Complaints

• Initial Complaint

  20/04/2024

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  On June 29th, 2023 I brought my vehicle to the Audi Ottawa West dealership for an all-day Audi Care Service maintenance. At around 3:30 I picked it up from the dealership parking lot and drove it home. Forty minutes later, in our garage, under the overhead light I discovered twin chips at the bottom part of the windshield (photos attached). I immediately contacted the service agent Mr. **** ******* to inquire about the chips in the windshield. I requested a meeting with Mr. ******* (******* *******) to discuss the matter, this was followed by attempts to reach the manager by phone, all with no success. Further exchanges by email with Mr. ******* proved to be frustrating as he was evasive, non-responsive and lacked transparency in dealing with this matter. It appeared that Mr. ******* had made up his mind at the beginning of the interactions that he will not deal with the facts and will not do proper investigations to determine if the mishap happened on the shop floor. He simply and arbitrarily determined that he will not take responsibility for any of it since I had driven away with the vehicle before discovering the twin-chips. Even though it was explained that the location of the chips in the windshield is concealed from view, similar to a hidden defect that escapes normal detection. Both chips were in the black band of the windshield in the vicinity of the VIN and are not visible from inside the vehicle. I inquired for the cost of replacement, Mr. ******* estimated it between $1500 and $2000 however he offered to only cover 10% of that cost. Audi Canada was asked to assist with this matter, however, they fully sided with the dealership. The matter remained at an impasse.

  

  Business response

  24/04/2024

  Mr. ******'s vehicle was dropped off at Audi West Ottawa (AWO) on June 29,2024. At 9:33 am, a Service advisor carried out a visual inspection of the Q5 VIN *******************, in the AWO drive- through facility, as per the Dealership's policy for all vehicle registered for service. An inspection sheet is part of the service record, and was appended to invoice#*****. No damage was recorded at the time, and the vehicle's mileage was recorded on that inspection sheet at 13,138 Km, which corresponds to the mileage recorded on the Work Order. A second odometer reading was recorded at 103,140 Km when the vehicle left our premises, after the 115K Audi maintenance was completed. Our Service Department has confirmed that nothing unusual was noted while carrying out the maintenance work. Furthermore, a post service multi- point inspection of the vehicle was carried out ,as noted on the work order, and no damage to the front windshield was noted. Following Mr. ******'s complaint, the ******* ******* undertook a number of due diligence steps to ensure that AWO was not the cause of the damaged windshield. An interview with the Audi Trained Technician, who worked on the vehicle, did not reveal anything that would explain the damage. The ******* ******* also verified the recorded video footage to see if anything unusual took place around the vehicle while at our premises; nothing was observed. As for the exchanges between the ******* ******* and Mr. ******, we feel they were professional and courteous. These e-mails are part of the service record, and can be consulted. But fundamentally, we disagree with Mr. ******'s assessment that the Dealership caused the damage to the windshield. Accordingly, Mr *******'s position should not be understood as being "evasive, non-responsive and lacking transparency"; we have no reason to believe that AWO caused the said damage. Finally, we sought the view of  an automobile glass specialist.  Mr **** ****  from ********* **** *****, with more than 17 years of experience in that field, wrote after he saw the pictures of the damaged windshield: "that is a rock chip. In my opinion a rock hit that windshield. People usually do not notice any discrepancies  (cracks/scratch or chip) in the black band since it's not in their view when they are driving. Individuals usually only look there if something happens and makes them look". 

  In summary, we do not  accept any liability for this unfortunate incident based on: first, no windshield damage was noted when the vehicle was visually inspected at the drop off time and after the multi-point inspection. Second, the vehicle was only test driven for 2 Km at low speed on a low traffic service road. Third, the vehicle was driven by Mr ****** from the Dealership to his house in Orleans, as he noted, for a distance of 34Km ( google search), making it totally plausible that the damage occurred at that time. Fourth, camera footage, and an interview with the Technician did not reveal anything related to the windshield. Fifth, a third party opinion by a reputable expert states that the windshield damage was caused by a rock., while driving.

  We  have offered a 10% reduction on the replacement cost of the windshield. This offer still stands and has been noted on the service record of Mr. ******.

  Customer response

  28/04/2024

  
  Complaint: 21603944
  
  I am rejecting this response because:

  To:You
  Sun 2024-04-28 1:24 PM

  
  Please see in quotes the message I had sent to Mr. **** ******* on June 29th at 5:15 pm. It followed a phone message I had left him immediately after discovering the broken windshield at around 4:15 that same afternoon. “I left you a message on your phone upon my arrival at home. I noticed a chip in the windshield just above the VIN. The chip was not there before I got to the dealership and the drive home was uneventful, I did not hear or see an object strike the windshield. So I wanted to know if the vehicle was taken for a test drive during its testing and if the mechanic had mentioned anything about the windshield. There could be another reason for the chip though I can’t think of what it could be.”
  
  In ****’s email response on June 30th the conclusion had already been made, and it was clear. They would not investigate further, and since I did not discover the issue when picking up the vehicle it was then my responsibility. “Apologies for the delayed response it can be tough respond sometimes when we are short staffed like we are today.  Unfortunately with something like this unless this was brought to our attention RIGHT as the vehicle was picked up, there is not much that can be done on our end. We only bring the vehicle up and down the road quickly, not even past the lights up the road. This is something that could have occurred on the drive home on the highway.. Unfortunately we would not be able to compensate for a windshield based off of pictures sent to me hours after the vehicle was picked up.”
  
  After several attempts to reach Mr. ******* both by requesting a meeting with him through Mr. ******* and over the phone and after having left two phone messages, Mr. *******’s response came by email on July 11th: “Based on the attached picture of your windshield that impact was from presumably a rock hitting it at high speeds, as the back street is short there is no opportunity to reach any speed that would cause that sort of impact. I can appreciate the frustration with having to replace a windshield as I have been there myself. However a stone impact and also one that was noticed after the drive home cannot be the responsibility of the dealership.” Even though I had explained in my correspondence to him that my drive home that afternoon was about 40 minutes long and I had not felt nor heard an impact of a stone hitting the windshield. In several of my emails I had requested that they kindly meet with me to verify the damage and also to investigate since I did not have access to the technician nor to the resources they had in place. Mr. ******* never indicated to me that he had interviewed the said technician. His conclusion was obviously made at the first moment he learned of this issue and all that followed was to justify his decision. I also question the most recent expertise received, that had never been mentioned to me previously, from the glass specialist Mr. **** ****, which is a categorical opinion that does not appear impartial and that serves the interest of the dealership “that is a rock chip. In my opinion a rock hit that windshield.” Mr. **** never did a physical verification of the windshield nor did he inquire with me about the driving conditions that day. He never explained the double-chip aspect of the damage nor the angle of impact or the fact that no impact was heard of a smashing rock by the driver.
  
  Over the past few months, I inquired with acquaintances about this damage to the windshield. I particularly asked two individuals who have seen their share of broken windshields. One is the owner/operator of a body repair garage, the other is an owner/operator of a mechanics garage for European vehicles. Both, independently stated that the damage was likely the result of dropped tool.
  
  This Audi dealership often speaks of their exemplary customer care and excellence of service. They in fact, in their request for feedback, request that you call the ******* ******* if you are unable to give them the highest rating of 5/5. In my experience, they have failed in addressing an issue that was important to me with the professionalism and transparency that I expected from Audi. I found their general approach to be distant and defensive rather than forthcoming and helpful. The ******* ******* simply made the conclusion about this matter in his first correspondence with me July 2023 then made every effort to support that conclusion without once taking a call from me, speaking with me, meeting with me or inspecting the damage. I expected more in terms of customer care, compassion, professionalism and transparency. Thank you.
  Sincerely,
  
  ****** *****

  

  Business response

  02/05/2024

  As a first point, we note that Client ***** asked, in his original June 29th,2024 message to Mr. ******* of AWO;" if the vehicle was taken for a test drive during its testing and if the mechanic had mentioned anything about the windshield. There could be another reason for the chip though I couldn't think  of what it could be". It seems reasonable to assume that the Client's original suspicion for the damaged windshield was the same as ours...damage caused while driving. Nowhere in this message do we see a reference to a tool potentially causing the damage. Only after Mr ******* answered ;" we only bring the vehicle up and down the road quickly, not even past the lights up the road", did we see a shift in the position of the client, now pointing to the damage being the result of a tool impact. This is especially telling since our service records support/shows  a brief 2 Km test drive. The due diligence steps taken by the ******* ******* substantiated his position. As for the involvement of Mr. ****, his assessment was sought last week using the original photograph provided by Mr ***** and that we have kept on our Service records. Client ***** states that the opinion of Mr **** "does not appear impartial and serves the interest of the Dealership". Yet, a similar statement could be made viz the "anonymous acquaintances " of Client *****, declaring that the damage was likely the result of a dropped tool, without having had a single interaction  with the Dealership. In conclusion, no new facts/evidence has been offered in this response. Accordingly, we stand by our original position. We will however  gladly meet with the two "anonymous experts" to review and understand the basis of there conclusion. We will have Mr. **** present at that meeting. Before such a meeting takes place we would ask: 

  The full name and Provincial accreditation of the two business entities, and the number of years of work experience;

  The specific work experience they have with Audi brand vehicles, there knowledge of the steps /elements of the Audi 115Km service maintenance requirements, including  experience in windshield damage/repair;

  Based on the above, we will expect both individuals to go through our Service records, review the due diligence steps we took, and the camera footage of the car being serviced.

  This is what we propose as next steps.

  Customer response

  09/05/2024

  
  Complaint: 21603944
  
  I am rejecting this response because:

  In their response, the courtesy of referring to a customer as Mr./Mrs. appears not to extend to clients (or at least this client). Less than professional. That's customer care 101. In addition, the name and title of the respondent is nowhere to be seen.
  
  They claim to be experts in customer care, yet their responses do not address the questions asked by the customer. They go into argumentative and circular debates that leave much to be desired in terms of feeling listened to and respected.
  
  
  At the beginning of what has become a surprisingly negative experience, I reached out to them in good faith believing I am dealing with a fair company that wants to earn my trust and respect. Instead, in my hour of need, they turned to denial and stonewalling, and in this last correspondence I feel the hostility. In the first five lines, they go to length in cross-examining my intentions with respect to my correspondence with Mr. *******. There was nothing sinister about my questions to him the day I discovered the broken windshield. It is a normal line of inquiry in cause-and-effect. I was totally in the dark at that point as to what happened to my windshield. I was using a process of elimination to determine the reason for the damage as I had not encountered any issues during the 34 km drive home. 
  
  
  I do not agree that the ******* ******* had taken "due diligence steps". That was my main point of contention right from the start. I had attempted to speak with him on many occasions by phone and in person, he never called back nor offered a meeting. I requested a proper investigation to determine the chain of events, that was not done either. This latest response from Audi was indeed the first instance that I receive an invitation to view the records and discuss the issue in person.
  
  
  As for casting doubt on my "anonymous experts". These are respected individuals who built their businesses on the strength of their knowledge and expertise. They own and operate their successful businesses and I think anyone who thinks I can summon them to Audi dealership to review your records is out of touch. These are busy individuals and I don't think I am willing to pay for their time to assist in this matter. That's too much of a burden on me. However, I would like the invitation extended to me to view the records and videos. 
  
  
  I appreciate that Mr. **** may have extensive experience with windshields but I am alarmed by the off-the-cuff opinion he gave about how the windshield was damaged as if it was a fact. This remains an opinion, and a very stretched one at that. No one can assert what he did unless they were in the vehicle when it happened or if they were clairvoyant. 
  
  
  This dealership, through the individuals involved in this issue, has not met my expectations for customer care. They failed to take responsibility for breaking my vehicle's windshield during a service call and followed it by a series of missteps in customer relations handling. Quite disappointing, particularly from a company that only accepts ratings of 5/5. Their approach and responses are unsatisfactory and I do not feel I have been fairly treated after many years of dealing with them.  
  
  Sincerely,
  
  ****** *****

*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. ↩