shop, and the customer should have called before letting anyone else work on it and assuming that they’d cover the bill.
13. The customer’s reply was that the first unit never worked right and the problem simply took a long time to show up. He said that he thought the shop should pay the much higher price the out-of-state shop charged, but he just wanted a refund for the first repair plus an extra $500 for his inconvenience, added delay, and added expense during his trip.
14. The shop contended that they acted in good faith, they could never duplicate the problem, the customer got what he authorized, and for the customer’s benefit, they even did a complimentary fluid and filter change just before it went out of warranty as an added precaution. They also stat- ed that, by installing a remanufac- tured transmission, the core and any other evidence was no longer available for evaluation.
15. The dispute escalated and ended up in arbitration. Neither party was willing to bend on their positions. The customer want- ed a refund plus damages; the shop wanted the case dismissed because it was out of warranty and, in any event, it was a local warranty.
Three Questions Here are three questions for you to
consider before I reveal the arbitrated decision. 1. Is there anything the shop should have done differently from the beginning?
2. Do you think the shop should have done something differently when the customer came back reporting the shift delay while still under warranty?
3. Do you think the shop should have done something to resolve this dispute without arbitration? If so, what do you think they should have done?
The consensus was that the shop didn’t fix the
cause of the problem and should have given more serious consideration to the customer’s concern
when he returned for his two-week recheck.
Forum Feedback Here’s what the What’s Working
forum feedback was on these questions. With respect to question #1, there
was little disagreement among the What’s Working forum participants: • The consensus was that the shop didn’t fix the cause of the prob- lem and should have given more serious consideration to the cus- tomer’s concern when he returned for his two-week recheck.
• There were also a number of comments regarding the offer to upgrade the warranty if the cus- tomer authorized new u-joints and
The best import tensioner program just got even better!
Since 1977, INA has been the trusted partner and supplier to vehicle manufacturers worldwide, producing over 50 million tensioners annually.
From Acura to Volvo, INA belt tensioners cover the most extensive range of European vehicles and a wide range of U.S. domestic applications. Our expanding coverage of Asian applications reinforces our commitment to providing a growing line of high quality products to the import specialist market.
Insist on INA. Uncompromising quality from a name you can trust.
5370 Wegman Drive Valley City, OH 44280 Phone 800 274 5001 Fax 330 273 3522
www.Schaeffler-Aftermarket.us
Certified to ISO 9001:2008
GEARS August 2012
33
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68