ComplaintsforMeineke Car Care Center

• Initial Complaint

  06/30/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Product Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  On 6/19/23 at 8:30a I arrived at Meineke to have my mother's car inspected/repaired for a rattling noise from the exhaust system. As the assistant manager ******** was backing the car out of the parking space, I observed him turned the wheel too soon accidently side-swipping the curb with the passenger side front wheel. I went out to the car to inspect the wheel and found that it had been damage with three scrapes of various lengths and depths done to bare metal. I informed ******** that I would have the wheel repaired later that week and let them know what the cost was. He said OK and gave me the business card of general manager - ****** *******. After having the wheel repaired on 6/26/23 for $150.00 I called and spoke to ****** who stated that she knew nothing about the incident, and would call me back after she found out. Two days passed without any callback, so I called the store and ******** answered. I asked what was going on about the damage claim to my mother's car. He stated that I was supposed to inform him of the damage cost. So I told him of the bill I paid of $150.00 to repair the wheel, and again I was told that the general manager - ****** would call me back. Another 24 hours and no callback. Subsequently, I called this morning (6/29/23) at 10am and asked for ******, and was told that she was not in and that they didn't know what time she would be arriving for work.

  Business response

  07/20/2023

  All of the following information is based upon a review of CCTV footage, and of which I have provided screen shots for the pertinent and significant instances. Please, refer to the files’ names for reference with this narrative. Please, also be advised that the time shown on the images is one hour and 36 minutes ahead of the actual times, due to a time zone setting with my CCTV system. However, there are no errors with the recording or playback of my CCTV system: there exists merely a time zone setting discrepancy. On 06/19/2023 at 8:24 AM, the potential customer arrived at my location and proceeded to park in the handicap spot that directly abuts a curb with a median behind it. As shown in two screen shots of the footage and through two separate vantage points, the potential customer parked their vehicle almost directly upon the curb on the passenger side of their vehicle (please use the gap in the handicap logo, which has been indicated with yellow markings for ease of viewing, in relation to the driver rear tire for reference throughout this narrative and for determining distances). At 8:27 AM, after speaking with the potential customer regarding the issues that brought them into my shop, the assistant manager proceeds to begin attempting to safely back the vehicle out of the parking space without damaging the tires or wheel rims, as the vehicle is clearly extremely close to the curb on the passenger side. Per the CCTV footage, the assistant manager spends nearly a minute and a half leaning over to view the passenger side orientation, walking outside of the vehicle to better understand how to best back the vehicle out of the parking spot, and attempts several times to slowly put the vehicle into reverse. However, the way the vehicle was parked by the potential customer made it impossible to achieve the desired goal of effectively removing the vehicle from the parking spot, despite a high attention to detail and careful and methodical attempts. The very minimal contact with the curb was unavoidable, due to the way in which the vehicle was parked by the customer, and the end result would have been the same, regardless of whomever attempted to remove the vehicle from this parking spot. Had the vehicle been parked in this parking spot correctly, there would not have been any issues with putting the vehicle into reverse, backing out of the shop, and then proceeding into the shop to address the potential customer's concerns. This statement is supported by the dimensions of the potential customer's vehicle (a Toyota Pruis, which are standard in size across all years and sub-models), the dimensions of the parking spot, the measurements from the potential customer's rear tire in relation to the handicap logo imprinted upon the parking spot, and the CCTV footage. The total width from the curb to the inner line marking of this particular handicap parking space is 9 feet (108 inches). A Toyota Prius is 5 foot 9 and 1/4 inches (69.25 inches). The gap in relation to the potential customer's rear tire to the inner line marking of the parking spot is 3 feet and 2 inches (38 inches). By adding the width of the vehicle to the gap left by the customer through their own parking job (69.25 inches added to 38 inches), we arrive at 107.25 inches. If we subtract 108 inches (the total width of the space) from this 107.25 inches (vehicle and gap on the driver's side), there was a gap on the passenger side of 0.75 inches between the tires of the potential customer's vehicle and the curb. That is simply not enough space to effectively back out a vehicle, particularly with the orientation in which the potential customer left it and having to compensate for the median directly behind this space. Had the potential customer properly parked their vehicle in a parking spot, this would not have happened. The assistant manager did not "turn the wheel" too soon, as the potential customer asserts, and CCTV footage demonstrates that the assistant manager was at all times cautious and acted within the proper means to ensure the safety of a customer's personal property; further, the assistant manager exercised extreme discretion and care when attempting to remove the vehicle from the parking spot, and the "impact," as shown through CCTV footage, was nearly undetectable. It was certainly not enough to warrant "three scrapes of various lengths and depths done [sic] to bare metal." Regarding the potential customer's claim that they were not well-informed and were ignored, this is also not an accurate description of what transpired. The potential customer called my location on 06/22/2023 and left a message with my office assistant. I returned that phone call that afternoon and left a voice message for the potential customer. Later that afternoon, the potential
  
  customer called my shop, and I explained that I did not have knowledge of which he was referring, but that I had called him in response to a written memo left on my desk. I stated that I would look into the CCTV footage and ask my assistant manager for more details. Upon reviewing the CCTV footage, it was clear that the potential customer had parked far too close to the curb on the passenger side of their vehicle, and it was impossible for anyone at all to back the vehicle out of that spot without some sort of impact. I called the potential customer and my call was not answered. Until I received the BBB notice in the mail on 07/11/2023, I had not heard anything from the customer to the best of my knowledge. 

  Customer response

  07/21/2023

  
  Complaint: ********
  
  I am rejecting this response because:

  The details that they describe are inaccurate and they have left out quite a bit of the video.   First, it was the passenger side front wheel that was damaged, not the passenger rear wheel.  Second, the gaps in the video are laughable, for it doesn't show me getting out or them getting in.  More importantly the video doesn't show the assistant mgr. turning the wheel so sharply that he actually drove up onto the curb on the passenger side!  Third, there was plenty of space on the passenger side from the curb, and plenty of space to back the car up straight out of the space before turning the wheels.  This is a small car whose dimensions are 5.7 feet long by 4.9 feet wide.  More than small enough to fit in the parking space and back out of it before reaching the curb behind it!  The reason the assistant manager drove into the curb was because he was turning the front wheels back and forth while backing the car up because he didn't realize the parking back was on, nor how to disengage it.  I watched the whole thing from inside the lobby, went out to inspect for any damage, and disengaged the parking back for him.

  This can easily be settled by releasing the whole video instead of the hand-picked sections you have sent to present your distorted response.  For the one picture you provided of the car in the space is where the assistant mgr stopped the car after coming down off the curb.  This is my mother's vehicle that you guys damaged when I brought to you about a mechanical noise concern.  I see by your response that I had misplaced my trust in your store.  For complete transparency release the WHOLE video...

   

  Sincerely,
  

  
  *** ****

*Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business. ↩