Sullivan-Parkhill Holdings, Inc.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/10/20) */
Please allow me to set the stage for the circumstances surrounding the vehicle that belongs to [redacted] is a professional automotive technician that works at a local automotive Dealership. He had come to our Dealership and counseled...

with me for assistance with the repairs on his vehicle. At that time he was working on the vehicle personally. As a professional courtesy I spoke in great detail with [redacted], printed several wiring diagrams and gave him advice on areas he should be looking at to repair his car. After a number of parts were replaced and time spent on his vehicle he elected to bring the vehicle to our Dealership. [redacted] is a technician with a large automotive group that includes a General Motors Dealer.
We asked [redacted] to authorize $400 upfront to begin the diagnostic inspection. When we first looked under the hood there were several item removed from the engine, wiring harnesses out of place, aftermarket parts installed and wiring that had been spliced together. The vehicle was assigned to one of our most experienced technicians. The technician spent more time than was authorized by [redacted] on the vehicle to verify items that had been cut and spliced. The technician did not expect additional time for the time that was spent.
We did find a theft system concern on the vehicle. There is a module on the vehicle that would not store theft system codes. The technician exchanged a module from a vehicle on our Dealership lot into [redacted]'s vehicle to verify the issue and partially installed a second part to verify the theft system issue would be repaired. At that time I contacted [redacted] with our current findings. An estimate for $1600 that included the original $400 amount he had authorized plus the estimate for the additional parts and labor needed to repair the theft system was given to [redacted]. He was also advised at that time that we did not believe the vehicle would be repaired to start with these parts, yet we could not continue diagnosis without repairing this concern. [redacted] asked for a breakdown of parts and labor on these repairs. The breakdown was approximately $1050 in labor and $550 in parts. [redacted] proceeded to bring the parts we discussed for this repair to the Dealership. This was an acknowledgement to proceed with the repair.
After these parts were installed in the vehicle, we were able to make the vehicle run one time. We offered additional options to continue work on the vehicle. Those options were declined by [redacted]. He asked for a bill to be faxed to him at his Dealership and he would have the Dealership place the charges on a purchase order. I have adjusted the bill from the authorized amount of approximately $1050 to a discounted amount of $831.50.
[redacted] then came to my office and expressed his dissatisfaction with the bill. Stated he should not be charged for any amount since the vehicle was not repaired. Then began to insult our Dealership and stated " you just took out a parts gun and shoot parts at the vehicle ". I went back over the bill and the conversation we had about $1600.
I could come to no other conclusion when the automotive technician [redacted] brought the parts we had discussed to the Dealership that he wanted us to proceed with the installation and programming of these parts. We are asking that [redacted] pay the discounted amount for the diagnosis and installation of the parts he provided us.

We put all of our vehicles through an inspection before it is allowed to be sold on the lot.  This includes a safety inspection which looks at tires and brakes.  This vehicle passed the inspection.  If the customer was experiencing any problems, they should have contacted us...

ahead of getting the vehicle repaired and allowed us to inspect the vehicle.  We will not reimburse the customer for work done on the vehicle that we did not authorize, have an opportunity to inspect our self or repair here at the dealership.  Thank you,David Parkhill

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 12, 2016/10/07) */
To Whom it May Concern:
We have scheduled two appoints to resolve the issue and [redacted] has cancelled both. We mailed a refund the Lux Care product he purchased. I consider this resolved.
[redacted]::
Initial Consumer...

Rebuttal /* (3000, 15, 2016/10/12) */
I received a check in the mail for reimbursement of the 900 dollars for the lux care treatment that damaged my truck. The dealership also left a note stating that once this check is cashed, everything will be settled and finalized. I did NOT ask them to mail this check. I asked to meet in person to resolve this matter. This check will not cover the cost of the damages done, and therefore this matter is still not settled, hence I will not be cashing this check. I have over 7,600 dollars worth of damage because of the lux care sealant eating away at the paint and it's getting worse. The dealership caused this damage and they are still neglecting to cover the damages done to my truck to have it repaired.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 18, 2016/10/19) */
Dear sir/madam
How are you? I would like to respond to a consumer complaint involving our business that I have been made aware of.
I would like to address his concerns.
[redacted] has filled a complaint claiming that the sales consultant informed him that the Lux Care was included in the price of the vehicle and should not have been charged $900. This conversation was had while the numbers of the vehicle were being presented which included the Lux Care for $900 in the break down of the vehicle. The sales consultant did state that the Lux Care was included in the final price of the vehicle, which is a correct statement. [redacted] would also have signed off on the purchase price of the vehicle, which states all charges.
He has also claimed that the Lux Care application has damaged his truck. He stated that the truck was in mint condition and now has $7600 worth of damage on it from this paint protection. [redacted] purchased a truck with 173K miles on it and as it was in good condition for the miles, it was not in new condition as he stated. We have put this protection package on most of our new and pre-owned vehicles and have not had any issues like this with any other application. To try to resolve the situation, we did send the customer a check back for $900. Unfortunately we do not feel that our Lux Care caused the damage and will not be paying the $7600 to fix the damages he claims have been done.
Thank you,
[redacted]
Sullivan-Parkhill GM
Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 26, 2016/11/01) */
To whom it may concern.
I had this truck for a only week before this lux treatment was done. The truck was used, but it was in great condition. I never said the truck was new. Also, the miles on the truck has nothing to do with the condition the truck was in. The truck was NOT in the same condition it was in when I got it back from the dealership. I have pictures and witnesses to prove the truck was in better shape before this lux care treatment. They refused to see the pictures and claimed that the truck had high miles and was used.
The truck was in better shape before this treatment. Also, I went to collision repairs centers, and the technicians both stated that the sealant damaged the paint and it will get worse.
Different years, colors, models of vehicles take different to certain sealants/ waxes. Depending on the type of paint and the manufacture. However, the paint on the truck did not react well to the sealant, having a bad reaction and now the sealant is eating away at the underlying paint and will eventually cause it to rust. I wanted the dealership to be aware of this so this will not happen to another customer's vehicle.
The owner's manual PROHIBITS the use of aftermarket sealants/ waxes and states it may damage the paint, to see your dealer to have it addressed and repaired. Afterall, they are a dealership and they should know what to use and not to use on their vehicles. I have been trying to get this matter resolved for almost three months now. I have uploaded the page of the owners manual, and will also upload the estimate and the letter from the dealership stating that if I cash this check for reimbursement, it will be finalized, how can that be without me signing anything. Hence I will not cash the check, considering it will not cover the cost of the damages done to my truck.
I do apologize for the many replies on here and it's evident that the dealership is not willing to take responsibility for the damages done to my truck that they caused based on the sealant having a bad reaction to the paint and also poor workmanship. One of the salesmen even stated that this lux care treatment was supposed to make the truck look like new, not worse.
To the person looking into my case at the Revdex.com, thank you for taking my case and the attempts to get this matter resolved. I do not know where to go from here since it is evident the dealership is not willing to comply and cover the cost of the damages done to my truck that they caused. Further measures must be taken in order to resolve this issues.
Thank you,
[redacted]