Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: As with any professional business, there are certain standard operating procedures that encompass the integrity of the work that's being performed. Since we took our vehicle in more than two times, we can now corroborate...
that the work was not performed in "good faith", nor was it performed with any level of competency. To further support our claims, there is substantiated evidence being provided by Southside Garage that the oil leak was difficult to diagnose, which is completely unacceptable. Therefore, any judicious consumer can classify this instance as a misrepresentation of the services performed, and irrevocably constitutes consumer fraud. At this juncture, a warranty is only as good as the work that was performed. However, the work wasn't successfully performed, nor was it executed appropriately. Further, we also found that damage was done to the front-end of our vehicle when picking-up our vehicle after our third visit. Ultimately, we won't sit idly by and let a duplicitous business dole out disparaging remarks so that they can simply save their reputation. Due to the circumstances and poor representation, we can no longer label this business that operates in "good faith", nor can they be labeled as a business that's trustworthy. Therefore, despite the verbose language and the weak attempts at defending such a business, we will not be bringing our vehicle in a fourth time only to have our vehicle mistreated again.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Attached.
Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: As with any professional business, there are certain standard operating procedures that encompass the integrity of the work that's being performed. Since we took our vehicle in more than two times, we can now corroborate...
that the work was not performed in "good faith", nor was it performed with any level of competency. To further support our claims, there is substantiated evidence being provided by Southside Garage that the oil leak was difficult to diagnose, which is completely unacceptable. Therefore, any judicious consumer can classify this instance as a misrepresentation of the services performed, and irrevocably constitutes consumer fraud. At this juncture, a warranty is only as good as the work that was performed. However, the work wasn't successfully performed, nor was it executed appropriately. Further, we also found that damage was done to the front-end of our vehicle when picking-up our vehicle after our third visit. Ultimately, we won't sit idly by and let a duplicitous business dole out disparaging remarks so that they can simply save their reputation. Due to the circumstances and poor representation, we can no longer label this business that operates in "good faith", nor can they be labeled as a business that's trustworthy. Therefore, despite the verbose language and the weak attempts at defending such a business, we will not be bringing our vehicle in a fourth time only to have our vehicle mistreated again.
Sincerely,
[redacted]