ComplaintsforMark Motors Group

• 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,
  
  ****** *****

• Initial Complaint

  30/11/2021

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  Date of Transaction: August 4th, 2021 After bringing my vehicle in for a routine maintenance service call, my vehicle sustained damages which destroyed the engine and left the vehicle immobile. The ACE system, which serves countless systems connected to the rotary assembly and overall function of the vehicle's mechanics, was damaged while In service at the **** **** ****** **** ******. I returned the vehicle to the dealership for a computer diagnostic to be done as is, at which point they deleted the computer trip memory. I believe this information was pertinent to establishing WHEN the damages first occurred. Once noticed, I requested they cease all work on the vehicle until I could speak with Mr. M***. After communications, Mr, M*** responded by forwarding the email to the General Manager and Service Manager for further assessments. After 60days of a lack of response from the dealership, I reached out to address the matter. At which point they refused to resolve the matter, refused to acknowledge the issue, and refused to repair the vehicle. Account# *****************

  

  Business response

  02/12/2021

  **** ****** ** ** ******** ** * ********* **** *** ********* ********** ****** **** ***** **** *****
  
  The client booked his vehicle in for a service inspection and recall to the rear spoiler with no issues noted by him at drop off on August 4th/ 2021(120350km at drop off). The service inspection and recall were completed, the client was informed by his service advisor at that time the ACE system(hydraulic sway bars) were leaking and required substantial repair and also required catalytic convertors which had failed. The client declined further diagnosis or repair and the vehicle was collected August 5th/2021(120354km at pick up).
  
  The client emailed his service advisor August 6th/2021 stating he could hear something wrong, mentioned his ACE fluid was low ( we had topped up the reservoir as part of the service) so he topped it up and it “poured out”. The client stated the noise was coming from the engine area. The vehicle was subsequently towed to dealership(arrived with 120567km) and on August 10th/2021 was inspected at no charge to client and quoted for necessary repairs. The client requested pre and post print outs of current and previous diagnostics however these are not usually done unless client authorizes such diagnosis and this was declined on the original visit so only the current telemetry was available. The client requested on August 13th/2021 that the service department “stop any work” on the vehicle until he decided how to proceed. The service department has not heard from him since that time..
  The client then emailed (Mr. M***) August 20th/2021 to “read at your leisure” and “seeking clarification and restitution”. Mr. M***  replied August 21/2021 offering to investigate.
  
  Communication has continued between our General Manager of the ****** **** ***** store, Leslie M*** and Mr. ***** during the intervening period up until November 29th/2021.
  We feel the vehicle originally arrived at our facility already in a mechanically compromised condition, of which the customer was at least partially aware, and this was not exacerbated or damaged further by our inspection, the maintenance carried out or completion of the recall. While it is very unfortunate for the customer, it was a pre-existing condition. The 200km gap the customer mentions is presumably the distance travelled by him in the vehicle after picking it August 5th/2021. We did not modify, alter, or disassemble anything else to do with the ACE system at any time. It is unfortunate that the ACE pump has now failed likely due to oil starvation.
  Currently, the vehicle still runs and the engine is not “destroyed”, the noise is actually coming from a hydraulic pump for the ACE systems however it would be unwise to continue using the vehicle as further damage will certainly ensue.
  
  Respectfully yours,
  
  
  Leslie T. M***
  General Manager
  
  

  Customer response

  02/12/2021

  Complaint: ********
  
  I am rejecting this response because:
  

  August 4, 2021 | 11 am - drop off the vehicle
  - I checked my fluids before leaving because I like to ensure that my vehicle is well prepared and maintained
  - The vehicle was left sitting for a short time before bringing it in for servicing, so I wanted to ensure everything was okay before doing the drive.
  @4:30pm *** **** **** informed me that the vehicle still was not ready because of a "part" for the ACE system, which wasn't available and would be there in the morning of the 5th
  

  August 5, 2021 | ~2 pm *** **** **** informed me the vehicle was ready for pickup - I live 2.5hrs away!
  - I picked up the vehicle shortly after 4 pm
  - I was made aware of a leak coming from the rear sway bar and a hole in the exhaust system.
  - I was told this isn't much to worry about, and it can be addressed ANY time; bring it back when I have some free time to do so
  - There was no sense of urgency placed on this "leak."
  + I did not think to check my fluids at the dealership because this is what it was there for/why should I have to go over the work they just finished.
  After driving the vehicle, I tried to contact the facility - no one was available! There was no option but to continue homeward due to my overall distance traveled.
  

  August 6, 2021 (Friday) | Contacted the facility to speak with the Service Advisor who dealt with my car initially, made arrangements to have the vehicle towed back to the facility 200+km (not many tow services were available to do so based on my location.
  

  August 9, 2021 (Monday) | The vehicle was towed to ****** **** ***** Hunt Club in the afternoon.
  

  August 10, 2021 | Mr. R***** stated that the "noise" I was experiencing was not coming from the engine but the Rear Sway Bar.
  - After explaining again when I had seen and experienced it, he checked the vehicle and reported back to me that the ACE system (last worked on) may have malfunctioned
  - I requested service reports to confirm the findings:
  + Report 1) When the vehicle was initially brought into the facility
  + Report 2) Completed after the vehicle was serviced by the facility
  + Report 3) When was towed back to the facility for this issue
  

  August 12, 2021 | --> Only 1&3 were available
  - Upon review of the vehicle diagnostic reports received, I noted the missing 200kms from the drive home on August 5th, 2021
  

  August 13, 2021 | Requested Service by the facility be stopped
  

  August 20, 2021 | I was finally able to contact Mr. M*** about the matter and explain to him the circumstances, which forced me to reach out and pass the situation off to someone else who could address the matter appropriately.
  --> Subject Heading: Fw: RE: Service Appointment
  

  August 21, 2021 | I received a reply from Mr. M*** stating he would investigate this on Monday. “Enjoy my weekend.”
  - The email was also forwarded to Mr. M*** and Mr. R***
  --> Subject Heading: RE: RE: Service Appointment
  - No response from anyone!
  

  August 23, 2021 | I followed up with Mr. M*** - No Response!
  - I waited for a response and still nothing - from anyone!
  

  September 7, 2021 | Attempted to contact Mr. M*** again - Still NO response
  - And still NO response from Mr. M*** or Mr. R***
  

  October 19, 2021 | I then reached out to Mr. M*** and Mr. M*** again - utterly disgruntled at which point Mr. M*** found time to respond dismissively to date.
  - Since our interactions began, I feel Mr. M*** has been attempting to dismiss this issue instead of providing a solution/resolution ** **** ** ** ***** **** **** ***** *********.
  
  If the vehicle was mechanically compromised upon arriving at the facility, why didn’t this present itself upon doing the initial diagnostic inspection? When comparing the two documents received, the malfunctions presented itself on the new diagnostic requested. And only after the servicing was performed on the vehicle. It was not until I began driving the vehicle that I realized something was wrong. If the vehicle was already mechanically compromised and to this extent, it would have presented something during the diagnostic report on the initial and post-inspection of the vehicle.
  With NO post-diagnostic report done, I cannot compare the vehicle before and after the service was performed. Considering the vehicle was in satisfactory operating condition when brought in, this alludes to something occurring during the "inspection,"; NOT immediately after leaving the facility.
  The vehicle remained at the facility for 30hrs; for a delayed service call and should have only taken 1-2hours. As previously stated by Mr. R*****, the ACE system was the last system worked on during my service call.
  - Check condition/operation of suspension and steering components, boots, and drive axle
  - Remove any debris from between Dynamic Response valve block and body
  - Check brake fuel, PAS and Dynamic Response lines, hoses, unions, and electrical harnesses
  - Replace Dynamic Response valve block filter
  - Check Fluids,
  - Check for leaks
  - Road Test
  

  At the rate at which the reservoir emptied, any service technician would have noticed this immediately, and it should have been addressed BEFORE picking up the vehicle, most certainly before leaving the facility. I explained to Mr. R***** that the strange noise coming from the engine, NOT the rear of the car, was concerning. When I checked the reservoir, I noticed that it was EMPTY; when I attempted to fill it, the fluid poured out from beneath the vehicle - Something which NEVER occurred until bringing the vehicle in for servicing at JLR Hunt Club.
  Does this mean no road test was performed after this service was completed? How do you ensure the vehicle was in working order before returning it to the customer!? Since this was not noticed, does it this imply there was no road test performed after the vehicle was serviced? This is a MAJOR leak; how was it overlooked and given a passing grade to be returned to the customer?
  
  Sincerely,
  
  ****** *****

  

  Business response

  06/12/2021

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

   

  Please note ****** **** ***** **** ****’s retort to the statements below that are highlighted in blue.

   

   

  
  Subject: RE: ****** ***** response – BBB File ID # ********

   

  I am rejecting this response because:

  August 4, 2021 | 11 am - drop off the vehicle
  - I checked my fluids before leaving because I like to ensure that my vehicle is well prepared and maintained
  - The vehicle was left sitting for a short time before bringing it in for servicing, so I wanted to ensure everything was okay before doing the drive.
  @4:30pm *** **** **** informed me that the vehicle still was not ready because of a "part" for the ACE system, which wasn't available and would be there in the morning of the 5^th

  ****The rear ACE bar leak was diagnosed during the multi point inspection. There was no work performed to the ACE system. The fluid was topped up during the service.

  August 5, 2021 | ~2 pm *** **** **** informed me the vehicle was ready for pickup - I live 2.5hrs away!

  ****A 2PM phone call was guaranteed so the customer would have time to make his drive in before service was closed. The customer disclosed multiple times how far away he lived.
  - I picked up the vehicle shortly after 4 pm
  - I was made aware of a leak coming from the rear sway bar and a hole in the exhaust system.
  - I was told this isn't much to worry about, and it can be addressed ANY time; bring it back when I have some free time to do so

  *****The customer requested to take his vehicle back so he could contact his aftermarket warranty company, the contract for which he was unable to locate when speaking with him on the phone, and acquire pre-approval for the repairs. The customer was informed that he was free to call back and rebook for the repairs once he had done so, or alternatively there was a direct offer made to contact his warranty company for him. This offer was declined along with the repairs to the vehicle.
  - There was no sense of urgency placed on this "leak."
  + I did not think to check my fluids at the dealership because this is what it was there for/why should I have to go over the work they just finished.
  After driving the vehicle, I tried to contact the facility - no one was available! There was no option but to continue homeward due to my overall distance traveled.

  ****The customer had just traveled “200+km” shortly after 4PM. Our service department is closed at 5PM, and our sale department is closed at 6PM. This contact effort was likely made after 6PM given the metrics supplied.

  August 6, 2021 (Friday) | Contacted the facility to speak with the Service Advisor who dealt with my car initially, made arrangements to have the vehicle towed back to the facility 200+km (not many tow services were available to do so based on my location.

  August 9, 2021 (Monday) | The vehicle was towed to ****** **** ***** **** **** in the afternoon.

  August 10, 2021 | Mr. R***** stated that the "noise" I was experiencing was not coming from the engine but the Rear Sway Bar. +

  ****In an email exchange on August 6^th, Mr. ***** sent a video in to demonstrate the noise he was experiencing. During this exchange he also mentioned that his vehicle was now incapable of retaining Dynamic Response Suspension fluid. Mr. *****’s vehicle had come in with a large exhaust leak, and it was difficult to tell from the video if this was a new noise or the existing exhaust leak. While requesting more info about the noise, we also reminded him of the leak in the rear ACE bar we had diagnosed; the only leak that was present on the first visit. Never once did we associate the noise with the rear ACE bar in that exchange. Upon further questioning, Mr. ***** confirmed the noise was coming from the engine. According to his explanation, he was informed this could be an issue with the rotating assembly or accessory drive and that it was advisable to get the vehicle in ASAP.
  - After explaining again when I had seen and experienced it, he checked the vehicle and reported back to me that the ACE system (last worked on) may have malfunctioned

  ****Again, the ACE system was never worked on during the first visit, only diagnosed. The initial leak was from the rear ACE bar. On this second visit a new leak had developed from the pump on Mr. *****’s “200+km” drive home.
  - I requested service reports to confirm the findings:
  + Report 1) When the vehicle was initially brought into the facility
  + Report 2) Completed after the vehicle was serviced by the facility
  + Report 3) When was towed back to the facility for this issue

  August 12, 2021 | --> Only 1&3 were available
  - Upon review of the vehicle diagnostic reports received, I noted the missing 200kms from the drive home on August 5th, 2021

  ****The prior report printed on the 4th of August shows a range of fault codes originating up to 10,000kms before his visit to our facility. None of these codes demonstrate a fault with the ACE system. The report after the vehicle was towed back to the facility shows new codes related to the ACE pump failure that originate 213kms after the vehicle was picked up.

  August 13, 2021 | Requested Service by the facility be stopped

   

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

   

  Since we had no previous history with Mr. *****’s vehicle, we wish to add that in order to assist Mr. *****, ****** **** ***** **** **** had subsequently requested out of warranty goodwill assistance from *** ******. This request was declined by *** ****** due to the age of the vehicle.
  
  Regards,

  Leslie T. M***
  General Manager
  
  

  Customer response

  08/12/2021

  
  Complaint: ********
  
  I am rejecting this response because:

  Subject: RE: ****** ***** response – BBB File ID # ********
  
  I am rejecting this response because:
  August 4, 2021 | 11 am - drop off the vehicle
  - I checked my fluids before leaving because I like to ensure that my vehicle is well prepared and maintained
  - The vehicle was left sitting for a short time before bringing it in for servicing, so I wanted to ensure everything was okay before doing the drive.
  @4:30pm *** **** **** informed me that the vehicle still was not ready because of a "part" for the ACE system, which wasn't available and would be there in the morning of the 5th August 5, 2021 | ~2 pm *** **** **** informed me the vehicle was ready for pickup - I live 2.5hrs away!
  
  [***OG: Prior to bringing the vehicle in for service, there were no issues being presented. The ACE system and reservoir functioned as they should. After an extended servicing delay that involved the ACE system, the vehicle experienced a catastrophic malfunction on the way home. The sounds presented from the engine were almost immediately noticed, as I stated before – however, driving in traffic, I assumed it was from the ambient sounds of traffic, NOT from my vehicle, which was just serviced.
  ***OG: If no work was performed on the system, why did it take your facility 29hrs to replace the ACE Fluid and Filter. Mr. M*** my concerns surround the use of time and systems of delay being employed throughout our interactions. I don’t believe it should have taken as long s it
  ****The rear ACE bar leak was diagnosed during the multi-point inspection. There was no work performed to the ACE system. The fluid was topped up during the service.]
  
  [***OG: The distance between my place of residence and the facility is more than two and a half hours away, approximately 190±km away from the dealership. Arriving at the dealership, receiving my car, and driving home in Ottawa evening traffic; did not afford me the time needed to turn around and address the issue when it presented itself. My expectations where to receive a call at 12PM and saying… Mr. ***** your car will be available by 2PM. The distance which I had to travel to the facility was known.
  
  ****A 2PM phone call was guaranteed so the customer would have time to make his drive in before service was closed. The customer disclosed multiple times how far away he lived.
  - I picked up the vehicle shortly after 4 pm
  - I was made aware of a leak coming from the rear sway bar and a hole in the exhaust system.
  - I was told this isn't much to worry about, and it can be addressed ANY time; bring it back when I have some free time to do so]
  

  [***OG: Mr. R***** – Suggested I contact my after-market warranty company to use my off lease purchased warranty for something that occurred on *** **** ****. Afterwhich time I contacted Mr. R***** and stated that I do no believe this is the appropriate situation for me to apply MY off-lease warranty for damages that  occurred as a result of work done by his facility.
  ****The customer requested to take his vehicle back so he could contact his aftermarket warranty company, the contract for which he was unable to locate when speaking with him on the phone, and acquire pre-approval for the repairs. The customer was informed that he was free to call back and rebook for the repairs once he had done so, or alternatively there was a direct offer made to contact his warranty company for him. This offer was declined along with the repairs to the vehicle.
  - There was no sense of urgency placed on this "leak."
  + I did not think to check my fluids at the dealership because this is what it was there for/why should I have to go over the work they just finished.
  After driving the vehicle, I tried to contact the facility - no one was available! There was no option but to continue homeward due to my overall distance traveled.]
  

  [***OG: The contact as attempted shortly after 5 and after 6PM – and then the very next day to arrange for transportation back to the facility. The last thing I wanted to assume was that something happened to my vehicle, shortly after being serviced.
  ****The customer had just traveled “200+km” shortly after 4PM. Our service department is closed at 5PM, and our sale department is closed at 6PM. This contact effort was likely made after 6PM given the metrics supplied.
  August 6, 2021 (Friday) | Contacted the facility to speak with the Service Advisor who dealt with my car initially, made arrangements to have the vehicle towed back to the facility 200+km (not many tow services were available to do so based on my location.
  August 9, 2021 (Monday) | The vehicle was towed to ****** **** ***** **** **** in the afternoon.
  August 10, 2021 | Mr. R***** stated that the "noise" I was experiencing was not coming from the engine but the Rear Sway Bar. +]
  

  [***OG: What I am saying is, the vehicle did not sound right! Which is something a TRAINED mechanic can hear from just listening to the engine as it starts. I could hear the change from inside the vehicle. How is this missed when the vehicle is worked on inside the service bay, which is quieter than outside? The last thing you were working on has to do with this system which is now not working. The ACE system has never leaked, yet you pointed to a baffling leak in the vehicle's rear. The mere sound of the engine would suggest something is not right with the vehicle; the simple fact that this “service job” took 29hours to complete sugggests that something occurred during my vehicles time in your care.
  When I checked it at home, the reservoir was empty, which I am saying someone would have noticed at the dealership. If this is something that the vehicle would require IMMEDIATE assistance, why would Mr. M*** recently suggest the vehicle can still be driven. This is clearly something that is damaging to the vehicle's overall function.
  ****In an email exchange on August 6th, Mr. ***** sent a video in to demonstrate the noise he was experiencing. During this exchange, he also mentioned that his vehicle was now incapable of retaining Dynamic Response Suspension fluid. Mr. *****’s vehicle had come in with a large exhaust leak, and it was difficult to tell from the video if this was a new noise or the existing exhaust leak. While requesting more info about the noise, we also reminded him of the leak in the rear ACE bar we had diagnosed; the only leak that was present on the first visit. Never once did we associate the noise with the rear ACE bar in that exchange. Upon further questioning, Mr. ***** confirmed the noise was coming from the engine. According to his explanation, he was informed this could be an issue with the rotating assembly or accessory drive and that it was advisable to get the vehicle in ASAP.
  - After explaining again when I had seen and experienced it, he checked the vehicle and reported back to me that the ACE system (last worked on) may have malfunctioned]
  
  ***OG: The sounds of the engine points to something wrong internally. I requested a computer diagnostic report done to determine when this issue first presented and reported itself.
  ****Again, the ACE system was never worked on during the first visit, only diagnosed. The initial leak was from the rear ACE bar. On this second visit a new leak had developed from the pump on Mr. *****’s “200+km” drive home.
  - I requested service reports to confirm the findings:
  + Report 1) When the vehicle was initially brought into the facility
  + Report 2) Completed after the vehicle was serviced by the facility
  + Report 3) When was towed back to the facility for this issue
  August 12, 2021 | --> Only 1&3 were available
  - Upon review of the vehicle diagnostic reports received, I noted the missing 200kms from the drive home on August 5th, 2021
  
  [***OG: Mr. M***, my issue with these results is: the fact that you deleted the TRIP. – That trip has an estimated value of 191±20km. Your reported findings of a failure originating at 213kms are from your facility doing a road test to assess/reestablish fault codes on a computer that was already wiped. During a diagnostic test, the most pressing issues are what will be presented after a computer has the opportunity to reboot. If your findings included the previous 200kms, we would see the fault codes that were generated during my drive home. My issue, as stated before, is this is the area that would present the most knowledge that has been erased. It is essential to know that fault codes are generated, but it is more significant to know WHEN they have generated. When I first brought the vehicle in for serving, your facility did not reset the computer to begin your assessment; however, after I suggested an issue, to “arrive at your solution” the computer had to be reset.
  ****The prior report printed on the 4th of August shows a range of fault codes originating up to 10,000kms before his visit to our facility. None of these codes demonstrate a fault with the ACE system. The report after the vehicle was towed back to the facility shows new codes related to the ACE pump failure that originate 213kms after the vehicle was picked up.
  August 13, 2021 | Requested Service by the facility be stopped
  
  
  **** *** *********
  Though the vehicle is 10+ years old it only has 120000+km on it. The vehicle is well maintained and has presented no previous issues. After being under Mr. M***’s care, the vehicle requires work ASAP or is still in drive-able condition. The only solution offered by *** **** **** was for me to pay to repair an issue created while under their care. The sounds from the engine clearly speak to something occurring during the work done by the facility. A training mechanic would be able to assess this issue and note there is something wrong. As I am not a trained mechanic, I thought it strange that I could hear something wrong with the vehicle, and the experts having worked on my vehicle for 29hours - missed this issue entirely. I have had NO vehicle for over 120 days, with no way of conducting myself daily.
  
  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. ↩