When the appointment was first set up, due to multiple matching names in our system, the wrong name and address was inadvertently pulled but has been corrected. Regarding the initial phone call to make the appointment, our service advisors would not waive a diagnosis fee. So, at check-in, Mr....
[redacted] service advisor explained the diagnostic estimate in detail before the customer signed and authorized the $200 diagnosis fee. Our technician spent well over an hour diagnosing the customer’s concern and found that the instrument cluster was in-op. The reason we recommended his vehicle be left for 4 days is due to the part unavailability and that the vehicle could not be driven because the odometer needed to be replaced. The customer declined the recommended service and asked to speak with the manager before taking his business elsewhere. The Service Manager was happy to speak with the customer, however, he was on a phone call at the time and the customer declined to wait 2 minutes.
Thanks,
[redacted]
General Manager
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/10/20) */
Contact Name and Title: [redacted], Manager
Contact Phone: XXXXXXXXXX
Contact Email: [redacted]@toyotavallejo.com
The customer made his first visit to Toyota Vallejo on 07/13/15 with the concern of his check engine light being on for his 2003...
Toyota 4RUNNER with the mileage of 227,425. Our technician assigned to his vehicle then used a diagnostic scan tool detecting the issue known by the code P0305 indicating a cylinder #5 misfire. To resolve the customer's concern, cylinder ignition coils #5 and #1 were swapped to see if the misfire follows the coil. Upon further inspection, we found that the sparks plugs were not the proper parts for this year and model vehicle. Spark plug #5 had signs of arcing which we recommended to the customer for replacement of the part and rechecking. Although the customer insists on never changing the original part, it was clear to see that the wrong plugs were installed into the 12-year old vehicle.
After replacement of the spark plugs, the technician road tested the the customer's vehicle for 5+ miles. After no signs of further misfires and the Check Engine light no longer being present, the customer paid for the diagnosis and the replacement of the spark plugs (parts and labor).
The customer then returned for a second visit on 07/24/15, 11 days and 500 miles later, with a concern of the vehicle shaking intermittently at idle. We created a Repair Order and did NOT give the customer an estimate nor did we charge him to check his concern. Our technician extensively road tested the vehicle and was unable to duplicate the issue.
On 09/04/15, 53 days and 3,767 miles later, the customer returned. His concern was the presence of the Check Engine Light being on again. Fortunately, our technician was able to duplicate the matter this time by swapping Cylinder Ignition Coils #1 and #3. This showed us that the misfire followed the coil. We followed Toyota's recommended repair procedure to diagnose his concerns and relayed this information to the customer. The recommendation of replacing Ignition Coil #1 was also included, which he then authorized for repair.
Furthermore, with the information provided, we see no further reason to refund the customer. Following Toyota's procedures and receiving the customer's consent, we were able to duplicate his issues and correct them. Achieving the initial result of all our customer's visits.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2015/11/06) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
Before I respond, I would like to mention that everything Toyota Vallejo mentioned in their response to my complaint does not at all address my initial complaint and why I have presented to the Revdex.com in the first place.
1. According to Manager [redacted], "Our technician assigned to his vehicle then used a diagnostic scan tool detecting the issue known by the code P0305 indicating a cylinder #5 misfire. To resolve the customer's concern, cylinder ignition coils #5 and #1 were swapped to see if the misfire follows the coil." This is where the problem starts. Instead of swapping coils, Toyota Vallejo should have changed out the coils completely to avoid a 2nd and 3rd visit. I am sure that coils take a while to age and start misfiring. It is also evident that the swapping was not effective because I came back 11 days later and as recommended by Toyota Vallejo to come back after a sufficient amount of driving was done if the issue persisted (turbulent driving) which was evident by my visit back to Toyota Vallejo 53 days after. To add, I was even supposed to come back at least 30-40 days after but because of my busy schedule, I was unable to make my initial appointment (I should have the email confirmation of my initial appointment for my 3rd trip) for a 3rd trip back for maintenance. I had to use my second car for commuting.
2. I will repeat it again that not once prior to changing my spark plugs with Toyota Vallejo that I changed the spark plugs. I was never offered physical proof of the actual spark plugs taken out of my XXXX Xrunner which were considered the "wrong plugs installed". The only thing that validates the inference that wrong spark plugs were installed in my 4runner is the word of the technician which coming from this whole experience has not been one to trust. Yes, I agreed to change them because they did show "signs of arcing" but from the looks of the whole outcome of the situation, the spark plugs weren't even the issue that helped resolve the turbulent driving I experienced every time I drove my XXXX Xrunner. To me, this seems like a step that "masked" the issue of the worn out coils that should have been replaced on the first trip rather than warranting me to come back a 2nd and 3rd trip to Toyota Vallejo to fix this issue.
All in all, like what I have mentioned, this whole issue should have been fixed during the 1st trip where instead of swapping coils, they should have been completely replaced. Or if anything, this could have been resolved during my 2nd trip back. My issue is being charged a labor charge of $290 on my 3rd trip for work on an issue that should have been resolved on either the 1st or 2nd trip to Toyota Vallejo.
I respectfully ask for assistance in the refund of $290 (labor charge for 3rd trip) based on my statement and response to this situation.
Mahalo for your time and consideration.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2015/11/20) */
We understand the concerns of the customer as to why the vehicle's issue was not fixed on the first initial visit. We will repeat that Toyota has standard procedures that our technicians must follow in order to find and repair a problem. It is improper for us to jump to conclusions for the most expensive fix. Once again, on the customers second visit, the technician was unable to duplicate the concern the customer came in for but was unsuccessful. In return, as good will, we did not charge the customer for the technician's diagnosis time. As for the third visit, the customer was charged $290 for labor due to our technicians being able to correct the issue at that time. We are aware that multiple visits can be tiresome and frustrating but it is our goal to repair, not assume. In the end, the concerns the customer was exhibiting was repaired so we continue to stand by our initial invoice to the customer.
Thank you.
When the appointment was first set up, due to multiple matching names in our system, the wrong name and address was inadvertently pulled but has been corrected. Regarding the initial phone call to make the appointment, our service advisors would not waive a diagnosis fee. So, at check-in, Mr....
[redacted] service advisor explained the diagnostic estimate in detail before the customer signed and authorized the $200 diagnosis fee. Our technician spent well over an hour diagnosing the customer’s concern and found that the instrument cluster was in-op. The reason we recommended his vehicle be left for 4 days is due to the part unavailability and that the vehicle could not be driven because the odometer needed to be replaced. The customer declined the recommended service and asked to speak with the manager before taking his business elsewhere. The Service Manager was happy to speak with the customer, however, he was on a phone call at the time and the customer declined to wait 2 minutes.
Thanks,
[redacted]
General Manager
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/10/20) */
Contact Name and Title: [redacted], Manager
Contact Phone: XXXXXXXXXX
Contact Email: [redacted]@toyotavallejo.com
The customer made his first visit to Toyota Vallejo on 07/13/15 with the concern of his check engine light being on for his 2003...
Toyota 4RUNNER with the mileage of 227,425. Our technician assigned to his vehicle then used a diagnostic scan tool detecting the issue known by the code P0305 indicating a cylinder #5 misfire. To resolve the customer's concern, cylinder ignition coils #5 and #1 were swapped to see if the misfire follows the coil. Upon further inspection, we found that the sparks plugs were not the proper parts for this year and model vehicle. Spark plug #5 had signs of arcing which we recommended to the customer for replacement of the part and rechecking. Although the customer insists on never changing the original part, it was clear to see that the wrong plugs were installed into the 12-year old vehicle.
After replacement of the spark plugs, the technician road tested the the customer's vehicle for 5+ miles. After no signs of further misfires and the Check Engine light no longer being present, the customer paid for the diagnosis and the replacement of the spark plugs (parts and labor).
The customer then returned for a second visit on 07/24/15, 11 days and 500 miles later, with a concern of the vehicle shaking intermittently at idle. We created a Repair Order and did NOT give the customer an estimate nor did we charge him to check his concern. Our technician extensively road tested the vehicle and was unable to duplicate the issue.
On 09/04/15, 53 days and 3,767 miles later, the customer returned. His concern was the presence of the Check Engine Light being on again. Fortunately, our technician was able to duplicate the matter this time by swapping Cylinder Ignition Coils #1 and #3. This showed us that the misfire followed the coil. We followed Toyota's recommended repair procedure to diagnose his concerns and relayed this information to the customer. The recommendation of replacing Ignition Coil #1 was also included, which he then authorized for repair.
Furthermore, with the information provided, we see no further reason to refund the customer. Following Toyota's procedures and receiving the customer's consent, we were able to duplicate his issues and correct them. Achieving the initial result of all our customer's visits.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2015/11/06) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
Before I respond, I would like to mention that everything Toyota Vallejo mentioned in their response to my complaint does not at all address my initial complaint and why I have presented to the Revdex.com in the first place.
1. According to Manager [redacted], "Our technician assigned to his vehicle then used a diagnostic scan tool detecting the issue known by the code P0305 indicating a cylinder #5 misfire. To resolve the customer's concern, cylinder ignition coils #5 and #1 were swapped to see if the misfire follows the coil." This is where the problem starts. Instead of swapping coils, Toyota Vallejo should have changed out the coils completely to avoid a 2nd and 3rd visit. I am sure that coils take a while to age and start misfiring. It is also evident that the swapping was not effective because I came back 11 days later and as recommended by Toyota Vallejo to come back after a sufficient amount of driving was done if the issue persisted (turbulent driving) which was evident by my visit back to Toyota Vallejo 53 days after. To add, I was even supposed to come back at least 30-40 days after but because of my busy schedule, I was unable to make my initial appointment (I should have the email confirmation of my initial appointment for my 3rd trip) for a 3rd trip back for maintenance. I had to use my second car for commuting.
2. I will repeat it again that not once prior to changing my spark plugs with Toyota Vallejo that I changed the spark plugs. I was never offered physical proof of the actual spark plugs taken out of my XXXX Xrunner which were considered the "wrong plugs installed". The only thing that validates the inference that wrong spark plugs were installed in my 4runner is the word of the technician which coming from this whole experience has not been one to trust. Yes, I agreed to change them because they did show "signs of arcing" but from the looks of the whole outcome of the situation, the spark plugs weren't even the issue that helped resolve the turbulent driving I experienced every time I drove my XXXX Xrunner. To me, this seems like a step that "masked" the issue of the worn out coils that should have been replaced on the first trip rather than warranting me to come back a 2nd and 3rd trip to Toyota Vallejo to fix this issue.
All in all, like what I have mentioned, this whole issue should have been fixed during the 1st trip where instead of swapping coils, they should have been completely replaced. Or if anything, this could have been resolved during my 2nd trip back. My issue is being charged a labor charge of $290 on my 3rd trip for work on an issue that should have been resolved on either the 1st or 2nd trip to Toyota Vallejo.
I respectfully ask for assistance in the refund of $290 (labor charge for 3rd trip) based on my statement and response to this situation.
Mahalo for your time and consideration.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2015/11/20) */
We understand the concerns of the customer as to why the vehicle's issue was not fixed on the first initial visit. We will repeat that Toyota has standard procedures that our technicians must follow in order to find and repair a problem. It is improper for us to jump to conclusions for the most expensive fix. Once again, on the customers second visit, the technician was unable to duplicate the concern the customer came in for but was unsuccessful. In return, as good will, we did not charge the customer for the technician's diagnosis time. As for the third visit, the customer was charged $290 for labor due to our technicians being able to correct the issue at that time. We are aware that multiple visits can be tiresome and frustrating but it is our goal to repair, not assume. In the end, the concerns the customer was exhibiting was repaired so we continue to stand by our initial invoice to the customer.
Thank you.