Complaints

The complaint text that is displayed might not represent all complaints filed with BBB. Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:10/22/2025

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  I have been a 13 year loyal Discount Tire customer.
  My car has always been been dealer serviced, with instructions not to rotate tires or check tire pressure, I have always depended on Discount Tires competent professional service to handle this, as they are a priority maintenance component that my safety as well as the safety of my loved ones, as well as the general public on the roadways depends directly upon.
  On 08/22/2025 I had my routine wheel balancing service performed at the Redmond Washington Discount Tire location.
  Very disappointed, that all four of my wheels cores were gouged scratched and damaged. My driver's side front door has a nine inch long dent on the edge of the door.
  As a result of which I had to return on 08/25/2025 to have these re balanced, and report the damage.
  *** the Manager took pictures and verbally committed to having the damage fixed.
  Rather than fix the damage as promised he sent in a disputed claim to Fleet Management, who asked for pictures, estimates etc.
  I provided this information to them.
  They make their living based on underhanded delay in responding as well as decline of responsibility tactics, denying legitimate damage claims of very essential motor vehicle service, which are irresponsible, unprofessional and a safety risk to the consumers directly as well as the general public.
  Opening themselves as well as well as the clients they represent to very risky liability claims God Forbid.
  Fleet Response needs to take a deep hard look at their incompetent, unprofessional business practices which is reflected by their 1.17 BBB rating.
  One cannot put a price on the the safety of an individual and the general public.
  Not to mention question or judge the integrity and intentions of anyone.
  Most of all assist others in not being noble enough to honor their word.

  Business Response

  Date: 10/27/2025

  We are in receipt of the complaint Mr. ******** filed with
  your office. Fleet Response is a third-party administrator for our client
  Discount Tire and not an insurance company.
  Mr. ******** visited a Discount Tire location for service on
  August 22, 2025 where he had a tire rotation and balance performed. The next
  day, he returned to the store and reported he felt a small mark on his driver’s
  front door that he claims was not present prior to service. The claimant also
  alleged that all 4 of his wheels were damaged because of the service. The store
  does not believe they are responsible for any of these damages, and they
  subsequently submitted a disputed liability claim to us for investigation.
  We took statements from the store and Mr. ******** and
  gathered photos of the alleged damage. After review, none of the damage Mr.
  ******** alleged could be attributed to the service at Discount Tire. As a
  gesture of customer service on behalf of Discount Tire, we offered Mr. ********
  a concession payment of $300.00.
  Mr. ******** then stated to us that he believed we could
  have the wheels repaired for approximately $400 plus tax. Again, as a gesture
  of customer service, we agreed to his request and sent him a formal release to
  sign and return to us so that we could issue payment in the amount of $422.00
  as settlement on this claim.
  Mr. ******** then sent us an estimate from a wheel
  refinisher and requested payment for $1,234.24. Again, we found no evidence
  that Discount Tire was responsible for the damages Mr. ******** was alleging,
  and we declined to offer a further concession beyond the $422.
  Mr. ******** then filed a complaint with your office. After
  reviewing the original complaint with our client Discount Tire, they agreed to
  increase the concession offer to Mr. ******** in the amount of $1,000 as a
  gesture of customer service. I discussed this offer with Mr. ********, and he
  declined the offer. The liability in this claim is disputed and the additional
  information we received from the claimant was not sufficient to overturn our
  liability decision.
  Our investigation has determined that there is no evidence
  to indicate that Discount Tire is liable for damages to Mr. ********’s vehicle.
  He has declined both of the concession offers we presented to him as a gesture
  of customer service to settle this matter, and we have since issued a formal
  denial to Mr. ******** and our file is now closed
  

  Customer Answer

  Date: 10/30/2025

  The reply sent by this business is inacurate, I will be pursuing more legal action not in the interest of the few thousand dollars cost to damage. 

  Not to mention the waste of my time and energy based on the promised words of a business in general, as everyone I reached out to said that the damage would be repaired.

  But more in the interest of the safety of myself and the general public on the road which depends of professionally serviced wheels and tires.

  Customer Answer

  Date: 11/03/2025

  Please see email from Discount Tire dated October 16th 2025:

  
  
  Hello ****, 
  
  Thank you for taking the time to fill out our form and share your recent experience at our ***** ** **** *** ******** **, store location. I apologize for the inconvenience and frustration you encountered.
  
  We value your feedback and take your concerns seriously. Your experience does not align with our commitment to providing exceptional customer service. We are committed to learning from this situation and taking steps to prevent similar occurrences in the future.
  
  I have personally reviewed your concerns with our regional executive staff. They will be reaching out to you within the next two business days to discuss your experience in more detail and address your concerns promptly.
  
  Please don’t hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions or concerns. I appreciate your understanding and look forward to the opportunity to resolve this matter to your satisfaction.
  
  Thank you for being a Discount Tire customer. 
  
  Sincerely,
  ****** ******
  Customer Care Sr. Specialist

  Customer Answer

  Date: 11/04/2025

  Good afternoon please see email from Discount Tire Escalation Customer Service Team:

  FW: Corporate Customer Care family dated 09/25/2025 **ACTION REQUIRED** WAS ** * ************
  
  
  Attention Claims Manager,
  We received a call today from a customer sharing the experience they had at your store. The summary of this call is as follows:
  
  
  Call Summary: Customer ******** expressed frustration about an ongoing wheel damage claim (#*********). Initially, Discount Tire claims department offered approximately $400 based on photos from an Edmonds shop, but when the customer visited Sound RealWorks (Discount Tire's partner), *** assessed the actual damage at $1,234. The customer forwarded this estimate to ****** ****** in claims but hasn't heard back. The customer has an appointment to get the wheels fixed on Tuesday (30th) and is seeking urgent resolution. **** (agent) agreed to escalate the issue to claims via high-priority email and accepted the customer's forwarded estimate details.
  
  
  I apologized for their experience and provided them with the expectation that you will be contacting them to address their concerns no longer than 2 business days from today. Our ask of you, please contact this customer within that time frame and reply to this email with the outcome of your conversation to confirm this matter has been resolved.
  Thank you,
  
  
  
  
   
  
  
   
  
  
  We welcome your Feedback!
  
  
   
  
  
  Thank you,
  
  
  Discount Tire Co.
  
  
  **** ****** *******
  
  
  Customer Care Specialist
  
  
  ************
  
  

  Please aslo see Hunter Wheel Balance manufacturers opinion on damaged wheels:

  The Hunter Road Force Elite balancer itself is designed to measure and identify potential damage or runout in alloy wheels and tires, not cause it. However, improper use of the machine or its accessories by a technician can lead to cosmetic or structural damage to an alloy wheel. 
  Potential Causes of Damage
  Damage to alloy wheels during the balancing process is typically a result of technician error:
  Improper Clamping/Mounting: Using the wrong centering cones or pressure cups (e.g., "front-coning" the wheel instead of "back-coning") can put pressure on the cosmetic face of the wheel or fail to center it correctly, potentially causing damage or inaccurate results.
  Incorrect Accessories: Using non-Hunter-approved accessories or failing to use a five-finger style clamping plate designed for modern, hub-centric alloy wheels can lead to scratches or gouges.
  Lack of Lubrication: Insufficient tire mounting lubricant can make it difficult to seat the bead properly, leading to potential damage to the tire or rim during mounting/dismounting procedures, which are part of the "ForceMatching" process.
  Debris or Surface Contamination: Failing to clean the mating surfaces of the wheel and balancer can lead to improper seating, which the machine's "Centering Check" feature is designed to flag, but if ignored, can cause issues during the spin cycle. 
  How the Machine Prevents Damage
  The Hunter Road Force Elite has built-in features to prevent issues when used correctly:
  "Centering Check": This feature alerts the technician to potential centering errors or debris on the mating surface before the main test, helping prevent errors or damage.
  Force Measurement: The machine applies a force of up to 1,400 lbs (635 kg) via a roller to simulate road conditions, but this pressure itself is within the normal operating range for a tire under a vehicle's weight and is designed to detect existing flaws, not create them.
  Match Mounting Guidance: The machine provides instructions on how to rotate the tire on the wheel (match mounting) to resolve force variation issues, which involves dismounting and remounting the tire using a tire changer, an associated process where care must be taken. 
  Summary
  The Hunter Road Force Elite is a diagnostic tool that can identify pre-existing wheel or tire issues (such as bends or structural defects) but does not typically cause damage to a healthy alloy wheel if operated correctly by a trained technician using the proper mounting methods and accessories. Damage is almost exclusively due to operator error during the mounting or dismounting process.

  In the response from Fleet Response they mention an investigation:

  As a consumer I am entitled ro the details of said investigation, who it was conducted by and the findings in details.

  Please forward these to me through this intermediary.

  I would.like to remind Fleet Response that making false claims of investigations and its findings is not permissible by law.

   

• Initial Complaint

  Date:10/08/2025

  Type:Customer Service Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  Company damaged my vehicle I provided proof as well as the company taking responsibility for the damage however the 3rd party company handing the claim has drug their feet and are trying to classify the damage as word against word when they have proof the damage was caused by discount tire I want to be paid for my time and the damage this has been going on 2 months

  Business Response

  Date: 10/10/2025

  Good afternoon, 

  We have reviewed this complaint and the associated file. Our records indicate that the automotive shop that the customer choice *********** advised ********************** that the vehicle has no damage beyond a worn batter, and the paperwork and photos we received do not indicate any damage to the unit in question (batter voltage sensor). The customer has agreed to take their vehicle back to ********* for a proper diagnosis of the battery voltage sensor and will obtain additional photos of the damage. Fleet Response will assess the damages claimed once we receive updated documentation. 

   

  Thank you

  Customer Answer

  Date: 10/10/2025

   I am rejecting this response because:
  The information they requested has been sent 
  
  

  Business Response

  Date: 10/16/2025

  Good Afternoon, 

  We have received the additional documentation Ms. ***** has provided. Our Claims leadership is in the process of reviewing the items and will update the customer once our review is completed. Thank you.  

• Initial Complaint

  Date:10/03/2025

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  I live in the brewery apartments in Memphis Tennessee. I park in the parking garage owned by metropolis. I have filed a claim with metropolis and the claim went to fleet response. On sept 23 I should have heard from them within 2 business but I haven’t heard anything back. The agent over my claim name is ***** ******* I have a email ************************** and a phone number **** *** **** **** I’ve called and left voicemails and still no response I’ve also emailed her too. I’m not sure what the problem is but this company is ghosting me no communication at all. My car needs to be repaired or I will take other legal actions.

  Business Response

  Date: 10/07/2025

  In response to the consumer’s complaint regarding a lack of contact, this claim was reported to our office, and an initial outreach attempt was made on September 24 via text message. Further investigation was required, and we contacted our location to verify additional details related to the loss. Subsequent contact attempts were made with the customer via phone and email, after which the customer returned our call. During this communication, the customer was advised that liability has been accepted and that we are awaiting their selection of a repair facility in order to proceed with the next steps.

  Customer Answer

  Date: 10/07/2025

  The claim representative does not communicate unless i contact her i feel like i have to harass her to get a response which is unprofessional. She will not answer phones but will respond to emails at times. i have taken my car to a repair shop in network on 10/07/2025 so im going to see if i get a phone call from ***** ******* which im sure i wont I bet i have to harass her to find out what happens next. For the record because im not sure you understand i should not have to keep contacting ms ******* she should be contacting me and following up with me about the claim. i need her to just do her dam job

• Initial Complaint

  Date:09/23/2025

  Type:Order Issues
  Status:

  ResolvedMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  I am the owner of a 2011 Chevrolet Roadtrek 190 Popular that was damaged on July 25, 2025. The responsible insurer, Fleet Response, has failed to properly pay my documented loss of use damages.
  
  While the insurer approved partial reimbursement for a rental vehicle, they have refused to pay for the period I was completely without a replacement RV, despite being provided with full documentation. I submitted a formal demand on 09/11/2025 and a follow-up on 09/19/2025. On 09/18/2025, the adjuster sent a boilerplate denial that did not address the specific days I was without a vehicle. Since then, they have ignored my follow-up phone calls and emails, and no payment has been issued.

  Business Response

  Date: 09/25/2025

  To address the first part of this complaint, Fleet Response is not an insurer nor an
  insurance company. We are a Third Party Claims Administrator.
  In reviewing this request we have already issued payment in the amount of $5320.02. We
  have accepted responsibility for the remaining rental expenses of $1098.18 but are unable
  to issue payment until a signed release has been received.
  Fleet Response has acknowledged the consumers demand for additional loss of use in the
  amount of $5,698.00 and will re review their request with our client for the additional days
  of 07-25-25 through 07-29-25 and 08-25-25 through 09-11-25.

  Customer Answer

  Date: 09/25/2025

   I am rejecting this response because:
  
  
  While I appreciate Fleet Response’s clarification that they are a Third Party Claims Administrator, they are handling this matter on behalf of the responsible party, and therefore my complaint is properly directed here.
  
  
  To date, Fleet Response has issued payment of $5,320.02 and has approved an additional $1,098.18 in rental expenses. However, that payment has been improperly conditioned on my signing a release that would waive my right to pursue the unresolved portion of my claim. As my documented loss of use claim for the periods of 07/25/25–07/29/25 and 08/25/25–09/11/25 remains outstanding, I cannot and will not execute a release that extinguishes those rights.
  
  
  I note that Fleet Response states it will “re-review” my loss of use claim with its client. Respectfully, this matter has been under review for several weeks, and further delay is unreasonable. California law entitles me to compensation for loss of use during periods when no replacement vehicle was available. My documentation has already been provided.
  
  
  I request a clear and prompt resolution of the outstanding $5,698.00 in loss of use damages, without conditioning partial payment on the execution of a release.
  

  Business Response

  Date: 09/30/2025

  *UPDATE: Since the original response was prepared, our client has approved the additional
  loss of use in the amount of $5412.00 and the rental balance of $1098.18. A release has
  been forwarded to the customer for signature. Upon receipt of the signed release, payment
  will be issued

  Customer Answer

  Date: 10/03/2025

   I am rejecting this response because: 
  
  
  I have signed the release as requested. I will consider this matter resolved and close the complaint once payment has been received and processed.
  

  Customer Answer

  Date: 10/10/2025

  I received the check and am satisfied with the resolution provided by Fleet Response. You can close this complaint. 
  

  Thank you. 

• Initial Complaint

  Date:09/08/2025

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  I parked my vehicle on March 15, 2025, in the International Parking Deck at Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport, which is managed by Metropolis Tech. The next day, March 16, my car was stolen from the lot, piggybacking out through the gate (as shown on security cameras).
  
  Although my vehicle was recovered, it was damaged and personal property was stolen. My insurance (GEICO) only covered repairs, not the stolen items.
  
  I contacted Metropolis Tech multiple times requesting reimbursement for the stolen property and a refund for my prepaid parking fee. They denied the claim, citing “self-park lot” terms, yet their posted disclaimers do not specifically exclude theft. They also ignored follow-up requests.
  
  Desired Outcome:
  • Compensation for the stolen property not covered by insurance.
  • Refund of prepaid parking.
  • Assurance of improved security measures in airport parking facilities.

  Business Response

  Date: 09/09/2025

  On March 15, 2025, at approximately 7:21 p.m., Ms. ***** S. ******** parked her 2019 Mercedes-Benz GLC 300 in the International Park Ride lot, Level 2, Row C. She returned on March 24, 2025, around 11:30 a.m., and upon arrival discovered that her vehicle was no longer in the spot where she had parked it before her trip.
  Our courtesy driver, Mr. *** **********, promptly notified the International Hourly Manager of the missing vehicle, and I was informed shortly thereafter. The Senior Operations Manager immediately went to the International Park Ride lot to meet with Ms. ********, gather details, and complete a Customer Incident Report in accordance with our standard protocol.
  Atlanta Police Department Officer Reggie ***inson later arrived on site and was briefed on the situation. He proceeded to the IPR Management office, where Ms. ******** provided her statement. During this process, she disclosed that she had left her car key/key fob inside the vehicle before departing for her trip.
  Ms. ******** has sought reimbursement for items missing from her vehicle. However, she acknowledged awareness of the posted disclaimer, which clearly states that vehicles are parked at the owner’s risk and that the company is not responsible for damage to or theft of vehicles or their contents.
  After careful review, her claim was denied, as our company is not liable for theft or loss involving self-parked vehicles. A denial letter was issued on March 25, 2025, and the case was formally closed. We have continued to uphold this decision.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:09/05/2025

  Type:Product Issues
  Status:

  ResolvedMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  I rented a vehicle from Sixt in Canada. After the rental (Rental agreement: 9603472021), a damage claim was subrogated to Fleet Response, which is Sixt’s designated claims administrator.
  
  The issue is that Fleet Response billed me in USD instead of CAD, even though my rental agreement and all Sixt charges were in Canadian dollars. This error resulted in an overcharge. I have repeatedly contacted both Fleet Response and Sixt to correct this, but neither company has resolved the matter.
  
  I am requesting that the incorrect USD charge be reversed and reissued in CAD in accordance with my rental agreement, or refund for the excess amount I already paid.
  
  Both companies have had ample time to address this, but the lack of response is unreasonable. The incorrect billing is also delaying my insurance claim. I am filing this complaint to obtain a resolution and to ensure proper billing in the contracted currency.

  Customer Answer

  Date: 09/09/2025

  They have refunded 

  Business Response

  Date: 09/09/2025

  The request for reimbursement was provided to the renter with supporting documentation, clearly reflecting the currency in CAD. The renter was contacted to review payment options, and the currency conversion was initially discussed. At the renter’s request, a credit card payment link was issued on 08/25/2025. No further communication was received from the renter following this transaction.
  It was later identified that the payment link did not properly convert the amount from CAD to USD. As a result, the credit card was processed in USD instead of CAD. To correct this, the initial transaction was cancelled and will be refunded to the renter on 09/09/2025. On the same day, we reached out to the renter to notify them of the cancellation and provided a corrected payment link to ensure the charge would reflect CAD accurately.
  We appreciate the opportunity to address and resolve this matter and remain committed to ensuring transparency and accuracy in all transactions.

  Customer Answer

  Date: 09/09/2025

  Better Business Bureau:
  
  
  
  I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:07/30/2025

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  In November 2024, I rented a vehicle which was struck by an uninsured motorist while I was dining at a restaurant. At the time of returning the vehicle, I provided the rental company with both the police report and my insurance claim number.
  
  I did not receive any further communication until two weeks ago, when I was issued a loss statement dated June 30, 2025—over seven months after the incident. Since then, I have made nearly a dozen attempts to contact the company via phone and email, leaving at least six messages, none of which have been returned.
  
  To my surprise, I received a threatening letter yesterday regarding this matter that also included with a higher "amount of loss" . I am more than willing to cooperate and assist in resolving this issue. If the company has misplaced the original claim number, I am happy to provide it again. I have also spoken with the at-fault motorist, who has expressed a willingness to cover any remaining balance not paid by insurance.
  
  However, I need to speak with a representative to understand what steps, if any, have been taken to process this claim through the appropriate channels. I respectfully request that the company respond promptly and professionally to resolve this matter.

  Business Response

  Date: 08/11/2025

  This claim was assigned to us by SIXT on
  6/27/25. We've spoke with ****** several times since the file was assigned to us. On 8/7/25 ****** provided the information for the other party that was
  involved in this loss. Our claim with her is resolved. 

• Initial Complaint

  Date:05/08/2025

  Type:Product Issues
  Status:

  ResolvedMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  Rented a car for **** with damages. This company sent me to some third party affiliate for collecting on damages to the vehicle that were on the car before I rented it. I did not do any of these damages to the car.

  Business Response

  Date: 05/09/2025

  Weve been assigned this claim by SIXT to recover the damage to their vehicle while on rent to Mr. ******  Weve reviewed the rental agreement along with the estimate that was provided to us by **** and can confirm that the damage was preexisting and listed on the rental agreement before Mr. ***** rented the vehicle. We will notify SIXT and be closing our claim. There will be no further contact with Mr. ***** for these damages. 

  Customer Answer

  Date: 05/09/2025

   Better Business Bureau:
  
  I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:04/25/2025

  Type:Product Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  I rented a car from the *********** location on in early December 2024. On 12/6/24 the car was in an accident, however, I was not in the car at the time of the accident. When I received a bill from Sixt for the total amount of the car, $25,191.91 I reached out to explain I was not in the car at the time of the accident therefore my insurance would not provide coverage. I provided Sixt with the accident ***ort information for the car. I did not hear anything from them after that but on March 7th I received a subrogation demand from Fleet Response. On March 17th I left a voicemail with the contact from the subrogation demand letter but did not receive a call back. On April 15th I reached out again and spoke with the ***resentative, she asked me to send a copy of the police ***ort from the accident. She said she would work with me to resolve the issue, however, on April 22nd I received a final demand notice. Im still waiting for a copy of the police ***ort to send them to prove I was not the driver at the time of the accident but Ive emailed the *** twice since I received the final notice with no response.

  Business Response

  Date: 05/06/2025

  Weve been assigned this claim by SIXT to recover the damage to their vehicle while on rent to ************ Ms. ******** rented the vehicle and stated that she was not driving when the damage occurred. We are currently working with Ms. ******** to obtain the police report (last request was sent 4/30/25) or information on the driver of the vehicle. In reviewing the rental agreement there were no additional authorized drivers. Per the terms and conditions of the rental agreement Authorized Drivers are the only persons permitted to drive the Vehicle. If you permit anyone other than the Renter or an Additional Driver listed above to drive the Vehicle, or any other person defined as an Authorized Driver on the rental jacket, we will hold you responsible for damage to the Vehicle and for damage to others and their property caused by the unauthorized driver. Damage caused by unauthorized drivers is not covered by Loss Damage Waiver. There is a small fee to add Additional Drivers to this Agreement.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:04/22/2025

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  Claim #******* I got an oil change at my nearest take 5 in January and again in February. 3 weeks later my engine seizes due to lack of oil. A mechanic diagnoses I have a missing gasket on my drain plug and had my oil leak until the engine seized. I immediately filed a claim that they (fleet response) stalled for three months to tell me the pictures were too dark even after I sent a recording of a conversation with the store manager who confirmed what happened to my car, claimed they took responsibility and terminated the individual responsible at the shop. Fleet response replies with a denial of liability. They are doing everything they can t They tell me based on their recordings they only know what was done on camera and they can’t see what was done underneath my car. I then reach out to the area supervising manager who told me he had absolutely nothing to do with their decision and that he would look into this although they (fleet response) has been telling me all this time they were waiting on his response in the first place.
  I have sent more than enough evidence to establish liability however fleet Response keeps denying my claim for outrageous reasons.

  Business Response

  Date: 04/23/2025

  Fleet Response received the claim file on 2/25/2025
  regarding the claimants claim that our client, Take 5 Oil, damaged their drain
  plug during an oil change service that occurred on 1/24/2025. Throughout the
  investigation Fleet Response stayed in contact with the claimant while we
  attempted to gather evidence from the claimant’s selected mechanic shop. Fleet
  Response did not receive the necessary diagnostics document and photos of the
  claimant’s vehicle VIN, Odometer, and 4 corners until March 17, 2025. After
  investigating what we received from the mechanic shop it was determined we
  wanted to attempt to retrieve oil blow back photos from underneath the
  claimant's vehicle if there were any as this would help support the claimants
  claim of oil leaking from the drain plug on their vehicle. These photos were
  received on March 27, 2025, however, the lighting was rather dark, the photos
  did not illustrate what we would typically see from oil blow back underneath
  the claimants vehicle had oil leaked out while the claimant vehicle was
  driving, and we were not able to conclusively support the claimants claim of
  negligence on the part of our client, Take 5 Oil. As such, on 4/11/2025 an
  initial denial determination was issued to the claimant.
  
  On the same date, 4/11/2025, the claimant advised Fleet
  Response he would like to dispute the denial determination outlining that he
  spoke with the Store Manager at Take 5 Oil and the claimant claims that this
  manger advised the claimant the employee who serviced his vehicle that day
  apologized for the issue and had since been terminated. While the employee may
  have been let go from Take 5 Oil, the claimant, Take 5 Oil, nor Fleet Response, can substantiate that the employee was let go from Take 5 Oil as a direct
  result of the service they performed on the claimant vehicle.
  
  As for the recording the claimant advised Fleet Response
  that he had, the recording did not illustrate any employee of Take 5 Oil
  admitting fault, negligence, or any wrongdoing directly related to the service
  performed on the claimant vehicle. The recording also is a voice only recording
  and there is no way to prove who the voice is on the recording.
  
  Lastly, the most compelling evidence that Fleet Response
  obtained as part of a formal investigation on the denial dispute was footage of
  the oil change service Take 5 Oil performed on the claimant vehicle on the date
  in question. In reviewing the footage, it is seen that Take 5 Oil evacuated the oil
  out of the claimant's vehicle through the top of the engine bay using an
  evacuation machine. This means with 100% certainty that Take 5 Oil never
  touched or interacted with the claimant’s vehicle drain plug during service.
  The drain plug is only utilized when draining oil from a vehicle during an oil
  change. In this case, the oil was evacuated from the top of the engine bay, not
  drained from the bottom of the vehicle. It is seen that employee was underneath
  the claimant vehicle during service, however, this was to change the oil
  filter. Changing the oil filter on the claimant’s vehicle has nothing to do
  with touching, changing, or interacting with the claimants drain plug.
  
  Based on all the evidence received and reviewed during the
  initial investigation, as well as the formal investigation following the
  claimant’s dispute of the denial, it was our determination there was no
  evidence Take 5 Oil ever interacted with the drain plug on the claimant vehicle
  therefore could not be responsible for the drain plug/gasket issue on the
  claimant vehicle. The claimant was advised of this by a Supervisor with Fleet
  Response on 4/22/2025. 

  Customer Answer

  Date: 04/23/2025

   I am rejecting this response because:
  
  I am writing to formally dispute the denial of my claim regarding the damage caused to my vehicle following an oil change performed by Take 5 Oil on January 24, 2025 February 25, 2025.
  
  
  First, I want to reiterate that I followed all instructions provided by Fleet Response and submitted the requested documentation, including multiple photos of the vehicle’s VIN, undercarriage, and four corners, as well as the receipt from the oil change. The only item I was unable to provide was the odometer reading due to the complete engine failure—caused by oil loss resulting from a missing gasket on the drain plug.
  
  Shop Admission of Responsibility

  
  The manager at the Take 5 Oil location explicitly acknowledged that the employee who worked on my vehicle failed to reinstall the gasket and did not include this in his final report, which led to the engine seizure. While Fleet Response claims the individual on the recording cannot be verified, the conversation occurred at the shop in front of the manager and other staff, who confirmed the worker had since been terminated. This acknowledgment of responsibility should carry significant weight.
  

  Drain Plug Involvement Disputed

  
  Fleet Response claims the oil was evacuated from the top using a machine and therefore the drain plug was not touched. However, if the plug was not touched, how did the gasket go missing, leading to a massive oil leak? A qualified mechanic inspected my vehicle and clearly determined that the oil loss occurred through the drain plug area, not elsewhere. The assertion that the shop never touched the plug contradicts the physical evidence.
  
  Mechanic’s Diagnosis 

  
  The mechanic who examined the engine stated unequivocally that the oil leak came from the missing gasket on the drain plug, which would only be disturbed during an oil change. This diagnosis was submitted, and I am happy to provide additional statements or documentation if needed.
  

  Video Footage Interpretation

  
  Even if the oil was removed from the top, the employee being under the vehicle suggests they may have interacted with components underneath, including the drain plug area. The assumption that the plug was untouched simply because the oil was evacuated differently does not negate the mechanic’s findings or the subsequent damage.
  
  This situation has caused me significant stress, financial burden, and loss of transportation. I am seeking a resolution that acknowledges the full responsibility of the shop as already confirmed by their own manager. If this matter cannot be resolved promptly and fairly, I will be forced to escalate the issue.
  
  Please let me know how you would like to proceed. I am willing to cooperate fully, provide further documentation, and obtain written statements from the mechanic or the shop manager if necessary.
  
  

  
  

  Business Response

  Date: 04/24/2025

  To address the claimant’s claim that a manager at Take 5 Oil
  directly admitted fault for installing the gasket incorrectly, there is no
  evidence of this found during the investigation. Neither Take 5 Oil corporate
  or any employee of Take 5 Oil directly reported during the investigation that
  anyone admitted fault for the claimant vehicle damages. This is why the claim
  file was submitted as an undetermined claim. The recording the claimant has
  cannot be verified to be any employee of Take 5 Oil as it is simply a voice
  recording. The employee being terminated has no relation to the facts and
  details of the claim file or allegation by the claimant against Take 5 Oil.
  
  Fleet Response does not dispute that an employee of Take 5
  Oil was underneath the claimant vehicle. It was verified and even acknowledged
  in the original response to BBB. The employee was underneath the claimant
  vehicle to change out to the oil filter, which has no relation to the drain
  plug of the claimant vehicle. This is verified with 100% certainty.
  
  It is not Fleet Response nor Take 5 Oil’s responsibility to
  determine why the drain plug was leaking on the claimant vehicle. The claimant
  presented a claim against Take 5 Oil asserting that Take 5 Oil did not install
  the drain plug correctly leading to a massive oil leak on the claimant vehicle.
  It has been verified through video footage, as well as all evidence obtained
  through the investigation process, that at no point in time did Take 5 Oil
  touch or engage with the drain plug on the claimant vehicle during service. The
  fact that the vehicle oil was evacuated during service indicates with 100%
  certainty that the oil was not drained during service, leading to no one
  pulling the drain plug to drain the oil, therefore interacting with the drain
  plug. It is the claimants burden of proof to present evidence that to support
  their claim that Take 5 Oil is in fact responsible for the vehicle damages. To
  date, the claimant has not met their burden their burden of proof in this
  regard.
  
  Given the evidence of this claim file: the oil was evacuated
  from the claimant vehicle, not drained, the Take 5 Oil employee was only under
  the claimant vehicle to change the oil filter and not engage with the drain
  plug, no proof of any actual Take 5 Oil actually admitting guilt/negligence,
  and the lack of direct proof or evidence Take 5 Oil is directly responsible for
  the drain plug issue, Fleet Response and Take 5 Oil is confident a fair and
  reasonable denial determination has been rendered on this claim file. 

  Customer Answer

  Date: 04/24/2025

   I am rejecting this response because:
  
  
  I am writing to formally reiterate my dispute of Fleet Response’s denial of my claim regarding severe engine damage caused by a negligent oil change performed by Take 5 Oil on January 24, 2025, and again on February 25, 2025. After weeks of being misled, stalled, and denied despite clear evidence, it has become necessary to address the tactics employed in this case and reaffirm the basis of your liability.
  
  My vehicle suffered catastrophic engine failure due to oil loss caused by a missing gasket on the drain plug. A qualified mechanic diagnosed the source of the leak and confirmed the plug was improperly serviced. The correct documentation was provided immediately, however after each document was submitted there was multiple weeks of no contact from the agent assigned to the claim, until I reached out to discover they were requesting more documentation. At multiple times the agent stated I would be receiving a decision in a matter of days and then cease contact for weeks.
  I provided a recorded conversation with the store manager at the Take 5 location, who confirmed the error and admitted that the employee responsible was terminated as a direct result. This was corroborated by staff present at the time.
  

  I have now returned to the location and obtained a second recording from the same manager, who reiterated his prior acknowledgment and even expressed disappointment in how Fleet Response handled the claim. He provided the contact information for his regional manager to support my efforts to resolve this issue.
  
  Fleet Response claims that because oil was evacuated via the top of the engine, the drain plug was never touched. Yet a missing drain plug gasket does not disappear on its own.
  There is no explanation for how this part was missing immediately following service unless it was removed or reinstalled incorrectly by a Take 5 employee.
  
  Video footage showing an employee under my vehicle is conveniently brushed off, yet no conclusive evidence is provided that proves the drain plug was not accessed.
  
  To claim with “100% certainty” that the plug was never touched while simultaneously refusing to acknowledge the store manager’s admission is both disingenuous and indicative of bad faith. The recorded admissions, mechanic’s diagnosis, and timeline of events clearly establish a chain of custody that points to your client’s liability.
  
  Fleet Response delayed this investigation for months, claiming inadequate photos—even after receiving all requested documentation.
  The voice recording was dismissed on baseless grounds, despite your own client acknowledging its authenticity during follow-ups.
  Claiming that the manager’s testimony holds no weight while allowing a vague interpretation of security footage to absolve responsibility is a gross double standard.
  

  The repeated denials and justifications suggest a coordinated effort to evade liability rather than seek the truth. Fleet Response, I urge you to reassess this claim with the transparency and accountability expected of a professional entity otherwise further actions will be taken.
  
  I am requesting the full repair or replacement cost of my vehicle as well as compensation based on the tactics used in mishandling the claim, mechanical diagnosis and admissions from Take 5’s store manager. This matter has cost me significant time, money, and hardship, and any further denial will force me to escalate the matter to higher proceedings. 
  

  [[BBB transcription via phone call]]

  Consumer stated they reached out to the business directly to see what exactly is needed in order to proceed with the claim and approve seeing as the consumer has provided all the information requested and has documentation of the business accepting fault. The business was unable to answer. Please provide what information is needed in order to continue

   

  
  

  Business Response

  Date: 04/24/2025

  The recording the claimant claims to have outlining a store
  manager admitted fault was reviewed at length. In the recording the store
  manager advises that all claim information needs to be directed to Fleet
  Response as Fleet Response is handling the claim file .The person on the other
  end of the line also advises the claimant he was not employed at the time of
  the service. The District Manager, the claimant was advised, would not know
  what happened at the store level either. The voice on the other line does also
  advise the claimant that one of the employees who worked on their vehicle is no
  longer with Take 5 Oil and the second employee was in the store on the same
  date of the recording and advised they had no recollection of any wrongdoing. Leadership with Fleet Response has listened to the recording and confirmed the details listed above are true and accurate. We would be willing to provide the recording, however, the file size is too large. We further would be confident in providing the recording to any DOI complaint or in court for a suit as we are that confident the details of the recording dispute the details the claimant has laid forth in their BBB complaint.
  
  At no point in the recording does anyone from Take 5 Oil
  take fault, admit fault, admit wrongdoing, or give any indication of
  acceptance of the damages to the claimant vehicle. The claimant's statements
  throughout his BBB complaint have been proven to be incorrect and false.
  
  The video footage has not been brushed off by Fleet
  Response. In fact, the claimant called in to speak with a supervisor today,
  4/24/2025, at Fleet Response and the supervisor advised the claimant it was
  seen that the Take 5 Oil employee did change the oil filter underneath the
  vehicle. The footage has been and continues to be acknowledged and a key piece
  of evidence in the denial determination rendered on the claim file.
  
  We are confident in our investigation as it followed all
  fair claims handling guidelines set forth by the DOI. The claimant has not met
  their duty of burden of proof and have not provided sufficient evidence to
  support their claim that Take 5 Oil damaged their drain plug. All the evidence
  obtained and reviewed indicates Take 5 Oil is not at fault for the damages as
  they never interacted with the claimant drain plug.

  Customer Answer

  Date: 04/25/2025

   I am rejecting this response because:
  
  
  I am writing in continued response to your most recent denial of my claim. At this point, it is clear that Fleet Response is actively disregarding key evidence, mischaracterizing both witness statements and physical diagnostics, and providing conflicting justifications in an attempt to avoid liability.
  
  
  Misrepresentation of Key Testimony
  
  
  Your repeated reference to the store manager’s statement deliberately omits critical context. The manager not only acknowledged the service error but also provided contact information for the regional manager, expressed sympathy for the situation, and confirmed that an employee responsible for the service was let go. Whether or not the termination was “officially documented” as related to my incident is irrelevant—the fact that you acknowledge that one of the two employees involved is no longer with the company underscores that an issue was identified at the store level.
  
  Furthermore, your insistence that the voices in the recording “do not admit fault” is disingenuous. While the individuals may not have used legal terminology such as “we are liable,” the statements made clearly acknowledge a service error, the consequences of that error, and express a desire for the issue to be resolved.
  
  Contradiction Between Video Footage and Mechanical Evidence
  
  Fleet Response claims the drain plug was not touched based solely on video footage. However, the same footage shows an employee working underneath the vehicle. You then assert this was “only to change the oil filter.” This interpretation is speculative and does not negate the physical diagnosis by a licensed mechanic—who clearly identified that the vehicle suffered a catastrophic oil leak due to a missing gasket on the drain plug, which had been serviced weeks prior at your location.
  
  No vehicle begins leaking from the drain plug coincidentally weeks after an oil change—unless the plug was mishandled. The logical conclusion, supported by expert analysis, is that negligence occurred during the oil change.
  
  Tampering and Obstruction
  Your continued refusal to acknowledge physical evidence and insistence on blurry photos while ignoring the written and verbal diagnosis of a qualified mechanic constitutes an unreasonable obstruction of this claim process. The burden of proof has been met multiple times over—and rather than take accountability, you continue to shift responsibility while hoping to wear me down.
  
  Let me be clear: I will not allow that to happen.
  
  If this matter is not fairly resolved within 10 business days of this correspondence, I will be proceeding with the following actions:
  
  Filing a formal complaint with the Department of Insurance for bad-faith claims handling.
  Filing a small claims suit against Take 5 Oil and Fleet Response for the full cost of engine replacement and related damages.
  Submitting a complaint with the Better Business Bureau and Attorney General’s office, along with a public record of how this claim was mishandled.
  I have provided more than sufficient documentation to support my claim. I am still willing to resolve this matter cooperatively and without litigation, but continued denial in the face of overwhelming evidence will only strengthen my case when this moves forward.