Complaint Review: Aamco Camphill Mechanicsuburg PA - Camp Hill Pennsylvania

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.