Vancouver Ford

December 8, We are in receipt of complaint (ID# [redacted] ) from [redacted] on December 5th, After reviewing the recorded incoming phone call from Ms [redacted] on December 1st at 2:45pm, and after some initial confusion establishing the correct vehicle, MrS [redacted] explained to Ms [redacted] that pursuant to Ford Engineering we were directed to bleed the hydraulic brake fluid and retest the system If the brake light had come back on at that time, a Power Booster unit would need to be orderedMs [redacted] acknowledged that she understood the diagnosis process on the phone call that occurred on December 1st I have also reviewed the incoming phone call to Vancouver Ford and was able to verify that the scheduled pickup MrS [redacted] scheduled for Ms [redacted] was for 7:45am on December 2ndThere was some confusion with the name we have on the repair order because this is a State vehicle for the [redacted] Of [redacted] and [redacted] Services and it made finding the vehicle status by our associates confusing because the repair order was not in Ms [redacted] ’s nameWe would be happy to have Ms [redacted] come down and review the recorded calls which might refresh her recollection of the conversation I have verified with my shuttle driver that Ms [redacted] was picked up and brought to Vancouver Ford at 7:45am on December 2nd, as agreed to during that call The diagnosis and repair was completed per repair order # [redacted] We understand that subsequently the brake light came back on and we will need the vehicle back to complete the additional repairs we discussed on the phone with Ms [redacted] All repairs have been provided at no cost to The [redacted] of [redacted] and [redacted] or Ms [redacted] because the vehicle is under warranty at this timeThe additional parts and service that will be needed are also under warranty Please feel free to call with any questions regarding this matter Regards, Jorge J [redacted] Fixed Operations Director, Vancouver Ford, Inc (360) 992- [redacted] vancouverautogroup.com

Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: The statement they have provided is falseWe were told that our credit was ran one time at their dealership that they had toWe asked for selco credit union and they did not go with them nor tryThey ran out credit all over and several banks negatively impacting our scores with Hard inquiriesMy filling of bankruptcy years ago has no bearing on this and would like to complain that they are bringing up personal informationWhen someone lies to you and trashes your credit it makes you upset so telling them I am mad well that is an understatementThey have told lies and put negative points on my credit report and I would like the inquires removed Sincerely, [redacted]

Revdex.com complaint ID [redacted] by [redacted] 7/12/ The Ford Escape, [redacted] , was not advertised online at Vancouverford.com on July 7th, It was in fact listed at Vancouverhyundai.com This vehicle was earmarked for disposal at auction due to significant environmental damage that the vehicle sustained while in our possession that required extensive repairs and subsequently precluded its sale to any customer at any price The representative of the dealership who spoke to [redacted] via the telephone on July 7th, 2016, did not know that the vehicle was in this condition Our Used Car Manager eliminated it from the Ford website but our sister dealership whom shares the digital feed of pre-owned vehicles with the Ford store had still listed this unit on that day The vehicle was parked in the wholesale area of our facility We did find the vehicle while [redacted] was at the Ford store and explained the nature of the current condition of the vehicle and explained that it was not in suitable condition for sale We regret [redacted] traveling from Oregon to discover the vehicle was not suitable for sale and offered to provide her gas complimentary as good will on the 7th of July prior to her leaving The internet listing of this unit was eliminated from www.vancouverhyundai.com on the 7th of July We have since sold the vehicle ( [redacted] ) at auction and eliminated it from any and all websites controlled by Vancouver Auto Group in order to eliminate any future confusion We apologize for the misunderstanding

We are in receipt of complaint (ID ***) from *** *** on August 7, *** ***’s Ford Ranger (***) vehicle was towed to Vancouver Ford on Saturday June 24th, for a transmission diagnosisThe actual diagnosis was completed on or about June 26th,
Service advisor Dewayne S*** tried to contact *** to inform her of the diagnosis findings regarding transmission and additional needed repairs, Dewayne left two phone messages on June 26th at 9:am and 3:00pmOn June 30th at 5:43pm *** and Dewayne spoke about the recommendations and the transmission repair was approved by *** for $plus tax and the remaining needed repairs would not be performed at this time which consisted of an oil pan gasket and valve cover gasketsWe believe sometime between the diagnosis and repair an act of vandalism occurred and the door lock was forcibly damaged on the left front doorService Manager Dale V*** left several phone messages for *** ***. On July 13thth *** returned the call and spoke at length with Dale about the repair and damage that had occurred. During that conversation *** asked for a body shop estimate on the door and also any kind of help to offset the transmission cost since she knew she was responsible for the vandalism as heard in the recorded callOn July 24th at 1:19pm *** called Dale and explained her frustration regarding the situation and asked why a police report was not taken Dale clearly explained in the call that the Vancouver Police department will only complete a report when requested by the owner of the vehicleDale advised *** that vandalism is the responsibility of the owner of the vehicle; *** said she had no idea that she was responsible for any acts of vandalism or theft even though *** and *** had acknowledged with signatures on repair orders with the following disclaimer; “I hereby authorize the repair work herein set forth to be done along with the necessary material and agree that you are not responsible for loss or damage to vehicle or articles left in vehicle in case of fire, theft, vandalism or any other cause beyond your control or for any delays caused by unavailability of parts or delays in parts shipments by the supplier or transporter” As a onetime goodwill gesture Dale explained to *** that he would assist with one of the oil leaks that were recommended (Valve Covers) and pay for the repair of the valve covers*** requested to speak with me and upon returning from Vacation I reached out to *** and left messages on July 25th and July 26th, *** and her husband *** met with me on July 27th and we discussed the damage and they inspected the truckI explained to *** that vandalism, theft and the likes are the responsibility of the vehicle owner. *** requested complete repair of the vandalism and or compensation in the form of a discount of $on the transmission repairI advised *** that I would review her request but did not believe I could make that occur*** had already reported to Revdex.com and Dealer rater negative feedback about Vancouver FordOn July 28th at 12:52pm *** called me and asked for the amount of her bill to be reduced $dollarsI explained that I could not meet that request, *** then asked for half of the requested amount to be applied to the billI did not see a problem with meeting that request since my Service Manager Dale V*** had offered to assist with one of the needed repairs and the value of the repair would have been $dollarsPer recorded phone call on July 28th at 12:52pm, *** agreed to take the vehicle as is with the damaged door to be repaired on her own and in addition *** said she would be happy to say what we did on the Revdex.com and Dealer Rater websitesVancouver Ford paid $of repair order (***) and *** signed the repair order that includes the following verbiage“Vancouver Ford is paying $towards this repair as a onetime only gesture of goodwill as requested by *** and *** ***No further assistance will be offered regarding vandalism that occurred on the driver’s doorThey have chosen to repair it on their own. *** has also agreed to retract the review she posted on dealerrater.com and the Revdex.com” I received this notification on August 7th and left a message for *** on the 7th and 8th of August as a follow up, *** returned my call on August 8th at 12:pm and left a message for me saying that even though she opted not to repair the vehicle damage she still wants the repair to be completed and paid for by Vancouver FordThis is not what she agreed upon on the July 28th callThe repair order (***) clearly shows the $dollars that Vancouver Ford is paying to reduce ***’s bill amount as per her request. *** did not retract her Dealer Rater post nor did she follow up with the Revdex.com as she agreed to do so in the recorded phone call August 8thVancouver Ford believes that this matter has been resolved based on the recorded phone conversation and repair order acknowledgement signed by *** *** Please feel free to call me with any questions regarding this matter and or additional items or information you may require. Sincerely, Jorge J***, Fixed Operations DirectorVancouver Ford, Inc.(360) 992-7346***@vancouverautogroup.com

On Sunday, November 23rd , *** *** and *** *** purchased a Ford F-150. Both applicants had filed for bankruptcy as reported by EquifaxThis disqualified the customers from any automatic approvals from auto lenders and subsequently required our finance department to submit
the loan to multiple sources in order to obtain a credit approval and secure the most favorable terms for their loan. This is a standard practice in the automotive lending process. The customer who filed this complaint was notified of this process at the time it was conducted. Many lenders denied their loan application. In fact, SELCO did not approve their loan at the time of the transaction. It was only days later when SELCO approved their application. Alaska Federal Credit Union was the lender that approved the loan at the lowest rate on the day that the customer purchased the vehicle. The customer signed the retail installment contract and was happy with the terms. We later signed and submitted a retail installment contract on the client’s behalf to SELCO CU at their request after she had contacted them directly. The customer was never adamant about exclusively going to SELCO Credit Union. If that were the case, she would not have signed a contract provided by Alaska Federal Credit Union. It was only after the sale the customer became hostile to our Finance Manager on the night of Sunday, November 23rd. During this recorded conversation the Finance Manager reminded the customer that he informed her during the process of the purchase that we were searching for the best terms on her behalf. I cannot type the words that the customer used when addressing our employee throughout this conversation based on the Revdex.com’s guidelines regarding profanity. In the future this customer might consider paying cash for their next vehicle or securing a pre-approved loan from the lending institution of her choosing prior to applying at a dealershipThis would ensure that the dealership would not make any effort to obtain financing on her behalf. This would also reduce the number of inquiries to one to two total credit inquiries as it relates to the transaction

Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because: Vancouver ford was suppose to pull the recorded phone call "where authorizations for repairs were made on the phone with Kelly the repair tech" as on that phone call he told me that the drivers side door latch was the problem to the door ajar and alarm issues" yes your paperwork after the fact state something different as if I was the company I would state that to cover my own mistakes as well. But I still after over two weeks have never heard back from Ford on the recorded phone call "for the authorizations of the repair" Has any one even looked into that?? That's where the problem was. I was mislead on the phone by Kellie the tech stating that this would solve my issues I brought the car in for. If Kellie would have explained that he had no alarm or codes coming up on that phone call and that he was unsure that it would not fix the problem I would have not authorized but due to his misinformation on that call I did authorize charges because I would told something completely different. So please look into that phone call as the manager said he would but clearly failed to do so. I also would like to note that no one ever has asked for my mechanics information who has completed repairs and fixed my issues that you could not. Id like you to pull that phone call as well to prove that was never even asked for.  I would have no problem to have my mechanic be in contact with ford. And as for the price I have gotten that wrong for the refund amount. My mistake on that part ( I can admit my mistake but it appears to me that ford has done everything in there power to avoid digging deeper on their mistakes ) but I am doing my part as a customer and if you need further information contact me and pull your phone records as your manager said he would but failed to do so, It makes me wonder why he failed to pull the record of the authorization call... Simply because It will show that Kellie Did mislead me on that phone call and I would have never authorized charges if I was given the details and the truth. Sincerely,[redacted]

Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because: The statement they have provided is false. We were told that our credit was ran one time at their dealership that they had to. We asked for selco credit union and they did not go with them nor try. They ran out credit all over and several banks negatively impacting our scores with Hard inquiries. My filling of bankruptcy years ago has no bearing on this and would like to complain that they are bringing up personal information. When someone lies to you and trashes your credit it makes you upset so telling them I am mad well that is an understatement. They have told lies and put negative points on my credit report and I would like the inquires removed.
Sincerely,[redacted]

I am in fact in receipt of your e-mail messages.  I was out of the office last week.
 
You were not charged $1,298 for the alarm system.  It is unclear to me how you arrive at this conclusion.  I have attached the Vehicle Purchase Order related to your transaction.  It...

itemizes two charges, one for $699 and one for $599, listed as “Security System (Optional)”.  The sum of these two items does in fact equal $1,298.  The Security system was already installed in the vehicle prior to you taking delivery.  We install these units on every new and most pre-owned vehicles in stock for our protection.  At the time of sale we offer these units to our clients.  If the client declines the Security system we are happy to remove the unit at that time.  It is clear that we did not remove the unit from your vehicle.
 
The other item that you purchased listed under “Accessories (Optional)” is called Crystal Fusion.  It is applied after the sale at our Collision Center.  This is what was attempted to be scheduled after the sale.
 
I have circled both charges on the attached order for your review.  Shortly after signing paperwork on the delivery date we discovered that the correct mileage of the vehicle was not listed on the first draft of paperwork.  Apparently prior to initial delivery we corrected this.  I notice on the attached order that the correct miles are listed on this document.  I apologize for the initial mistake.
 
I am sorry for the confusion.  I am happy to refund the amount for the Security System as well as the Crystal Fusion.  I will send the full amount of $1,298 as well as the sales tax of this amount to the finance source of your retail installment contract, Capital One, whom will deduct it from the outstanding balance.
 
Feel free to contact me with any additional questions.
 
Sincerely,
 
Monte P[redacted]
General Manager, Vancouver Auto Group
Ford/Hyundai/Suzuki/Quick Lane
office:  [redacted]
e-mail: [redacted]@vancouverford.com

To whom it may concern,
This letter is a follow up to our previous correspondence dated 4/19/2016 In reference to Ms. [redacted]’s rejection of our statements. We hope to clear up some confusion that appears to exist.
Regarding the phone call record, our telephone system records all inbound calls with an announcement of doing such; however we do not record outbound calls. The call during which the work was approved was an outbound call from our employee Kelly and therefore was not recorded. During the investigation of this matter Kelly was interviewed and remembers very clearly explaining the recommended repair was made as a course of action to eliminate the most likely failed component and carefully made no guarantee that this repair would resolve the issues with her door ajar light or alarm.
When Ms. [redacted] came to pick up her vehicle Kelly went over the invoice with her, once again explaining that if the repair was not successful she could bring it back and she would not be charged again for further diagnosis. If she was told something different or somehow did not approve the work, why would she sign the invoice and pay the bill? When Ms. [redacted] did bring the vehicle back, 14 days later, we proceeded to diagnose the issue further. While we were unable to find the root cause, she was not charged anything nor did she mention any issue regarding the original invoice. Why did she not mention her grievance at that time? Ms. [redacted] states that we have not called her since this last visit. This is simply not true. The Service Mgr. Dale actually spoke with her on April 7, 2016. That conversation ended with Ms. [redacted] stating she was not going to come back again and intended to file a Revdex.com claim. Since receiving the complaint we have called Ms. [redacted] three times (4/20/16 @ 8:15am; 4/20/16 @2:55 pm; 4/21/16 @9:10am) leaving voice messages each time requesting a return call. We have not had a call back from her regarding her ultimately successful repair or the facility that performed it.
If Ms. [redacted] has in fact had the vehicle repaired, in the interest of taking care of future customers, it would still be our desire to discern what was done. We would use this as a teaching tool so as to improve our processes.
Please feel free to contact us at your earliest convenience to discuss this matter further if you have further questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Mark M[redacted],  Service Director
Vancouver Ford, Inc.
(360) 992-7346

Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because:
Unfortunately, I do not live in the Vancouver, WA area (I was there with the car during a work trip, when this incident occurred). Therefore, I cannot come in to listen to the call recordings. However, my biggest issue with this situation is that the car's break warning light turned out again when I left the Vancouver Ford facility. I recall Mr. S[redacted] telling me during the second phone call that the car was test-drived and no light came on when they drove it. I was under the impression that this means the car was good to go. The fact that the light came back on shortly after driving off with it is what has me questioning whether worked was actually performed on the vehicle. It does not make sense for me to have to keep coming back to the shop for repairs and unfortunately I cannot bring the car back because I am not in the Vancouver area. It is indeed the vehicle of my employer and is under warranty, but that does not give good reason to perform faulty service.
Sincerely,[redacted]

Revdex.com complaint ID [redacted] by [redacted] 7/12/2016
 
The 2015 Ford Escape, [redacted], was not advertised online at Vancouverford.com on July 7th, 2016.  It was in fact listed at Vancouverhyundai.com.  This vehicle was earmarked for disposal at...

auction due to significant environmental damage that the vehicle sustained while in our possession that required extensive repairs and subsequently precluded its sale to any customer at any price.  The representative of the dealership who spoke to [redacted] via the telephone on July 7th, 2016, did not know that the vehicle was in this condition.  Our Used Car Manager eliminated it from the Ford website but our sister dealership whom shares the digital feed of pre-owned vehicles with the Ford store had still listed this unit on that day.  The vehicle was parked in the wholesale area of our facility.  We did find the vehicle while [redacted] was at the Ford store and explained the nature of the current condition of the vehicle and explained that it was not in suitable condition for sale.  We regret [redacted] traveling from Oregon to discover the vehicle was not suitable for sale and offered to provide her gas complimentary as good will on the 7th of July prior to her leaving.
The internet listing of this unit was eliminated from www.vancouverhyundai.com on the 7th of July.  We have since sold the vehicle ([redacted]) at auction and eliminated it from any and all websites controlled by Vancouver Auto Group in order to eliminate any future confusion.  We apologize for the misunderstanding.

Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because: I am not satisfied with how you have resolved this issue. You wish to use the experience as a learning tool but this entire time the company has lied to me Dale had assured me that kelly's call to me was recorded which would prove my entire issue that I have with you guys by Kellys mis leading information in order to get me to authorize the repairs. You write your responses as if you guys never hear back from me and that I am not cooperating with your request. My suggestion to you, is that Dale should check his voicemail because he did indeed receive a call back from me on April 22nd, However I am tired of being run around with no resolution in sight with ford I am sure that coorprate would be happy to hear on how you guys have handled this issue . It is unfortunate that this is the approach that your company has taken and it clearly proves that the only way you can get out of this is by continuing to lie but my records can prove otherwise. My suggestion is that for your learning experience for future customers that you record out going calls (but then again that would show the fraud and misleading information on the business part) It is really unfortunate that a business would run this way and treat customers like this. When in fact On may 2nd we had full intentions of purchasing two brand new vehicles from Vancouver ford with Zero financing and paying cash but due to the the way we have been treated over the refund request  and no resolution in sight, we will be taking our business to a more respectful and honest business who cares about there customers and the services they receive. Congratulations  I hope you can use this as a good learning experience to improve your false business and loss of the $65,000 cash we have on hand that we will not be taking further business to ford due to your lies, mis information and the way you treat your customers and have proven to show no resolution. You have made it very apparent that you have no intentions of being an honest company to resolve this issue. It is very clear you need the $293.00 more.
Sincerely,[redacted]
 
 
To whom it may concern,
 
This letter is a follow up to our previous correspondence dated 4/19/2016 In reference to Ms. [redacted]’s rejection of our statements. We hope to clear up some confusion that appears to exist.
Regarding the phone call record, our telephone system records all inbound calls with an announcement of doing such; however we do not record outbound calls. The call during which the work was approved was an outbound call from our employee Kelly and therefore was not recorded. During the investigation of this matter Kelly was interviewed and remembers very clearly explaining the recommended repair was made as a course of action to eliminate the most likely failed component and carefully made no guarantee that this repair would resolve the issues with her door ajar light or alarm.
When Ms. [redacted] came to pick up her vehicle Kelly went over the invoice with her, once again explaining that if the repair was not successful she could bring it back and she would not be charged again for further diagnosis. If she was told something different or somehow did not approve the work, why would she sign the invoice and pay the bill? When Ms. [redacted] did bring the vehicle back, 14 days later, we proceeded to diagnose the issue further. While we were unable to find the root cause, she was not charged anything nor did she mention any issue regarding the original invoice. Why did she not mention her grievance at that time? Ms. [redacted] states that we have not called her since this last visit. This is simply not true. The Service Mgr. Dale actually spoke with her on April 7, 2016. That conversation ended with Ms. [redacted] stating she was not going to come back again and intended to file a Revdex.com claim. Since receiving the complaint we have called Ms. [redacted] three times (4/20/16 @ 8:15am; 4/20/16 @2:55 pm; 4/21/16 @9:10am) leaving voice messages each time requesting a return call. We have not had a call back from her regarding her ultimately successful repair or the facility that performed it.
If Ms. [redacted] has in fact had the vehicle repaired, in the interest of taking care of future customers, it would still be our desire to discern what was done. We would use this as a teaching tool so as to improve our processes.
 
Please feel free to contact us at your earliest convenience to discuss this matter further if you have further questions or concerns.
 
Sincerely,
 
Mark M[redacted],  Service Director
Vancouver Ford, Inc.
(360) 992-7346
To whom it may concern,
 
This letter is a follow up to our previous correspondence dated 4/19/2016 In reference to Ms. [redacted]’s rejection of our statements. We hope to clear up some confusion that appears to exist.
Regarding the phone call record, our telephone system records all inbound calls with an announcement of doing such; however we do not record outbound calls. The call during which the work was approved was an outbound call from our employee Kelly and therefore was not recorded. During the investigation of this matter Kelly was interviewed and remembers very clearly explaining the recommended repair was made as a course of action to eliminate the most likely failed component and carefully made no guarantee that this repair would resolve the issues with her door ajar light or alarm.
When Ms. [redacted] came to pick up her vehicle Kelly went over the invoice with her, once again explaining that if the repair was not successful she could bring it back and she would not be charged again for further diagnosis. If she was told something different or somehow did not approve the work, why would she sign the invoice and pay the bill? When Ms. [redacted] did bring the vehicle back, 14 days later, we proceeded to diagnose the issue further. While we were unable to find the root cause, she was not charged anything nor did she mention any issue regarding the original invoice. Why did she not mention her grievance at that time? Ms. [redacted] states that we have not called her since this last visit. This is simply not true. The Service Mgr. Dale actually spoke with her on April 7, 2016. That conversation ended with Ms. [redacted] stating she was not going to come back again and intended to file a Revdex.com claim. Since receiving the complaint we have called Ms. [redacted] three times (4/20/16 @ 8:15am; 4/20/16 @2:55 pm; 4/21/16 @9:10am) leaving voice messages each time requesting a return call. We have not had a call back from her regarding her ultimately successful repair or the facility that performed it.
If Ms. [redacted] has in fact had the vehicle repaired, in the interest of taking care of future customers, it would still be our desire to discern what was done. We would use this as a teaching tool so as to improve our processes.
 
Please feel free to contact us at your earliest convenience to discuss this matter further if you have further questions or concerns.
 
Sincerely,
 
Mark M[redacted],  Service Director
Vancouver Ford, Inc.
(360) 992-7346

[redacted] brought her [redacted] in to our store on March 23, 2016 requesting we diagnose a Door Ajar Light and Alarm Activation Code.
Our technician noted no warning lights were activated and began to perform tests to identify any fault codes stored in the vehicles computer...

system. No codes were stored and there were no failures active at the time of testing. He then tested the door alarm switch harness for connectivity with no failures. It was recommended that we replace the switch due to intermittent and erratic behavior. Customer authorized replacement of the switch and signed paperwork, paid the bill and picked up vehicle that afternoon on March 23.
On April 6, 2016 the customer returned to our shop stating the Alarm Activation had returned.   At this time the technician observed the Door Ajar Lamp was active. Following the factory repair process each door was tested, the hood and tailgate also were tested for proper operation. Each switch at those locations responded positively indicating proper operation. Further tests showed no conclusive failures of the components involved. The technician suspected a possible failure of vehicle remote key fob as activating the Panic Mode Alarm. We did not charge the customer for this visit.
It is unfortunate the customer’s vehicle is still having issues with the alarm. It was never stated that the switch was considered a final repair; it was replaced with the customer’s authorization as a means to eliminate the most probable cause for the Door Ajar Light and Alarm malfunction. That switch indeed was bad, but clearly there is a deeper issue.
Having reviewed the entire process it does not appear Vancouver Ford has misled the customer, neither are we obligated to reimburse the customer for the repair.  It is also unclear why the customer would be requesting $393.00 from Vancouver Ford when the invoice total is only $293.82.
In closing, the customer claims to have found the solution at another service facility. Despite our request to be provided the name and contact information for this “other” facility, the customer has been unwilling to assist us. At this point we have not been provided an opportunity to confirm that the problem still exists, neither have we been provided any evidence that the problem has been resolved and that our repairs were unnecessary.  
Please contact me with any further questions or concerns at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely
                                        ...⇄
Mark M[redacted], Fixed Operations Director
Vancouver Ford, Inc.
(360) 992-7346

December 8, 2016
 We are in receipt of complaint (ID# [redacted]) from [redacted] on December 5th, 2016.
After reviewing the recorded incoming phone call from Ms. [redacted] on December 1st at 2:45pm, and after some initial confusion establishing the correct vehicle, Mr. S[redacted] explained...

to Ms. [redacted] that pursuant to Ford Engineering we were directed to bleed the hydraulic brake fluid and retest the system.  If the brake light had come back on at that time, a Power Booster unit would need to be ordered. Ms. [redacted] acknowledged that she understood the diagnosis process on the phone call that occurred on December 1st.
I have also reviewed the incoming phone call to Vancouver Ford and was able to verify that the scheduled pickup Mr. S[redacted] scheduled for Ms. [redacted] was for 7:45am on December 2nd. There was some confusion with the name we have on the repair order because this is a State vehicle for the [redacted] Of [redacted] and [redacted] Services and it made finding the vehicle status by our associates confusing because the repair order was not in Ms. [redacted]’s name. We would be happy to have Ms. [redacted] come down and review the recorded calls which might refresh her recollection of the conversation.
I have verified with my shuttle driver that Ms. [redacted] was picked up and brought to Vancouver Ford at 7:45am on December 2nd, as agreed to during that call.
The diagnosis and repair was completed per repair order #[redacted]. We understand that subsequently the brake light came back on and we will need the vehicle back to complete the additional repairs we discussed on the phone with Ms. [redacted].  All repairs have been provided at no cost to The [redacted] of [redacted] and [redacted] or Ms. [redacted] because the vehicle is under warranty at this time. The additional parts and service that will be needed are also under warranty.
Please feel free to call with any questions regarding this matter.
Regards,
 
Jorge J[redacted]
Fixed Operations Director,
Vancouver Ford, Inc.
(360) 992-7346
[redacted]vancouverautogroup.com