- Report: #1410598
Complaint Review: Brake Masters - California
-
Author Confirmed
Why?
Brake Masters
California, United States
Web:
N/A
Categories:
Business Rating:
(0)
Tell us has your experience with this business or person been good?
Brake Masters SHALOM LAYTIN, ERIC LAYTIN, MATAN SIMCHA OZER LAYTIN, MATAN LAYTIN Read carefully the multiple case for fraud California
Warning, Run Away from these persons,
Please be aware and please stay away,
Read carefully the multiple case for fraud,
Case No. 77/16-22 / OAHNo.2016030421
https://www.bar.ca.gov/pdf/accusations/ard274417_2015_11_09_acc.pdf
https://www.bar.ca.gov/pdf/accusations/ard233690_2017_06_08_dec.pdf
https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/2rkdy634g/superior-court-of-california-county-of-los-angeles/sanda-nevada-llc-v-shalom-laytin/
PLEASE READ:
UNDERCOVER OPERATION #2
32. On or about April 10,2014, an undercover operator with the Bureau ("operator") took
the Bureau's 2000 Pontiac to Brake Masters #135. The front brake pads on the Bureau-
documented vehicle were in need of replacement and the ~J cylinder spark plug was defective,
causing the check engine light to illuminate. The operator told a male employee that she wanted
the brakes and illuminated check engine light inspected and presented him with a wupon from
Brake Masters # 135 for a free brake inspection and check engine lamp inspection. The operator
signed and received a copy of a written estimate and left the facility.
33. At approximately 1420 hours that same day, the operator received a call from
Respondent's employee, "Bo". Bo told the operator that the front brake pads were badly worn
and needed replacement and that the front brake rotors needed replacement as well. The operator
told Bo she would call him back. At approximately 1435 hours, the operator called the facility
and asked Bo if they could resurface the rotors instead of replacing them. Bo claimed that he
9
could not resurface the rotors because tbey would be too thin after machining. Bo also told the
operator that the check engine light was illuminated because ofa diagnostic trouble code for a #1
engine misfire and that they would require an additional $98 for a diagnosis of the check engine
light. Bo stated that the repairs and diagnosis would cost $532.43, which the operator authorized.
34. On or about April II, 2014, the operator received a voice mail message from
Respondent's employee, "Mike", requesting a return phone call. At approximately 1045 hours,
the operator called the facility and spoke with Mike. Mike told the operator that all six spark
plugs were worn out and were the incorrect type for the vehicle, the coil pack was burnt and had
high resistance, and the spark plug wires were bad. Mike claimed that all of these parts would
need to be replaced in order to correct the illuminated check engine light. Mike gave the operator
a revised estimate price of$l, 137.73 for the repairs, which the operator authorized.
35. At approximately 1600 hours that same day, the operator returned to the facility to
retrieve the vehicle, paid $1,135 for thc repairs, and received a copy of an invoice.
36. On or about April 14, 2014, the Bureau inspected the vehicle and found that the
facility had performed approximately $777 in unnecessary repairs.
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15
