Are you the Owner of this Business? ×
BBB® Accredited Business Seal

Are you...?

If yes, click here to login.

Are you...?

BBB Accredited Business since

Community Auto

Phone: (970) 484-7556 Fax: (970) 484-5501 1925 S Timberline Rd Unit S1, Fort Collins, CO 80525 View Additional Email Addresses http://www.communityautoinc.com


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

Description

At Community Automotive, we put the emphasis on care, not just auto repair. Family owned and operated in Fort Collins since 1995, we focus on quality and friendly car care and maintenance — including oil changes and brakes — working with you on what’s needed and what can wait, so you’re back on the road quickly.


BBB Accreditation

A BBB Accredited Business since

BBB has determined that Community Auto 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 Community Auto include:

  • Length of time business has been operating
  • Complaint volume filed with BBB for business of this size
  • Response to 1 complaint(s) filed against business
  • Resolution of complaint(s) filed against business


Customer Complaints Summary Read complaint details

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

Customer Reviews Summary Read customer reviews

1 Customer Review on Community Auto
Customer Experience Total Customer Reviews
Positive Experience 1
Neutral Experience 0
Negative Experience 0
Total Customer Reviews 1

Additional Information

BBB file opened: December 21, 1995 Business started: 10/01/1995 in CO Business started locally: 10/01/1995
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:

Occupational/Industry License Database Colorado
1560 Broadway Ste 1350, Denver CO 80202
http://www.colorado.gov/oed/industry-license/

Type of Entity

Corporation

Business Management
Mr. Eric Warrington, Owner Ms. Stacia Hamp, Service Manager Ms. Tanya Warrington, Owner
Contact Information
Customer Contact: Ms. Stacia Hamp, Service Manager
Principal: Mr. Eric Warrington, Owner
Business Category

Auto Repair & Service Auto Repairing - Foreign Brake Service Engine Repair Rebuilding Companies Transmissions - Automobile Wheel Alignment, Frame & Axle Service - Auto Auto Air Conditioning Auto Diagnostic Service Auto Electric Service

Method(s) of Payment
Visa, MasterCard, NAPA EasyPay, American Express, Discover, Cash
Refund and Exchange Policy
Home of the 4 year/ 40,000 mile and nationwide warranties on select repairs
Alternate Business Names
Community Automotive Center Inc
Industry Tips
Auto Repair & Service

Customer Review Rating plus BBB Rating Summary

Community Auto has received 0 out of 5 stars based on 0 Customer Reviews and a BBB Rating of A+.

BBB Customer Review Rating plus BBB Rating Overview

Additional Locations

  • 1925 S Timberline Rd Unit S1

    Fort Collins, CO 80525 (970) 484-7556

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)

11/25/2015 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: Was looking at purchasing a used car from Cactus Hill in Fort Collins and I live in Longmont. Community Auto is the nearest ******** ****** **** **** mechanic near by so I had them do a thorough inspection to avoid purchasing a bad car. After paying $160 to do a very thorough inspection, Roger at Community Auto told me that they were unsure about the transmission. I asked if he could help us figure out if it was good or not. He said he would have his transmission guy look at it, but it would cost extra. I figured another $200 to avoid buying a car that would need the transmission rebuilt. The transmission guy did a reflash. When we went to pick up the car from Roger, we asked is the transmission good? Roger told me his transmission guy said, "This is a good transmission" but it would need a while to relearn how to shift. I bought the car for $6,000 and a month later it still is shifting very hard from 2nd to 3rd gear. Took the car to another mechanic, who does transmission work, and was told the transmission needs to be rebuilt, and the computer for the transmission is defective, which apparently is common in this car's year and model, and has to be replaced. Estimate is about $6,000. This is exactly why you have a trusted mechanic inspect a used car before you purchase it. Apparently Community Auto is NOT to be trusted.

Desired Settlement: This purchase would not have been made had Community Auto done their job properly and not misled and misinformed me about the state of the transmission. They need to repair the transmission and replace the defective transmission computer or pay another mechanic to do so.

Business Response:

Please refer to the attached document.

We have had several phone conversations attempting resolution with this customer, without success.  Unfortunately, we cannot grant the customer his desired settlement of $6,000 to pay for a new transmission and new transmission computer.

We performed a pre-purchase vehicle inspection on a 2002 ****** **** with 101,150 miles on 8/26/2015 and identified harsh shifting with the transmission.   The fluid at the time of inspection was full and not burnt; therefore we had no clues to condemn the mechanical integrity of the transmission.  The next step would be to explore the electronics of the transmission.  After informing the customer of these observations, the customer authorized further diagnosis on the transmission.  We contacted a specialist who performed electronic testing and informed us that the first recommended step is to reprogram the transmission to updated manufacturer specifications, which is standard protocol.  The software was updated and test drives were performed by the specialist and the service advisor, both parties reported that the harsh shifting was still present but we would not know if this would fix the problem until the vehicle had more drive time to make sure the transmission was fully relearned.  The customer was informed that the next step would be that the vehicle needed more drive time, now that the transmission has updated software, before any further evaluation could be done.  We thus believe the customer is misrepresenting facts when he claims that our service staff told him “This is a good transmission.” We don’t make such judgments, we simply observe and report.   The customer proceeded to purchase the vehicle from a used car dealer with knowledge that the transmission was not shifting correctly.  After about a month the customer contacted us and stated he recently took it to a different shop for further evaluation.  The customer reported to us that the other shop said that the vehicle currently needs a new transmission and computer.  The customer began having phone calls with us about wanting us to pay for this recommended repair, to which we responded no.  Then the customer posted negative inflammatory reviews on ******, ********, and ****.  The customer also wrote a negative review and a complaint to the BBB. 

We have investigated the customer complaint and reviewed our records; our conclusion is that none of our employees committed any wrongdoing.  Used car inspections don’t guarantee problem-free used cars and our work on the transmission was per standard protocol.  The customer was informed of all observed problems, which is documented on the invoice.  Multiple phone calls have been made attempting to have constructive resolution – including a goodwill offer to refund our diagnostic charges – which the customer refused.  We always try to resolve problems with customers and have been attempting to do so in this situation as well.  We don’t see any other reasonable offer we can make.

 

Consumer Response: Complaint: ********

I am rejecting this response because:


As you can see in the screen shot of a ****** ******** conversation between my wife and I, we were clearly informed by Roger, the manager at Community Auto, that it was a Transmission Specialist who looked at our vehicle, not a computer diagnostics expert.  We were also explicitly told by the Roger, the manager at Community Auto, that the Transmission Specialist had told him, "This is a good transmission."  That is an exact quote.

Refunding us $364 is a pitiful attempt to fix $6,000 in damages.  I called Roger and asked him what he or his Transmission Specialist could do to remedy this and he said, "Sorry it didn't work out."  He did not put me in touch with the owner and would not listen to anything I had to say other than to lie and deny having ever told us that his Transmission Specialist had said, "This is a good transmission."  Roger even denied having ever told my wife and I that it was a Transmission Specialist that looked at the Transmission, but insisted he had told us it was a computer guy who looked at the transmission computer.  That is a lie.  Even if it were true, which it is not, how come the computer specialist failed to know or detect the well known issue of defective transmission computers in 2002 ****** ****s, which the other transmission shop was able to predict would be their diagnosis before they even looked at the car?  Being informed of the $1,800 cost to replace the defective transmission computer also would have stopped us from purchasing this car.

Roger, the manager at Community Auto, left us no other recourse but to post far and wide how Community Auto has caused us $6,000 in damages by misleading us.  These "inflammatory" posts were nothing but factual regarding our experience with Community Auto.  Without having made these posts, the owner would never have been informed, or ever tried to contact us, which he did, because of these posts.  While we appreciate him taking the time to call us and speak with us, he ultimately refused to remedy the situation.  He even insinuated that we knew there was something wrong with the transmission and chose to purchase it anyways.

Why would we go through the process of paying a mechanic to inspect a vehicle to make sure it didn't have something catastrophically wrong with it, like needing a rebuilt transmission, if we would gamble our money and purchase a car we weren't positive was a good car anyways?

Community Auto's incompetence and inability to detect such a major flaw as the need for rebuilding a transmission, failure to communicate accurately who they were having look at the car, and failing to communicate their belief that there was still something wrong with the transmission, led my wife and I to buy a $6,000 car which now needs $6,000 in repairs.

Since Community Auto's owner and I have already tried to reconcile this over the phone, and he was unwilling to make any reasonable attempt to repair the $6,000 damages beyond refunding us $364 for the inspection, we are forced to bring him to small claims court.  We are in the process of filling out the paperwork.

Regards,

******* ********

Business Response:

Please refer to the attachment for our response.

We are sorry the customer felt misled about the condition of the transmission in the vehicle he brought in for a pre-purchase inspection. We strive to give accurate factual information with pre-purchase inspections and diagnostic recommendations. We do not try to get our customers to buy any particular used car they bring in for inspection. Our goal is to report observations and allow customers to make their own judgments and decisions. 
The customer seems to think it is obvious that they would not have bought the car if they had understood that it was shifting harshly (a fact that was documented on both the pre-inspection and on the additional diagnostic). From our perspective all old cars have issues and we see people make decisions to buy them anyway because the car is inexpensive compared to a new one. We also see people who pass by multiple deals after inspections until they find a car whose faults are ones they feel like they can live with or can afford. 
We feel bad for the customer that he is so stressed about whether the expert who updated the transmission software was a transmission expert or a computer expert. The employee and the customer believe very different things about what was initially said. If there was a communication breakdown we apologize. As far as the transmission diagnostic, however, the title of our expert does not change the basics of the situation; a competent person updated out-of-date software. This was per our directive and per our protocol as a logical next step in diagnosing the car’s harsh shifting problem. In many cases like this an update will fix the problem or bring up error codes that will be helpful in tracking down the problem. 
The owner has thoroughly examined this situation and has decided we cannot agree with the customer’s version of the events nor agree to satisfy their demand for $6,000 because:
1. The customer signed and walked away from our shop with a copy of the invoice that documents the transmission shifting harsh between 2nd and 3rd., and verbal communication that the shifting problem was observed on the final test drive. 
2. The owner has interviewed his staff and the account differs from the customer’s as to who said what. The owner has no reason to doubt his staff, especially in light of the inspection paperwork details and the written invoice documenting the transmission’s state.
3. Standard protocols were followed correctly for both the pre-purchase inspection and the follow up transmission computer update/re flash.  
4. We checked the transmission fluid (it was not discolored and did not have a burnt odor—therefore the transmission was not displaying signs of an internal mechanical problem); we recommended updating the software (as a first step, a possible solution to the shifting problem); at the time of the diagnostic procedure there were no transmission trouble codes stored in the computer memory; we gave a final test drive after the update and noted the shifting problem was still present and more drive time would be needed to reveal whether the computer update would relieve the symptoms. The customer was advised that more evaluation would be needed if the problem continued, should they choose to purchase this car.
5. Community Automotive only inspected the car and updated the transmission software. Neither action would cause any damage to a transmission.
6. In a phone discussion with the owner, the customer volunteered that the Community Automotive staff member had told him that updating the computer had a 70% chance of fixing the shifting problem. Logically, this also communicates that it’s a 30% chance that the problem would still be present. Since the final test drive revealed a continued shifting problem, the customer left the shop knowing the transmission was not performing optimally. Our job was to share information, which we did both verbally and in written form. 
7. The “well-known 2002 ****** **** transmission problem” that the customer writes about did not appear to be an obvious match. The known Toyota problem with this model commonly comes with 5 transmission error codes in the computer, this car presented 0 error codes on the day we inspected and updated the software. The symptom was harsh shifting between 2nd and 3rd on this car, whereas the documented problem with this model is harsh shifting between 1st and 2nd. The 2001-2003 **** model transmission problems also include other symptoms that were not present such as jerking and hesitating. Also, there are many 2002 ****s on the road that do not have this problem. Because of ******** eventual recall and extended warranty, some consumers feel any transmission issue must be “the well-know problem” but in reality the problem is defined very specifically and is not a one-size fits all scenario. The problem can also be one that’s symptoms come and go.
We don’t like that this customer is experiencing so many feelings of distrust and betrayal, we wish we could help him see that we did set out to deceive him in any way.   Any honorable mechanic can only diagnose based on the present symptoms at the time of the evaluation. On the day of our inspection there was: clean fluids, no transmission error codes, out-dated software and harsh shifting between 2nd and 3rd .  Based on what was observable on that day would not make us leap to the conclusion that the car needed a new transmission and computer. It was prudent to urge the customer to give it some more drive time and then bring it back (if he purchased the car) if problems continued. 
We make it a point at Community Automotive to protect our customers from the tactics that sometimes give our industry a bad name; we don’t push people to make repairs in the absence of clear proof that the work is necessary. We would have violated that principle if we had tried to talk the customer into assuming that this problem was surely the transmission failure problem that is well-advertised, based solely on harsh shifting without any other symptoms. We purposefully avoid scare tactics or high pressure or distortion of facts to get customers to do unnecessary work or premature work on their vehicles. Also, we don’t tell a customer what is wrong with a vehicle before we even examine it (as the customer says another shop did).
It grieves us to have such an impasse with a first-time customer. Community Automotive had no vested interest in whether or not the customer chose to buy this particular car from a third party. It is disturbing that the customer has such different recall of events (but we hope that is due to heightened emotions versus dishonest intent).  We are clear on two pieces of successful communication: first the customer has a copy of the invoice documenting the harsh shifting between 2nd and 3rd, and second both the customer and employee agree that the “70% chance of correcting the problem” discussion took place. 
We feel bad for the customer that his newly purchased car is not turning out to be a positive experience. 
Community Automotive has a long history of quickly resolving any problems to our customers’ satisfaction. This is the first time in 20 years of business that we’ve been unable to find resolve and the first time a customer has filed a complaint with the BBB. We propose turning both sides of complaint and all documentation concerning the work done for this vehicle over to the BBB. The BBB could have an independent automotive repair shop examine these and give a ruling. We are willing to abide by their objective third-party decision. It is our continued goal to give customers caring and excellent service. 







Consumer Response: Complaint: ********

I am rejecting this response because:


You continue to misconstrue facts.  We were told by the manager, Roger, that the car’s transmission computer was still relearning how to shift and would continue to shift funny for a while, but that it was already improved.  When my wife and I explicitly asked the manager, Roger, if there was any damage to the transmission, he said, “No.  The transmission specialist said, ‘this is a good transmission.’”

It would be difficult to imagine being any more misled.  The transmission needs to be rebuilt, and is practically missing the 3rd gear, hence the harsh shifting.

This back and forth through the BBB is a waste of time.  We were unable to come to an agreement over the phone.  You continue to insist that you did not mislead us, which is factually untrue. You owe us approximately $6,000 for the repairs that need to be done, but you think otherwise.

We have mailed our final offer letter to you.  If you don't agree to settle out of court, we have no recourse left but to file in small claims court.

Expect the letter, and please reply promptly, as we will begin filing asap.


Regards,

******* ********