Walk's Service Center Inc

Revdex.com:I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.The vehicle did have a valid permit displayed (see attachment). The towing was illegal.Regards,[redacted]

Re: Complaint# [redacted]Dear [redacted],Please accept this in response to the complaint filed by [redacted]. Mr. [redacted] gave our office no indication that he was dissatisfied with anything regarding his service visit on April 2, 2015. Walk’s Service Center takes great pride is delivering the...

best value possible for our customers. This means to us that we need to communicate very clearly with our customers; telling them what they need to know when making their service and repair decisions, as well as what to expect in months to come with respect to their automotive service needs.The following addresses the complaints made in the customer’s statement:1. “Failure to honor agreement”- Estimates of cost & time are proposed not agreed to and not guaranteed.- Repairs to older vehicles, especially when working with parts damaged by corrosion are always subject to change due to the nature of corrosion damage. It is impossible to know the extent of the repair required until all damaged parts are removed.- The customer gave no dollar limit, (“expressed unwillingness to proceed with repairs above $800.)- Walk’s Service Center does not “guarantee” completion of this kind of repair due to inability to see extent of damage and lack of control over parts availability.- Cannot “return car in original form” when making repair of corroded parts.2. “Sales misrepresentation and serious fraud”- 3 reasons for failure found at [redacted]’s1. Front frame supporting the engine assembly is rusted.2. There is a hole in the floor board.3. Exhaust assembly needs change.- The frame can be rusted (and most are) as long as there is no perforation due to corrosion. If the frame was so badly corroded that the engine assembly “might fall to the ground at any moment” the driver would have long before such time observed loss of steering control and severe suspension issues.- A hole in the floor board is only cause for rejection if it opens into the passenger compartment. Holes may exist that open into sealed rocker panels, inner wheel well structure or even the engine compartment; none of which are cause to reject for safety inspection.- Walk’s Service Center informed that the exhaust flex pipe needed replaced. It is uncertain what is meant by “exhaust assembly”.- If frame replacement were required Walk’s Service Center could certainly do it. Complainant’s statement that this service is not provided by Walk’s is false.- “[redacted]’s” mentioned that repairs performed by Walk's were not necessary for passing safety inspection. Unless “[redacted]’s” had observed the vehicle prior to the inspection visit to Walk’s there is no way they would be able to make that statement as the only repair made was to a corroded exhaust that was no longer present on the vehicle.- A 1996 automobile is rarely in “excellent shape” and there are very few 2015 vehicles that can “easily be used for another 10 years”. These are not the words of an automotive professional.At this time Walk’s Service Center is refusing to make any refund; in full or in part to the complainant. Consistent with our policies regarding workmanship and parts warranties, Walk’s Service Center is willing to address any issues regarding the work that has already been approved and completed. We are also willing to complete any additional repairs required if approved by the customer.Thank you for your kind consideration.Respectfully,[redacted]
General [email protected]

Ms. [redacted],May I have the Make, Model & License plate of your vehicle so I can look up the ticket pertaining to it? Thank youTom H[redacted]

To look into the matter, I will need some more information, location the vehicle was towed from and the time and date it was towed. Thank youTom H[redacted]

Reference: [redacted] id# [redacted] To Whom It May Concern,
I am responding to the above named claimants letter of complaint stating his car was towed and he should not have to pay for it I want to point out the following facts:
1. We promptly responded to tow the vehicle...

out of Mr. [redacted]’s parking space as he verbally requested.
2. We tried calling him but we were told we had the wrong #.
3. The parking space Mr. [redacted] said was his did not have a vehicle matching the description he gave so my driver left to assist other customers.
4. Mr. [redacted] states he was towed by a technicality but, he parked in a space that didn’t belong to him without permission.
I am sorry Mr. [redacted] feels slighted but the fact is his car being towed was a result of not one but, 2 errors on his part {Incorrect phone # and parking space#). We responded to his request for towing service promptly and the fact we could not provide him service as requested lies solely with him. He is asking for special consideration due to his mistake not ours.
The towing fee will stand.
Thank you,
[redacted]
Towing Manager

Revdex.com:[redacted] Property Manager agrees with me, the Borough agrees "it is unfortunate", however, they have no jurisdiction over the words on the sign.  We have been taking advantage of and there is nothing we can do, but move forward.I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is not satisfactory to me, but have no recourse but to close it,as we are just going around in circles.
Regards,
[redacted]

Review: Walk's towing is a bunch of unethical businessmen who damaged our vehicle while towing and refuse to admit they did. On top of that, the driver of the towing vehicle refused to stop and talk to me when I came outside while he was towing our vehicle (we heard the car alarm go off and ran outside to see what was going on). We received 2 parking violations ; one at 10:30 P.M. and one at 2:20 AM, and when they issued us the ticket at 2:30 AM, they proceeded to tow our vehicle, even though the driver clearly saw me running out the front door to see what was going on (their policy is that the price is $70.00 instead of $130.00 if you catch them while they are in the act of towing). Not only that, after picking up the vehicle the following day, the manager at the store was unable to answer of my questions concerning how the vehicle received two tickets in a period of 4 hours in addition to it getting towed and not having the driver stop when I came outside. Additionally, the company refuses to admit damages to the rear end of the vehicle, even though the car was clearly damaged by their towing.Desired Settlement: We would like a billing adjustment or refund for the following reasons: the driver clearly saw me running out of the apartment complex but refused to stop ; instead, he accelerated away. Also, the price to fix the rear end of the Mercedes that they damaged while towing should be compensated, since it would cost a couple hundred dollars (estimated) to fix.

Business

Response:

This is in response to Mr. [redacted]'s complaint. The tow was valid, The vehicle was towed legally under Pennsylvania Commonwealth law and the Local State College towing ordinance. The towing fee would have been the same if the driver would have seen him and stopped, as we charge fully when the vehicle is loaded and in motion. His claiming my driver saw him is an assumption, I also want to note that he mentioned the vehicle alarm going off, when this happens the parking lights flash making it difficult to see anything rearward of the truck. As far as the damage claim, it does not appear towing related as all of the towing apparatus slides under the rear of the vehicle not on top of the bumper where the crack is. There are no contact marks under the bumper or near the hitch where the tow boom is located. I did offer to Mr. [redacted] that he come into our bodyshop at no charge to him, and have our estimator look at the crack to rule out towing damage. (I have not heard back from him yet). I want to note he stated that the vehicle belonged to the female whom he was with, she stated she just got it from her dad so I am not sure who actually owns the vehicle. This is a case of someone being disgruntled because they parked illegally and were towed. [redacted]Towing Manager

Review: I have gone to walks about 3 times now for many a overheating iusse and also stuff caused by the overheating iusseDesired Settlement: I would like the repairs to be done right and to get a refund from the damages cased by this iusse

Business

Response:

Mr. [redacted] has been a customer of Walk’s Service Center since October of 2011. At that time his 1993 Volvo S40 had 165561 miles on the odometer. As of his most recent service visit on September 3, 2013 it had 178376. On September 1, 2013 Mr. [redacted]’s car was towed in for diagnosis of an overheating condition. A Walk’s Service Center technician found that the accessory drive belt, the same belt that drives the water pump, had broken and the cooling system was not operating properly. Upon replacement of the belt the coolant level was checked and it was determined that the cooling system was working properly. Until receipt of your letter, Walk’s Service Center has not been informed of any continuing problem with the cooling system. Mr. [redacted] offers a date of 4/5/2013 as the date the problem originated. At that time Mr. [redacted]’s vehicle was overheating due to an inoperative thermostat and coolant was being forced out through the over-flow. Following the repair Mr. [redacted] called Walk's Service Center to inform that his car was making a hissing noise and the temperature gauge went "almost" into the hot zone. The car was towed back to Walk's Service Center at no cost to Mr. [redacted] and re-tested. (Neither was a charge made for re-testing.) Over the course of the standard pressure tests and extensive road testing the vehicle did not exhibit anything other than normal operating conditions. Three months later Mr. [redacted] complained of a cooling system concern on July 24, 2013. The cooling system was tested and again, no problem was found. It was, however, observed that the engine oil level was low, a condition that can contribute to higher engine operating temperatures. Walk’s Service Center advised that the engine front cover and engine oil pan gaskets should be replaced and the engine degreased in an attempt to fix the oil leaks. Mr. [redacted] agreed to replace only the front cover seals and insisted on using parts that he had provided. Following the repair of July 24, 2013 there had been no further communication from Mr. [redacted] until he contacted Walk’s Service Center over a month later on September 1, 2013 when his accessory drive belt broke. Mr. [redacted] is considered a loyal, valued customer at Walk’s Service Center and we would encourage him to bring forward any dissatisfaction he might be experiencing. Mr. [redacted] often prefers to provide his own parts for repairs and has been informed each time of Walk’s Service Center’s policy of no warranty consideration on repairs when customer provided parts are used. Even though, Walk’s Service Center will always be responsible for the workmanship related to any repairs we perform. Upon review of Mr. [redacted]’s history of repairs to his 1993 Volvo I can find no where that a repair was recommended or completed that was not necessary, not effective or caused another failure to occur. We at Walk’s Service Center appreciate the effort Mr. [redacted] makes at keeping his vehicle serviceable but there are too many ways that a vehicle, even a particular system within a vehicle, can fail. At this time I am not aware of any repair that was not completed properly and I am not willing to refund any amount. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, [redacted]General ManagerWalk's Service Center, Inc.

Consumer

Response:

I am writing to let you know I do will not be accepting the business response because.

these are the reasons

The 1st reasons is because I was given contradictory reasons about my alternator belt breaking.

My 2nd reason why I am not accepting the business response is because my car is continuing to overheat even though they are saying it is not.

My 3nd reason why I am not accepting the business repone is because they are saying I have a 93 s40 volvo when I really have a 93 240 volvo.

Review: What would YOU do?

Scenario: 7pm Friday evening. Drive your niece to retrieve her towed car (illegally parked behind [redacted].; Valid tow.). Upon entering Walk's Service Center parking lot (where car is impounded – 827 S Atherton St), run over a piece of wood with nail, and it punctures and becomes embedded in your tire.

Pay $130 for the niece's tow, $15 for the parking ticket, and an additional $45 because her windows were open a crack.

While *ahem* 'bent over' awaiting your credit card authorization, explain to tow truck driver that *your* tire was punctured entering their lot moments ago; ask them to put on the spare. He'll happily oblige. For a fee of $50.

Utter incredulity is met with zero apology and the excuse that driver has no authority to negotiate fees and/or services; management will be in on Monday morning. And so I stop at Walk's first thing today to calmly explain the punctured tire situation to General Manager (Scott). His reply?

"Sorry ma'am. There's nothing I can do. We're not responsible for debris in our parking lot." Zero sincerity in apology, zero willingness to listen to, compensate, negotiate, or refund ANYthing... essentially: "[redacted] you, lady."

Parking ticket, $15 - not unusual.

The absolutely ABSURD racket they've got going with the cost of a tow -- $130? It may have taken them a grand total of 17 minutes to get there, attach the car (it is frightening how impressively QUICKLY they've got that process mastered in case an owner returns... because of course if they have it UP on the lift, they can charge full cost of tow...) and take it about one mile to Walk's. Then an additional $45 charged for windows being 'open enough to slip paper through' (their logic: that's an additional liability fee in case we sue if water gets in the car. Wha?). No offense to my niece, but I'm not sure that car (a decades-old Toyota Echo) is even WORTH as much as we paid to get it out of impound.

Ok. It's their business, and they can set their prices. I get that, even if it feels wildly disgusting, monopolistic, and greedy. I also get that signage all over this town makes clear that illegally parked cars will be towed. Valid.

I guess I’m most aghast at the utter brazenness of their *additional* filth in charging me to throw on a spare (~10 mins labor) for damage that occurred in THEIR parking lot, and being astoundingly rude when asked today if they would, at the VERY least, refund the $50 they charged to do it, since they'd just made a tidy $190 tow fee from me for ~17 minutes' worth of work. (I didn't even GET to the point of asking them to *replace* the tire or otherwise negotiate ANYthing. I was, quite simply, immediately shut down.)

I feel truly sick to my stomach, and have never been subject to such blatant greed, unprofessionalism, and lack of regard for customer satisfaction. Though I have in the past, I will NEVER give them my business again, and I will - with my undeniably BIG mouth and sizable circle of friends - do everything in my power to persuade OTHERS to also avoid Walk's like the plague.Desired Settlement: Refund $50 for spare tire install, replacement of irreparably damaged tire (or equivalent cash refund) due to presence of wood with nail on Walk's private property.

Business

Response:

All charges made were valid. Walk'S Service Center is no more responsible for this person getting a flat tire thanks if she had run out of gas on our property. Our company trucks drive all over this property day and night and do not experience problems with flat tires.

Business

Response:

All charges made were valid. Walk'S Service Center is no more responsible for this person getting a flat tire thanks if she had run out of gas on our property. Our company trucks drive all over this property day and night and do not experience problems with flat tires.

Review: First of all, I would like to make it clear that I am not a careless driver who parked in illegal spot, got towed, and is angry about it. I was towed by [redacted] before and that was my mistake- they were courteous, I paid the fee and that was that. Tonight however, was a different story. I first called [redacted]s at 7:29 pm to inform them that someone was in my assigned parking spot. I parked in another space temporarily.I accidentally gave them the spot next to mine (my roommate and I share two spots). I gave them my number and she informed me that I would need to show the tow driver my lease. I called again at 9:17 and the operator informed me that they had been at my apartment and there was no car with that description in my spot. I informed them that I hadn't received a call from them. I then realized I had given them the wrong space number and made the correction. I never heard from them and I came home tonight from pre-made plans to find my spot empty, as well as my car towed. I called [redacted]'s and was informed that I had initially given them my old number (which is very similar to my new number). I realized this only when the operator read my number off of the caller ID function on her phone. They had towed the car in my spot without speaking to me or seeing my lease and towed my car as well. I will now have to pay over $200 dollars to get my car. I understand that this incident can be seen as my fault, but given the fact that they could not reach me and the number I provided was obviously not me (it now belongs to a woman), that they would have called the number on their caller ID function. Additionally, I would not expect to be charged $200 given the circumstances. I called to have my spot opened and parked my car somewhere else temporarily in the same parking spot, and due to an honest mistake that they could have easily discovered by looking at their own phone, I ended up getting my car towed. The operator was completely unsympathetic to this issue.Desired Settlement: I do not think that I should be forced to pay the exorbitant fee. I would have never been parked in another spot if I thought I would have been there for more than ten minutes. They could have easily tried to call the number on their caller ID when they couldn't reach me. This is something that would have taken only a few moments . I am also to blame- I can't be upset for getting my car towed, but having to pay $200 dollars because I couldn't be reached because of a technicality is absurd.

Business

Response:

Reference: [redacted] id# [redacted] To Whom It May Concern,

I am responding to the above named claimants letter of complaint stating his car was towed and he should not have to pay for it I want to point out the following facts:

1. We promptly responded to tow the vehicle out of Mr. [redacted]’s parking space as he verbally requested.

2. We tried calling him but we were told we had the wrong #.

3. The parking space Mr. [redacted] said was his did not have a vehicle matching the description he gave so my driver left to assist other customers.

4. Mr. [redacted] states he was towed by a technicality but, he parked in a space that didn’t belong to him without permission.

I am sorry Mr. [redacted] feels slighted but the fact is his car being towed was a result of not one but, 2 errors on his part {Incorrect phone # and parking space#). We responded to his request for towing service promptly and the fact we could not provide him service as requested lies solely with him. He is asking for special consideration due to his mistake not ours.

The towing fee will stand.

Thank you,

Towing Manager

Review: Vehicle: 1996 Nissan Maxima

Complaint Part 1: Failure to honor agreement

April 1, 2015: Above vehicle was taken to Walk’s Service Center for PA safety inspection and emissions inspection. First an estimate of repairs needed was asked, before proceeding with repairs.

April 2, 2015: An initial estimate of $ 916 was generated (but this estimate had no mention of a flex pipe (see later). Customer categorically mentioned that he is going to sell the car soon and expressed unwillingness to proceed with repairs above $800. Walk’s generated a new estimate of $770 for passing Safety and Emission inspection with the guarantee of returning vehicles by April 3rd. This estimate also had no mention of a flex-pipe.

Customer consented a go ahead on the repairs only if that guaranteed that car would pass inspection. Customer also communicated to Walk’s that he needed car on April 3rd for an urgent trip out of state. Walks agreed that no other fault existed with the car and the car would pass inspection by completing these repair and agreed to return the car by store closing on April 3.

April 3, 2015: Vehicle was expected to be ready for delivery on this day, per original agreement. At 5 pm, 30 min before closing time, Walks called customer and refused to allow vehicle pass inspection, citing a new problem that was not mentioned in original agreement: a flex pipe and asked for an additional week. The new estimate was $942 to get inspection sticker. This was a violation of agreement as far as estimate of time and money. Walks also refused to undo repairs and return car in original form.

Customer was forced to pay $759 and took car out without safety inspection sticker.

Complaint Part 2: Sales misrepresentation and serious fraud.

April 14, 2015: Customer took vehicle to another repair shop for re-inspection: [redacted]).

Within 15 min, the mechanic at [redacted] informed the customer that the vehicle cannot pass safety inspection because “1. the front frame supporting the engine assembly is rusted ,2. there is hole in the floor board and 3. the exhaust assembly needs change”. The customer felt severely cheated since replacing the front frame alone would cost over $5000 and needs to be done at a body shop: a service that is not provided by Walk’s. Without repairing the rusted front frame, the engine assembly might fall to the ground at any moment.

Additionally, the customer was informed that some repairs performed by Walk’s were not necessary for passing safety inspection.

[redacted]’s mentioned to the customer that the seriously rusted Front Frame is easy to notice at first glance. The Customer was surpised, since after having the car for 2.5 days, Walk’s assured the customer that the car was in excellent shape and could easily be used for another 10 years.

April 15, 2015: To verify that Walk’s were indeed henious, and that’s Walk’s service was only driven by profit with complete disregard to the customer’s safety, the customer emailed Walk’s. In his email the customer reiterated if it is only the flex pipe that needs to be changed if the vehicle is to pass PA Safety Inspection. To his awe and surprise, the answer from Walk’s was “yes, only the flex-pipe needs changed”.

All documents pertaining to the above complaint are available with the customer.Desired Settlement: The vehicle was turned in for repairs so that it can pass PA safety inspection. Clearly Walk's has cheated the customer by prescribing and conducting repairs that could have never made the vehicle safe. Additionally, redundant repairs were made, that had no bearing on the safety inspection process. In the process, the customer has lost money and time. The Customer wants full refund of his money and compensation.

Business

Response:

Re: Complaint# [redacted]Dear [redacted],Please accept this in response to the complaint filed by [redacted]. Mr. [redacted] gave our office no indication that he was dissatisfied with anything regarding his service visit on April 2, 2015. Walk’s Service Center takes great pride is delivering the best value possible for our customers. This means to us that we need to communicate very clearly with our customers; telling them what they need to know when making their service and repair decisions, as well as what to expect in months to come with respect to their automotive service needs.The following addresses the complaints made in the customer’s statement:1. “Failure to honor agreement”- Estimates of cost & time are proposed not agreed to and not guaranteed.- Repairs to older vehicles, especially when working with parts damaged by corrosion are always subject to change due to the nature of corrosion damage. It is impossible to know the extent of the repair required until all damaged parts are removed.- The customer gave no dollar limit, (“expressed unwillingness to proceed with repairs above $800.)- Walk’s Service Center does not “guarantee” completion of this kind of repair due to inability to see extent of damage and lack of control over parts availability.- Cannot “return car in original form” when making repair of corroded parts.2. “Sales misrepresentation and serious fraud”- 3 reasons for failure found at [redacted]’s1. Front frame supporting the engine assembly is rusted.2. There is a hole in the floor board.3. Exhaust assembly needs change.- The frame can be rusted (and most are) as long as there is no perforation due to corrosion. If the frame was so badly corroded that the engine assembly “might fall to the ground at any moment” the driver would have long before such time observed loss of steering control and severe suspension issues.- A hole in the floor board is only cause for rejection if it opens into the passenger compartment. Holes may exist that open into sealed rocker panels, inner wheel well structure or even the engine compartment; none of which are cause to reject for safety inspection.- Walk’s Service Center informed that the exhaust flex pipe needed replaced. It is uncertain what is meant by “exhaust assembly”.- If frame replacement were required Walk’s Service Center could certainly do it. Complainant’s statement that this service is not provided by Walk’s is false.- “[redacted]’s” mentioned that repairs performed by Walk's were not necessary for passing safety inspection. Unless “[redacted]’s” had observed the vehicle prior to the inspection visit to Walk’s there is no way they would be able to make that statement as the only repair made was to a corroded exhaust that was no longer present on the vehicle.- A 1996 automobile is rarely in “excellent shape” and there are very few 2015 vehicles that can “easily be used for another 10 years”. These are not the words of an automotive professional.At this time Walk’s Service Center is refusing to make any refund; in full or in part to the complainant. Consistent with our policies regarding workmanship and parts warranties, Walk’s Service Center is willing to address any issues regarding the work that has already been approved and completed. We are also willing to complete any additional repairs required if approved by the customer.Thank you for your kind consideration.Respectfully,[redacted]

General [email protected]

Review: Recently, my car (2004 Blue, Chevrolet, Cavalier) was towed across from [redacted] in the [redacted] underground parking facility. I noticed that it was towed on Wednesday, May 22 at around 8:30 P.M. I called Walk's towing at around 9:00 P.M. to confirm that they had my car. I spoke with a man named [redacted](?) who confirmed he had my car (gave him the license plate #) and that it would cost me $115 to retrieve it. I acknowledged that and planned to get it Thursday afternoon. However, when I walked in to their office on Thursday afternoon, I was greeted by a man who told me it was towed Tuesday morning (8:30 A.M., May 20) and it would be $185 to get it out. This surprised me very much so considering I just spoke with a representative telling me it would be $115 the prior evening. I tried talking to the man about why two employees are giving me two different answers. His only explanation was "we had another blue Cavalier in storage". The man was very unprofessional and told me he was not going to "continue telling me". I asked to speak to [redacted](?) but he was not available. After realizing I was fighting a losing battle, I paid the $185 and got my car back.Desired Settlement: Because of their employee's mistake, I was forced to pay an extra $70 without any say. The company refused to take ownership to their employee's mistake and ended up making the customer pay for the mistake. If I would of known that it was in storage, I would have retrieved it the following morning to avoid additional storage costs. I would like a refund of the extra $70 I paid for the employe's mistake, the troubles and inconvenience I have to go through to solve what is right.

Business

Response:

Review: My car was illegally towed away from the parking lot while having a valid parking permit displayed at the window shield. I was required to pay $145 to get my car back.Desired Settlement: I want to get my money back as the merchant had no right to tow my car.

Business

Response:

To look into the matter, I will need some more information, location the vehicle was towed from and the time and date it was towed. Thank youTom H[redacted]

Consumer

Response: