Top Dog Car Wash

It is the policy of Top Dog Car Wash to look at every claim of vehicle damage individually and give each claim consideration based on the customers explanation of the claim, the employee explanation of the claim, the physical evidence (i.e video evidence and pictures of claimed damage), historical data of past damages and the knowledge of the car wash as to what damages could be caused by the car wash and what damages could not feasibly have happened in the car washThis situation was the latter Ms [redacted] came to us to remove vomit from the interior of her vehicle When she was told that we could not work in a vehicle with bodily fluids present, she was visibly upset She did get a car wash and left the lot She came back later to file the claim with the manager on duty After speaking to the manager on duty and reviewing the pictures that he took in response to her claim, the damage looked as if the vehicle was "keyed" or otherwise vandalized as there was a large, very deep scratch on the door of the vehicle The reason I felt that the vehicle may have been vandalized was that there is a definite downward swoop in the scratch and a "skipping" pattern at the end which is a tell tale sign of a key mark as when someone runs a a foreign object > along the painted surface, they tend to swoop it at the end of the > scratch as they pull the key away In a mechanical equipment scratch, > there is no signature swoop as the machine is stationary There is > also an area on the door that looks to be clear coat flaking off of > the finish This is something that happens over time, not in one visit to the car wash > After I researched her claim, I felt strongly that the car wash was > not at fault in this incident I proceeded to send this customer a > standard denial letter outlining why we were not at fault in this > incident I received a call a few days later from a belligerent > [redacted] , telling me that she had years of experience in car > sales and that she was sure that the car wash caused the damage She > also told me that she was not willing to come to Columbus to have me > or anyone else look at the vehicle and that if we wanted to see the > vehicle that we had to 'come to her, in Indianapolis' At that point, > I told her that I would pass her information on to my ownership to > consider and potentially set up a meeting if the logistics could be > worked out to do so That was the last time that myself or anyone > else in this organization heard from Ms [redacted] until receiving this > letter from the Revdex.com > As a rule, if we have even the slightest idea that we may have caused > a damage to a customers vehicle, we always err on the side of the > customer With that being said, many customers discover damage on > their vehicles that they were unaware of until they examine their > vehicle after a car wash That doesnt always mean that the damage > happened in the carwash, that is just when they discovered it I have > been in the car wash industry for over years and am intimately > familiar with the wash process and what damage can be caused by the > car wash and what damage could not be caused by the carwash It is my > morale obligation to painstakingly research every claim of damage and > make the correct decision as to the validity of each claim and I feel > that I do this with the highest level of integrity Ryan [redacted] General Manager of Columbus Operations N National Road Columbus, IN (812)375- [email protected]

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear belowI never left the lot of the car wash I pulled into on the the spots to vacuuming the car I noticed immediately the scratches that were not present minutes before I pulled back around to the entrance and asked them to file a complaint I was at the Dollar General right down the road before the car was washed and the scratches weren't there They said they had cameras surrounding the building and knew I hadn't left the lot yet Regards, [redacted]

This correspondence is in response to a complaint filed with the Revdex.com from a visit to our business on August 7, 2016.  I was not present when the customer received their carwash but I was given a wealth of resources to make a determination as to whether the damage in...

question was cause by the carwash at 3059 N National Rd in Columbus Indiana.   I had the incident report itself, which told me that the customer left the premises after their carwash and returned at a later time to file the report.  Normally we would not even consider the merits of the incident report once the customer has left the lot as we have no idea what may have happened to the vehicle once they left.  In this situation, we made an exception.   I also had the pictures taken by the carwash employee that showed the Drivers Side Rear Turn Signal Casement was pulled slightly away from the body of the vehicle.  The only way that this damage could have been caused by the carwash is if it were already pulled away from the body of the vehicle, rendering it previously damaged, and the cloth were able to get ahold of it and pull it away further.  I have seen this happen in the past with vehicles that were previously damaged and the results are far more destructive than the damage this customer is claiming.  In order to clean a vehicle thoroughly, the cloth has to spin at over 65 RPM.  The cloth spinning at this rate of speed would rip the casement away from the body of the vehicle so violently that it would fling it a ways away from the vehicle, damage the wiring harness and the quarter panel.  None of this was present in the pictures.    Lastly, I was able to review the surveillance footage of the customers wash.  The turn signal looked the exact same at the beginning of the wash as it did at the exit of the wash.  All of this evidence that I am referencing is available for review by the Revdex.com.  I invited the customer to review the footage with me as well.  They saw as did I, my Assistant Manager and one of the owners of Top Dog Carwash that there was no damage to the vehicle when they left the carwash.   I have been in the carwash industry for over 15 years and have seen many vehicles with damage on them.  Some were legitimately cause by a malfunction of the carwash while others were not.  It often times takes a carwash for people to closely examine their vehicle.  This is often times the first time that they may also notice an imperfection on their vehicle that they were otherwise unaware of.  The knee jerk reaction often times in this situation is to automatically blame the carwash.  While this may be the a legitimate reaction, review of the evidence at hand and an understanding of the carwash process will often times reveal the answer of fault.  Many people are very emotional about their cars as well.  It is a large investment on their part which can make people highly impassioned about the vehicle.  Because of this, many people are unwilling to accept the evidence that is laid out before them, which is what I believe has happened in this situation.  If we damaged car on a regular basis, as a carwash, we would certainly not be in business very long or have the reputation of safety and honest business practices that we have worked so hard to earn in the Columbus area over the past 10+ years.  While we would like to please everyone completely, it is just not always possible.    Again, all the evidence that was used in determining the validity of this damage claim, including the incident report, photographic evidence and the surveillance camera footage is available to the Revdex.com upon request.  We want to cooperate fully in this process to come to an amicable resolution to this matter.   Best Regards,  -- Ryan W[redacted] General Manager of Columbus Operations

It is the policy of Top Dog Car Wash to look at every claim of vehicle damage individually and give each claim consideration based on the
customers...

explanation of the claim, the employee explanation of the claim, the physical evidence (i.e.  video evidence and pictures of
claimed damage), historical data of past damages and the knowledge of the car wash as to what damages could be caused by the car wash and
what damages could not feasibly have happened in the car wash. This situation was the latter Ms. [redacted] came to us to remove vomit from the interior of her vehicle.
When she was told that we could not work in a vehicle with bodily fluids present, she was visibly upset.  She did get a car wash and left the lot.
She came back later to file the claim with the manager on duty.  After speaking to the manager on duty and reviewing the pictures that he
took in response to her claim, the damage looked as if the vehicle was "keyed" or otherwise vandalized as there was a large, very deep
scratch on the door of the vehicle.  The reason I felt that the vehicle may have been vandalized was that there is a definite downward
swoop in the scratch and a "skipping" pattern at the end which is a tell tale sign of a key mark as when someone runs a a foreign object
> along the painted surface, they tend to swoop it at the end of the
> scratch as they pull the key away.  In a mechanical equipment scratch,
> there is no signature swoop as the machine is stationary.  There is
> also an area on the door that looks to be clear coat flaking off of
> the finish.  This is something that happens over time, not in one visit to the car wash.
> After I researched her claim, I felt strongly that the car wash was
> not at fault in this incident.  I proceeded to send this customer a
> standard denial letter outlining why we were not at fault in this
> incident.  I received a call a few days later from a belligerent
> [redacted], telling me that she had years of experience in car
> sales and that she was sure that the car wash caused the damage.  She
> also told me that she was not willing to come to Columbus to have me
> or anyone else look at the vehicle and that if we wanted to see the
> vehicle that we had to 'come to her, in Indianapolis'.  At that point,
> I told her that I would pass her information on to my ownership to
> consider and potentially set up a meeting if the logistics could be
> worked out to do so.  That was the last time that myself or anyone
> else in this organization heard from Ms. [redacted] until receiving this
> letter from the Revdex.com.
> As a rule, if we have even the slightest idea that we may have caused
> a damage to a customers vehicle, we always err on the side of the
> customer.  With that being said, many customers discover damage on
> their vehicles that they were unaware of until they examine their
> vehicle after a car wash.  That doesnt always mean that the damage
> happened in the carwash, that is just when they discovered it.  I have
> been in the car wash industry for over 15 years and am intimately
> familiar with the wash process and what damage can be caused by the
> car wash and what damage could not be caused by the carwash.  It is my
> morale obligation to painstakingly research every claim of damage and
> make the correct decision as to the validity of each claim and I feel
> that I do this with the highest level of integrity.
 Ryan [redacted]
 General Manager of Columbus Operations
 3059 N National Road
 Columbus, IN 47201
 (812)375-0737
[email protected]

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that the response would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below. I never left the lot of the car wash.  I pulled into on the the spots to vacuuming the car.  I noticed immediately the scratches that were not present 10 minutes before.  I pulled back around to the entrance and asked them to file a complaint.  I was at the Dollar General right down the road before the car was washed and the scratches weren't there.  They said they had cameras surrounding the building and knew I hadn't left the lot yet.  
Regards,
[redacted]