ComplaintsforJJ's Auto Service Center LLC

• Initial Complaint

  03/31/2023

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  On January 17, 2023 I took my car to J.J.'s Auto to be serviced because the car was backfiring. A service technician at J.J.'s performed a diagnostic and said based on the diagnostic report, the throttle body needed to be replaced. I asked the technician if he was sure the backfiring wasn't caused by something else and he said yes. On January 28, 2023 I gave J.J.'s Auto approval to proceed with replacing the throttle body. J.J.'s Auto then proceeded to replace the throttle body and I was able to pick up my car on February 1, 2023. After I drove the car off the service lot, on my way home the car started backfiring again. When I got home I immediately called J.J.'s to let them know that the car was still backfiring. I was told to return the car the next day and someone would test drive it again. I returned to J.J.'s the next day to drop my car off for someone to test drive it for the backfiring. Service manager ***************************** test drove the car and confirmed backfiring. He told me I would need to pay for ANOTHER diagnostic to be performed in order for them to determine the problem. He said they could not fix the car unless I paid for another diagnostic. At this point I'd already paid $575 for them to replace the throttle body. They then proceeded to tell me I needed to pay an additional $139 for them to conduct ANOTHER diagnostic to determine the cause of the backfiring. At this point, I also asked if I could have the old part that was supposedly replaced. I was told they no longer had the old throttle body and in order to get the a new throttle body they needed to send the company they were purchasing it from, the old part. I should not have to pay for another diagnostic when they told me they found the problem and that replacing the throttle body would fix the problem. I want them install the old throttle body and refund me my money.

  Business response

  08/01/2023

  On January 17th 2023, *** ********* ******* contacted J.J.’s Auto Service Center via a phone call, to acquire an estimate to replace their 2006 ******** ***’s rear shock assemblies. This phone call took place around 12:59 pm where *** ******* approved the discussed and estimated repair with ****** ********, the Service Manager. The components were ordered and an appointment for the repair was made and scheduled to take place on January 23rd at 8:00 am. *** ******* was thanked via text message for their time on the phone and texted the facility’s estimate, address, and appointment date. *** ******* was not present for this scheduled appointment.

  Alternatively, *** ******* called J.J.’s Auto Service Center 38 minutes after their scheduled appointment time, to discuss rescheduling their appointment for an alternative service and concern with their vehicle on January 23rd at 8:38 am. The inbound phone call took place over the course of 2 minutes and 53 seconds while their concern was updated and deliberated.

  On January 24th, *** *******'s vehicle arrived at J.J.’s Auto Service Center during the evening at roughly 5:00 pm, which can be seen documented during the vehicle’s visual onboarding, which is standard procedure for our facility. System notes show that the previous appointment was updated, the original RO# recycled and the previously authorized repairs declined.

  This new appointment for the vehicle was to perform a diagnosis for what was described on the approved repair order to help address a “Diagnostics needed for jumping/skipping sensation upon initially driving the vehicle. The client has indicated that he feels like the vehicle is misfiring quite a bit.”
  

  The following morning, *** ******* was contacted, and he provided authorization to have a diagnosis performed on this concern for a service charge of $139.95. *** ******* called our facility to request an update on the diagnosis at 12:59 pm on January 26th, which was provided by ****** ********. The vehicle was not looked at by a technician until later that day at 2:00 pm.

  Additional updates were not able to be provided to *** ******* until the following day, January 27that 7:00pm. *** ******* received a text message inspection report from our facility and a phone call. 

  To which, a voice mail message was left due to an inability to reach them on the phone. The inspection and testing report was viewed on *** *******'s phone that evening at 8:55 pm.
  Said report contained our technicians finding from January 26th. The technician addressed *** ******* major concern of the vehicle, which was indicated originally to us was a “jumping” and “misfire.”

  Unfortunately, this 2006 ******** *** had several overlying and connecting issues as indicated throughout the inspection report and fault codes recorded. In documented order, the fault codes stored were: *****, *****, *****, *****, and *****. As so many faults were stored in the vehicle, availability was poor, it was first necessary to store the faults and clear the computer to determine which codes, if any, came back first.

  During a test drive with the vehicle, ***** returned quickly while driving and performance was reduced.
  *****’s description was “Throttle Closed Position Performance”, this code indicates that the throttle valve is not in the position the PCM believes it to be in. For this, the vehicle will accelerate, slowly, in a “default state” driving the vehicle in this manner, is difficult, to say the least, and presents a safety concern if the driver must move the vehicle quickly to avoid an accident.
  

  The inspection report *** ******* viewed on the evening it was sent stated “Found multiple codes in the system. Cleared the lights and drove the vehicle. Found fault code P2119 throttle closed position code returned within a couple of miles. Other lights can come on later. Recommend diagnosis as they return.
  The first repair would be to replace the throttle body. then keep driving until other lights return.”
  

  *** ******* contacted our facility the next morning at 8:28 am, January 28thand brought to our attention concerns they had with their vehicle’s check engine light, drivability, and the additional report findings that were shared. *** ******* was skeptical that the vehicle required a throttle body, as he relayed to me a discussion he had had with his mechanic. His mechanic, who had worked on the vehicle previously while *** ******* was in another state, is a very knowledgeable person with respect to this ******** and its ********* engine, as relayed to me by *** *******. The mechanic too doubted the need to replace the vehicle’s throttle body, as he and *** ******* agreed there was an external sensor mounted onto the top of the throttle body that controlled its intake valve position. This sensor was recently replaced by this mechanic, and verified to be new to the vehicle, by our facility.
  With the help of technical service information, it is verifiable that the above-questioned sensor mounted on top of the throttle body, is a MAP sensor, which does not have a direct command to the throttle position sensor. This MAP sensor monitors air coming through the throttle body, to inform the PCM of the amount of fuel that may be required for performance and emissions standards. It does not electrically control the same values and command the position of the throttle valve through the throttle position sensor actuator, which is what required replacement. This is further verified by the existence of two internal throttle body fault codes.

  *** ******* and his mechanic, whom I was offered to speak with but never given the chance to, disagree with this statement and believed the throttle position sensor to be externally mounted, serviceable, and recently replaced. A detailed view of the replaced throttle body and its specification sheet shows that the throttle position sensor is internally mounted, and only comes with the replacement of its assembly.
  

  The repair recommendations were to replace the vehicle’s throttle body assembly, the worn engine mounts that had the capacity to allow the engine to “jump” and disrupt the engine harness grounds, and the severely leaking water pump assembly. *** ******* was advised that the replacement of the throttle body would make the vehicle drivable again, however, if additional fault codes came back after its replacement, a further diagnosis would be required, as additionally stated in the view inspection report.
  

  *** ******* agreed to the repairs via the same phone call and allowed the repairs to proceed. Afterward, the technician drove the vehicle, and verified it now accelerated normally, and that no fault light was illuminated. The vehicle was returned to *** ******* on February 1st at 4:46 pm when the payment was processed in person as well. 

  Later, *** ******* called our facility to tell us that the vehicle seemed as if it had a misfire, and wanted to know what our recommendation would be. *** ******* was asked if he could drive the vehicle to our facility for a brief test drive to verify this concern. ****** ********, the Service Manager, drove with *** ******* one morning and felt the concern that was assumed to be an engine misfire at speeds of 25mph. After this speed, the misfire went away and the vehicle drove smoothly, as *** ******* stated. It was requested by *** ******* if he would be able to leave the vehicle with our facility for further inspection and verification.
  

  On February 7th, the vehicle was returned to our facility and *** ******* was defensive. He originated his claim that the throttle body didn’t require replacement and that the coolant leak on his vehicle was not present until we did “whatever you did” to the car. At this junction, *** ******* was still owed a verification of these concerns. The vehicle was inspected and found to not have the throttle body codes it initially had, validating the previous repair. Instead, the check engine light had illuminated for a misfire seemingly due to a faulty ignition coil. *** ******* was notified that this fault verification would require an additional diagnosis, as previously disclosed. *** ******* declined to authorize this and requested to have his original throttle body installed on the vehicle.

  The original approved invoice did not have a request to retain the old components replaced on the vehicle, and *** ******* was informed of the impossibility of replacing the throttle body with the original one, as too much time had passed. The replaced throttle body was a remanufactured one that had a core on its purchase. If *** ******* had requested sooner to retain their original throttle body, he certainly would have had the ability if he paid for the credit cost of the core. This conversation was not had, until after additional repairs were declined to be performed on *** *******'s vehicle at no charge, or if paid for, since *** ******* was now threatening legal action against J.J.’s Auto Service Center.

  J.J.’s Auto Service Center terms of service, which are available at the bottom of every printed or digital version of an invoice, strictly prohibit the continuing relationship between the company and customer, if legal action is threatened.
  

  On February 7th, after business hours, *** ******* arrived to retrieve their vehicle and spoke with ****** ********, for a final time, outside and in front of another customer. On February 8th *** ******* texted our facility’s automated text messaging system and informed us that their vehicle was not fixed and that the vehicle was performing the same as it had before repairs were performed, which now contradicted statements made by *** ******* to me in person. The 2006 ******** *** required several separate repairs at the time it was seen by our facility, which *** ******* was made aware of and had been provided with an estimate for. Addressing these concerns required a systematic approach that *** ******* was made aware of, and later declined interest in proceeding with simply due to the cost of additional diagnostic time required for fault verification.

*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. ↩