[Vanthios]

Originally Posted by 5senna5

Maybe start a civil case based on annoyingly-overly-obsessive-self-centered-performance-car-enthusiast discrimination.

lmao

[Need4Camaro]

Yeah, dude sorry but you really made this situation much harder than it had to be by going off like this for such a simple and even willing repair. I mean jesus dude did you have to go off on them for RUSHING your car to the body shop to repair it at NO charge to yourself?

Good luck now man....now you're going to have to pay a deductible, report it on carfax, and still fight to obtain diminished value... you shot yourself in the foot here.

[Vanthios]

Originally Posted by Mov Ov3r

I hate to agree with this but this is now what it has come to. I can understand the frustration but you should have cooled down and really thought through these conversations. The dealer was going to make it right. If you had ANY problems with the repairs, the interpretation I got from your convo with the GM was they would be willing to service the vehicle until it was fixed correctly. Now as an insurance job they will fix it, but not necessarily to your satisfaction. GL OP

You know, there seems to be a misunderstanding about my temper during the conversation with the general manager and service lane manager. At no point was I above normal speaking volume. I also thought through the conversation many times over the three day weekend, and the CarFax thing was a legitimate question, not some trap laid to ultimately make a snide attack at the general manager's integrity.

[Need4Camaro]

Originally Posted by Vanthios

You know, there seems to be a misunderstanding about my temper during the conversation with the general manager and service lane manager. At no point was I above normal speaking volume. I also thought through the conversation many times over the three day weekend, and the CarFax thing was a legitimate question, not some trap laid to ultimately make a snide attack at the general manager's integrity.

You're still missing the point, you were far too demanding in a matter where the dealer really WAS trying to make things right. You just tried to push your way too much
and tried to be too in control of the situation where as the dealer already told you they have a process for these events. You got what you wanted, if you want it your way then you have to go through the insurance company.

[Silveradoss573]

OP now be the time to just get walk away from the car altogether. You've stated you're not happy with the transmission and now this cluster (you know). Save your money verses hiring a lawyer and just trade it in or sell it and be done. Nothing from this point forward do I see you being 100% happy with the car. Fyi I wouldn't disclose anything unless selling to a private individual. Good luck

[Emoto]

I have to side with the car owner to some extent. The shop should NOT have initiated any work (including a repair) that was not specifically authorized by the car owner. If someone damages my car, they do not have any right to do anything to it that I have not authorized, regardless of how good their intentions may be.

[5senna5]

Originally Posted by Emoto

I have to side with the car owner to some extent. The shop should NOT have initiated any work (including a repair) that was not specifically authorized by the car owner. If someone damages my car, they do not have any right to do anything to it that I have not authorized, regardless of how good their intentions may be.

Possession is more than 9/10ths here. Leaving the car with the dealership to resolve the issue they created, de-facto authorizes them to attempt to resolve said issue. If he didn’t want them touching the car he needed to specify this explicitly, and or shouldn’t have left it in their possession. Fixing his car promptly was the priority, clearly they were unaware of how obstructionist and demanding he’d be. They have no interest in creating more headaches than he’s giving them already.

[Emoto]

Originally Posted by 5senna5

Possession is more than 9/10ths here. Leaving the car with the dealership to resolve the issue they created, de-facto authorizes them to attempt to resolve said issue. If he didn’t want them touching the car he needed to specify this explicitly, and or shouldn’t have left it in their possession. Fixing his car promptly was the priority, clearly they were unaware of how obstructionist and demanding he’d be. They have no interest in creating more headaches than he’s giving them already.

I couldn't disagree more.

[5senna5]

Originally Posted by Emoto

I couldn't disagree more.

Assumed based on your previous post. I can certainly respect a dissenting opinion.

[Emoto]

Originally Posted by 5senna5

Assumed based on your previous post. I can certainly respect a dissenting opinion.

[Mov Ov3r]

Originally Posted by 5senna5

Possession is more than 9/10ths here. Leaving the car with the dealership to resolve the issue they created, de-facto authorizes them to attempt to resolve said issue. If he didn’t want them touching the car he needed to specify this explicitly, and or shouldn’t have left it in their possession. Fixing his car promptly was the priority, clearly they were unaware of how obstructionist and demanding he’d be. They have no interest in creating more headaches than he’s giving them already.

I typically agree in this scenario. The car was damaged by them, once made aware, the car is still in their possession. They are more than likely going to send it to the body shop to get fixed. An estimate would only be needed for insurance purposes, the dealer skipped this step because they were footing the bill. I believe the OP did verbally state he told them he wanted an estimate only which could have gotten lost in translation.

[5senna5]

What’s almost funny here is that the “cahoots” relationship he was suspicious of is based on mutual benefit due to commerce between the two. The body shop has no problem pulling occasional favors for the dealer like fixing a car without paint or body panels (for free) when and where talent allows. This looks quite possibly to be what was going on here. If the results weren’t acceptable then no harm no foul. If the car is fixed with no paint work at all then this is absolutely the best case, for EVERYONE. Demanding it go to another body shop who will seize on the opportunity to pillage as much (paint and body work) as possible, all the while agreeing with OP that the car is “destroyed” may soothe his sense of self-righteous injustice, but does more harm to his car, and it’s value, than help.

[Wyzz Kydd]

Originally Posted by 5senna5

Possession is more than 9/10ths here. Leaving the car with the dealership to resolve the issue they created, de-facto authorizes them to attempt to resolve said issue. If he didn’t want them touching the car he needed to specify this explicitly, and or shouldn’t have left it in their possession. Fixing his car promptly was the priority, clearly they were unaware of how obstructionist and demanding he’d be. They have no interest in creating more headaches than he’s giving them already.

I'm sorry, but that's not correct. Leaving the car with them doesn't 'de-facto' do anything. I've had body work done a few times and they always get you to sign a document which states exactly what you're authorizing them to do.

I get where some of you are coming from. They accidentally screwed his car up, these things happen, I would be upset too, but accidents happen. HOWEVER, they let him drive out with visible damage. Clearly someone was hoping to dodge responsibility. That someone should be fired.

That's where I would be coming from. Fix my car, for free. Give me a similar loaner (not an SUV or some crappy sedan, a Camaro SS just like what I was driving) for free, fire the person who screwed up my car. Then I would let it go.

[Vanthios]

Originally Posted by Mov Ov3r

I believe the OP did verbally state he told them he wanted an estimate only which could have gotten lost in translation.

This is true. Friday when I brought it back, in the few minutes I spoke with the service lane manager before he left, I stated that the first step in resolving this would be to get an estimate on how much it would cost to fix.

I'm not entirely sure it was lost in translation, though. See the text message from my update post. My service adviser informed me the vehicle was being taken to a local body shop for an estimate. I didn't authorize the estimate at their chosen body shop, but I didn't interject (when I got the message) either. The product of the meeting I had was an agreement to have a second opinion from a shop of my choosing before proceeding with the repair. I'm just trying to look out for myself; the dealership's certainly looking for the quick, cheap fix. My issue with any of this is when I found that repairs had been done when I was told only estimates would be done.