Dan's Tire And Auto Dan's Tire And Auto Service Center Fraud, Does NOT stand behind his advertisements, 2 Month repair job?! Batavia New York
On December 5th, 2007 (remember this date!), I had made it to a meeting with a regular client in Williamsville. The truck made it there without skipping a beat, with absolutely nothing to indicate any problems. When it was time to leave I put it in reverse and suddenly had issues, where the truck began to hesitate before jumping into gear. I got onto Main Street and soon realized that the truck was not accelerating over 30 MPH. Even though I was keeping with the flow of traffic, I understood that I was not going to drive the 25 miles home this way. I pulled off the road, called AAA and hitched a ride back to Batavia with the AAA tow truck. While waiting for the tow truck, I called ahead to the AAA certified shop, where the head mechanic told me that they could do the repair. I dropped the truck off and got a ride back to the office.
Two days later, I got a call from the head mechanic who told me that the transmission needed to be rebuilt. I received a verbal estimate from the head mechanic of $1,700 - $2,000, with a promise that the repairs would not exceed $2,000. If anything indicated that the cost might exceed $2,000, the head mechanic informed me that I would be asked for approval. I gave verbal approval to proceed with the transmission rebuild under this agreement.
What I did not know until much later was that; The transmission had been removed from the vehicle and delivered to L&L Transmission, the sublet who performed the rebuild at the shops request. The sublet performed a rebuild over the course of 2 days and delivered the transmission back to the shop. When the transmission was re-installed, the vehicle failed to show any distinguishable difference in performance. The vehicle was sent back to the sublet by the shop because, the owner of the shop felt that the sublet had insufficiently performed their work. The sublet tested the vehicle over the course of 2 more days and informed the shop that the vehicles transmission was fine, but that their tests indicated an electrical problem at the controlling computer. These facts were referenced in the AAA investigation dated February 18th, 2008, but the client had learned about the sublet several weeks earlier. The AAA Auto Repair Specialist, John Scheider cites in his own investigation that;
"fter the [transmission rebuild] was completed the transmission delayed going into reverse and would not up shift into high gear."
Ironically this statement sounds strikingly similar to the original complaint cited on the invoice:
"lient Complaint: Vehicle does not accelerate over 35 MPH. Tried to road test the vehicle, but vehicle had no reverse & had to rev engine to go into forward gear."
2 WEEKS INTO THE REPAIR: I was told by the head mechanic that the vehicle "as almost there"
2-3 WEEKS INTO THE REPAIR: after several excuses as to why the truck was still not finished, I inquired about its location since, I did not see it around the shop. I was told that the vehicle was sent to an electrical specialist in Warsaw (without my permission or knowledge). The electrical specialist was itemized later on the invoice for $550 in labor and a $91.14 part that was unrelated to the vehicle' problem. I was also told that the shop owner did not want to "unnecessarily replace the transmission's controlling computer," despite the opinion the first sublet (a transmission specialist) that this was where the problem resided. Instead, the shop owner had the new sublet manually go through the vehicles electrical system, "looking for a short circuit".
6 WEEKS INTO THE REPAIR: and many excuses later, the shop owner informed me that my bill was going to be nearly $4,008 to complete the work. Remember, I was suppose to be called for approval if the cost was to exceed $2000. After the vehicle being at the "electrical specialist" for nearly a month, they had finally come to the determination that the problem resided in the transmission's controlling computer. The client was alarmed, to say the least since; this was well over twice the initial quote given by the head mechanic.
At this point, I filed a complaint with both; AAA of Western NY and the Better Business Bureau, seeking some kind of mediation. I spoke with the AAA investigator, John Scheider on several occasions and met with him once. While John Scheider states in his final report that he felt that the shop's "charges were fair," he actually told me on several occasions that, the shop owner "was not making any profit". I argued that I was losing as well, with over $1,400 in car rental fees and lost time. [It was later proven in court that even with the invoice reduced from $4008 to $3500, there was mark-up. The shop paid the sublet $1,200 for the transmission rebuild and as seen on the invoice, charged me $1,500 (not including his own labor charges to reinstall the transmission). There was also a 10% mark-up on labor from the "electrical specialist".]
When the AAA mediation presented no acceptable solutions for me, I submitted out of frustration and requested to take the vehicle back as is" meaning that the vehicle's performance was no different than when it was originally delivered to the shop. At that time, the shop owner quoted a bill of $2,700 for the as is" state of the vehicle. The client questioned this since this was well above the original quote of $2,000, with the $2,700 including unauthorized parts and labor that did not even produce improvements in the vehicles performance.
It wasn't until the Better Business Bureau contacted the shop owner that he offered to reduce the cost of his bill from the $4,300 to $3,500. In so doing he asked me to report to the Better Business Bureau that the situation had been resolved. I received an Email from the Better Business Bureau within 24 hours, stating that the issue was resolved and that the complaint was closed, as reported by the shop owner. To say that I was deeply disturbed is an understatement. How does is it possible that a defendant in a Better Business Bureau complaint can have a case closed by himself, before a resolution is even fulfilled. I felt that this compromised the integrity of the entire process and only proved that the shop owner was more interested in effecting his Better Business Bureau status than actually providing a resolution to the me since, the case was closed before I even had my vehicle back. This also took any further negotiation off the playing field.
I knew that I was going to be forced to go to court. I acquired legal council as well as, conducted extensive legal research on my own. It was in my county's very own "Unified Court System" resources that I found "CONSUMER LAW 2007 UPDATE - THE JUDGE'S GUIDE TO FEDERAL AND NEW YORK STATE CONSUMER PROTECTION STATUTES". I felt that portions of this document directly outlined critical points of my case and I provided a copy of this document to my lawyer for the initial hearing. Unfortunately, my lawyer opted not cite this document rather, he presented the presiding judge with a copy of NY State Department of Motor Vehicle's "Know Your Rights in Auto Repair," a relevant but much less substantive document. I was not aware that this would be the case until the final moments of the hearing.
I was certain that I would at least get car rental reimbursement, based on the fact that this shop had my vehicle for 57 days. The presiding judge decided everything in favor of the shop owner. At this point, I still have the opportunity to appeal and we will see where it goes. I am seeking out customers who have had similar experiences with this particular shop as potential witnesses for an appeal or some other venue since, not all the facets of this ordeal were presented in my case. My hopes are that I can present those in another venue.
1batavian
Alexander, New York
U.S.A.
1 Updates & Rebuttals
Dan''s Tire
Batavia,New York,
United States of America
The Other Side of the Story
#2REBUTTAL Owner of company
Fri, January 08, 2010
After reading this report I found it necessary to post a rebuttal due to the extent of erroneous and omitted information. However, before getting into that, Id like to note that after over 30 years of being in business this was the first and only time that a case has ever been brought against this company. In fact, AAA awarded us their Top Shop Award, which is only given to facilities whose customers report a 97% approval rating.When the vehicle came in we had to literally push it into the garage because it would not go into reverse and the engine had to be revved to go into forward gear, as the client states. The vehicle was checked for transmission codes and fluid leaks. All looked good, so we proceeded to remove the transmission. The transmission was sent to L&L for the rebuild. The transmission was rebuilt and returned to us. At which time we installed the transmission and road tested the vehicle. We found that it did, in fact, go into reverse, but the engine would not accelerate and would not shift into high gear. There was an improvement, but obviously there was another issue that needed to be addressed. We returned the vehicle to L&L to have the transmission retested. It tested good this time so we knew that there must have been another issue besides the transmission.
The client states that L&L did a test that indicated an electrical problem at the controlling computer, but this is false. L&L did not have the tool required to perform such a test. Id also like to note that at the beginning of this whole thing we told the client, prior to rebuilding the transmission, that there may be more than one issue underlying the problem. It was made clear that the rebuild may or may not be all that was needed.
The client begins his story on the 5th of December. However, he had been coming to the facility for several years and we had worked on this vehicle on multiple occasions. On July 14,2007, the client was informed that he would need to replace the Oxygen Sensor and was given an estimate for the repair. He chose not to replace it and it is probable that this negligence directly caused damage to the catalytic converter. We had not considered this when we began. Therefore, to be sure the problem was not related to the oxygen sensor or the catalytic converter, I replaced these when the vehicle was returned from L&L at no cost to the client. This was a $900 replacement which we did totally free. This fixed the problem with the engine not accelerating. However, the vehicle would still not shift into high gear. We determined that there must be an electrical issue.
We began diagnosing the electrical problem, but after 3 days of looking into it, we could still not be sure of the prognosis. It seemed like it was a computer control issue. However, we did not want to replace the computer unless we were 100% sure because it is over $1000.00 for the repair. It was at this time that we towed the vehicle to Barneys. Barneys is an electrical specialist and it took them nearly a month to properly diagnose the vehicle. This was not a simple problem to identify.
Barneys notified me on January 13th that the vehicle needed a computer because it was holding partial ground to the pressure control solenoid, which would cause the slipping and damage to the original transmission. I, then, notified the client that the vehicle needed a computer replacement and it would bring the cost up to $4300.00 plus tax. Four days later, after negotiating with the client, I dropped the price to $3500 including tax. At which time we ordered the computer, installed it and told the client it was ready for pick-up on January 29, 2008. It wasnt until February 7, 2008 that he sent his wife to pick up the vehicle.
His wife gave us a check for $3500 and a few days later I received a notice from my bank that payment had been stopped on the check. He had stopped payment the very same day that he gave us the check. After I received the check back, I called the client on several occasions and was told that the cruise control didnt work and that was why he stopped payment on the check. I told him that I doubted that it had anything to do with the repair, but that I would take a look at it for free. He declined to have us look at the vehicle. It was very obvious that he had no intention of paying for the repairs done despite the many compromises and losses the company took over this ordeal.
The client states that he believed he should have received compensation for vehicle rental fees. What he fails to mention is that he was given use of our loaner vehicle. After having our vehicle for two days he brought it back stating that he heard a concerning noise. We checked it over and discovered that it had three broke wheel studs and a damaged wheel. We installed a new wheel bearing assembly and new wheel totaling over $400. It should be noted that the loaner vehicle is inspected after each person takes it out to ensure there is no damage prior to being lent out to the next customer. This damage occurred while it was in the clients possession and it was quite clear that something was hit on the left front side causing the wheel damage.
Regardless, we fixed the loaner and then reissued it to the client on good faith. After all, he was a regular customer and I trusted that this was a simply mishap. On or about January 16, 2008 at 10:00 pm we received a call from the client that his wife was driving our loaner vehicle on the interstate and noticed smoke coming from beneath the hood. She abandoned the car, with the keys in it, at a thruway service area. We sent someone out to retrieve it and found that there was a slight oil leak at the valve cover area. The engine had been over revved (probably due to being driven in first gear) causing too much oil up in the valve cover. Which, in turned, caused the smoke.
The client would like people to believe that there was a mark-up on his invoice despite the cost being reduced to $3500. He fails to consider the mechanics that need to be paid for amount of hours spent with this vehicle or the amount of money and time put in to the repairs on our loaner vehicle. In the end, we lost money. Despite winning the case, we still have not received total reimbursement to date.
This was a very unfortunate experience all the way around. I truly wish that a mutually amicable solution could have been reached.