Complaints

• Initial Complaint

  04/13/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Sales and Advertising Issues

  Status:

  Unresolved

  More info

  To whom it may concern,My name is ********************* and the purpose of this letter is so that hopefully no one else will be taken advantage of and mad to give an unprofessional shop their hard earned money. My vehicle was having an electrical issue so I took it to a gm specialist because my car is a Chevrolet. By the end of this fiasco, the shop had my vehicle for a total of 5 days, charged me ******, and never fixed my car. They broke a radiator hose which made my car un drivable. Then forced me to pay for not only the parts, they made me pay for the labor to repair it as well. I was given a list of repairs of which I did not ask for nor had anything to do with the original problem. I spent ****** and my car still has the original electrical problem I took it in for. I hope you can help with this problem and just because someone is a young college student, they should not be taken advantage of like this. Thank you in advance for your assistance with this issue.

  Business response

  04/18/2023

  On April 7, 2023, *************** gave authorization for Repair Order (RO) # J012248, amounting to $247.00, to diagnose a parasitic draw issue that was causing the vehicle's battery to lose charge and phantom door locks to cycle, resulting in a no-start condition.
  Prior to diagnostics, Technician 145 conducted a thorough digital vehicle inspection and identified that the vehicle had an extremely low level of antifreeze, along with several antifreeze and oil leaks. Based on Tech 145's findings, engine cooling system pressure testing was advised to determine the source(s) of the antifreeze leaks.
  Technician 145 conducted diagnostics for parasitic draw and found that the battery passed testing with a strong performance of 762 cold cranking amps and 100% state of charge. The charging system also passed testing, showing **** volts and 91 amps. The parasitic draw test yielded an average draw of 15 milliamps and a maximum draw of 24 milliamps, with no issues detected at this time. Based on the testing results, there was no battery draw condition found, and the phantom door lock cycling could not be duplicated. Technician ******************************************************************************* place and rechecking the situation on Monday morning for further evaluation.
  Service advisor ******* updated **************** on the condition of the engine cooling system, noting that it had a critically low level of antifreeze and was experiencing leaks in both the antifreeze and oil. However, the electrical system was passing all tests at the moment. Taking into account the recommendation of technician 145, service advisor ******* advised **************** to authorize a pressure test on the cooling system to pinpoint the antifreeze leaks, and also suggested leaving the vehicle at the shop over the weekend for further assessment of the battery draw concern. **************** agreed and authorized the additional time for evaluation.Consequently, the estimate was revised to include an additional $61.75 for the cooling system pressure testing, resulting in a total estimate of $308.75.
  After the vehicle had been left at the shop over the weekend, Tech 145 rechecked the results of the parasitic draw test and found the same results, with an average draw of 15 milliamps and a maximum draw of 24 milliamps. The battery also passed the test again, showing 100% state of charge after sitting over the weekend. Tech 145,however, was still unable to duplicate the phantom door lock cycling issue.Upon further inspection, Tech 145 discovered that the buttons on the keyless entry remote were heavily worn and damaged. With very light pressure applied,the door locks would activate, suggesting that if the key FOB was in the driver's pocket, the door lock buttons could be inadvertently pressed even while driving. This could be the possible cause of the phantom door lock cycling. Additionally, Tech 145 noted that the drive may be aftermarket devices plugged into the vehicle overnight, which could be drawing power from the battery but not present at the time of testing. Based on these findings, Tech 145 recommended that if the battery draw issue persists, the vehicle should be returned for further testing.
  Tech 145, while performing engine cooling system pressure testing, identified that the antifreeze bleed hose from the water outlet to the surge tank had a plastic fitting failure due to severe deterioration of the plastic. The failure occurred during the pressure testing process. Additionally, Tech 145 observed a separate leak in the antifreeze inlet hose for the turbo. In light of these findings, Tech 145 recommended the replacement of the plastic water outlet, the failed antifreeze bleed hose, the upper coolant hose, and the turbo antifreeze inlet hose.Top of Form
  Service advisor ******* informed **************** about the findings of Tech 145 regarding the battery draw concern and the cooling system issues. Additionally, Service advisor ******* highlighted the failure of the air bleed hose fitting during the pressure testing. It was emphasized to **************** that operating the vehicle with cooling system failures could potentially lead to severe engine damage.
  
  The following morning,**************** arrived at the shop to pick up his vehicle and declined further repairs. He also claimed that "we" broke the hose and requested it to be replaced for free. Service advisor ******* explained that the hose was not broken due to negligence, but rather it failed under the normal course of testing, as finding failures is the expected result of testing. Tech 145 then spoke with **************** and showed him the plastic fitting on the hose that failed due to extreme deterioration. **************** was able to clearly see the deterioration of the plastic fitting and the orange crystallization of antifreeze around the suspected cooling system failure points, including the failed fitting.
  Tech 145 pointed out that the orange crystallization of the antifreeze is an indication that the leaks have been present for a long period of time. Despite this, **************** persisted in his claim that he should not have to pay for the hose replacement because the hose failed during testing.
  Service advisor ******* kindly lowered the cost of the parasitic draw testing from $247.00 to $123.50 to assist **************** with the cost of the hose replacement, which was priced at $119.90. Despite the discount, **************** initially declined the hose replacement but was appreciative of the reduced cost. He was then cashiered for a total invoice of $185.25, which included $123.50 for the electrical concern and $61.75 for the cooling system testing. It's important to note that this total amount was lower than ******************** original estimate of $247.00.
  However, after making several phone calls and realizing the potential catastrophic damage that could result from driving the vehicle in its current condition, **************** later requested to replace the failed hose. The hose was then replaced for $119.90,as documented on invoice I011093.
   In light of the thorough testing and the evidence presented by Technician 145, it is clear that the hose failure occurred during normal testing and was not due to negligence on the part of the shop. The discounted total invoice of $185.25, which was lower than the original estimate, reflects the efforts made by the shop to accommodate ******************* concerns.
  In summary, the dedicated team at GM Specialist service department is unwavering in their commitment to delivering top-notch service and upholding the safety and reliability of vehicles. We sincerely apologize for any inconvenience *************** may have experienced. The exceptional professionalism and expertise demonstrated by Technician 145, along with the diligent efforts of Service Advisor ******* in assisting with the cost, serve as a clear testimony to the shop's unwavering dedication to ensuring customer satisfaction.

  Customer response

  04/19/2023

  I am rejecting this response because: the mechanic told me himself that he did break the hose because he was messing with it and claimed he barely touched it and it snapped, he also told me its better that he broke it so that he can replace it. I understand that there was a leak but the car was running fine. The mechanic also told me that the car would not even make it out of ********* and that I have to fix it there. Giving me no choice but to have it replaced. Also with the parasitic test, the car would still have the problem when I went back home therefore they either didnt do the correct testing or was not paying attention with having the car there for 5 days. Also, on top of that ******** would tell me that he would call me back multiple times in which he would not and I would have to call the shop. On Monday specifically he told me he would call back 30 minutes before the shop closed so that would give me enough time to pick up my car before they found the coolant leak and break the hose. But instead I had to call back which was around 450 and told me I had to leave the car there once again when I shouldve picked it up
  

*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. ↩