Response received via e-mail from Steve ***, Service Manager: "When we, or any other dealer, gets a vehicle in that has the factory recall 15s27, we are to inspect the rear axle to see if the brackets from recall 10swere installed correctlyWhen the vehicle with VIN [redacted] was brought to us we inspected the rear axle and found that the brackets had been installed correctlyPer recall 15s27, we are to then go to program 15nwhich then allows the dealership to offer the customer a reduced expense on a replacement axle if they chose to have it replacedFord will cover everything but the first $This is what was presented to the customerSteve ***"
I am rejecting this response because:
If there was never an issue with the back rod then why would ford discount the price? By giving a discount they are admitting there was a problem This should be a recall not a few
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/05/12) */
Miss [redacted] had a valid complaint. However to our knowledge the car was never in an accident. Both the Carfax and Autocheck showed no accident history. We gave her the option of returning the car or having us run it through the certification...
process for her at no charge. She chose to have it Certified. She is satisfied with the outcome.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (2000, 7, 2015/05/12) */
(The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)
The manager was willing to do whatever was necessary to rectify the situation.
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/06/29) */
When Mr. [redacted] was in it was noted that his brakes were worn out and contaminated from the axle seal fluid that had been leaking on them and that they needed to be replaced. He chose to not have us do the brakes and said he would do it...
himself. We put the brakes back together, performed the axle seal repair and made the vehicle available for Mr. [redacted]. Some of the fluids we use have additives in them. The fluid that was used during Mr. [redacted]'s axel seal repair comes from the manufacturer as a "limited slip" approved fluid. It does have the friction modifier already in it.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2015/06/30) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I was also told by the service writer that they would clean up all the axle fluid that was all over the right rear brake assembly.They never cleaned it at all.I had to do the cleaning myself and had to purchase 4 cans of brake cleaner to do the job.The brakes were NOT "worn out", but the left side inner disc brake pad was mysteriously missing.The assistant service manager claims it must have fallen off.I will not believe that.That inner pad was left off my car by the service technician.
Final Consumer Response /* (3000, 12, 2015/07/02) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
The brake pads WERE NOT worn out! I have the 3 that remained on the car in my possession. Ford did not address the fact that they LIED about cleaning up the axle fluid that was all over the right rear brake assembly.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 10, 2015/07/02) */
Brake pads are held on by clips and by the tension of the brake pad pushing against the rotor. When the brake pad is beyond its useful life, usually less than 3mm remaining, there is the ability for the brake pad to slip and fall out. This is due to the brake pad thickness becoming less than the clearance between the brake pad bracket and the rotor.
Response received via e-mail from Steve [redacted], Service Manager: "When we, or any other dealer, gets a vehicle in that has the factory recall 15s27, we are to inspect the rear axle to see if the brackets from recall 10s13 were installed correctly. When the vehicle with VIN [redacted] was...
brought to us we inspected the rear axle and found that the brackets had been installed correctly. Per recall 15s27, we are to then go to program 15n02 which then allows the dealership to offer the customer a reduced expense on a replacement axle if they chose to have it replaced. Ford will cover everything but the first $300.00. This is what was presented to the customer. Steve [redacted]"
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 6, 2015/08/03) */
When Mr. [redacted] purchased the trailer hitch, the warranty for the work was 12 months or 12,000 miles, whichever came first. This was recently explained to Mr. [redacted]. The vehicle is over both the time and mileage warranty. The work is no longer...
We are sorry for the length of time it took to get Mr [redacted]'s plates, as there was a misunderstanding as to which plates he wanted and the wrong ones were ordered. He does have the correct plates now and again we are sorry for the confusion and the time it took.
When Ms. [redacted] brought her Fusion in to be looked at, the Assistant Service Manager went underneath the vehicle to inspect the lower engine cover. When he noticed parallel impact lines on the cover pointing to the passenger rear of the cover he brought Ms. [redacted] underneath the vehicle to point...
out that something had impacted the cover causing these lines which went to the back of the cover. It was at the back of the cover where further damage had ripped out one of the bolts holding it on. It was evident that something had hit the cover while driving causing this damage.
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 10, 2016/03/22) */
The repair performed a year ago to Ms. [redacted]'s battery cable was consistent with repairs the technicians have been trained to perform for years. This type of repair has been done to this style of battery cable numerous times due to the fact...
that the alternative is to peel back the cable insulation, exposing the wire itself and jam it in to an end. That type of repair leads to corrosion much quicker than the type of repair that was performed. After having successfully completed the type of cable repair we did, hundreds of times, we feel that it was done to industry accepted standards.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 12, 2016/03/22) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I do not accept their response because I don't believe the repair was done to industry accepted standards. It was well BELOW standard or it would not have had to be re-done three months after the initial repair. It was not a year ago, it was in June of 2015. It had to be re-done THREE months later, in September of 2015. In addition to compensation, I would like proof that this is the standard of repair, preferably from Ford Manufacturing, and that it is within industry acceptable standards. I've had this repair before on several different vehicles and NEVER seen it done like this. See attached pictures.
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2016/03/09) */
Mr. and Mrs. [redacted] brought in their 2004 F-150 with 120,402 miles on it for a transmission concern. They provided information for their aftermarket warranty. Their warranty required the transmission to be "torn down" to the causal failure part...
and their warranty required the [redacted]'s to authorize it as their warranty would not pay for the tear down. That is what the $580.00 was for. The [redacted]'s were told that their warranty required the tear down before they would approve the repairs. The [redacted]'s provided a credit card to pay for the tear down. This was run and their bank had it in an authorization hold until the repairs were complete. When the [redacted]'s wouldn't answer any phone calls after the repairs the credit card bank authorized the release of funds as they had already approved the charges.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2016/03/09) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
When we were charged $580, we were told that we would receive a refund once the warranty approved the claim. Joe was the representative from their company that assured the $580 was just to cover the teardown until the warranty company could determine whether the claim would be covered or not. We were assured we would be refunded this amount. Once the warranty company told them they would approve the claim but had to send their own, cheaper part, only then we're we informed they would keep the $580 whether they fixed it or not. Then they overcharged us an additional $330 just to accept the transmission. They still will not give a detailed invoice stating how many hours of labor it took. The warranty company not only sent the transmission but also paid 10 hours for labor which included teardown, diagnostic and replacement time, which they say is the industry standard. It seems superior ford made up additional charges so that I would have to pay nearly 1000 more than the warranty. My bank didn't put that money on hold, the dealership charged it on 2/15, returned it on 2/19 and then went back into our account and recharged it without authorization. I still have the message where an employee says they need my card number to reauthorize the charge, which I did not provide.
Final Consumer Response /* (3000, 11, 2016/03/13) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
Their response does not address 3 issues. 1)we were assured that we would be refunded the $580 once our claim was approved. When we authorized payment, we were never informed that they may keep our money even if the warranty approved the claim. 2)excessive charges. How could it possibly cost $330 just to receive a part? The part was delivered to their location. 3)we were not given aname invoice that explains the costs. How many hours of labor did it actually take to complete the repair? What were the actual charges that caused it to be $983 above the warranty? Like. I said this warranty paid the charges for an engine replacement this last summer itinerary only had to pay the $200 deductible. Another dealership was able to complete repairs in the time allotted by the warranty. I could see paying a couple hours of labor over the warranty but I don't understand nearly $1000.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 14, 2016/03/22) */
Received subsequent response from Steve [redacted] of Superior-Brookdale, via e-mail to Revdex.com:
"Sorry for the delay in this reply. The $580 was the charge they were told about, before authorizing anything, to allow us to determine what was wrong. They were told that their aftermarket extended warranty was not going to pay for that, yet required the teardown to see if the failed component was something they would cover. They were told upfront about this charge and that it was their responsibility. They did receive an invoice consistent with normal procedures for the repairs. This includes the labor total, parts total, taxes, and any shipping/handling fees.
Steve"
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 6, 2015/12/03) */
We regret any misunderstanding our ad caused for Mrs [redacted]. We did have a disclaimer that spelled out the specifics of all the offers in the ad. We try to avoid these occurances and will try to be more clear in future advertisements.
We have talked with this customer multiple times. We took pictures and submitted a claim to Ford, which was denied because the bumper had been hit by something and the paint was cracked. The customer finally admitted that he bumped into something and under those...
Response received via e-mail from Steve ***, Service Manager: "When we, or any other dealer, gets a vehicle in that has the factory recall 15s27, we are to inspect the rear axle to see if the brackets from recall 10swere installed correctlyWhen the vehicle with VIN [redacted] was brought to us we inspected the rear axle and found that the brackets had been installed correctlyPer recall 15s27, we are to then go to program 15nwhich then allows the dealership to offer the customer a reduced expense on a replacement axle if they chose to have it replacedFord will cover everything but the first $This is what was presented to the customerSteve ***"
I am rejecting this response because:
If there was never an issue with the back rod then why would ford discount the price? By giving a discount they are admitting there was a problem This should be a recall not a few
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/05/12) */
Miss [redacted] had a valid complaint. However to our knowledge the car was never in an accident. Both the Carfax and Autocheck showed no accident history. We gave her the option of returning the car or having us run it through the certification...
process for her at no charge. She chose to have it Certified. She is satisfied with the outcome.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (2000, 7, 2015/05/12) */
(The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)
The manager was willing to do whatever was necessary to rectify the situation.
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/06/29) */
When Mr. [redacted] was in it was noted that his brakes were worn out and contaminated from the axle seal fluid that had been leaking on them and that they needed to be replaced. He chose to not have us do the brakes and said he would do it...
himself. We put the brakes back together, performed the axle seal repair and made the vehicle available for Mr. [redacted]. Some of the fluids we use have additives in them. The fluid that was used during Mr. [redacted]'s axel seal repair comes from the manufacturer as a "limited slip" approved fluid. It does have the friction modifier already in it.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2015/06/30) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I was also told by the service writer that they would clean up all the axle fluid that was all over the right rear brake assembly.They never cleaned it at all.I had to do the cleaning myself and had to purchase 4 cans of brake cleaner to do the job.The brakes were NOT "worn out", but the left side inner disc brake pad was mysteriously missing.The assistant service manager claims it must have fallen off.I will not believe that.That inner pad was left off my car by the service technician.
Final Consumer Response /* (3000, 12, 2015/07/02) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
The brake pads WERE NOT worn out! I have the 3 that remained on the car in my possession. Ford did not address the fact that they LIED about cleaning up the axle fluid that was all over the right rear brake assembly.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 10, 2015/07/02) */
Brake pads are held on by clips and by the tension of the brake pad pushing against the rotor. When the brake pad is beyond its useful life, usually less than 3mm remaining, there is the ability for the brake pad to slip and fall out. This is due to the brake pad thickness becoming less than the clearance between the brake pad bracket and the rotor.
Response received via e-mail from Steve [redacted], Service Manager: "When we, or any other dealer, gets a vehicle in that has the factory recall 15s27, we are to inspect the rear axle to see if the brackets from recall 10s13 were installed correctly. When the vehicle with VIN [redacted] was...
brought to us we inspected the rear axle and found that the brackets had been installed correctly. Per recall 15s27, we are to then go to program 15n02 which then allows the dealership to offer the customer a reduced expense on a replacement axle if they chose to have it replaced. Ford will cover everything but the first $300.00. This is what was presented to the customer. Steve [redacted]"
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 6, 2015/08/03) */
When Mr. [redacted] purchased the trailer hitch, the warranty for the work was 12 months or 12,000 miles, whichever came first. This was recently explained to Mr. [redacted]. The vehicle is over both the time and mileage warranty. The work is no longer...
covered by warranty.
We are sorry for the length of time it took to get Mr [redacted]'s plates, as there was a misunderstanding as to which plates he wanted and the wrong ones were ordered. He does have the correct plates now and again we are sorry for the confusion and the time it took.
When Ms. [redacted] brought her Fusion in to be looked at, the Assistant Service Manager went underneath the vehicle to inspect the lower engine cover. When he noticed parallel impact lines on the cover pointing to the passenger rear of the cover he brought Ms. [redacted] underneath the vehicle to point...
out that something had impacted the cover causing these lines which went to the back of the cover. It was at the back of the cover where further damage had ripped out one of the bolts holding it on. It was evident that something had hit the cover while driving causing this damage.
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 10, 2016/03/22) */
The repair performed a year ago to Ms. [redacted]'s battery cable was consistent with repairs the technicians have been trained to perform for years. This type of repair has been done to this style of battery cable numerous times due to the fact...
that the alternative is to peel back the cable insulation, exposing the wire itself and jam it in to an end. That type of repair leads to corrosion much quicker than the type of repair that was performed. After having successfully completed the type of cable repair we did, hundreds of times, we feel that it was done to industry accepted standards.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 12, 2016/03/22) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I do not accept their response because I don't believe the repair was done to industry accepted standards. It was well BELOW standard or it would not have had to be re-done three months after the initial repair. It was not a year ago, it was in June of 2015. It had to be re-done THREE months later, in September of 2015. In addition to compensation, I would like proof that this is the standard of repair, preferably from Ford Manufacturing, and that it is within industry acceptable standards. I've had this repair before on several different vehicles and NEVER seen it done like this. See attached pictures.
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2016/03/09) */
Mr. and Mrs. [redacted] brought in their 2004 F-150 with 120,402 miles on it for a transmission concern. They provided information for their aftermarket warranty. Their warranty required the transmission to be "torn down" to the causal failure part...
and their warranty required the [redacted]'s to authorize it as their warranty would not pay for the tear down. That is what the $580.00 was for. The [redacted]'s were told that their warranty required the tear down before they would approve the repairs. The [redacted]'s provided a credit card to pay for the tear down. This was run and their bank had it in an authorization hold until the repairs were complete. When the [redacted]'s wouldn't answer any phone calls after the repairs the credit card bank authorized the release of funds as they had already approved the charges.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2016/03/09) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
When we were charged $580, we were told that we would receive a refund once the warranty approved the claim. Joe was the representative from their company that assured the $580 was just to cover the teardown until the warranty company could determine whether the claim would be covered or not. We were assured we would be refunded this amount. Once the warranty company told them they would approve the claim but had to send their own, cheaper part, only then we're we informed they would keep the $580 whether they fixed it or not. Then they overcharged us an additional $330 just to accept the transmission. They still will not give a detailed invoice stating how many hours of labor it took. The warranty company not only sent the transmission but also paid 10 hours for labor which included teardown, diagnostic and replacement time, which they say is the industry standard. It seems superior ford made up additional charges so that I would have to pay nearly 1000 more than the warranty. My bank didn't put that money on hold, the dealership charged it on 2/15, returned it on 2/19 and then went back into our account and recharged it without authorization. I still have the message where an employee says they need my card number to reauthorize the charge, which I did not provide.
Final Consumer Response /* (3000, 11, 2016/03/13) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
Their response does not address 3 issues. 1)we were assured that we would be refunded the $580 once our claim was approved. When we authorized payment, we were never informed that they may keep our money even if the warranty approved the claim. 2)excessive charges. How could it possibly cost $330 just to receive a part? The part was delivered to their location. 3)we were not given aname invoice that explains the costs. How many hours of labor did it actually take to complete the repair? What were the actual charges that caused it to be $983 above the warranty? Like. I said this warranty paid the charges for an engine replacement this last summer itinerary only had to pay the $200 deductible. Another dealership was able to complete repairs in the time allotted by the warranty. I could see paying a couple hours of labor over the warranty but I don't understand nearly $1000.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 14, 2016/03/22) */
Received subsequent response from Steve [redacted] of Superior-Brookdale, via e-mail to Revdex.com:
"Sorry for the delay in this reply. The $580 was the charge they were told about, before authorizing anything, to allow us to determine what was wrong. They were told that their aftermarket extended warranty was not going to pay for that, yet required the teardown to see if the failed component was something they would cover. They were told upfront about this charge and that it was their responsibility. They did receive an invoice consistent with normal procedures for the repairs. This includes the labor total, parts total, taxes, and any shipping/handling fees.
Steve"
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 6, 2015/12/03) */
We regret any misunderstanding our ad caused for Mrs [redacted]. We did have a disclaimer that spelled out the specifics of all the offers in the ad. We try to avoid these occurances and will try to be more clear in future advertisements.
We have talked with this customer multiple times. We took pictures and submitted a claim to Ford, which was denied because the bumper had been hit by something and the paint was cracked. The customer finally admitted that he bumped into something and under those...
conditions we can't get this covered by warrenty.