Statkus Engines

Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: Having the vehicle inspected is a reasonable request and I will do thatThe cost of towing and the inspection will be ~$(Towing to mechanic based on quote from Intercity Towing: ~$- Inspection cost: $- Towing from mechanic: ~$340) I will not have MrS [redacted] inspect the vehicleFirstly because there is a clear conflict of interest, but mostly because I do not trust MrS [redacted] MrS [redacted] is not an honest person and here are some examples of his dishonesty."We would like to resolve this issue with Mr [redacted] but are not going to just pay out to Mr [redacted] without a full inspection of the vehicle to determine cause of fire or if there was a complete loss to the vehicle due to the fire."From MrS [redacted] ' first response:"We then received Mr***’s email about the fire we did inspect the vehicle at the salvage yard that it is now located."If Mrs [redacted] inspected the vehicle enough to know his work was not responsible, how does he not know if it's a total loss? It would be obvious to anyone who had opened the front of the engine compartment and glanced inside that MrS [redacted] had not done so in his 'inspection'."From where the fire damage was it was apparent that the fire was located at the top of the engine which was not the location at where our repairs were made Where the electric fuel pump was installed there was no fire damage and is not located near where the fire was at."As explained in my last response, MrS [redacted] shows by his own words that he did not 'inspect' under the vehicle, which is where the electric fuel pump is located, so how does he know there was no fire damage at that location? Furthermore, from the fire report:----------D IgnitionDEngine area, running gear, wheel area----------The wheel area is no where near the top of the engineWhat is in that area is the starter, which I have repeatedly stated was the ignition point and is corroborated by the fire reportI have repeatedly stated that the fire was due to a fuel leakI have repeatedly stated the general area where the fire started and reported witnessing fuel pouring outI obviously can't give the part number of the part that failed because to do so I would have had to crawl into the flamesIt's common sense thoughIf you worked on the fuel system of a vehicle and several hours and miles after you did so the vehicle bursts into flames with fuel pouring out of the bottom, it's probably something you didI have gone so far as to get the Revdex.com involved and I can't even get MrS [redacted] to admit that maybe his work might could possibly have been at faultFrom day one, before even looking at the vehicle, MrS [redacted] has stuck to the fiction that it was the carburetorNow that this fiction is being debunked he is attempting to shift blame to the mechanical fuel pump, which is under the vehicle and not on top where he claims his 'inspection' indicated the fire burnedA more likely explanation is that a fuel line came loose.These are not the only examples of MrS [redacted] ' dishonesty that I have in writing but I trust this is sufficient to justify my reluctance to have him perform the inspectionMrS [redacted] lied about one inspection, why wouldn't he lie about two? MrS [redacted] has consistently not been interested in the truth until the Revdex.com got involvedMrS [redacted] is interested in not taking responsibility, and this disqualifies him from 'inspecting' the vehicle to determine the cause of the fireHe has already tampered with it unsupervised against my explicit request when I asked to meet for an inspection and I won't hand it over into his custody where he can invent any story he would like to invent.I will get the inspection done by a licensed, storefront owning third party so that MrS [redacted] can have a part number for the failed workIt will take several months for me to raise the money for thisI will then add the cost of the report as well as other costs I have been overlooking to the claim, such as storage and moving fees for my possessions once I was forced to remove them from the vehicleI will compile an itemized list of the costs as well as provide the fire report and inspection report and possibly other corroborating evidence such as witness statements detailing the pool of burning fuel under the vehicle, etcIt was quite spectacular and noticeableI will then mail this information to MrS [redacted] by certified mail unless advised to do otherwise by the Revdex.comI do not WANT to go to court over thisCourt is frustrating, slow, and expensiveIt's further punishment on top of the punishment I've already receivedIf I am forced to go to court over this I will hire a lawyer and I must add that cost to my claim as wellBecause of the money value in this situation, no lawyer wants to take the case so the way I will be forced to retain a lawyer is to say "How much do you want? Pick a number and that's what you're getting paid." The lawyer is going to tell me to add pain and suffering on top of my claim and I'm going to do what they advise because that's why you hire a lawyerSo, I don't want to hear any crying about the bill because I'm not the reason it's going upI sincerely hope that MrS [redacted] sees reason and does the honorable thing after getting the inspection report Regards, [redacted] I am rejecting this response because MrS [redacted] is not honest

Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because:"The vehicle in question is a Chevy PChassis Pace Arrow that was in fair to poor condition."This is not trueOf the mechanics who looked at it, MrS [redacted] is the only one to make this claimOne of the mechanics in Bradley asked if I would sell it to him, but I needed it at the time"In Mr***’s email to us he explained that after the vehicle leaving here it started & restarted many times acknowledging that the no start issue was resolved."This is not trueIt started timesThe fourth time it caught on fire after turnsThat is not "many times" It traveled a total of miles according to odometer readings."Mr [redacted] could not explain where the fire had started..."This is not trueI have repeatedly stated that it started under the vehicleI have not stated the exact location as it was impossible to obtain the exact location while the vehicle was on fire"From where the fire damage was it was apparent that the fire was located at the top of the engine which was not the location at where our repairs were made."This is not true After ignoring my request to be present for the inspection, MrS [redacted] (according to witnesses) Spent ~minutes with the vehicle and then leftAccording to his own words he did not inspect the vehicle underneath when he was there.From an email sent to me by MrS [redacted] : "If you would still like to meet at the vehicle to explain this I can do so but when I was there the vehicle was in a mud puddle and I would need it out of the puddle to inspect"The fire did not burn primarily on the top of the engine It was still burning in the fuel pump area when the second fire extinguisher ran outThe fire department did not spray primarily on top of the engine, they sprayed primarily down into the fuel pump area and underneath."We responded back to Mr [redacted] and also offered to meet him at the vehicle to again point out where our repairs were made and where the fire originated from Mr [redacted] has not accepted that offer."This is not trueHe did not contact me to inspect the vehicle even when I politely asked to be present for the inspectionThe fire did not originate from where MrS [redacted] has claimed."Mr [redacted] states that the fire was under the vehicle but he has of yet stated where the fire started, what failed or what Statkus Engines did improperly to cause the fire"This is not trueI have stated it was due to a fuel leak ignited by the starter"Mr [redacted] was informed about the condition of his vehicle and he stated that the vehicle he was planning on getting rid of the vehicle because of the problems that it had."This is not trueI was informed that the front tires needed to be replaced, which I already knewI was not informed that it was a falling apart death trap, an opinion held only by MrS [redacted] and only expressed after the fireI was planning on getting rid of it because I no longer needed it and I was not happy that I had to put money into fixing a no start issue on a vehicle I wanted to sell Regards, [redacted] I am not accepting this response because it is mostly not true

As stated in our 1st email response to Mr [redacted] we would be happy to meet and inspect the vehicle but that it would need to be in a place that can be fully inspected On dry ground and where it could be lifted The vehicle could be towed to our facility to be inspected at Mr***’s expense The inspection would be a no charge and Mr [redacted] is welcome to be present at the inspection We have contended from the beginning that Mr [redacted] did not know where exactly the fire started If the mechanical fuel pump was the location of the fire start and the leak was from the fuel pump itself we did not sell Mr [redacted] the fuel pump When it left here it was not leaking We would like to resolve this issue with Mr [redacted] but are not going to just pay out to Mr [redacted] without a full inspection of the vehicle to determine cause of fire or if there was a complete loss to the vehicle due to the fire It is unreasonable to expect that of any company with a customer claim.We can be available for inspection Monday - Friday 8am - 5pm Prior arrangement need to be made to schedule for inspection.Regards,Jim S [redacted]

Dear Revdex.com,
In response to Mr***’s complaint we do not feel that we
have any responsibility in the fire that occurred on his vehicle. The vehicle in question is a Chevy P
Chassis Pace Arrow that was in fair to poor condition. The vehicle was towed in for a no
start
issue. To repair the problem we
reinstalled the mechanical fuel pump that someone installed improperly,
installed an inline electric fuel pump and replaced a (1) fuel hose near the
electric fuel pump. These repairs
resolved the no start issue. The vehicle
was test driven and rechecked for any fuel leaks. In Mr***’s email to us he explained that
after the vehicle leaving here it started & restarted many times
acknowledging that the no start issue was resolved
We were first notified by Mr*** days after our repairs
that the vehicle caught fire. Mr***
could not explain where the fire had started and we explained that without that
information we could not just accept responsibility for the fire and pay him
for the value of the motorhome which in the condition that it was would have
been of little value. We then received Mr
***’s email about the fire we did inspect the vehicle at the salvage yard that
it is now located. From where the fire
damage was it was apparent that the fire was located at the top of the engine
which was not the location at where our repairs were made. Where the electric fuel pump was installed
there was no fire damage and is not located near where the fire was at. We responded back to Mr*** and also
offered to meet him at the vehicle to again point out where our repairs were
made and where the fire originated from.
Mr*** has not accepted that offer.
We made no repairs to the carburetor area of the motorhome. Mr*** states that the fire was under the
vehicle but he has of yet stated where the fire started, what failed or what
Statkus Engines did improperly to cause the fire.
As mentioned the vehicle was a year model. It was in fair/poor condition with tires that
were in old and unsafe condition. There
were exhaust leaks at the engine and looked to have many issues more that the
no start issue that we were authorized to fix.
Mr*** was informed about the condition of his vehicle and he stated that
the vehicle he was planning on getting rid of the vehicle because of the
problems that it had. With a vehicle
that is years old and in the condition that it was ANYTHING at ANYTIME can
happen. Statkus Engines cannot accept
responsibility for the entire vehicle because of the limited repairs we
made.
If we can be of further assistance please feel free to
contact me at ***
Regards,
James KS***

As stated in our 1st email response to Mr. [redacted]
we would be happy to meet and inspect the vehicle but that it would need to be
in a place that can be fully inspected. 
On dry ground and where it could be lifted.  The vehicle could be towed to our facility to
be inspected at Mr. [redacted]’s expense.   
The inspection would be a no charge and Mr. [redacted] is welcome to be
present at the inspection. 
We have contended from the beginning that Mr. [redacted] did not
know where exactly the fire started.  If
the mechanical fuel pump was the location of the fire start and the leak was
from the fuel pump itself we did not sell Mr. [redacted] the fuel pump.  When it left here it was not leaking. 
We would like to resolve this issue with Mr. [redacted] but are
not going to just pay out to Mr. [redacted] without a full inspection of the vehicle
to determine cause of fire or if there was a complete loss to the vehicle due
to the fire.  It is unreasonable to
expect that of any company with a customer claim.We can be available for inspection Monday - Friday 8am - 5pm.  Prior arrangement need to be made to schedule for inspection.Regards,Jim S[redacted]

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:"The vehicle in question is a 1978 Chevy P30 Chassis Pace Arrow that was in fair to poor condition."This is not true. Of the mechanics who looked at it, Mr. S[redacted] is the only one to make this claim. One of the mechanics in Bradley asked if I would sell it to him, but I needed it at the time. "In Mr. [redacted]’s email to us he explained that after the vehicle leaving here it started & restarted many times acknowledging that the no start issue was resolved."This is not true. It started 3 times. The fourth time it caught on fire after 2 turns. That is not "many times".  It traveled a total of 23 miles according to odometer readings."Mr. [redacted] could not explain where the fire had started..."This is not true. I have repeatedly stated that it started under the vehicle. I have not stated the exact location as it was impossible to obtain the exact location while the vehicle was on fire. "From where the fire damage was it was apparent that the fire was located at the top of the engine which was not the location at where our repairs were made."This is not true.  After ignoring my request to be present for the inspection, Mr. S[redacted] (according to witnesses) Spent ~5 minutes with the vehicle and then left. According to his own words he did not inspect the vehicle underneath when he was there.From an email sent to me by Mr. S[redacted]: "If you would still like to meet at the vehicle to explain this I can do so but when I was there the vehicle was in a mud puddle and I would need it out of the puddle to inspect. "The fire did not burn primarily on the top of the engine.  It was still burning in the fuel pump area when the second fire extinguisher ran out. The fire department did not spray primarily on top of the engine, they sprayed primarily down into the fuel pump area and underneath."We responded back to Mr. [redacted] and also offered to meet him at the vehicle to again point out where our repairs were made and where the fire originated from.  Mr. [redacted] has not accepted that offer."This is not true. He did not contact me to inspect the vehicle even when I politely asked to be present for the inspection. The fire did not originate from where Mr. S[redacted] has claimed."Mr. [redacted] states that the fire was under the vehicle but he has of yet stated where the fire started, what failed or what Statkus Engines did improperly to cause the fire. "This is not true. I have stated it was due to a fuel leak ignited by the starter. "Mr. [redacted] was informed about the condition of his vehicle and he stated that the vehicle he was planning on getting rid of the vehicle because of the problems that it had."This is not true. I was informed that the front tires needed to be replaced, which I already knew. I was not informed that it was a falling apart death trap, an opinion held only by Mr. S[redacted] and only expressed after the fire. I was planning on getting rid of it because I no longer needed it and I was not happy that I had to put money into fixing a no start issue on a vehicle I wanted to sell.
Regards,
[redacted] I am not accepting this response because it is mostly not true.

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
Having the vehicle inspected is a reasonable request and I will do that. The cost of towing and the inspection will be ~$820. (Towing to mechanic based on quote from Intercity Towing: ~$340 - Inspection cost: $140 - Towing from mechanic: ~$340) I will not have Mr. S[redacted] inspect the vehicle. Firstly because there is a clear conflict of interest, but mostly because I do not trust Mr. S[redacted]. Mr. S[redacted] is not an honest person and here are some examples of his dishonesty."We would like to resolve this issue with Mr. [redacted] but are not going to just pay out to Mr. [redacted] without a full inspection of the vehicle to determine cause of fire or if there was a complete loss to the vehicle due to the fire."From Mr. S[redacted]' first response:"We then received Mr. [redacted]’s email about the fire we did inspect the vehicle at the salvage yard that it is now located."If Mr. s[redacted] inspected the vehicle enough to know his work was not responsible, how does he not know if it's a total loss? It would be obvious to anyone who had opened the front of the engine compartment and glanced inside that Mr. S[redacted] had not done so in his 'inspection'."From where the fire damage was it was apparent that the fire was located at the top of the engine which was not the location at where our repairs were made.   Where the electric fuel pump was installed there was no fire damage and is not located near where the fire was at."As explained in my last response, Mr. S[redacted] shows by his own words that he did not 'inspect' under the vehicle, which is where the electric fuel pump is located, so how does he know there was no fire damage at that location? Furthermore, from the fire report:----------D IgnitionD1 83 Engine area, running gear, wheel area----------The wheel area is no where near the top of the engine. What is in that area is the starter, which I have repeatedly stated was the ignition point and is corroborated by the fire report. I have repeatedly stated that the fire was due to a fuel leak. I have repeatedly stated the general area where the fire started and reported witnessing fuel pouring out. I obviously can't give the part number of the part that failed because to do so I would have had to crawl into the flames. It's common sense though. If you worked on the fuel system of a vehicle and several hours and 23 miles after you did so the vehicle bursts into flames with fuel pouring out of the bottom, it's probably something you did. I have gone so far as to get the Revdex.com involved and I can't even get Mr. S[redacted] to admit that maybe his work might could possibly have been at fault. From day one, before even looking at the vehicle, Mr. S[redacted] has stuck to the fiction that it was the carburetor. Now that this fiction is being debunked he is attempting to shift blame to the mechanical fuel pump, which is under the vehicle and not on top where he claims his 'inspection' indicated the fire burned. A more likely explanation is that a fuel line came loose.These are not the only examples of Mr. S[redacted]' dishonesty that I have in writing but I trust this is sufficient to justify my reluctance to have him perform the inspection. Mr. S[redacted] lied about one inspection, why wouldn't he lie about two? Mr. S[redacted] has consistently not been interested in the truth until the Revdex.com got involved. Mr. S[redacted] is interested in not taking responsibility, and this disqualifies him from 'inspecting' the vehicle to determine the cause of the fire. He has already tampered with it unsupervised against my explicit request when I asked to meet for an inspection and I won't hand it over into his custody where he can invent any story he would like to invent.I will get the inspection done by a licensed, storefront owning third party so that Mr. S[redacted] can have a part number for the failed work. It will take several months for me to raise the money for this. I will then add the cost of the report as well as other costs I have been overlooking to the claim, such as storage and moving fees for my possessions once I was forced to remove them from the vehicle. I will compile an itemized list of the costs as well as provide the fire report and inspection report and possibly other corroborating evidence such as witness statements detailing the pool of burning fuel under the vehicle, etc.. It was quite spectacular and noticeable. I will then mail this information to Mr. S[redacted] by certified mail unless advised to do otherwise by the Revdex.com. I do not WANT to go to court over this. Court is frustrating, slow, and expensive. It's further punishment on top of the punishment I've already received. If I am forced to go to court over this I will hire a lawyer and I must add that cost to my claim as well. Because of the money value in this situation, no lawyer wants to take the case so the way I will be forced to retain a lawyer is to say "How much do you want? Pick a number and that's what you're getting paid." The lawyer is going to tell me to add pain and suffering on top of my claim and I'm going to do what they advise because that's why you hire a lawyer. So, I don't want to hear any crying about the bill because I'm not the reason it's going up. I sincerely hope that Mr. S[redacted] sees reason and does the honorable thing after getting the inspection report.
Regards,
[redacted] I am rejecting this response because Mr. S[redacted] is not honest.