Public Mediation

Getty Service Center-Dispute-#8523370

R. L. vs. Getty Service Center
381 North Avenue, New Rochelle, New York, 10801, United States
    • Status: In Negotiation
      This claim has posted for public comment and negotiation. It will remain posted until resolved to the claimant's satisfaction. Suggest a resolution to help these parties reach a settlement.
      (seeking public comment)
    • Claimant Seeks: View.
    • Claim #: 8523370
    • Amount Involved: 6,825.63
    • Filed On: Jun 21, 2012
    • Posted On: Jul 02, 2012
    • Complaint(s):
      • Bad business practices
      • Problem with a service
      • Overcharge or billing error
  • Review this case.
  • Propose your solution.
  • Win the reward (1,000)
Statement of Claim
Claimant says:
"Our problems are with the Getty Service Center, at 381 North Avenue, New Rochelle, for which Nasren Sons Inc. is responsible (hereinafter "the Center"). The Center is the closest service station to where we live, which made it convenient for us to go there . On three occasions, which were in January 2012, May and June, we went to the Center for relatively minor work to be done to our car, a Subaru Forester, 2001 model, which we bought new in 2001 and have continuously owned and driven since then. On the first two occasions, the managers of the Center found problems that went well beyond the reasons for which we had brought our car to them and that we had no reason whatsoever to expect . Moreover on the last two occasions they made statements, representations and claims that appeared to be in bad faith or even fraudulent.
(1) On the first occasion, in January 2012, our problem was only a flat tire. They replaced it, but also insisted that we needed new front and rear struts. We said that we knew a mechanic we trusted, had been working for us a long time and was no more than three miles away who could do the job. They insisted, however, that it would be dangerous to drive the car that far and thus browbeat us into letting them replace the struts.
(2) The purpose of our second visit to the Center, in May 2012, was just to have an oil change done. They did it for $25, which we paid cash. While they were doing it, they pointed out to us that the check engine indicator was on. But we strongly insisted that we did not want this to be fixed at the time since the check engine light on the dash board had, about once every week, been alternating between on and off for quite some time and we had been told that this should not cause us to worry. We added that we needed to go home to attend to an urgent matter. Although insisting that the behavior of the check engine light was bad because it impaired fuel efficiency and would make the car fail the annual inspection, for which reason a computer diagnosis was required. They finally agreed with us not to do anything about the matter and, having finished the oil change, gave our car back to us about 20 minutes after our arrival at the Center. At that point, upon Mrs. Lavalle turning on the engine in order for us to leave, the car started to shudder very violently. Since it seemed most imprudent to drive the car in that condition, we were forced to leave it at the Center for the repairs they considered necessary to correct the situation. Since, when we came to the Center for the oil change, the car was working perfectly well, we cannot but suspect that the people at the Center underhandedly took advantage of our absence to tamper with the car to make it shudder. After they had finished the repairs they considered necessary , the car no longer shuddered and we were able to drive away on it normally . But we had been set back by $1,626.63, i.e. the cost of the work they did to eliminate the shuddering. This , according to their invoice, involved work on the canister, the canister valve, purging the valve, and work on the water pump and the timing belt, even though it was only for an oil change that we had gone to the Center. Since it appears to be too much of a coincidence that the car started to shudder immediately after the oil change, it bears repeating that, as anybody else would, we suspect that the shuddering was the result of the Center’s deliberately and fraudulently tampering with the car.
(3) Less than a month later, (June 14, 2012) sometime after we had picked up the car, on the engine being turned on the car made tremendous noise and when it was in motion, at a very low speed, it again made loud noises and shook, particularly when turning. When without delay we took the car back to the Center, they said oil was leaking from below, so the car's belly had to be dismantled to see what was wrong. When we came back the next day, they said the transmission was broken. Thereupon they proposed three alternatives, namely (1) to get us a brand new transmission, for $5,000, plus labor, (2) to get us a used transmission with 60,000 miles on it for $3,200, plus labor, or (3) to get us a used transmission with 100,000 miles on it for $2,500, plus labor. We opted for the first alternative, since we doubted that a used transmission would be trustworthy. Shortly thereafter they told us that the new transmission, which they had said would come from Pennsylvania, was already on its way. They added that they did not know whether the old, broken, transmission had any value and that they were under a legal obligation to return it to the provider of the new transmission in Pennsylvania. This appeared strange to us, since the old transmission, whether it had any value or not, was our property. Moreover they did not provide us with proper evidence that the transmission they installed, supposedly sent from Pennsylvania, was new. They showed us neither the broken transmission nor the new one. Thus, when, after the alleged installation of the new transmission, we came to have a look at the car the following day, we found it on the ground and they did not want to show us its belly. They stated that our old transmission had already been sent to Pennsylvania!! After its return to us, the car, although allegedly fitted with a new transmission, occasionally makes some noise when in motion or even when the engine is turned on. Moreover, even though the Center had assured us that the check engine indicator would not come on again, it has done so. It lasted only for one month. They have offered to have a look at the car. But we do not trust them, so we have not shown it to them. Attached please find the three bills relating to the above-described jobs that the Center has done for us. All in all since January of this year, we have paid $8,236.51 to the Center, for work that may have been unnecessary or has not been done."
Reply Have a similar problem?
Exhibits View
What Claimant Wants Hide
1. Recovery of Losses: emission related replacements done on 5/24/2012 Jul 31, 2012 $1,625.63
2. Recovery of Losses: replacement to a new transmission and the labor Jul 31, 2012 $5,200.00
3. Other – Pay for claim posting cost Jul 31, 2012 $7.95
4. Other – Physical delivery charges Jul 31, 2012 $2.99
Cash total : $6,836.57
  • 0
Do you agree with the claimant’s demands?  (If you are a party to this claim, click here.)

Respondent's Counteroffer


There has been no response to this claim from Getty Service Center. This claim will remain posted until resolved
Refresh
  • Show:
  • Sort by:
  • Comment: by Jennifer Sheehy — Online mediator
  • On: 07-04-2012
  • In terms of your first claim, in regards to the struts, you always have the right to take your car wherever you prefer for maintenance and repairs. In that same thought, a mechanic shop will obviously try to compete for your business. While you may have brought in your car for something routine, a mechanic will check the vehicle to make sure it is in good working condition and road safe. In regards to your claim about the transmission and after researching your claim and asked some questions of more mechanically inclined people than myself, I was informed that this is indeed standard practice for replacement of transmissions, which is then used for a core exchange. Unfortunately, cars wear down over time, and preventative maintenance is obviously necessary to keep a car in working condition over more than a decade. In this situation, while the car repairs were a large expense, it sounds as if they were necessary and needed to allow the car to continue in working condition.
Get fast access to our Resolver community, for...
  • help with a PeopleClaim or any other complaint
  • assistance with a purchase or contract
  • expert advice
Other PeopleClaim resolvers
Get Free alerts when claims post in your area.
Get Alert

Need help resolving a dispute? Learn more.

Public Mediation

The shortest path from your problem to its resolution.
1
Peer to Peer

Engage the other party and use powerful tools to negotiate the best resolution.

Free
If Unresolved
2
Community Resolution

Post your case online and get help from legal professionals, industry experts, consumers & advocates competing to find the best resolution to your claim.

$14.99 + optional reward for best resolution
Full refund if not resolved to your satisfaction
If Unresolved
3
Private Mediation

Lets you mediate your case privately with the help of our professional mediators and industry experts.

Free to claimant. Mediator fees negotiable.
If Unresolved
4
Engage a Professional

Find the best community-reviewed professionals near you to resolve your issue in private online mediation or traditional court/mediation.

Resolution

A wonderful serenity has taken possession of my entire soul, like these sweet mornings of spring which I enjoy with my whole heart.

I am (not) alone, and I feel the charm of existence in this spot, which was created for the bliss of souls like mine...~ Goethe

Get a public verdict — create an online trial $50 public trial / $50 reward for successful resolution
Important: All information contained herein is the opinion of the posting parties, who are solely responsible for its content. PeopleClaim offers both free and paid services to help consumers, patients, employee, tenants, and others resolve disputes without lawyers or courts, through negotiated online settlement and public disclosure of wrongdoing or unfair treatment.
Claims against parties operating under bankruptcy protection, by law must be processed solely through the appropriate US bankruptcy court. Any claims against this party currently posted on PeopleClaim are available for purposes of public business review only and are not an attempt to collect money or recover assets subject to protections under the United States Bankruptcy Code.
*IMPORTANT: PeopleClaim is a public dispute resolution system, independent of the BBB, small claims court, or other dispute resolution services. PeopleClaim is not a law firm and does not provide legal services, opinions, or advice. PeopleClaim facilitates peer-to-peer negotiation and resolution and crowdsourced input on issues of fairness to help resolve complaints. Users should contact professional legal counsel on any matters of law or regulation regarding their claims. PeopleClaim does not review or evaluate the merits of claims submitted through its site, and users are solely responsible for all content filed in their claims.
© reserved by PeopleClaim