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:06/10/2025

  Type:Customer Service 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.

  I have a few issues:1. When i brought my truck in I accepted a quote of $167.50 prior to bringing it in. I brought it in and a couple hours later when it was done i was told my charge is $238.18. I had not been contacted about the increase in price at all. The labor went from $150 to $200 ($375 with a $175 discount) and the shop supplies also jumped $20.2. the shop tried to scam me by telling me a few things i needed to do on my truck that either dont exist or dont need done. they said I needed a new cabin air filter which didnt exist in 1994, they said i needed a front differential service for my rwd truck, and they said i needed a new engine air filter despite the one in there that i replaced a month ago being very obviously clean and new.3. the work they did was terrible and a safety risk. they fixed a wiring issue with my air compressor setup and despite me telling them the pressure switch and aftermarket fusebox were working they bypassed it by directing power directly from the battery bypassing the fuse and also bypassed the working pressure switch that keeps the tank from overfilling and exploding.4. prior to bringing my truck in my hood open and shut with relative ease and showed no signs of being misaligned or struggling to close. after i got it back my hood had scratches, paint chips, dents, and was bent. it was also jammed and took me a while to get it open but after i did it wouldnt shut properly anymore unless i lined it up and held the latch open manually which i didnt need to do before. it also now shows a lil difficulty in opening which i had relative ease opening prior. i called the shop to ask for compensation or ******* and they denied responsibility claiming the damaged hood was already like that despite me showing them it wasnt in the money im requesting... $70 for the nonconsensual charge, at least $20 for the self ******* to fix their unsafe bypasses, and $400 for a new hood

  Business Response

  Date: 06/18/2025

  Business Response ***** **** **** ******
  

  Regarding Complaint from ******* ****** (a.k.a. "***** **** *******")
  Were sorry to hear that *** ****** (who also operates a business under the name ***** **** ******* marketing himself as an alternative to overpriced dealerships and shops) was dissatisfied with his visit. However, we must respectfully dispute several of his claims and provide the following factual clarification:
  
  1. Diagnostic Charges
  *** ****** scheduled an appointment for diagnostic work on his incorrectly self-installed aftermarket onboard air compressor system. Prior to the visit, he received and signed a written estimate that clearly stated all diagnostic labor would be billed at our standard hourly rate and that the total charge would depend on the actual time required. There was no flat or capped fee quoted, only a minimum diagnostic charge of $75.
  In a legally-recorded phone conversation with our service advisor prior to drop-off, *** ****** was explicitly advised that the diagnostic charge could exceed $200. He verbally acknowledged this and proceeded with the appointment.
  The final invoice totaled $238.18, which included 2.5 hours of diagnostic labor, shop supplies, and tax, minus a $175 courtesy discount. Although 2.5 hours were spent diagnosing the issue, *** ****** was not billed for the full labor time. Following completion, he expressed dissatisfaction with the price and attempted to renegotiate a lower amount based on a self-determined expectation that had not been agreed upon.
  
  2. Inspection Recommendations
  Our standard courtesy inspection includes both technician input and system-generated maintenance suggestions. In this case, the system mistakenly listed a cabin air filter (which does not exist on a 1994 F-150) and a front differential service (not applicable to this RWD model). These were not verbally recommended to *** ******* nor were they quoted or included on his invoice.
  *** ****** was verbally instructed to disregard the system-generated maintenance section of his inspection report and was instead advised to focus his attention on the several critical safety issues with his rusted out and accident damaged 31-year-old work truck. Our conversation with him post-inspection focused solely on safety-related issues and the specific concern he brought the truck in for.
  
  3. Electrical Diagnostics
  No permanent wiring ******* were performed. Our technician temporarily bypassed part of the customers aftermarket wiring setup to test the compressor system and identify its failure points. The diagnosis revealed:
  An incompatible pressure switch (normally open, when a normally closed unit was needed),
  A non-functioning aftermarket fuse box, and
  Roughly a dozen inappropriate wire splices using **** connectors.
  These findings were thoroughly documented on *** ******* final invoice, along with a recommendation to completely replace/rewire ********** wiring setup and install a properly matched pressure switch.
  
  4. Alleged Hood Damage
  *** ****** contacted us after his visit to report alleged damage to his hood. However, no work was performed near the hood area except for opening it to access the battery. The technician noted difficulty in opening the hood which was listed as a finding on the inspection report during the appointment. This observation is consistent with the condition of the vehicle as it arrived.
  Our shop has video footage from multiple angles as the vehicle entered and moved through our facility, as well as body damage documentation captured at entry. These recordings show that the vehicle had significant pre-existing accident and rust damage on virtually every panel prior to service. There is no evidence that any new damage occurred while the vehicle was in our care.
  
  Final Position:
  We respectfully decline *** ******* request for:
  - $70 in refunded labor,
  - $20 in compensation for self-*******,
  - $400 for a replacement hood, and
  - $10 for an unspecified additional refund.
  

  All charges and service actions were consistent with the signed estimate and recorded pre-authorization. No ******* were performed without consent, and no damage was caused to *** ******* vehicle during his visit.
  We take customer feedback seriously and are proud of the transparency, professionalism, and documentation we apply to our work. We ask that this matter be considered resolved based on the facts above.
  

  Sincerely,
  ***** *******
  Owner, ***** **** **** ******

  Customer Answer

  Date: 06/20/2025

  
  Complaint: ********
  
  I'd like to start off stating that I do not know why my mobile mechanic bussiness is so important in this discussion. It never came up in conversation or had anything to do with the transaction or work provided so this is just slander. Now to address the reasonings.
  
  1. The thing they had me sign never stated that I could charge me more and gave me an estimate of $167.50 in big bold letters. The agreement stated I am agreeing to the cost of $167.50. It did say that further charges may be required but I would be contacted about said charges prior to any work being done which I had not been and came back to an upcharge of $70. Which translated to an extra $50 in labor and $20 in shop costs. Even if the labor was allowed to be upcharged the shop costs said nowhere that they may be increased. I would like to request the phone call be shared as I do not remember agreeing to allow them to charge me extra.

  
  2. I have used the system the use for their inspections (*********) in the past at ***************** *************, and it does not auto input all that info. The technician and advisor would need to sign off on it and send it out to me. They didn't try to sell it to me luckily but if I didn't know any better and say somethin about it, and instead asked to get the work done, whos to say they would've corrected me and not charge me for a service they can't do seeing as they allowed their technician to recommend the services.

  
  3. I would like to note that prior to the work being done I had shown the service advisor and technician in the parking lot that the pressure switch and aftermarket fusebox worked. The fusebox also powering other electronics that still work to this day with no issues. After the work was completed and they told me the pressure switch needed replacing I reconnected the pressure switch to the system in their parking lot in 5 minutes and it worked as intended. This was all a way for them to charge me 7 hours of labor, probably way more than $1k for work that wont cost them much at all because it works fine.

  
  4. Prior to any work being done I had shown the advisor and technician how to open my hood. It was a simple push down and release and it would open no issues, and to close you would just have to unlatch one of the hinges and then shut it like normal. I had no issues with this hood since purchasing it over a year ago and showed no signs of becoming damaged like it is. I had also told them theres no reason to go into my hood and that I would like them not to but they did anyway. After I had recieved my truck back the hood was propped open but it was jammed. I had to have a second ****** help me pry it open and once I did I noticed my latch had been damaged and my hinges were scratched and dented more than usual. When attempting to close it I noticed I couldn't and found out that I have to line it up, open the latch, then push the hood down which is nowhere near the way it was prior to service, and to open it again I have to unlatch it then yank it up when its halfway off the latch which is also nowhere near the way it was prior. 
  
  I did not approve an upcharge of $70 and I dd not approve work being done to bypass safety measures for the system. Leaving the shop I had a much more damaged hood than when I came in. 
  
  Sincerely,
  
  ******* ******

  Business Response

  Date: 06/24/2025

  We appreciate the opportunity to respond to Mr. ******* follow-up comments regarding his June 6, 2025 visit to ***** **** **** ****** (RO#****). While we understand that Mr. ****** continues to express dissatisfaction with the outcome of his visit, we respectfully stand by our original response and offer the following clarifications in response to his latest remarks:
  
  1. Estimate and Authorization Process
  Mr. ****** asserts that he was quoted a flat price of $167.50 and was not informed of any increase in charges. This is incorrect.
  
  Mr. ****** signed a written estimate indicating a minimum diagnostic charge of $75, with labor billed at our standard hourly rate of $150/hour. The $167.50 referenced was not a capped or flat rate, but simply an initial working estimate for 1 hour of time. He was verbally informed, prior to his appointment, that final charges could exceed $200 depending on how long diagnostics took. This phone call was recorded, as stated earlier, and we are happy to provide a transcript or the full recording to the BBB upon request. He verbally approved the work and the time spent, and no charges were added without his authorization. The final invoice reflected 2.5 hours of labor, with a $175 discount applied as a courtesy, resulting in a significantly reduced total. Mr. ****** is also incorrect in claiming that the shop supplies cost was increased arbitrarily. Our shop supply fee is calculated as a fixed percentage of labor cost. Therefore, when the actual diagnostic time spent was updated in the work order, the supplies charge also increased proportionately.
  
  2. ********* Inspection Recommendations
  Mr. ****** was explicitly told to disregard the standard recommended maintenance items and instead focus on the technicians inspection findings. Mr. ****** confirms that at no point did the service advisor attempt to sell him services which were not applicable to his vehicle.
  
  3. Air Compressor System Diagnostic and Alleged Safety Risk
  Mr. ****** alleges that his aftermarket air compressor system worked fine and that our shop attempted to upsell unnecessary *******. However, Mr. ****** brought his vehicle in for a concern with the air compressor system not functioning. That system, which he self-installed, was unsafely wired using dozens of non-water-tight **** connectors and was wired to a non-functional circuit of an aftermarket fuseblock. Our technician conducted diagnostic testing, not permanent modifications, and our technician recommended professionally rewiring the electrical safety hazard that Mr. ****** had pieced together using scraps of wire.
  
  4. Hood Condition Allegation
  Mr. ****** now states he requested we not open the hood at all and that it was undamaged before the visit. This is not accurate. Access to the battery was required to diagnose the compressor system. Opening the hood was necessary and unavoidable. There was no note or instruction declining access to the engine bay. At check-in, our technician noted difficulty opening the hood, which was documented as part of the vehicles condition. The vehicle was already in extremely rough cosmetic condition, consistent with a 30+ year-old work truck. Pre-existing body damage including rust, dents, misalignment, and hinge issues was recorded both by our technician and on our security footage. That footage shows the condition of the hood prior to service. Mr. ****** did not report the hood issue until after leaving the facility, and there is no evidence to support his claim that new damage occurred during the visit.
  
  Final Position:
  - All charges were disclosed and pre-authorized.
  - No unnecessary or unauthorized work was performed.
  - No new damage occurred while the vehicle was in our possession.
  - Our team acted professionally and in good faith at every stage.
  
  Given the facts presented, we respectfully maintain our position and decline the requested refund of $500.
  
  We remain committed to honest, high-quality service and regret that Mr. ****** left dissatisfied. However, we have fulfilled all professional obligations, and no further action is warranted.
  
  Sincerely,
  ***** *******
  Owner, ***** **** **** ******

  Customer Answer

  Date: 06/28/2025

  
  Complaint: ********
  
  I am rejecting this response because:
  
  1. I was not told that the diagnostic could charge over $200 but that the final repair could be over $200 and would like the recorded phone call (which I was not made aware to being recorded) to be attached. I approved an estimate of $167.50 online and was not called or notified at all during the 5 hours they had my car that the charge would go up.
  
  2. I already pointed out that the service advisor did not sell me on anything but I had initially mentioned as they came to talk to me about it that my car had no cabin filter or front differential. If I had not made these statements there is no guarentee they would not have tried to sell me on it if I asked. This is shady bussiness and I know you can delete those lines in ********* which they chose not to.
  
  3. The so called "nonfunctional" circuit had power when tested with voltage testers and multimeters and showed no signs of being nonfunctional and also worked with my other attachments that used the same aftermarket fusebox. They told me in order to get the fusebox working and the pressure switch working I would need to pay them for 6 hours of work but in the parking lot in 5 minutes using a scrap wire I unplugged the relay and pluged their wire into the pressure switch then put the scrap wire from the pressure switch to the relay adding it back and it worked as intended. As for the fusebox all I did was move the power wire from the battery back to the fusebox without changing anything and it also worked as intended. They wanted to charge me 6 hours for 10 minutes of work.
  
  4. I had told them prior to service that my battery was new and the fusebox worked and they only needed to work in the truckbox since I had already traced wires to that area. I also pointed out how to open and shut the hood if they absolutely needed to access the engine bay. I had no issues doing so and the only issues that presented themselves was u had to push down on the hood while u unlatched it and when closing u needed to manually move the hinge slightly so it wasnt in a locked position. At no point prior to me bringing my truck in did I need to force anything open and when closing it would be able to be slammed shut like normal. It was the shops responsibility to do things as I had described and the fact that after I got my truck back the hood needs to be pryed open when opening and can't be slammed shut anymore is an issue. I had not known to report the issues after leaving because I had no reason to go under my hood till I got home and found my aftermarket fuse switch popped so I needed to flip it back on to start my truck and was unable to open the hood without help from a pry tool.
  
  after further testing I have found my issues to be with the hood latch and which cost upwards of $60. On top of that I would like the $70 refund from the charges I didn't accept and $20 for my work to repair the wiring they did and fixing the hood myself. This would total a $150 refund I would be ok with at the bare minimum.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  ******* ******

  Business Response

  Date: 07/05/2025

  Response to Additional Consumer Comments BBB Complaint ID ********
  ***** **** **** ****** ******* ****** (RO#****)

  We appreciate the opportunity to respond again regarding Mr.******* June 6, ********************************************************************************************* our prior responses. We will limit this reply to clarifying anything that could be construed as new factual claims and refer back to our earlier responses for all previously covered points.
  

  1. Recorded Phone Call & Consent
  Mr. ****** now states he was unaware the phone call was being recorded. As a business, we maintain recordings of service-related calls for documentation and quality assurance, and all phone calls start with a notice that the call is being recorded to comply with Maryland law. During the call, Mr. ****** was clearly advised that diagnostic labor could exceed $200 depending on time spent. We reiterate that no unauthorized charges were added, and he was given both verbal and written notice of our hourly labor policy.
  

  2. ********* System Use
  Mr. ****** now asserts that the inclusion of non-applicable recommendations in the inspection reflects deliberate misconduct, suggesting that staff chose not to delete them. These recommendations are generated based on VIN and mileage thresholds and were not discussed with the customer. As previously stated, Mr. ****** was told verbally to disregard them,and no such services were quoted or sold. The claim that we would have charged for them had he asked is speculative and not supported by the facts of this visit.
  

  3. Air Compressor Diagnostics
  Mr. ****** now provides more detail about how he believes he fixed the system in 5 minutes with scrap wire. However, this does not invalidate our technicians diagnosis that the system had multiple unsafe components, incorrect wiring logic, and failure-prone connections. While ********* may have been able to create a temporary bypass that restored basic function, that does not meet the safety or workmanship standards of a professional repair shop.
  Our recommendation was to professionally rewire the system, a recommendation that remains valid based on the safety risks observed with the customer-installed wiring.
  

  4. Hood Latch Claim
  Mr. ****** now states the latch itself is damaged rather than the hood itself as initially claimed and priced this part at $60. As noted in our prior responses, our inspection already documented difficulty opening the hood during the inspection. Mr. ****** did not request we avoid opening the hood on the *** nor is such a restriction practical given that the battery needed to be accessed for diagnostics. At no time was damage caused by us improperly handling of the hood.

  
  Final Position:
  We stand by our prior responses and respectfully decline the revised refund demand of $150. We have addressed the customers concerns thoroughly and transparently, and we believe no further action is warranted. We respectfully request that this matter be considered closed.
  Sincerely,
  ***** *******
  Owner, ***** **** **** ******