Dan''s Tire
Batavia,#2REBUTTAL Owner of company
Fri, January 08, 2010
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.