ComplaintsforStewart and Stevenson Atlantic

• Initial Complaint

  03/21/2024

  Complaint Type:

  Billing Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  We contacted this repair shop to gain a diagnostic on a tractor. They informed us that the vehicle could be dropped of on March 6th, and we dropped it off on that date. We did a few follow up calls because we weren’t receiving any updates and each call we would be informed that they either did not get to the vehicle yet despite being told to drop it off on that day or that the mechanic is still look at the truck. On March 12 we call again because as I stated we were not receiving any updates, and were informed we would receive an estimate that day. We received an estimate for $48,000. We informed the shop that amount is too high and to send an invoice for the diagnostic so we can pick up the truck. On the 14th we called to asked about the invoice and pick up and were told the mechanic moved on to another job so he has not put the vehicle back together yet. On the 15th we called again to inquire about the invoice and picking up the tractor. We were told the invoice would be sent in a couple minutes and the truck needs to be towed. When we inquired why the truck needed to be towed the answer given was “that thing is not drivable”. We stated we knew it needed to be fixed but it was drivable because it had drove 50miles the day prior to dropping it off. The mechanic said “I was told it wasn’t getting repaired so just push it out”. Gary then informed me “It was ripped apart for the diagnostic” I then asked why weren’t we asked if we were ok with that extent of inspection that would cause additional damage. His response was he did say this. We corrected him that he did not state this and inquired if this was stated on the formed sign in an effort to figure out where the disconnect occurred. This is where In my opinion he realized he told a lie, when stated that he said this and at this point he became irate and yell that he would have his manager call me back Monday, I said no we want the vehicle back today because it’s been there too long and we need to get it fixed, but I also need someone to explain to me why I dropped off a drivable tractor and it is now in pieces. He informed me his manager Tony is out till Monday but he would have the higher manger call me back. In two hours I received another call from Gary telling me again that the truck needed to be subjected to that level of inspection and I informed him that I understand that but he was supposed to inform us of that and gain our approval. He became irate, yelling that i am not getting it and his manger will call me and hung up before I could respond. I never received a invoice and our vehicle was kept over the weekend, I’m guessing in retaliation. On Monday, March 18 I called again because I had come to the conclusion this business does not make phone calls to update or inform customers. I requested an invoice again and informed him that he is keeping our property without our permission and he needs to send the invoice so we can have a tow truck recover the vehicle, he said “well you wanted to talk to my manger” to which I replied “so you kept our property, please send the invoice so we can submit the payment and get the vehicle”. At this point I didn’t not want to talk to Gary or anyone at that business, the goal was to regain the tractor. I waited and still didn’t receive an invoice, so I followed up with an email request the invoice again. He replied to the email stating Tony is putting it together. The first invoice I received from Tony stated that “the customer declined repairs and instructed to reassemble the vehicle to tow out” This statement is completely incorrect because the tractor was not reassembled and we did not say we wanted a tow out, we were told we don’t have a choice but to tow it away because of the condition they left it in. I called Tony and asked that this line be remove because we never stated that, and in my opinion this line was strategically placed to remove liability from them, in hopes we would not read the entirety of the invoice. He removed that line, we paid the $2747.02 in order to regain the vehicle. We paid $1000 for the vehicle to be towed to a mechanic that is professional and is not callously inflating prices.The engine was completely ripped apart with a lot of unnecessary damage done to it, I believe in an effort to inflate the invoice. I am asking that we be refunded the $2747.02 because there was no agreement made for that level of damage to be done.

  Business response

  04/02/2024

  ***** ********* (Owner, ******* ********) called approximately one week prior to dropping the vehicle off requesting an estimate to replace the cylinder head gasket. Mr. ********* was provided a verbal estimate of approximately $8,400 plus sales tax, to include parts, labor, fluids, etc. to which Mr. ********* agreed and subsequently dropped the vehicle off on Wednesday, March 6th for the replacement of the cylinder head gasket. At vehicle drop off, Mr. ********* also requested to diagnose the cause of excessive blow-by coming from the crankcase breather and what seemed to be coolant contamination in the oil pan. Mr. Llewellyn stated that the coolant reservoir was low, the engine oil level was overfull, and the condition of the engine oil appeared to be “milky” on the dipstick.
  Diagnosis began Friday, March 8th. Blow-by from the crankcase breather was verified. Diagnostic software showed codes for the crankcase breather speed sensor, indicating the breather was failed. A relative compression test and cylinder cut-out test were performed through diagnostic software, indicating that several cylinders were low on compression. The cooling system was pressure tested and no external leaks were found. Visual inspection of the oil on the dipstick confirmed the customers suspicion of coolant contamination in the engine crankcase. The cooling system was drained, the top end of the engine was disassembled to remove the cylinder head to proceed with the cylinder head gasket replacement under the original scope of repair. Due to the amount of rust and corrosion on all fasteners, several bolts broke while trying to remove various external engine components. Upon removal of the cylinder head, the engine was found to have cracked cylinder liners causing blow-by and coolant entering the oil pan/crankcase internally.
  On Monday March 11th, Mr. ********* was notified of the concerns found with the cylinder head removed to which he provided a verbal approval to further disassemble the engine to determine the extent of the internal damage in order to provide a more accurate repair estimate. Based on this approval the contaminated engine oil was drained and disposed of, and the oil pan was removed. Connecting rod bearing caps and main bearing caps were removed to inspect the bearing surfaces. Crankshaft bearings were scored due to lack of lubrication caused by contaminated oil (coolant in oil). All (6) cylinder kits were removed from the cylinder block and disassembled to inspect for wear on the pistons from the failed cylinder liners. Wear to the pistons was also confirmed.
  With diagnosis complete an accurate estimate was provided to Mr. ********* on Tuesday, March 12th in the amount of $45,938.30 plus sales tax. The estimate included all necessary ******* ****** OEM parts at standard retail pricing to replace all worn / damaged components found during the diagnosis and disassembly process. The labor is in line with an in-frame engine rebuild by a ******* ****** certified Technician and consistent with the level of repair necessary due to the amount of internal wear/damage to the engine.
  Mr. ********* declined the estimate on Wednesday, March 13th. Mr.  ********* was notified that the engine could not be reassembled to running condition without replacing all required failed components such as ; gaskets, seals,  broken hardware, pistons, cylinder liners, bearings, oil pump etc... As a certified ******* ****** repair facility, we would not assemble anything that would cause an unsafe condition for highway use or could potentially cause additional engine damage, resulting in a catastrophic failure only adding to the customer’s expense.
  
  An invoice was created for the diagnostic procedures and inspection performed on Thursday, March 14th. There were 17.43 hours of labor applied to the repair order, totaling $3573.15. For customer satisfaction, the labor was reduced to 12 hours, totaling $2460, with a hazardous material fee of $123 for disposal of the contaminated oil and coolant, plus CT sales tax. On Monday, March 18th, the invoice was paid for by ***** ********* with signed acknowledgement. The vehicle was towed to a location of the customer’s choice at the customer’s expense.    
  

  Customer response

  04/04/2024

  1. We are willing to produce cell phone records that show we had no communication with the repair shop on March 11th.
  2. Each time a call was made to Gary for an update the response was, “we are still working on it, we will let you know”, no concerns were ever stated.
  3. Our cell phone records can also show that we never received any phone calls with updates. The only call we received was on March 15th, when Gary told us his manager would call us, but he instead called to provide falsehoods and        rudely hung-up mid conversation when he was made aware of the inconsistencies in the information he has been giving.
  4. There was also no communication with the repair shop on March 13, the estimate was declined on March 12, and we had to call three additional times to regain the truck.
  5. The company states that the diagnostic invoice was created on March 14, but regardless of us constantly requesting this invoice both verbally and via email it was not provided until March 18, which confirms our previous statement that      Gary kept the truck over the weekend in retaliation. We will be providing the emails showing the request for the invoice and the reply stating that it is still being worked on, which contradicts the statement that it was already done on            March 14th.
  6. The initial or corrected invoice does not show any “customer satisfaction” reduction. The reduction of $1113.15 that the company is claiming was given does not amount to the thousands of dollars in damages we are now faced with.
  7. In our initial statement the word “we” is used because every call that was made to the repair shop was on speaker, we are stating this because we are willing to testify that Gary is not telling the truth when he states, “provided a verbal approval to further disassemble the engine”.
  
  Attached are the phone records and the email that was sent to request the invoice for the third time and the reply to that email. 

  Customer response

  04/04/2024

  
  Complaint: 21458935
  
  I am rejecting this response because:

  
  1. We are willing to produce cell phone records that show we had no communication with the repair shop on March 11th.
  2. Each time a call was made to Gary for an update the response was, “we are still working on it, we will let you know”, no concerns were ever stated.
  3. Our cell phone records can also show that we never received any phone calls with updates. The only call we received was on March 15th, when Gary told us his manager would call us, but he instead called to provide falsehoods and        rudely hung-up mid conversation when he was made aware of the inconsistencies in the information he has been giving.
  4. There was also no communication with the repair shop on March 13, the estimate was declined on March 12, and we had to call three additional times to regain the truck.
  5. The company states that the diagnostic invoice was created on March 14, but regardless of us constantly requesting this invoice both verbally and via email it was not provided until March 18, which confirms our previous statement that      Gary kept the truck over the weekend in retaliation. We will be providing the emails showing the request for the invoice and the reply stating that it is still being worked on, which contradicts the statement that it was already done on            March 14th.
  6. The initial or corrected invoice does not show any “customer satisfaction” reduction. The reduction of $1113.15 that the company is claiming was given does not amount to the thousands of dollars in damages we are now faced with.
  7. In our initial statement the word “we” is used because every call that was made to the repair shop was on speaker, we are stating this because we are willing to testify that Gary is not telling the truth when he states, “provided a verbal        approval to further disassemble the engine”.
  
  Attached are the phone records and the email that was sent to request the invoice for the third time and the reply to that email. 
  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. ↩