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:15/11/2022

  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.

  ******* Car had a minor fault (white on the dash) for limited pre-sense and ACC failure. No other major faults were present or logged.- Body shop connected Audi Royal Oak on 2022-OCT-26 and was told the earliest appointment was 2022-NOV-07. Car was driven for 300+KM in this state.- 2022-NOV-07 (AM): Car was delivered to Audi Royal Oak and were told it would take up to 3-hours to perform.- 2022-NOV-10 (PM): Body shop was told they were unable to calibrate due to a seized right front level sensor and were provided a quote for $537 + GST for the repair. I received the same message when I called the dealership.- 2022-NOV-11 (9:39AM): We call to authorize the $537+GST repair of the faulty sensor. The ** indicates they needed to order the parts with install on 2022-NOV-18. They refused to release the car, but assured if we paid for this part, all warnings on the dash would disappear. We indicated that we would be claiming the vehicle and returning for the repair.- 2022-NOV-11 (11:36AM): Body shop billed for radar calibration which we both were told could not be completed.- 2022-NOV-11 (1:00PM): Within 2-blocks of the dealership a suspension malfunction indication on the dash. Observed that the right front level sensor connecting arm was undamaged but disconnected from the sensor which was NOT seized. Connected arm, and no further faults.Returned home and scanned the car modules. Found:- *****km car was delivered to Audi Royal Oak - *****km 2022-11-10 10:21:50AM first instance of a Right front level control sensor malfunction - Left (module 8B) and right (module 13) both were successfully calibrated 2022-11-10.To be clear: The fault was logged AFTER the car was in Audi Royal Oaks possession, and the calibration was completed even though the body shop and ourselves were told it was impossible with that logged fault.I am curious of where this level of ********** business practice stems from at Audi Royal Oak. Is the ** aware?

  Business Response

  Date: 16/11/2022

  Vehicle was brought in from ******* auto. Requested calibrations were completed. It was noted that level sensor was seized and broken. Pictures were supplied to the vehicle owner (********).

  Pertinent Active / Static Fault codes present at vehicle reception: *******:  Function restriction due to communication interruption, *******:  Adaptive cruise control sensor misadjusted, *******:  Databus error value received. (Codes set 10/21/2022)

  Pertinent Passive Sporadic Fault codes present at vehicle reception: *******:  Databus error value received, *******:  Right front level control sensor mechanical malfunction. (Codes set on 11/7/2022, same time vehicle was worked on)

  Active / static faults logs cannot be cleared and are stored in system. Passive / Sporadic codes can be cleared and will show up on a scan as new. Customer authorized level sensor replacement and has appointment in system here.

  Audi Royal Oak did not refuse to release the vehicle at any point. 

  Replacement of the seized component would result in associated warnings and faults being cleared.

   

  Customer Answer

  Date: 18/11/2022

  Complaint: ********
  
  I am rejecting this response because:

  This statement "Codes set on 11/7/2022, same time vehicle was worked on)" does not align with the actual series of events.  This fault was not present on the car when delivered unless it magically got triggered from the drive from the service bay to the shop floor.

  When ******* auto called 11/9/2022, the service department indicated work had not started and would be complete on 11/10/2022.  How did the work get completed on 11/7/2022?

  Through independent conversations between your service staff and ******* Auto and myself, it was made clear that calibration work could not be completed without addressing the fault above.  Considering the work was completed on 11/10/2022 (as per the module logs that only get set when a calibration reset is performed on specialized equipment), how did you commence the work and why were both ******* Auto and myself being forced to replace that perfectly fine sensor that just had the arm disconnected?

  Pure deja ** from 12/02/2021 where the car was held for 4-days, with us being strong armed to pay a $400 front grill camera calibration to address an unrelated failed left front level sensor.  At that time, the service tech removed, cleaned, lubricated and re-installed the right front level sensor (see ******** ******), and you proceeded to get our VIN blacklisted with Audi warranty for "potential modifications". 

  Are your techs that incompetent they could not just snap the connecting arm back onto the sensor and misdiagnoses it as seized?  The car has logged ~200km with this arm snapped back on, with no issues.

  For reference, we will not be having the sensor replaced, nor will this vehicle ever be brought back to your service bay.  This is the 3rd time we have been "hustled" into paying unnecessary repair fees for unrelated service requests (******* was the first).
  

  Business Response

  Date: 22/11/2022

  **** character limit on response. Please see ******** letter.

  Customer Answer

  Date: 23/11/2022

  
  Complaint: ********
  
  I am rejecting this response because:
  
  

  The level of unaccountability and pure gas lighting in that response is appalling.  I am a bit confused why you would think we should pay twice for a camera calibration for an unrelated fault?  That sounds like your shop did not actually do the work we paid for under *******, and you holding the car for 4-days in attempts to get us to pay again for this calibration was *********.

  
  

  ******* *** ****** ***** * *** **** **** ********* *** ************ ******** *** ****** *** *** ******** ** **** ** *** **** ******* ******** ***********

  
  

  I will consider this matter resolved once ******* Auto is refunded the $837.21 for services your shop could not complete due to the ******* right level sensor fault.  Either you could not do the calibrations without ******* being fixed, or you were ********* ******* and ourselves to pay for the $537 repair for ******* to allow you to do the calibrations.  Which one is it?