Florin Road Collision Center

Review: 02/10/14I have full coverage car insurance. On August 23, 2013 I was involved in a road accident. My car was towed to Florin Road Collision Center from my garage. The car is a brand new 2012 Nissan Sentra from Maita Nissan in Sacramento. On the day of accident mileage was below 10,000.The Collision Center Director Mr. [redacted] performed poor repairs on my car. Total cost of the repair was more $12,000. Mr. [redacted] from BAR pointed Mr. [redacted] for rework. My insurance sent me a copy of updated estimate for around a thousand dollars. Instead of performing rework on my car, Mr [redacted] set up intent to Lien. I have a letter from him. It, as I understand, caused me problems with making payments for the car. Even though there are no late payments, the bank says now I can't pay directly, I can only pay via Pay Pal or Money Gram or money orders.Before I gave Mr. [redacted] permission for repairs, he and I agreed that all damaged structural parts will be replaced. But, after repairs Mr. [redacted] tolled me that he saved original welding for me. Even more buckles appeared above right and left doors, they weren't there after the accident. Only a little bulge was visible near antenna. Mr. [redacted] declines my request to include the roof in repairs.I went to the Nissan dealer and showed pictures to him. He said, that if I agree with repairs I may sign up paperwork, but this car is not safety, not reliable and lost sell/trade opportunity. And he said that bring this car to us for check up. Mr. [redacted] didn't let me to tow the car for dealer repair check up, then I called BAR. Roof is still not included in Insurance estimate, because Mr. [redacted] says that those buckles were originated by Nissan vendor. Nissan Consumer Affairs said that we do not accept complains, because the car was in a road accident, I have a letter of them.The car is still at Road Florin Collision Center and Mr. [redacted] "turned on" storage and other fee counting.Desired Settlement: Compensation required for all losses since my car has been placed at Florin Road Collision Center such as transportation expanses, Insurance payments, losses of work hours, family sufferings and losses of health. Per my insurance co the car is fixable, so I would like my car to get fully and properly fixed. Since Mr. [redacted] broke our agreement of reasonable repair, my car needs to be reworked at a Nissan Dealer repair facility. I do not trust Florin Road Collision Center any more.

Business

Response:

We received the 2012 Sentra towed in on Friday August 23,2013 on that day we also received a preliminary estimate from the clients insurance company, we contacted the client to obtain authorization to start repairs on the vehicle per his insurances estimate. On August 30th 2013 the client authorized us to perform a partial teardown to complete frame measurement only. That information once completed was emailed to the client on September 2, 2013.

We did not here from the client until October 21, 2013 by email giving us authorization to repair the vehicle. October 22nd we finished the teardown process. We then contacted his insurance company to notify them of additional work that was going to be needed that was not on their original estimate. His insurance company notified us about their clients concern on the roof, thinking it may have been damaged due to the collision. We at that time notified his insurance company that the seat is requiring replacement since the seat tracks were not available separately.

Client’s insurance company came out to review additional required repairs and authorized supplement and reviewed roof stating no damage caused by the collision.

On October 31, 2013, client request we notify his insurance company on performing a 4 wheel alignment and his insurance approved the alignment.

On November 4, 2013 client was notified that car was completed and ready for pickup.

Now up to this point the client was very involved in the repair and prior authorizations on every step in the process by the clients preferred method of email. So it was time and date stamped. We kept all parties well informed as we do on all in every repair performed.

On November 5, 2013 the client informed us via email that he would no longer accept any correspondence from our facility or his insurance company.

On November 8th we notified client that we were going to start storage charges, since car was ready to be delivered to the client.

On November 12th we received correspondence from a law office representing Mr.[redacted], in which we sent all pertinent documents and photos related to clients vehicle repair.

On November 13th we received a visit from the B.A.R. where we were asked to disassemble some of the vehicle and they took pictures and received the spec sheet on the repair. Again on November 18th B.A.R. came back out to inspect roof and put next to another likewise vehicle and found no difference in roof design or any defects. On November 25thB.A.R. came out again had us disassemble additional items and found a small crack in paint on a rail extension, this item was not replaced in initial repair, we contacted the clients insurance company and received authorization to repair and again followed protocol.

On December 13 2013, we again sent all invoices, warranties on repair performed and any other documents pertaining to the repair to client’s legal counsel on the request of client.

On January 20th we sent certified letters to client and finance company stating we were starting lien proceedings on client’s vehicle.

We were able to by the client’s request in replacing damaged items with OEM parts, since his insurance company coverage called for non-factory/non OEM replacement parts. This was part of the service we offer our customer whenever we are able to.

During the repair and throughout the repair, the client was disappointed the vehicle was not being Totaled by the insurance and felt that we were the individuals not allowing the vehicle to be totaled. We explained to Mr. [redacted], we are following proper protocol in the repairs of his vehicle. We always kept client informed of what the insurance company wanted to repair and always made sure that the client was aware of the required repairs and to obtain his prior approval. The client knew that he could have at anytime halted the repairs as he did on the initial inspection.

Consumer

Response:

I am rejecting this response because:

I am rejecting this response

because here is no solution for current situation. Also the shop worsens the

situation providing misleading, false and confusing information to Revdex.com and Nationwide Insurance

as follows:

Misleading information from the business: “We received the 2012

Sentra towed in on Friday August 23, 2013…”

The fact is: the car

was towed to the Florin Road Collision Center on Wednesday August 28, 2013.

Misleading information from the business: “On August 30th 2013

the client authorized us to perform a partial teardown to complete frame

measurement only.”

The fact is: 1) I

authorized all parts to remove for the inspection. 2) There is no restriction in my authorization for frame

measurement only. Please read my email of 8/30/2013 to the shop that

says: “Here is my authorization for car inspection with all necessary parts

removed. Four digits of driver

license: 2318, driver: [redacted], car: 2012 Nissan Sentra, License # [redacted]. Also

please inspect the rubber bushing blocks, the motor is sitting on them. Since

the car got two impacts, rear and front with a short period of time, it may

cause a resonant effect to the motor and damage the motor holding blocks and

motor surrounding parts, cables, wire harnesses, pipes, etc. Most likely the

blocks need to be replaced in case of repair. You may see unusual motor

wobbling if the motor is running on idle RPM at normal working temperature.

Thank you.”

As I understand the shop provided false information to my

insurance company and corrupted my communication with them because I got an email of

10/09/13 from [redacted], Nationwide Insurance that says: “The vehicle has been torn down to a point

where we can view all damages with the exception of the seat which you have

not allow the repair facility to remove for us to inspect the tracks”.

The fact is:

There is no any restriction in my authorization for parts removal for the

inspection. See my authorization above.

Misleading information from the business: “We did not here from the

client until October 21, 2013 by email giving us authorization to repair the

vehicle. October 22nd we finished the teardown process.”

The fact is: [redacted] was not

authorizing repairs to the vehicle because the shop highly resisted for the

driver seat be included in the estimate. It required 54 days to get an

agreement with the shop and insurance company for the seat repair/replacement.

Misleading and confusing information from the business: “The client knew that he

could have at anytime halted the repairs as he did on the initial inspection.”

“On November 4, 2013 client was notified that car was completed

and ready for pickup.”

The fact is: I went to the shop on October 29, 2013 to meet [redacted]

[redacted] the insurance representative there for final appraisal to get a

complete estimate to finish repairs as insurance company promised me via

phone conversation. This final appraisal meeting with Mr. [redacted], Mr. [redacted], me

and Mr. [redacted] he renamed in “initial inspection”. At that time my car was

without muffler and the seat was neither repaired nor replaced, and Mr. [redacted]

told me that he already ordered a seat from Japan.

Confusing stuff: If I

halted the repairs on the “initial inspection” as Mr. [redacted] said, that means on

November 4, 2013 my car was ready for pickup with the seat broken and without

muffler. Therefore, the car was actually

not ready for pickup versus the message from the business. If the muffler

was put back on the car and the seat replaced after my “initial inspection”

that means I didn’t halt the repairs

versus the message from the business. If I halted the repairs, how would you interpret

the following email respond from Mr. [redacted]? “Mr. [redacted], It was a pleasure to meet with you today. If you have anything further

you would like to discuss please feel

free to contact me anytime at [redacted].

Thank you again, take care Greg.”

Before I authorized the repairs I

went to the shop to talk with Mr. [redacted] about repair details. All of sudden I

saw buckles above right doors, when I was walking from the rear side of the

vehicle to the front. I pictured them and asked Mr. [redacted] how he will fix them.

He didn’t answer this question, I didn’t repeat this question. See attached

pictures. Before the vehicle was towed to the shop there was only a bulge near

the antenna.

Message from business: “Again on November 18th B.A.R.

came back out to inspect roof and put next to another likewise vehicle and

found no difference in roof design or any defects.”

My understanding of this message is: Looking at the picture of the buckles, I see a buckle surrounding

line and an arrow that is pointing damage. If roof has no defects, why the shop

is pointing this particular spot of the roof? So, at least two cars had the

same roof damages in the shop on November 18.

Financing mismatching:

The shop wants me to pay $12,749.32 for repairs, see attached copy of the

Invoice. As for today I have only this Invoice. Please pay attention to the

line “Less Insurance” of $0.00. The shop got $7,338.37 for repairs from my

insurance company. Therefore, the total cost of the repairs is $20,087.69 just

for “cosmetic repairs”. I have two checks from the insurance company of $1,000

and $5,072.53 (expired). So I didn’t cash those checks because I am still short

of $6,676.79.

Sincerely,

Business

Response:

My name is [redacted] the Owner of Florin Road Collision Center I would be happy to sit down and review this with Mr. [redacted].

Mr. [redacted] can you please call me so we can find a mutually agreeable time.

[redacted] is my direct line. It is very diffucult to determine what it is you are asking for and I think it would be best if we met. I will do my best to try and reslove with you.

Consumer

Response:

I am rejecting this response because: there is still no solution for the current situation. The following is the first step to move forward.