Starlink Satellite Services

Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 6, 2015/08/14) */ [redacted] Case # [redacted] This is our company's response to the complaint filed against Webster's Import ServiceWe did not create any problem with the Volvo brought in by the [redacted] rather we worked diligently using all resources to get this car running properlyWe put our senior technician on this job, brought in another Volvo to compare and contrast systems and consulted with another technician at a different shopBoth times the car was in our shop it was pushed in by techsThe problem was not a small issue at allThe car had serious issues and showed evidence of major repairs done previouslyThere were numerous bolts missing, the timing cover was broken and the wiring was in disarrayRepeatedly when we talked to Ms [redacted] we got additional information regarding the previous repairs and history on the carWe informed Ms [redacted] that the computer system in her car that controls the running was a salvage computer, not the original one or a genuine factory replacement The Volvo was brought in to Webster's on 3/31/(see fax 1)The owner said it had a slow start, long crank time, sputters when it does start, and fails to start up again after being driven awhileRoger told the customer it sounded like it had two problems; a starter and hot running issueBecause the car would not start after they drove it to our shop (had gotten hot from the drive) our techs physically pushed the car in to our shop to diagnose the problem (see fax 1, Work Order)We checked the engine system, retrieved fault codes from the Volvo's computer system using scan tools, and analyzed the retrieved codesAdditionally there was no starter actionWe discussed the diagnosis with Ms [redacted] and she said her husband could do the starter himself and she approved some suggested repairs and declined others (see fax 2, repair order # [redacted] )Our technician reset the camshaft timing and removed and replaced the camshaft position sensorThey towed the Volvo out of our shop on 4/6/and were going to replace the starterAt that point we no longer were in charge of the repairWe would have known their car still had a running hot issue, if the car had been left at the shop until the repair was completeOne week later we called to check on the car and were told it still had hot running issuesThe starter had been replaced by Mr [redacted] The running problem and "no start when hot" was still a major issueWe told the [redacted] we would get involved with the car and do further diagnosisThey told us they would bring it back as soon as possibleInstead the car came back in on 5/27; almost two months later (see fax 3)The car was in our parking lot on the morning of May We are not aware of how it was brought to the shop, whether it was driven in or towed in We did our very best to get the car running for the customerOur senior tech spent hours and hours working to try to find the source of the problemThe customer was not charged for any of the time we spent diagnosing the problemWe did not tell the customer that we had caused the car to completely stop running because of the diagnostics we ran on their car as stated on the complaint Roger W [redacted] compensated the tech and did not charge the customerWe did have the car for many weeks, indicating our desire to get this car running properly for the [redacted] (at any time the [redacted] were welcome to tell us they needed their car back and we would have stopped trying to diagnose the problem)During this time, we provided the [redacted] a loaner vehicleWill, our Service Manager, called the customer and informed them we had exhausted all our resources and they needed to see about picking the car upRoger W [redacted] , Owner and Manager of Webster's, had spoken to Ms [redacted] and her husband many times during this process, always with courtesy and professionalismWe have been in business for years and have an A+ rating with Revdex.com and hundreds of reviews online from very satisfied customersRoger was short with Ms [redacted] when she called and asked if we were "going to pay for the car to be fixed at another shop", because it was such an unreasonable request, particularly considering the time, effort, and money we had invested to work on this vehicleHe did agree to refund them the first repair charge of $429.12, although those charges were warranted and approved by the customerRoger asked Ms [redacted] when he could get the loaner vehicle back and was told he "would get his van back when she knew that her car had been towed safely." This comment was unwarranted and inappropriateThe next day Mr [redacted] called to ask about the refund and Roger told him he would need the credit card to do a refundMr [redacted] said he wanted the refund in cash, once again an unreasonable request for our businessWe have accounting procedures to follow In summary, we did not damage this carThe car was returned in the same condition it was brought to our shop, actually in better condition with the camshaft timing corrected and a new camshaft sensorThe car was pushed in to the shop both times and towed out both timesWe were unable to determine the source of the running hot problem, but agreed to refund the first repair (429.12)In good will, we additionally paid to have the Volvo towed to [redacted] *** We think the issue has been resolvedThank You Initial Consumer Rebuttal / [redacted] (3000, 8, 2015/08/21) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) It is difficult to address all the inconsistencies in your statement, but I have a few points to make that need addressedWhen the car was driven back for the second time, it was after 4:30PM and the keys were handed to the front attendantI'm sure if you were to watch any security footage, you would see me drive it in, as we've never towed the vehicle ourselvesSecondly, I'm confused about why the request to have another shop complete the repair for you was unreasonable, as it was something that we had previously discussedWhen we came in person to check on the vehicle, and talked to MrWebster himself, and asked about the outcome if they were unable to find the issue, that was the solution that he agreed toIn no way did we come up with that on our own, or feel entitled to that resolution without it having been agreed to previouslyThirdly, having previously admitted to being belligerent with me on the phone, I think the completely calm agreement I tried to make with you about returning your loaner vehicle was warrantedIf you are unable to keep calm in discussing a business matter with me over the telephone without provocation, how could I place trust that you wouldn't retaliate against my vehicle that was still in your possession? That was also the reasoning behind asking for a cash refund, as I have managed businesses myself, I know the refund on a card can be reversed with the push of buttons after I leave the buildingIf you hadn't been so malicious on the telephone, these thoughts would have never occurred to meAnd lastly, the final being the most ironic, that after being towed to [redacted] and diagnosed (which took them less than an hour), they determined that the engine had no combustion as a result of the camshaft timing being grossly incorrectly adjusted and resulting in bent valvesThank You Final Business Response / [redacted] (4000, 15, 2015/09/28) */ Response to August statement from The [redacted] Case #XXXXXXXX To gather more information in this case,both Roger W [redacted] and Will H [redacted] spoke to the service staff at [redacted] They consulted with [redacted] the Service Manager on separate occasionsAt first we had no luck because the Volvo was listed under a different name and phone numberThey were able to find the history by using the vehicle identification number (VIN) and the car was under the name [redacted] After further discussions with Mr [redacted] this now makes senseThe car was no longer owned by the [redacted] It had been sold to a tech in [redacted] employment The report by the claimant, said that the diagnosis at [redacted] was completed in one hour and that the valves were bent due to our work and there was no compressionBoth Roger and Will felt confident the valves were not bentWhen repeated efforts are made to get a car started, (which occurred at our shop), it ejects fuel that washes down the cylinderCylinders need to have a thin coat of oil on them and with repeated efforts to start the car, it washes the thin coat of oil off the cylindersThis would present as no compression, and then the technician would need to pull the spark plugs out and put oil on the cylinders to bring the compression back up Mr [redacted] said they did not have all the information that we shared in our conversations with himThe techs at [redacted] were not told the entire story of the repair and troubleshooting done at our shop or they would have first done the check described aboveThey were working in the dark as we had been with our efforts with the [redacted] According to Mr [redacted] he specifically told Mrs [redacted] that he could not and would not say the problem had been created by our shopShe did tell him that the car had been backfiring and he told her this was not goodMr [redacted] told us the [redacted] would not spend any more money on the car for diagnosis or repairThey did not spend any money at [redacted] The new owner, the tech, paid the $charge to [redacted] to diagnosis the real problemRecall that all the money charged the [redacted] was returned by [redacted] 'sThe [redacted] have now gotten free diagnosis on their Volvo from shops at a minimum The cause of the running rough issue was not diagnosed in less than an hourThis did not happen according to [redacted] The [redacted] declined to have [redacted] pull the head to determine if the valves were bentWithout an approval, the techs at [redacted] would not have been able to see the bent valvesThe [redacted] sold their Volvo to a technician at [redacted] before any diagnosis was madeThe paperwork sent to the Revdex.com by Mrs [redacted] is not related to any repair done on the Volvo while it was in the [redacted] ownershipWe do not understand why it was included as a part of this caseAdditionally the valves were not bent as determined by the new owner (tech at Volvo) when he did further diagnosingThe cylinder head was sent to the machine shop where they discovered the cylinder head was damaged beyond repairThe machine shop reported damage from overheating engineThe new owner then decided it would be less expensive to replace the engine and radiatorPlease recall that the car we are discussing was in the [redacted] possession for months before they brought it back to [redacted] 's for us to recheck the running problem (3/31/15- original visit to 5/27/recheck) Mr [redacted] never told Mrs[redacted] that if we could not find the running problem we would pay to have it fixed elsewhereWe guarantee our work, but no business would be able to say if we can't fix it we'll have it repaired elsewhereWe get vehicles in on a regular basis, from other repair shops and dealerships, in which they are unable to pinpoint rattles, running issues, and leaks and they NEVER pay for us to fix the vehicle because they could not satisfactorily fix the problemThis was the cause of Mr [redacted] 's total confusion when asked to do this by the consumerRecall the [redacted] spent no money at our shopWe refunded the entire cost of the first visit, parts and labor ($427.12) and did not charge anything for the weeks we worked on the Volvo when it was brought back in for a recheck The most relevant point in this case is that the Volvo is no longer owned by the [redacted] I find it ironic that the [redacted] sold their car to the tech the first week of August (see the service page written on 8/6/at [redacted] after the car was sold to the tech and the last information provided Revdex.com by the [redacted] was submitted 8/21/15, with no mention of the ownership transfer in the report Please feel free to call [redacted] Service Manager at [redacted] at XXX-XXX-XXXX, his direct line, for verification of the information we have presented or with additional questions you may have Kathleen W [redacted] , Co- Owner/HR Webster's Import Service

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 6, 2015/08/14) */
[redacted] Case # [redacted]
This is our company's response to the complaint filed against Webster's Import Service. We did not create any problem with the Volvo brought in by the [redacted] rather we worked diligently using all resources to...

get this car running properly. We put our senior technician on this job, brought in another Volvo to compare and contrast systems and consulted with another technician at a different shop. Both times the car was in our shop it was pushed in by techs. The problem was not a small issue at all. The car had serious issues and showed evidence of major repairs done previously. There were numerous bolts missing, the timing cover was broken and the wiring was in disarray. Repeatedly when we talked to Ms. [redacted] we got additional information regarding the previous repairs and history on the car. We informed Ms. [redacted] that the computer system in her car that controls the running was a salvage computer, not the original one or a genuine factory replacement.
The Volvo was brought in to Webster's on 3/31/15 (see fax 1). The owner said it had a slow start, long crank time, sputters when it does start, and fails to start up again after being driven awhile. Roger told the customer it sounded like it had two problems; a starter and hot running issue. Because the car would not start after they drove it to our shop (had gotten hot from the drive) our techs physically pushed the car in to our shop to diagnose the problem (see fax 1, Work Order). We checked the engine system, retrieved fault codes from the Volvo's computer system using scan tools, and analyzed the retrieved codes. Additionally there was no starter action. We discussed the diagnosis with Ms. [redacted] and she said her husband could do the starter himself and she approved some suggested repairs and declined others (see fax 2, repair order # [redacted]). Our technician reset the camshaft timing and removed and replaced the camshaft position sensor. They towed the Volvo out of our shop on 4/6/15 and were going to replace the starter. At that point we no longer were in charge of the repair. We would have known their car still had a running hot issue, if the car had been left at the shop until the repair was complete. One week later we called to check on the car and were told it still had hot running issues. The starter had been replaced by Mr. [redacted]. The running problem and "no start when hot" was still a major issue. We told the [redacted] we would get involved with the car and do further diagnosis. They told us they would bring it back as soon as possible. Instead the car came back in on 5/27; almost two months later (see fax 3). The car was in our parking lot on the morning of May 27. We are not aware of how it was brought to the shop, whether it was driven in or towed in.
We did our very best to get the car running for the customer. Our senior tech spent hours and hours working to try to find the source of the problem. The customer was not charged for any of the time we spent diagnosing the problem. We did not tell the customer that we had caused the car to completely stop running because of the diagnostics we ran on their car as stated on the complaint.
Roger W[redacted] compensated the tech and did not charge the customer. We did have the car for many weeks, indicating our desire to get this car running properly for the [redacted] (at any time the [redacted] were welcome to tell us they needed their car back and we would have stopped trying to diagnose the problem). During this time, we provided the [redacted] a loaner vehicle. Will, our Service Manager, called the customer and informed them we had exhausted all our resources and they needed to see about picking the car up. Roger W[redacted], Owner and Manager of Webster's, had spoken to Ms. [redacted] and her husband many times during this process, always with courtesy and professionalism. We have been in business for 28 years and have an A+ rating with Revdex.com and hundreds of reviews online from very satisfied customers. Roger was short with Ms. [redacted] when she called and asked if we were "going to pay for the car to be fixed at another shop", because it was such an unreasonable request, particularly considering the time, effort, and money we had invested to work on this vehicle. He did agree to refund them the first repair charge of $429.12, although those charges were warranted and approved by the customer. Roger asked Ms. [redacted] when he could get the loaner vehicle back and was told he "would get his van back when she knew that her car had been towed safely." This comment was unwarranted and inappropriate. The next day Mr. [redacted] called to ask about the refund and Roger told him he would need the credit card to do a refund. Mr. [redacted] said he wanted the refund in cash, once again an unreasonable request for our business. We have accounting procedures to follow.

In summary, we did not damage this car. The car was returned in the same condition it was brought to our shop, actually in better condition with the camshaft timing corrected and a new camshaft sensor. The car was pushed in to the shop both times and towed out both times. We were unable to determine the source of the running hot problem, but agreed to refund the first repair (429.12). In good will, we additionally paid 78.00 to have the Volvo towed to [redacted].
We think the issue has been resolved. Thank You.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 8, 2015/08/21) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
It is difficult to address all the inconsistencies in your statement, but I have a few points to make that need addressed. When the car was driven back for the second time, it was after 4:30PM and the keys were handed to the front attendant. I'm sure if you were to watch any security footage, you would see me drive it in, as we've never towed the vehicle ourselves. Secondly, I'm confused about why the request to have another shop complete the repair for you was unreasonable, as it was something that we had previously discussed. When we came in person to check on the vehicle, and talked to Mr. Webster himself, and asked about the outcome if they were unable to find the issue, that was the solution that he agreed to. In no way did we come up with that on our own, or feel entitled to that resolution without it having been agreed to previously. Thirdly, having previously admitted to being belligerent with me on the phone, I think the completely calm agreement I tried to make with you about returning your loaner vehicle was warranted. If you are unable to keep calm in discussing a business matter with me over the telephone without provocation, how could I place trust that you wouldn't retaliate against my vehicle that was still in your possession? That was also the reasoning behind asking for a cash refund, as I have managed 2 businesses myself, I know the refund on a card can be reversed with the push of 2 buttons after I leave the building. If you hadn't been so malicious on the telephone, these thoughts would have never occurred to me. And lastly, the final being the most ironic, that after being towed to [redacted] and diagnosed (which took them less than an hour), they determined that the engine had no combustion as a result of the camshaft timing being grossly incorrectly adjusted and resulting in bent valves. Thank You.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 15, 2015/09/28) */
Response to August 21 statement from The [redacted]
Case #XXXXXXXX
To gather more information in this case,both Roger W[redacted] and Will H[redacted] spoke to the service staff at [redacted] They consulted with [redacted] the Service Manager on 3 separate occasions. At first we had no luck because the Volvo was listed under a different name and phone number. They were able to find the history by using the vehicle identification number (VIN) and the car was under the name [redacted] After further discussions with Mr. [redacted] this now makes sense. The car was no longer owned by the [redacted] It had been sold to a tech in [redacted] employment.
The report by the claimant, said that the diagnosis at [redacted] was completed in one hour and that the valves were bent due to our work and there was no compression. Both Roger and Will felt confident the valves were not bent. When repeated efforts are made to get a car started, (which occurred at our shop), it ejects fuel that washes down the cylinder. Cylinders need to have a thin coat of oil on them and with repeated efforts to start the car, it washes the thin coat of oil off the cylinders. This would present as no compression, and then the technician would need to pull the spark plugs out and put oil on the cylinders to bring the compression back up.
Mr. [redacted] said they did not have all the information that we shared in our conversations with him. The techs at [redacted] were not told the entire story of the repair and troubleshooting done at our shop or they would have first done the check described above. They were working in the dark as we had been with our efforts with the [redacted]
According to Mr. [redacted] he specifically told Mrs. [redacted] that he could not and would not say the problem had been created by our shop. She did tell him that the car had been backfiring and he told her this was not good. Mr. [redacted] told us the [redacted] would not spend any more money on the car for diagnosis or repair. They did not spend any money at [redacted] The new owner, the tech, paid the $100.00 charge to [redacted] to diagnosis the real problem. Recall that all the money charged the [redacted] was returned by [redacted]'s. The [redacted] have now gotten free diagnosis on their Volvo from 2 shops at a minimum.
The cause of the running rough issue was not diagnosed in less than an hour. This did not happen according to [redacted] The [redacted] declined to have [redacted] pull the head to determine if the valves were bent. Without an approval, the techs at [redacted] would not have been able to see the bent valves. The [redacted] sold their Volvo to a technician at [redacted] before any diagnosis was made. The paperwork sent to the Revdex.com by Mrs. [redacted] is not related to any repair done on the Volvo while it was in the [redacted] ownership. We do not understand why it was included as a part of this case. Additionally the valves were not bent as determined by the new owner (tech at Volvo) when he did further diagnosing. The cylinder head was sent to the machine shop where they discovered the cylinder head was damaged beyond repair. The machine shop reported damage from overheating engine. The new owner then decided it would be less expensive to replace the engine and radiator. Please recall that the car we are discussing was in the [redacted] possession for months before they brought it back to [redacted]'s for us to recheck the running problem (3/31/15- original visit to 5/27/15 recheck).
Mr. [redacted] never told Mrs.[redacted] that if we could not find the running problem we would pay to have it fixed elsewhere. We guarantee our work, but no business would be able to say if we can't fix it we'll have it repaired elsewhere. We get vehicles in on a regular basis, from other repair shops and dealerships, in which they are unable to pinpoint rattles, running issues, and leaks and they NEVER pay for us to fix the vehicle because they could not satisfactorily fix the problem. This was the cause of Mr. [redacted]'s total confusion when asked to do this by the consumer. Recall the [redacted] spent no money at our shop. We refunded the entire cost of the first visit, parts and labor ($427.12) and did not charge anything for the weeks we worked on the Volvo when it was brought back in for a recheck.
The most relevant point in this case is that the Volvo is no longer owned by the [redacted] I find it ironic that the [redacted] sold their car to the tech the first week of August (see the service page written on 8/6/15 at [redacted] after the car was sold to the tech and the last information provided Revdex.com by the [redacted] was submitted 8/21/15, with no mention of the ownership transfer in the report.
Please feel free to call [redacted] Service Manager at [redacted] at XXX-XXX-XXXX, his direct line, for verification of the information we have presented or with additional questions you may have.

Kathleen W[redacted], Co- Owner/HR
Webster's Import Service