Groovy Automotive Groovy Lube Will not repair vehicle after acknowledging damage was caused during original repair Austin Texas
Start of correspondence.
My name is J and I'm the mechanic working on the Sentra that had a head gasket repair.
The initial symptom was an oil leak originating from the underside of the of the timing cover/head. In order to identify the the exact location, the motor mount was removed along with the peripherals. The JB weld type of adhesive was camouflaged by the engine mount and was not visible until it was removed.
As a side note, as I was removing the water pump the sealing surfaces began leaking as well as the bolt holes. Pump fell off when final bolt was removed.
The timing cover is cracked in the front area between the first two upper bolts that secure it to the head. I've attached some pic's that show the timing cover and adhesive that was used. You will be able to see from the adhesive that it lines up perfectly with the crack and head. The top of the adhesive is missing as it broke away when removed. The part that was wrapped around the head. In the pic's the edge that supports that piece is visible.
After days of phone calls and email traffic...
We're at an impasse. What's being offered is in no way a fair compensation for the issue. Responsibility has already been acknowledged and accepted. The impasse is the method to solution.
Time of discovery is a non issue as the cover up of damage is the problem. Whether it is discovered one day or 600 days after the completion date, if the work is not performed correctly, time elapsed on the warranty for the does not apply. e.g. A CV shaft is replaced and during installation the boot is damaged. The mechanic duct tapes the hole to prevent grease loss. A year later, the customer is driving and notices a pop when turning, the shaft has separated and is now stuck at his home. He then takes a look under the car, removes splash guards, discovers the duct tape, photographs the issue, opens the boot for closer inspection and reports it. We are in a similar situation. In these cases, it is the responsibility of the shop to have the vehicle returned for repair. The facility that performed the repair is not absolved of responsibility because it's been a year. The issue is workmanship, purposeful cover up and deception, not parts failure.
What we're discussing now is how the issue can be resolved fairly and most effectively. Here are a few points I'd like to highlight:
1) Responsibility for repair has already been accepted.
2) Damage to vehicles during the repair process is the facilities responsibility.
3) Groovy acknowledges repair quality and practices were poor at the time this particular vehicle was repaired. To correct that situation Groovy fired the manager and some mechanics.
4) Putting the cost of vehicle transport on us is not fair as the problem was caused by Groovy.
5) We are not confident in the quality of work the vehicle would receive.
6) Store credit is not an option as we are not confident in the quality of future repairs.
I am still wanting to resolve this quickly and fairly. As a honest and ethical mechanic who stands by my work in all cases; if someone is working for me, I stand by their work. I'm unable to understand the GM's standpoint if Groovy also has those core values.
As I stated in prior correspondence, we are only asking for reimbursement for parts which are estimated to be $100 or less. My labor rate is $50/hr. which I am asking nothing for.
I hope this will someway initiate a reconsideration. If not, I am requesting a contact number for the next level of management even if that is the owner as that is standard business practice in these situations.
***Groovy stood by their position to not pay for towing, or parts, and fix if they deemed it was their error.***
Absolutely the worst customer service and work ethic I've experienced in the automotive industry.