ComplaintsforAres Technologies

• Initial Complaint

  07/18/2024

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  ON JUNE 14 2024 I purchased an ECM COMPUTER for a Saturn Outlook and paid extra for exprexx 2 day shipping but did not get it on time and it cost me extra due to this. I have mad numerous calls to them and then phone rings then hangs up and I have sent Numerous emails only to get NO RESPONSE This is a poor way to run a business that advertises such good service and warranty when they do not answer calls or emails

  Business response

  07/18/2024

  As it has stated on our website that none of our shipping services are guaranteed since the major shipping companies that we work with *** and **** have waived all their guaranteed services since **************************************************** place. When you informed us that you have received the package with a day delay, we informed you via phone and email that we will reach out to *** and submit a refund request. If they agree, they will issue the refund which as mentioned earlier it is not the case most of the time. As of now, *** has not informed us of their decision. 

  Customer response

  07/18/2024

   I am rejecting this response because:
  
  As u can tell by their response they never address the fact of not answering the phone or the numerous emails at all so we could discuss this along with their defective product !!! Also I was told if I paid the extra shipping it would be here so their statement is a ******* can see other complaints of this same issue.  Therefore I think this is a money scam !!!! THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR NOT BEING ABLE TO CALL OR NO ANSWERS TO EMAILS.  THIS GIVES A BAD LOOK FOR US CONSUMERS.  I ONLY WISH I HAD READ THE REVIEWS!!!!

  Business response

  07/19/2024

  As we mentioned in our previous response upon your request we have submitted your request to *** although very unlikely that they will accept it. Again, they have waived their guaranteed policies since 2020 and this is clearly mentioned on our website that non of the shipping services are guaranteed since the shipping process is completely out of our hands and it is controlled by the shipping couriers (in this case ***). You were informed about all these details via phone and email which means we have responded to your calls and emails. 

  Customer response

  07/23/2024

   I am rejecting this response because:
  
  These people r liars after they answered one time n told me about *** they would never answer or return a call or email again.  Also did U notice they never even address the fact the unit is malfunction that I addressed in my complaint   Also they were the ones suggested 2 day FED EX SHIPPING BUT THEN SENT THE PACKAGE ****  LIARS  MISREPRESENTED SHIPPING AND SATISFACTION WARRANTY.  THEIR UNPROFESSIONAL HANDLING HAD COST ME BIGTIME

• Initial Complaint

  05/24/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Product Issues

  Status:

  Resolved

  More info

  I bought a. Engine computer from aresTechnologies 2weeks ago. Put it in truck. Ran for less than 2weeks I was going down the highway 65 miles per hr and my engine shut down. Pulled over to side. Then there was nothing turn the key and nothing happing. Call a tow truck brought it home took the computer out of the truck and put my old computer in and it turn the engine over but no gas or spark. The computer they sold me turned on my anti-theft device. Nope my truck does not run. But it ran before with the old computer in it. Now I’m without a truck .

  Business response

  05/25/2023

  The nature of this complaint is unclear, as we have already issued the refund and you have received the funds back into your account. We processed the refund without deducting any programming fee, although it is clearly stated on our website that the programming fee, which covers the cost of programming the module by the manufacturer, will be deducted from any returned module. However, we made an exception in your case and did not deduct the programming fee.

• Initial Complaint

  05/18/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Resolved

  More info

  About two weeks ago we ordered a PCM for our van and the price included expedited shipping. We received a PCM, installed it, and noticed that the transmission was in limp mode and wasn't shifting. I called ARES and spoke to ********* who told us they could ship a replacement and that it would be another week unless we wanted to pay the extra for expedited shipping. We rely on this van so were over a barrel so paid the additional fee. We received the replacement PCM today and it worked perfectly, meaning the original part they sent was faulty. I called and again spoke to ********* and expressed that we felt it was wrong that we would have to pay extra to correct their mistake, hoping we could get that fee refunded. They refused and implied that it was our fault somehow, that it was right that we would have to pay the extra. I don't recommend using this company if you can avoid it. I've found out since that I could've bought the same thing from AutoZone for cheaper and could've had it sooner.

  Business response

  05/19/2023

  Mr. *******,
  

  As we have reiterated during our phone conversations and as clearly indicated in the attached screenshot, no shipping fee was charged for your purchase, and the package was delivered to you within 2 business days via UPS 2nd day shipping, provided as a courtesy by ARES Technologies.

  We offer free standard shipping for all replacements and warranty claims. At your request to expedite the process, we informed you that an additional fee of $14.50 would apply, which is less than half the cost of 2nd day shipping. You agreed to pay the fee, and we promptly shipped the package via UPS 2nd day air as promised.
  

  Considering that the promised service was delivered on time, there is no valid reason for issuing a refund.
  

  Thank you, and have a great day.
  

• Initial Complaint

  03/27/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Resolved

  More info

  I order an ecm for my 2010 LS3 at $190 that was defective on install. The engine would barely start and then shutoff, displayed several codes. I complained and the said return it at my cost and would update it and send it back. A week after they had received it I had to call them to get the ecm sent to me. when I received the "updated ecm" I installed it and could not start the engine. I had a friend check the ecm and found they had not disabled the code that keeps the engine from running. I called again and I had no faith in the product an d wanted a refund. They agreed with no comment about additional charges and provided a RMA. I returned the defective ecm at my cost again only to find my refund was only $145. They said there was an additional charge of $45 for the tuning that I was never informed about until after the refund was issued. This business uses deceptive practices and is incompetent selling defective products!

  Business response

  04/12/2023

  To whom it may concern,

  
  

  Here at ARES Technologies, we provide our customers with fully tested, remanufactured, and programmed electronic control modules. We use the most recently updated and reputable equipment and licensed applications to be able to service our customers with parts that are programmed accurately, and reliably. We strive to provide customers a straightforward checkout and with clear policies and expectations. Return policy is readily available for the customer to review prior to making any purchase, as it is provided for view in all item descriptions, and the company's return and warranty page.

  
  

  The customer ***** ******** originally viewed our eBay marketplace product listing, and then viewed our direct webstore prior to contacting us via phone for additional questions before completing his purchase through the webstore on February 16, 2023. 

  
  

  He informed us prior to placing his purchase online that they had already previously attempted to source the engine PCM for his 2010 Chevrolet Camaro with a 6.2L from a different supplier, which failed to be able to resolve the issue his vehicle was experiencing. 

  
  

  He also informed us of his intent to tune the purchased module with aftermarket equipment, and we informed the customer that although it is not typical in this industry to offer warranty or even accept return of an altered product, we differ from the industry standard by helping our customers as best we can. The customer also mentioned they spent a lengthy time convincing the original provider of the vehicle tune service to allow them to re-attempt to use the licensed software from their previous failed session.

  
  

  When the customer received the purchased item and experienced the repeat failure of his vehicle, which according to the customer were the exact symptoms and error codes as he had with both his factory unit and the previously third-party sourced unit, they requested a replacement from us. We advised the customer that it is unlikely that the problem persists with this item, since they have tried replacing it before with the same results. We reminded the customer that we accept return on the product and reminded them there would only be a cost of the original equipment programming service deducted from the refund, as is stated in the return policy. The customer insisted on requesting a replacement item instead. 

  
  

  We accommodated the customer and not only provided a different module, but also provided a programming service to aid the customer in eliminating the possibility of either an incompatible tune he was attempting to perform, or an issue with the originally shipped unit. The additional programming that the customer was aided with is usually a cost well over $100, as the customer is well aware since they have knowledge about those services. We did not charge the customer for this additional service.

  
  

  When the customer received the replacement item, they claimed the vehicle was still experiencing the same problems. After confirming that multiple different modules return the same vehicle symptoms, it would be logical to conclude that there is a different underlying problem in the vehicle, so we advised the customer to return the products for a refund, as we do accept returns within the first 30 days.

  
  

  Upon return of the products, we re-inspected the modules to confirm there was no damage by the user and issued the refund in accordance with the return policy and what was discussed with the customer in the prior conversations. The customer was only deducted the original equipment software programming service from their refund, but we did not incur the customer the additional after-market programming service cost, as that would have rendered the return at almost $0 refunded to them.

• Initial Complaint

  12/17/2022

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Resolved

  More info

  ARES sent me the incorrect part. Via email, they admitted they sent the wrong part. Now they won’t refund me or send the correct part. They won’t return emails now and their phone number doesn’t work.

  Business response

  12/26/2022

  Here at ARES Technologies, we provide OEM control modules, programmed and updated with the OEM software and equipment to ensure proper compatibility with the vehicle data automatically confirmed with the dealership software, using the VIN provided by the customer at checkout. The customer **** ****** placed an order online on the date July 25, 2022 but failed to provide a valid VIN at checkout. We reached out to the customer and requested a verification of the correct 17 digit Vehicle Identification Number before we could proceed with the order. The customer replied with a copy of the vehicle registration, confirming the correct VIN as 6G2***********709, for a 2009 Pontiac G8 with a 3.6L. We corrected the customers online order to reflect the correct module that works for that vehicle, since it is not possible to program an incorrect module to the vehicle VIN provided. The original manufacturer's software performs various checks during the process of programming to confirm the correct module is connected, otherwise the module will not accept the programming session, and we will not be able to ship the purchased item.

  
  

  The customer was also informed that the correct module for the VIN provided had a different price and they were invoiced for the balance. The customer completed payment and their module was shipped via UPS with tracking 1Z***************8 and received by them on August 2, 2022.

  
  

  Attached you will find the correspondences with the customer prior to completing and shipping their order.

  
  

  It is strange for the customer to claim that the incorrect item was received after having possession of the purchased item for nearly 6 months after all previously stated correspondences. Either the customer is making a mistake and has purchased similar product elsewhere where they may not necessarily use OEM equipment, or there are other issues with the vehicle not being plainly communicated.

  
  

  At ARES Technologies, we offer warranty on our products and are happy to help if provided with further clarification of the issues with the vehicle such as DTCs and electrical diagnostic report. Afterward, the customer can be provided an RMA and is welcome to send the part back for exchange under warranty.

  
  

  I am available if you require any further information.

  
  

  Best regards,

• Initial Complaint

  10/08/2022

  Complaint Type:

  Product Issues

  Status:

  Resolved

  More info

  Ares technologies sent a defective pcm, then gave attitude and said it wasn't pcm. Turns out it is, and they stopped returning email, bad business

  Business response

  10/24/2022

  Here at ARES Technologies, we strive to provide customers with straightforward solutions and support to customers based on the information and feedback the customer provides. The customer ******* ******* purchased a fully tested and programmed module for a 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee, which was calibrated based on the VIN they provided, as well as the special request to disable the factory immobilizer system, SKIM. The customer reached out to us with issues upon installation, which they described as being only able to operate the vehicle by using their remote start. We explained to the customer that, after decades of expertise in this field, if the issue were related to the PCM, the vehicle should not operate correctly regardless of the starting method. We offered additional support beyond our product support to the customer by offering to provide the customer with schematic diagrams of the vehicle wiring to assist the customer in properly diagnosing the problem. Furthermore, the customer was offered the option to return the product to exchange for a replacement to appease their doubt of it being an issue with the purchased product.

  
  

  In reply, the customer opted not to accept either option but rather respond with a public complaint and post a negative review claiming we have not attempted to aid them in any way, which is untrue as the customer knows of our correspondences and solutions offered.

  
  

  As of this date, the customer has made no attempt to return the purchased product.

• Initial Complaint

  05/25/2022

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  I purchased a computer for a jeep that is faulty. It was supposed to have a lifetime warranty. After almost 2 weeks I still do not have a replacement unit and their customer service is very rude. They have my old unit and I believe it is not available for return. I have the new defective unit. Since I can not have my original unit returned. I would like a refund for $394.95. I have attempted to resolve the issue but it seems they are not amble to communicate effectively and politely. the used unit they issued me needs to be used as a core to purchase another unit. If they are willing to send me a core to exchange I am willing to return the defective unit. In the end I just want a refund since they are unable to provide the service. And I need a (my) old unit to exchange as a core.

  Business response

  06/13/2022

  RE: BBB CID 172**588
  
  To whom it may concern,
  
  Here at ARES Technologies, we believe in providing our customers a straightforward and pleasant experience when both purchasing a product, as well as claiming warranty on said product. We treat our customers with respect but also expect that respect to be mutual.
  
  The customer ******* ***** purchased a rebuilt and tested engine ECU for a 2002 Jeep Wrangler with 4.0L and OEM part number 56041930AE on February 21, 2022. The customer's order was shipped the following business day and they received the purchased item on February 24, 2022. As is standard in this industry, the core (the vehicle’s original defective item for which this purchase was made) is required to be returned. The company gives the customer 30 days to return the core, to give the customer enough time to ensure the purchased item has been installed and operational.
  
  The customer returned a core using the company’s provided prepaid return label, indicating they have already installed and operated the vehicle with the purchased item, but the received core was not from the same vehicle that the purchase was made. The item the customer mailed back to the company belonged to a 1996 Jeep Cherokee with 4.0L and OEM part number 56041251, which is incompatible with the original purchased item the customer received from us. In normal circumstances, this typically would not be acceptable for activation of the warranty since the incorrect item was returned as a core, but management decided to generously still accept the customer's warranty activation. The customer was notified of their warranty activation through an automated email.
  
  Nearly three months after the customer’s original purchase, the customer contacted us via email on the date May 16, 2022 requesting to replace the purchased product as they were troubleshooting an issue the vehicle was experiencing. The customer was promptly assisted and within less than an hour of their initial contact,  we replied to their email with detailed instructions to start the exchange process and how the exchange process works. The customer was sent a copy of the company’s exchange and returns policy to e-sign by both parties to confirm their understanding of the company’s policies–which is also readily available on the website. The customer was then issued an RMA to accompany the returned product, which they should ship back to the company, and they were ****rmed that within approximately 24 business hours of the company receiving the returned item, a replacement would be shipped to them.
  
  On May 25, 2022 the customer sent an email asking about the status of the replacement. After reviewing the company records for any pending warranty tickets, we could not find any record of receiving the returned item from the customer. We requested for the customer to provide tracking of the returned item, assuming they have already shipped it back to the company, so that we could follow up with the warehouse in case there was an oversight of their return. To our surprise, the customer responded stating they still had possession of the originally purchased item, and antagonistically stated they expected the company to ship them the replacement immediately, although we had previously detailed the replacement process. When we reminded the customer that the process was already explained and it was evident that the company was not going to comply with the customer’s ultimatum to deviate from the policy for them, the customer then proceeded to bombard the company with threats, as well as leaving negative reviews from multiple accounts.
  
  We already publicly replied to the customer’s Google review, but we repeat that in this industry, which the customer claims to have been working in for several decades, our policies are very standard, and all of our customers have no problem complying with the simple instructions we provide. The company also directly reached out to the customer via phone call after the customer kept sending several hostile emails, but the customer was adamant that they refuse to ship us the product.
  
  As the customer is already aware, refunds are not accepted for items purchased more than 30 days ago, and much less for an item the customer refuses to ship back.
  
  All correspondence and the customer agreement is attached, and I am available for any further questions.
  
  
  Best regards,

  Customer response

  06/14/2022

   I am rejecting this response because:
  
  

  The product was sold with a "Lifetime Warranty" If their actions matched their words. I would have a replacement unit and we would not be here now. I believe they only fair course is a full refund because they refuse to show honor and provide a replacement unit. I made every effort to work with them, but we have failed to come to a professional agreement. 

  
  

  This is the only written ****rmation they provided as in warranty. Which apparently is false. Anything less than a full refund is not acceptable.

  Warranty email Received:

  
  

   Order #12207, Core Received. Your Warranty is Activated -ARESTechnologies

  External

  Things Purchased

  

  ****@arestechnologies.com	Thu, Mar 3, 2:01 AM
  to me

  Hello University,
  
  Thank you for your recent purchase and the return of the core. Your warranty is valid and activated for the future if needed.
  
  
  Best,
  ARES Technologies

• Initial Complaint

  12/07/2021

  Complaint Type:

  Product Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  I purchased a ECM from them aug 2020. It was supposed to come with a lifetime guarantee. I returned core DIRECTLY TO POST OFFICE . It is December 2021 I messaged over a week ago to get info on warranty as the computer has gone bad. My truck won't charge due to computer. I waited recieved no reply . I tried calling today and getting someone to help through their customer service. I was told my core was not return. I know for a fact it was as I handed it directly to our post master with the shipping label THEY PROVIDED. Now I am out HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS plus my truck that runs my business is inoperable.

  Business response

  01/13/2022

  To whom it may concern,

  The customer Troy Hale purchased an engine ECU for their 1997 Dodge Ram Truck with 5.9L on August 13, 2020. The customer's order was shipped on August 14, 2020 and they received the purchased item on August 17, 2020. The company's policy on warranty of purchased items is clearly stated on the site as well as documents are provided in the package the customer receives, instructing the customer how to activate the warranty on the purchased product. The company requires for the customer to mail back the vehicle's original defective item that was replaced, also known as the Core in this industry, within the first 30 days of receiving the purchased item in order to activate the extended warranty for the purchased item. Here at ARES we pride ourselves in making the process as easy as possible for the customer, so the customer is provided with return instructions and even a prepaid return label so it is at no cost to the customer to activate their warranty.

  According to our records, which are confirmed by the USPS site and return tracking for the label we provided Mr Hale, the customer failed to mail back the Core for the warranty activation. The customer contacted us in early December 2021, which was well over a year after the original purchase, requesting to claim warranty but they were informed that they never activated the warranty on the purchase, thus the warranty is null and void. The company offered to help the customer by offering a discount on a new purchase, but the customer refused. The customer's claim that they shipped the Core back unfortunately is not consistent with the shipment details of the tracking number 94*********55520358403. The package was never scanned as received by USPS, whereas the tracking for the shipment we sent the customer confirms delivery. I have attached a screenshot of the archived shipments that the company paid for on the date of August 14, 2020. The shipment to the customer shows Delivered status, but the shipment that was supposed to be returned to the company only shows label Printed, meaning it was never used or scanned by USPS.

  I am available if you require any further information.

  Best regards,

  --

  ARES Technologies, LLC

• Initial Complaint

  10/17/2021

  Complaint Type:

  Product Issues

  Status:

  Resolved

  More info

  I Purchased A ECM from this company it was supposed to qork and be programmed when I received it well it didn't work so I sent it back and they only gave me back some of my money when they got the item back the same way I got it also they have blocked my phone number so I can't contact them please help me

  Business response

  11/03/2021

  To whom it may concern,

   

  The customer ****** ******** purchased a fully tested and VIN programmed module for their 2009 Chevrolet Impala with a 3.5L on September 18, 2021, and received the purchased item on Friday, September 24.Here at ARES Technologies, we use OEM equipment and software with dealership-level access to flash the module to the customer's provided VIN prior to shipping the purchased item, but it is clearly explained on the webstore as well as in the package the customer receives that based on the vehicle application, the customer will have to perform certain steps before the item can function properly on their vehicle. The customer received along with the purchased item, a printed and clearly documented instruction for the ignition key system that is required to be learned after installation of the purchased part. The instruction is also readily available on the website at https://arestechnologies.com/blogs/news/gm-key-relearn-procedures This instruction comes directly from the OEM manufacturer of these products, which supplies General Motors with both the hardware and software for their manufactured vehicles. 

   

  Upon receipt of the purchased module, the customer contacted us stating they could not get the vehicle to start, and we asked the customer various troubleshooting questions since there are many components on the vehicle that need to be in good order before the purchased item can be properly synced to their vehicle considering this is a complex electronic part. The customer was unwilling to answer some basic questions, and stated that their mechanic already attempted the learning process without success. We also requested for the customer to have their mechanic call us directly which they also refused. The customer requested to return the purchased item because they didn't wish to proceed with the process of relearning the module to the vehicle and returned the purchased item.

   

  The return policy which is clearly detailed on the website and the customer also e-signed the purchase agreement states that all returned orders are subject to a programming fee which is paid to the original manufacturer at time of processing customer's order using their provided Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) and the fee is $50.00 deducted from the refund. The customer was given a discount on the fee, and only a $39.95 programming expense was deducted from their full refund of the purchased product. The remainder has been credited to the customer's original form of payment.

   

  Attached is the copy of the purchase and return agreement the customer was already aware of.

   

  You may reach me for any further questions.

   

  Best regards,

   

  --

  ARES Technologies, LLC

  Customer response

  11/03/2021

  Better Business Bureau:
  
  I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID 160**431, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.

*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. ↩