Bruckner's Truck Sales

August 14, 2018

Revdex.com***Dispute Resolution SpecialistComplaint ID

Dear Ms.,

We are in receipt of your complaint notification. We understand the customer's frustration with the mechanical problems he experienced with his Volvo truck. However we believe the evidence with our official reply to this complaint is compelling in that Mr. mechanical engine problem was diagnosed as carefully and as expeditiously as professionally possible. Furthermore, I have provided Volvo literature the accurately describes the Volvo Certified Uptime Center process. There is no guarantee from Volvo Trucks, NA nor Bruckner Truck Sales, Inc., to perform any and all diagnosis in one hour or less. That would be an unreasonable expectation that is impossible to achieve in many instances.

By Mr. own admission his truck was towed to our dealership and parked on our parking lot. This required additional time for our Technician to reinstall the driveline that was removed for towing purposes. All efforts that were made to simply get his truck inside our dealership expired the one hour he claims it should taken our Technician to complete all diagnosis of his engine problem. With our response I have provided an internal Volvo document that outlines the dealership's commitment regarding the Uptime repair process as well as a Volvo press release that also describes the overall process. Our repair invoice *** was written July 24, 2018 at 9:41 AM local time. Our Technician started installing the driveline at 11:32 AM local time. Had the truck not been towed it would have most likely already been inside the dealership.

Mr. engine was experiencing extremely high levels of crankcase pressure which indicated the likelihood of severe internal engine damage. Mr. was at our dealership during this timeframe and agreed verbally to further inspection. Further inspection revealed combustion gases in the cooling system and damage to both camshafts as was stated on his final invoice. To inspect the camshafts it was necessary to first remove the engine valve cover which is not an easy task. Once the valve cover was removed Mr. inspected the engine with our technician and saw the damaged camshafts firsthand. At this point Mr. requested an engine repair estimate and left our dealership.

Our recommendation to Mr. was to repair his engine by performing an in chassis engine overhaul. We did not recommend complete replacement of the engine based on our visual inspection. Our exact recommendation was clearly outline in the text of our repair invoice ***. Mr. declined making the major repairs to the engine and requested that we remove the crank case filter element and replace the engine air cleaner element which we did. The previously removed engine valve cover was reinstalled at Mr. request and the truck was moved outside to our customer pickup area. On August 4, 2018 Mr. made arrangements for a member of our management staff to meet him at our dealership after normal business hours to take possession of his truck. We accepted those arrangements and added a $50.00 callout fee to his repair invoice which is standard procedure to compensate our employee for this type of arrangement. Mr. was presented a total charge of $1185.18 which included all of the 6.12 actual hours our 2 technicians invested in this diagnosis. Please remember Mr. was physically with us during most of the duration of this entire process. Mr. immediately disputed our charges. After extended negotiation our shop Foreman made the decision to reduce the labor charges from 6.12 hours and $924.04 labor dollars to 4.20 horus and $661.71 labor dollars. This resulted in a 28.47% labor discount that Mr. was not entitled to. During said negotiations Mr. made the statement "those repairs should not have taken any time because the "computer" tells you what is wrong". The truth is computers and sensors on any vehicle simply manage most of the mechanical parts that continue to be necessary for the engine to function. The truck computer was not designed to detect wear and tear in an engine other than recording certain symptoms. When the truck arrived our diagnostic computer revealed engine trouble codes 555 and 556 which are directly related to excessive engine crankcase pressure. The truck's computer absolutely knew something was wrong but it does not have the ability to isolate the true cause of the problem. This is a perfect example as to why it is necessary for a trained technician to initiate diagnosis using the active trouble code and "confirm" what is truly wrong with the engine which is exactly what we did with Mr. truck. In summary, Bruckner Truck Sales, Inc., made every effort to accommodate Mr. which included arrangements to meet him at the dealership after hours as well as a significant labor discount. Therefore Bruckner Truck Sales, Inc., is not inclined to to offer any further discounts or refunds associated with our repair invoice *** and respectfully requests that this case be closed in our favor as we feel our previous goodwill offer of a 28.47% labor discount went beyond what was reasonable in this matter.

Sincerely,Keith MV.P. and Director of Parts and ServiceBruckner Truck Sales, Inc.***Direct line

In response to the rejection by the customer dated 8/21/18, the original invoice in the amount of $1185.18 and the final invoice that was discounted to $933.54 were part of our initial response and are again attached to this email.

If he did in fact incur expense due to our workmanship as he states “…left a clamp…unattached.”, we would respectfully request a copy of that repair order.

Best Regards,

Evan S

We continue to reject Mr.’s claim that we did not act in good faith. Mr. declined any further repairs and was given a final invoice totaling $986.72. The labor charge total was $822.00 and parts total was $30.12. At this point Mr. decided he wanted us to replace the air filter and remove the crank case filter. This required additional parts and labor. Once the additional repairs requested by Mr. were completed he was given an invoice totaling $1,185.18. This included the additional labor total of $924.75 and additional parts total of $103.76. When Mr. arrived he was upset with the total amount of the invoice. The shop foreman reduced the labor charge from $924.75 to $661.71 for a total invoice charge of $933.54. This should explain the difference in amounts on the invoices.

Mr. signed our invoice & his card was swiped at 18:17:36 (6:16 PM local time) on August 4, 2018 (please see the 2nd page of the attached PDF document titled “*** Credit Card Payment”). Mr. has now offered an invoice from Truck Tire & Lube that was written August 3, 2018 while the truck was still in our possession which was not possible. Furthermore the work stated on the invoice provided makes no reference to repairing a loose clamp. In summary, we respectfully request that this case be closed in favor of Bruckner Truck Sales, Inc. as we feel we have provided the Revdex.com with overwhelming evidence that we did in fact discount our charges for the repairs in question even after the customer became combative & we made every reasonable effort to satisfy his expectations.

Regards,

Evan S
General Manager
8101 Daytona Rd NW
Albuquerque, NM 87121
Phone
Fax
Cell

January 15, 2018
Revdex.com
***
Dispute Resolution Specialist
Complaint ID
Dear Ms.,
We are in receipt of your complaint notification. We understand the customer's frustration with the mechanical problems they experienced with their Volvo truck. However we believe the evidence provided with our official reply to this complaint is compelling in that we provided adequate financial relief in a most timely manner related to any and all workmanship complaints. There were no duplicate repair expenses the customer incurred related to our repair invoice *** completed October 10, 2017. We are providing *** invoice *** in the amount of $1641.95 as evidence that Bruckner Truck Sales, Inc., paid *** directly to repair all workmanship related issues. We are also providing extensive details regarding the overall repair timeline that was indeed extensive but was completely out of our control. We are also providing our original response dated December 15, 2017 to the customer's original demand for $6399.03 of combined truck payment, insurance, and IRP registration which goes into great detail regarding the facts surrounding the customer's complaint against us. None of these dollar amounts were substantiated by the customer yet that played no role in our decision to decline the customer's demand. After receiving our response the customer changed their overall demand to $3912.80 which continued to be unsubstantiated. We again declined to offer any further financial assistance.
Our repair invoice *** was a relatively major repair to the engine timing gears located at the rear of the engine. Near the completion of the repairs we encountered a problem with the starter motor attached to the rear of the engine. The very last two sentences of our invoice clearly states the starter remained engaged after the engine started. The customer was notified of this starter problem and they declined to allow Bruckner's to replace the starter and that was clearly noted on our invoice.
We are providing an email exchange between our Albuquerque dealership and the customer that was initiated October 10, 2017 which was standard procedure to finalize payment of invoice ***. The next email we received from the customer was on October 24, 2017 at 10:25 AM alerting us that they were having problems with their truck which they believed were related to our repair. In that email exchange the customer states the truck was towed at their request on October 17, 2017 from their fleet repair facility to *** who are the closest Volvo authorized repair facility to minimize any further potential engine damage. *** repair invoice *** was written the same day at 2:52 PM local time recording the customer's complaint as "Inspect and report on possible gear train failure. See attached invoice. Customer states repairs were not done correctly and didn't want to start engine for fear of doing more damage". This is the first evidence that the overall repair timeline was very much out of Bruckner's control as there was a one week delay simply notifying us they had experienced additional mechanical problems with their Volvo truck. In this same email exchange the customer states "As of 10/23/17 truck has not been touched because they are looking for a mechanic specialized in gear repairs": The assumption was obviously made by the customer and shared by *** that the engine had suffered a major mechanical failure that required special technical expertise to diagnose and repair. These shared assumptions contributed significantly to the overall repair delays. In reality the "engine noise" was ultimately repaired by simply replacing the starter which requires relatively minimal technical skills.
Albuquerque Service Manager Ray K called the customer October 24, 2017 shortly after receiving their email to obtain further details regarding the mechanical problems they were experiencing. Mr. K also made a phone call to *** on the same day in an attempt to gain further details. At that time Mr. K requested a written estimate for parts and labor to repair all workmanship issues related to our original repair. There were emails and phone calls from October 26, 2017 through November 3, 2017 before we finally received enough detail from *** to determine what overall repairs were necessary and which of those repairs Bruckner's was financially obligated to incur. Our response to this complaint includes time stamped notes from *** estimate case number *** that clearly indicate Bruckner's Albuquerque Service Manager Ray K approved our portion of the repairs November 3, 2017. The notes also clearly indicate the customer did not approve the remaining unrelated repairs to their Volvo truck until November 27, 2017. This is further indication that Bruckner's had no control over the overall repair timeline and related delays.
Repair invoice *** paid by the customer clearly indicates the cause of the engine noise to be the same failed starter that was reported to the customer prior to their truck leaving our Albuquerque dealership October 10, 2017. Please read the detailed technician stories recorded on that repair invoice. The important items are highlighted for ease of reference but please feel free to read the entire invoice.
There is no dispute on our part that there were workmanship issues related to the repairs performed on our repair invoice ***. Bruckner's paid *** repair invoice *** totaling $1641.95 in good faith to settle the customer's complaint against our Albuquerque dealership. Their only previous claim against us was "down time" related to the *** repair timeline. When we provided this same timeline evidence and we declined their original demand for $6399.03 they lowered their demand to $3912.80 which we also promptly declined. Once again they provided nothing to support their financial demand.
In summary the customers Volvo truck was out of service for a total of 45 calendar days from October 17, 2017 through December 1, 2017. All repair delays have been documented in great detail with our reply. Please refer to page 8 of repair invoice ***. There was a total of 12.54 actual technician working hours associated with the repairs approved by the customer. Please refer to page 4 of repair invoice ***. There was a total of 10.13 actual technician working hours associated with the repairs approved by Bruckner Truck Sales, Inc. The total combined technician working hours for both repair invoices was 22.67 hours which is less than three average business days. We continue to believe we did nothing to delay any of these repairs. It is our belief by way of regular and documented communication with *** and *** that we actually helped expedite the overall repair timeline. Our view of the customer's financial demands remains unchanged and we respectfully deny their third attempt to gain financial advantage on our behalf. Please accept this as our official response to your claim ***. Please contact me directly if you have any further questions regarding our response and the evidence provided.
Sincerely,
Keith M
V.P. and Director of Parts and Service
Bruckner Truck Sales, Inc.
***
Direct line