Transmasters Transmissions

We spoke at length with [redacted] once last week and once this week at length about the condition his vehicleThe customer was offered the option for Transmasters to install a re manufactured computer in the vehicle at only a part costThe customer was informed that we would work on locating the least expensive option we could find since he did not prefer the price of the one that we offered to him through the dealershipThe customer declined this option and chose to purchase a computer on his own and install it himself rather than have us help him perform the install at no costThe customer has made a complaint about a rattle coming from the underside of the vehicleThe customer was informed that the vehicle should be brought to the shop and that we would inspect it for him at no chargeThe customer brought the vehicle to the shop, the vehicle was inspected and while in the middle of inspection the customer insisted that he needed the vehicle back immediately, therefor not allowing Transmasters to finish making the necessary repairs needed to fix the bolt and washer that was making the noiseThe most recent conversation, Today, with the customer left off with the customer scheduling to bring his vehicle into the shop to make the necessary repairs to the rattling bolt and washer on Friday 3/3/The customer has declined the help offered to assist in the acquisition, install and recheck of re manufactured computer.?

In response to your complaint letter submitted on 2/25/15, the procedures I followed with Ms [redacted] were the same as with any customer I communicate with when the transmission has to come out for an internal inspection and/or repairsThese procedures are spelled out in the California Business and Professions Code, as well as the California Code of Regulations, underwritten by the California Department of Consumer Affairs, Bureau of Automotive Repair, and I follow them to the letter.Ms [redacted] had her car towed into our center on Jan29, at 3:16pm, as noted on the invoice #***She came in – along with a person she identified as her mother – complaining of transmission problemsShe then signed the repair order which allowed us to perform an “External Inspection of Transmission” at no charge which includes a fluid check and a road test (if possible), along with a scan of her computer for any codes which may have been set or stored in her computer which would help us to determine whether the problem is external (repair with transmission left in the car) or an internal problem, where the transmission would have to be removed to fix itWhile she was in our office she mentioned that she had a vehicle service contract which she hoped covered the repairsI explained to her that I would do the very best I could to help her get the maximum amount allowed by her policy, but that we don’t install parts supplied by a wrecking yard.While she was in the office, I explained to her that I was very familiar with how these companies operated and that most of these types of policies are very limited in scope as to what they’ll payLike most insurance-type companies they’ll pay out as little as they can get away with I went on to explain to her that most of these companies – depending upon how these policies are written – use “like, kind and quality” as a gauge in determining the amount they’ll pay for certain repairsThat means that companies will use (as in her case) the price of a junk yard transmission, with the same or less mileage, to determine what they’ll pay – which usually is much lower in cost than repairing the customer’sThe problem with junk yard transmissions is that there is no way of knowing what the condition is (or degree of operability) prior to installationBecause of this inability to know in advance of an inherent problem and if there is a problem once it’s installed, it can present a difficult situation for the shop owner as well as the customer.The “warranty” then becomes an agreement between the customer and the agency who supplied the part – not the installer (us) – except if the part was installed incorrectlyAt this point the repair facility has no liability nor authority in the decision as to what is to be done to remedy the situation, since all they were required to do was to install the supplied transmission per the customer’s requestThe repair center must then ask the supplier to ship another transmission, or get the supplier to pay for the needed repairsEither way, the customer can wind up with more out of pocket expenses for non-covered items, such as fluids, filters and any difference in hourly labor rates not covered in the customer’s contractIn other words, the customer can wind up paying even more then what they already had agreed to, to get their car operativeAdd to that the additional time spent waiting for the part to arrive and often you have a very upset customer as a resultUsing junk yard parts is not the proper way to do a repairThis is why we tell every customer with a vehicle repair contract – up front – that we will be happy to apply the dollar amount the warranty company will authorize, and apply that toward the total repairs done in a proper fashion: using new and rebuilt components [redacted] was told this in the office before she left the premisesShe was advised of this prior to any inspection or repair exactly how we proceed and was reminded of this – again in detail – when I explained the inspection (tear down) service the following day via telephone.The claim made by Ms [redacted] that she never authorized anything more than a “free inspection” is a complete fabrication – totally without merit and is completely and utterly falseI have no other way to state it than thatShe not only approved a transmission service / pan diagnosis via telephone, as recorded on her repair order (1/29/@ 4:35PM), but then authorized the teardown inspection of her transmission, once the pan drop confirmed there was internal damageThis authorization was made and recorded on her repair order the following morning at 9:19AM, again via telephoneHow she can deny either of these is ludicrousHer own vehicle service contract company, [redacted] Warranty Services, would not nor could not approve any repairs without confirmation of these – especially the internal inspection – for which a claims adjustor needed to come out and photograph the damage for their report – which they didThis can be confirmed with a simple phone call to ***’s claims departmentThat number is 800-662-5519/Use reference number [redacted] Ms [redacted] was fully aware of thisPeriodOtherwise nothing could proceed further in the process to fix her car! In addition, recording a misrepresentation that documented these supposed authorizations, where they were in plain view of her own vehicle service company, could have easily been construed as fraudulentSo how she could deny her understanding of this part of the process is totally without basis and absurdI had to get her authorization for a teardownI had no other choice!I believe, along with the shop owner & president, [redacted] ***, that it was her daughter’s involvement which corrupted the whole process – the moment she got involvedUp to that point I would describe my relationship with Ms [redacted] as cordial and professionalAfter getting the authorization for teardown from Ms [redacted] , her daughter [redacted] called several days later (not ***) and authorized repairs “per her dad”, as noted on the repair order dated 2/5/at 1:13PMShe told me that because her mother was in Mexico that she ( [redacted] ) would be communicating with me on her mother’s car repairsI explained to her that since I was not given direct authorization from her mother – and because she ( [redacted] ) was not my customer, I could not proceed with the repairs until I got direct authorization from her motherI then asked if she had contacted [redacted] to see if there was anything more she could get, beyond the amount they had authorizedShe said that she hadn’tHowever, the next day (2/6/at 12:11PM) [redacted] telephoned me, extremely upset, and said that I had lied – that I hadn’t disclosed the fact that there was another “option” which would have been to install ***’s supplied-parts: a used transmission from a junk yard.When I tried to explain that I had already informed her mother of the fact that this was not an option at our shop – and that her mother had agreed to this originally - she called me a liar and hung up the telephoneWhen I tried to contact her mother, [redacted] would intercept the call stating I was not to talk with her mother anymore and “contaminate her with lies and deception.” I even tried to text and email her mother, but each time [redacted] would hijack the attempt and answer back, reminding me that I was “dishonest, untrustworthy and a liar.” I kept telling [redacted] – over and over – that she was not my customer and that if she wanted something done it would have to come directly from her motherThose are not my rules – nor the shop’sThey are spelled out expressly in the California Business and Professions Code, as well as the California Code of Regulations - California Department of Consumer Affairs, Bureau of Automotive RepairOnly the customer, him or herself, can give authorization to do anything – express or via telephone – and since [redacted] refused to let her mother talk with us, nothing could move forward.Nineteen days went by without any contact from Ms [redacted] , although an email was sent to her through [redacted] , explaining that all options are open – including installing the junk yard unit supplied by [redacted] Warranty ServicesWe decided by this time that any option would be supported – even if it was against our company policy – just to put an end to all thisFinally, at 4:15PM on 2/25/15, Ms [redacted] called our office to authorize the option of installing a used transmission, supplied by [redacted] Warranty Svc.Again, the problems all started the instant [redacted] inserted herself into the processShe refused to let me explain anything to her and refused to let me communicate with her motherShe was belligerent, rude and always responded with anger and in an insulting toneNo attempt was made by her to listen or to try to understand what was agreed upon between her mother and myselfHer only input was to belittle and to degradeShe made no effort to try to help move the process alongShe derailed the process at every turn, even falsely using her own contact info, in place of her mother’s, when communicatingA good example of this is the Revdex.com complaint letter copy you sent TransmastersThat’s [redacted] ’s personal email and phone number – not ***’sHowever, once her mother finally contacted us, the process resumed its course and progress was made, even though Ms [redacted] still clings to the notion that she never authorized anything beyond the initial free inspection.Regards, [redacted] Manager (Transmasters, Encinitas, CA)

We spoke at length with *** once last week and once this week at length about the condition his vehicleThe customer was offered the option for Transmasters to install a re manufactured computer in the vehicle at only a part costThe customer was informed that we would work on locating the least
expensive option we could find since he did not prefer the price of the one that we offered to him through the dealershipThe customer declined this option and chose to purchase a computer on his own and install it himself rather than have us help him perform the install at no costThe customer has made a complaint about a rattle coming from the underside of the vehicleThe customer was informed that the vehicle should be brought to the shop and that we would inspect it for him at no chargeThe customer brought the vehicle to the shop, the vehicle was inspected and while in the middle of inspection the customer insisted that he needed the vehicle back immediately, therefor not allowing Transmasters to finish making the necessary repairs needed to fix the bolt and washer that was making the noiseThe most recent conversation, Today, with the customer left off with the customer scheduling to bring his vehicle into the shop to make the necessary repairs to the rattling bolt and washer on Friday 3/3/The customer has declined the help offered to assist in the acquisition, install and recheck of re manufactured computer.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the 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.This company is unethical. They are morally disgusting and my complaints should be kept as a reference and made public so that other consumersare aware of their practices.
Regards,
[redacted]

We spoke at length with [redacted] once last week and once this week at length about the condition his vehicle. The customer was offered the option for Transmasters to install a re manufactured computer in the vehicle at only a part cost. The customer was informed that we would work on locating the least...

expensive option we could find since he did not prefer the price of the one that we offered to him through the dealership. The customer declined this option and chose to purchase a computer on his own and install it himself rather than have us help him perform the install at no cost. The customer has made a complaint about a rattle coming from the underside of the vehicle. The customer was informed that the vehicle should be brought to the shop and that we would inspect it for him at no charge. The customer brought the vehicle to the shop, the vehicle was inspected and while in the middle of inspection the customer insisted that he needed the vehicle back immediately, therefor not allowing Transmasters to finish making the necessary repairs needed to fix the bolt and washer that was making the noise. The most recent conversation, Today, with the customer left off with the customer scheduling to bring his vehicle into the shop to make the necessary repairs to the rattling bolt and washer on Friday 3/3/17. The customer has declined the help offered to assist in the acquisition, install and recheck of re manufactured computer.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the 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.
This company is unethical. They are morally disgusting and my complaints should be kept as a reference and made public so that other consumersare aware of their practices.
Regards,
[redacted]

In response to your complaint letter submitted on 2/25/15, the procedures I followed with Ms. [redacted] were the same as with any customer I communicate with when the transmission has to come out for an internal inspection and/or repairs. These procedures are spelled out in the...

California Business and Professions Code, as well as the California Code of Regulations, underwritten by the California Department of Consumer Affairs, Bureau of Automotive Repair, and I follow them to the letter.Ms. [redacted] had her car towed into our center on Jan. 29, 2015 at 3:16pm, as noted on the invoice #[redacted]. She came in – along with a person she identified as her mother – complaining of transmission problems. She then signed the repair order which allowed us to perform an “External Inspection of Transmission” at no charge which includes a fluid check and a road test (if possible), along with a scan of her computer for any codes which may have been set or stored in her computer which would help us to determine whether the problem is external (repair with transmission left in the car) or an internal problem, where the transmission would have to be removed to fix it. While she was in our office she mentioned that she had a vehicle service contract which she hoped covered the repairs. I explained to her that I would do the very best I could to help her get the maximum amount allowed by her policy, but that we don’t install parts supplied by a wrecking yard.While she was in the office, I explained to her that I was very familiar with how these companies operated and that most of these types of policies are very limited in scope as to what they’ll pay. Like most insurance-type companies they’ll pay out as little as they can get away with.  I went on to explain to her that most of these companies – depending upon how these policies are written – use “like, kind and quality” as a gauge in determining the amount they’ll pay for certain repairs. That means that companies will use (as in her case) the price of a junk yard transmission, with the same or less mileage, to determine what they’ll pay – which usually is much lower in cost than repairing the customer’s. The problem with junk yard transmissions is that there is no way of knowing what the condition is (or degree of operability) prior to installation. Because of this inability to know in advance of an inherent problem and if there is a problem once it’s installed, it can present a difficult situation for the shop owner as well as the customer.The “warranty” then becomes an agreement between the customer and the agency who supplied the part – not the installer (us) – except if the part was installed incorrectly. At this point the repair facility has no liability nor authority in the decision as to what is to be done to remedy the situation, since all they were required to do was to install the supplied transmission per the customer’s request. The repair center must then ask the supplier to ship another transmission, or get the supplier to pay for the needed repairs. Either way, the customer can wind up with more out of pocket expenses for non-covered items, such as fluids, filters and any difference in hourly labor rates not covered in the customer’s contract. In other words, the customer can wind up paying even more then what they already had agreed to, to get their car operative. Add to that the additional time spent waiting for the part to arrive and often you have a very upset customer as a result. Using junk yard parts is not the proper way to do a repair. This is why we tell every customer with a vehicle repair contract – up front – that we will be happy to apply the dollar amount the warranty company will authorize, and apply that toward the total repairs done in a proper fashion: using new and rebuilt components. [redacted] was told this in the office before she left the premises. She was advised of this prior to any inspection or repair exactly how we proceed and was reminded of this – again in detail – when I explained the inspection (tear down) service the following day via telephone.The claim made by Ms. [redacted] that she never authorized anything more than a “free inspection” is a complete fabrication – totally without merit and is completely and utterly false. I have no other way to state it than that. She not only approved a transmission service / pan diagnosis via telephone, as recorded on her repair order (1/29/15 @ 4:35PM), but then authorized the teardown inspection of her transmission, once the pan drop confirmed there was internal damage. This authorization was made and recorded on her repair order the following morning at 9:19AM, again via telephone. How she can deny either of these is ludicrous. Her own vehicle service contract company, [redacted] Warranty Services, would not nor could not approve any repairs without confirmation of these – especially the internal inspection – for which a claims adjustor needed to come out and photograph the damage for their report – which they did. This can be confirmed with a simple phone call to [redacted]’s claims department. That number is 800-662-5519/4. Use reference number [redacted]. Ms. [redacted] was fully aware of this. Period. Otherwise nothing could proceed further in the process to fix her car! In addition, recording a misrepresentation that documented these supposed false authorizations, where they were in plain view of her own vehicle service company, could have easily been construed as fraudulent. So how she could deny her understanding of this part of the process is totally without basis and absurd. I had to get her authorization for a teardown. I had no other choice!I believe, along with the shop owner & president, [redacted], that it was her daughter’s involvement which corrupted the whole process – the moment she got involved. Up to that point I would describe my relationship with Ms. [redacted] as cordial and professional. After getting the authorization for teardown from Ms. [redacted], her daughter [redacted] called several days later (not [redacted]) and authorized repairs “per her dad”, as noted on the repair order dated 2/5/15 at 1:13PM. She told me that because her mother was in Mexico that she ([redacted]) would be communicating with me on her mother’s car repairs. I explained to her that since I was not given direct authorization from her mother – and because she ([redacted]) was not my customer, I could not proceed with the repairs until I got direct authorization from her mother. I then asked if she had contacted [redacted] to see if there was anything more she could get, beyond the amount they had authorized. She said that she hadn’t. However, the next day (2/6/15 at 12:11PM) [redacted] telephoned me, extremely upset, and said that I had lied – that I hadn’t disclosed the fact that there was another “option” which would have been to install [redacted]’s supplied-parts: a used transmission from a junk yard.When I tried to explain that I had already informed her mother of the fact that this was not an option at our shop – and that her mother had agreed to this originally - she called me a liar and hung up the telephone. When I tried to contact her mother, [redacted] would intercept the call stating I was not to talk with her mother anymore and “contaminate her with lies and deception.” I even tried to text and email her mother, but each time [redacted] would hijack the attempt and answer back, reminding me that I was “dishonest, untrustworthy and a liar.” I kept telling [redacted] – over and over – that she was not my customer and that if she wanted something done it would have to come directly from her mother. Those are not my rules – nor the shop’s. They are spelled out expressly in the California Business and Professions Code, as well as the California Code of Regulations - California Department of Consumer Affairs, Bureau of Automotive Repair. Only the customer, him or herself, can give authorization to do anything – express or via telephone – and since [redacted] refused to let her mother talk with us, nothing could move forward.Nineteen days went by without any contact from Ms. [redacted], although an email was sent to her through [redacted], explaining that all options are open – including installing the junk yard unit supplied by [redacted] Warranty Services. We decided by this time that any option would be supported – even if it was against our company policy – just to put an end to all this. Finally, at 4:15PM on 2/25/15, Ms. [redacted] called our office to authorize the option of installing a used transmission, supplied by [redacted] Warranty Svc.Again, the problems all started the instant [redacted] inserted herself into the process. She refused to let me explain anything to her and refused to let me communicate with her mother. She was belligerent, rude and always responded with anger and in an insulting tone. No attempt was made by her to listen or to try to understand what was agreed upon between her mother and myself. Her only input was to belittle and to degrade. She made no effort to try to help move the process along. She derailed the process at every turn, even falsely using her own contact info, in place of her mother’s, when communicating. A good example of this is the Revdex.com complaint letter copy you sent Transmasters. That’s [redacted]’s personal email and phone number – not [redacted]’s. However, once her mother finally contacted us, the process resumed its normal course and progress was made, even though Ms. [redacted] still clings to the notion that she never authorized anything beyond the initial free inspection.Regards,[redacted]Manager (Transmasters, Encinitas, CA)