Public Mediation

My Claim vs. Land Rover North Haven, CT

J. B. vs. Land Rover North Haven, Ct
525 Washington Ave, North Haven, Connecticut, 06473-1312, United States
Amount Involved: Other terms
    • 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.
    • View response from: Land Rover North Haven, Ct
    • Claimant Seeks: 3 non-monetary items.
    • Claim #: 7130507
    • Amount Involved: N/A
    • Filed On: Dec 30, 2018
    • Posted On: Jan 10, 2019
    • Complaint(s):
      • Problem with a service
      • Bad business practices
      • Other
  • Review this case.
  • Propose your solution.
  • Win the reward (1,000)
Statement of Claim
Claimant says:
"On August  19, 2018, I picked up by 2010 Rangerover from Landrover of Guildford service department. Manager in charge is Kathleen Infante and Executive director of dealership Jim Aiken. Prior to this present complaint, I have had an issue that people claim assisted to me resolve with Landrover of which a new Engine was placed into 2010 Landrover without cost to me.

Landrover was guilty of malicious intent to defraud this customer. Approximately one week after picking up the vehicle I was still haunted by the sounds coming from the engine and it just did not feel the same driving it. I remember after the second time returning the vehicle i spoke with the service manager Kathleen Infante and informed her that I was a concern with the safety of the vehicle but I could not identify the source. I backed out of my driveway and the vehicle slowed and would not move and oncoming traffic had to slow until I could put the vehicle and park then in drive to get it to move.  I cautiously drove the vehicle to  work about 8-10 miles daily to commute back home. I still continue to be cautious with driving the vehicle so I called Ranger Rover and Booked an appointment of December 21, 2018, to have the vehicle re-evaluated, Due to a breakdown in communication Landrover Guildford Cancelled the appointment and made it clear in an E-mail communication " Stated clearly by Mrs Infancte ". On October 4, 8 and 16, 2018 I captured the dash giving me the information spoken to Mrs. Infante on the phone and communicated the information in words and Mrs Infancte states I don't know what this is, so instead of attempting to tell what was going on, I decided to capture the concerns  and Sent an E-mail on October 19th 2018 to Kathleen Infancte and to the Consumer protection. I continue to communicate with Kathleen via phone and email for a few hours. Kathleen continues to say she did not receive the E-mail.

Consumer protection contacted me within an hour acknowledging they receive the email and inquired what the situation was, Yet Mrs. Infante continues to deny receiving the E-mail. I have recently sent much communication to Kathleen Infancte with the same Email address of which she receives them all. I will include a copy of the video with this communication. Landrover had decided they want nothing to do with the vehicle as you will see in an e-mail sent to me by Mrs. Infante. Landrover has the vehicle in their possession In February 2018, March 2018, April 2018, May 2018, June 2018, July 2018, August 2018 at which they continue to deny responsibility for the blown engine which she attempted to return to the customer.

This is retaliation at its finest, I am not a lawyer, but I believe this is an illegal practice. I continue to take the advice of Mrs. Infante and continue to commute to work daily. On November 21, 2018, at approximately 6:55 am I was driving on to exit 38 in Winsor and was involved in an incident at which after turning on to the ramp the 2010 Range Rover suddenly become inoperable and a smell of smoke and was unable to more. I scream fearing for my life and at this time watching to see if oncoming traffic would come around the corner hitting the vehicle from the back. I quickly got out of the vehicle and ran over the embankment while calling 911 for help. 911 operator asks if I was in a safe environment, "I stated No" someone could run into the vehicle at any moment and the 911 operator requested that I get back into the vehicle and informed me help was on the way. I continue to hope and prayed that oncoming traffic will see me before plowing into the back of the vehicle. In approximately 5-10 minute I saw a large DOT truck that blocked traffic and renders assistance to me. The DOT drivers informed me they were sent by 911 to help me right away. The DOT drivers informed me that the vehicle had to move immediately, I contacted triple-A immediately and the DOT drivers encouraged me to continue to attempt to move the vehicle because the scene was unsafe.  However, sometimes has passed and I was able to place the vehicle in drive got it to a safe location to get help. I had the vehicle towed to PEP boys in West Hartford who diagnose it as bilateral axle failure. I contacted Mr. Infante who informed me that this was a repaired or replaced by Land Rover Guildford. I asked about appointment asap, Mrs Infante informed me that I can have the vehicle repaired where ever I prefer and it did not affect the one year warranty, this was a concern to me because through experience repair shops had a history of denying claim of responsibility if anyone else touched the vehicle, she would not book me for an appointment.

I had the vehicle transferred to Efficient Auto for repair of which they replaced both Axle.  Efficient auto informed me on the 29th of November, that it was not the axle that was the issue, it was the differential. I inquired more about what has happened. I informed him of the history on the vehicle within the past couple of months and he stated to me that the Landrover is responsible for the repairs because they would not have been able to replace the engine without removing the differentials. I place several phone call to Mrs. Infante of which I lost a couple of days due to their service relocation. I left Mrs. Infante at least two messages and which there was not return calls. I finally sent her an e-mail informing her of the situation and she acknowledges the e-mail and stated she will look into the matter and get back to me at which I would be still waiting if I did not follow up with her.

Efficient Auto informed me that there was no oil in the differential and it had to be the Landrover that did not replace the oil. Mrs. Infante denied her technician touching the differential, however, in the detail receipt they provided me, it showed clearly that her technician removed the differential and fail to replace the oil. I stated the obvious to Mrs. Infante and she stated to me "The technician should not have done that, that is not Range Rover policy and she did not mean to mislead me when she stated that never touched the differential. Mrs Infanted baited me by requesting on letterhead from Efficient Auto as to how they arrived at this conclusion. The letter was provided to Mrs. Infante.  Mrs. Infancte switched her statement by saying when she told me to take the vehicle where ever I wanted she meant another Range Rover dealership. 

This begs the question why did LandRover Guildford refuse to look at the vehicle and diagnose it but now Mrs. Infante would like for everyone to believe she meant another Range Rover service department.  I reminded her I have scheduled an appointment via email of which she clearly states do no bring the vehicle here, it will not be accepted and diagnoses. Here is the question, did Mrs. Infante also void the warranty on the engine all together per their own policy. My life does matter, I have a family that I love, I have an Autistic little boy that need his mom.

Retaliation is a crime and this should not happen to me again.  I am questioning descrimination at this time based on Race. "
Reply Have a similar problem?
Exhibits View
Additional Communication Between Claimant and Land Rover North Haven, Ct Hide
  • Jan 04, 2019, Claiming party added:
  • Copy of detail itemize receipts from landrover showing they remove differential and failed to replace oil in it prior to delivery to customer of which they denied until it was broght to their attention following the life threatening incident with the vehicle. Warning lights video to follow.

  • Jan 10, 2019, Claiming party added:
  • copy of G-mail sent to Mrs. Infante, communicaition begin in Septemer and continue thoughout. Mrs Infance states she does not want the vehicle and will offer detere me from maiking an appointment. Mrs. Infante Perez also states they do not accept third party insurance except land Rover extended warranty only. I am unsur this is the thrught. THe G-mail breakdown shill demonstate to you the multiple email conversation with Mrs. Infance, this does not include verbal conversation. Mrs Infante is lying about the situation. I have continuously speak or email kathleen, however she refuse to have me schedule an appointment. As you can see by this e-mail i am uploading this will shows dated back to September 16th for notification sent to consumer protection as well as Mrs Infance. State receive all email, MrS infante denies receipt of the email, some one need to check and supeona her email and the thruth will be found. Mrs. Infance want this writer to go away and not to mention any problem wit the vehicles at which she states Landrover has spent 28,000.+. They did notice the codes on the dash if they drove the vehicle 500miles before returning it to me. I notice approximately 2 week after and continue to communiate via phone and email regarding safety. Mrs Infante was verbally told the reading on the dash during a conversation with me and still did not want to make an appointment, at all cost she did not welcome any repair on the vehicle not even to re-assess the situation. I did ask due to the safety of the vehicle and she turned a blind eye. I believe after my explanation to kathy about the code I was looking at during getting out of the driveway and stuck in oncoming car and unable to move on occation and also concerns for my personal safety. I am currently uploading the G-mail communication on the sent tab and whom ever is ready this please take a look at the date of communication and the orange dots are the video portion sent to Mrs Infante. Remember State of CT consumer protection received the videos and called the same day and kathy continue to deny receiving. Kathy cat and mouse game, I am sure the plan was not to acknowlede the receipt of the video so we are not accountable. I am uploading presenty GT mail copy of sent mail and the video pic kathleen infante may not want anyone to see. I suspect she knew what it meant and still put my life at risk to obsolve themselves of any responsibility. Kathy did say to take the vehicle to any shop to repair and it wont affect the warranty, i am currently working on the transcript of the phone all.

  • Jan 10, 2019, Claiming party added:
  • Another copy of email to show communication with Kathy in emails and not counting the countless conversations.

  • Jan 10, 2019, Claiming party added:
  • Here is the video pic that I captures many times and sent to Kathleen Infante via email and consumer protection. Consumer protection receive video with email approx 8 times and called me back say day. I was on the phone back and forth the Mrs Infante who claims she did not receive the email. This a code the vehicle displayed to me. I attempted several times to communicage my concerns with Mrs Infante, She stonewall me and would not book an appointment for the evaluaiton of the car. I have six video of occurance and pleaded with Mrs Infante to assess the vechile and she would not. Kathleen Infante has determine not to honor the warranty on the vehicle and e-mail to follow of the harsh and disrespectfjul behavior. This was clearly retaliation for the previous incident. Landrover has decided they did not want to fix the vehicle by any mean necessary even if it mean loss of life and put the customer safety at risk. More video of the car codes to follow

  • Jan 11, 2019, Claiming party added:
  • Attaching audio

What Claimant Wants Hide
Non-Cash
What By When How Much
1. Repair: REPAIR AND REPLACE THE PART Jan 14, 2019 N/A
2. Replace: DEFECTIVE PARTS AND MAINTAIN PER POLICY WANNANTY Jan 14, 2019 N/A
3. Apology: RETALIATION Jan 14, 2019 N/A
Cash
1. Other – Copy claim to regulators Jan 14, 2019 $14.99
2. Other – Pay for claim posting cost Jan 14, 2019 $14.99
Just make me happy!
Claimant invites Land Rover North Haven, CT to make a fair offer to resolve this complaint.
Cash total : $29.98
Non-cash: 3 items
  • 0
Do you agree with the claimant’s demands?  (If you are a party to this claim, click here.)
Respondent's Counteroffer Hide
The claimant's settlement terms were rejected with the following explanation:
  • I disagree with the explanation / grounds provided

    "Judith Burchell brought her vehicle to be serviced for a noise from the engine. During the time her vehicle was being repaired her extended warranty expired. When it was determined that the engine needed replacement, Land Rover North America agreed to cover the repair as a form of Goodwill consideration. The cost of parts and labor was $28,000. Ms. Burchell was not asked to pay anything toward the repair. The vehicle was road tested for 500 miles prior to returning it to Ms. Burchell. The extensive road test was performed to be sure there were no issues with the vehicle and to insure she would be happy with it when she got it back.

    When Ms. Burchell called 3 months later to say the vehicle had "broken down" she could not clearly explain what had happened. During one conversation she said "the engine fell out on the street". It is now clear that was not an accurate statement. She said she had it towed to Pep Boys and then subsequently to an independent garage. After several attempts to contact the garage it was stated that "the axles were shot". In an effort to understand the cause of failure, a written statement was requested from the repair shop. Ms. Burchell was insistent that the failure was related to the engine repair. In their statement the independent shop claimed that they had "replaced axles" and after road testing the vehicle heard a noise from the front differential. They claimed the front differential had been "left empty" of fluid at the time of the engine replacement.

    Ms. Burchell insisted that the vehicle be towed to Land Rover North Haven. She was told that Land Rover North Haven would not be participating in any further repairs on the vehicle for the following reasons:
    1) The vehicle was driven for 500 miles before it was returned to Ms. Burchell. If the front differential had been empty it certainly would have presented as an issue during that time.
    2) A shop other than Land Rover North Haven installed axles. They could have left the differential fluid empty, used the wrong fluid, or used the wrong axles.
    Due to the fact that Land Rover North Haven was not the last shop to touch the vehicle, and two other shops worked on the vehicle in the exact area that they are claiming is the problem, Land Rover North Haven is not accepting liability in any way."

This claim will remain posted until resolved.

  • 0
Do you agree with the respondent’s Response?  (If you are a party to this claim, click here.)
Refresh
  • Show:
  • Sort by:
  • 1
  • Contributed Solution: by George Maxwell On 01-14-2019
    Claimant needs a good timeline including mileage, and a good independent master mechanic experienced with Land Rovers. More...
If you are a party to this claim, click here.
Is this a fair resolution?
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