Complaints

The complaint text that is displayed might not represent all complaints filed with BBB. Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:10/11/2022

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  Oct 17/22 We took our 1993 Pace Arrow 33' Motorhome in to get an estimate/quote on a reseal of the roof as being first time owners notice the sides of the roof on the awning side of the unit were cracking and starting to curl. The technician went up on the roof and poked around for about 20 minutes, came down, we went into the reception area and he and the receptionist proceeded to compile a quote with 2 options. The first option recommended a new roof to the tune of $8600 and the second option was to reseal roof cut away bubbling parts reseal with eternabond supplied by me, the customer, $3600. We chose the reseal as the new roof was out of our reach at this time. We made an appointment for the work to be done the following Monday and would have to leave the unit there for 2 days. When picking up the unit, were told the bubbling hadn't been cut out too extensive - we were not notified they weren't going to perform the service as quoted AND no guarantee against damage or water intrusion because they use material I supplied and admittedly was a good product by them. They did not apply the eternabond as described they butted it up to the existing material and put a bead of something over top of the join. Did not go over the existing. I crawled up a ladder after getting the unit home and was appauled at the condition of the roof as it the side of the awning looked the same as it did when we dropped it to them. No evidence of leakage on the interior of the unit. AND still recommending a complete roof after this. There was not a big gap below the big bubble above the awning when we took it for an estimate.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 21/11/2022

  Thank you for providing us with the details of your concern.

  When your 1993 motorhome came into our shop the technician had some concerns with the condition of your RV, and particularly the roof.
  
  During the roof inspection it was noted that the roof had been repaired with materials not designed for an RV, resealing over these materials would not guarantee a proper bond, so the recommendation was to replace the roof complete.
  
  After a discussion it was decided that we would reseal in the best possible way until a decision was made to replace the roof (due to the cost and customer unable to commit to replacement at this time). The bubbles in the roof were requested to be removed and sealed over. This was discussed with the group of journeyman technicians and the decision was made to leave the bubbles as is, as it would present an opening in the roof material that would require resealing. The bubbles were not presenting any concerns for water leaking and cutting them open would not provide any value to the customer.
  
  Due to the condition of the motorhome and the limited funds available we suggested to reseal the obvious areas that would cause water damage. The motorhome has a number of issues that need to be addressed, resealing the roof was done to prevent the immediate concerns. The sidewalls of the motorhome also require work to be done but were not noted as being an immediate concern based on the severity of the other issues.
  
  Some of the pictures provided are showing the sidewall of the RV, these pictures are not of the roof reseal and were not quoted. We do recommend these areas also get sealed but were less critical than the roof and were never quoted for repair.
  
  The technician took your husband on the roof after the roof reseal, and went over the work completed and pointed out the other areas that still require resealing or repair, as you noted and provided pictures of.
  
  Your RV does require a considerable amount of resealing and repair, more than just the roof. The areas that we resealed were critical to have sealed immediately, the other areas which you are aware of should be resealed as soon as you have the funds available. Alternatively, we can advise on the proper products to purchase and you can choose to reseal yourself.
  
  If you still have concerns please reach out to the manager and arrange a time to stop by with your RV so that we can review the work that was completed.
  

  Customer Answer

  Date: 23/11/2022

  
  Complaint: 18389517
  
  I am rejecting this response because: quite a few non truths - for example - when we took our motorhome in for inspection, the technician did not make like it was in that poor a state as mentioned in the response.  He did say he wasn't sure what the product was that was used prior but did not mention resealing over that material would not guarantee a proper bond, he did say a new roof would cure all issues and last for a long time.

  We were given two options and chose the lesser of the two as the funds just weren't there but were given a written quote to have the bubbles removed and resealed that did not happen nor did anyone contact us that this would not happen as quoted/stated.  We, being first motorhome owners were not aware that providing material would void any warranty and should've been made aware of this by the "Experts".  The quote stated a scope of work would be done and it wasn't and it wasn't communicated to us that it would not be done.  If we were notified - we likely would've not gone ahead and possibly looked at another path to take.  Plus, if it would've been stated there would be no guarantee or warranty because we supplied some of the material used - that too may have changed our minds.

  Having consulted with a lawyer on this matter - I thing a Civil action may be our next step, either which way - I do not see any advantage to banter back and forth - our motorhome doesn't have any evidence of leaking on the inside of the unit, and I guess we have learned a valuable lesson from this experience with this company and hopefully our future experiences will not be as distasteful.

  My husband was not taken up on the roof after the reseal (he did climb the ladder) and it was not discussed the work that was done and it was not pointed out the other areas that still require resealing or repair.  AND why would there be more resealing to be done when we paid to have the resealing done?  I am confused now.  

  Pictures are worth 1000 words.

  
  Sincerely,
  
  ****** *******

  

  Business Response

  Date: 24/11/2022

  ******, be assured that the work performed comes with our standard warranty. Your roof has been sealed, and happy to hear there are no leaks anymore. 
  

  Please let us know what resolution you would like. 

  Customer Answer

  Date: 24/11/2022

  
  Complaint: 18389517
  
  I am rejecting this response because: there never was any leaks, no evidence on the inside of the unit - we paid to have the units roof resealed- yet you say there areas that are in need of repair and reseal. The resolution we seek is in the amount of $1000
  
  Sincerely,
  
  ****** *******

  

  Business Response

  Date: 25/11/2022

  Please make arrangements to have your RV brought to our shop so the manager can go over your concerns and find a resolution.  

  Customer Answer

  Date: 27/11/2022

  
  Complaint: 18389517
  
  I am rejecting this response because:

  The unit has been winterized and the batteries removed, etc. If the manager would like to come out here to inspect and come up with a possible resolution at a time that would be convenient for all it would be considered.

  
  
  Sincerely,
  
  ****** *******

• Initial Complaint

  Date:05/09/2022

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  Dropped off my trailer PM of 20220803 for frame repair; damage incurred in collision. At drop off, technician confirmed by observation that trailer brakes were seizing when truck brakes were activated. I agreed that this problem should also be addressed. I chose this shop based on the claim that they specialize in vintage fibre glass trailers of which there are several manufacturers/models. Their invoice identifies my unit as a Boler; it is not a Boler, it is a Surf Sider; a totally different product. Therefore their claim of product expertise is compromised from the outset. I was invoiced for the amount of $1671.69 which I paid and took possession of my trailer on 20220810. Backtracking for a moment, upon arrival at the shop I explained the frame issue. I escorted a technician to curb side to examine the problem. The process took all of two minutes, the cracked frame was confirmed and agreed that it needed to be welded. For his trouble I was charged for an hour of his time at $189. (their invoice indicates that such effort is charged in minimum 15 minute increments. Here they have taken gouging to a new level. The first indication of the misery to come was a call suggesting that something additional was needed to be done (Installation of a ground wire I believe) I don't think I truly understood at the time so I agreed that they could proceed. Advised of completion I returned to retrieve my trailer. Discussion ensued regarding the installation of a new ground wire. My contention is that I had reestablished a ground wire several years ago which has functioned flawlessly. I objected to the unnecessary work and cost which was rebutted with nonsensical explanation. As I was leaving I noticed that the left side signal and brake lights were no longer functioning; I asked the technician to confirm this, which he did. I am about to exceed space limitations on your (BBB) form and must continue this story on another page.

  

  Business Response

  Date: 15/09/2022

  First, we apologize for calling your fibreglass trailer a Boler, we understand that you own a Surf Side by Triple E. Although both trailers were made in Canada, they are completely different.
  
  The customer was charged 1 hour labour as quoted for the frame inspection. The 1 hour consists of time going over the issue with the customer (as he noted), as well as, prepping the frame to be welded, and painting once complete.
  
  When the customer arrived, it was noted that his brakes were locking up, the customer agreed to have us inspect this issue along with the original issue of having a cracked frame.
  
  The trailer was lifted up and it was noted that that electric brakes were seized even when power was not placed to the brakes, this indicates a mechanical issue and unrelated to an electrical issue. As this was the immediate problem, the brake backing plates were replaced and wheels were able to spin freely.
  
  The second part of a brake test is to make sure the system works under power and connected to the tow vehicle, when power was applied to the new brakes they were found to be non-functioning. The customer was called to inform him of a secondary issue related to the brakes power system. The customer authorized time to diagnose the issue.
  
  Two issues were found during the electric brake inspection.

  
  1.  The main issue being that there was no grounding for the brakes. The original ground wires for the brakes were rusted, and not providing a proper ground to the frame.

  
  2.  The second issue was that the passenger side and drivers side wiring had no continuity, which typically indicates a broken or pinched wire. During the electrical inspection, we had found that the customer had soldered a wire to a bolt going through the fibreglass body to act as a ground wire at the front of the unit, in the same area where the frame was cracked. The cracked frame is suspected to have caused the frame to flex away from the body, and most likely broke or made for poor contact between the bolt and frame. The brakes were likely working intermittently as the trailer was traveling down the road but would lose contact when the cracked frame flexed.
  
  At this point the customer had been contacted at each step with authorization being given to continue the work necessary to get his trailer road worthy again.
  
  When the customer arrived to pick up his trailer it was noted that his left rear light was not functioning. Trailer lights are directly controlled by the tow vehicle and the customer was asked if he would like us to look at his vehicle and he declined.
  
  Authorization was requested and given by the customer at each stage, the customer’s bill reflects the amount that was authorized by him.

  Customer Answer

  Date: 19/09/2022

  
  ********** ********
  
  I am rejecting this response because: As I have previously related, the original complaint provided only part of the story due to space limitations in your system.  I attempted to continue the complaint in another iteration but that was rejected.  I have since provided to you a consolidation of the events to date.  I assume that was received by you although no confirmation to that effect has been received.  The response from RVMobile addresses only the initial complaint and not the more serious issues that I have since related to you.  For the most part I do not agree with their response, however, I do have an appointment with another trailer repair shop and their actions and observations will inform my further actions.  I do have one question for you.  In your experience have you had the occasion to determine if, and if so, which, Alberta provincial department or agency has the jurisdiction to address matters of incompetence and unethical business practices.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  ***** ******

  

  Business Response

  Date: 19/09/2022

  Thank you for your further explanation.

  To eliminate any confusion that may occur through email, I would propose you bring your trailer back so that the ******* ******* can review the items you are concerned with. 

  We have a very honest and competent team and I have not doubt that their message to you has been accurate, that being said it would be beneficial to have you explain your concerns in person. 

  For the sake of the response on ***, we stand behind the work we perform and if a mistake was made on our part we would like to make sure our work is done correctly. Based on what you have stated I don't have any concerns with what you were charged or the work performed on your unit. If you would like to bring the unit in so that we can go over your concerns in person, I feel that would be the most productive.

  To address your 8 summary points, see notes below:

  In summary:
  1.     Extreme gouging re. Diagnosing cracked frame. (RVM - charges explained in previous response, 1 hour labour charged)

  
  2.     Installation of superflous ground wire. (RVM - existing ground wire was insufficient and secured where your frame was cracked. This was a critical item and not superfluous)

  
  3.     Damage to junction box. (RVM - this damage was noted while the technician was working on your unit, damage was existing)

  4.     The question of how they could have determined the braking system required replacement. (RVM - your trailer has electric brakes, these brakes were seized when inspected and would not have been functioning. You were provided with the old parts)

  
  5.     The brakes are still not working. (RVM - Trailer brakes were function tested and working when the trailer was picked up, please confirm the issue is not with your vehicle)

  
  6.     The destruction of the power supply cable. (RVM - Power supply cable was not worked on by our technicians)

  
  7.     The attempt to conceal the damage and not reveal the damage. (RVM - please come by the shop and show the ******* ******* the damage you feel was concealed)

  
  8.     Outstanding assessment and repair of brake system. (RVM - tow vehicle will need to be checked as the trailer brakes were functioning when it left the shop)

   

  Please return to the shop and address issues with the ******* ******* so that we can get this resolved. 

  Thank you.

   

  Customer Answer

  Date: 22/09/2022

  
  ********** ********
  
  I am rejecting this response because:  The respondent expects me to drive my unsafe (non-functional trailer brakes) trailer to their shop which would mean travelling for something close to an hour over high density traffic on the AH freeway and or busy city streets, posing a danger to myself and other drivers.  Clearly their response does not take my issues seriously and, so far, all indications are that they will continue to try to cover their collective butts.  Dismissing out of hand the issue of the damaged power cable is just one example.  As indicated earlier, I have an appointment with a trailer service shop to fix the non-functioning brakes and to evaluate the effectiveness of the existing ground installation.  Their conclusions will inform my further actions.  Attached is a photo of the damaged power cable which I clearly explained in an earlier message.  

  Thank you for your assistance.  
  
  Sincerely,
  
  ***** ******