A-1 CDL Driving School

Review: The primary reason is that the school failed its’ duty to meet even the minimum of level of professional training implicit in the contract I signed. On the two days I attended classes the instruction presented fell far short of any professional standard, including:

04 February: Despite class scheduled to begin at 0800, the school building was not opened until after 0830. Class did not begin until after 0845. When class did finally begin, it was not taught by a CDL licensed, A-1 CDL Driving School professional staff member, but rather it was taught by an unlicensed student. At 1030, a block of instruction addressing pre-trip inspection was conducted by “[redacted]”, a staff member with very poor English skills – which in fact, we had been warned about by [redacted] earlier in the morning. Even if the [redacted] had car trouble that morning preventing her from getting to work on time, if a paid staff instructor had been present to begin training as scheduled at 0800, the building would have been open. However, neither administrative personnel or paid instructional staff showed on time to either open the building or begin training as contracted. I did not pay tuition in order to receive training from an unpaid, unlicensed student.

17 February: Upon returning for a second day of class, following an authorized absence for a business trip to Iowa, again class began late – this time at 0820. The initial class on in-cab inspection was taught by an A-1 CDL Driving School instructor who’s English is nearly unintelligible and falls well below the standard required for professional instruction. The second block of instruction was again taught by an unlicensed, student who is not on the paid staff of A-1 CDL Driving School.

Charging $3,000 for a course and then failing to deliver on-time instruction presented by licensed, professional members of the school staff, and then giving that limited instruction in unintelligible English, is unacceptable. As an 11-year adjunct faculty member of an international university and an FAA certificated flight and ground instructor, I am very familiar with what constitutes the required elements of professional technical education and instruction. A-1 CDL Driving School fails to meet any standard of professionalism from opening the building and beginning class on time to giving instruction in understandable English by paid members of the staff. It is of note that paragraph 5 of the A-1 CDL Driving School Driver Training registration contract indicates English is the official language and students must be proficient, and yet this is a standard the school’s own instructors do not meet – a fact admitted to in front of my class by the manager and owner, [redacted].Desired Settlement: Refund of $3,000 tuition

Business

Response:

Please Read the attached copy,

We already went through the court system and case was dismissed, client never showed up.

Please let me know if you have received attachedment.

February 19, 2013

Dear **. [redacted],

Thank you for reaching out to us regarding your recent experience and providing us with an opportunity to apologize. It is our goal that each individual who enrolls in our program receives a quality experience and I am disappointed that you feel as though that was not provided to you on February 4, 2013 and February 17, 2013.

Your letter raises two issues. The first issue is that class did not start promptly at 8:00 a.m. on the two dates articulated above. The second issue is that class was taught by a student and a non-English speaking instructor. I will address both these issues in turn.

We ask students and staff to be in the office by 8:00 a.m. However, taking into consideration that, in winter months especially, there are valid reasons for tardiness, we provide a grace period of about thirty minutes. The week of February 4, 2013 and February 17, 2013 are perfect examples of why this grace period is necessary. Many of the students and some of the staff, who rely on either public transportation or other means of travel, called into the office and reported slight delays. For students who are able to arrive at 8:00 a.m., it provides a great opportunity to ask questions and review you manuals.

As for teaching instruction by unlicensed students, I do not believe this is an accurate portrayal of our morning routine. Indeed, here at A1-CDL as well as other institutions, there is value in learning from your peers and from active simulation and discussion. We encourage students to form separate groups and discuss the various parts of “pre-trip” or evaluate a vehicle, etc. This active environment and participation does not constitute “student teaching.” It is merely a form of class discussion. There are several parts of the course that are dedicated purely to instruction and lecture, however, our program is comprehensive and also includes class discussion with your peers. When your fellow students speak, just like when you speak, it does not mean you are engaging in nonlicensed instruction.

For the lectures that were provided by licensed instructors, February 4, 2013 and February 17, 2013 had two licensed instructors overseeing the classroom and providing instruction. If you were dissatisfied with the proficiency of [redacted]’s English, then we are more than willing to schedule your classroom instruction with other instructors whose English speaking proficiency are unquestionable.

I have thoroughly read your letter and I am concerned that there may be reasons beyond those expressed on paper that motivate you to initiate litigation. Particularly, you raised an issue by email in November where you sought a waiver of the reimbursement policy for other reasons and your most recent letter is a second bite at the apple.

Also, I am disappointed by the other portions of your letter that threaten negative publicity and any attempts to strip us of our certifications. Since you are clearly an educated, well reasoned individual, you should be aware that any written or oral statements by you against our institution that is not based on substantiated facts are considered defamation. Please know that our first goal is to ensure your satisfaction without the necessity of court intervention. We firmly believe that our students are the benchmark of our success. However, intimidation will not be a motivation towards resolution and my hope is that we can have a healthy dialogue moving forward.

We respectfully decline a reimbursement of your full tuition because services were rendered and we continue to be willing to provide you with future services. Providing students with a thirty minute grace period prior to classroom discussion does not constitute a breach of contract nor does student interaction and simulation. All of our instructors are licensed and if you were displeased with [redacted], then that class can be made up by another instructor. However, we recognize that you have expressed an inconvenience and so, we are willing to provide a credit to you in the amount of $250.00 as a gesture of our continued commitment to you as a student.

To receive your $250.00, please see our office administrative assistant so that we can process your check. By accepting this payment, you acknowledge that the foregoing issues have been resolved. We look forward to continuing our relationship with you.

Sincerely,

Consumer

Response:

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because:

The letter A-1 CDL dated February 19, 2013, forwarded in response, contains untruths and is as irrelevant to the core of my complaint as it was when it was first sent six months ago.

1. The claim of a 30 minute "grace period" was not mentioned anywhere in the instructional contract I signed. It is only raised after the fact to give the school a way to excuse their unprofessional behavior.

2. Even allowing for this fictitious 30-minute grace period, this does not explain why school began 45 minutes late on 04 February. 15 minutes past the conveniently invented 30-minute "grace period".

3. On the FIRST day of class, students sat at desks and for the first two hours were instructed by a non-employee, non-licensed fellow student who had been attending the school for months previously. The was NOT, as speciously characterized in the letter as "students encouraged to form discussion groups". There was NOTHING to discuss! The students (me included) listening to the instructor were attending our FIRST class on our FIRST day of school. We had ZERO knowledge and thus had nothing to contribute to a "discussion". Again, more dishonesty.

4. Although outside of the purview of the Revdex.com, under Virginia statues, using unlicensed instructors in this capacity is a criminal offense.

5. It is not MY responsibility to find and schedule an instructor who speaks understandable English. A-1 CDL retains that which, among others, they attempt to shirk in this fig leaf of a letter.

Regards,

Business

Response:

September 18, 2013

Dear **. [redacted],

Thank you for contacting us in regards to **. [redacted]’s rebuttal letter. I have read his concerns and this letter constitutes our response.

We are disappointed that **. [redacted] has been dissatisfied with our program. This issue came to our attention by **. [redacted] in February of 2013. At that time, we immediately responded to his concern via letter.

In that letter, we addressed each of **. [redacted]’s concerns in substance. I will reiterate the critical portions here. First of all, **. [redacted]

complains that classes did not begin promptly at 8:00 a.m. According to the contract that **. [redacted] read and signed, classes officially begin at 9:00 a.m. We welcome students and staff to arrive earlier so that they can review materials and ask questions. Additionally, in winter months, we allow a grace period of thirty minutes to account for inclement weather. **. [redacted]’s insistence that class begin immediately at 8:00 a.m. is unreasonable given both the circumstances and the contract that he signed.

**. [redacted] also alleges that teaching instruction was delivered by unlicensed students. I do not believe this is an accurate portrayal of

our morning routine. Indeed, here at A1-CDL as well as other institutions, there is value in learning from your peers and from active

simulation and discussion. We encourage students to form separate groups and discuss the various parts of “pre-trip” or evaluate a

vehicle, etc. This active environment and participation does not constitute “student teaching.” It is merely a form of class discussion.

For the lectures that were provided by licensed instructors, February 4, 2013 and February 17, 2013 had two licensed instructors overseeing the classroom and providing instruction.

I have investigated **. [redacted]’s complaints by speaking with our staff and I have been assured that his complaint has no merit. All of our

instructors are licensed by the Commonwealth of Virginia and those licenses are available to the public by the applicable agency.

Despite the fact that I disagree with **. [redacted] on the substance of his complaints, I nevertheless offered **. [redacted] an opportunity to

reschedule his classroom instruction with other instructors of his choosing and to continue his education with our program. He declined my

offer. Alternatively, we offered **. [redacted] a reimbursement of $250.00 for any inconvenience he may have incurred in a good faith attempt to show a willingness to resolve his discontent. He rejected this offer as well.

At this point, our institution is not willing to communicate further with **. [redacted] about this issue as we have exhausted all possible

resolution. **. [redacted]’s actions and his own personal admissions demonstrate that he is not behaving with honest intentions. For example,

in November 2012, after signing up for the program, **. [redacted] contacted our office seeking a reimbursement because he had changed his

mind. When we pointed him to the contract terms which did not permit for reimbursement for such reasons, he threatened law suit and threatened to complain to a variety of agencies in order to have our instructors’ licenses revoked. He even referred to his previous litigation

experience. These threats lead me to believe that **. [redacted] is simply litigious rather than a person who has genuine interests.

We responded by letting **. [redacted] know that we would not react to intimidation or defamation and our position remains the same today.

We continue to appreciate the role of the Revdex.com and therefore, we hope that this correspondence will serve as a conclusion to this matter.

Please let us know if we can assist the Revdex.com further. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

The primary reason is that the school failed its’ duty to meet even the minimum of level of professional training implicit in the contract I signed. On the two days I attended classes the instruction presented fell far short of any professional standard, including:

04 February: Despite class scheduled to begin at 0800, the school building was not opened until after 0830. Class did not begin until after 0845. When class did finally begin, it was not taught by a CDL licensed, A-1 CDL Driving School professional staff member, but rather it was taught by an unlicensed student. At 1030, a block of instruction addressing pre-trip inspection was conducted by “[redacted]”, a staff member with very poor English skills – which in fact, we had been warned about by [redacted] earlier in the morning. Even if the [redacted] had car trouble that morning preventing her from getting to work on time, if a paid staff instructor had been present to begin training as scheduled at 0800, the building would have been open. However, neither administrative personnel or paid instructional staff showed on time to either open the building or begin training as contracted. I did not pay tuition in order to receive training from an unpaid, unlicensed student.

17 February: Upon returning for a second day of class, following an authorized absence for a business trip to Iowa, again class began late – this time at 0820. The initial class on in-cab inspection was taught by an A-1 CDL Driving School instructor who’s English is nearly unintelligible and falls well below the standard required for professional instruction. The second block of instruction was again taught by an unlicensed, student who is not on the paid staff of A-1 CDL Driving School.

Charging $3,000 for a course and then failing to deliver on-time instruction presented by licensed, professional members of the school staff, and then giving that limited instruction in unintelligible English, is unacceptable. As an 11-year adjunct faculty member of an international university and an FAA certificated flight and ground instructor, I am very familiar with what constitutes the required elements of professional technical education and instruction. A-1 CDL Driving School fails to meet any standard of professionalism from opening the building and beginning class on time to giving instruction in understandable English by paid members of the staff. It is of note that paragraph 5 of the A-1 CDL Driving School Driver Training registration contract indicates English is the official language and students must be proficient, and yet this is a standard the school’s own instructors do not meet – a fact admitted to in front of my class by the manager and owner, [redacted].