WaterWorks Car Washes & Detail Centers

Our initial response stands as submitted We will not honor the claim on grounds stated previously Aftermarket parts and accessories are aftermarket parts and accessories and NOT OEM

Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting the Business Owners response See the repsonses below to the business owners reasons for denial of my damage claim Claimant, [redacted] response to business owner's denial reason #1: The business owner states, "the rim itself sticks out way past the tire sidewall"It does notThis is a fact and is not an opinion and can be proven through photgraphs and/ or visual inspection if neededThe business owner also states, "WaterWorks, as well as our industry peers, assumes no responsibility whatsoever for modified non factory parts and accessories"This statement made by the business owner clearly indicates that they will not cover MODIFIED NON FACTORY PARTS...the wheel that was damaged is not MODIFIED and therefore does not qualify as a MODIFIED NON FACTORY PARTI stress, the wheel/s have not had modification made to themIn context of the statment made by the business owner, the damaged wheels do not meet the criteria of items they do not cover if damagedIn addition, the business owner states, "we have signs strategically located on the property indicating that we are not responsible for non factory aftermarket accessories or parts"The sign posted (picture available if needed) clearly identifies the following list of itmes as items they are not responsible for: Power Antennas, Bug Shields, Luggage Racks, Sun Visors, Loose Chrome or Moldings, Running Boards and Glued on SpoilersIn regards to the items specifically identified as not being covered, wheels are not mentioned...and even more specifically, to use the business owners own words, there is no mention anywhere on the business premises that they are not responsible for MODIFIED NON FACTORY PARTSI'd also like to point out that the statement "NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR" does not clearly outline what the business is not responsible forAs a customer/ consumer, this statement is left open to interpretation and could mean many different thingsFor example, had the sign posted read, "NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR LOSS OR DAMAGE TO MODIFIED NON FACTORY PARTS" I, as a customer/ consumer, would clearly understand what to expectUsing vague language constitutes DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES and should not be condoned or acceptedIn addition, "rims that stick out way past the tire side wall" are not listed as items that they are NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR Claimant, [redacted] 's, response to business owner's denial reason #2: The business owner states, "The wheel damage claimed is consistent with wheel scrapes one's vehicle would suffer when one takes a turn too sharp against a curb or when ones parks too close against a sidewalkIn fact, the absence of any damage to the same side front tire/rim would support that possibility." This statement made by the business owner clearly indicates that the assumed reason for damage is a POSSIBILITY, and not a certaintyI am however certain that the damage was not caused by, and is not consistent with what is known as "Curb Scrape or Curb Rash"In addition, the business owner states that the lack of damage to the front wheel supports his claimWhile this statement may hold true on some or even most vehicles, this is based on the assumption that the front and rear wheels are of the same widthThe wheels on my vehicle have a staggered fitment (inches wide in the front and inches wide in the rear), as seen on Corvettes and other sports cars, which is why the damage is only seen on the rear drive side wheel and not on the frontAlso, the assumed cause of damage to the wheel, as stated by the business owner, can be clearly proven as incorrect/ inconsistent through testimonials which can be obtained by professionals at rim repair shops, photo comparisons of "Curb Scrape / Rash" and "Car Wash Rail" damage as seen online, or through a re-creation of the cause of damage (which I'm willing to subject my undamaged passenger side rear wheel to) by driving my car through the same car wash again after fitting the undamaged wheel that is currently on the passenger side on to the driver side if needed Claimant, [redacted] 's, response to business owner's denial reason #3: The business owner states, "The claimant drove to his home after his car wash and attempted to smooth out the "scratches" with some type of compound, according to himHe brought the vehicle back to the car wash to lodge his claim AFTER he had attempted to buff/compound the scratches." This statment is falseI did not attempt to smooth out the scratches with compoundThe suggestion to smooth out the scratches with compound was a suggestion made by the car wash general manager...along with other ill advised suggestion like having my wheels refinished by [redacted] [redacted] which, as stated in my original grievance, Wheels America said that refinishing the wheel could not be done and that the wheel would need to be replaced to achieve pre-damaged conditions Claimant, [redacted] 's, response to business owner's denial reason #4: The business owner states, "A conveyor type of car wash operates in such a manner that the equipment is in contact with BOTH driver side wheels/tires and is unable to discriminate between the twoWhatever touches one tire/rim also does touch the nextThe damage claimed involved only ONE tire/wheel on the same side of the vehicle, a very unlikely event." Again, this statement made by the business owner clearly indicates that the damage to only one wheel is an UNLIKELY EVENT, but not impossibleAnd again, the lack of damage to the front wheel is due to the front and rear wheels on my vehicle not being the same widthI repeat, the wheels on my vehicle have a staggered fitment (inches wide in the front and inches wide in the rear), as seen on Corvettes and other sports cars, which is why the damage is only seen on the rear drive side wheel and not on the frontIn addition, the business owner states, "Our particular type of conveyor is equipped with "rolling" pins side rail which turn with the direction of the tire/wheel and as such the wheel can not "scrape" against the metal parts." What the business owner fails to mention is that the "rolling pins" are made of metal and have knicks, dings, scrapes (from guiding other vehicles) and sharp edges every few feet when one rolling pin transitions to another rolling pinThe height of my tires side wall would allow the rolling pins to come in contact with the wheels if not properly guided on to the conveyor trackAs can be proven, when abrasive metal (like that of the "rolling pins") comes in contact with other metal or metallic finish, damage can and will result Claimant, [redacted] 's, response to business owner's denial reason #5: The business owner states, "The claimant retained care, custody and control of his vehicle at all timesWaterWorks personnel never operated the claimant's vehicle." This statement is trueHowever, the car wash attendant is and should be responsible for cautiously and safely guiding a customers vehicle into the conveyor track to avoid damage...this did not happenAs stated in my initial greivance, the car wash attendant was moving at a rapid pace and was distracted while guiding me into the car wash and on to the conveyor trackThis statement is made because of what I observed...The carwash attendant was not looking at my vehicle the entire time he guided me inHe appeared to be speaking to the car wash manager as he was looking away and speaking in the direction of where I could clearly see the car wash manager standingIn addition, I observed the car wash attendant running to and from my vehicle as I drove up and as he hastily scrubbed my vehicle with a hand held brushAgain, he was moving at a very fast and frantic rate and again, seemed very distracted Claimant, [redacted] 's, response to business owner's denial reason #6: The business owner states,"Claimant chose to sensationalize the conversation that he had with me personally and in doing so omitted my suggestion that he takes his claim up with his own insurance companyHis response eluded to legal action he wanted to takeThere was little I could talk to him about after that." The business owners claim of "sensationalizing" the conversation is falseIn my initial grievance, I pointed out what the business owner stated and how it was stated (raised and changed his voice tone began speaking over me)...again, based on factual observation and not opinionIn addition, the only time an insurance company was mentioned was when I asked for his insurance company's informationAs stated in my original grievance, the business owner denied me that informationIn fact, as stated in my original grievance, I started to ask about his car wash's insurance information and the car wash owner, ***, became clearly irate (raised and changed his voice tone began speaking over me) [redacted] proceeded to say, "People like you who want to go after me have no chanceI have an insurance company that won't pay you anything" "if you want to go after me for a $wheel that you probably damaged yourself, go ahead...you won't win." The call was disconnected right after thatI feel that the "people like you" and "go after me for a $wheel" comments that the car wash owner, ***, made were intended as insults and that it was an implication of a lack of income or intention to scam him and his businessI'd also like to point out that the business owner did not deny ever saying this in his denial of my damage claim Finally, the business owner closed his repsonse to my claim by saying, "WaterWorks takes great pride in both our 100% unconditional money back guarantee, our stellar consumer ratings, as well as the manner by which we resolve an occasional claimI regret, however, that we can not honor pre-existing damage or any other claim resulting from modified aftermarket non-factory parts and accessories." I'd like to stress that this is not a pre-existing damage claim on a MODIFIED aftermarket non-factory part or accessoryIn addition, I am willing to have the business owner try to prove that the damage was pre-existing as I am also willing to prove, as stated previously, that the damage to my rear driver side wheel was cause by his car wash via re-creation of events by fitting my undamaged passenger side wheel on the driver side and driving through the wash againWhich, if proven that the damage was caused by his car wash I would seek replacement for both damaged wheels at that point, an approximate $1200.00+tax claim vsthe current $600.00+tax claim Thank you for your time and attention to this matter Regards, [redacted]

Greetings,
We regret to advise that we did not and will not honor the claimant's damage claim due to the following reasons:
The claimant's vehicle was modified and its wheels changed from factory style to an aftermarket specialty type, whereby the rim itself sticks out way past the tire
sidewall WaterWorks, as well as our industry peers, assumes no responsibility whatsoever for modified non factory parts and accessories Further, we have signs strategically located on the property indicating that we are not responsible for non factory aftermarket accessories or parts
The wheel damage claimed is consistent with wheel scrapes one's vehicle would suffer when one takes a turn too sharp against a curb or when ones parks too close against a sidewalk In fact, the absence of any damage to the same side front tire/rim would support that possibility
The claimant drove to his home after his car wash and attempted to smooth out the "scratches" with some type of compound, according to him He brought the vehicle back to the car wash to lodge his claim AFTER he had attempted to buff/compound the scratches
A conveyor type of car wash operates in such a manner that the equipment is in contact with BOTH driver side wheels/tires and is unable to discriminate between the two Whatever touches one tire/rim also does touch the next The damage claimed involved only ONE tire/wheel on the same side of the vehicle, a very unlikely event Furthermore, our particular type of conveyor is equipped with "rolling" pins side rail which turn with the direction of the tire/wheel and as such the wheel can not "scrape" against the metal parts
The claimant retained care, custody and control of his vehicle at all times WaterWorks personnel never operated the claimant's vehicle
Claimant chose to sensationalize the conversation that he had with me personally and in doing so omitted my suggestion that he takes his claim up with his own insurance company His response eluded to legal action he wanted to take There was little I could talk to him about after that
WaterWorks takes great pride in both our 100% unconditional money back guarantee, our stellar consumer ratings, as well as the manner by which we resolve an occasional claim I regret, however, that we can not honor pre-existing damage or any other claim resulting from modified aftermarket non-factory parts and accessories
Regards,
*** *** ***

Complaint:[redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
Not resolving this issue is unacceptable as I have grounds for a legitimate claim. I will be pursuing this through small claims court and hope that the Revdex.com will take appropriate action with this negligent, deceptive business. 
Regards,
[redacted]

Our initial response stands as submitted.  We will not honor the claim on grounds stated previously.  Aftermarket parts and accessories are aftermarket parts and accessories and NOT OEM.

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting the Business Owners response.
See the repsonses below to the business owners reasons for denial of my damage claim.
Claimant, [redacted] response to business owner's denial reason #1:
The business owner states, "the rim itself sticks out way past the tire sidewall". It does not. This is a fact and is not an opinion and can be proven through photgraphs and/ or visual inspection if needed. The business owner also states, "WaterWorks, as well as our industry peers, assumes no responsibility whatsoever for modified non factory parts and accessories". This statement made by the business owner clearly indicates that they will not cover MODIFIED NON FACTORY PARTS...the wheel that was damaged is not MODIFIED and therefore does not qualify as a MODIFIED NON FACTORY PART. I stress, the wheel/s have not had 1 modification made to them. In context of the statment made by the business owner, the damaged wheels do not meet the criteria of items they do not cover if damaged. In addition, the business owner states, "we have signs strategically located on the property indicating that we are not responsible for non factory aftermarket accessories or parts". The sign posted (picture available if needed) clearly identifies the following list of itmes as items they are not responsible for: Power Antennas, Bug Shields, Luggage Racks, Sun Visors, Loose Chrome or Moldings, Running Boards and Glued on Spoilers. In regards to the items specifically identified as not being covered, wheels are not mentioned...and even more specifically, to use the business owners own words, there is no mention anywhere on the business premises that they are not responsible for MODIFIED NON FACTORY PARTS. I'd also like to point out that the statement "NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR" does not clearly outline what the business is not responsible for. As a customer/ consumer, this statement is left open to interpretation and could mean many different things. For example, had the sign posted read, "NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR LOSS OR DAMAGE TO MODIFIED NON FACTORY PARTS" I, as a customer/ consumer, would clearly understand what to expect. Using vague language constitutes DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES and should not be condoned or accepted. In addition, "rims that stick out way past the tire side wall" are not listed as items that they are NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR.
Claimant, [redacted]'s, response to business owner's denial reason #2:
The business owner states, "The wheel damage claimed is consistent with wheel scrapes one's vehicle would suffer when one takes a turn too sharp against a curb or when ones parks too close against a sidewalk. In fact, the absence of any damage to the same side front tire/rim would support that possibility." This statement made by the business owner clearly indicates that the assumed reason for damage is a POSSIBILITY, and not a certainty. I am however certain that the damage was not caused by, and is not consistent with what is known as "Curb Scrape or Curb Rash". In addition, the business owner states that the lack of damage to the front wheel supports his claim. While this statement may hold true on some or even most vehicles, this is based on the assumption that the front and rear wheels are of the same width. The wheels on my vehicle have a staggered fitment (8.5 inches wide in the front and 10.5 inches wide in the rear), as seen on Corvettes and other sports cars, which is why the damage is only seen on the rear drive side wheel and not on the front. Also, the assumed cause of damage to the wheel, as stated by the business owner, can be clearly proven as incorrect/ inconsistent through testimonials which can be obtained by professionals at rim repair shops, photo comparisons of "Curb Scrape / Rash" and "Car Wash Rail" damage as seen online, or through a re-creation of the cause of damage (which I'm willing to subject my undamaged passenger side rear wheel to) by driving my car through the same car wash again after fitting the undamaged wheel that is currently on the passenger side on to the driver side if needed.
 
Claimant, [redacted]'s, response to business owner's denial reason #3:
The business owner states, "The claimant drove to his home after his car wash and attempted to smooth out the "scratches" with some type of compound, according to him. He brought the vehicle back to the car wash to lodge his claim AFTER he had attempted to buff/compound the scratches." This statment is false. I did not attempt to smooth out the scratches with compound. The suggestion to smooth out the scratches with compound was a suggestion made by the car wash general manager...along with other ill advised suggestion like having my wheels refinished by [redacted] which, as stated in my original grievance, Wheels America said that refinishing the wheel could not be done and that the wheel would need to be replaced to achieve pre-damaged conditions.
 
Claimant, [redacted]'s, response to business owner's denial reason #4:
The business owner states, "A conveyor type of car wash operates in such a manner that the equipment is in contact with BOTH driver side wheels/tires and is unable to discriminate between the two. Whatever touches one tire/rim also does touch the next. The damage claimed involved only ONE tire/wheel on the same side of the vehicle, a very unlikely event." Again, this statement made by the business owner clearly indicates that the damage to only one wheel is an UNLIKELY EVENT, but not impossible. And again, the lack of damage to the front wheel is due to the front and rear wheels on my vehicle not being the same width. I repeat, the wheels on my vehicle have a staggered fitment (8.5 inches wide in the front and 10.5 inches wide in the rear), as seen on Corvettes and other sports cars, which is why the damage is only seen on the rear drive side wheel and not on the front. In addition, the business owner states, "Our particular type of conveyor is equipped with "rolling" pins side rail which turn with the direction of the tire/wheel and as such the wheel can not "scrape" against the metal parts." What the business owner fails to mention is that the "rolling pins" are made of metal and have knicks, dings, scrapes (from guiding other vehicles) and sharp edges every few feet when one rolling pin transitions to another rolling pin. The height of my tires side wall would allow the rolling pins to come in contact with the wheels if not properly guided on to the conveyor track. As can be proven, when abrasive metal (like that of the "rolling pins") comes in contact with other metal or metallic finish, damage can and will result. 
 
Claimant, [redacted]'s, response to business owner's denial reason #5:
The business owner states, "The claimant retained care, custody and control of his vehicle at all times. WaterWorks personnel never operated the claimant's vehicle." This statement is true. However, the car wash attendant is and should be responsible for cautiously and safely guiding a customers vehicle into the conveyor track to avoid damage...this did not happen. As stated in my initial greivance, the car wash attendant was moving at a rapid pace and was distracted while guiding me into the car wash and on to the conveyor track. This statement is made because of what I observed...The carwash attendant was not looking at my vehicle the entire time he guided me in. He appeared to be speaking to the car wash manager as he was looking away and speaking in the direction of where I could clearly see the car wash manager standing. In addition, I observed the car wash attendant running to and from my vehicle as I drove up and as he hastily scrubbed my vehicle with a hand held brush. Again, he was moving at a very fast and frantic rate and again, seemed very distracted. 
 
Claimant, [redacted]'s, response to business owner's denial reason #6:
The business owner states,"Claimant chose to sensationalize the conversation that he had with me personally and in doing so omitted my suggestion that he takes his claim up with his own insurance company. His response eluded to legal action he wanted to take. There was little I could talk to him about after that." The business owners claim of "sensationalizing" the conversation is false. In my initial grievance, I pointed out what the business owner stated and how it was stated (raised and changed his voice tone began speaking over me)...again, based on factual observation and not opinion. In addition, the only time an insurance company was mentioned was when I asked for his insurance company's information. As stated in my original grievance, the business owner denied me that information. In fact, as stated in my original grievance, I started to ask about his car wash's insurance information and the car wash owner, [redacted], became clearly irate (raised and changed his voice tone began speaking over me). [redacted] proceeded to say, "People like you who want to go after me have no chance. I have an insurance company that won't pay you anything" "if you want to go after me for a $100.00 wheel that you probably damaged yourself, go ahead...you won't win." The call was disconnected right after that. I feel that the "people like you" and "go after me for a $100.00 wheel" comments that the car wash owner, [redacted], made were intended as insults and that it was an implication of a lack of income or intention to scam him and his business. I'd also like to point out that the business owner did not deny ever saying this in his denial of my damage claim.
 
Finally, the business owner closed his repsonse to my claim by saying, "WaterWorks takes great pride in both our 100% unconditional money back guarantee, our stellar consumer ratings, as well as the manner by which we resolve an occasional claim. I regret, however, that we can not honor pre-existing damage or any other claim resulting from modified aftermarket non-factory parts and accessories." I'd like to stress that this is not a pre-existing damage claim on a MODIFIED aftermarket non-factory part or accessory. In addition, I am willing to have the business owner try to prove that the damage was pre-existing as I am also willing to prove, as stated previously, that the damage to my rear driver side wheel was cause by his car wash via re-creation of events by fitting my undamaged passenger side wheel on the driver side and driving through the wash again. Which, if proven that the damage was caused by his car wash I would seek replacement for both damaged wheels at that point, an approximate $1200.00+tax claim vs. the current $600.00+tax claim. 
 
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Regards,
[redacted]

Review: On Friday, July 18, 2014, at approximately 4:45PM CST, I drove to the Water Works Car Wash located in [redacted] intersection. After purchasing a carwash through their automated system, I pulled into the wash bay for a routine carwash. The car wash attendant guided me into the wash bay and started the car wash. The car wash attendant seemed to be in a rush and was not attentive in his duty of guiding me into the wash. As the automated wash system pulled my car (Black 2003 Cadillac CTS) through the wash station, I noticed that my car was jerking from side to side and I heard a grinding noise coming from the rear of the vehicle as I progressed through the wash. As a result of the noises that I heard and the movement that I felt as I was in the vehicle going through the wash, I inspected my vehicle upon completion of the wash cycle and noticed the damage that was caused to my rear driver side wheel (Vossen VVS083 20" x 10.5" valued at $599.99 for that 1 wheel). The damage to the wheel resulted from my wheel rubbing against the car wash track mechanism that pulls the car through the wash bay. Once I noticed the damage, I approached the car wash attended to state my claim and he directed me to the car wash location manager who then directed me to the car wash General Manager, [redacted], who advised me that there was nothing that he could do for me and that he was sorry that happened. After expressing dissatisfaction with his response [redacted] provided me with the car wash owners name and number to resolve my claim/ dispute. I attempted contacting the car wash owner, [redacted], the same day (Friday July 18, 2014) but he did not answer. I attempted calling again on Saturday July 19th, 2014 and again there was no answer. I called again on Monday July 21, 2014 and was able to speak to the car wash owner at approximately 11:00AM CST. In my conversation with the car wash owner, [redacted], I explained the situation and he stated that he would call me back after speaking with [redacted], to verify the incident. We disconnected our call so that he could contact [redacted] and I awaited his returned call. Approximately 10 minutes later the car wash owner, [redacted], called me back and stated that he would not be able to do anything for me. I started to ask about his car wash's insurance information and the car wash owner, [redacted], became clearly irate (raised and changed his voice tone began speaking over me). [redacted] proceeded to say, "People like you who want to go after me have no chance. I have an insurance company that won't pay you anything" "if you want to go after me for a $100.00 wheel that you probably damaged yourself, go ahead...you won't win." The call was disconnected right after that. I feel that the "people like you" and "go after me for a $100.00 wheel" comments that the car wash owner, [redacted], made were intended as insults and that it was an implication of a lack of income or intention to scam him and his business...stereotyping/ discriminating against me likely because of the vehicle that I drive and my name, which I shared with him at the start of our conversation and it clearly identifies my race/ nationality. In addition, I contacted several wheel repair facilities ([redacted] and [redacted] - among them) which stated that they would not be able to repair the wheel in question and that I would need to replace that wheel to achieve pre-damaged condition. At this point, I am filing a complaint because I do not feel that I will be able to make progress with the car wash owner based on our previous interaction.Desired Settlement: As stated in the "tell us about your problem" portion of this complaint, I contacted several wheel repair facilities ([redacted] - among them) which stated that they would not be able to repair the wheel in question and that I would need to replace that wheel to achieve pre-damaged condition. I would like to receive a new replacement wheel for the damage caused by the car wash wheel track - $599.99+applicable tax/ shipping.

Business

Response:

Greetings,

We regret to advise that we did not and will not honor the claimant's damage claim due to the following reasons:

1.

The claimant's vehicle was modified and its wheels changed from factory style to an aftermarket specialty type, whereby the rim itself sticks out way past the tire sidewall. WaterWorks, as well as our industry peers, assumes no responsibility whatsoever for modified non factory parts and accessories. Further, we have signs strategically located on the property indicating that we are not responsible for non factory aftermarket accessories or parts.

2.

The wheel damage claimed is consistent with wheel scrapes one's vehicle would suffer when one takes a turn too sharp against a curb or when ones parks too close against a sidewalk. In fact, the absence of any damage to the same side front tire/rim would support that possibility.

3.

The claimant drove to his home after his car wash and attempted to smooth out the "scratches" with some type of compound, according to him. He brought the vehicle back to the car wash to lodge his claim AFTER he had attempted to buff/compound the scratches.

4.

A conveyor type of car wash operates in such a manner that the equipment is in contact with BOTH driver side wheels/tires and is unable to discriminate between the two. Whatever touches one tire/rim also does touch the next. The damage claimed involved only ONE tire/wheel on the same side of the vehicle, a very unlikely event. Furthermore, our particular type of conveyor is equipped with "rolling" pins side rail which turn with the direction of the tire/wheel and as such the wheel can not "scrape" against the metal parts.

5.

The claimant retained care, custody and control of his vehicle at all times. WaterWorks personnel never operated the claimant's vehicle.

6.

Claimant chose to sensationalize the conversation that he had with me personally and in doing so omitted my suggestion that he takes his claim up with his own insurance company. His response eluded to legal action he wanted to take. There was little I could talk to him about after that.

WaterWorks takes great pride in both our 100% unconditional money back guarantee, our stellar consumer ratings, as well as the manner by which we resolve an occasional claim. I regret, however, that we can not honor pre-existing damage or any other claim resulting from modified aftermarket non-factory parts and accessories.

Regards,

Consumer

Response:

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting the Business Owners response.

See the repsonses below to the business owners reasons for denial of my damage claim.

Claimant, [redacted] response to business owner's denial reason #1:

The business owner states, "the rim itself sticks out way past the tire sidewall". It does not. This is a fact and is not an opinion and can be proven through photgraphs and/ or visual inspection if needed. The business owner also states, "WaterWorks, as well as our industry peers, assumes no responsibility whatsoever for modified non factory parts and accessories". This statement made by the business owner clearly indicates that they will not cover MODIFIED NON FACTORY PARTS...the wheel that was damaged is not MODIFIED and therefore does not qualify as a MODIFIED NON FACTORY PART. I stress, the wheel/s have not had 1 modification made to them. In context of the statment made by the business owner, the damaged wheels do not meet the criteria of items they do not cover if damaged. In addition, the business owner states, "we have signs strategically located on the property indicating that we are not responsible for non factory aftermarket accessories or parts". The sign posted (picture available if needed) clearly identifies the following list of itmes as items they are not responsible for: Power Antennas, Bug Shields, Luggage Racks, Sun Visors, Loose Chrome or Moldings, Running Boards and Glued on Spoilers. In regards to the items specifically identified as not being covered, wheels are not mentioned...and even more specifically, to use the business owners own words, there is no mention anywhere on the business premises that they are not responsible for MODIFIED NON FACTORY PARTS. I'd also like to point out that the statement "NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR" does not clearly outline what the business is not responsible for. As a customer/ consumer, this statement is left open to interpretation and could mean many different things. For example, had the sign posted read, "NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR LOSS OR DAMAGE TO MODIFIED NON FACTORY PARTS" I, as a customer/ consumer, would clearly understand what to expect. Using vague language constitutes DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES and should not be condoned or accepted. In addition, "rims that stick out way past the tire side wall" are not listed as items that they are NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR.

Claimant, [redacted]'s, response to business owner's denial reason #2:

The business owner states, "The wheel damage claimed is consistent with wheel scrapes one's vehicle would suffer when one takes a turn too sharp against a curb or when ones parks too close against a sidewalk. In fact, the absence of any damage to the same side front tire/rim would support that possibility." This statement made by the business owner clearly indicates that the assumed reason for damage is a POSSIBILITY, and not a certainty. I am however certain that the damage was not caused by, and is not consistent with what is known as "Curb Scrape or Curb Rash". In addition, the business owner states that the lack of damage to the front wheel supports his claim. While this statement may hold true on some or even most vehicles, this is based on the assumption that the front and rear wheels are of the same width. The wheels on my vehicle have a staggered fitment (8.5 inches wide in the front and 10.5 inches wide in the rear), as seen on Corvettes and other sports cars, which is why the damage is only seen on the rear drive side wheel and not on the front. Also, the assumed cause of damage to the wheel, as stated by the business owner, can be clearly proven as incorrect/ inconsistent through testimonials which can be obtained by professionals at rim repair shops, photo comparisons of "Curb Scrape / Rash" and "Car Wash Rail" damage as seen online, or through a re-creation of the cause of damage (which I'm willing to subject my undamaged passenger side rear wheel to) by driving my car through the same car wash again after fitting the undamaged wheel that is currently on the passenger side on to the driver side if needed.

Claimant, [redacted]'s, response to business owner's denial reason #3:

The business owner states, "The claimant drove to his home after his car wash and attempted to smooth out the "scratches" with some type of compound, according to him. He brought the vehicle back to the car wash to lodge his claim AFTER he had attempted to buff/compound the scratches." This statment is false. I did not attempt to smooth out the scratches with compound. The suggestion to smooth out the scratches with compound was a suggestion made by the car wash general manager...along with other ill advised suggestion like having my wheels refinished by [redacted] which, as stated in my original grievance, Wheels America said that refinishing the wheel could not be done and that the wheel would need to be replaced to achieve pre-damaged conditions.

Claimant, [redacted]'s, response to business owner's denial reason #4:

The business owner states, "A conveyor type of car wash operates in such a manner that the equipment is in contact with BOTH driver side wheels/tires and is unable to discriminate between the two. Whatever touches one tire/rim also does touch the next. The damage claimed involved only ONE tire/wheel on the same side of the vehicle, a very unlikely event." Again, this statement made by the business owner clearly indicates that the damage to only one wheel is an UNLIKELY EVENT, but not impossible. And again, the lack of damage to the front wheel is due to the front and rear wheels on my vehicle not being the same width. I repeat, the wheels on my vehicle have a staggered fitment (8.5 inches wide in the front and 10.5 inches wide in the rear), as seen on Corvettes and other sports cars, which is why the damage is only seen on the rear drive side wheel and not on the front. In addition, the business owner states, "Our particular type of conveyor is equipped with "rolling" pins side rail which turn with the direction of the tire/wheel and as such the wheel can not "scrape" against the metal parts." What the business owner fails to mention is that the "rolling pins" are made of metal and have knicks, dings, scrapes (from guiding other vehicles) and sharp edges every few feet when one rolling pin transitions to another rolling pin. The height of my tires side wall would allow the rolling pins to come in contact with the wheels if not properly guided on to the conveyor track. As can be proven, when abrasive metal (like that of the "rolling pins") comes in contact with other metal or metallic finish, damage can and will result.

Claimant, [redacted]'s, response to business owner's denial reason #5:

The business owner states, "The claimant retained care, custody and control of his vehicle at all times. WaterWorks personnel never operated the claimant's vehicle." This statement is true. However, the car wash attendant is and should be responsible for cautiously and safely guiding a customers vehicle into the conveyor track to avoid damage...this did not happen. As stated in my initial greivance, the car wash attendant was moving at a rapid pace and was distracted while guiding me into the car wash and on to the conveyor track. This statement is made because of what I observed...The carwash attendant was not looking at my vehicle the entire time he guided me in. He appeared to be speaking to the car wash manager as he was looking away and speaking in the direction of where I could clearly see the car wash manager standing. In addition, I observed the car wash attendant running to and from my vehicle as I drove up and as he hastily scrubbed my vehicle with a hand held brush. Again, he was moving at a very fast and frantic rate and again, seemed very distracted.

Claimant, [redacted]'s, response to business owner's denial reason #6:

The business owner states,"Claimant chose to sensationalize the conversation that he had with me personally and in doing so omitted my suggestion that he takes his claim up with his own insurance company. His response eluded to legal action he wanted to take. There was little I could talk to him about after that." The business owners claim of "sensationalizing" the conversation is false. In my initial grievance, I pointed out what the business owner stated and how it was stated (raised and changed his voice tone began speaking over me)...again, based on factual observation and not opinion. In addition, the only time an insurance company was mentioned was when I asked for his insurance company's information. As stated in my original grievance, the business owner denied me that information. In fact, as stated in my original grievance, I started to ask about his car wash's insurance information and the car wash owner, [redacted], became clearly irate (raised and changed his voice tone began speaking over me). [redacted] proceeded to say, "People like you who want to go after me have no chance. I have an insurance company that won't pay you anything" "if you want to go after me for a $100.00 wheel that you probably damaged yourself, go ahead...you won't win." The call was disconnected right after that. I feel that the "people like you" and "go after me for a $100.00 wheel" comments that the car wash owner, [redacted], made were intended as insults and that it was an implication of a lack of income or intention to scam him and his business. I'd also like to point out that the business owner did not deny ever saying this in his denial of my damage claim.

Finally, the business owner closed his repsonse to my claim by saying, "WaterWorks takes great pride in both our 100% unconditional money back guarantee, our stellar consumer ratings, as well as the manner by which we resolve an occasional claim. I regret, however, that we can not honor pre-existing damage or any other claim resulting from modified aftermarket non-factory parts and accessories." I'd like to stress that this is not a pre-existing damage claim on a MODIFIED aftermarket non-factory part or accessory. In addition, I am willing to have the business owner try to prove that the damage was pre-existing as I am also willing to prove, as stated previously, that the damage to my rear driver side wheel was cause by his car wash via re-creation of events by fitting my undamaged passenger side wheel on the driver side and driving through the wash again. Which, if proven that the damage was caused by his car wash I would seek replacement for both damaged wheels at that point, an approximate $1200.00+tax claim vs. the current $600.00+tax claim.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

Regards,

Business

Response:

Our initial response stands as submitted. We will not honor the claim on grounds stated previously. Aftermarket parts and accessories are aftermarket parts and accessories and NOT OEM.

Consumer

Response:

Review:[redacted]

I am rejecting this response because:

Not resolving this issue is unacceptable as I have grounds for a legitimate claim. I will be pursuing this through small claims court and hope that the Revdex.com will take appropriate action with this negligent, deceptive business.

Regards,

Review: On November 11, 2013, at approximately 2:00 PM, I travelled to the Water Works Car Wash located at [redacted] in San Antonio, TX. After arriving at the car wash and purchasing a wash, I situated my vehicle, as guided by the car wash employee in line to be washed.

After entering the wash, my vehicle began moving through the car wash at which time, approximately halfway through the wash; I heard a very loud grinding noise coming from the bottom of my vehicle as my vehicle moved forward through the wash. After a few seconds, my vehicle stopped moving forward as assisted by the car wash machine because something was caught underneath the vehicle and would not allow the vehicle to move forward freely.

During the above-mentioned, one of the car wash employees noticed what was taking place, shut the car wash machine off, approached my vehicle, and asked me what was wrong. I explained the above-mentioned sequence of events to him at which time; he looked under my vehicle and advised me there was a large object wedged between my vehicle and the car wash track mechanism.

During our conversation and his observation, several other car wash employees, including the Manager, [redacted], approached my vehicle, quickly looked under it, and told me to put my vehicle in gear and drive forward. After doing as instructed, I attempted to move my vehicle forward slowly but the vehicle struggled because whatever was wedged under the vehicle was still there.

[redacted] told me to put my vehicle in neutral at which time he and two other employees attempted to lift the front left corner of my vehicle in order to try and remove whatever was wedged under it. [redacted] and the other employees were not successful. After attempting to lift the vehicle, [redacted] instructed me to place my vehicle in reverse in order to free whatever was under it. After placing the vehicle in reverse, [redacted] advised me to reverse slowly. As I reversed, the vehicle struggled because whatever was wedged under the vehicle was still there but after several attempts to reverse, the vehicle became free.

After the vehicle was free to move, [redacted] advised me to exit the car wash at which time he told one of the car wash employees to wash the vehicle again and returned to his duties. After exiting the car wash, I parked my vehicle in the car wash parking area, next to the vacuums, and inspected my vehicle for damage.

Upon inspection, I noticed one of the heat shields located under my vehicle was torn from the above-mentioned sequence of events. After noticing the damaged heat shield, I located [redacted], pointed out the damage to him, and told him I wanted the damage part repaired. [redacted] looked at the damage, advised me to get a repair estimate, and bring the estimate to him and stated that his company would pay for the damages.

After departing the carwash, I took my vehicle directly to the [redacted] Collision Center located at [redacted] in San Antonio, TX, for a repair estimate. Mr. [redacted], the Estimator at [redacted], visually looked at the damage, took mine and my vehicle’s information, and advised to return the following morning so that he could place the vehicle on a vehicle lift in order to better assess the damage. I made an appointment with Mr. [redacted] for the following morning, November 12, 2013, at 8:30AM.

On November 12, 2013, at approximately 8:30 hours, I arrived at [redacted] Collision Center and Mr. [redacted] placed my vehicle on a vehicle lift and assessed the damage. I was present while Mr. [redacted] placed the vehicle on the lift and physically showed me the damage to the heat shield. After assessing the damage, Mr. [redacted] provided my with a written repair estimate totaling $374.31. $136.13 for the heat shield, $2.72 for the front shield clips, and $224.00 for labor.

On the same date, I traveled to the Water Works Car Wash located at [redacted] in order to provide [redacted] with the above-mentioned estimate and upon arriving at the car wash; I was advised by one of the car wash employees that [redacted] was off. When I asked the carwash employee when [redacted] would be back at work, the employee stated he was not sure. I left a copy of the estimate for [redacted] and requested that he call me once he returned. I asked the employee for [redacted]’s supervisor’s telephone number and was provided with Mr. [redacted] contact number ([redacted]). To date, I have not heard back from [redacted].

One the same date, I contacted Mr. [redacted] via telephone, explained the situation to him regarding my vehicle, at which time he requested I fax him a copy of the estimate which was faxed to Mr. [redacted] on November 12, 2013, at 2:41 PM. On November 14, 2013, I contacted Mr. [redacted] at which time he advised me he received the estimate but felt that the repair costs were excessive in price and referred me to [redacted] at [redacted] located at [redacted]d in San Antonio, TX. Mr. [redacted] stated they could probably fix my vehicle for much less but was not sure if they performed the type of work my vehicle required.

After ending the conversation, I checked [redacted]’s website and determined they would not be able to perform the type of work my vehicle needed. After checking the website, I called Mr. [redacted] back and advised him of the above-mentioned at which time he stated he spoke to [redacted] and determined they in fact did not do that type of work. Mr. [redacted] additionally stated he was going to look for another place that could repair my vehicle cheaper. I advised Mr. [redacted] that my vehicle was very low in mileage, that I hardly drove it, and that I wanted a certified [redacted] dealership to repair it because they are the only ones that have ever serviced my vehicle.

On November 15, 2013, I contacted Mr. [redacted] via telephone and he advised me that he needed to speak with his superior who was out of town and would not return until November 18, 2013, with regards to my vehicle.

On November 18, 2013, I contacted Mr. [redacted] via telephone at which time he advised me that he wanted to physically see my vehicle. On November 19, 2013, I took my vehicle to the Water Works located at [redacted] in San Antonio, TX, where Mr. [redacted] visually inspected my vehicle. After inspecting the vehicle, Mr. [redacted] advised me again that he needed to speak to his superior regarding the damage to my vehicle. During the conversation, I expressed my concern to Mr. [redacted] regarding the damage to my vehicle and lack of repair to my vehicle. Mr. [redacted] stated the repair cost to my vehicle was excessive and that he needed to find somewhere cheaper to repair it. I asked Mr. [redacted] for his company’s insurance information so that I could submit pictures of the damage, applicable police report, and file a claim. Mr. [redacted] refused to provide me with his company’s insurance information and stated he would be in contact with me.

On November 19, I contacted Mr. [redacted] via telephone and which time he stated he was working on getting my vehicle replaced and had called the [redacted] Collision Center, [redacted] Body Shop located at [redacted] in San Antonio, TX, and the [redacted] Collision Center located at [redacted] in San Antonio, TX, regarding the parts required to repair my vehicle.

Mr. [redacted] stated he called [redacted] and [redacted] as a regular customer, provided them with the part number ([redacted]) and was able to get a cheaper price on the parts but was waiting for [redacted] and [redacted] to call him back with regards to the labor rate.

After terminating my call with Mr. [redacted], I called [redacted] and [redacted] regarding the above-mentioned part and was quoted the same price as originally quoted by [redacted]. In fact, [redacted] advised me they did not carry the part because they did not sell [redacted] products and it would be cheaper for me to purchase the parts from [redacted] because if I purchased the parts from them, they had to mark them up because they had to purchase the parts from [redacted].

On November 20, 2013, I contacted Mr. [redacted] via telephone who stated he was still waiting for [redacted] and [redacted] to call him back and that he would contact me once he was contacted by them. Additionally, I advised Mr. [redacted] that I called [redacted] and [redacted] regarding the parts and advised him of my findings. Mr. [redacted] stated he was going to get a “better price” from [redacted] and [redacted].

Prior to terminating the telephone call, I expressed my concern to Mr. [redacted] because at this point, I felt as if he was being deceptive and told him I did not understand the problem. I stated that my vehicle was damaged at one of his facilities on November 11, 2013, and simply wanted my vehicle repaired at the [redacted] dealer. I also stated I had complied with all of his requests and to date, nothing had been done. I also advised Mr. [redacted] that I didn’t feel it was fair that I had to wait for him to find the parts cheaper. Mr [redacted] simply stated he “was working on it” and that he would be in contact with me.Desired Settlement: I respectfully request my vehicle be repaired by the Mazda dealer of my choice in a timely manner.

Business

Response:

WaterWorks Car Washes acknowledges Mr. [redacted] claim.

We regret this incident and have cheerfully issued a check in the amount of $374.31 to Mr. [redacted] and [redacted] Collission repair.

Mr. [redacted] will pick up the check on Wednesday, November 27, 2013 from our [redacted] location.

Sincerely,

President

WaterWorks Car Washes & Detail Centers.

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.

Regards,