Baught new tires they jacked car improperly after I provided tools to do job they did not use them cause break in corvette fender also damaged sensors
Baught new tires for corvette they damaged right front fender not using tools I provided for them they stuck a wood 2x4 under car to jack causing fender damage they also damaged tire sensors they said wasn't there fault after discussion they did fix but after multiple visits tire leaked 10lbs a day when I took it in again for the forth or fifth time they stuck a plug in z rated high speed tire and ruined tire I wanted tire fixed or replaced not destroyed !!!!!!!!!
Want tire replaced n fender repaired
Business' Initial Response
Contact Name and Title: Troy Cox, President
Contact Phone: 918-245-9655
Contact Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Dealing with Mr. * has been frustrating; I'm sure for him as well as ourselves. We seem to have reoccurring communication issues; just when it appears things have been settled something else seems to come up. Timeline, and our actions at each point, are as follows:
November 8 of 2012 Mr. * bought a set of tires for his '99 Corvette. "Service tire system" warning light was on; opinions between Mr. * and our #2 store manager differ on whether it came in to us already on or not but only 3 of his sensors would consistently wake up and reset. One was intermittently functioning and wouldn't stay active. Given the batteries in these sensors are at least 13 years old on a 1999 model car and GM's most optimistic service life estimate for them is 10 years, Mr. * having a weak battery is not a huge surprise. Which is, according to #2 store's manager, the only thing he recalls of he and Mr. *'s discussions about the car after tire installation and a couple of reset/relearn attempts--the last time Mr. * came by there wanting us to try again that store's manager told him there was no visible evidence of damage to the sensor, had there been any evidence of damage we'd done to a sensor then we'd replace it, but weak or dead 13 year old batteries aren't our problem. Not the most diplomatic phrasing, but not really an unreasonable position.
Approximately a month later, Mr.* showed up at our #1 location and spoke with our general operations manager (******). At that time, Mr. * said he'd discovered the fender damage, that he believed the tire pressure sensors to have been damaged, and wanted to know what we would do about these issues.
******, even though he hadn't talked with store #2 personnel to check any of the back-story, apologized for any problems on our side of the equation and after letting Mr. * vent for a while, offered to get the car into one of the local body shops we trust to get it checked out, see what we had going on with the fender.
Note we didn't know, given the time elapsed since service, anything about the fender damage Mr. * was reporting at this point but were willing to let an independent third party look into it and give us their professional opinion rather than immediately or arbitrarily deny Mr. *'s claim due to time elapsed.
Mr. *'s statement at that time was "the fender's not a big thing, I'm a body man and can easily fix it, I just want that tire monitor light off and the system working." Ok. We don't do body work but we service and replace tire pressure sensors fairly regularly.
Tire pressure sensors started coming on a few cars back in the 1980's, became somewhat more common by the late 1990's, and were mandatory equipment by 2007 so there are a lot of them running around. Battery life on tire pressure sensors ranges from 5-10 years, depending on the sensor and on driving conditions it sees, and when the battery dies you just have to replace the whole sensor as they are sealed units not field servicable.
So, fine, our understanding is we have an agreement with Mr. * that he'll deal with the fender he's telling us a month after service he believes we damaged and we'll deal with the tire pressure monitor system warning light. Seemed a reasonable compromise as it elimated the worry with questions of "what damage" and "when did it occur" for us as well as solving what Mr. * said was his primary issue.
It did take 3 visits to get the light out not counting appointments Mr. * was unable to make due to job or health issues, but he said "no hurry, we'll get to it" when we'd called to follow up; we got the system to recognize all the sensors once, but then the light came back on and wouldn't reset, again.
At that point, we got the code off the one problem sensor, ordered a new sensor from GM which came in to us December 18. When Mr. * could bring the car back, which was early January, we installed the new sensor and the light went and stayed out with a system reset.
At that time, both ****** and Mr. * examined the old sensor closely and both agreed there were no visible signs of damage. While it's not inconceivable that something might possibly have happened that left no visible mark yet killed the unit the most likely explanation is simply the age of the battery in the unit; it would respond intermittently but wouldn't consistently stay on.
Please note that, even though there was absolutely no evidence that anything we'd done had caused the sensor issue, we honored our agreement and absorbed the cost of the GM sensor (GM #25981210/$186.72 list) as well as charging no labor for any of the time spent working with Mr. *'s tire pressure system. Also that, up through this visit, there were no actual tire pressure problems with his tires.
His fourth visit started seemingly simply enough: "I've got a low tire". We pulled the car in, found a screw in the tire, and repaired it per RMA (Rubber Manufacturer Association, our industry's policies and procedures governing body)requirements with the Safe-t-Seal Liquid Patch system which we've used with great success for many years.
The RMA's requirements, going back over a decade, for any tire repair include not only the size and position of injury that can be repaired, but that any repair be done from the inside (the tire off the wheel) and that the repair must both have a stem or plug "of suitable vulcanizing material" filling the injury as well as sealing the inner liner, again, with a patch or repair of "suitable vulcanizing material".
I would like to note that of all the tire repair systems we've reviewed, Safe-t-Seal's is the only system we've found that has submitted tires repaired with their product for both the DOT's 109 series testing, run for 60,000 miles as an endurance test, and the DOT's 139 test, which is both a speed and endurance test, and has had all tires submitted with their repairs pass these testing protocols when performed by an independent lab as recently as 2010.
Mr. * saw the proprietary insert (as required by RMA guidelines to fill the injury and keep moisture and debris out of the tire's body) and went ballistic indicating, as near as we could understand him, that he'd wanted an old-style patch used, only, and his belief we'd plugged, only, his tire to repair the screw hole.
We tried to explain that a patch only wasn't an industry acceptable repair, that any repair done has to have some kind of insert to fill the hole, the advantages of the system we use, but Mr. * apparently assumed then and continues assuming his tire has just been plugged, was belligerent, didn't care to listen to anyone and left with tires spinning to punctuate his displeasure.
Had Mr. * cared to take a few moments from his angry display to try to understand what we had done and after that indicated he was still uncomfortable with the system we use we could have easily done then what we still can do now: remove the repair materials we'd used, which require none of the grinding or buffing, reaming or even drilling that a traditional rubber patch/rubber stem repair's use can involve, and then use a traditional rubber patch/rubber stem unit to repair the hole the screw he'd picked up made. It doesn't have the testing or technology behind it of our preferred Safe-t-Seal system but we can certainly offer it as an alternative if he is more comfortable with that process.
Please understand, though, that any proper or "RMA acceptable" repair, done by any facilty, to meet those RMA guidelines and to keep Mr. *'s tire's manufacturer warranty intact will include both a stem or plug of "suitable vulcanizing material" to fill the injury and prevent water getting into the body of the tire as well as a repair of "suitable vulcanizing material" to seal the inner liner. To be clear, just patching the hole inside the tire as it seemed Mr. * expected or wanted and leaving the injury unfilled does void every tire manufacturer's warranties.
Neither myself nor ****** hold Mr. *'s misunderstanding of the repair against him and either of us are willing to discuss his concerns in a reasonable manner. We are disappointed that, as we provided exactly what he'd asked re: repairing the tire pressure system at our expense that he'd bring the fender issue back up. Mr. * did tell ****** that he'd "take care of the fender" which he, as a body man, had indicated was "not a big deal", if we got the tire pressure system working, which we have done.
As to "ruining" his tire, it is repaired properly within RMA guidelines with a proven product.
I'm happy to provide you or he the testing documentation on that product or to replace it with a more traditional repair unit--but to meet RMA guidelines and keep his tire warranty, any repair of that screw hole must include some kind of plug, insert, or stem filling the hole from inner liner to tread as well as the repair to the inner liner itself.
Consumer's Final Response
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
My sensors worked just fine before they worked on my car I expected them to work when they got done ! 13 years old or not they were working when I came in! As far as my fender since when is sticking a 2x4 under a 30,000 car except able! Never! I seen it with my own eyes when there so called mechanic had to come get me out of showroom because he couldn't shut the hood himself. Yeah some mechanic. I figured they would answer in the typical BS response . I am going to retain a attorney at this point! And I won't stop until I am satisfied now and I will be telling anyone and everyone in town of how they handled my car me and my situation ! As that has started already anyway . What mr Cecil doesn't know is that I as well am a ASE mechanic for some 28 plus years and I have more experience than most anyone he has in two stores . I am not a fool ! And WILL NOT be taken advantage of I don't care what a lawyer is gonna cost me after his response I will make sure this is resolved as well as I will never ever ever let one of there idiots work on any car for me or my family again
Business' Final Response
I'm not sure where expressing a willingness to discuss Mr. *'s concerrns constitutes, as he calls it, "BS". Certainly I'd have no reason to speak with him further if I had no interest in trying, as we repeatedly have done up to this point, to work with him. That offer to discuss his concerns remains; whether he wishes to do so here or through the arbitration process with the BBB. We have been trying to salvage this relationship despite some questions about Mr. *'s claims throughout.
I do not wish to further inflame Mr. *; I would have preferred to discuss his, and my, concerns about his issues in person with him. However, there are some explanations I need from him before anything further can happen and these things will have to be explained whether in person, the arbitration process, or in court, by him.
Our technician did come to get Mr. *, as Mr. * stated, when the tires were installed. This is something we always do when we're having difficulty with a car, especially an older or less common car, when the car's owner is present. The technician told Mr. * of the difficulties with getting the hood to latch at which point Mr. * told our technician that the hood was difficult to shut because the fender was damaged. According to the story Mr. * related to our technician as he helped shut the hood, prior to Mr. * bringing the car to us another mechanic had worked on the car's brakes for Mr. * and that brake mechanic had damaged the fender by improperly jacking the car, thus making the hood difficult to shut.
There may be a reason he would tell an employee of mine someone else damaged the fender, making the hood hard to shut, then come back roughly a month later to a different location, tell someone new to the situation that we'd done the damage, and ask us to fix that fender. I just have no way of knowing what Mr. *'s reasons may be for so doing and so I had asked for a reasonable conversation to try and figure out what was going on.
The elapsed time between claimed damage and report of that damage raises another concern. We could have in December, and still can today, place a claim with our insurance to be investigated. Ignoring the brake mechanic story Mr. * told our technician for the moment, just his delay of several weeks before making any of us aware of the claimed fender issue would, by itself, almost certainly result in a denial of claim with any insurance carrier. As long as Mr. * has been in the automotive industry, that can't be a surprise to him any more than his batteries running down in his sensors should be--and he, after examining the sensor in question, had agreed there were no signs of damage.
To be clear, there is no motive our store #2 manager or ****** would have now, or would have had then, to not turn in anything either believed to be a legitimate claim to our insurance for an adjuster to investigate and accept or deny. It doesn't cost either anything financially or in job security---as long as humans are working on complex machinery, accidents can happen, so we have insurance against that eventuality. Nor does replacing a sensor actually damaged by us cost either of them--but we do hold them accountable to make good decisions as to what is, and is not, our responsibility.
I'm not trying to "win" an argument here; I simply have what seem reasonable concerns outlined here and in my first response with what seem to be discrepancies between the situations, experience, and knowledge Mr. * tells us he has and what my people report to me of the situations and his claims and actions.
Again, for the record, I believe that we are all best served when we have reasonable discussions and try to find solutions rather than deal in angry threats.
President, Cecil and Sons Discount Tires