Time to Ride

Hello, this is Time to Ride management; we would just like to thank the readers for allowing us to clear a few or misleading statements made in Mr [redacted] statementTime to Ride does except the “customer is always right” policy, as long as that doesn’t come at the cost of our other customers, our character, our employees or the businessOn March 13, Mr [redacted] did bring his [redacted] which is a CUSTOM (key word) bike to Time to Ride LLC to have a new rear tire installedI’m certain that anyone that has experience with custom bikes knows that the same rules don’t apply for stock bikes; custom bikes are unique much like a fingerprintSo therefore the technique in servicing them is also uniqueIn Mr [redacted] statement he leads the readers to believe he has a stock bike, that’s not the case We want this statement to be clear WE DID NOT PERFORM THE CUSTOM WORK ON HIS BIKE In addition Mr [redacted] had three other motorcycle repair shops in Fredericksburg (“the area”) work on his bike before he brought it to Time to Ride [redacted] did NOT state anything about other shops working on the bike to usWe noticed he didn’t bring that up in his statement either This misleads the readers to think he didn’t have an issue with his rear tire before he brought it to usAgain I’m sure that anyone that has experience with mechanics, knows it is not in your best interest to with hold information regarding whatever you’re having serviced or fixedThat would increase production time and decrease quality So to be clear Mr [redacted] WENT TO THREE OTHER REPAIR SHOPS IN THE AREA IN BEFORE HE CAME TO TIME TO RIDE IN MARCH OF 2015; HE WITH HELD THIS INFORMATION FROM US The tech that worked on Mr [redacted] bike is ***; he was new to Time to Ride at the timeHowever [redacted] was familiar with [redacted] bike because he worked at one of the previous shops that had been assumedly unsuccessful in servicing Mr [redacted] bike [redacted] also knew of the mechanic that did the custom work on Mr [redacted] bike [redacted] had told us along with others that [redacted] was known to be a “shop Hopper” (side note) We installed [redacted] custom [redacted] rear tire and did a 20k service on his bike in MarchWe have record of him having 26k miles on the bike when we did the service in MarchMr [redacted] called us in July over three months later, telling us he has an issue with his bike because of the work we didWe picked the bike up because “the customer is always right”We found out that Mr [redacted] had 28k miles on the bike at this point, that’s thousand miles more than when he brought it in originally in MarchWe don’t usually warranty that many miles or that time frameBut we tried to diagnose the issue anyway Upon further research we found that [redacted] had taken the bike to another shop between the time he picked it up from us in March and when he called us back about the complaint in July In Mr [redacted] statement he leads readers to believe that he had surgery and bought a new bike so there was no mileage put on his custom [redacted] that we worked on We know through documentation that is simply falseAs a side note [redacted] was talking of going to Sturgus with the other employees when he left in March [redacted] wrote his statement to the Revdex.com when the bike was in custody of Time to Ride, he never asked us stop working on the bikeHe didn’t he was making a complaint; in fact all he told us is that he wanted us to warranty the work, meaning he wanted us to foot the billIn my opinion if it was a matter of safety he wouldn’t have had Time to Ride warranty the workUnfortunately the fact that Mr [redacted] wasn’t forthcoming with the history of the motorcycle and the fact that he went to so many other shops and the fact the he has a custom bike provides too many variables to accurately diagnose this issue

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the offer and/or response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below [Provide details of why you are not satisfied with this resolution.] Regards, [redacted] The response from Time to Ride, LLC to complaint number [redacted] is mendacious and fails address the cited complaint in equivalency of detailThe statement attempts to prevaricate the reader by avoiding the issues and making unsupportive claims, further illustrating this business’s disingenuous practicesAs aforementioned, Time to Ride, LLC has made several claims or counters in regards to the complaint but has neglected to support them with factual data, or was unable to comprehend the contents of the complaintFor example, Time to Ride, LLC claims that the complainant; “ leads the readers to believe he has a stock bike”However, the complaint clearly cites that Time to Ride, LLC engaged the manufacturer of the wheels (DNA Specialties) in an attempt to diagnose the issue with the rear wheelHowever, this is a moot point, because the primary rear wheel interface (Swing Arm) is stockThroughout their response, Time to Ride, LLC repeatedly tries to indemnify themselves of any responsibilityAt no time in the complaint was it claimed that Time to Ride, LLC had installed the wheelsAs stated in the complaint, its content was derived from an email sent to Time to Ride, LLC on 9/8/which clarified the timeline and what work had been performed by them At no time did Time to Ride, LLC contest any of the cited facts in the email until they received the Revdex.com complaint on 9/14/Upon receiving the complaint, Time to Ride, LLC contacted me by phone and informed me unless I dropped the complaint, they would not complete the work on the bikeIt was at this point that I had the bike removed from their business and transported to a more qualified establishmentTime to Ride, LLC only further illustrated their substandard business practices when they were contacted by [redacted] of the Revdex.com shortly after the mailing of the complaint to inquire into the status of their responseMs [redacted] informed me that Time to Ride, LLC claimed that that they had not received the complaint This is a statement supported by the aforementioned phone call on 9/14/from Time to Ride, LLC to meResponses to complaints are due within days of receiptThis means that Time to Ride, LLC’s response would have been due on or about 9/28/Time to Ride, LLC’s failure to provide a timely response illustrates their disregard for customer service and the legitimacy of the Revdex.comMs [redacted] resent the complaint to which Time to Ride, LLC responded on or about 10/12/Time to Ride, LLC’s response is arbitrary in nature and fails to address the issues cited in the complaint by attempting to redirect responsibility on the complainantTime to Ride, LLC claims that I “WENT TO THREE OTHER REPAIR SHOPS IN THE AREA IN BEFORE HE CAME TO TIME TO RIDE IN MARCH OF 2015; HE WITH HELD [sic “withheld”] THIS INFORMATION FROM US” and that “Upon further research we found that [redacted] had taken the bike to another shop between the time he picked it up from us in March.” This is incorrect, and baselessIf it were true, Time to Ride, LLC would have cited the shops I had taken the bike toTime to Ride, LLC is again attempting to indemnify themselves of any responsibility by making baseless counteraccusations with the belief that they will not be required to support themThe true history of services performed on the bike in the Fredericksburg area is as follows: June 2013: Standard service performed by [redacted] May 2014: Standard service performed by [redacted] July 2014: DNA Specialties wheel installation performed by [redacted] August 2014: Rear brake pad installation performed by [redacted] ***March 2015: Standard service and rear tire installation performed by Time to Ride, LLCIt is important to note that aside from the services performed in July and March 2015, there was no removal of the rear tire or brake caliper bracketIf there would have been an issue prior to March 2015, it would have been noted in August when [redacted] replaced the rear brake pads as it would have been apparent that the disc would have been grinding into the rear brake caliper bracketThe service performed by [redacted] to include associated issues with Time to Ride, LLC will be corroborated in a separate email to the Revdex.com from [redacted] formally of [redacted] and Time to Ride, LLCThe RevDex.com should request that at a minimum Time to Ride, LLC support these claims with the names of the businessesWhile Time to Ride, LLC cites a discrepancy in mileage, this was never an issue prior to receiving the complaintAgain, Time to Ride, LLC is counting on the naiveté of the Revdex.com or assuming that they won’t follow up on the claims made in their responseFor example, Time to Ride, LLC claims that I was “talking of going to Sturgis with the other employees when he left in March”The Sturgis Bike Rally took place from 3-August Time to Ride, LLC was in possession of the bike from July through September In addition, it is 1,miles from Fredericksburg, VirginiaAgain, this is a baseless claim that relies on the hopes that the Revdex.com is naïve and will not perform due diligenceThese claims are irrelevant though considering I had surgery on 3/27/( [redacted] ) which required the immobilization of my arm for 8-weeksTime to Ride, LLC also claims that I requested that they warranty the work to correct their errorAs previously stated, the base from which the complaint to the Revdex.com was an email I sent to Time to Ride, LLC on 9/8/In this email, I never asked Time to Ride, LLC to warranty the workIn addition, on 9/10/I emailed Time to Ride, LLC and proposed that after they had deemed the issue to be rectified, I would transport the bike to a qualified [redacted] service professional to have them verify the bike was safe at my own expenseThis is in keeping with my desired outcome submitted to the Revdex.comIn summary, Time to Ride, LLC has demonstrated that they do not care about consumer input or accept responsibility for their errorsThis is illustrated by their neglect to provide a timely response after initially receiving the complaint on 9/14/ and then when pressed for a response by the Revdex.com, claiming that they had not received itThe baseless claims in their response are a futile attempt to make counteraccusations in the hopes that their target audience is naïve or will not conduct further research due to competing interests of other dutiesTime to Ride, LLC claims that due to the nature of the bike that it is; “ unique much like a fingerprintSo therefore the technique in servicing them is also unique.” If they truly believed this, they should have never worked on the bikeTime to Ride, LLC’s owner also had little faith in his own staff as illustrated by his assigning of a new mechanic (***) who was supposed to be a factory trained mechanicThese facts illustrate that this type of work is beyond Time to Ride, LLC’s scopeDue to the fact that the bike is no longer in the possession of Time to Ride, LLC, my initial desired outcome is no longer applicableTo settle this issue, I request that Time to Ride, LLC refund the $associated to the work performed on 3/13/

Revdex.com:
The manner in which Time to Ride, LLC has responded on
11/3/to my rebuttal, clearly illustrates their disregard for consumer trust
and feedbackAside from the poor grammar, Time to Ride, LLC has neglected to
support their counter claims in their initial response provided to the RevDex.com on 10/12/In this response, Time to Ride, LLC made the
following claims to support not correcting this issue:
“WENT TO THREE OTHER REPAIR SHOPS IN THE AREA IN
BEFORE HE CAME TO TIME TO RIDE IN MARCH OF 2015; HE WITH HELD [sic
“withheld”] THIS INFORMATION FROM US”
“Upon further research we found that XXX had
taken the bike to another shop between the time he picked it up from us in
March and when he called us back about the complaint in July.”
“We have record of him having 26k miles on the
bike when we did the service in March.”
“As a side note XXX was talking of going to
*** [sic “***”] with the other employees when he left in March.”
“XXX wrote his statement to the Revdex.com when the
bike was in custody of Time to Ride, he never asked us stop working on the bike”
(Note: On 9/14/2015: Time to Ride called me about the Revdex.com
complaint, told me that they wouldn't
work on the bike unless I dropped it and that felt they should charge me due to
the possibility of me seeking monetary compensation for their negligence)
In the rebuttal I provided to the Revdex.com, I provided
supportable proof that was cor***orated by an email (provided to Revdex.com) from a
former Time to Ride, LLC employee that all of these claims were falseI also requested
that Time to Ride, LLC provide factual information (Business names, signed service
sheets, etc.) to support their counter claimsTime to Ride, LLC did not
provide this information because their counter claims are fabricated
To summarize, Time to Ride, LLC was negligent and not only
caused damage to my motorcycle, but placed myself and my passenger in mortal
dangerTime to Ride, LLC has not supported any counter claims to my complaint
The claims made in my complaint are supportable and corroborated in an email from
a former Time to Ride, LLC employeeTime to Ride, LLC has continued to be
disingenuous in nature with respect to this complaint
Because Time to Ride, LLC has failed to support the erroneous
counter claims in their responses, I request the following monetary
restitution:
$(Charges from Time to Ride, LLC on 3/13/15)
Towing
Cost: $
Replacement Rear
Wheel Hub
Qty:
Cost: $
Service Performed
a) Labor to Install
New Rear Wheel Hub
Hourly Rate: $
Hours:
Total Labor: $
b) Right Rear Rotor
Bolt Kit
Qty:
Cost: $
c) 25mm Wheel Bearing
Qty:
Cost: $
d) Shop Supplies
Cost: $
e) Sales Tax (5.30%)
Cost: $
Total For Service
Performed: $
Total monetary
restitution requested: $1,
Regards,
*** ***

Revdex.com:
The manner in which Time to Ride, LLC has responded on
11/3/to my rebuttal, clearly illustrates their disregard for consumer trust
and feedbackAside from the poor grammar, Time to Ride, LLC has neglected to
support their counter claims in their initial response provided to the RevDex.com on 10/12/In this response, Time to Ride, LLC made the
following claims to support not correcting this issue:
“WENT TO THREE OTHER REPAIR SHOPS IN THE AREA IN
BEFORE HE CAME TO TIME TO RIDE IN MARCH OF 2015; HE WITH HELD [sic
“withheld”] THIS INFORMATION FROM US” “Upon further research we found that XXX had
taken the bike to another shop between the time he picked it up from us in
March and when he called us back about the complaint in July.” “We have record of him having 26k miles on the
bike when we did the service in March.” “As a side note XXX was talking of going to
*** [sic “***”] with the other employees when he left in March.” “XXX wrote his statement to the Revdex.com when the
bike was in custody of Time to Ride, he never asked us stop working on the bike”
(Note: On 9/14/2015: Time to Ride called me about the Revdex.com
complaint, told me that they wouldn't
work on the bike unless I dropped it and that felt they should charge me due to
the possibility of me seeking monetary compensation for their negligence)
In the rebuttal I provided to the Revdex.com, I provided
supportable proof that was cor***orated by an email (provided to Revdex.com) from a
former Time to Ride, LLC employee that all of these claims were falseI also requested
that Time to Ride, LLC provide factual information (Business names, signed service
sheets, etc.) to support their counter claimsTime to Ride, LLC did not
provide this information because their counter claims are fabricated
To summarize, Time to Ride, LLC was negligent and not only
caused damage to my motorcycle, but placed myself and my passenger in mortal
dangerTime to Ride, LLC has not supported any counter claims to my complaint
The claims made in my complaint are supportable and corroborated in an email from
a former Time to Ride, LLC employeeTime to Ride, LLC has continued to be
disingenuous in nature with respect to this complaint
Because Time to Ride, LLC has failed to support the erroneous
counter claims in their responses, I request the following monetary
restitution:
$(Charges from Time to Ride, LLC on 3/13/15)
Towing
Cost: $
Replacement Rear
Wheel Hub
Qty:
Cost: $
Service Performed
a) Labor to Install
New Rear Wheel Hub
Hourly Rate: $
Hours:
Total Labor: $
b) Right Rear Rotor
Bolt Kit
Qty:
Cost: $
c) 25mm Wheel Bearing
Qty:
Cost: $
d) Shop Supplies
Cost: $
e) Sales Tax (5.30%)
Cost: $
Total For Service
Performed: $
Total monetary
restitution requested: $1,
Regards,
*** ***

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the offer and/or response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
[Provide details of why you are not satisfied with this resolution.]
Regards,
[redacted]
The response from Time to Ride, LLC to complaint number
[redacted] is mendacious and fails address the cited complaint in equivalency of
detail. The statement attempts to prevaricate the reader by avoiding the issues
and making unsupportive claims, further illustrating this business’s
disingenuous practices. As aforementioned, Time to Ride, LLC has made several
claims or counters in regards to the complaint but has neglected to support
them with factual data, or was unable to comprehend the contents of the
complaint. For example, Time to Ride, LLC claims that the complainant; “…leads
the readers to believe he has a stock bike”. However, the complaint clearly
cites that Time to Ride, LLC engaged the manufacturer of the wheels (DNA
Specialties) in an attempt to diagnose the issue with the rear wheel. However,
this is a moot point, because the primary rear wheel interface (Swing Arm) is
stock. Throughout their response, Time to Ride, LLC repeatedly tries to
indemnify themselves of any responsibility. At no time in the complaint was it
claimed that Time to Ride, LLC had installed the wheels. As stated in the
complaint, its content was derived from an email sent to Time to Ride, LLC on
9/8/2015 which clarified the timeline and what work had been performed by them.
At no time did Time to Ride, LLC contest any of the cited facts in the email
until they received the Revdex.com complaint on 9/14/2015. Upon
receiving the complaint, Time to Ride, LLC contacted me by phone and informed
me unless I dropped the complaint, they would not complete the work on the
bike. It was at this point that I had the bike removed from their business and
transported to a more qualified establishment. Time to Ride, LLC only further
illustrated their substandard business practices when they were contacted by
[redacted] of the Revdex.com shortly after the mailing of the
complaint to inquire into the status of their response. Ms. [redacted] informed me
that Time to Ride, LLC claimed that that they had not received the complaint.
This is a false statement supported by the aforementioned phone call on
9/14/2015 from Time to Ride, LLC to me. Responses to complaints are due within
14 days of receipt. This means that Time to Ride, LLC’s response would have
been due on or about 9/28/2015. Time to Ride, LLC’s failure to provide a timely
response illustrates their disregard for customer service and the legitimacy of
the Revdex.com. Ms. [redacted] resent the complaint to which Time to
Ride, LLC responded on or about 10/12/2015. Time to Ride, LLC’s response is
arbitrary in nature and fails to address the issues cited in the complaint by
attempting to redirect responsibility on the complainant. Time to Ride, LLC
claims that I “WENT TO THREE OTHER REPAIR SHOPS IN THE AREA IN 2015 BEFORE HE
CAME TO TIME TO RIDE IN MARCH OF 2015; HE WITH HELD [sic “withheld”] THIS
INFORMATION FROM US” and that “Upon further research we found that [redacted] had
taken the bike to another shop between the time he picked it up from us in
March.” This is incorrect, and baseless. If it were true, Time to Ride, LLC
would have cited the shops I had taken the bike to. Time to Ride, LLC is again
attempting to indemnify themselves of any responsibility by making baseless
counteraccusations with the belief that they will not be required to support
them. The true history of services performed on the bike in the Fredericksburg
area is as follows: June 2013: Standard service performed by [redacted]. May
2014: Standard service performed by [redacted]. July 2014: DNA Specialties
wheel installation performed by [redacted]. August 2014: Rear brake pad
installation performed by [redacted]. March 2015: Standard service and
rear tire installation performed by Time to Ride, LLC. It is important to note
that aside from the services performed in July 2014 and March 2015, there was
no removal of the rear tire or brake caliper bracket. If there would have been
an issue prior to March 2015, it would have been noted in August 2014 when [redacted] replaced the rear brake pads as it would have been apparent that
the disc would have been grinding into the rear brake caliper bracket. The
service performed by [redacted] to include associated issues with Time to Ride, LLC
will be corroborated in a separate email to the Revdex.com from [redacted] formally of [redacted] and Time to Ride, LLC. The RevDex.com should request that at a minimum Time to Ride, LLC support these claims
with the names of the businesses. While Time to Ride, LLC cites a discrepancy
in mileage, this was never an issue prior to receiving the complaint. Again,
Time to Ride, LLC is counting on the naiveté of the Revdex.com or
assuming that they won’t follow up on the claims made in their response. For
example, Time to Ride, LLC claims that I was “talking of going to Sturgis with
the other employees when he left in March”. The 2015 Sturgis Bike Rally took
place from 3-9 August 2015. Time to Ride, LLC was in possession of the bike
from 6 July through 14 September 2015. In addition, it is 1,686 miles from
Fredericksburg, Virginia. Again, this is a baseless claim that relies on the
hopes that the Revdex.com is naïve and will not perform due
diligence. These claims are irrelevant though considering I had surgery on
3/27/2015 ([redacted]) which required the immobilization of my arm
for 8-10 weeks. Time to Ride, LLC also claims that I requested that they
warranty the work to correct their error. As previously stated, the base from
which the complaint to the Revdex.com was an email I sent to Time
to Ride, LLC on 9/8/2015. In this email, I never asked Time to Ride, LLC to
warranty the work. In addition, on 9/10/2015 I emailed Time to Ride, LLC and
proposed that after they had deemed the issue to be rectified, I would
transport the bike to a qualified [redacted] service professional to have
them verify the bike was safe at my own expense. This is in keeping with my
desired outcome submitted to the Revdex.com. In summary, Time to
Ride, LLC has demonstrated that they do not care about consumer input or accept
responsibility for their errors. This is illustrated by their neglect to
provide a timely response after initially receiving the complaint on 9/14/2015
and then when pressed for a response by the Revdex.com, claiming
that they had not received it. The baseless claims in their response are a
futile attempt to make counteraccusations in the hopes that their target
audience is naïve or will not conduct further research due to competing
interests of other duties. Time to Ride, LLC claims that due to the nature of
the bike that it is; “…unique much like a fingerprint. So therefore the technique
in servicing them is also unique.” If they truly believed this, they should
have never worked on the bike. Time to Ride, LLC’s owner also had little faith
in his own staff as illustrated by his assigning of a new mechanic ([redacted]) who
was supposed to be a factory trained mechanic. These facts illustrate that this
type of work is beyond Time to Ride, LLC’s scope. Due to the fact that the bike
is no longer in the possession of Time to Ride, LLC, my initial desired outcome
is no longer applicable. To settle this issue, I request that Time to Ride, LLC
refund the $523.78 associated to the work performed on 3/13/2015.

Hello, this is Time to Ride management; we would just like
to thank the readers for allowing us to clear a few false or misleading
statements made in Mr. [redacted] statement. Time to Ride does except the
“customer is always right” policy, as long as that doesn’t come at the cost of
our other...

customers, our character, our employees or the business. On March 13, 2015 Mr. [redacted] did bring his [redacted] which is
a CUSTOM (key word) bike to Time to
Ride LLC to have a new rear tire installed. I’m certain that anyone that has
experience with custom bikes knows that the same rules don’t apply for stock
bikes; custom bikes are unique much like a fingerprint. So therefore the technique
in servicing them is also unique. In Mr. [redacted] statement he leads the
readers to believe he has a stock bike, that’s not the case.  We want this statement to be clear WE DID NOT PERFORM THE CUSTOM WORK ON HIS
BIKE.  In addition Mr. [redacted] had three other motorcycle repair
shops in Fredericksburg (“the area”) work on his bike before he brought it to
Time to Ride. [redacted] did NOT state anything about other shops working on the bike
to us. We noticed he didn’t bring that up in his statement either.  This misleads the readers to think he didn’t
have an issue with his rear tire before he brought it to us. Again I’m sure
that anyone that has experience with mechanics, knows it is not in your best
interest to with hold information regarding whatever you’re having serviced or
fixed. That would increase production time and decrease quality.  So to be clear Mr. [redacted]  WENT TO THREE OTHER
REPAIR SHOPS IN THE AREA  IN 2015 BEFORE HE CAME TO TIME TO RIDE IN MARCH OF 2015; HE WITH HELD THIS
INFORMATION FROM US.  The tech that worked on Mr. [redacted] bike is [redacted]; he was
new to Time to Ride at the time. However [redacted] was familiar with [redacted] bike
because he worked at one of the previous shops that had been assumedly
unsuccessful in servicing Mr. [redacted] bike. 
[redacted] also knew of the mechanic that did the custom work on Mr. [redacted]
bike.  [redacted] had told us along with others
that [redacted] was known to be a “shop Hopper” (side note).  We installed [redacted] custom [redacted] rear tire and did a 20k
service on his bike in March. We have record of him having 26k miles on the
bike when we did the service in March. Mr. [redacted] called us in July over three
months later, telling us he has an issue with his bike because of the work we
did. We picked the bike up because “the customer is always right”. We found out
that Mr. [redacted] had 28k miles on the bike at this point, that’s 2 thousand
miles more than when he brought it in originally in March. We don’t usually
warranty that many miles or that time frame. But we tried to diagnose the issue
anyway.  Upon further research we found
that [redacted] had taken the bike to another shop between the time he picked it up
from us in March and when he called us back about the complaint in July.  In Mr.
[redacted] statement he leads readers to believe that he had surgery and bought
a new bike so there was no mileage put on his custom [redacted] that we worked on.
We know through documentation that is simply false. As a side note [redacted] was talking of going to Sturgus with the
other employees when he left in March. [redacted] wrote his
statement to the Revdex.com when the bike was in custody of Time to Ride, he never
asked us stop working on the bike. He didn’t he was making a complaint; in fact
all he told us is that he wanted us to warranty the work, meaning he wanted us
to foot the bill. In my opinion if it was a matter of safety he wouldn’t have
had Time to Ride warranty the work. Unfortunately the fact that Mr. [redacted] wasn’t forthcoming
with the history of the motorcycle and the fact that he went to so many other
shops and the fact the he has a custom bike provides too many variables to
accurately diagnose this issue.

The business spoke with Revdex.com regarding this matter. The work the customer is disrupting was done in March and at the time he contacted the business with concerns there were an additional 2,000 miles on it. The customer has not spent anymore money since the work done in March. Due to the time lack and miles added to the vehicle the business will not be refunding this customer for that work.  The business was willing to have the bike brought back into the shop and attempt to diagnose the issues when the customer contact them. At that time multiple services and fees were waived for the customer and at no other time was the customer charged for more work. It was at that time while it was being look at the customer filed the Revdex.com complaint and the bike was removed from the shop.

Review: On 3/13/2015 I brought my [redacted] into Time To Ride, LLC for a service and to have a new rear tire installed. I initially found the staff and owner ([redacted]) very pleasant and they even took me to my residence to pick up the new rear tire. During the service, ** informed me that the bolts on my rear belt pulley were loose and two needed to be replaced. Prior to the service being completed, ** picked me up at my residence and brought me back to the shop. While one of the mechanics ([redacted]) was finishing the rear tire installation, he informed me that he had put balancing beads in the rear tire which would make it last longer. He and I also talked about his friends in the local Tuckahoe Motorcycle Club chapter. When complete, I paid $523.78 for the service and tire change. When I arrived home, I Time To Ride, LLC and informed them that there was some "chirp" on the down shift which is indicative of a loose belt. Time to Ride, LLC asked me to bring the bike back in to check it and I informed them that I would be getting surgery on my wrist and would be off the bike for 8 to 10 weeks and would bring it back in following that. It should be noted, that aside from the aforementioned loose pulley bolts, the bike ran fine for approximately 5,000 miles prior to bringing it to Time To Ride, LLC. Shortly after my recovery time, I bought a Street Glide 7/6/2015 and did not ride the bike Time To Ride, LLC had worked on. I also stopped by Time To Ride, LLC and they informed me that I could bring it in on Friday, 7/24/15. When I did take the bike out on 7/24/15, for a test ride prior to taking it to Time To Ride, LLC, I was approximately 6 miles from my residence when I noticed shifting of the rear of the bike and then a grinding noise emanating from the rear wheel. I immediately stopped and called Time To Ride, LLC. The owner, was very responsive, came to my location and towed the bike to Time To Ride, LLC. The next day (Saturday), ** informed me that the brake disc had ground into the brake bracket and that you would take care of it and order a new bracket. He also told me that he would have a new [redacted] mechanic ([redacted]) starting in two weeks who would look at it. I told him that I wasn't in a rush, I just wanted the error corrected and the bike safe to ride. When the new mechanic came on board, he discovered that the wheel spacers were not installed correctly. He also spoke to the wheel manufacture (DNA Specialties, Compton, CA.) and it was determined that a pulley spacer was missing. Although this was Time To Ride, LLC's error, I ordered the parts and hardware. Shortly thereafter, [redacted] quit and Time To Ride, LLC hired [redacted] who had originally installed the wheels on the bike prior to me taking it to Time To Ride, LLC. ** informed that it would be [redacted] who would be working on my bike. Weeks went by with no progress being made on my bike and ** always seemed to have an excuse. When I came in to talk to him, it was clear that ** had no concept as to the correct assembly of the rear wheel. To illustrate this, on one occasion ** was claiming that if the pulley spacer was installed, it would move the wheel further off center. This is not true. I last visited the shop on 9/2/2015, and [redacted] and [redacted] (Time To Ride, LLC employee) informed me that somehow the spacers had not only been put back in incorrectly, but possibly an incorrectly sized one from shop stock as well and that they were cutting one down. In addition, it was determined that the pulley spacer I had purchased was not needed. The bike was supposed to be done that Friday. On Friday, when I called, [redacted] informed me that there was a missing axel adjustment spacer missing. This is an OEM part (p/n: 41694-08) and its absence means that Time To Ride, LLC had lost it. Frustrated, I ordered it. To make matters worse, [redacted], the only individual with any working knowledge at Time to Ride, LLC in regards to correcting their errors, quit. I emailed Ed on 9/8/2015 to clarify the timeline and what Time To Ride, LLC had done and my desired outcome. The body of this email is what this complaint was derived from. It is apparent that Time To Ride, LLC has no intent in taking responsibility for their error. This is illustrated by the owner's (Ed) constant wavering on what his shop did, lack of communication, and now, trying to justify charging me for his error by claiming the damage was preexisting. Though impossible, if the latter were true, it only further affirms his business's incompetence by not noting the severe damage to the brake bracket when he changed the rear tire. I would not recommend bringing any bike, especially a [redacted] to Time To Ride, LLC. Due to their error, should the bike have experienced a catastrophic failure, the outcome would have been deadly.Desired Settlement: I request that Time To Ride, LLC, correct their error and have the bike inspected by a Factory [redacted] Service center to ensure it is safe to ride at their expense no later than the end of September 2015. Due to their error, should the bike have experienced a catastrophic failure, the outcome would have been deadly.

Business

Response:

Hello, this is Time to Ride management; we would just like

to thank the readers for allowing us to clear a few false or misleading

statements made in Mr. [redacted] statement. Time to Ride does except the

“customer is always right” policy, as long as that doesn’t come at the cost of

our other customers, our character, our employees or the business. On March 13, 2015 Mr. [redacted] did bring his [redacted] which is

a CUSTOM (key word) bike to Time to

Ride LLC to have a new rear tire installed. I’m certain that anyone that has

experience with custom bikes knows that the same rules don’t apply for stock

bikes; custom bikes are unique much like a fingerprint. So therefore the technique

in servicing them is also unique. In Mr. [redacted] statement he leads the

readers to believe he has a stock bike, that’s not the case. We want this statement to be clear WE DID NOT PERFORM THE CUSTOM WORK ON HIS

BIKE. In addition Mr. [redacted] had three other motorcycle repair

shops in Fredericksburg (“the area”) work on his bike before he brought it to

Time to Ride. [redacted] did NOT state anything about other shops working on the bike

to us. We noticed he didn’t bring that up in his statement either. This misleads the readers to think he didn’t

have an issue with his rear tire before he brought it to us. Again I’m sure

that anyone that has experience with mechanics, knows it is not in your best

interest to with hold information regarding whatever you’re having serviced or

fixed. That would increase production time and decrease quality. So to be clear Mr. [redacted] WENT TO THREE OTHER

REPAIR SHOPS IN THE AREA IN 2015 BEFORE HE CAME TO TIME TO RIDE IN MARCH OF 2015; HE WITH HELD THIS

INFORMATION FROM US. The tech that worked on Mr. [redacted] bike is [redacted]; he was

new to Time to Ride at the time. However [redacted] was familiar with [redacted] bike

because he worked at one of the previous shops that had been assumedly

unsuccessful in servicing Mr. [redacted] bike.

[redacted] also knew of the mechanic that did the custom work on Mr. [redacted]

bike. [redacted] had told us along with others

that [redacted] was known to be a “shop Hopper” (side note). We installed [redacted] custom [redacted] rear tire and did a 20k

service on his bike in March. We have record of him having 26k miles on the

bike when we did the service in March. Mr. [redacted] called us in July over three

months later, telling us he has an issue with his bike because of the work we

did. We picked the bike up because “the customer is always right”. We found out

that Mr. [redacted] had 28k miles on the bike at this point, that’s 2 thousand

miles more than when he brought it in originally in March. We don’t usually

warranty that many miles or that time frame. But we tried to diagnose the issue

anyway. Upon further research we found

that [redacted] had taken the bike to another shop between the time he picked it up

from us in March and when he called us back about the complaint in July. In Mr.

[redacted] statement he leads readers to believe that he had surgery and bought

a new bike so there was no mileage put on his custom [redacted] that we worked on.

We know through documentation that is simply false. As a side note [redacted] was talking of going to Sturgus with the

other employees when he left in March. [redacted] wrote his

statement to the Revdex.com when the bike was in custody of Time to Ride, he never

asked us stop working on the bike. He didn’t he was making a complaint; in fact

all he told us is that he wanted us to warranty the work, meaning he wanted us

to foot the bill. In my opinion if it was a matter of safety he wouldn’t have

had Time to Ride warranty the work. Unfortunately the fact that Mr. [redacted] wasn’t forthcoming

with the history of the motorcycle and the fact that he went to so many other

shops and the fact the he has a custom bike provides too many variables to

accurately diagnose this issue.

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the offer and/or response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

[Provide details of why you are not satisfied with this resolution.]

Regards,

The response from Time to Ride, LLC to complaint number

[redacted] is mendacious and fails address the cited complaint in equivalency of

detail. The statement attempts to prevaricate the reader by avoiding the issues

and making unsupportive claims, further illustrating this business’s

disingenuous practices. As aforementioned, Time to Ride, LLC has made several

claims or counters in regards to the complaint but has neglected to support

them with factual data, or was unable to comprehend the contents of the

complaint. For example, Time to Ride, LLC claims that the complainant; “…leads

the readers to believe he has a stock bike”. However, the complaint clearly

cites that Time to Ride, LLC engaged the manufacturer of the wheels (DNA

Specialties) in an attempt to diagnose the issue with the rear wheel. However,

this is a moot point, because the primary rear wheel interface (Swing Arm) is

stock. Throughout their response, Time to Ride, LLC repeatedly tries to

indemnify themselves of any responsibility. At no time in the complaint was it

claimed that Time to Ride, LLC had installed the wheels. As stated in the

complaint, its content was derived from an email sent to Time to Ride, LLC on

9/8/2015 which clarified the timeline and what work had been performed by them.

At no time did Time to Ride, LLC contest any of the cited facts in the email

until they received the Revdex.com complaint on 9/14/2015. Upon

receiving the complaint, Time to Ride, LLC contacted me by phone and informed

me unless I dropped the complaint, they would not complete the work on the

bike. It was at this point that I had the bike removed from their business and

transported to a more qualified establishment. Time to Ride, LLC only further

illustrated their substandard business practices when they were contacted by

[redacted] of the Revdex.com shortly after the mailing of the

complaint to inquire into the status of their response. Ms. [redacted] informed me

that Time to Ride, LLC claimed that that they had not received the complaint.

This is a false statement supported by the aforementioned phone call on

9/14/2015 from Time to Ride, LLC to me. Responses to complaints are due within

14 days of receipt. This means that Time to Ride, LLC’s response would have

been due on or about 9/28/2015. Time to Ride, LLC’s failure to provide a timely

response illustrates their disregard for customer service and the legitimacy of

the Revdex.com. Ms. [redacted] resent the complaint to which Time to

Ride, LLC responded on or about 10/12/2015. Time to Ride, LLC’s response is

arbitrary in nature and fails to address the issues cited in the complaint by

attempting to redirect responsibility on the complainant. Time to Ride, LLC

claims that I “WENT TO THREE OTHER REPAIR SHOPS IN THE AREA IN 2015 BEFORE HE

CAME TO TIME TO RIDE IN MARCH OF 2015; HE WITH HELD [sic “withheld”] THIS

INFORMATION FROM US” and that “Upon further research we found that [redacted] had

taken the bike to another shop between the time he picked it up from us in

March.” This is incorrect, and baseless. If it were true, Time to Ride, LLC

would have cited the shops I had taken the bike to. Time to Ride, LLC is again

attempting to indemnify themselves of any responsibility by making baseless

counteraccusations with the belief that they will not be required to support

them. The true history of services performed on the bike in the Fredericksburg

area is as follows: June 2013: Standard service performed by [redacted]. May

2014: Standard service performed by [redacted]. July 2014: DNA Specialties

wheel installation performed by [redacted]. August 2014: Rear brake pad

installation performed by [redacted]. March 2015: Standard service and

rear tire installation performed by Time to Ride, LLC. It is important to note

that aside from the services performed in July 2014 and March 2015, there was

no removal of the rear tire or brake caliper bracket. If there would have been

an issue prior to March 2015, it would have been noted in August 2014 when [redacted] replaced the rear brake pads as it would have been apparent that

the disc would have been grinding into the rear brake caliper bracket. The

service performed by [redacted] to include associated issues with Time to Ride, LLC

will be corroborated in a separate email to the Revdex.com from [redacted] formally of [redacted] and Time to Ride, LLC. The RevDex.com should request that at a minimum Time to Ride, LLC support these claims

with the names of the businesses. While Time to Ride, LLC cites a discrepancy

in mileage, this was never an issue prior to receiving the complaint. Again,

Time to Ride, LLC is counting on the naiveté of the Revdex.com or

assuming that they won’t follow up on the claims made in their response. For

example, Time to Ride, LLC claims that I was “talking of going to Sturgis with

the other employees when he left in March”. The 2015 Sturgis Bike Rally took

place from 3-9 August 2015. Time to Ride, LLC was in possession of the bike

from 6 July through 14 September 2015. In addition, it is 1,686 miles from

Fredericksburg, Virginia. Again, this is a baseless claim that relies on the

hopes that the Revdex.com is naïve and will not perform due

diligence. These claims are irrelevant though considering I had surgery on

3/27/2015 ([redacted]) which required the immobilization of my arm

for 8-10 weeks. Time to Ride, LLC also claims that I requested that they

warranty the work to correct their error. As previously stated, the base from

which the complaint to the Revdex.com was an email I sent to Time

to Ride, LLC on 9/8/2015. In this email, I never asked Time to Ride, LLC to

warranty the work. In addition, on 9/10/2015 I emailed Time to Ride, LLC and

proposed that after they had deemed the issue to be rectified, I would

transport the bike to a qualified [redacted] service professional to have

them verify the bike was safe at my own expense. This is in keeping with my

desired outcome submitted to the Revdex.com. In summary, Time to

Ride, LLC has demonstrated that they do not care about consumer input or accept

responsibility for their errors. This is illustrated by their neglect to

provide a timely response after initially receiving the complaint on 9/14/2015

and then when pressed for a response by the Revdex.com, claiming

that they had not received it. The baseless claims in their response are a

futile attempt to make counteraccusations in the hopes that their target

audience is naïve or will not conduct further research due to competing

interests of other duties. Time to Ride, LLC claims that due to the nature of

the bike that it is; “…unique much like a fingerprint. So therefore the technique

in servicing them is also unique.” If they truly believed this, they should

have never worked on the bike. Time to Ride, LLC’s owner also had little faith

in his own staff as illustrated by his assigning of a new mechanic ([redacted]) who

was supposed to be a factory trained mechanic. These facts illustrate that this

type of work is beyond Time to Ride, LLC’s scope. Due to the fact that the bike

is no longer in the possession of Time to Ride, LLC, my initial desired outcome

is no longer applicable. To settle this issue, I request that Time to Ride, LLC

refund the $523.78 associated to the work performed on 3/13/2015.

Business

Response:

The business spoke with Revdex.com regarding this matter. The work the customer is disrupting was done in March and at the time he contacted the business with concerns there were an additional 2,000 miles on it. The customer has not spent anymore money since the work done in March. Due to the time lack and miles added to the vehicle the business will not be refunding this customer for that work. The business was willing to have the bike brought back into the shop and attempt to diagnose the issues when the customer contact them. At that time multiple services and fees were waived for the customer and at no other time was the customer charged for more work. It was at that time while it was being look at the customer filed the Revdex.com complaint and the bike was removed from the shop.

Consumer

Response:

The manner in which Time to Ride, LLC has responded on

11/3/15 to my rebuttal, clearly illustrates their disregard for consumer trust

and feedback. Aside from the poor grammar, Time to Ride, LLC has neglected to

support their counter claims in their initial response provided to the RevDex.com on 10/12/15. In this response, Time to Ride, LLC made the

following claims to support not correcting this issue:

“WENT TO THREE OTHER REPAIR SHOPS IN THE AREA IN

2015 BEFORE HE CAME TO TIME TO RIDE IN MARCH OF 2015; HE WITH HELD [sic

“withheld”] THIS INFORMATION FROM US” “Upon further research we found that XXX had

taken the bike to another shop between the time he picked it up from us in

March and when he called us back about the complaint in July.” “We have record of him having 26k miles on the

bike when we did the service in March.” “As a side note XXX was talking of going to

[redacted] [sic “[redacted]”] with the other employees when he left in March.” “XXX wrote his statement to the Revdex.com when the

bike was in custody of Time to Ride, he never asked us stop working on the bike”

(Note: On 9/14/2015: Time to Ride called me about the Revdex.com

complaint, told me that they wouldn't

work on the bike unless I dropped it and that felt they should charge me due to

the possibility of me seeking monetary compensation for their negligence)

In the rebuttal I provided to the Revdex.com, I provided

supportable proof that was cor[redacted]orated by an email (provided to Revdex.com) from a

former Time to Ride, LLC employee that all of these claims were false. I also requested

that Time to Ride, LLC provide factual information (Business names, signed service

sheets, etc.) to support their counter claims. Time to Ride, LLC did not

provide this information because their counter claims are fabricated.

To summarize, Time to Ride, LLC was negligent and not only

caused damage to my motorcycle, but placed myself and my passenger in mortal

danger. Time to Ride, LLC has not supported any counter claims to my complaint.

The claims made in my complaint are supportable and corroborated in an email from

a former Time to Ride, LLC employee. Time to Ride, LLC has continued to be

disingenuous in nature with respect to this complaint.

Because Time to Ride, LLC has failed to support the erroneous

counter claims in their responses, I request the following monetary

restitution:

1. $523.78 (Charges from Time to Ride, LLC on 3/13/15)

2. Towing

Cost: $80.00

3. Replacement Rear

Wheel Hub

Qty: 1

Cost: $285.00

4. Service Performed

a) Labor to Install

New Rear Wheel Hub

Hourly Rate: $85.00

Hours: 2.5

Total Labor: $212.50

b) Right Rear Rotor

Bolt Kit

Qty: 1

Cost: $20.20

c) 25mm Wheel Bearing

Qty: 1

Cost: $11.66

d) Shop Supplies

Cost: $25.00

e) Sales Tax (5.30%)

Cost: $3.01

Total For Service

Performed: $272.37

Total monetary

restitution requested: $1,161.15

Regards,

Review: Case Synopsis.On Saturday September 27, 2014 I dropped my [redacted] trike off for repair at Time to Ride Motorcycle repair shop [redacted] I spoke to the owner of the business [redacted] I authorized him to make the needed repairs on the motorcycle. I also told him that I was interested in selling the bike and if he knew of anyone interested in buying it to please let me know. I told him I thought the book value was around $6500.00.On Tuesday morning at around 08:30 am I received a call from [redacted] that he had someone who wanted to buy my bike and had offered $7,000 for it. The buyer was on his way to get his checkbook. I told [redacted] that I would be right over with the title. When I arrived the buyer was there. [redacted] then advised me that there was a problem, He stated that the starter was locked up and need to be replaced. He estimated that the labor and parts would be about $1950.00. He went on to say that the whole bike had to be disassembled and that the labor was extensive. At that point I told the prospective buyer I would sell him the bike for $5,000.00 and he would be responsible for all the repairs. He agreed and [redacted] handled the transaction. Later that day I returned to the shop to give [redacted] a check for his consignment fee. As I walked through the shop I saw a mechanic working on my former bike, he stated that he had already pulled the starter and it was in easy access. I then approached [redacted], and told him that I based the sale of the bike to the buyer based on his estimate. His response was, I made a mistake. I asked what he was going to do about it and he replied nothing. At that point I left the shop. I cannot prove it at this point but I feel there is strong evidence that [redacted] and the buyer acted in a conspiracy to purchase the bike from me at lower price than the original $7,000.00 that was quoted. Even if there was not a conspiracy to defraud [redacted] quote resulted in me selling the bike to the buyer for substantially less then I could have. As a motorcycle shop owner and mechanic I cannot see how he could have made a $1300.00 mistake in the labor estimate. I am seeking a refund of $1300.00 from [redacted] or Time to Ride Motorcycle Repair.Desired Settlement: Asking for $1300.00 refund as well as $250.00 for my time to resolve this matter.