Young's Auto Service

Review: I purchased a 2009 [redacted] from [redacted] Import which based on the inspection certificate: [redacted], was inspected by Young's Auto Services of [redacted] Maryland on 25 Oct 2013. The vehicle was sold to me in early Nov 2013 and transported from Maryland to GA where I had [redacted] of [redacted] conduct a standard Used Vehicle Inspection early Dec 2013. The certified inspectors found a number of serious safety items that while latent to the untrained user, same would have been immediately apparent to any competent inspection service provider. The safety issues/violations included four (4) Rotors that were badly worn, with two be well in excess of the allowed limit. Additionally, it was found that all four tires were dry-rotted; despite have reasonable tread ware remaining. I took the vehicle to a second location and they confirmed [redacted]'s [redacted] of [redacted]'s findings. I called Young's Auto Service, and a lady, and then gentleman made clear that because 30 days had expired, they were not going to offer any assistance in offsetting the cost associated with their inadequate inspection. Had Young's Auto Service met its fiduciary responsbilities, the vehicle would have failed the Safety Inspection, which would have required [redacted] Import to repair the safety violations. The representatives of Young's Auto Service, with whom I spoke with via telephone, completely ignored the fact that the items were latent and therefore could not be discovered by me until the vehicle was delivered and scheduled for inspection with [redacted]. Moreover, as noted by the miles at delivery to my in GA by [redacted] of [redacted] Import ###-###-####, and when the inspection was performed, the safety defects found could not have occured after purchase. Their failure not only cost me a significant amount of money, it also placed the driving public at risk, including my 5 year old daughter prior to me discovering the existence of safety violations.Desired Settlement: I ask that Young's Auto Service be compelled to reimburse me for the repairs related to their failure to competently carry out their fiduciary public safety responsibilities. Costs include part and labor of $1,038 associated with replacing the four (4) Rotors, as well as $1122.06 for the replacement of the four Tires via [redacted] Tires

Business

Response:

January 17, 2014

Dear Revdex.com,

The customer’s car in question, a 2009 [redacted], was inspected by me on October 25, 2013. If the car is a model year 2009, realistically it is less than 4 years old. Most likely at most 3 years old. When I inspected the vehicle in question, the vehicle had absolutely no problems whatsoever. Only thing that needed attention was the rear brake pad that was a bit worn. However, even that was well within the inspection passing parameters. The vehicle passed inspection without a single problem.

The customer states again and again that the problems were “latent” and hints that I am not only negligent but incompetent as well. This certainly is not the case. I am more than competent but also honest. Customer states that all 4 brake rotors were replaced and all 4 tires were replaced. And that I was somehow negligent in spotting these “latent” dangers the vehicle had. I can honestly attest that the vehicle had no problem or any dangerous faults when I had inspected it. Furthermore, as the customer states, a full 2 months had passed when they were inspected again in Georgia. The brakes had no problems as I had stated before. Only one brake pad was worn and I did give a warning to have that rear brake pad replaced as soon as possible. However, even that was well within the passing parameter and the vehicle passed inspection.

Now, I fail to understand why these places in Georgia found fault with a perfectly safe and fully passed vehicle. I feel that those places were trying to rip off the customer. And clearly have. Why the customer chose to believe them over my professional service and honest opinion is beyond me. Also, I doubt that any vehicle owner have ever experienced or even have heard of all 4 tires being “dry rotted” on a car that is less than 4 years old. Not only were the tires NOT “dry rotted”, the treads were also more than reasonable. They were in good shape. It cost the customer money because of my inspection? I did not dishonestly charge the customer for totally unnecessary services. The customer did not pay me. Why do I owe the customer money? Public safety inspection is not some fiduciary responsibility. I see it as an honest responsibility. I honestly saw that the vehicle was in very good shape albeit one worn brake pad but even that was well within the passing parameters and it passed inspection. I did warn the customer to get that taken care of as soon as possible. Now, the customer quotes a I [redacted] dealership and some used car dealership. It did not seem strange to the I customer that the inspection results were so 100% different from that of mine? That should have been the immediate reaction from the customer. But instead, the customer goes ahead and replaces all brake rotors with brand new ones. And unquestioningly replaces all 4 tires due to “dry rotting”. Dry rotting on tires on a car that is realistically less than 4 years old? I saw no “dry rotting” on those tires whatsoever. This is my belief. The customer most likely felt ripped off but did not have the courage to confront the used car dealership so wants to vent it on me saying I was not only negligent but totally incompetent. How is the customer coming to that conclusion? The customer really should take this “settlement” request to the used car dealership that performed these completely unnecessary services. However, the customer did get the unnecessary services done without even a slightest level of mistrust. Rather than thinking the customer might be getting ripped off, the first thing the customer does is automatically assume that I was negligent and incompetent? Based on a single incident of these dealerships quoting totally unnecessary services? I don’t believe it takes a car expert to realize and accept that the customer got ripped off by the dealership. It was not negligence or incompetence on my part. Only single thing I am guilty of is being totally 100% honest with the customer that the vehicle was in great shape. But as noted with the exception of one rear brake pad that was worn but still well within the passing parameter that granted the car passing inspection in full.

Now, I clearly would have no clue what the customer was thinking or what those dealerships were thinking but they clearly were not being honest with the customer. I believe they saw that the customer had no real knowledge and just quoted totally unnecessary stuff and the customer just bought it. I believe it also maybe hindsight buyer remorse. The customer may have realized just now that dealership ripped them off. Also, my inspection did not cost the customer money. On the contrary, the customer choosing to believe that dealership over me cost the customer money. What a bizarre accusation and claim on part of the customer. Also, our clearly established business policy is no refunds or reimbursements after 30 days or 1,000 miles whichever comes first.

The primary problem here is that the so called inspections were performed by car dealerships. Why didn’t the customer take the vehicle to certified vehicle inspection places that were recommended by friends and relatives instead? I don’t believe that car was honestly inspected or evaluated in Georgia. Now, it is obviously too late for the customer to go to the dealership and say they performed unnecessary services. The customer should have spoken up back then. This is all on the customer. Sadly, it is not even the fault of the car dealership in Georgia and it certainly is not my fault either. I gave an honest inspection of the vehicle and the vehicle had no problem. Brake rotors were all fine. All of the tires were fine. They all passed inspection well within the established Maryland vehicle inspection parameters. The vehicle passed! I have no control over what people in Georgia choose to do for whatever reasons and furthermore, I also have no way of verifying any of what the customer says happened. Customer’s complaint and claim is completely unreasonable and unfounded. Therefore, without any sound and logical merit. I would suggest that the customer performs better due diligence in the future in dealing with car dealerships.

Sincerely,

Young’s Auto Services

Consumer

Response:

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because:

Rejection of Business Response