Odd repair shop situation

In reply to TRoglodyte :

I don't think they knew it was terminal at that point.

It's also all speculation since we haven't actually heard either side of the story yet. 

In reply to TRoglodyte :

They didn't think it was terminal if they let it drive off the lot. 
 

There is so much missing information here.  Why jump to conclusions without facts?  

TRoglodyte said:

In reply to Steve_Jones :

Why would the dealer sell tires and a brake job  for an engine code situation?

It sounds like they fixed the engine code issue, and the vehicle needed brakes and tires as well. My point is, YOU do not know. As a few people have posted, the cat issue could 100% be a new issue and a coincidence. Should they have let them drive on 2011 date code tires because "thats not what they came in for"?

Not a lot to go on but it sounds like a service writer doing what service writers do, searching for the edge of gullibility.

SV reX said:

In reply to TRoglodyte :

They didn't think it was terminal if they let it drive off the lot. 
 

There is so much missing information here.  Why jump to conclusions without facts?  

It probably depends on local laws, but I think the only way they can prevent a car from leaving the lot is if it is a danger to the driver, or others.  

I have seen customers demand that they be given their vehicle back, despite an obvious rod knock, and then drive off into the sunset (of course they came back later to complain about "what we did to their car")

Steve_Jones said:

Should they have let them drive on 2011 date code tires because "thats not what they came in for"?

More Devil's Advocate here.

Yes.  They should have let them drive out with those tires. If the customer doesn't authorize tires specifically, there's nothing the dealership can do.  There's also no federal standard for age of tires, so California can't (and doesn't) mandate tire ages.

That being said:

When I was a service writer, i would figure out how to work with the customers and get a plan they could work with.  But there was no legal requirement stating that I had to.

From what has been communicated to us, the shop should have communcated to the customer all of the issues with the vehicle and ordered them by priority.  If the vehicle doesn't run properly, it doesn't need new tires.  Whether they did this or not is unknown

When did the car last pass smog? It looks like smog in CA is every two years so if the car passed recently they could remove the problem cat(s) and have (up to) two years to drive the thing. This time can be used to decide if they want to fix this car or buy another one and save up the money. 

Even if there is only 1 year until smog is due on the car this would at least get them some drive time out of their $4,500 expense and let them get some miles on the car to see if there are other issues or if fixing the cat(s) would result in a seemingly solid car. 

Personally, I'd probably have reccomended against spending $4,500 in repairs on a 2011 Hyundai unless it's an especially low mileage cream puff. 

TRoglodyte said:

Not a lot to go on but it sounds like a service writer doing what service writers do, searching for the edge of gullibility.

We don't know how hard the service writer pressed the customer for those repairs. Why presume the worst in people?

Probably the safest course of action is ask a few questions to determine if it's a PZEV version of the car and mileage and help them determine if they are still might be within the CA emissions warranty.

Give them the tools to ask the right questions in case it could be a warranty repair:

In reply to Mr_Asa :

We don't know that either. There is nothing that says the customer didn't authorize the tires, or that they were coerced or pressured. 
 

They didn't spend $4500 for the original issue. They fixed the original issue and also bought tires and brakes for $4500.  That's all we know. 

In reply to SV reX :

I don't know which of my posts, or what part of them you are replying to.

In reply to Mr_Asa :

You can actually apply it to several of your posts. 
 

The suggestion was that the service writer knew the car was a terminal pig but sold the customer tires and brakes anyway.  That's false.  The dealership repaired the problem and also noticed the car needed tires and brakes, which the customer (presumably) authorized.
 

That's not inappropriate.  It's just good service.

Unfortunately, the car also needed cats.  Separate issue.

I realize it leaves the customer in a bind, and that's unfortunate.  But there is no evidence here the dealer did anything wrong.

SV reX said:

In reply to Mr_Asa :

You can actually apply it to several of your posts. 
 

The suggestion was that the service writer knew the car was a terminal pig but sold the customer tires and brakes anyway.  That's false.  The dealership repaired the problem and also noticed the car needed tires and brakes, the customer (presumably) authorized.
 

That's not inappropriate.  It's just good service.

Unfortunately, the car also needed cars. Separate issue.

I realize it leaves the customer in a bind, and that's unfortunate.  But there is no evidence here the dealer did anything wrong.

Please re-read my posts as that applies to neither of them.

I did not suggest that the service writer knew the car was only worthy of a scrapyard.  I answered a hypothetical about whether it would be possible to let the car leave in a dangerous condition, and a second question on allowing a customer to leave having "aged out" tires if they did not authorize tires.  I did not address whether the customer authorized the tires.

I never said anything about what this shop did or didn't do, I answered hypothetical questions about what is possible and what they are allowed to do, and I spoke about how a good service writer (me, when I wore that hat) would/should approach the situation.

Having cleared that up.  Obviously this wasnt good service.  The customer is unhappy.  There can be many reasons for that, and we likely will not ever know exactly why.

Based on the fact that the customer is unhappy, I can guarantee that, at a minimum, one thing wasnt done correctly.   Managing expectations. 

This is difficult, I know from your work that you deal with customers regularly. Some of them are... dumb, no other way to say it.  Some are entitled.  Some have more problems than can be discussed here.  However there is always the option of typing everything out on the work order, what options you gave the customer, and what they decided to do.  If they want to argue with that, you ask them why they signed the paperwork.

CYA is huge in service writing, if you want to last.  I always found that it was more important to be honest with the customer before engaging in CYA though:

"Sir, you have many many things wrong with this car.  We can do *insert engine work here* which is what you came in for, but in addition to that we found things you want to pay attention to.  Here's X, Y, and Z, in order of importance/urgency.  I dont care if you come back here for this, but you need to get X done within approx 3000 miles, if not sooner.  Y, is a little less urgent."

Its easier to lay everything out, write it in the notes for the vehicle, and be honest with the customer than deal with any fallout such as this.  I lost track of how many customers I saw come back and yell at my coworkers because they put their commission before the person paying that commission.  When the customer finished yelling they would usually get enough of a discount on the service they should have gotten in the first place to wipe out any commission on the ticket.

So.  Glad we could clear that up

In reply to Mr_Asa :

He never said there wasn't a written estimate.

The customer is unhappy because an ADDITIONAL problem was found AFTER the repairs were completed.

Its so easy to blame the big bad dealership, but I see no evidence they were necessarily at fault.

SV reX said:

In reply to Mr_Asa :

He never said there wasn't a written estimate.

The customer is unhappy because an ADDITIONAL problem was found AFTER the repairs were completed.

Its so easy to blame the big bad dealership, but I see no evidence they were necessarily at fault.

I never said there wasnt a written estimate? Please, read what I wrote. I took the time to write it, you could read it and process it.

Im also not blaming the big bad dealership.  I am specifically saying that whoever wrote the ticket and spoke to the customer was bad at their job.  Thats not a dealership specific issue.

We dont have enough information about the car, what was found, or any of that to say whether this was an additional problem, or one that existing but was masked.

Again, managing expectations.  "We did the work from what we found with our initial diagnostic, we need you to drive it and let us know if there were additional problems we couldn't find because of how big this one was.  Please check back in a week and if its running well we can get on those other service items"

This is basic stuff for a service writer.

TRoglodyte said:

Why suggest lipstick for a pig with a terminal illness? Whom are you servicing?

TIL that a car that needs $11,000 in repairs is "terminal".

FWIW, where I work, every vehicle gets a comprehensive inspection and all of the recommendations estimated.  It's a huge pain in the ass, but also it allows people to make an informed decision on their vehicles knowing what else it needs and what is coming.

So it's entirely normal for people to come in for a check engine light, and also get a lot of other unrelated services, because they were due or close to it and nobody had ever let them know. 

That's what I see as having happened, here.  

As someone currently in the 7th week without their 2017 Hyundai while I wait for the complimentary engine swap, the cam timing light followed by full limp mode gave me flashbacks

In reply to Mr_Asa :

I've read everything you wrote. There is not enough information to determine that the person who write the ticket was bad at their job. 
 

The cats were missed.  That's all. 
 

(and if anyone was bad at their job, it wasn't the service writer. It was the tech who inspected the vehicle to give the info to the service writer.  But there is no proof of that either)

In reply to SV reX :

Ok.

TIL that I would like a service writer like Mr. Asa

TRoglodyte said:

TIL that I would like a service writer like Mr. Asa

Thanks, man.  I hated it.  That was mostly cause the culture at PepBoys was horrible.  But I did what I could for my customers.

FWIW if they choose not to repair it, they might be able to sell it out of state where they can use much cheaper fed cats. Drive it to a dealer in Las Vegas to trade. (not sure if NV needs special cats)

TRoglodyte said:

Steve_Jones said:

I'd hammer out the cat and keep driving it.

I think they said California, normal rules may not apply

If the light stays off, does California physically check if the innards are intact? 

I don't know if you could keep a 13yo Hyundai happy with a hollow cat, but for the quoted price for the new cat I'd think about trying. 

In reply to No Time :

Physically? Doubt it.  However they should have sniffer setups to check various emissions being put out. 

Steve_Jones said:

camopaint0707 said:

Shocking, a dealership ripped people off.

Please explain how they did. You have no idea what was done for the $4500 and if there were signs of cat failure at that time.I'm curious what you base your statement on.

If there were signs of cat damage that would have actually "clogged the car" prior to service, there would have been a ton of other codes besides a cam code. If it were melted, there would have been a cat efficiency code and misfire codes. If it were clogged by oil deposits, there would have been a cat efficiency code. So if the dealer ignored those codes that were a result of previous damage, that would be a big problem. Especially in California. 
 

So since they have a lot to lose from missing that, it seems a lot more to me that their "repair" caused whatever happened to "clog the cat". 
 

And there isn't a code for "clog the cat", so how in the world did they come up with that failure?  It sounds like a total guess to me. "Limp home" sounds a lot like the ecu detected a misfire, and shut off the offending cylinders as designed. So there nothing obvious that would actually say "clogged cat". 
 

Hollowing the cat out is a bad proposal, BTW. Given the questions, it sure seems that the owners are not really capable of doing that, meaning they would have to find a shop willing to break the laws of the state to make the owner happy. Let alone the ecu would immediately detect the missing hardware.