ComplaintsforBedford Nissan Collision Center

• Initial Complaint

  01/10/2024

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Answered

  More info

  Complaint taken over phone by BBB representative BA

  Consumer's **** ******** was involved in an accident in April 2023. The vehicle was taken to Bedford Nissan Collision Center in June 2023. After she picked up the vehicle in November 2023, she noticed a clicking sound in the steering wheel when making a right turn. She returned to the company and she was told that they didn't hear or see anything, but it was in the steering column. She continued to hear the noise and returned 3 times. Each time she was told that they didn't find anything. In December 2023, she took the vehicle to another shop who told her it was a problem with the rack & pinion, not the steering column, and she should inform the insurance company that this had not been repaired. But the car had been totaled out and the consumer had used the payoff money for repairs. She had also had her own mechanic look under the body and he found that a panel underneath broke off during the accident was was not replaced. Bedford Nissan was supposed to get back with her about this but never did. She spoke to her claim adjuster at Bedford Nissan on 1/8/2024. He said they were aware of the rack and pinion issue. This was left off of the final invoice. She was told that she would have pay an extra $3-$4,000 for the repair.

  Business response

  01/16/2024

  In response to Customer’s Statement, On June 22nd, 2023, Customer contacted Bedford Nissan Collision and stated that her vehicle was involved in a collision and was currently at another facility, and was dissatisfied with the facility and their process at the time. She requested an estimate for the cost of repairs on her **** ********-**** *****. The customer stated that there had been an insurance claim made on the present damages, but that the insurance company declared the vehicle a total loss, and offered her $22,000 for the vehicle. Customer stated that she declined the settlement offer from the insurance company because she believed the vehicle's value was higher than that. She stated that she was looking for an estimate to have the repairs done, and that she intended on paying for the repairs out of her own pocket. These details of the situation were exchanged over a phone conversation between the customer and Bedford Nissan Collision in June of 2023. Bedford Nissan Collision stron**y advised against paying for this large of a repair out of her own pocket due to the possibility of additional unforeseen damages and increased repair costs associated with these damages, and recommended she negotiate the payoff amount with State Farm, and attempt to obtain what she believes is a fair settlement offer so that she could replace the vehicle with a similar model. The customer refused. At this point, the shop agreed to fulfill her request to write an estimate on the vehicle, and the customer and the shop both agreed that the best option to begin the estimating process would be a photo estimate, to avoid any unnecessary towing charges. After this agreement was established, the shop received 6 copies of the same photo, showing one an**e of the impacted area (Passenger side front.) After reviewing what the customer provided, the shop attempted to fulfill her wishes and wrote an estimated amount to repair the vehicle, based on the photo provided. This resulted in the shop writing an estimate for about $6,700, and poignantly expressing to the customer that this dollar amount was a very rough estimate, and that there is no way to establish a true estimate without inspecting the vehicle in person and disassembling some of the vehicle to expose hidden damages present. At this point, the customer agreed to have the vehicle towed to Bedford Nissan Collision for further inspection to work towards getting a full estimate. Once the vehicle was brought to the shop for inspection, the shop performed an in-person inspection that increased the estimate to about $11,000, without disassembling the vehicle. At this point, the shop advised that this number was still not a true estimate, advised again to accept a total loss settlement from the insurance company; the customer then declined, and requested that the shop disassemble the vehicle to produce an as-accurate-as-possible estimate for the repairs. The shop then performed the requested services and produced an estimate of about $16,700 in damages, and explained thoroughly to the customer that this number will likely increase significantly during repairs due to unforeseen circumstances like electrical and/or mechanical damage that cannot be identified until body repairs are complete and the vehicle was in good enough condition to receive proper mechanical diagnostics. The shop clearly stated that the final bill could even exceed the $22,000 that was offered to her from the insurance company, there is simply no way to know until repairs are in process. This is referred to as a supplement to the original estimate, and takes place on over 95% of all collision and insurance repairs due to the nature of collision damage. On August 8th at 4:45 PM, the customer called the shop and expressed her dissatisfaction at the estimate provided, implying in numerous ways that it was too expensive, and that she felt she was being taken advantage of in some way. The customer stated that she believed the shop was attempting to write up a bill for the full $22,000 that she received from the insurance company - mind you, up until this point the customer had the shop under the impression that she declined the settlement offer from State Farm. Please note that an individual profiting from an insurance claim is considered illegal in the state of ****. The shop then explained to the customer that if she did accept a total loss settlement from an insurance company, that that money would’ve been for the value of the vehicle, NOT for the cost of the repairs needed. The cost of repairs could likely exceed $22,000, which is why an insurance company would declare it a total loss. Moving against the shop's advice, the customer put a down payment on the repairs, and begrudgin**y asked the shop to order parts and commence body repairs. At this point, the customer signed written authorization to begin repairs on the vehicle. This means she accepted financial responsibility for the repairs necessary to bring the vehicle to pre-accident condition for damage and repairs related to the impact & collision. This officially makes the customer responsible for any and all charges, not the insurance company. Bedford Nissan Collision performs all body-related repairs in-house. Most mechanical work is sublet out to trusted vendors. In this case, the vehicle was sent to a reputable mechanical facility that is known for performing quality work on high-end vehicles, especially from manufacturers like ********. The shop made note of the lack of normal maintenance performed on the vehicle, including excessively worn tires, brake pads, and other ne**ected systems. This shop was tasked with repairing suspension damage sustained in the impacted area which included the passenger-front lower control arm, upper control arm, rim, tire, air-ride components, and perform a 4 wheel alignment to ensure the affected suspension is in working order; specifically focusing on impacted and collision-related suspension damage. The vehicle was returned within proper alignment specifications with the stated repairs completed. Throughout the repair process, the customer continued to express her dissatisfaction with the cost of repairs, and the shop continued to let the customer know that the price may continue to increase due to the nature of collision damage, and that the shop would put forth their best effort at keeping the repairs as cost-effective as possible, but at this point the repair costs were currently at $18,500 after disassembly and additional replacement parts needed. Once all repairs were completed, the vehicle received a post-repair scan that ensured all related electronic systems were in working order. After picking up the vehicle, the customer returned with concerns of sensors malfunctioning, and a clicking sound coming from the steering wheel area. In an attempt to assist with the inconvenience, the shop offered a complimentary rental vehicle at no charge while the shop identified the issue. Note that the customer put 4,000 miles on the vehicle throughout the duration of about 1 week. This was provided as a deed of good intention to offer relief to the customer while repairs were performed. The shop identified that ******** had sold them the incorrect sensor, per VIN application. Once replaced with the correct part, the shop re-scanned the system, the vehicle then presented a code for a faulty air-temperature sensor. This was likely blown off of the vehicle in the impact, but was not identified in the initial repairs. The shop and customer agreed to replace the temp sensor for an additional charge, although it was not related to the accident. The shop then looked into the expressed concern of a clicking sound behind the steering wheel. The clicking sound is so faint in the vehicle that the shop could not replicate the concern that the customer brought forth. The shop also sent the vehicle back to the preferred sublet shop to double-check all alignment measurements and confirm the already completed work was done properly. The shop advised that it could be a non-collision related issue like the steering column, or the steering rack, or something in relation to the steering system in the vehicle. The shop advised the customer due to the age, lack of required maintenance, and current condition of the vehicle, that the issue is likely not related to the collision and that it would incur additional charges for repairs not yet performed. The vehicle was then picked up by the customer at this time. The customer then reached out a 2nd time expressing concerns of the same steering and clicking noise. The shop told the customer they’d be happy to take a look at it to ensure it wasn’t related to any repair work performed by Bedford Nissan Collision. After one failed attempt at a test drive due to weather conditions, the shop scheduled and performed a 2nd test drive, and concluded that it was still likely steering-related; although the shop could not re-create the issue on a consistent basis. As mentioned in previous conversation, this would incur additional charges not related to the work already performed. The customer expressed dissatisfaction at this fact and any additional charges. At this point the shop then advised the customer that this is a customer pay situation, that there are no insurance companies or outside payors involved, and to take it to her preferred mechanical facility to have the necessary work done. Bedford Nissan Collision cannot perform additional repair work and replace additional parts free of charge. In regards to the customer's statement that the shop was aware of the steering rack issue, the shop was not aware in relation to her vehicle and current situation. However, a quick Goo**e search will present multiple recalls and service campaigns from ********-****, the manufacturer, related to the steering system and steering rack. One campaign dated 7/10/2020 included 418,851 ******** **-class vehicles affected, another campaign dated 4/10/2017 included 58,323 ******** **-class vehicles affected. The shop expressed to the customer that it was likely an issue related to the manufacturer or otherwise. In conclusion, Bedford Nissan Collision performed all service work documented on the estimates and final bill paperwork provided to the customer, and the customer paid for all of the repairs provided by the shop. The steering rack was not notated in any way on the final bill or estimates presented to the customer. The customer would ultimately be responsible for any additional mechanical or body-related repairs needed, because she chose to pay for the repairs out of her own pocket; or out of the insurance settlement given to her by the insurance company. The shop has continued to attempt to explain to the customer after this incident occurred that whether the damage is from some kind of mechanical failure or due to her failure to maintain the vehicle properly, or if it is a result of the collision, that she would still be responsible for the cost of any repairs needed.

  Customer response

  01/25/2024

  Better Business Bureau:
  
  I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
  
  [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, we would like to know your view on the matter.]
  
  Regards,they aren’t telling the truth the rake pinion and the panel under the truck is related to the accident the noice that in front of the truck on the right side is the rack pinion not the steering column I took to another mechanical and was told nothing wrong with steering wheel they are making up stuff as they go what about panel underneath the truck 
  
  ********** ******
  
  
  
  
   

  Business response

  01/29/2024

  As explained at length in the prior response, this was a customer pay repair (The customer was paying out of pocket directly, insurance was not involved). This means the customer was directly responsible for any and all repairs. 
  The customer was not and never billed for the rack and pinion, and/or the shield/ panel underneath the vehicle that the complaint is filed about. The repair facility cannot be held liable for something that we did not bill for or charge the customer for. The complaint is devoid of merit.

  Customer response

  01/30/2024

  Better Business Bureau:
  
  I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
  
  [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, we would like to know your view on the matter.]
  
  Regards,
  
  ********** ******
  
  
  
  
   

  Customer response

  02/01/2024

  Better Business Bureau:
  
  I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
  
  [To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, we would like to know your view on the matter.]
  
  Regards,
  
  ********** ******
  
  
  
  
   

  Customer response

  02/01/2024

  Better Business Bureau:
  
  I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
  
  Ms. Harris submitted response by text to BBB staff (ka):

  I can't accept their response due to the fact they were supposed to fix everything that was related to the accident which they did not complete they did not want me to put car on lift so when I did I see that they did not fix panel that was damaged in the accident which I noticed wires hanging I can't drive it in the rain because it will damage the wires causing more damage can not understand why they did not repair the panel I didn't have a problem paying the repair bill I don't understand why they have a problem fixing my car this is ridiculous

  
  Regards,
  
  ********** ******
  
  
  
  
   

*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. ↩