Print the value of index0
Aamco Camphill, Mechanicsuburg PA Warranty Fraud Camp Hill Pennsylvania
In March of 2006, We had our 2000 Dodge Caravan fixed with transmission at Cottman in Camphill, PA. At that time, we had a gear-shifting problem and Cottman people charged us $ 2200 for rebuilding the transmission. It was a huge payment, but with the manager's recommendation, we even purchased a 2-year warranty to get a relief.
With 6 months left till the warranty expiration, we now got exactly the same gear-shift problem. Since Cottman is now under the name of Aamco after the merge, we first checked through phone call to see if there is no difference about the warranty. And they said there's no difference.
I talked to the manager on Saturday morning(10-6-2007) and he said I need to bring the car immediately because if I don't, it might affect the warranty. Since I did not have anybody to give me a ride back to my home, I explained my situation and said I was not going to drive my car. Monday was a holiday (10-8-2007), it was Tuesday morning that my husband and I took our Dodge to AAmco.
We took the car Tuesday morning, and Aamco people had us wait almost a whole week to inspect our van. They gave us a call next Monday(10-15-2007) and told they cannot keep the warranty duty because we worsened the transmission condition by not bringing the car IMMEDIATELY and they need to charge $1600 after $700 discount. We couldn't believe our ears. They blamed us because they did not keep their warranty responsibility. Doesn't this sound like small children who behave ugly blaming others when they don't want to keep their promises. We were fumed!
We just asked for help from our families and friends for several days. While we were looking for legal advices for several days, Camp Hill Aamco owner Joe called us and said he could give us $500 discount more, which we still can't accept.
Last week, we reported this to Cottman customer sesrvice center and the service center lady gave us a call today, saying that she cannot help us becuase the Camphill Aamco owner kept mentioning about not bringing the car IMMEDIATELY. She said we'd better fight ourselves.
Now our van is still parked in Aamco for almost a month and my mobility is perilized because of this company's misconduct. If you look into the Internet, you'll easily find humangous amount of complaints piled against Aamco. You'll even see independent Aamco complaint web pages.
We're seriously thinking about legal actions. I know it takes time and efforts, but I'd better fight for my right instead of dumping my money to a robber.
Jay
Mechanicsubrg, Pennsylvania
U.S.A.
9 Updates & Rebuttals
Voice Of Truth
Red Lion,Pennsylvania,
U.S.A.
Repair should have been done
#10Consumer Suggestion
Mon, April 21, 2008
AAMCO Transmission Warranty work should have been done Camp Hill/mechanicburg ?? pennsylvania
OK....So the owner did not bring the van back to you immediately but according to your own words it had not failed internally and the leak was not caused by your customer or a bad axle or accident. The codes and symtoms are as you know from being low on fluid and you should know that. To charge him anything to fix a leak after he paid for an extra warranty is maybe legal on your part but unethical in my opinion as it was a failure of either a part or some other cause not seen.
It was not leaking from the front and if you would have filled the vehicle and cleared the codes before pulling it you would have found out there were no internal problems or at least a pan inspection would have shown that to after a road test with the vehicle filled with fluid and codes cleared. This is standard operational procedure. Why drive it low in fluid???
Shame on you for not treating this as a warranty item and showing your customer even though he did not follow the letter of the warranty it did no harm this time but if in the future he ran it low and caused internal problems it would void the warranty.
Voice Of Truth
Red Lion,Pennsylvania,
U.S.A.
Repair should have been done
#10Consumer Suggestion
Mon, April 21, 2008
AAMCO Transmission Warranty work should have been done Camp Hill/mechanicburg ?? pennsylvania
OK....So the owner did not bring the van back to you immediately but according to your own words it had not failed internally and the leak was not caused by your customer or a bad axle or accident. The codes and symtoms are as you know from being low on fluid and you should know that. To charge him anything to fix a leak after he paid for an extra warranty is maybe legal on your part but unethical in my opinion as it was a failure of either a part or some other cause not seen.
It was not leaking from the front and if you would have filled the vehicle and cleared the codes before pulling it you would have found out there were no internal problems or at least a pan inspection would have shown that to after a road test with the vehicle filled with fluid and codes cleared. This is standard operational procedure. Why drive it low in fluid???
Shame on you for not treating this as a warranty item and showing your customer even though he did not follow the letter of the warranty it did no harm this time but if in the future he ran it low and caused internal problems it would void the warranty.
Voice Of Truth
Red Lion,Pennsylvania,
U.S.A.
Repair should have been done
#10Consumer Suggestion
Mon, April 21, 2008
AAMCO Transmission Warranty work should have been done Camp Hill/mechanicburg ?? pennsylvania
OK....So the owner did not bring the van back to you immediately but according to your own words it had not failed internally and the leak was not caused by your customer or a bad axle or accident. The codes and symtoms are as you know from being low on fluid and you should know that. To charge him anything to fix a leak after he paid for an extra warranty is maybe legal on your part but unethical in my opinion as it was a failure of either a part or some other cause not seen.
It was not leaking from the front and if you would have filled the vehicle and cleared the codes before pulling it you would have found out there were no internal problems or at least a pan inspection would have shown that to after a road test with the vehicle filled with fluid and codes cleared. This is standard operational procedure. Why drive it low in fluid???
Shame on you for not treating this as a warranty item and showing your customer even though he did not follow the letter of the warranty it did no harm this time but if in the future he ran it low and caused internal problems it would void the warranty.
Voice Of Truth
Red Lion,Pennsylvania,
U.S.A.
Repair should have been done
#10Consumer Suggestion
Mon, April 21, 2008
AAMCO Transmission Warranty work should have been done Camp Hill/mechanicburg ?? pennsylvania
OK....So the owner did not bring the van back to you immediately but according to your own words it had not failed internally and the leak was not caused by your customer or a bad axle or accident. The codes and symtoms are as you know from being low on fluid and you should know that. To charge him anything to fix a leak after he paid for an extra warranty is maybe legal on your part but unethical in my opinion as it was a failure of either a part or some other cause not seen.
It was not leaking from the front and if you would have filled the vehicle and cleared the codes before pulling it you would have found out there were no internal problems or at least a pan inspection would have shown that to after a road test with the vehicle filled with fluid and codes cleared. This is standard operational procedure. Why drive it low in fluid???
Shame on you for not treating this as a warranty item and showing your customer even though he did not follow the letter of the warranty it did no harm this time but if in the future he ran it low and caused internal problems it would void the warranty.
Tejamo
Shamokin,Pennsylvania,
U.S.A.
I took this unit apart
#10UPDATE EX-employee responds
Sat, April 19, 2008
I took this unit apart and only found that it needed a gasket and seal kit To put it back together,there was ZERO damage to the friction plates,Pump hard parts ETC. When I take a unit apart,I submit a complete list of parts needed for repair,labor and MARKUP is done in the office.The average time for this type of repair is in the 2-4 hour range. 1600
dollars is absurd for just a gasket and seal kit,The downfall is that the customer did not return the vehicle to the shop when requested thus voiding the warranty that which there was a signed agreement.
Joe
Camp Hill,Pennsylvania,
U.S.A.
response
#10REBUTTAL Owner of company
Thu, November 01, 2007
Mr. & Mrs. Jay So did have their van repaired at our shop in March of 2006. They also did purchase a 24 month/24,000 mile warranty. This warranty does provide for a free annual service on or about the anniversary of the delivery date. This service involves a re-check of the transmission operation and changing the fluid, pan gasket and filter. This is provided at no charge to the customer. Their anniversary date was 3/23/2007. The customers neglected to return for this annual service.
Mr. So called us on October 2, 2007 with the complaint that the van has been leaking for a month and a half and now was not working properly. This is documented on our daily call log sheet. We stressed the importance to Mr. So that we see the car immediately. He did not comply. We the called the So residence and spoke to Mrs. So and again explained that we needed to see the car immediately. She told us that would not be possible because she needed the car. The So's finally dropped the van off to us on October 11, 2007. October 10, 2007 was indeed Columbus day but we were open and operating normally.
After performing our initial inspection we found the following:
A leaking drivers side axle seal
A low fluid condition
A delay in reverse
A delay in drive
The vehicle neutraled out from a stop and around corners
A whine coming from inside the transmission
7 transmission codes stored inside the computer including a P1791 Loss of Prime. This code is present when there is not enough fluid present inside the transmission to be picked up properly by the pump.
There is no way the transmission arrived at this condition with as small leak that just started. The customers had been driving the van with the leak for an extended period of time. By the letter of the Cottman warranty the customers had voided that warranty by driving the vehicle with a leak and not informing us right away. Had we seen the vehicle sooner in the leak period we would have replaced the axle seal, performed the annual service, rechecked the transmission operation all at no charge to the customer.
We felt that we should participate in some way although not be responsible for the entire repair. We agreed, along with Mr. So, that we would remove the transmission and re-install it at no charge but they would be responsible for the internal repairs. The removal fee is normally $595.00. He agreed and gave us the name of his high school as verbal authorization. There is no way we would know this unless it was provided to us by the customer.
We removed the transmission and reported back to Mr. So. During this phone call, Mr. So was quoted a price that did not include the discount of $595.00. We realized our error and called Mr. So back with the correct discounted price of $1,037.53 + tax. This phone call occurred on October 12, 2007. We have been waiting for the So's to decide for the past 20 days. We have offered to finance the customer through one of our finance companies. They have made no effort to go through this process. We even offered to re-assemble the transmission and re-install it in the van so the So's could go somewhere else. This was offered at no charge to the customer.
We met with the entire So family on the evening of October 31, 2007 which now includes the wife. We re-explained our position for the 5th or 6th time. We showed her the documentation that led us to this conclusion and still she had no grasp of the concept that she is also responsible for her transmission.
This shop has been here since 1979, if we had a bad reputation, provided poor quality workmanship or poor customer service we would have closed long ago. As good as we are we cannot build a transmission, which is a hydraulic device, that can run without the proper level of fluid. We feel we are more than assisting the customers but we should not be responsible for their neglect and/or abuse.
Joe
Camp Hill,Pennsylvania,
U.S.A.
response
#10REBUTTAL Owner of company
Thu, November 01, 2007
Mr. & Mrs. Jay So did have their van repaired at our shop in March of 2006. They also did purchase a 24 month/24,000 mile warranty. This warranty does provide for a free annual service on or about the anniversary of the delivery date. This service involves a re-check of the transmission operation and changing the fluid, pan gasket and filter. This is provided at no charge to the customer. Their anniversary date was 3/23/2007. The customers neglected to return for this annual service.
Mr. So called us on October 2, 2007 with the complaint that the van has been leaking for a month and a half and now was not working properly. This is documented on our daily call log sheet. We stressed the importance to Mr. So that we see the car immediately. He did not comply. We the called the So residence and spoke to Mrs. So and again explained that we needed to see the car immediately. She told us that would not be possible because she needed the car. The So's finally dropped the van off to us on October 11, 2007. October 10, 2007 was indeed Columbus day but we were open and operating normally.
After performing our initial inspection we found the following:
A leaking drivers side axle seal
A low fluid condition
A delay in reverse
A delay in drive
The vehicle neutraled out from a stop and around corners
A whine coming from inside the transmission
7 transmission codes stored inside the computer including a P1791 Loss of Prime. This code is present when there is not enough fluid present inside the transmission to be picked up properly by the pump.
There is no way the transmission arrived at this condition with as small leak that just started. The customers had been driving the van with the leak for an extended period of time. By the letter of the Cottman warranty the customers had voided that warranty by driving the vehicle with a leak and not informing us right away. Had we seen the vehicle sooner in the leak period we would have replaced the axle seal, performed the annual service, rechecked the transmission operation all at no charge to the customer.
We felt that we should participate in some way although not be responsible for the entire repair. We agreed, along with Mr. So, that we would remove the transmission and re-install it at no charge but they would be responsible for the internal repairs. The removal fee is normally $595.00. He agreed and gave us the name of his high school as verbal authorization. There is no way we would know this unless it was provided to us by the customer.
We removed the transmission and reported back to Mr. So. During this phone call, Mr. So was quoted a price that did not include the discount of $595.00. We realized our error and called Mr. So back with the correct discounted price of $1,037.53 + tax. This phone call occurred on October 12, 2007. We have been waiting for the So's to decide for the past 20 days. We have offered to finance the customer through one of our finance companies. They have made no effort to go through this process. We even offered to re-assemble the transmission and re-install it in the van so the So's could go somewhere else. This was offered at no charge to the customer.
We met with the entire So family on the evening of October 31, 2007 which now includes the wife. We re-explained our position for the 5th or 6th time. We showed her the documentation that led us to this conclusion and still she had no grasp of the concept that she is also responsible for her transmission.
This shop has been here since 1979, if we had a bad reputation, provided poor quality workmanship or poor customer service we would have closed long ago. As good as we are we cannot build a transmission, which is a hydraulic device, that can run without the proper level of fluid. We feel we are more than assisting the customers but we should not be responsible for their neglect and/or abuse.
Joe
Camp Hill,Pennsylvania,
U.S.A.
response
#10REBUTTAL Owner of company
Thu, November 01, 2007
Mr. & Mrs. Jay So did have their van repaired at our shop in March of 2006. They also did purchase a 24 month/24,000 mile warranty. This warranty does provide for a free annual service on or about the anniversary of the delivery date. This service involves a re-check of the transmission operation and changing the fluid, pan gasket and filter. This is provided at no charge to the customer. Their anniversary date was 3/23/2007. The customers neglected to return for this annual service.
Mr. So called us on October 2, 2007 with the complaint that the van has been leaking for a month and a half and now was not working properly. This is documented on our daily call log sheet. We stressed the importance to Mr. So that we see the car immediately. He did not comply. We the called the So residence and spoke to Mrs. So and again explained that we needed to see the car immediately. She told us that would not be possible because she needed the car. The So's finally dropped the van off to us on October 11, 2007. October 10, 2007 was indeed Columbus day but we were open and operating normally.
After performing our initial inspection we found the following:
A leaking drivers side axle seal
A low fluid condition
A delay in reverse
A delay in drive
The vehicle neutraled out from a stop and around corners
A whine coming from inside the transmission
7 transmission codes stored inside the computer including a P1791 Loss of Prime. This code is present when there is not enough fluid present inside the transmission to be picked up properly by the pump.
There is no way the transmission arrived at this condition with as small leak that just started. The customers had been driving the van with the leak for an extended period of time. By the letter of the Cottman warranty the customers had voided that warranty by driving the vehicle with a leak and not informing us right away. Had we seen the vehicle sooner in the leak period we would have replaced the axle seal, performed the annual service, rechecked the transmission operation all at no charge to the customer.
We felt that we should participate in some way although not be responsible for the entire repair. We agreed, along with Mr. So, that we would remove the transmission and re-install it at no charge but they would be responsible for the internal repairs. The removal fee is normally $595.00. He agreed and gave us the name of his high school as verbal authorization. There is no way we would know this unless it was provided to us by the customer.
We removed the transmission and reported back to Mr. So. During this phone call, Mr. So was quoted a price that did not include the discount of $595.00. We realized our error and called Mr. So back with the correct discounted price of $1,037.53 + tax. This phone call occurred on October 12, 2007. We have been waiting for the So's to decide for the past 20 days. We have offered to finance the customer through one of our finance companies. They have made no effort to go through this process. We even offered to re-assemble the transmission and re-install it in the van so the So's could go somewhere else. This was offered at no charge to the customer.
We met with the entire So family on the evening of October 31, 2007 which now includes the wife. We re-explained our position for the 5th or 6th time. We showed her the documentation that led us to this conclusion and still she had no grasp of the concept that she is also responsible for her transmission.
This shop has been here since 1979, if we had a bad reputation, provided poor quality workmanship or poor customer service we would have closed long ago. As good as we are we cannot build a transmission, which is a hydraulic device, that can run without the proper level of fluid. We feel we are more than assisting the customers but we should not be responsible for their neglect and/or abuse.
Joe
Camp Hill,Pennsylvania,
U.S.A.
response
#10REBUTTAL Owner of company
Thu, November 01, 2007
Mr. & Mrs. Jay So did have their van repaired at our shop in March of 2006. They also did purchase a 24 month/24,000 mile warranty. This warranty does provide for a free annual service on or about the anniversary of the delivery date. This service involves a re-check of the transmission operation and changing the fluid, pan gasket and filter. This is provided at no charge to the customer. Their anniversary date was 3/23/2007. The customers neglected to return for this annual service.
Mr. So called us on October 2, 2007 with the complaint that the van has been leaking for a month and a half and now was not working properly. This is documented on our daily call log sheet. We stressed the importance to Mr. So that we see the car immediately. He did not comply. We the called the So residence and spoke to Mrs. So and again explained that we needed to see the car immediately. She told us that would not be possible because she needed the car. The So's finally dropped the van off to us on October 11, 2007. October 10, 2007 was indeed Columbus day but we were open and operating normally.
After performing our initial inspection we found the following:
A leaking drivers side axle seal
A low fluid condition
A delay in reverse
A delay in drive
The vehicle neutraled out from a stop and around corners
A whine coming from inside the transmission
7 transmission codes stored inside the computer including a P1791 Loss of Prime. This code is present when there is not enough fluid present inside the transmission to be picked up properly by the pump.
There is no way the transmission arrived at this condition with as small leak that just started. The customers had been driving the van with the leak for an extended period of time. By the letter of the Cottman warranty the customers had voided that warranty by driving the vehicle with a leak and not informing us right away. Had we seen the vehicle sooner in the leak period we would have replaced the axle seal, performed the annual service, rechecked the transmission operation all at no charge to the customer.
We felt that we should participate in some way although not be responsible for the entire repair. We agreed, along with Mr. So, that we would remove the transmission and re-install it at no charge but they would be responsible for the internal repairs. The removal fee is normally $595.00. He agreed and gave us the name of his high school as verbal authorization. There is no way we would know this unless it was provided to us by the customer.
We removed the transmission and reported back to Mr. So. During this phone call, Mr. So was quoted a price that did not include the discount of $595.00. We realized our error and called Mr. So back with the correct discounted price of $1,037.53 + tax. This phone call occurred on October 12, 2007. We have been waiting for the So's to decide for the past 20 days. We have offered to finance the customer through one of our finance companies. They have made no effort to go through this process. We even offered to re-assemble the transmission and re-install it in the van so the So's could go somewhere else. This was offered at no charge to the customer.
We met with the entire So family on the evening of October 31, 2007 which now includes the wife. We re-explained our position for the 5th or 6th time. We showed her the documentation that led us to this conclusion and still she had no grasp of the concept that she is also responsible for her transmission.
This shop has been here since 1979, if we had a bad reputation, provided poor quality workmanship or poor customer service we would have closed long ago. As good as we are we cannot build a transmission, which is a hydraulic device, that can run without the proper level of fluid. We feel we are more than assisting the customers but we should not be responsible for their neglect and/or abuse.