Sterling Autosport

I sent a copy of their original signature with my previous reply I am re-sending that as an attachment I am also sending the annotations on the work order that we made when they called in or came in and authorized additional items, as required by the Bureau of Automotive Repair It is on page four of the second attachment and I circled those annotations in redThere are several other authorizations in our system, but only the first several print out on a customer's invoice I explained them in detail during one of my previous replies Do you want me to take a screen shot of each one separately and send those too?Thank you

European Motorwerks L.L.Cd.b.aSterling Autosport performed all of the repairs that were authorized by the complainant We performed an oil change, evacuated and recharged the air conditioner, and replaced the driveshaft earlier on, followed by other work the complainant authorized in January The problem the car has now is a hard shifting situation, which is different than the original complaint that there was a “clunk sound” The car definitely needed a driveshaft and the driveshaft took care of the “clunk sound” We never tell anyone that if we “replace the part that the car would work 100%” That would be irresponsible since there are sometimes secondary issues Such was the case with this car Replacing the driveshaft had to be completed first before we could even tell that the car had any other problem It was after replacing the drive shaft that we discovered the hard shifting Initially, we thought that it might need a clutch, but after removing the transmission, we discovered that the clutch was new The complainant did not know that, and he authorized us to install a new clutch We did not charge him for a new clutch, only to remove the transmission and inspect the problem It looks to us like the previous owner had a similar problem and decided to sell the car at auction The complainant bought a car at auction with undisclosed problems, and is upset with us instead of himself He came to our shop multiple times during this period to discuss the problems with the vehicle and we told him each time that he could take the car if he paid for the work we had already performed that he had authorized Each time he refused to pick it up and requested that we continue to attempt to adjust the hard shifting I do not know how he can say that we have “not communicated with (him) as to what is going on”, since he was in the shop several times and we talked to him on the phone more times than that We tried to correct the hard shifting by performing a clutch adaptation, but that did not solve the problem and we did not charge him the $for that attempt Since the adaptation did not work, we now recommend that he replace the transmission, but the customer declined That does not excuse his responsibility to pay for the work that he previously authorized The complainant states that we would “not compromise and give (him) (his) car back” That is false I personally called him and offered to compromise and accept $in an attempt to avoid any hard feelings Instead, he called the police, had them come to our shop, and told them that we had stolen his car The police told him that it was a “civil matter” He did pay the balance due and picked up his car I do not know why he says “I want my car back” in his complaint We performed a lot of work on this car and just because he does not want to replace the transmission does not mean that he should not pay for the other work he requested and authorized

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2016/05/23) */
SUMMARY:
We did not rebuild this customer's Porsche engine, nor did we ever claim to have rebuilt itWe simply removed, disassembled, and cleaned the engineWe removed the parts that had metal contamination, replaced them, and
reinstalled the engineTherefore, his claim that "my vehicle was not completed with a fully functional engine" is misleadingThe services and parts we provided were exactly as described on his invoice that he signedTherefore, we believe that we acted in good faith
The customer still has all of the parts that we installed and his engine is still runningHe is still using the engine with the parts that we installed
The parts that were installed are under warranty
EXTENDED DETAILS:
When the customer had his car towed to European Motorwerks L.L.C d.b.aSterling Autosport in February 2015, he requested that we "not start the vehicle"His original repair order requested that we "check out - car lost all oil (heard a noise while driving like rocks in a dryer)"We were to check out car and advise customer on how to proceed (signed repair order #XXXXXX)Later that same day 2/9/15, he authorized us to remove and inspect the engine, disassemble, clean, and replace damaged partsAfter performing this inspection, we gave him several optionsHe could buy a rebuilt engine, have us rebuild his engine, or replace only the parts that showed metal contamination from the intermediate shaft bearing failure
The customer did not want to pay the more than $22,that we would have charged him to rebuild his engine or the higher price he would have had to pay to buy a rebuilt engine from somewhere elseInstead, he elected to replace only the parts that showed metal contamination that are listed on the repair order he signed 2/25/He did not authorize us to rebuild his engine, nor did weWe only addressed the portions of the engine described and listed on the invoice #XXXXXWe do not claim to have replaced the lifters, nor did weHad we replaced the lifters at the time the other work was performed, it would have cost several thousand additional dollarsHe would never have gotten the lifters for free as part of this job
Since it was requested by the customer that we not start the vehicle when it arrived on a tow truck at our shop, and since it did not have any oil in it, according to the customer (repair order), we we never able to run or drive the vehicle before completing the workWe have no knowledge of any preexisting conditions regarding the lifters and he did not pay us to do anything with the lifters
In addition to not claiming that we ever rebuilt the engine, the work we did perform was not faultyThe customer has driven his car since we completed the workIt was not drivable according to him when he had it towed to our shopTherefore, we have no knowledge of whether or not it had a check engine light on prior to being towed in
This customer made numerous statements in his complaint that were and/or misleading
He stated that "the service completed on my vehicle was not completed with a fully functional engine" and that "I feel that my vehicle was not properly fixed and it was not in any condition to safely drive"
Rebuttal: It is not clear what he is referring to "a fully functional engine", his vehicle is drivable, which it was not when he brought it to Sterling AutosportHe authorized us to remove and inspect the engine, disassemble, clean, and replace damaged parts, tune engine, grind valves, and make adjustmentsThat is exactly what we didHe did not want to pay to complete the other work that would have been required to "properly fix" his vehicleWe did not refuse to resolve the lifter issueAs a courtesy, we offered to replace the lifters if he paid for the parts and tax which he would have had to pay for had he elected to have them replaced originallyWe were not going to charge him any laborHe refused our offer that was presented to him via AAA and they informed us of his refusalThe customer chose another route and we feel we have done everything that we could reasonably have been expected to do
The customer has driven his car since we completed the workIt was not drivable according to him when he had it towed to our shopTherefore, his assertion that the engine is not functional is false
His description of an engine rebuild is misleading
Rebuttal: His original repair order requested that we "check out - car lost all oil (heard a noise while driving like rocks in a dryer)"We were to check out car and advise customer on how to proceed (signed repair order #XXXXXX)Later that same day 2/9/(updated signed repair order), he authorized us to remove and inspect the engine, disassemble, clean, and replace damaged partsHe did not elect to rebuild the engine completely, he did not pay us to rebuild the entire engine, and the parts we did replace are running in his engineThe engine had further issues beyond those that he paid us to address and we did not elect to repair those issues for free or without authorization
The customer did not want to pay the more than $22,that we would have charged him to rebuild his engine or the higher price he would have had to pay to buy a rebuilt engine from somewhere elseInstead, he elected to replace only the parts that showed metal contamination that are listed on the repair order he signed 2/25/
The customer stated that "while doing the rebuild on my engine he should of inspected the lifters for any metal particles/contamination that could have traveled through them causing damage due to the failure of the IMS issue."
Rebuttal: The customer did not request that we replace the lifters during the rebuildThe metal debris from the failed bearing did not get as far as the lifters in the engine, there were no metal particles in the upper end, so it did not reach the liftersAny problems with the lifters are not related to the metal debris that we were paid to remedyThe other parts in the upper end that were not replaced are still functioningHe elected NOT to have us replace themHe did not pay to have them replacedHe authorized us to remove and inspect the engine, disassemble, clean, and replace damaged partsHe should not be reimbursed money for something he did not pay for
Customer stated that "Mr*** was unable to diagnose my engine correctly more that 3-times after the rebuild/repair and was never able to resolve the issue within my engine" and that "they misdiagnosed the P& Pmisfire readings"
Rebuttal: The Porsche had two separate issues after we completed the originally authorized work The customer brought the car back with a check engine light onWe found that it had multiple misfire fault codesThe check engine light would come on during the first cold start of each morningWe diagnosed that it needed a new air flow meter, which we installedAfter its installation, we started his vehicle four more days in a rowEach time, it started with no check engine light warning (employee declaration)
When the Porsche left our facility, it was not misfiring and did not have any warning lights onHe drove it regularly (according to him in a phone call to our office manager) after picking up the vehicle and did not have any issues for a period of time
After the customer let the car sit without driving it for one to two weeks, one of the lifters on the number three cylinder deflated causing a misfire when the vehicle was startedMost of the misfire codes had been addressed with the air flow meter replacementAt this time, only one misfire code came backWe did not refuse to resolve the lifter issueAs a courtesy, we offered to replace the lifters if he paid for the parts and tax which he would have had to pay for had he elected to have them replaced originallyWe were not going to charge him any laborHe refused our offer that was presented to him via AAA and they informed us of his refusal
In his comments, he stated that "customer took car to merchant on 2/9/to get engine rebuilt"
Rebuttal: His original repair order requested that we "check out - car lost all oil (heard a noise while driving like rocks in a dryer)"We were to check out car and advise customer on how to proceed (see signed repair order #XXXXXX attached)Therefore, his comments are grossly misleadingWe did not rebuild his engine, nor do we claim to have rebuilt his engine
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2016/05/25) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
REBUTTAL: 1)The first conversation with Mr.*** at Sterling, we both agreed that a rebuild of the engine was necessary for Sterling to state otherwise is falseAs for the invoice I have no control on how they list/label/word to their benefit the work that was performedI signed it in good faith, taking the word of this establishment and everything that was told to me by Mr*** would be done properly and not in a misleading way2)My car was NOT in safe running condition as Sterling claims, at time of drop off on 02/09/to Sterling my cars odometer was:32,my car had a continuos misfire/check engine light due to Sterlings negligenceI ended up having my car service and PROPERLY repaired by a secondary shop with odometer reading:33,on 03/11/so, any miles accumulated were due to trips back and forth to Sterling Atuosport(at least 4-times), Walter's Porsche of Riverside and any test driving between these two shops, so for Sterling Atuotsport to state that my car was running, I could start the engine BUT it was NOT safe to drive my car the way Sterling Autosport repaired it without potentially causing more damage to the engine3) I would not act on their warranty after Mr*** could not diagnose the misfire issue more than 3-different times, not including finding leaking fluid from my engine I DO NOT trust their work or judgementAfter explaining to Mr*** what had happen while driving, OF COURSE no one should start the car, their was NO oil left in the engine! Of course I told them to check out my car, that's what you request when taking it in for service, especially after all your oil pours out all over the streetThe options that were given to me were: Rebuild the engine or buy a new one it was pretty straight forward, Mr*** said from what had occurredMr.*** said that he could rebuild it rather than me having buying a new one which would save me a considerable amount, I was never told that this was just a cleaning of the engine, Mr*** told me that it would be a rebuild, I took him at his word and agreed for him to perform the work, as for their invoice/wording I am not a mechanic I was only going off what Mr*** at Sterling Autosport was telling meFrom what Mr*** told me in regards to the work that he needed to do to rebuild my engine and how Sterling is stating they wrote it up and how it's listed on the invoice, is just another way how Sterling Autosport cuts corners and rips off the consumerAny good knowledgable mechanic working on Porsche's would know to address the lifters in the case of the IMS bearing failure and NOT over look themMr*** NEVER mentioned any lifter issue to me ONLY after I had taken my car to Walter's Porsche of Riverside for a second opinion regarding the misfire/check engine light issue, and came back with hard proof that the misfire/check engine light issue was due to the misfire reading of P& Pwhich are the same readings that Mr*** got off his engine code reader, the proof submitted was all done after Sterling Autosport completed my rebuild and stating that my car was in good running conditionIT WAS NOT! Mr.*** was unable to properly diagnose the true issue instead he charged me to replace the mass airflow sensor at $529.19, he stated that by replacing the mass airflow sensor it would take care of the misfire'sHe was WRONG it did NOT! For Sterling Autosport to state that if they had replaced the lifters at the time the other work was performed it would have cost several thousand more, I WAS NEVER informed or given any options regarding my lifers ONLY until I had submitted the proof from Porsche 06/02/Sterling Atuosports M/O is to fix something on your car then get you to come back and pay out more money to them for something that they should have addressed in the first place, without the potential of having caused more damage to your car by their negligenceAgain, YES! my car was not running at the time of drop off to Sterling Autosport due to the IMS bearing failure which does cause ALL oil to spill out of the engine, so of course their would be NO oil left in order to start/drive the carAs, so called professional mechanics Sterling Autosport should know this and not type it out like I told them not to drive my carFor Sterling to insinuate that my car could of potentially had preexisting issues regarding the lifters is absurd and just shows another way the Sterling Autosport tries to put the fault on the customer to hide and cover up their own mistakes of being negligentAgain, my car was not in good driving condition after the repair work done by Sterling Autosport I have been trying to resolve this issue with Sterling since 04/08/along with AAA who we were referred by, so this has been an ongoing issue that lead me to AUTOHAUS FRANKFURT in Murrieta, Caon 03/11/to properly fix my cars engineI have a statement written by Sterling Autosport regarding a dispute with my credit card Cothat states in their rebuttal PgPara-4:"Mr*** did not request that we replace the lifters during the REBUILD." Sterling DID state that it was a REBUILD and again, I was NEVER informed about the lifters until I provided proof from PorscheAnswers to their Rebuttal: I was NEVER informed about having to replace my lifters during the rebuild of my engine, for Sterling to state that they gave my that option is and misleading Mr*** NEVER mentioned any lifters issue and never said that more work was neededOn the day they said my car was completed 03/12/Mr*** told me that my car was done and that "it is in good running condition and you WON'T have anymore issues" so how can Sterling state that I declined any other work that needed to be done? I NEVER signed anything declining the proper work that was advised because they did not advise me of anything else, but according to their statements they claim that all work was properly done but in their rebuttal statement para#they are claiming that I didn't want to pay for something to complete the workThat is a statement by Sterling there was NEVER any mention or estaminet regarding further work neededI was NEVER given the chance to elect to have the lifters replaced, for Sterling to state that in their statements is completely & MISLEADINGAs for the refusal to have Sterling administer the lifter work, Yes I did decline for Sterling to replace the lifters due to their incompetence of not being able to resolve and identify my misfire readings I was not willing to let them work on my car any further, NOT to mention that Sterling wanted me to sign a contract for them which was also presented to AAA that I agreed to pay for all work UPFRONT at time of drop off, drive my car X-amount of miles per week and not to take legal action against them, I did not sign their so called demands contract the whole thing seemed bogus, AAA told me that they had contacted the "BAR" regarding this issue and the "BAR" told AAA that they had NEVER heard of anyone demanding someone to drive their car X-amount of miles per weekI asked for an explanation of this from Sterling via email but never got a response backAAA sided with meMy cars engine was not in safe running condition as Sterling states2)Sterling in twisting the words of rebuild/assembly to their benefitI was verbally told by Mr.*** that he would perform a rebuild, not just a cleaning as Sterling is statingREASSEMBLE/REBUILD same meaning in dictionaryFor Sterling to state that I did not request for them to replace the lifters during the rebuild is ridiculous, I am NOT a mechanic I trusted them to know what to look for and how to fix it
3)Sterling continuously implies that I chose not to fix/pay for the lifters to be repaired/place during the rebuild, I was NEVER given that option, for Sterling to say that I elected not to have them replaced is FALSEMr.*** NEVER mentioned the lifters to meI am NOT the mechanic I DID NOT tell him what to look forSterling should NOT be eligible to keep full payment for a faulty improper repair, I feel that I should be entitled to 1/of what was paid due to all continuos issues that I had to get repaired/resolved by secondary shop5)There was never any upper/lifter issue until the IMS failure.Sterling Autosports statements are grossly misleading with twisted wording and shows the true character of this establishment, they are out to scam the consumer by stating/rewording what is verbally told to you by the mechanics(Mr.***) and how they claim they give me the option to choose or decline certain work.As proven with the mileage submitted this car was NOT in safe running condition with a faulty improper engine rebuildREASSEMBLE/REBUILD "same meaning" just shows the character of Sterling Autosport twisting the words in order to finagle their way out of what they verbally tell the customerSterling did state "REBUILD" in a statement I have, Pg.4,para-
Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 12, 2016/06/07) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
In Response to Sterling Autosport stating that this issue has already been resolved is not the fact with ANY work from this establishmentThe only way I was able to resolve any and all issues with my car was done by the secondary auto shop (Autohaus Frankfurt)In response to Sterlings accusations of me trying to get parts and services for free is absolutely FALSEI paid this establishment $12,for what I was told would be a rebuild on my Porsche engine, I did not pay $12,to Sterling Autosport just for them to get my engine running as they are stating, I paid them for what I was told would be a rebuild on my engine ($7,with credit card & $5,in CASH) not to mention an additional cost of $for the mass air flow sensor, which Mr*** misdiagnosed as the problem for the misfires/check engine light issue, I payed this total amount of $12,in good faith to Sterling Autosport expecting that they would properly fix my Porsche Carrera, which in the end was not the final resultSo, by me seeking a refund of half that amount of $6,is not "attempting to get parts and services for free"My car was NOT in good running/safe condition with a continuos Check Engine light along with the multiple misfire's that kept occurring, AFTER all the work which was completed/performed by Sterling Autosport
In reference to the multiple work orders that I signed, I signed them under the assumption that I would be getting the work & services that I was verbally told my Mr*** himself, he specifically told me that I needed a rebuild on my engine or brand new engine, I opted for the rebuild which I agreed too, so by me signing the work orders I was under the assumption that that is what I was getting, so, for Sterling to state differently is misleading and unfortunate that an establishment could be so dishonestThe end result of Mr***'s work on my car was not a fully functional engine as stated by Mr*** and Sterling Autosport, I did not receive the properly functional engine as promisedApparently, with this establishment consumers need to test drive, monitor, inspect the engine thoroughly with a second mechanic's opinion before you make any type of payment to Sterling Autosport for their so called "good/complete work"
For Sterling to continue to try and use that my car was not drivable when it was towed to their shop is pathetic! anyone knows that ANY car that looses all the oil out of the engine IS NOT and should NOT be driven, of course it had to be towed, which as stated before on my previous statements, the failure of the IMS bearing occurred less that 5-miles away from Sterling Autosport's facility, while I was DRIVING my car on a public street, of course there was reason to have my car towedI paid Sterling Autosport $12,830.27, for what I was told by Mr*** with all the work done on my car, that the work/rebuild that was done would resolve ALL issue's within my engine and that my car "is in good running condition" (which was stated by Mr***) with what had happen due to the IMS bearing failure issue within my engineAgain, my car was NOT in good/safe running condition as Sterling Autosport states, with a constant check engine light on alone with multiple misfire readingsDriving my car the way I received it back from Sterling Autosport was not the safest way to be driving/running the engine with the potential risk of causing more damage to the engine due to faulty/unaddressed parts and misdiagnoses by Sterling Autosport
AGAIN, for Sterling Autosport to state that I did not authorize them to work on my Valve Lifters is FALSE! Sterling Auotsport NEVER attempted to propose such an offer regarding my lifters ONLY until I obtained a second opinion from WALTERS PORSCHE of Riverside and provided proof, THEN AND ONLY THEN did Sterling Autosport mention my lifters, this all took place AFTER all the work was supposedly completed on my car by Sterling Autosport
For Sterling to list the other 4-items that was done by the secondary auto shop on their statement: ( Hood, Alignment, Tire, Smog ) has NOTHING to do with this dispute/complaint, I am NOT seeking reimbursement for the additional 4-items listedMy focus with Sterling Autosport regarding this dispute/complaint is for the improper work/misdiagnoses that Sterling performed on my vehicle
I was told by both mechanic's at Walter's Porsche and Autohaus
Frankfurt that when the IMS bearing fails that the lifters should always be addressed which is something Sterling Autosport neglected to do, even though Mr*** was getting the same code reading that Porsche received which was the P& PMr*** was unable to diagnose the true issue of the misfire readings, as part of his guessing theory he tried to tell me that the check engine light/misfire's were due to a bad mass airflow sensor, which was replaced for an additional cost to me of $on top of the $12,301.08, Mr*** was not able to properly diagnose the misfire readings that is why I could no longer trust his/Sterling Autosports judgement and chose to get a second opinion through Porsche, that is also why I chose to have my car properly repaired at the secondary shop (Autohaus Frankfurt) to fix all issue's which Mr*** was not able to address
In response to Sterling Autosports final statement, it is totally ludicrous on how Sterling is twisting their words trying to say that someone ( I ) would actually pay a facility over $12,830- just to get my car's engine running, I don't think anyone is that stupid! I paid Sterling Autosport to fix/rebuild my engine in the manner that was needed and recommended by Mr***Yes, my car was running when it left Sterlings facility BUT it WAS NOT in good/safe running condition as stated by Mr*** himself once all repairs were doneI had NO issue with my car up until the IMS bearing failure, NO check engine light or misfire readings, so for Sterling Autosport to insinuate that there was prior damage to my engine is just another way Sterling Autosport is trying put blame on the consumer in hopes that it will make them "Sterling Autosport" look good and make it look/seem to whom ever reads this dispute/complaint that Sterling Autosport is a reputable facility, which they are NOT!
In conclusion, I feel that Sterling Autosport misrepresented themselves in their work and the end result of their workmanship on my cars engine rebuild, which I was told by Mr*** himself is what needed to be done in order to fix my engine due to the IMS bearing failureI have come to see the true colors of this establishment and how they are not out to hep the consumer, I stressed to Sterling Autosport that all I wanted was to have my car properly fixed as promised and unfortunalty this was not the end result with this particular establishmentThat is why I am seeking 1/of the full payment of $6,415.13, I feel that I was ripped off by Sterling Autosport for the faulty, improper, unaddressed, misdiagnosed work that was done on my vehicle, which in the end had to be addressed and properly repaired at another facility
Final Business Response /* (4000, 14, 2016/06/16) */
In the five separate work orders that the customer signed in person, the parts and services that we would be providing were enumerated and described in order to get his written permission to complete that work and his promise to pay for those parts and servicesThat is the point of a signed work order so that there is no confusion as to the agreementWe never said that we were going to rebuild his engine and the written agreement represents the entire contract we have with the customerWe did not describe the job as a rebuild because there are certain parameters in the automotive industry to call something a rebuildSince we are bound by the Bureau of Automotive Repair, we wrote our work order to be clear according to their regulationsWhen one rebuilds an engine, one replaces many more of the internal parts than we didThe customer did not want to pay the more than $22,that we would have charged him to rebuild his engine or the higher price he would have had to pay to buy a rebuilt engine from somewhere elseThe customer got exactly what he authorized and paid for and should not be given any money backClaiming ignorance now is not a defense or reason for refund
He is ABSOLUTELY trying to get parts and services for freeAs part of his settlement agreement with AAA, they gave the customer a check in the amount of $for labor to install lifters at the facility of his choiceHe brought the car here, but we chose to end any further business dealings with the customer after he involved a lawyer, a credit card dispute and AAAHe chose another shopThe customer got the estimate for the lifters at the dealer, but the second shop charged him less for labor than the dealer quotedTherefore, he has already received $500.00+ in free parts and is trying to get more in this forumWhether the lifters were done at the time we worked on his engine or later, his vehicle still needed the work done to it that we performed in order to make it run and it is still runningTherefore, his money should not be refundedThe customer is "whole" or more than "whole" (is not out any additional funds) and has no basis for a refund from Sterling Autosport
Customer states that " the lifters should always be addressed which is something Sterling Autosport neglected to do"We did address the liftersWhen we disassembled the engine, there was no metal contamination in the upper endIf the valve lifters were contaminated by metal from the IMS bearing failure, the contamination would have to have passed *** the main oil pump, the variable valve timing actuator, and the variable valve timing solenoids in order to reach the valve lifters (see diagram below from http://www.renntech.org/forums/topic/XXXXX-tuners-direct-oil-feed/)None of those parts were listed on either our invoice/work order or on the invoice/work order evidence provided by the customer from the other shop as having been replaced
Even though he did not pay us to work on his lifters, we attempted to help the customer to resolve the lifter issueAs a courtesy, we offered to replace the lifters if he paid for the parts and tax which he would have had to pay for had he had them replaced originallyWe were not going to charge him any laborHe refused our offer that was presented to him via AAA and they informed us of his refusalWe tried to help him and he refused
The fact that he had his lifters replaced at another facility does not mean that any of our work on his vehicle was improperIf an engine isn't used for an extended period of time, the subsequent startup results in a tapping sound that changes frequency with engine RPMThis sound then goes away after the engine is run for some timeThis is the problem that the customer had with his lifters and the reason he wanted them replacedThe mechanic at Walter's and we told him that if we would just drive his car more frequently, he would not experience this problem or misfiresWhen you compare the mileage and customer's statement when he brought the car in, he does not drive it regularly
Customer states that his "focus with Sterling Autosport regarding this dispute/complaint is for the improper work/misdiagnoses that Sterling performed on my vehicle"We did not perform improper work/misdiagnoses on his vehicleIf we had done improper work, his engine would not be running and customer does not dispute that the engine is runningNone of the work
Sterling Autospsort perfomed had to be redoneIf the engine had further problems, we had no way of knowing that in advance since the engine did not run when it was brought to our shop due to its catastrophic engine failure

I sent a copy of their original signature with my previous reply.  I am re-sending that as an attachment.  I am also sending the annotations on the work order that we made when they called in or came in and authorized additional items, as required by the Bureau of Automotive Repair.  It is on page four of the second attachment and I circled those annotations in red. There are several other authorizations in our system, but only the first several print out on a customer's invoice.  I explained them in detail during one of my previous replies.  Do you want me to take a screen shot of each one separately and send those too?Thank you

European Motorwerks L.L.C. d.b.a. Sterling Autosport
performed all of the repairs that were authorized by the complainant.  We performed an oil change, evacuated and
recharged the air conditioner, and replaced the driveshaft earlier on, followed
by other work the complainant authorized in...

January.  The problem the car has now is a hard
shifting situation, which is different than the original complaint that there
was a “clunk sound”.  The car definitely
needed a driveshaft and the driveshaft took care of the “clunk sound”.  
We never tell anyone that if we “replace the part that the
car would work 100%”.  That would be
irresponsible since there are sometimes secondary issues.  Such was the case with this car.  Replacing the driveshaft had to be completed
first before we could even tell that the car had any other problem.  It was after replacing the drive shaft that
we discovered the hard shifting. 
Initially, we thought that it might need a clutch, but after removing
the transmission, we discovered that the clutch was new.  The complainant did not know that, and he
authorized us to install a new clutch. 
We did not charge him for a new clutch, only to remove the transmission
and inspect the problem.  It looks to us
like the previous owner had a similar problem and decided to sell the car at
auction.  The complainant bought a car at auction with undisclosed problems, and is upset with us instead of himself.
He came to our shop multiple times during this period to
discuss the problems with the vehicle and we told him each time that he could
take the car if he paid for the work we had already performed that he had
authorized.  Each time he refused to pick
it up and requested that we continue to attempt to adjust the hard shifting.  I do not know how he can say that we have “not
communicated with (him) as to what is going on”, since he was in the shop
several times and we talked to him on the phone more times than that.
We tried to correct the hard shifting by performing a clutch
adaptation, but that did not solve the problem and we did not charge him the
$200 for that attempt.  Since the adaptation
did not work, we now recommend that he replace the transmission, but the
customer declined.  That does not excuse
his responsibility to pay for the work that he previously authorized.
The complainant states that we would “not compromise and
give (him) (his) car back”.  That is
false.  I personally called him and
offered to compromise and accept $2250 in an attempt to avoid any hard
feelings.  Instead, he called the police,
had them come to our shop, and told them that we had stolen his car.  The police told him that it was a “civil
matter”.  He did pay the balance due and
picked up his car.  I do not know why he
says “I want my car back” in his complaint.
We performed a lot of work on this car and just because he
does not want to replace the transmission does not mean that he should not pay
for the other work he requested and authorized.

I am rejecting this response because:
The authorisation later they submitted is based on what is on there, that’s what they told me is wrong with the car [redacted] the Owner is a big lair and scammer. He kept the vehicle for almost a year why??? Why he can’t answer that?? He doesn’t have no prove that I authorised him all the fake things he is saying on his email. The owner [redacted] is a dishonest and a big lair if case doesn’t get solved here I will take him to the court I will not let him scamm me.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/06/04) */
The customer came in for a service and a coolant light that would come on and then go away. She told us she already had an oil service about 1000 miles ago so we removed the engine oil and oil filter parts from the invoice (she was not billed...

for them and they were not installed). Customer still needed inspection, spark plugs, engine air filter and cabin air filter which we ordered in for her at that time. Customer signed the work order for the service work $691.11. Upon inspection we found the water pump leaking heavily and recommended she replace it. We provided the customer with a quote for the water pump and she authorized it verbally. We ordered the water pump,began installation and also found a failed cooling hose which we could not get until the next morning. We paid for a rental car for her through Enterprise so she could leave the car with us. We finished the installation customer arrived to pick up, she was unclear on the total so we showed her the signed work order for the service work and she still had in her possession the printed estimate provided to her for the water pump for the additional work, she reviewed both. She signed the verbal authorization of increase, paid for the work in full, signed the paid work order and credit card slips. All parts she was billed for were installed in the car. We will be happy to provide documentation.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2015/06/05) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
The only item I signed was for the original quote. Like I explained earlier the additional item was not explained to me and I did NOT sign for the additional amount. I voiced the over charge concern that morning of June 3rd when I picked up my car. You never once told me that the one part was 700 plus dollars. The reception is is the one who explains and has you sign. I wanted to take my vehicle that day at June 2nd prior to your grand jesture of a 25$ rental and the mechanic said that he wouldn't advise that and my engine can over heat. You do not have a signed authorization of the second service you charged me for. You purposely neglated to explain the full charges and I would love to see you provide where I signed for the 700$ charge. I did not give verbal authorization for a extra 700$ plus charge. I was in complete shock at the price the next day and you have on the labor that you charged me for the oil, to check the lights, my tires, and my tire lights. I have already provided photos of the tire light being on. The mechanic when I called said to return so my tires can be checked because they hadn't been checked. I did have the oil change elsewhere ( thank god) but that doesn't change that YOU put on the paperwork that the engine oil and filter were changed when they WERE NOT. It's included in the description price and labor. The only reason I sign and paid was because I had no choice they would not release my car unless I paid or promised to break up the payments and gave them a credit card. I did not pay because I agreeded with the overcharge. What this company did is fraud. I did NOT sign or AGREE verbally to an additional 700$ plus charge. I also did not expect to be charged for things that did not get done. My tires were never addressed and this was confirmed my their own employee when I called them on June 3rd at 2:22pm. I deserve and want a refund.
Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 12, 2015/06/15) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
Sterling Autosport did not provide you with a signed authorization for the additional work that they claim I gave a " verball" authorization for. The receptionist was not present whe the mechanic said I needed "one " extra part. Again I ask why was I not brought out of the dark little customer waiting lounge and brought back into the front lobby and explained the " one " extra part charge that was 771.$ Does sterling also deny that I was shocked and completely unprepared for these extra charges they? Do they also deny that the mechanic when I called about my tires said they were never done? I have given the Revdex.com a screen shot of my minute conversation when I called and noticed my light on. You claim you didn't charge me for the oil change yet the engine oil and filter are marked " replaced" is that out of ignorance or fraud? Is stated that thing was required on the service so Sterling basically just marks off done or replaced or checked to get people out of there without providing acturate sevice records for what was really done. The discussion that I had a airport reservation to leave the next day was discussed and I said I needed my car. The resptionist said I had to pay. I only signed the receipts because I needed my car and had to get prepared to catch a flight the next day. Their was no hesitation in instantly contacting the Revdex.com knowing I had been taking advantage of. Again Sterling did not get any verbal agreement from me. They did not complete items they said they did. The mechanic on the phone told me to return and that the tires were not included in my service of 60,000 miles and so who is lying? The mechanic who worked on my car or the secretary they have writing this response? The shop is lying about several things from the billing, to what was done to my car, and how they told me must pay in order to get my car. They did not say- if you don't agree you can leave and we can work things out. If that was the case I wouldn't have given them a dime. This is unexceptable and fraudulent behavior by this shop.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 16, 2015/06/17) */
Sterling Autosport provided a written estimate for the initial work for the 40,000 mile service and checking the coolant leak minus the oil service which she agreed to and signed the authorization.
After her car was inspected she was given a separate written estimate containing only the water pump parts and labor which she then agreed to have done.
All documents have been provided to the Revdex.com.
When Mrs. [redacted] picked up her car, she signed the acknowledgment, notice, and oral approval of increase in the original estimate. All services and parts she was charged for were installed and noted properly. Sterling Autosport committed no fraud and installed no parts that were not authorized by Mrs. [redacted]. If Mrs. [redacted] has further questions or concerns we suggest she contact the Bureau of Automotive Repair.