ComplaintsforDrake's Collision Center, Inc.

• Initial Complaint

  08/08/2024

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Resolved

  More info

  2018 Equinox to ***** Collision Center to repair recently crumpled hood - estimate incl new hood, repair drivers door, painting. Also asked for estimate to repair previously damaged lift gate & verbal estimate was about $2000. Husband said no; just do the front. Witness confirms this conversation. Believing estimate was for front damage only, husband signed work order but was not given copy.At pickup on Aug. 1, tech said work on both ************ was finished. I said they were not supposed to fix the back. Examination showed no work was done on damaged lift gate. When I asked what they did, tech said they buffed out some scratches on back right panel. There is no noticeable difference between back left & right panels. I questioned the need for this work when it was specifically not ordered. At this time I saw that the new hood paint was a different shade. Tech agreed & said they would fix. I called my husband who confirmed that he had instructed them to just do the front. The manager then insisted that the back was included in the work order that my husband signed. I reiterated that it was not supposed to be included.The cost for this unrequested work is a significant upcharge. On August 2, after the color shade repair, I asked how much rubbing the scratches out in the back had added to our bill. After waiting about 10 minutes, we were given an itemized statement indicating that $1472.25 was charged for a service we specifically said not to do. We were shocked at this exorbitant, unwanted charge. We are not collision repairmen, so we are not aware of the costs involved in replacing a hood, fixing a rubbing door, and painting. The technician finally admitted it was a miscommunication, but we believe just do the front is quite clear. We believe the technician did not remove all the estimated charges for the lift gate repair, and those performing the work followed a padded work order.

  Business response

  08/12/2024

  Thank You for the opportunity to respond. On 07/09/2024 Mr.*** brought his 2018 ***** Equinox for an estimate for some body repairs. He arrived during our lunch hours when our office was closed; however, we were experiencing power outages due to the hurricane that hit *******. We had our doors propped open to let air circulate.We asked how we could help him and he stated he needed to get quite a bit of repairs on his vehicle that included the hood, driver door, rear lift gate and rear bumper. He also stated that his wife was really wanting to get the lift gate repaired. I explained to him that everyone was currently at lunch and he could come back at 1:00 or I could have the estimator call him to go over the estimate, whatever was easier for him. I also explained that since we did not have power that we were having to work from Ipads we could not print anything at the moment but we could email him if he preferred. He said he was just going to leave the vehicle here because it needed to get repaired and before he left he signed a repair authorization form. Once the estimator arrived from lunch,he was given the information and started the estimate (our event log shows this and is not editable). Mr.*** was given a phone call (same day 07/09/2024) with a quote for the repairs including what all it entailed. This quote was for ******* for hood, driver door and rear lift gate and rear bumper repair/replacement. Mr. *** then requested a quote without the lift gate. He was given a quote of ******** for hood, door and rear bumper repairs/replacement. Mr. *** then stated, " My wife is just going to have to deal without the liftgate," and approved the quote. It is not uncommon for customers who are paying out of pocket to leave things off of the estimate to get repaired at a later time. Most people work off of a budget when it comes to repairs. The most important part to them is going to be the functionality of the vehicle versus the cosmetics. It is not uncommon for customers to repair a little at a time as they can afford it. The request to take the lift gate off was not an odd request. All conversations were with MR.*** ONLY! MRS.*** was not a party of any conversations with us at all until she came to pick the vehicle up and dispute the bill two days in a row (08/01/2024 and 08/02/2024).Her first complaint was that she was unhappy that the fresh paint did not match the 6yr old paint. We agreed to do some blending at no charge and would call her the next day when the blending was completed. The next day 08/02/2024 she came to pick the vehicle up.  and continued to dispute the bill and be argumentative about the conversations she was not a party to. She demanded a new quote showing the repairs that she was disputing before she paid. This was given to her which is what she is using to file this complaint for a refund.  I (office manager not the estimator) was the one that mentioned miscommunication,but she clearly did not hear my entire statement due to interruption and speaking over all office personnel. I reminded MRS.*** that she was not present during any of the conversations that we had with her husband and clearly there was a miscommunication between the two of them. Also, need to point out that Mr. *** was present on 08/02/2024 during his wife's dispute and never once stood up and said, " I did not authorize the repairs for the rear. There will not be a refund issued as all repairs that were authorized were completed.I have included documentation of the repair authorization form signed along with the original authorized estimate that show the event log. Event log reflects the date and the time the estimate was created. 07/09/2024 at 1:12pm then printed the following day 07/10/2024 at 8:44am following the phone call with Mr.***. 

   

  Thank You,

  ******* Collision Center

  Customer response

  08/15/2024

  Complaint: 22108116
  
  I am rejecting this response because:

  Complaint: 22108116
  
  I am rejecting this response because:
  Drakes Collision's response contains several inaccuracies and misrepresentations that must be addressed clearly.
  ***** took our *** to Drakes for repairs on a day when they had no power; additionally, the estimator was at lunch. A female staff member looked at the car and had ***** sign a one-page authorization for service, but he was not given a copy of it as there was no electricity - which is acknowledged in Drakes response.   No professional written quote was provided at that time; ***** left with no documentation from Drakes. 
  
  Later, the estimator ******* sent ***** a text, not a phone call, and quoted over $6500 for repairs to both the front and back. ***** called ******* at the number he provided and asked for the cost of just the repairs to the hood and door and was told $4500+. Unsure about current costs for car repairs, ***** responded, "Just do the front."  He also confirmed his wishes in a text response. A copy of these text messages to ******* dated July 9 at 1:29 PM could not be attached here, but it also indicates *********************** it. This message further confirms that the decision to exclude the back repairs was explicitly communicated to Drakes.
  
  Drakes' claim that ***** mentioned his wifes urgency to complete the liftgate repair is entirely false. The assertion that ***** said, "My wife will just need to deal without the liftgate" is also a fabrication intended to justify their error. Their son and another individual were present during this discussion and can confirm that these statements were never made.
  
  When ****** arrived the first time to pick up the vehicle, the technician claimed that both the front and back had been repaired. She said they werent supposed to work on the front. First, she and the tech walked directly to the back of the **** Upon inspection, they both saw the dents on the liftgate were untouched, and ****** said it appeared that nothing had been done in the back. The technician pointed to the right side of the liftgate and admitted they had only rubbed out some scratches.  On the way back into the office DeLonn noticed the hood wasnt the same shade as the rest of the vehicle. The technician acknowledged this noticeable difference and promised to fix it, and he said it would be ready the next day. Inside, when ****** asked again about the work supposedly done to the back, the manager disdainfully said that ***** authorized the repairs to the back by signing a work order. Remember, there was no electricity in the shop and the appraiser was at lunch, so ***** was never presented a work order to sign.
  
  The next day when ***** and ****** returned to pick up the vehicle, ****** asked for, not demanded, a listing of the charges for work done on the back of the *** as would be their right as consumers to do. The tech and manager disappeared in the back and returned about 10 minutes later with an itemized bill for nearly $1500 for the unauthorized scratch rubbing on the back. Surprised, ****** questioned the charges but was met with a dismissive and annoyed attitude from the staff. The manager again said that ***** signed for and approved the charges which, as explained above, never happened. *****, who had just two weeks before undergone a heart procedure, chose to remain calm to not escalate the situation or his blood pressure. The staff's behavior suggested an unwillingness to take responsibility for their mistakes, so the McCalls paid the bill before they were given their key to their *** and left.
  
  Drakes response also attempted to vilify the customer by portraying ****** as demanding and argumentative. This portrayal is completely fabricated and likely an attempt to discredit her because Drakes lacked accurate records of the specific requests made by the customer. This behavior was unprofessional and demonstrated a failure to listen to and respect their customers.
  
  In conclusion, ********************************************** response is riddled with inaccuracies and attempts to shift blame onto the customer. The facts are clear: the customer did not authorize the additional work; the staff did not follow instructions; and Drakes' handling of the situation was unprofessional and unacceptable. This response serves as a formal notice that the customer seeks rectification for the issues caused by Drakes' negligence and expects an appropriate resolution.
  
  Regards,
  
  ***** and *************************

  
  
  

  Business response

  08/15/2024

  ****** was not denied a copy of the authorization form nor a copy of the estimate at any point. There is a stack of authorization forms on the front counter that is available to all customers to take with them if they need a copy of what they are signing. ****** and Mrs.*** could have requested a copy of the estimate at any point in time. As explained during lunch period he could come back at 1:00 to go over the damages and we could email a copy to him since we could not print at the moment or we could have the estimator give him a call with the quote when he came back from lunch. He chose to leave the vehicle and make arrangements over the phone. At no point in time was he denied these documents. We try to make the process as easy and convenient as possible for the customer. We are in a small town and have been in business for many years.We are not known for unethical practices but perhaps this is a learning ****** and it may be time to change some of our policies although this will cause a huge inconvenience for the customer.
  We do not do any form of communication via text messaging!!!This is policy. If there is documentation of this that can be provided then it will be addressed immediately. Our form of communication is via business phone and business email only! If there was a text sent then it was not received as this is not a form of communication. When our electricity goes out, our business lines are forwarded to ONE cell phone that is used for backup and emergencies.This phone is passed to many hands through out the day and is not monitored outside power outages. If there was a text, I can guarantee that there was not a response sent nor an acknowledgement from us that it was received as, again,this is not a form of communication. The party speaking for *** and Mrs. *** in the previous response, states that the estimator sent a text and not a phone call. I have pulled our records and attached showing there were 3 phone calls not texts. So, the statement that this was handled via text is false. Complainant still acknowledges in their response that they authorized the quote given.
  The party responding for *** and Mrs.***_ is also trying to discredit the conversations with ******. Again, not a party of the conversations that took place. Upon arrival,yes, ****** had two gentleman with him. They stayed outside the entire time. One sat in the chair that was propping the door open and the other stood up on the other side of the door. I remember this clearly because they were not visible from my desk. I did not see them until I went outside. ****** and I did a walk around the vehicle and came back inside to discuss his options to either come back at 1:00 or I would have the estimator contact him when he got back. The other gentleman stayed outside and did not partake in any events other than standing outside.
  Again, party responding for the couple in regards to the events with Mrs. ***  on the days she arrived to pickup and speaking on the interactions between all involved was not present, therefor can not speak on this. Responses are supposed to be based off of facts not opinions or heresy. In our previous response, there are documents that are provided. In this response, I have provided more documents to discredit the inaccuracies to the representatives response. The complainants have not been able to provide any documentation for their allegations through this very unfortunate situation. However, so we can get this settled and be done with the back and forth we are willing to reimburse the customer with ******. This is waiving labor and paint and materials at 100% and knocking the parts down to cost. 

  Customer response

  08/15/2024

  Complaint: 22108116
  
  I am rejecting this response because:

  It is utterly baffling that Drakes Collision Center continues to deny clear evidence and persists in misrepresenting the facts of this situation. Despite their claims, the text message exchange between ***** and your estimator ******* is well-documented, complete with timestamps, clearly showing that only the front repairs were authorized. To suggest otherwise is not only misleading but also a blatant attempt to shift blame onto the customer again.  This text exchange is attached. 
  
  Your response continually deflects responsibility by claiming that blank authorization forms were on the counter and that customers could pick one up. However, the reality is that these forms were not provided or suggested, nor was a professional written estimate given or emailed before the work was performed. Instead, what we received was a text message estimate from *******, followed by a phone call from ***** to *******, and then a text message from ***** to ******* confirming the authorized workevidence that you have conveniently chosen to ignore.
  
  Furthermore, your attempts to discredit the accuracy of our claims by stating that your business lines are forwarded to one cell phone for emergency use only do not change the fact that your own staff communicated the estimate and the authorization for the work through text message. Your denial of the existence of these messages and the significance of this communication highlights a severe lack of professionalism and accountability.
  
  The portrayal of our interaction as "opinions or heresy [sic]" is both offensive and entirely baseless. The events we have described are based on factual, documented communication, and your continued refusal to acknowledge this speaks volumes about the integrity of your business practices.
  
  Drakes Collision's continued deflection and refusal to take responsibility for their mistakes is deeply concerning. The fact remains that you performed unauthorized work, failed to provide the required documentation, and are now attempting to rewrite history to avoid liability.
  
  Furthermore, Drakes recent response no longer attempts to vilify ****** but mentions the party speaking/responding for the McCalls five times, and that this party was not present and could not speak for the McCalls and their interactions with all involved. 
  FYI, we, *** and *****************, retired English teachers, composed all correspondences with BBB ourselves. 
  
  We demand a proper resolution to this issue, including a full acknowledgment of your errors, a refund for the unauthorized work, and a commitment to improve your business practices to prevent this from happening to others in the future.  Your current offer to reimburse labor and parts at cost is a start, but it is insufficient given the extent of your mishandling of this situation.
  
  Failure to address this matter satisfactorily will result in us pursuing all available options to hold Drakes Collision accountable for their actions.
  
  Regards,
  ***** and *************************

  Business response

  08/16/2024

  As explained in the previous response, if there was text communication directly from us and could be documented then we would address it immediately. I stated this not ignored. There was not a text message exchange to our knowledge at this point. The documentation that was provided is not a text from us. That is a text transcript of a voicemail. The documentation provided clearly states that it is a voicemail. Documentation provided shows a text was sent from complainant and shows there was not a response, as said before this is not a form of communication for our staff. ******** continues to argue that all communication was through text and not a phone call. Phone log shows07/09/2024 at 1:28 a one minute call from us (this is the voicemail they are claiming is a text). At 1:32 a four minute call from Mr.___.  And another two minute call at 2:11 from Mr.___. So again, the accusation that there were no phone call conversations is false.  At the end of the day $4500.00 of repairs is what was quoted, authorized and completed.Complainant has admitted yes they authorized $4500.00. We have made an offer to settle and meet in the middle to get this over and done with despite our documentation.At no point in time were the complainants denied copies of the estimate or authorization forms. Had they asked for copies, we would have provided via email. At no point in time were the complainants denied answers to questions.Had they had more questions, then answers would have been provided. At no point in time did the complainants come back to the shop at 1:00 (or any other time) to do a walk around (which was offered the day Mr.___ came in) nor did they come in with questions or requests of documents that now they claim to be furious about not receiving. I have attached photos of both clip-boards that have stacks of authorization forms available to the customers that we were accused of lying about. When a customer authorizes repairs, we take that as they have a full understanding of what is going to be repaired. If they have further questions, we are more than happy to provide answers. The offer stands as of now but will expire. We are not going to continue to go back and forth talking in circles. We have been able to rebuttal with documentation and facts with everything that has been thrown our way. Again, we have made an attempt to meet in the middle to get this resolved so we can all move on. It is safe to say that neither side is going to agree. We have done our due diligence to budge and get to a resolution and meet in the middle. The customer has new parts on their vehicle that they have paid for and left with. We have offered to eat the cost of these repairs other than the cost (not list) of the parts they currently have on their vehicle. Note we already ate the cost to blend the fender (something that was not quoted but customer was adamant on getting this corrected).  We agreed to do this without incident to keep her happy. 

  Customer response

  08/19/2024

  Better Business Bureau:
  
  We have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to us. 
  
  Regards,
  ***** and *************************
  
  

*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. ↩