BBB Accredited Business since

Ron's Automotive - Cascade Park

Phone: (360) 253-6000 Fax: (360) 896-3481 16211 SE 1st St, Vancouver, WA 98684 http://www.ronsautomotive.com


BBB Business Reviews may not be reproduced for sales or promotional purposes.

Description

This company offers auto repair and service as well as full service auto body and painting.


BBB Accreditation

A BBB Accredited Business since

BBB has determined that Ron's Automotive - Cascade Park meets BBB accreditation standards, which include a commitment to make a good faith effort to resolve any consumer complaints. BBB Accredited Businesses pay a fee for accreditation review/monitoring and for support of BBB services to the public.

BBB accreditation does not mean that the business' products or services have been evaluated or endorsed by BBB, or that BBB has made a determination as to the business' product quality or competency in performing services.


Reason for Rating

BBB rating is based on 13 factors. Get the details about the factors considered.

Factors that raised the rating for Ron's Automotive - Cascade Park include:

  • Length of time business has been operating
  • Complaint volume filed with BBB for business of this size
  • Response to 2 complaint(s) filed against business
  • Resolution of complaint(s) filed against business


Customer Complaints Summary Read complaint details

2 complaints closed with BBB in last 3 years | 1 closed in last 12 months
Complaint Type Total Closed Complaints
Advertising/Sales Issues 1
Billing/Collection Issues 0
Delivery Issues 0
Guarantee/Warranty Issues 0
Problems with Product/Service 1
Total Closed Complaints 2

Customer Reviews Summary Read customer reviews

0 Customer Reviews on Ron's Automotive - Cascade Park
Customer Experience Total Customer Reviews
Positive Experience 0
Neutral Experience 0
Negative Experience 0
Total Customer Reviews 0

Additional Information

BBB file opened: December 01, 1988 Business started: 12/01/1988 in WA Business started locally: 12/01/1988 Business incorporated 12/01/1988 in WA
Licensing, Bonding or Registration

This business is in an industry that may require professional licensing, bonding or registration. BBB encourages you to check with the appropriate agency to be certain any requirements are currently being met.

These agencies may include:

Washington Secretary of State Corporations Division
801 Capitol Way S, Olympia WA 98504
http://www.secstate.wa.gov/corps
Phone Number: (360) 725-0377
corps@sos.wa.gov

Type of Entity

Corporation

Business Management
Mr. Ron Warman, President Ray Ewert, Operations Manager
Contact Information
Customer Contact: Ray Ewert, Operations Manager
Principal: Mr. Ron Warman, President
Business Category

Auto Repair & Service Auto Body Repair & Painting General Automotive Repair (NAICS: 811111)

Method(s) of Payment
All Major Credit Card and Cash.
Refund and Exchange Policy
3 Year 36,000 mile labor warranty 5 Year 50,000 parts warranty.
Service Area
Vancouver WA
Alternate Business Names
Ron's Auto Body and Paint Ron's Automotive Ron's Automotive & Collision

Additional Locations

  • 16211 SE 1st St

    Vancouver, WA 98684 (360) 253-6000

X

BBB Customer Review Rating plus BBB Rating Overview


BBB Customer Reviews Rating represents the customers opinions of the business. The Customer Review Rating is based on the number of positive, neutral and negative customer reviews posted that are calculated to produce a score.

Customer Review Experience Value
Positive Review 5 points per review
Neutral Review 3 points per review
Negative Review 1 point per review

BBB letter grades represent the BBB's opinion of the business. The BBB grade is based on BBB file information about the business. In some cases, a business' grade may be lowered if the BBB does not have sufficient information about the business despite BBB requests for that information from the business.
Details

BBB Letter Grade Scale

BBB Rating Value
A+ 5
A 4.66
A- 4.33
B+ 4
B 3.66
B- 3.33
C+ 3
C 2.66
C- 2.33
D+ 2
D 1.66
D- 1.33
F 1
NR -----
Star Rating scale

  Average Score
5 stars 5.00
4.5 stars 4.50-4.99
4 stars 4.00-4.49
3.5 stars 3.50-3.99
3 stars 3.00-3.49
2.5 stars 2.50-2.99
2 stars 2.00-2.49
1.5 stars 1.50-1.99
1 star 0-1.49

BBB Customer Review Rating plus BBB Rating is not a guarantee of a business' reliability or performance, and BBB recommends that consumers consider a business' BBB Rating and Customer Review Rating in addition to all other available information about the business. If the BBB Rating is NR then only Customer Reviews are used for the Star Rating.

Complaint Detail(s)

8/14/2014 Advertising/Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: I had my vehicle's 15,000 mile service completed by Ron's Automotive. I dropped off my vehicle and received a call from them a few hours later stating that my rear differential fluid had metal components in it and it needed to be flushed. Assuming, they were being honest, I verbally authorized them to do so over the phone. Upon picking up my vehicle, the salesman at Ron's insisted I take it to Subaru to have them check it out and make sure no gears were grinding, causing the metal components in the fluid. I took my car to the Subaru dealership where I purchased my vehicle a week later and upon completion, I was told that nothing was wrong with my vehicle. They also questioned me as to why Ron's Automotive was even looking at my rear differential because it's not necessary to do so until the 30,000 mile service. I feel like I was cheated out of the extra $70 they charged me for something that was a non-issue in the first place. Also, I was charged for something that wasn't even necessary. It caused meextra money out of pocket, extra time on my part to follow-up with Subaru, and extra stress and energy and I am very unhappy with their dishonesty and service.

Desired Settlement: I would like a refund for that portion of the service. I was charged approximately $70 extra for a rear differential flush which was completely unnecessary as nothing was even wrong with my vehicle in the first place.

Business Response: Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2014/07/17) */ The customer called in to inquire about what we offer for a 15,000 mile service on her Subaru Crosstrek. We gave her complete service and pricing details. Our 15,000 mile package includes the following: A full 100 point inspection removing all four tires to inspect the brakes, under-carriage and suspension. Inspect all belts, hoses, fluid conditions and levels, as well as top off as needed. Inspect all exterior lighting. Where applicable we will remove a spark plug to inspect for wear and condition. Also included is the replacement of the air filter, cabin air filter (where applicable), engine oil and oil filter. The alignment is inspected for any needed adjustments and the tires are rotated. The manufacturer may request additional services on some makes and models. The customer scheduled the service, and arrived for her appointment on June 13th. When checking in at the counter, we again went over what our package includes. The customer signed our authorization for the requested 15,000 mile service, and was given a shuttle-ride home. After vehicle drop-off, we proceeded with the customer requested services. After the 100-point maintenance inspection, our recommendations were as follows: 1: We recommended brake fluid exchange NOT be completed at this time. A brake system flush, for which an additional $99.95 + tax would have been added, was recommended to be performed by the dealership at 15,000 miles. We advised the customer it was not needed due to the adequate condition of the fluid at the time. 2: We recommended the rear differential be serviced (fluid replaced). The fluid we inspected through the differential fill-port was excessively dark. We called the customer with our findings, which are outlined clearly on the manual inspection sheet, technician's work-sheet, as well as the final work order. We went over the general condition of the remainder of the vehicle, per our inspection. The customer said she would call us back if she needed a ride in for her car, and got off of the phone. The customer called us back some time later, and asked if we had time before closing to complete the differential fluid change. We checked our fluid inventory, and informed her we could have it done by the end of the day. She requested that we proceed with servicing the differential. We proceeded with the service per the customer's request. While the technician was draining the differential, he noted the fluid was even worse in the bottom of the differential than it had appeared in the finger-dabbed inspection sample he saw during the initial inspection. The technician found multiple metallic flakes in the fluid, as well metal shavings stuck to the magnetized drain plug. The condition of the fluid we drained was quite unusual for a Subaru with only 15,803 miles, and the metal we found indicated either excessive metal left in the component during manufacturing and factory assembly, or the worst-case scenario: a pre-mature failure of an internal component. Had we seen the metal shavings in the fluid before draining, we would have recommended the customer take the vehicle to a dealership for inspection. However, most of the fluid was funneling into our drain-bowser when we encountered the metallic flakes. We took a sample of the remaining fluid for the advisor and customer. We cleaned the metal from the magnet, cleaned out the differential per our normal procedure, and filled the differential with the appropriate, new fluid. We explained our findings to the customer, by phone immediately after draining the fluid, and again at the counter during final delivery. We very thoroughly, and repeatedly, explained that the dark fluid condition in the differential and metallic flakes present may only be due to leftover material from the component's manufacture or assembly. However, only as a precautionary measure, we informed the customer she "may want to" inform the dealer of our findings while the vehicle is still under factory warranty. This recommendation, which was in the customer's best interest, was meant to document the fluid irregularity in the event of any related premature-failure, thus preserving any relief from her factory warranty should the differential components be defective. We poured the fluid sample from the white paper-cup we used to collect it, into a clear glass bottle the customer had brought to our shop, in the event she would like to show the dealership service department. The several metal flakes in the small fluid sample stuck to our paper cup and did not pour into the glass bottle. (Most of the heavier-contaminated fluid poured out into our bowser, mixing with other fluids) The customer thanked us for our help, paid for our services, then re-affirmed her requests for the additional fluid service by signing our secondary-authorization paperwork. She then left with her vehicle and the fluid sample we provided. After vehicle pick-up by the customer, all inspection forms, the customer-signed completed work-order, the manufacturer's recommendation chart, alignment inspection printout, technician's worksheet, parts-order form, and the customer-signed original drop-off authorization form were then scanned into pdf-form, and the hard-copies filed. Due to the highly documented facts of our services to this vehicle, we find the following inaccuracies/inconsistencies with the customer's statements and implications: "...received a call from them a few hours later stating that my rear differential had metal components in it and needed to be flushed" -The customer was informed on our first follow-up call of dark fluid and a recommendation of service. She called us back later and requested the service be completed. We found the metal contamination upon draining the differential and informed her of the secondary findings on a secondary phone call. "...the salesman at Ron's insisted I take it to Subaru" -Absolutely no insistence was made. As advisors, we make common-sense recommendations in the best interest of our customer's vehicle care. We recommended Subaru be aware of our findings to protect the customer's warranty, should she need it. "...why Ron's Automotive was even looking at my differential because it's not necessary to do so until the 30,000 mile service." -The service the customer requested includes inspection of all accessible fluids. Our finding of the excessively dark fluid enforces the value of this inspection. "...something that was a non-issue in the first place." -We based our differential service recommendation on hard evidence. The fluid was excessively dark, especially for a vehicle with only 15,803 miles on it. "...I was charged for something that wasn't even necessary." -We made a recommendation based on actual fluid condition, which was physically shown/given to the customer. The customer requested the rendered service after considering it and calling us back. "...extra time to follow up with Subaru," -Our recommendation she follow up with Subaru was simply in order to protect her factory warranty, should she need to. The condition of the vehicle prompted our suggestions. The customer had the choice to not follow up with Subaru if she did not want to. Furthermore, if Subaru found nothing wrong with her differential, that's great news for the customer. -Our recommendation was to make sure there was not a pre-mature failure. "...unhappy with their dishonesty" -The customer was provided with demonstrated and documented facts of her vehicle's condition, as well as with a fluid sample of the original differential fluid. The customer was very well informed, multiple times, of what services were included in the initial 15,000 mile service and cost, as well as the subsequent differential service and cost. Both the initial service and differential service were scheduled and authorized after the customer had time to consider the services and call us back. If we were solely interested in revenue, we would have recommended flushing her brake system, per Subaru's recommendation. This service would have added $114.85 to her bill, if approved -We did not, because the brake fluid condition did not warrant so. -Incidentally, a rear differential service for this vehicle is one of the least expensive items on our service menu. Considering all of the actual facts of servicing this vehicle, we believe we handled the service in not just the most cost-effective manner for the customer, but in her vehicle's best interest. All of our documentation, as well as our verbal interaction with our customers, are designed to be non-technical plain-English, so it is easily understood by the general public. It is unfortunate the customer appears unwilling or incapable of applying our demonstrated, well-documented findings and recommendations to her concern. It is our opinion that we cannot be held responsible for a lack of understanding of proven physical facts, and frankly, misplaced buyer's rem Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2014/07/18) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) "The customer called us back some time later, and asked if we had time before closing to complete the differential fluid change. We checked our fluid inventory, and informed her we could have it done by the end of the day. She requested that we proceed with servicing the differential. We proceeded with the service per the customer's request." This statement from Ron's Automotive is HIGHLY inaccurate and I have the cell phone records to prove it. I absolutely DID NOT call them back to ask them if they had time to proceed with the rear service differential fluid flush. When they called me initially to inform me of their findings is when they asked me if I wanted them to proceed. In being told that something was wrong with my vehicle, I agreed. Anyone would have. This goes to show their dishonest business practices. Put people under pressure on the phone by telling them something is wrong and they will agree in a heartbeat because nobody wants to have issues with their car. It's dishonest and I feel that I was cheated out of $70 due to something that was not even an issue. I could go through and dissect their statements as they did mine but I do not feel that that is necessary. Obviously, they do not want to provide quality HONEST service and will fight their customers in order to keep their dollars. If dollars are all they care about, their business will not last and I am certain that they have had other BBB complaints against them in the past, and that they will have more in the future with the way that they are handling this. I still have the fluid sample that Ron's gave me and there are ZERO metal components in it. In showing Subaru this fluid sample, they said that the darkness of the fluid was to be expected at 15,000 miles. In completion of the service of my vehicle at the Subaru dealership, they reported no issues with my vehicle and again, ZERO metal components. They confirmed that the rear differential fluid flush at Ron's was indeed unnecessary and that nothing was wrong with my vehicle. I was aware of what the 15,000 mile service at Ron's Automotive entailed, but it did not include the rear service differential fluid flush. They are a company who created a non-issue in order to gain more income. This is extremely dishonest and I feel cheated out of my hard-earned money. I went into Ron's Automotive because they offered me a better deal, initially, than the Subaru dealership for the 15,000 mile service. In the end, it ended up being much more money and much more of a headache. I would like a refund for the $70 as I stated previously. The service they provided was not satisfactory by any means and it was definitely dishonest.

3/12/2013 Problems with Product/Service