Vante Morning Sun Modeling Agency

Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 5, 2016/02/26) */ February 23, RE: Case # [redacted] This customer has presented a considerably less than complete portrayal of her visit to our shop Customer came to the shop to have an Uber inspection performed on her vehicleOur shops are among the small collection of service groups in the Twin Cities that Uber has authorized to perform these inspectionsIt is Uber's mandate that the inspection is very meticulousA shop is not to give a vehicle a "passing" inspection if there is any safety issue, or if there is a cosmetic or non-safety mechanical issue of significanceThe inspection form is provided by Uber The typical vehicles our shops see for Uber inspections are 1-years old and have less than 50,miles on themCustomer's vehicle is a year old Volkswagen with 110,milesThe inspection on customer's vehicle was performed by the shop's Service manager, a technician with 10+ years' experience and numerous ASE Certifications After performing the inspection, the Service Manager went over the results with the customerThere were several issues of concern with the vehicleThere was a nail in one tire, and the rim on that wheel was bentTwo of the tires had 4/32" of an inch of remaining tread lifeThough above the discard point on the tires, 4/32" is certainly at a point where any competent shop will recommend new tiresOf greater significance, the rear brakes had been worn to the discard pointFinally, there was a slight tear/leak in the right CV boot The Service Manager explained to the customer that her vehicle did not pass the Uber inspectionHe had the customer accompany him out to the shop in order to show/explain the issues with the vehicleHe showed her the rear tire with the nail as well as showed her the worn rear brake componentsWhile in the shop, the Service Manager asked the customer if she wanted to look at the CV boot at the front of the vehicleThe customer declined The Service manager explained to the customer that her vehicle failed the Uber inspection because the worn brakes created a safety issueHe made clear that the CV boot was a secondary issue, but would not, by itself, lead to failing the inspection The Service Manager then asked the customer if she wanted a price estimate on any of the issues identifiedThe customer indicated that she did Ultimately, the customer declined to address any of the identified issues other than having the nail removed and that tire repairedShe was charged $for this service and $for the Uber inspection Several days later, the customer contacted the store requesting a refund for her failed inspectionShe made reference to the CV bootThe manager invited her to bring the vehicle to the shopHe indicated that they would be happy to raise the vehicle on a hoist and take another look at the CV bootThe customer responded that she bring the vehicle by, but apparently became uncomfortable with this idea, opting instead to file a complaint By way of response, it is important to remember that the customer's vehicle failed the UBER inspection because her brakes were in an unsafe conditionThis was clearly communicated to the customer, and nowhere in her complaint does she raise an issue with this assessmentAdditionally, it was never communicated to the customer that she had to have any of the suggested repairs performed at our shop as a condition of passing the Uber inspectionQuite the contrary was communicated to herIt is a significant point of emphasis on all Uber inspections that failure causing issues can be addressed at any shop, but they do need to be addressed before the vehicle will pass This customer has requested a refund for the $inspection feeThe function of the Uber inspection is to ensure that any vehicle put into service in the Uber system has met some threshold level of safety and appearanceThe customer's vehicle did not meet that threshold level due to the worn condition of her rear brakesAt no point in her complaint does this customer indicate that she had any issue regarding the assessment of her brakesIndeed, her complaint indicates that she had "all the work done" at a different shopI'm assuming the brakes were addressed at that pointI am assuming as well that the customer understands that the Uber inspection fee is applicable irrespective of whether the vehicle fails or passes the inspectionAssuming that level of understanding, the customer's complaint is based upon a recommendation for a repair that she chose not to take a look at while at the shop when the opportunity to do so was offered, and that she declined to bring back to the shop in order to have the damaged part identified, and most significantly, a recommended repair that she was specifically told did not impact the Uber inspection The fee for an Uber inspection, relative to the amount of time spent performing, it is nominalThe fee itself is set by UberThis customer has zero grounds for a refund of that feeA complete inspection was performedUnfortunately, the vehicle did not pass the inspectionThe customer has indicated nothing that disputes the basis of the failure It is unfortunate that she has an issue with one of the ancillary suggested service issues on her vehicleSimilarly it is unfortunate, if as she states, she is uncomfortable with that shopFortunately, we have other locations within the Twin Cities, including two within minutes of this customer's stated address She is welcome to visit either of these shops and have her vehicle inspected, at no charge, to determine whether the CV boot in question is damagedIf, as this customer suggests, there is no visible damage, we will happily refund the$inspection fee, notwithstanding the CV boot's lack of relevance to the Uber inspection I am happy to arrange for this inspection at any of our shops at whatever time is convenient for the customer

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/12/30) */
Response is in attached file
To: Revdex.com of Minnesota & North Dakota
From: *** Enterprises Inc- Midas Auto Service Experts
RE: Case # *** : ***
We are certainly sorry that this
customer's recent experience at our shop has led to such consternation for herHowever, the customer's selective recall of the events surrounding that experience, give a highly inaccurate, hyperbole-filled summation of what actually occurred
On October 7, customer had the two front CV axles on her Volkswagen Passat replaced by our shopAs the Nationwide warranty information on customer's invoice makes abundantly clear, absent the repair falling into one of the identified lifetime warranty categories (exhaust, shocks/struts, or brake pads & shoes), the warranty period for parts and labor is ninety (90) days from the date of installationHowever, all of our shops extend this warranty period to one year or 12,milesWhichever occurs first
On December 8, Customer's husband contacted the shop indicating that he recently had the vehicle's tires rotated at the dealership and that they noted that the rubber boot on the driver's side front CV axle was tornHusband inquired of store manager as to whether he had any warranty coverageAfter getting mileage and looking up the vehicle's repair history, the manager informed husband that the vehicle was out of warranty coverage based on time (months)Manager noted however, that because mileage was low (miles), he would be willing to warranty the part ($159.99) but that customer would be responsible for the installation charge of $Husband agreed with this and indicated he would drop the vehicle at the shop
The next day, the husband brought vehicle to the shopThe vehicle was pulled into the shop, raised on a hoist and inspectedAs husband had indicated, the left front CV axle boot was tornThe tear clearly appeared to be the product of a puncture and subsequent tearingThis is not indicative of a worn or defective part, but rather, the boot coming into contact with something sharpHusband was contacted by manager, and given an explanation of the situationThe Store manager indicated that, notwithstanding the nature of the damage to the boot and the fact of the part being out of warranty coverage, the shop would still warranty the part and the customer would only pay the installation chargeHusband agreedStore manager also noted that the hub locking tool necessary to remove the wheel was not in the vehicleHusband indicated he would drop it by the next day
Shortly thereafter, customer arrived at shop with a box of parts which included the locking toolManager thanked customer and indicated they would now be able to perform the repair that dayManager went through with customer a summary of the conversation he previously had with husband, including the repair to be performed and what the charge would beCustomer indicated she believed there should be no charge for the service, but agreed that shop should proceed
The technician then removed the left front wheel, removed the of the old CV axle and replaced it with the new CV axleThe technician assigned the repair is a year industry veteran with numerous Automotive Service Excellence designations who has performed this particular repair on dozens of occasionsUpon completion of the repair, the technician took the vehicle for a short test drive to ensure the repair was performed correctlyIt was a slippery rainy/freezing day, so technician's test drive speed was lowHis objective was to make ensure the new axle was seated correctly and to make sure the vehicle's anti-lock brake light was not trippedSatisfied that the repair was correct, the technician returned to the shop
Customer's husband was contacted and informed that the repair was completeLater that day he returned to the shop, paid for and picked up the vehicle
The next day, the husband contacted the shop indicating that there was considerable vibration and noise coming from the right front side of the vehicleThe store manager informed him that he should bring the vehicle in and they would look into itHusband brought vehicle to the shopBoth the manager and the technician test drove the vehicleBoth agreed that at low speed, nothing was out of the ordinaryBoth agreed as well however that under load, or at higher speed, something was amissThe vehicle was then brought in to the shop to inspectWith the vehicle elevated and a technician controlling the gas pedal and gears, the vehicle was inspected under various load conditionsAt lower speeds, everything appeared normalUnder a heavy load, at higher speeds, there was a visible lack of balance with the right front CV axleThis produced the vibrationThe husband was brought out to the shop and was shown what was going on with the axle under various loadsThe manager also showed the husband the old CV axle with the punctured and torn boot that had been replaced on the left side
The manager and husband returned to the office to discuss what the course of action should be for the vehicleThe manger indicated that unlike the left axle's issue, which wasn't the product of a failed part, the right axle's issue appeared to be just thatThe manager advised the husband that though the part was out of warranty coverage, the shop would warranty it and the customer would be responsible for the installation chargeThe manager also discussed the various grades of CV axles that were available on the marketplaceThe grade installed on husband's vehicle was a standard aftermarket CV axleThe manager indicated that because cv axles were a recurring issue with Passat's , particularly Passat's with as much horsepower as husband's vehicle, that at no additional charge to husband, he would install, on both axles, premium cv axlesThe shop would receive no manufacturer's coverage or assistance for doing so, but that manager wanted to try and ensure that customer experienced no further axle issuesHusband agreed to pay the labor charge for the right side ($133.48) and manager agreed that they would install premium CV axles on both sidesManager again gave customer a loaner vehicle to use for the day
Shortly after husband departed the shop, customer contacted shop and launched into lengthy diatribe on why she should not have to pay anything, how shop was ripping her off, that vehicle was not drivable and that shop was going to repair her vehicle for free and have it done that nightManager attempted to discuss the issue, but customer was not interested in hearing anything contrary to her opinionAt one point customer did indicate she would pay for the repair, but only if shop drove vehicle to the Mall of America so that she could test drive to her satisfactionAfter several rounds of the customer disregarding the store manager's comments, but restating her own, the conversation concluded
Store manager then contacted husband and indicated that wife did not want to pay for the repairsAfter some discussion, the husband agreed to return the shop loaner vehicle by the end of the business day and that he would pick up the vehicle
That evening, I was informed of the situationI advised the manger, that though his position was correct, generously so, he was attempting to reason with someone for whom reason was not a considerationI advised him that he would be best served by just cutting his losses and contacting the husband the next day and informing him that we would install the right CV axle at no charge and that we would all move on
The next day was not a shop opening day for the managerShortly after he arrived to the shop that morning, he was contacted by a neighboring shopThat shop informed the manager that they had customer's vehicle at their shop and that it appeared to need a right front axleOur manager advised the shop to perform the replacement and that we would pay them for the part and installation chargeThe shop agreed and proceeded with the repair
Customer's allegation that the shop "sabotaged" her vehicle and made it "inoperable" is patently false, highly offensive and purely ridiculousClearly the vehicle was operableIt was driven to the shop, driven from the shop, and driven to a shop in a neighboring community the next dayHad the right front axle issue been ignored the vibration would have continued, but to characterize that as "inoperable" is a stretchThe notion that the vehicle was sabotaged is beyond a stretchThis shop has been open for business at that location for 25+ yearsThis is the first instance that someone has accused the shop of sabotaging their vehicleIn fact, of the 6000+ customers the shop has serviced in 2015, this is the first customer to file a complaint of any typeI am at a loss in trying to identify the shop's incentive to "sabotage" customer's vehicleAt the time, there was certainly no acrimony between the customer and the shopIt was a straightforward warranty replacementIndeed, the shop would in no way profit from damaging the right CV axleAs the parts were out of warranty coverage, the shop was unlikely to get any warranty reimbursement from the manufacturer on the replacement partsThe install charge did not cover the cost of the partWhy on earth would the shop knowingly damage the right side when it would only create additional loss/expense for the shop? That makes absolutely no senseIndeed, had there been some indication of "sabotage", I would assume that the shop which performed the right CV axle replacement would have made reference to it to either the customer or to our shop
Our shop replaced the left front CV axleIn performing the repair, the technician only removed the left wheelThe right CV axle is independent of the leftThere was no need to address anything on the right sideWhether the right CV axle's issue was present at the time the left was replaced is certainly a possibility, but was in no way knowable by the shopThe test drive after the left CV axle was replaced was not performed at the speed necessary to manifest the issueI suspect that the dealership which rotated the tires similarly did not drive the vehicle at the speed necessary to initiate the vibrationIn any event, this CV axle was replaced at absolutely no charge to the customer
This customer has received two new CV axles and has been charged, in total, the labor to install of themShe technically was out of warranty coverage on all of thisBut, apparently, warranties are not applicable to this customerAfter arguably defaming our store, she now thinks it would be "completely fair" if she is refunded the $she actually did spendThis is a laughably curious definition of "completely fair"
Notwithstanding the illogical premise of customer's complaint, we are going to issue a $refund to herIt has nothing to do with her notion of fairness, but everything to do with it being in the best interest of all concerned to move on from this matterI am assuming that when this check clears, this matter is complete
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2016/01/07) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
My desired resolution has partially been resolved, but not fully addressedI received payment via mail, and I am much appreciative of the actionI am curious to know who wrote the above, because if it was not Nathan, I am unsure how anyone else would know the extent of the disrespectful treatment and that Nathan exhibited and timeline of events that played outIf it was Nathan, he left out ALL details of his disconcern for the question at hand- how did my car be in worse condition than l when it was dropped off? I have never considered warranties limitations non-applicable to myself, however will not accept my car to be returned with additional repairs non existent at drop off
Before I filed this complaint, I had one simple request dating back to 12-07-15, and that was to have owner Sandy *** return my phone callMy reason for requesting this is for him to understand the magnitude of disgust I have for how the shop handled the situationAfter all, this is the shop he owns, so wouldn't he care to know? Obviously notI've never asked anyone to just automatically agree to what I've said (because reading the nastiness above that's clearly not the case), but how can Sandy really make any sort of reactive comment, such as accusing me of defaming his shop when he never heard the other side of the story? Defamation would indicate I've purposely made statements, but I'm unsure what I've said is false? It's not just because you've chosen to disagree

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2016/02/26) */
February 23, 2016
RE: Case # [redacted]
This customer has presented a considerably less than complete portrayal of her visit to our shop.
Customer came to the shop to have an Uber inspection performed on her vehicle. Our shops are among the...

small collection of service groups in the Twin Cities that Uber has authorized to perform these inspections. It is Uber's mandate that the inspection is very meticulous. A shop is not to give a vehicle a "passing" inspection if there is any safety issue, or if there is a cosmetic or non-safety mechanical issue of significance. The inspection form is provided by Uber.
The typical vehicles our shops see for Uber inspections are 1-3 years old and have less than 50,000 miles on them. Customer's vehicle is a 7 year old Volkswagen with 110,000 miles. The inspection on customer's vehicle was performed by the shop's Service manager, a technician with 10+ years' experience and numerous ASE Certifications.
After performing the inspection, the Service Manager went over the results with the customer. There were several issues of concern with the vehicle. There was a nail in one tire, and the rim on that wheel was bent. Two of the tires had 4/32" of an inch of remaining tread life. Though above the discard point on the tires, 4/32" is certainly at a point where any competent shop will recommend new tires. Of greater significance, the rear brakes had been worn to the discard point. Finally, there was a slight tear/leak in the right CV boot.
The Service Manager explained to the customer that her vehicle did not pass the Uber inspection. He had the customer accompany him out to the shop in order to show/explain the issues with the vehicle. He showed her the rear tire with the nail as well as showed her the worn rear brake components. While in the shop, the Service Manager asked the customer if she wanted to look at the CV boot at the front of the vehicle. The customer declined.
The Service manager explained to the customer that her vehicle failed the Uber inspection because the worn brakes created a safety issue. He made clear that the CV boot was a secondary issue, but would not, by itself, lead to failing the inspection.
The Service Manager then asked the customer if she wanted a price estimate on any of the issues identified. The customer indicated that she did.
Ultimately, the customer declined to address any of the identified issues other than having the nail removed and that tire repaired. She was charged $19.99 for this service and $35 for the Uber inspection.
Several days later, the customer contacted the store requesting a refund for her failed inspection. She made reference to the CV boot. The manager invited her to bring the vehicle to the shop. He indicated that they would be happy to raise the vehicle on a hoist and take another look at the CV boot. The customer responded that she bring the vehicle by, but apparently became uncomfortable with this idea, opting instead to file a complaint.
By way of response, it is important to remember that the customer's vehicle failed the UBER inspection because her brakes were in an unsafe condition. This was clearly communicated to the customer, and nowhere in her complaint does she raise an issue with this assessment. Additionally, it was never communicated to the customer that she had to have any of the suggested repairs performed at our shop as a condition of passing the Uber inspection. Quite the contrary was communicated to her. It is a significant point of emphasis on all Uber inspections that failure causing issues can be addressed at any shop, but they do need to be addressed before the vehicle will pass.
This customer has requested a refund for the $35 inspection fee. The function of the Uber inspection is to ensure that any vehicle put into service in the Uber system has met some threshold level of safety and appearance. The customer's vehicle did not meet that threshold level due to the worn condition of her rear brakes. At no point in her complaint does this customer indicate that she had any issue regarding the assessment of her brakes. Indeed, her complaint indicates that she had "all the work done" at a different shop. I'm assuming the brakes were addressed at that point. I am assuming as well that the customer understands that the Uber inspection fee is applicable irrespective of whether the vehicle fails or passes the inspection. Assuming that level of understanding, the customer's complaint is based upon a recommendation for a repair that she chose not to take a look at while at the shop when the opportunity to do so was offered, and that she declined to bring back to the shop in order to have the damaged part identified, and most significantly, a recommended repair that she was specifically told did not impact the Uber inspection.
The fee for an Uber inspection, relative to the amount of time spent performing, it is nominal. The fee itself is set by Uber. This customer has zero grounds for a refund of that fee. A complete inspection was performed. Unfortunately, the vehicle did not pass the inspection. The customer has indicated nothing that disputes the basis of the failure.
It is unfortunate that she has an issue with one of the ancillary suggested service issues on her vehicle. Similarly it is unfortunate, if as she states, she is uncomfortable with that shop. Fortunately, we have other locations within the Twin Cities, including two within 10 minutes of this customer's stated address.
She is welcome to visit either of these shops and have her vehicle inspected, at no charge, to determine whether the CV boot in question is damaged. If, as this customer suggests, there is no visible damage, we will happily refund the$35 inspection fee, notwithstanding the CV boot's lack of relevance to the Uber inspection.
I am happy to arrange for this inspection at any of our shops at whatever time is convenient for the customer.

Response is attached.  Let me know of any difficulties in receipt.  Thank you.