ComplaintsforEric's RV Performance of Washington

• Initial Complaint

  07/10/2024

  Complaint Type:

  Service or Repair Issues

  Status:

  Resolved

  More info

  In January 2024 we hired ****'s RV Performance Center (ERPC) to replace two hydraulic lifters (**) which are the principle parts of the powered lift system of our 2018 ALiner Expedition model travel trailer. We approved the purchase and replacement of those **s which ERPC located from a third party (not from the ALiner, nor from an ALiner subcontractor). When fully extended the replacement **s are slightly shorter than the original **s, so ERPC had to shift the placement of the upper mount point of those **s so that the roof panels would fully extend as designed (BentLeftDetail.jpg shows bending of the rear left roof panel, and the placement of the original and 'Erics' upper mount points; BentLeftRearRoofPanel.jpg and BentRightRearRoofPanel.jpg show the left and right side rear roof panels in context of the overall trailer). It is because ERPC moved the ** mount points closer to the beginning of the rear dormer panel (lying on top of the rear roof panel in the photos) that additional stress was added to the rear roof panel which caused bending of the rear roof panel at the same location on both the right and left sides of the trailer.Unfortunately, as a result of the above servicing our trailer has incurred bending damage to the A-frame roof panels. Because the replacement **s were not designed to be installed on our trailer, their installation and use caused the bending damage to the A-frame roof panels. ERPC is responsible for this damage because we hired them to serve as specialists in RV repair. We expect that ERPC would do sufficient testing to confirm that not only did they address our need, but also that they did not do damage to our trailer. We paid ERPC $934.87 (including parts, labor and sales tax) for this repair. Although that amount does not account for the damage caused by ERPC we are requesting a full refund of $934.87 for the parts, labor and tax paid to ERPC.

  Business response

  07/11/2024

  Customers original complaint was that the roof would not lift, we found a bad control box and one of two lift motors bad. We confirmed with customer that they would like to replace both ****s/motors and keep the one good old one. We replaced ***** with new ****s, purchased from a third party vendor, with a direct replacement for customers original reico titan ****s, part # vmd3-12-20-710-ip65 and returned the good used **** to the customer. Roof opened and closed as designed with no issues before leaving our facility. Two months later, customer returned with the complaint that the roof would not open all the way without assistance. It was agreed upon between tech and customer to move the bracket over slightly to open the roof further. Roof was operating with no issues or strain on the roof or side at the time customer picked up their trailer. The customer was not charged for this service.  Upon contacting the manufacturer today, we were told that it is possible to "over close"  the roof with the actuator and since the actuator has no limit switches to stop the actuator from closing, it keeps closing and actually pulls down the section of the roof and bends, or warps the side rail, and causes the crease in the roof area. It is a very common problem with this design. 

  Customer response

  07/16/2024

   
  Complaint: 21969760
  
  I am rejecting this response because it does not address the facts that:

    1) Damage was the result of ****'s Performance RV Center (EPRVC) servicing of our travel trailer.  Such damage has diminished the value of our trailer, much less than simply address the original issue which we hired EPRVC to complete.

    2) We are not using the parts installed by EPRVC (in order to avoid further damage to our trailer) and so have not received any benefit provided by such servicing.

  For this reason we repeat our demand to be refunded the full amount of the service and repair of our trailer, $934.87.

  
  Sincerely,

  *********************************

  Business response

  08/09/2024

  Due to the fact that the customer has possession of all parts, and did not return them within the 30 day return policy, We decline their demand for a full refund. We will refund only the cost of labor/tax in the amount of $220.52. The parts involved in this are owned solely by the customer. 

  Customer response

  08/11/2024

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