tom K [redacted]

I am the Credit & Collections Manager here at SmartStart, LLCWe have started the process of refunding Mr [redacted] the $he is disputingI talked to him at his home phone this morning and I apologized for the inconvenience and advised him of our decision to refund the disputed amountLet me know if you require any other action on my behalf Regards,

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:You guys are not taking into account that YOUR equipment was NOT  functioning. That is my whole point! Yes if I failed and received a fail over .08 that is my fault. What I am saying is that YOUR device failed to advise me of ANY of the 3 fails I received. I got this supposed fail on 9/24, why didn't my device give me a 72 hour lockout? Why was I able to drive my car with no issues until I went to my regular appointment on 10/6? Why wasn't I charged a lockout fee? Nobody is looking into that. No one has given me answers in regards to that!! The first fail was below a .08 if I knew of that first fail I wouldn't have gotten the 2nd or 3rd, meaning I wouldn't have this issue if YOUR device was simply functioning correctly.
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 the complaint will be closed Answered]

Regarding the complaint filed by [redacted], the following is Smart Start’s response to this complaint: Ms. [redacted] states in her complaint that on September 24 (2017) her ignition interlock “device was not functioning properly I was attempting to start my car and the device kept telling...

me to please retry.  I kept attempting to start my car many times within a short period of time.”  An ignition interlock device is designed to test for alcohol and requires that the person submitting the test is at a breath alcohol content below a level determined by State Authorities which is a level of 0.02 pursuant to state regulations.  The data from Ms. [redacted]’s device registered three positive (failed) tests, the first being at 6:46AM @ .077; the second at 6:50AM @ .083; and the third at 7:53AM @0.042.  All three of these tests are above the state threshold of 0.02 and would cause Ms. [redacted] to be unable to start her vehicle in accordance with state rules and regulations.  All test results are logged, and the test data indicates that the ignition interlock device was working properly. Test data is all sent to the state MVD who makes the determination of the test validity and if additional sanctions should be imposed such as an additional period of ignition interlock being required.  Based on Ms. [redacted]’s complaint it appears that the state imposed an extension of the ignition interlock period.  Ms. [redacted] is responsible for the payment of all costs of the ignition interlock device, therefore, her request for a refund is denied. Respectfully, Tom K[redacted]

April 26, 2017 RE: Complaint # [redacted] To whom it may concern, I am responding to the above refferenced complaint. This complaint has been addressed and the customer has been credited the $13.00, even though his complaint was unsubstantiated. Regards, Smart Start- Arizona.

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response.  If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
Regards,
[redacted]