BBB Accredited Business since

Midas Auto Service

Additional Locations

Phone: (952) 546-8767 Fax: (952) 546-8434 View Additional Phone Numbers 12812 Wayzata Blvd, Minnetonka, MN 55305

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

BBB Accreditation

A BBB Accredited Business since

BBB has determined that Midas Auto Service 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 Midas Auto Service include:

  • Length of time business has been operating
  • Complaint volume filed with BBB for business of this size
  • Response to 6 complaint(s) filed against business
  • Resolution of complaint(s) filed against business

Customer Complaints Summary Read complaint details

6 complaints closed with BBB in last 3 years | 2 closed in last 12 months
Complaint Type Total Closed Complaints
Advertising/Sales Issues 1
Billing/Collection Issues 3
Delivery Issues 0
Guarantee/Warranty Issues 0
Problems with Product/Service 2
Total Closed Complaints 6

Customer Reviews Summary Read customer reviews

0 Customer Reviews on Midas Auto Service
Customer Experience Total Customer Reviews
Positive Experience 0
Neutral Experience 0
Negative Experience 0
Total Customer Reviews 0

Additional Information

BBB file opened: July 17, 1989 Business started: 01/01/1980 Business started locally: 01/01/1980
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:

Minnesota Secretary of State
180 State Office Bldg, 100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., Saint Paul MN 55155
Phone Number: (651) 296-2803

Type of Entity


Business Management
Sanford Hendrickson, Owner Steve Gladieux, General Manager Owner/Manager, Owner/Manager
Contact Information
Principal: Sanford Hendrickson, Owner
Business Category

Auto Repair & Service Brake Service Mufflers & Exhaust Systems

Alternate Business Names
A S I Hendrickson Enterprises Hendrickson Enterprizes Midas Auto Service Experts Midas Muffler
Products & Services

According to information provided by Midas Auto Service, this company offers full service auto and truck repairs.

Industry Tips
Auto Repair and Services

Additional Locations

  • 12812 Wayzata Blvd

    Minnetonka, MN 55305 (952) 546-8767

  • 19340 Highway 7

    Excelsior, MN 55331 (952) 920-4920

  • 5604 Winnetka Ave N

    Minneapolis, MN 55428

  • 8260 Flying Cloud Dr

    Eden Prairie, MN 55344 (952) 944-8450

  • 9020 Excelsior Blvd

    Hopkins, MN 55343 (952) 545-9070 (952) 933-5551


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.

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)

3/8/2016 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details

Additional Notes

Complaint: I went to the shop to have a car inspection done for my employer, I was told my car failed the inspection because I needed 3 repairs done. I went to the shop on 2/5/2016 to have a vehicle inspection done on my car. a 2009 VW Jetta. I was told that my car failed the inspection because I needed 2 new tires, new rear brakes and rotors, and that there was a small tear in my CV boot that would also need to be replaced. I was given a quote for a little over $1200.00 for all the repairs. I took my vehicle to a different repair shop to have all the work done and was told there was no damage or tear on the CV boot and it did not need to be replaced. I feel I was lied to and told that I needed car repairs that were unnecessary.

Desired Settlement: I am requesting that I be refunded the $35.00 charge for the inspection. I contacted the manager to see if I could get the refund, but he said that I had to bring the car in and they had to put it on the lift and show me. I am not comfortable with having this shop touch my car again. I was misled and do not trust them at all.

Business Response: Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2016/02/26) */ February 23, 2016 RE: Case # ******** This customer has presented a considerably less than complete portrayal of her visit to our shop. Customer came to the shop to have an Uber inspection performed on her vehicle. Our shops are among the small collection of service groups in the Twin Cities that Uber has authorized to perform these inspections. It is Uber's mandate that the inspection is very meticulous. A shop is not to give a vehicle a "passing" inspection if there is any safety issue, or if there is a cosmetic or non-safety mechanical issue of significance. The inspection form is provided by Uber. The typical vehicles our shops see for Uber inspections are 1-3 years old and have less than 50,000 miles on them. Customer's vehicle is a 7 year old Volkswagen with 110,000 miles. The inspection on customer's vehicle was performed by the shop's Service manager, a technician with 10+ years' experience and numerous ASE Certifications. After performing the inspection, the Service Manager went over the results with the customer. There were several issues of concern with the vehicle. There was a nail in one tire, and the rim on that wheel was bent. Two of the tires had 4/32" of an inch of remaining tread life. Though above the discard point on the tires, 4/32" is certainly at a point where any competent shop will recommend new tires. Of greater significance, the rear brakes had been worn to the discard point. Finally, there was a slight tear/leak in the right CV boot. The Service Manager explained to the customer that her vehicle did not pass the Uber inspection. He had the customer accompany him out to the shop in order to show/explain the issues with the vehicle. He showed her the rear tire with the nail as well as showed her the worn rear brake components. While in the shop, the Service Manager asked the customer if she wanted to look at the CV boot at the front of the vehicle. The customer declined. The Service manager explained to the customer that her vehicle failed the Uber inspection because the worn brakes created a safety issue. He made clear that the CV boot was a secondary issue, but would not, by itself, lead to failing the inspection. The Service Manager then asked the customer if she wanted a price estimate on any of the issues identified. The customer indicated that she did. Ultimately, the customer declined to address any of the identified issues other than having the nail removed and that tire repaired. She was charged $19.99 for this service and $35 for the Uber inspection. Several days later, the customer contacted the store requesting a refund for her failed inspection. She made reference to the CV boot. The manager invited her to bring the vehicle to the shop. He indicated that they would be happy to raise the vehicle on a hoist and take another look at the CV boot. The customer responded that she bring the vehicle by, but apparently became uncomfortable with this idea, opting instead to file a complaint. By way of response, it is important to remember that the customer's vehicle failed the UBER inspection because her brakes were in an unsafe condition. This was clearly communicated to the customer, and nowhere in her complaint does she raise an issue with this assessment. Additionally, it was never communicated to the customer that she had to have any of the suggested repairs performed at our shop as a condition of passing the Uber inspection. Quite the contrary was communicated to her. It is a significant point of emphasis on all Uber inspections that failure causing issues can be addressed at any shop, but they do need to be addressed before the vehicle will pass. This customer has requested a refund for the $35 inspection fee. The function of the Uber inspection is to ensure that any vehicle put into service in the Uber system has met some threshold level of safety and appearance. The customer's vehicle did not meet that threshold level due to the worn condition of her rear brakes. At no point in her complaint does this customer indicate that she had any issue regarding the assessment of her brakes. Indeed, her complaint indicates that she had "all the work done" at a different shop. I'm assuming the brakes were addressed at that point. I am assuming as well that the customer understands that the Uber inspection fee is applicable irrespective of whether the vehicle fails or passes the inspection. Assuming that level of understanding, the customer's complaint is based upon a recommendation for a repair that she chose not to take a look at while at the shop when the opportunity to do so was offered, and that she declined to bring back to the shop in order to have the damaged part identified, and most significantly, a recommended repair that she was specifically told did not impact the Uber inspection. The fee for an Uber inspection, relative to the amount of time spent performing, it is nominal. The fee itself is set by Uber. This customer has zero grounds for a refund of that fee. A complete inspection was performed. Unfortunately, the vehicle did not pass the inspection. The customer has indicated nothing that disputes the basis of the failure. It is unfortunate that she has an issue with one of the ancillary suggested service issues on her vehicle. Similarly it is unfortunate, if as she states, she is uncomfortable with that shop. Fortunately, we have other locations within the Twin Cities, including two within 10 minutes of this customer's stated address. She is welcome to visit either of these shops and have her vehicle inspected, at no charge, to determine whether the CV boot in question is damaged. If, as this customer suggests, there is no visible damage, we will happily refund the$35 inspection fee, notwithstanding the CV boot's lack of relevance to the Uber inspection. I am happy to arrange for this inspection at any of our shops at whatever time is convenient for the customer.

1/8/2016 Billing/Collection Issues | Read Complaint Details

Additional Notes

Complaint: I paid to have my left axle replaced, and upon pickup, the right axle was broken. At drop off, there was nothing wrong with the right axle. I brought my car to the VW dealership on 12-07-15 for an oil change and was told that there was an issue with my left axle, which I was unaware of prior. Since I had replaced both of my axles 10-07-14 ($571 total) at the Midas in New Hope, I returned there the following day, 12-08-15, and was informed there was a 12mo./12,000 mi. warranty on the axles. It has been 14 mo., 1 day since the initial repair, but I only drove the vehicle 5,500 miles total the entire past year. An axle should be able to be driven on more than 5,500 miles. I was told the part will be covered, but I needed to pay labor ($133.48). I wasn't too excited about that, but of course I paid. I picked up the vehicle that day at close, and while driving it home, the right side shook profusely and felt as if the whole wheel was going to pop off. I brought the car right back the following day, and was told that now it's the right axle, and will be another $133.48... WHAT?!?! My wheel never did this prior, and VW would have said there was an issue with the right axle on Monday. All I truly wanted when returning was for this place to stand behind the work they did a year ago, oh, and the prior day. But that's too much to ask. Nathan the manager just stated I want something for free (umm- I've already paid you $700 and my car is NOT FIXED... what's free about that?!?). Actually they sabotaged my vehicle and made it inoperable. And, to make matters worse, the owner Sandy never returned my phone call after reaching out to *********** Enterprises multiple times.

Desired Settlement: I would like a full refund of $133.48 for the incorrect work/errors preformed on my vehicle. This would also be sufficient to cover the time spent in going elsewhere to get the car repaired correctly. I would also like a phone call from the owner Sandy *********** to discuss the inappropriateness of treatment by people employed at his venue. I think this is completely fair.

Business Response: Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/12/30) */ Response is in attached file. To: Better Business Bureau of Minnesota & North Dakota From: *********** Enterprises Inc. - Midas Auto Service Experts RE: Case # ******** : **************** We are certainly sorry that this customer's recent experience at our shop has led to such consternation for her. However, the customer's selective recall of the events surrounding that experience, give a highly inaccurate, hyperbole-filled summation of what actually occurred. On October 7, 2014 customer had the two front CV axles on her 2004 Volkswagen Passat replaced by our shop. As the Nationwide warranty information on customer's invoice makes abundantly clear, absent the repair falling into one of the identified lifetime warranty categories (exhaust, shocks/struts, or brake pads & shoes), the warranty period for parts and labor is ninety (90) days from the date of installation. However, all of our shops extend this warranty period to one year or 12,000 miles. Whichever occurs first. On December 8, 2015 Customer's husband contacted the shop indicating that he recently had the vehicle's tires rotated at the dealership and that they noted that the rubber boot on the driver's side front CV axle was torn. Husband inquired of store manager as to whether he had any warranty coverage. After getting mileage and looking up the vehicle's repair history, the manager informed husband that the vehicle was out of warranty coverage based on time (14 months). Manager noted however, that because mileage was low (6000 miles), he would be willing to warranty the part ($159.99) but that customer would be responsible for the installation charge of $133.48. Husband agreed with this and indicated he would drop the vehicle at the shop. The next day, the husband brought vehicle to the shop. The vehicle was pulled into the shop, raised on a hoist and inspected. As husband had indicated, the left front CV axle boot was torn. The tear clearly appeared to be the product of a puncture and subsequent tearing. This is not indicative of a worn or defective part, but rather, the boot coming into contact with something sharp. Husband was contacted by manager, and given an explanation of the situation. The Store manager indicated that, notwithstanding the nature of the damage to the boot and the fact of the part being out of warranty coverage, the shop would still warranty the part and the customer would only pay the installation charge. Husband agreed. Store manager also noted that the hub locking tool necessary to remove the wheel was not in the vehicle. Husband indicated he would drop it by the next day. Shortly thereafter, customer arrived at shop with a box of parts which included the locking tool. Manager thanked customer and indicated they would now be able to perform the repair that day. Manager went through with customer a summary of the conversation he previously had with husband, including the repair to be performed and what the charge would be. Customer indicated she believed there should be no charge for the service, but agreed that shop should proceed. The technician then removed the left front wheel, removed the of the old CV axle and replaced it with the new CV axle. The technician assigned the repair is a 20 year industry veteran with numerous Automotive Service Excellence designations who has performed this particular repair on dozens of occasions. Upon completion of the repair, the technician took the vehicle for a short test drive to ensure the repair was performed correctly. It was a slippery rainy/freezing day, so technician's test drive speed was low. His objective was to make ensure the new axle was seated correctly and to make sure the vehicle's anti-lock brake light was not tripped. Satisfied that the repair was correct, the technician returned to the shop. Customer's husband was contacted and informed that the repair was complete. Later that day he returned to the shop, paid for and picked up the vehicle. The next day, the husband contacted the shop indicating that there was considerable vibration and noise coming from the right front side of the vehicle. The store manager informed him that he should bring the vehicle in and they would look into it. Husband brought vehicle to the shop. Both the manager and the technician test drove the vehicle. Both agreed that at low speed, nothing was out of the ordinary. Both agreed as well however that under load, or at higher speed, something was amiss. The vehicle was then brought in to the shop to inspect. With the vehicle elevated and a technician controlling the gas pedal and gears, the vehicle was inspected under various load conditions. At lower speeds, everything appeared normal. Under a heavy load, at higher speeds, there was a visible lack of balance with the right front CV axle. This produced the vibration. The husband was brought out to the shop and was shown what was going on with the axle under various loads. The manager also showed the husband the old CV axle with the punctured and torn boot that had been replaced on the left side The manager and husband returned to the office to discuss what the course of action should be for the vehicle. The manger indicated that unlike the left axle's issue, which wasn't the product of a failed part, the right axle's issue appeared to be just that. The manager advised the husband that though the part was out of warranty coverage, the shop would warranty it and the customer would be responsible for the installation charge. The manager also discussed the various grades of CV axles that were available on the marketplace. The grade installed on husband's vehicle was a standard aftermarket CV axle. The manager indicated that because cv axles were a recurring issue with Passat's , particularly Passat's with as much horsepower as husband's vehicle, that at no additional charge to husband, he would install, on both axles, premium cv axles. The shop would receive no manufacturer's coverage or assistance for doing so, but that manager wanted to try and ensure that customer experienced no further axle issues. Husband agreed to pay the labor charge for the right side ($133.48) and manager agreed that they would install premium CV axles on both sides. Manager again gave customer a loaner vehicle to use for the day. Shortly after husband departed the shop, customer contacted shop and launched into lengthy diatribe on why she should not have to pay anything, how shop was ripping her off, that vehicle was not drivable and that shop was going to repair her vehicle for free and have it done that night. Manager attempted to discuss the issue, but customer was not interested in hearing anything contrary to her opinion. At one point customer did indicate she would pay for the repair, but only if shop drove vehicle to the Mall of America so that she could test drive to her satisfaction. After several rounds of the customer disregarding the store manager's comments, but restating her own, the conversation concluded. Store manager then contacted husband and indicated that wife did not want to pay for the repairs. After some discussion, the husband agreed to return the shop loaner vehicle by the end of the business day and that he would pick up the vehicle. That evening, I was informed of the situation. I advised the manger, that though his position was correct, generously so, he was attempting to reason with someone for whom reason was not a consideration. I advised him that he would be best served by just cutting his losses and contacting the husband the next day and informing him that we would install the right CV axle at no charge and that we would all move on. The next day was not a shop opening day for the manager. Shortly after he arrived to the shop that morning, he was contacted by a neighboring shop. That shop informed the manager that they had customer's vehicle at their shop and that it appeared to need a right front axle. Our manager advised the shop to perform the replacement and that we would pay them for the part and installation charge. The shop agreed and proceeded with the repair. Customer's allegation that the shop "sabotaged" her vehicle and made it "inoperable" is patently false, highly offensive and purely ridiculous. Clearly the vehicle was operable. It was driven to the shop, driven from the shop, and driven to a shop in a neighboring community the next day. Had the right front axle issue been ignored the vibration would have continued, but to characterize that as "inoperable" is a stretch. The notion that the vehicle was sabotaged is beyond a stretch. This shop has been open for business at that location for 25+ years. This is the first instance that someone has accused the shop of sabotaging their vehicle. In fact, of the 6000+ customers the shop has serviced in 2015, this is the first customer to file a complaint of any type. I am at a loss in trying to identify the shop's incentive to "sabotage" customer's vehicle. At the time, there was certainly no acrimony between the customer and the shop. It was a straightforward warranty replacement. Indeed, the shop would in no way profit from damaging the right CV axle. As the parts were out of warranty coverage, the shop was unlikely to get any warranty reimbursement from the manufacturer on the replacement parts. The install charge did not cover the cost of the part. Why on earth would the shop knowingly damage the right side when it would only create additional loss/expense for the shop? That makes absolutely no sense. Indeed, had there been some indication of "sabotage", I would assume that the shop which performed the right CV axle replacement would have made reference to it to either the customer or to our shop. Our shop replaced the left front CV axle. In performing the repair, the technician only removed the left wheel. The right CV axle is independent of the left. There was no need to address anything on the right side. Whether the right CV axle's issue was present at the time the left was replaced is certainly a possibility, but was in no way knowable by the shop. The test drive after the left CV axle was replaced was not performed at the speed necessary to manifest the issue. I suspect that the dealership which rotated the tires similarly did not drive the vehicle at the speed necessary to initiate the vibration. In any event, this CV axle was replaced at absolutely no charge to the customer. This customer has received two new CV axles and has been charged, in total, the labor to install 1 of them. She technically was out of warranty coverage on all of this. But, apparently, warranties are not applicable to this customer. After arguably defaming our store, she now thinks it would be "completely fair" if she is refunded the $133.48 she actually did spend. This is a laughably curious definition of "completely fair". Notwithstanding the illogical premise of customer's complaint, we are going to issue a $133.48 refund to her. It has nothing to do with her notion of fairness, but everything to do with it being in the best interest of all concerned to move on from this matter. I am assuming that when this check clears, this matter is complete. Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2016/01/07) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) My desired resolution has partially been resolved, but not fully addressed. I received payment via mail, and I am much appreciative of the action. I am curious to know who wrote the above, because if it was not Nathan, I am unsure how anyone else would know the extent of the disrespectful treatment and that Nathan exhibited and timeline of events that played out. If it was Nathan, he left out ALL details of his disconcern for the question at hand- how did my car be in worse condition than l when it was dropped off? I have never considered warranties limitations non-applicable to myself, however will not accept my car to be returned with additional repairs non existent at drop off. Before I filed this complaint, I had one simple request dating back to 12-07-15, and that was to have owner Sandy *********** return my phone call. My reason for requesting this is for him to understand the magnitude of disgust I have for how the shop handled the situation. After all, this is the shop he owns, so wouldn't he care to know? Obviously not. I've never asked anyone to just automatically agree to what I've said (because reading the nastiness above that's clearly not the case), but how can Sandy really make any sort of reactive comment, such as accusing me of defaming his shop when he never heard the other side of the story? Defamation would indicate I've purposely made false statements, but I'm unsure what I've said is false? It's not false just because you've chosen to disagree.

9/29/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details

Additional Notes

Complaint: This Midas location was dishonest about the check engine light status which resulted in further damage to my car. On August 2, 2014, the "STOP ENGINE, Oil Pressure Warning" dashboard indicator light came on in my 2002 Volkswagen Passat. I turned off the engine and noticed that some oil was leaking. I then had my car towed to the Midas location at ********************** in Minnetonka, Minn. Midas diagnosed my car with a cracked oil pan. Midas removed and replaced the oil pan and oil filter and I was notified that it was clear to drive. The manager at Midas, ***********, told me that my "Engine Malfunction" light was on, but that my car needed to run a few times to let the camshaft tensioner fill with oil and then it would drive well again. *** stated that "it's like the first time being stoned, it needs a little while to get its head together." He then said that he would call within a week to see how my car was running. When I started my engine in the Midas parking lot, as *** said, the "Engine Malfunction" indicator light was on. After driving my car for the next week and a half, the "Engine Malfunction" indicator light was still on, and my car began driving very poorly. It shook and rumbled in idle and began smelling like burning oil. I called Midas and explained that the indicator light had not gone off, and I described the problems my car was having. Midas advised me to take it back to be diagnosed. There, Midas was unable to accurately diagnose what was wrong, and *** who was working explained that I should try to get the indicator light turned off and bring it back to the dealership. I then took my car to a Volkswagen specialist, in which I was informed that the additional problems my car was having (the camshaft tensioner had collapsed on bank 1, camshaft tensioner gasket, timing chain tensioner, timing chain, spark plugs, valve cover casket and camshaft plugs needed to be replaced) were a direct result of Midas's negligence and letting me drive my car with the "Engine Malfunction" indicator light on when there was still a problem they should have fixed. The repairs needed totaled $1,773. I called Midas and explained to *** the additional repairs that were needed, and asked if they were able to help me and fix the problems that could have been avoided. *** was understanding and said that he would "do whatever he could to help me." I got a call back from Midas about an hour later, and *** told me that it wasn't their problem and they weren't going to help me at all.

Desired Settlement: The additional repairs needed on my car were a direct result of Midas's negligence in fixing my car and their poor advice to drive it when it was not fixed. I want Midas to reimburse me for the $1773 that I had to spend to fix the additional damage that could have been prevented had they done their due diligence and correctly fixed it in the first place.

Business Response: Initial Business Response /* (1000, 7, 2014/09/16) */ I am writing with regard to Miss *******'s recent visits to our Ridgedale Midas store, and her ensuing complaint. I will certainly get into more detail, but our abridged response is that though we are very empathetic of the issues Miss *******'s experienced with her vehicle, her efforts at attributing responsibility for these issues upon Ridgedale Midas are misdirected. It is our unequivocal position, and one which is supported by the 3rd party repair facility that ultimately performed the engine service on Miss *******'s vehicle, that the damages to Miss *******'s vehicle are directly correlated with her vehicle's engine being run out of oil. This damage occurred prior to Miss ******* ever visiting Ridgedale Midas. Miss *******'s vehicle was towed to Ridgedale Midas on August 2, 2014. As stated in her complaint, she informed the shop manager that the "Stop Engine, Oil Pressure Warning" dashboard indicator light was on and that she had noticed some oil leaking. The vehicle was pushed into the shop for inspection. Immediately after the car was raised in the air, it was quite evident where the oil leak originated. The oil pan had a gaping hole/crack from which the oil had escaped. The oil pan is external to the engine and is bolted to its bottom. Its function is to serve as a reservoir to collect the oil when the engine isn't running. When the engine is running, there is a pick-up tube in the pan that functions to draw oil from the pan and send it to the top of the engine in order to start the oil cycle through the engine components. In the case of Miss *******'s oil pan, it had clearly sustained significant impact damage. Oil pans do have a gasket, which are prone to leaking, but they do not experience damage of this nature without striking or being struck by something. Miss ******'s Passat rides relatively low to the ground, and its oil pan is beneath the engine, so it is likely that it hit or ran over something. Upon further inspection of the vehicle, it was determined that the vehicle had virtually no oil. The oil pan was completely empty. The only oil found was a small amount in the oil filter. Certainly, operating an engine, for any period, with no oil to lubricate the metal components, is not advisable. The logical starting point in repairing Miss *******'s vehicle was to install a new oil pan and gasket set and to refill the oil. The shop suggested and Miss ******* authorized this course of action. Obviously, to this point, the vehicle had never been started at Ridgedale Midas. Throughout this process, the shop manager and Miss. ******* discussed the obvious fact that operating a vehicle with no oil was certainly a potentially engine damaging situation. After the repairs were performed on Miss *******'s vehicle, the vehicle was ready to be started. Somewhat surprisingly, the vehicle did start. Not surprisingly, the engine made a tremendous amount of noise upon initial start-up. This was to be expected, because until oil reached all of the previously lubricant-free engine components, these components were essentially running metal on metal. As oil cycled through the engine, the noise abated. The technician working on the vehicle noted there was an "engine malfunction" dashboard indicator light on. The technician connected a diagnostic scan tool up to the vehicle in order to determine the specific engine codes that had caused the indicator light to trip. The codes were oil pressure related. This was consistent with the fact circumstances involved. In the simplest terms, the oil levels in Miss *******'s vehicle are controlled by hydraulic cam shaft tensioners. This means that they run off of, and are reliant on oil pressure to function correctly. The loss of oil led to a loss of all pressure for the tensioners. The technician cleared the codes and took the vehicle for a test drive. The technician noticed that the engine appeared to be somewhat hesitant at idle. However, as he drove the vehicle, the engine smoothed out. This is consistent with the tensioner pressure being increased as the vehicle was driven. The technician noted that the engine malfunction indicator light had re-tripped almost immediately after starting the test drive. This was consistent with the oil pressure to the tensioners having not yet been fully restored. Upon completion of the test drive, the technician noted that the engine appeared to be operating smoothly. More so when driven than at idle, but that no discernable irregular noise was emanating from the engine. The shop manager advised Miss. ******* of the situation, including the nature of the indicator light. He indicated that perhaps she had been one of the fortunate few owners who run a vehicle out of oil and don't sustain major engine damage. He also advised her to contact the shop if she experienced issues. On August 12th, Miss ******* contacted the shop, and indicated that the vehicle was running poorly. She was told to bring it right in. Upon pulling into the shop, it was clear that Miss *******'s vehicle was running roughly and that the indicator light was still on. The technician hooked up the scan tool and again retrieved the same oil pressure codes from the engine. At this point Miss. *******'s recollection/characterization of what transpired differs greatly from what actually occurred. Miss ******* states that, "Midas was unable to accurately diagnose what was wrong". What actually occurred is that Miss ******* declined to allow Midas to determine what was wrong with her vehicle. Prior to this visit, Midas had never looked at the internal functioning of the vehicle's engine. The only service performed was replacing the damaged oil pan external to the engine. As it was apparent that there was internal damage, the store manager and the lead technician decided that the best course of action was to try and educate Miss ******* on what the next logical step was. This would involve explaining to Miss *******, at her vehicle, the steps necessary to diagnose her vehicle. Curiously, Miss *******'s complaint is entirely silent on the matter, but the lead technician spent 15-20 minutes with Miss *******, on the shop floor, explaining what determining the issue with her vehicle would entail. The technician was very clear with Miss ******* that given the symptoms her vehicle was exhibiting, she should not drive the vehicle. At the vehicle he explained the process of what he would do in order to correctly diagnose the vehicle. As this involved the internal operation of the engine, he showed and explained to her what would need to be disassembled and what specifically would be looked at and tested. Coincidentally, that same technician was working on a Saab which had sustained sufficient damage to necessitate replacement. He explained to Miss ******* what the issue with that vehicle had been and how it could have been avoided. The technician explained to Mr. *******, that diagnosing her vehicle was merely a matter of time. He suggested that she authorize an hour of diagnostic time and he would start the process of identifying the issue. The shop's hourly diagnostic charge is $109. Miss ******* indicated that she did not have the money at that time, but that she would bring the vehicle back on Friday when she got paid. The technician reiterated that his recommendation was for her to not drive the vehicle until the engine issues were resolved. Miss ******* declined that recommendation and that was the last time she was at Ridgedale Midas. Ultimately, Miss ******* had her vehicle serviced at ****** Autoworks. In her complaint, she quotes that shop as stating that the problems with her car were a direct result of Midas's negligence. We contacted that shop to see if that actually was their position. According to **** at ****** Autoworks, "When it ran out of oil it wrecked it. Unless we (Midas) tore it apart and looked, we wouldn't know." He said that if the motor had been making noise after the oil pan was installed, they would have recommended, "tearing the engine apart to look". As all would agree, at the time Miss ******* left Midas on August 2nd, her engine was not making any unusual noise. ****'s final comment was that, "the tensioner was damaged when she ran it out of oil, and eventually it failed." On the day that Miss *******'s oil pan was replaced, had her vehicle been exhibiting any of the issues that were present at the time of the second visit (engine noise, running poorly, burnt oil smell), she would have received exactly the same advice she received at her second visit. Let Midas correctly diagnose the vehicle. Ultimately she would have had the exact same repairs as those performed at ****** Auto works. At that first visit however, those symptoms were not present. It is not our practice to condemn engines that are not giving any indication that they are failing. Our customers are not going to authorize what they would perceive to be unnecessary diagnostic time. It is somewhat disingenuous of Miss ******* to essentially take the position that we should have identified and repaired issues that did not manifest themselves at her first visit when she would not even authorize the diagnosis of those issues when they were readily apparent at her second visit. Again it is unfortunate that Miss *******'s vehicle was damaged. However, that damaged preceded her ever visiting Midas. If Miss ******* was going to pursue a path of redress, she should have turned this into an insurance claim, as clearly her vehicle was in some sort of collision. Notwithstanding Miss *******'s desire to place responsibility for this situation upon Midas, the inescapable reality is that she drove her vehicle without any oil in the engine. That the engine sustained damage as a result of this should come as a surprise to no one. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or need additional information. Thank you, *******************

3/31/2014 Billing/Collection Issues | Read Complaint Details

Additional Notes

Complaint: I went to Midas with a coupon that stated they would change the oil, and rotate the tires for 19.95 They said they would not rotate the tires They said my tires needed to be replaced. As long as they did not stipulate on the coupon that they would do the rotation,only if the tires did not meet a certain criteria, then they needed to do what was advertised. My sincere opinion is they want to sell tires at a inflated price. The tires are still usable. They also recommended doing other totally unnecessary things which would have amounted to over one thousand dollars!

Desired Settlement: My most important complaint is they refused to do what they advertised. I don't want other people to experience this. Some person not to mechanicly inclined would probably say, yeah, go ahead and put new tires on.

Business Response: Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2014/03/14) */ I am writing with regard to Mr. **** ******'s recent visit to our Ridgedale Midas store, and Mr. ******'s ensuing complaint. I will certainly get into more detail, but our abridged response is that performance of the requested service would have put the vehicle in an unsafe condition. This would have been in violation of our industry's standards of service, and would have increased the consumer's risk of accident. Additionally, the customer did not pay for a service that was not performed. On February 28th, Mr. ****** went to the store to have the oil changed and the tires rotated on his 2002 Oldsmobile Alero. Mr. ****** had a coupon to have these services performed for $19.99. This is a nationally issued coupon. There are varying oil change/tire rotation prices nationwide. However, at our 5 west metro locations, a standard oil change is always $19.99, and tire rotations are always offered, when advisable, at no additional charge. The Ridgedale shop, like all of our shops, acts in accordance with the guidelines as set forth by the Motorist Assurance Program (MAP). MAP provides the standards for uniformity in repair recommendations and vehicle inspection in the auto repair industry. The MAP guidelines are designed for the benefit of consumers, and all of our shops have agreed to adhere to the MAP Pledge of Assurance to Customers and the MAP Standards of Service. In the situation at issue, Mr. ******'s vehicle was brought in to the shop to perform the requested services. As is the case with all vehicles serviced at the shop, a Visual Courtesy Check of the vehicle was performed. This is a free, standard service, designed to give our customers an update on the state of the state of their vehicle. As part of the Courtesy Check, the wear pattern and tread depth of the vehicle's tires are inspected and measured. A new tire typically has 11/32" of tread depth. Assuming the wear patterns are even, a measurement over 5/32" is viewed as safe. According to the MAP guidelines, at a tread depth of less than 5/32" a shop should recommend replacement. Further, according to the MAP guidelines, at a tread depth less than 2/32" a tire is viewed as no longer capable of performing its intended purpose and replacement is required. Obviously, a shop cannot require a consumer to do anything; however, a shop acting in accordance with the MAP Standards can only perform services consistent with those Standards. With respect to Mr. ******'s vehicle, the tread depth of the front tires ranged from 3/32" on the outer edge to 1/32" on the inner. Consistent with this, the wear pattern was uneven. In layman's terms, these tires were "bald". As per the MAP standards, the shop recommended replacing the tires. The rear tires on Mr. ******'s vehicle had remaining life. At various points, they measured at between 5/32" and 7/32". Upon Mr. ******'s declining the recommendation of replacing the front tires, this discrepancy between the tread depths of the front and rear tires became very germane to the issue of whether the tires should be rotated. In addition to Standards of tire replacement, the MAP Standards also specifically address the procedures for tire rotation. These Standards are also supported by among others, the Rubber Manufacturers Association and the Tire and Rim Association. Applicable here are two specific mandates from the MAP Standards: Do Not Rotate tires that have a tread depth variance of 3/32" or more. MAP stresses the need to educate the customer on why the risk of hydroplaning is much greater with the lowest tread depth on the rear. Do Not Rotate tires that are less than 2/32". As was referenced above, a tire is required to be replace when is worn out no longer performs its intended function. Both of these MAP standards prohibited the shop from rotating Mr. ******'s tires. The tread depth variance per axle greatly exceeded 3/32" and the front tires were below 2/32". There is no doubt that rotating these tires (particularly given the realities of Minnesota's climate) would have exacerbated the safety what already was an unsafe vehicle. Not surprisingly, in his discussions with **** ****, the shop Service Manager, Mr. ****** made several references to how bad the traction on his vehicle was and that he had even been experiencing difficulty on his own driveway. **** **** explained to Mr. ****** the danger posed by his current tires and more specifically, why it would be ill-advised to rotate the "bald" front tires to the rear. Mr. ****** seemed to understand this. The situation became more problematic when a gentleman who was apparently Mr. ******'s grandfather entered into the equation. It is our understanding that Mr. ******'s grandfather was serving as Mr. ******'s advisor on, and perhaps paying for, the service to Mr. ******'s vehicle. Following Mr. ****'s explanation, Mr. ****** contacted his grandfather, gave him an update, and handed the phone to Mr. ****. Mr. **** attempted to have a conversation with the grandfather, but was unsuccessful due to the grandfather's yelling. The grandfather insisted that there was nothing wrong with the vehicle, that they should rotate the tires, and that he was going to contact the BBB. The grandfather then hung up. Shortly thereafter, the grandfather called the shop. At the time, Mr. **** was engaged with another customer. The grandfather then proceeded to yell at the employee who answered the phone, again insisting that they should have rotated the tires and again hanging up. Certainly the path of least resistance for the shop would have been to rotate the tires. We perform dozens of them at no charge every week. We have had many internal discussions as a company on whether we should invest in rubber stamps and red ink and just stamp "Definitely Against Shop Recommendation" on the customer's invoice and then perform an ill-advised service the customer insists upon. Perhaps that day will come, but at this point, we are not of the opinion that it is advisable to knowingly perform a service that will most certainly put a vehicle in an unsafe condition. Finally, with reference to Mr. ******'s comment that the shop "also recommended doing other totally unnecessary things"; the two areas of recommendation were the replacement of the intake manifold gasket and some fluids replacement. The intake gasket is visibly leaking and would easily be confirmed by visiting any shop, and the fluids were mileage-based recommendations as per Oldsmobile, the vehicle's manufacturer. As always, we take any customer comments, criticism or complaints very seriously, but in this instance, the complaint is absolutely without merit. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or need additional information. Thank you, ******* *********** Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2014/03/21) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) I would like to respond that some of the things that Mr. *********** said were just not the case! He said that my grandfather was yelling on the phone. Anyone who knows my grandfather would tell you that he does not respond in that way. He simply told the shop foreman or whatever his title is that he felt the tires were to be rotated. It did not say anywhere that they would rotate the tires if they met their requirements. Then it states that my grandfather said on that initial call that he would call the BBB. That is simply not true. After I came home, and midas had not rotated the tires, he called back and said he was referring this matter to the BBB. As far as the leaky manold gasket, we took it to another approved shop and asked about the manifold gasket, and were told that yes, there is a small leak, but no need to do anything at this point. After checking on his computer he said that the replacement, when we need it would be 600.00, as opposed to 800.00 plus at Midas. At this point I think a refund would be in order, as well as a apology for them treating me in this way Sincerely **** ****** Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2014/03/31) */ I am sorry that my earlier response did not meet with Mr. ******'s satisfaction. Just to touch upon a couple of his most recent comments; there is no recorded audio of his grandfather's conversations with the two employees he spoke with, but they both made it quite clear that his volume was high, and it was very much one-way conversations. Additionally, the gasket replacement, like the maintenance work, was a recommendation. The fact of the leak was confirmed by another shop. An intake manifold gasket leak will not improve over time. The primary issue remains the tire rotation. Mr. ******'s comment was that "it did not say anywhere that they would rotate the tires if they met their requirements". They are not our requirements. As I, in great detail, elaborated in my initial response, these standards are set forth by MAP, the Motorist Assurance Program. These standards were specifically created with the safety and well-being of the consumer as the goal. Rotating these tires would have created an unsafe condition. Had we rotated them, and had Mr. ******'s then been involved in a traction related incident, I suspect our ill-advised rotation would have justifiably been brought against us. Our objective is not to make it difficult for our customers to get their vehicles serviced at our shops. However, I would rather deal with a disgruntled customer than have our shops knowingly endanger the safety of one of their customers. I will be happy to send Mr. ****** a voucher for a free oil change and a tire rotation. It will be good at any of our west metro shops.

10/4/2013 Billing/Collection Issues | Read Complaint Details

Additional Notes

Complaint: Tire fell off car while driving on highway, just 2 days and <150 miles after having nail pulled out (of that tire) & plugged at this Midas location. Invoice # ******* Date of Service: 8/28/13 Date of Problem: 8/30/13 On 8/28/13, my wife brought her 2009 Mazda 3 to Midas to have them fix her front left tire, which she noticed a nail in, that was causing her tire to be a little low on air. The car was running perfectly when she brought the car in, even with the nail in the tire. Immediately after leaving the shop, she noticed road noise & vibration that had never been there before. She does not know much about cars, and figured it was just something due to them patching the tire and that it would go away before too long. She drove about a total of 50 miles like this before I had a chance to ride in the car. My first time riding in the car after the Midas appointment was on 8/30/13, heading to a Labor Day Weekend get together with family. I was driving, and noticed as soon as we pulled out of the garage that the car was acting strange. My wife says this is how it was ever since the tire "fix" at Midas, where there was vibration in the car, that could even be seen in the steering wheel at highway speeds. I don't know much about cars either, so we both just figured that maybe this was a normal part of getting a tire patched up, and continued driving, remarking several times that they must have done a poor job patching the tire. For the 100 miles we drove it, the car was still vibrating (worst while breaking or turning left, manageable but still annoying while cruise controls was on). After about 100 miles into our trip (150 total miles since being at Midas), the vibration got very bad for about 10 seconds, and then that same front left tire came bounding off the car, we skidded to the side of the road safely and luckily the tire didn't hit any oncoming traffic, being we were on a 2-lane highway. We searched for a solid 45 minutes until our help arrived (tow truck & family members) but could not find the tire that flew off. We ended up paying $230 out of pocket to call for roadside assistance from a tow truck, and then to buy an adequate spare that could get us home (we drove about 30 miles to a tire shop with our "cheater" spare tire on). We returned to Midas to have them check out our car, and they found a fair amount of damage caused by the impact of the car hitting the ground and skidding to a stop. The lower control arm is in dangerously bad shape, for one thing. However, Midas is claiming they are not responsible for any of this, because my father-in-law took the tire off to change our front brake pads and rotors while we visited them in Chicago. This was about 600 highway miles before visiting Midas, and the car drove perfectly for every single mile, until leaving the Midas shop. They claim they did not take the tire off to fix it, and therefore since the tire fell off, it is the fault of whoever last had to the tire off. This makes no sense, as the 100% direct correlation is that the car drove perfectly up until their tire repair, and vibrated immediately after, until the tire fell off 150 miles down the road. What I am asking is if you can investigate this complaint, help me if at all possible so they assume responsibility for their mistake, and cover the cost of the repairs necessitated by this incident. Thank you, ************* ***************** Chaska, MN 55318 (320) ******** ***********

Desired Settlement: I am asking that Midas fixes my control arm that was wrecked in the impact of the tire falling off. I am asking that they replace the tire/wheel that is missing because it bounded into the woods on the side of the road and we could not find after searching 45+ minutes for. This includes tire pressure sensors, and 5 lug nuts. I am also asking that they fix the alignment issue that has been caused by this accident. They also should compensate us for the $50 we paid the tow truck, and the $178.56 we paid the tire company for a road-worthy spare to get us back home. We will not seek any additional charges for messing up 2 days of our family vacation, nor the gas that my father used driving us around to get this fixed (over 100+ miles). To summarize, I am seeking that they do the following free of charge, as a result of their negligence: 1. Fix/Replace lower control arm 2. Fix/Replace anything else in alignment/steering system that was ruined as a result of this accident. 3. Replace lost tire that came off and couldn't be found (including 5 lug nuts and tire pressure sensor) 4. Compensate use for the $228.56 in out-of-pocket expenses we incurred just to get us back home safely. All we are looking for is to bring our car back to where it was on 8/28/13, before we brought it into Midas. Midas should be responsible for these costs, as the problem started IMMEDIATELY after leaving their shop.

Business Response: Initial Business Response /* (1000, 7, 2013/09/20) */ September 19, 2013 BBB Response Case ID - ******** I will preface this by stating how thankful we are that the ******* were not injured in their recent incident. Having said that, I am writing to communicate, unequivocally, our position regarding the impossibility of Mr. ******'s attempt at correlating the wheel-off incident he and his wife experienced with the repair of a nail puncture performed at our Eden Prairie Midas store. On August 28th, Mr. ******'s wife, ******* ******, contacted the Eden Prairie Midas store. She communicated to *************, the store Service Manager, that she had spotted a nail in the tire of her vehicle and inquired as to whether the shop had time to take care of it for her. Mr. ******* communicated to her that it was a quick fix and that she could come right over. According to the original estimate, at 1:13 p.m., a work order was initiated on Ms. ******'s vehicle. The work order indicated that there was a nail in the driver's side front tire and that the customer was waiting. According to the final invoice, at 1:29 p.m., Ms. ****** paid the $21.95 charge and departed the store. At no point during the 16 minutes Ms. ******'s vehicle was at Midas were the lug nuts, which secure the wheel, ever touched. The wheel was not removed. What did occur during those 16 minutes is that the ASE Certified technician assigned to the repair, Shawn Smith, received the work order and the keys to the vehicle. He then retrieved the vehicle from the parking lot, pulled the vehicle into the shop, raised the vehicle on a hoist, removed the nail from the tire, inserted a rubber plug to seal the puncture, lowered the vehicle to the ground, backed the vehicle out of the shop, parked the vehicle in front of the door, and returned the keys and paperwork to Mr. *******. Ms. ****** paid for the service, received her paperwork, commented on how she appreciated the speed of the service, and exited the building. For a wheel-off situation to occur, one or more of the lug nuts which secure the wheel to the vehicle have had to have worked loose. This is usually a result of the lug nuts being incorrectly tightened on the wheel studs. When wheels are reattached to a vehicle, it is imperative that the lug nuts be torqued, or tightened, to the correct level and in the proper sequence. Every manufacturer provides specific guidelines as to how many foot/pounds of pressure the lugs should be tightened. Most shops, including ours, use torque sticks and wrenches to ensure that the torque specifications are met. In addition to incorrect torqueing, the possibility of a lug nut working loose is heightened depending on the composition of the material the wheels of the vehicle are comprised of. Aluminum or alloy wheels are particularly susceptible to this due to the metal's property of significantly expanding when heated and contracting when cooled. Again, most shops, including ours, recommend to owners of vehicles with alloy wheels that they should swing by the shop 50-75 miles after any service involving wheel removal in order to have a quick torque check. The ******'s vehicle does have aluminum alloy wheels. Of course, the above discussion regarding the loosening of lug nuts has no application in the present case due to the simple fact that the lug nuts were neither touched, nor removed at Eden Prairie Midas. The scenario could have been different had the issue been a slow air leak without an identifiable source of the problem. In that situation, the wheel would have been removed, with the tire potentially having been dismounted, and then visually inspected and tested (using soap and water to detect air bubbles) for the source of the leak. That was certainly not the case in this instance. Here both the customer and the technician were both aware of the problem. The nail was readily visible in the center of the tire tread pattern. There was no need to remove the tire. Moreover the timeline does not allow for this to have occurred. There is no way Ms. ******'s visit could have been concluded in 16 minutes if the service had entailed leak detection and the removal of the wheel. Mr. ****** indicates that they experienced "vibrations" shortly after departing Midas. He further indicates that this issue persisted for the 150 miles they drove the vehicle prior to the wheel-off incident. Mr. ****** has repeatedly stated that he "does not know much about cars". That may well be the case. However, you do not need to be a factory trained technician to know that if your vehicle is behaving as Mr. ****** describes, at some point you pull over to see if something glaringly obvious is going on. The incident occurred two days after the vehicle was at Midas. According to Mr. ******'s recount, Ms. ****** drove the vehicle 40-50 miles prior to their departure for Brainerd and that they were 100+ miles into the trip when the incident occurred. My understanding of their summation is that, to varying degrees, something was amiss this entire period. It is also my understanding that at no point during this period did the ******* ever stop to inspect their vehicle, or inquire of a repair facility as to what could be causing the issues they indicate they experienced. I do know with certainty that at no point did the ******* contact our shop to voice their concerns. What Mr. ****** makes very brief reference to is the last time the wheels on the vehicle had actually been removed. The week following the incident, Mr. ****** and his wife visited the Eden Prairie store to discuss the incident with the store manager, Dylan Fischer, and to inspect what damage the vehicle sustained. During the course of the inspection, it was noted that the vehicle's brakes appeared to be brand new. At that point, Mr. ****** did acknowledge that his father-in-law had very recently installed new brakes on the vehicle. Mr. ****** did not indicate whether the wheels had been properly torqued when they were reattached. He did acknowledge that the lug nut torque or tightness had never been re- inspected following the brake work. It strains the notions of credulity to correlate a wheel coming off 150 miles after a rubber plug is inserted in a nail puncture. Particularly when the wheel is not removed prior to the insertion of the plug. Mr. ******'s assertion is the equivalent of attributing a shoelace coming undone to having stepped on a piece of gum several days earlier. Do shoe laces come undone? Of course, but it is due to improperly tying them, not what was stepped on. Obviously, there is no way of now determining whether those lug nuts were properly tightened the last time the wheel was reattached, but there is certainly an infinitely greater likelihood of the ******'s incident being correlated with that service than with a service where the lug nuts were not even touched. Again, we are thankful that the ******* were not injured and that the damage to their vehicle was minor in this unfortunate incident. We can also appreciate their desire to place the blame for the incident on someone. Their blame however, is misdirected in this situation. It is a reality of our business that the last shop to have contact with a vehicle is assumed to be responsible for any woes that befall that vehicle. On multiple occasions over the years, we have remedied situations that quite arguably had nothing to do with the vehicle's time at our shop. Our policy has always been that if there is any plausible possibility that we are responsible for an issue, we will fully remedy that issue. A wheel will not fall off unless there is an issue with one or more of the wheel's lug nuts. We did not touch the lug nuts on this vehicle. The repair did not necessitate touching them, and the time line did not allow for it. Thus, this is not an instance where a plausible possibility exists that we are responsible for an issue. We are empathetic of the ******'s hardship. If they are interested I am happy to discuss with them our assistance in helping return their vehicle to its pre-incident condition. Any assistance we offer them however, in no way alters our position that this hardship was absolutely not the product of their visit to Eden Prairie Midas. Sincerely, ******************* *********** Enterprises, Inc - Midas Auto Service Experts ************ Final Consumer Response /* (3000, 9, 2013/09/20) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) Mr. ***********'s attempts to wash his hands of any responsibility by claiming Midas never removed the wheel from the car. However, he ignores that fact that this is a completely unacceptable way to repair a tire by all industry standards, as I pointed out in an addition to my complaint. In fact, it is considered such a faulty method of tire repair that it INVALIDATES the warranty on our Bridgestone tires, which we were not informed of by Midas. This is clearly an unethical business practice. My first time in the car after this repair was on a trip up to a lake cabin the Friday evening of Labor day. Does Mr. *********** expect that a person is going to want to turn around and take their car to a repair shop in this situation, when they don't believe it is a dangerous situation? No, I trusted that Midas did a good job and that the vibration could have been caused by the tire being out of round or unbalanced due to the repair, and perhaps it would go away with time. We would have inspected it with more mechanically-minded family members once we got to the cabin, which we were about 40 minutes from. About 5 seconds before the wheel fell off it got bad enough where we were saying how we needed to pull over, but by then it was too late. Mr. ***********'s shoelace analogy is absurd on too many levels for me to even acknowledge or bother with a response. A tire repair that they ADMIT to doing improperly (although he avoided addressing this in his respone), could cause a problem with the tire which causes vibrations and subsequent loosening of the lug nuts. In regards to the service done by my father-in-law, I came to find out he inspected the lug nuts after he drove the car 8 miles. This is not within 25-50 mile range recommended by our tire manufacturer, but it is still worth noting. He has taken many wheels off while changing break pads, and tightens the lug nuts in the correct sequence. Also worth noting is that he serviced 2 other tires (the other front tire, and back one he took off but saw the brake pads did not need replacing) and they had NO problems at all, none of the lug nuts were loose at any point. Yet the tire/wheel assembly serviced by Midas (which worked great for no fewer than 727 miles after my father-in-law's servicing and before going to Midas I went back and added all the miles up) started making noise and vibrating as soon as my wife drove it out of Midas shop. Even if you want to assume the lug nuts were not properly torqued by my father-in-law (which I don't, but I'll play along), the vibration caused by the improper tire repair done by Midas would have been what ultimately caused the lug nuts to gradually loosen and then come off. For Mr. *********** to claim that is not a possibility would be a flat out lie. So in summary, it seems pretty weak that the best defense Midas has is that they performed an improper tire repair, by not removing the wheel from the car and then the tire from the wheel to thoroughly inspect it before attempting a fix. I will re-send the links I sent earlier from industry standard-makers in tire repair. I realize the BBB does not have jurisdiction to order any payment, but I ask that they give a negative review for Midas in this situation, or note it as an unresolved complaint and make note of it when reviewing their accreditation status. I also believe a small claims court, which would have that jurisdiction, will have a hard time siding with a company whose only defense is that they performed an improper tire repair. The links to proper tire repair according to industry standard-makers are below. Per the Rubber Manufacturer's Association ( : "Repairs must be performed by removing the tire from the rim/wheel assembly to perform a complete inspection to assess all damage that may be present A rubber stem, or plug, must be applied to fill the puncture injury and a patch must be applied to seal the inner liner. A common repair unit is a one-piece unit with a stem and patch portion. A plug by itself is an unacceptable repair" Also, per the USDOT/NHTSA ( : "Tire Repair The proper repair of a punctured tire requires a plug for the hole and a patch for the area inside the tire that surrounds the puncture hole. Punctures through the tread can be repaired if they are not too large, but punctures to the sidewall should not be repaired. Tires must be removed from the rim to be properly inspected before being plugged and patched." Thanks, ***** ****** Final Business Response /* (4000, 12, 2013/10/03) */ Mr. ****** and I had multiple discussions during the week and I believe we have resolved the matter to his satisfaction. It is my understanding that he will communicate that message to you. It is also my understanding (and desire) that the particulars of this complaint, as well as the communications involved, will not be made public by the BBB. As Mr. ****** understands, the resolution of this matter in no way changes our position that Eden Prairie Midas was absolutely not responsible for the ******'s unfortunate experience. All concerned agreed it was best to reach a resolution and move on. If any issues/questions remain, please do not hesitate to contact me. ******************* ************

8/27/2013 Advertising/Sales Issues | Read Complaint Details

Additional Notes

Complaint: Bill belonging to ****** ******* repeatedly sent to our address. There is no ****** ******* who lives or has lived at this address to my knowledge. My wife and I have lived at **** **** ******** **** **** in ******** ***** for five and a half years. For the past two years we have repeatedly received invoices addressed to ****** *******. Since we have owned this house, no one named ****** ******* has lived at this address. We did not purchase the house from anyone named *******. I have marked the invoices return to sender and dropped them in the mailbox. During the Spring of 2013,I called and requested of the Midas shop at 12812 Wayzata **** to stop sending the invoices to our address. The fellow I talked to said he would forward my request to their billing department. No action was taken.

Desired Settlement: Stop sending these invoices to our address.

Business Response: Business' Initial Response /* (1000, 5, 2013/08/26) */ I spoke with consumer today to inform him that erroneous address had been corrected (actually was corrected in July) and that he would not receive further communication. He was very pleasant and happy situation was resolved. Error was completely on our end. Customer in question was related to store manager and had been making payments directly at the store. Apparently returned invoices were going to a different shop. In any event, issue resolved. Business' Final Response /* (2000, 7, 2013/08/27) */ (The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)

Customer Review(s)

The customer review(s) below are un-filtered. These positive and negative reviews are not used in the calculation of the BBB Rating. If you wish to file a complaint and request a resolution to your issue please click here. This customer review section is not BBBs complaint resolution system. Customer Reviews are the subjective opinion of the individual who posted the review and not of Better Business Bureau. A customer review is not posted on a business if a BBB complaint on the same issue(s) is also filed. BBB cannot guarantee the accuracy of any customer review and is not responsible for the content of any customer review. Public comments are not customer reviews.

Customer Reviews Summary

0 Customer Reviews on Midas Auto Service
Positive Experience (0 reviews)
Neutral Experience (0 reviews)
Negative Experience (0 reviews)