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:05/08/2025

  Type:Product Issues
  Status:

  ResolvedMore 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.

  Rented a car for **** with damages. This company sent me to some third party affiliate for collecting on damages to the vehicle that were on the car before I rented it. I did not do any of these damages to the car.

  Business Response

  Date: 05/09/2025

  Weve been assigned this claim by SIXT to recover the damage to their vehicle while on rent to Mr. ******  Weve reviewed the rental agreement along with the estimate that was provided to us by **** and can confirm that the damage was preexisting and listed on the rental agreement before Mr. ***** rented the vehicle. We will notify SIXT and be closing our claim. There will be no further contact with Mr. ***** for these damages. 

  Customer Answer

  Date: 05/09/2025

   Better Business Bureau:
  
  I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ********, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:04/25/2025

  Type:Product 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 rented a car from the *********** location on in early December 2024. On 12/6/24 the car was in an accident, however, I was not in the car at the time of the accident. When I received a bill from Sixt for the total amount of the car, $25,191.91 I reached out to explain I was not in the car at the time of the accident therefore my insurance would not provide coverage. I provided Sixt with the accident ***ort information for the car. I did not hear anything from them after that but on March 7th I received a subrogation demand from Fleet Response. On March 17th I left a voicemail with the contact from the subrogation demand letter but did not receive a call back. On April 15th I reached out again and spoke with the ***resentative, she asked me to send a copy of the police ***ort from the accident. She said she would work with me to resolve the issue, however, on April 22nd I received a final demand notice. Im still waiting for a copy of the police ***ort to send them to prove I was not the driver at the time of the accident but Ive emailed the *** twice since I received the final notice with no response.

  Business Response

  Date: 05/06/2025

  Weve been assigned this claim by SIXT to recover the damage to their vehicle while on rent to ************ Ms. ******** rented the vehicle and stated that she was not driving when the damage occurred. We are currently working with Ms. ******** to obtain the police report (last request was sent 4/30/25) or information on the driver of the vehicle. In reviewing the rental agreement there were no additional authorized drivers. Per the terms and conditions of the rental agreement Authorized Drivers are the only persons permitted to drive the Vehicle. If you permit anyone other than the Renter or an Additional Driver listed above to drive the Vehicle, or any other person defined as an Authorized Driver on the rental jacket, we will hold you responsible for damage to the Vehicle and for damage to others and their property caused by the unauthorized driver. Damage caused by unauthorized drivers is not covered by Loss Damage Waiver. There is a small fee to add Additional Drivers to this Agreement.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:04/22/2025

  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.

  Claim #******* I got an oil change at my nearest take 5 in January and again in February. 3 weeks later my engine seizes due to lack of oil. A mechanic diagnoses I have a missing gasket on my drain plug and had my oil leak until the engine seized. I immediately filed a claim that they (fleet response) stalled for three months to tell me the pictures were too dark even after I sent a recording of a conversation with the store manager who confirmed what happened to my car, claimed they took responsibility and terminated the individual responsible at the shop. Fleet response replies with a denial of liability. They are doing everything they can t They tell me based on their recordings they only know what was done on camera and they can’t see what was done underneath my car. I then reach out to the area supervising manager who told me he had absolutely nothing to do with their decision and that he would look into this although they (fleet response) has been telling me all this time they were waiting on his response in the first place. I have sent more than enough evidence to establish liability however fleet Response keeps denying my claim for outrageous reasons.

  Business Response

  Date: 04/23/2025

  Fleet Response received the claim file on 2/25/2025 regarding the claimants claim that our client, Take 5 Oil, damaged their drain plug during an oil change service that occurred on 1/24/2025. Throughout the investigation Fleet Response stayed in contact with the claimant while we attempted to gather evidence from the claimant’s selected mechanic shop. Fleet Response did not receive the necessary diagnostics document and photos of the claimant’s vehicle VIN, Odometer, and 4 corners until March 17, 2025. After investigating what we received from the mechanic shop it was determined we wanted to attempt to retrieve oil blow back photos from underneath the claimant's vehicle if there were any as this would help support the claimants claim of oil leaking from the drain plug on their vehicle. These photos were received on March 27, 2025, however, the lighting was rather dark, the photos did not illustrate what we would typically see from oil blow back underneath the claimants vehicle had oil leaked out while the claimant vehicle was driving, and we were not able to conclusively support the claimants claim of negligence on the part of our client, Take 5 Oil. As such, on 4/11/2025 an initial denial determination was issued to the claimant.
  
  On the same date, 4/11/2025, the claimant advised Fleet Response he would like to dispute the denial determination outlining that he spoke with the Store Manager at Take 5 Oil and the claimant claims that this manger advised the claimant the employee who serviced his vehicle that day apologized for the issue and had since been terminated. While the employee may have been let go from Take 5 Oil, the claimant, Take 5 Oil, nor Fleet Response, can substantiate that the employee was let go from Take 5 Oil as a direct result of the service they performed on the claimant vehicle.
  
  As for the recording the claimant advised Fleet Response that he had, the recording did not illustrate any employee of Take 5 Oil admitting fault, negligence, or any wrongdoing directly related to the service performed on the claimant vehicle. The recording also is a voice only recording and there is no way to prove who the voice is on the recording.
  
  Lastly, the most compelling evidence that Fleet Response obtained as part of a formal investigation on the denial dispute was footage of the oil change service Take 5 Oil performed on the claimant vehicle on the date in question. In reviewing the footage, it is seen that Take 5 Oil evacuated the oil out of the claimant's vehicle through the top of the engine bay using an evacuation machine. This means with 100% certainty that Take 5 Oil never touched or interacted with the claimant’s vehicle drain plug during service. The drain plug is only utilized when draining oil from a vehicle during an oil change. In this case, the oil was evacuated from the top of the engine bay, not drained from the bottom of the vehicle. It is seen that employee was underneath the claimant vehicle during service, however, this was to change the oil filter. Changing the oil filter on the claimant’s vehicle has nothing to do with touching, changing, or interacting with the claimants drain plug.
  
  Based on all the evidence received and reviewed during the initial investigation, as well as the formal investigation following the claimant’s dispute of the denial, it was our determination there was no evidence Take 5 Oil ever interacted with the drain plug on the claimant vehicle therefore could not be responsible for the drain plug/gasket issue on the claimant vehicle. The claimant was advised of this by a Supervisor with Fleet Response on 4/22/2025. 

  Customer Answer

  Date: 04/23/2025

   I am rejecting this response because:
  
  I am writing to formally dispute the denial of my claim regarding the damage caused to my vehicle following an oil change performed by Take 5 Oil on January 24, 2025 February 25, 2025.
  
  
  First, I want to reiterate that I followed all instructions provided by Fleet Response and submitted the requested documentation, including multiple photos of the vehicle’s VIN, undercarriage, and four corners, as well as the receipt from the oil change. The only item I was unable to provide was the odometer reading due to the complete engine failure—caused by oil loss resulting from a missing gasket on the drain plug.
  
  Shop Admission of Responsibility

  
  The manager at the Take 5 Oil location explicitly acknowledged that the employee who worked on my vehicle failed to reinstall the gasket and did not include this in his final report, which led to the engine seizure. While Fleet Response claims the individual on the recording cannot be verified, the conversation occurred at the shop in front of the manager and other staff, who confirmed the worker had since been terminated. This acknowledgment of responsibility should carry significant weight.
  

  Drain Plug Involvement Disputed

  
  Fleet Response claims the oil was evacuated from the top using a machine and therefore the drain plug was not touched. However, if the plug was not touched, how did the gasket go missing, leading to a massive oil leak? A qualified mechanic inspected my vehicle and clearly determined that the oil loss occurred through the drain plug area, not elsewhere. The assertion that the shop never touched the plug contradicts the physical evidence.
  
  Mechanic’s Diagnosis 

  
  The mechanic who examined the engine stated unequivocally that the oil leak came from the missing gasket on the drain plug, which would only be disturbed during an oil change. This diagnosis was submitted, and I am happy to provide additional statements or documentation if needed.
  

  Video Footage Interpretation

  
  Even if the oil was removed from the top, the employee being under the vehicle suggests they may have interacted with components underneath, including the drain plug area. The assumption that the plug was untouched simply because the oil was evacuated differently does not negate the mechanic’s findings or the subsequent damage.
  
  This situation has caused me significant stress, financial burden, and loss of transportation. I am seeking a resolution that acknowledges the full responsibility of the shop as already confirmed by their own manager. If this matter cannot be resolved promptly and fairly, I will be forced to escalate the issue.
  
  Please let me know how you would like to proceed. I am willing to cooperate fully, provide further documentation, and obtain written statements from the mechanic or the shop manager if necessary.
  
  

  
  

  Business Response

  Date: 04/24/2025

  To address the claimant’s claim that a manager at Take 5 Oil directly admitted fault for installing the gasket incorrectly, there is no evidence of this found during the investigation. Neither Take 5 Oil corporate or any employee of Take 5 Oil directly reported during the investigation that anyone admitted fault for the claimant vehicle damages. This is why the claim file was submitted as an undetermined claim. The recording the claimant has cannot be verified to be any employee of Take 5 Oil as it is simply a voice recording. The employee being terminated has no relation to the facts and details of the claim file or allegation by the claimant against Take 5 Oil.
  
  Fleet Response does not dispute that an employee of Take 5 Oil was underneath the claimant vehicle. It was verified and even acknowledged in the original response to BBB. The employee was underneath the claimant vehicle to change out to the oil filter, which has no relation to the drain plug of the claimant vehicle. This is verified with 100% certainty.
  
  It is not Fleet Response nor Take 5 Oil’s responsibility to determine why the drain plug was leaking on the claimant vehicle. The claimant presented a claim against Take 5 Oil asserting that Take 5 Oil did not install the drain plug correctly leading to a massive oil leak on the claimant vehicle. It has been verified through video footage, as well as all evidence obtained through the investigation process, that at no point in time did Take 5 Oil touch or engage with the drain plug on the claimant vehicle during service. The fact that the vehicle oil was evacuated during service indicates with 100% certainty that the oil was not drained during service, leading to no one pulling the drain plug to drain the oil, therefore interacting with the drain plug. It is the claimants burden of proof to present evidence that to support their claim that Take 5 Oil is in fact responsible for the vehicle damages. To date, the claimant has not met their burden their burden of proof in this regard.
  
  Given the evidence of this claim file: the oil was evacuated from the claimant vehicle, not drained, the Take 5 Oil employee was only under the claimant vehicle to change the oil filter and not engage with the drain plug, no proof of any actual Take 5 Oil actually admitting guilt/negligence, and the lack of direct proof or evidence Take 5 Oil is directly responsible for the drain plug issue, Fleet Response and Take 5 Oil is confident a fair and reasonable denial determination has been rendered on this claim file. 

  Customer Answer

  Date: 04/24/2025

   I am rejecting this response because:
  
  I am writing to formally reiterate my dispute of Fleet Response’s denial of my claim regarding severe engine damage caused by a negligent oil change performed by Take 5 Oil on January 24, 2025, and again on February 25, 2025. After weeks of being misled, stalled, and denied despite clear evidence, it has become necessary to address the tactics employed in this case and reaffirm the basis of your liability.
  
  My vehicle suffered catastrophic engine failure due to oil loss caused by a missing gasket on the drain plug. A qualified mechanic diagnosed the source of the leak and confirmed the plug was improperly serviced. The correct documentation was provided immediately, however after each document was submitted there was multiple weeks of no contact from the agent assigned to the claim, until I reached out to discover they were requesting more documentation. At multiple times the agent stated I would be receiving a decision in a matter of days and then cease contact for weeks.
  I provided a recorded conversation with the store manager at the Take 5 location, who confirmed the error and admitted that the employee responsible was terminated as a direct result. This was corroborated by staff present at the time.
  

  I have now returned to the location and obtained a second recording from the same manager, who reiterated his prior acknowledgment and even expressed disappointment in how Fleet Response handled the claim. He provided the contact information for his regional manager to support my efforts to resolve this issue.
  
  Fleet Response claims that because oil was evacuated via the top of the engine, the drain plug was never touched. Yet a missing drain plug gasket does not disappear on its own.
  There is no explanation for how this part was missing immediately following service unless it was removed or reinstalled incorrectly by a Take 5 employee.
  
  Video footage showing an employee under my vehicle is conveniently brushed off, yet no conclusive evidence is provided that proves the drain plug was not accessed.
  
  To claim with “100% certainty” that the plug was never touched while simultaneously refusing to acknowledge the store manager’s admission is both disingenuous and indicative of bad faith. The recorded admissions, mechanic’s diagnosis, and timeline of events clearly establish a chain of custody that points to your client’s liability.
  
  Fleet Response delayed this investigation for months, claiming inadequate photos—even after receiving all requested documentation.
  The voice recording was dismissed on baseless grounds, despite your own client acknowledging its authenticity during follow-ups.
  Claiming that the manager’s testimony holds no weight while allowing a vague interpretation of security footage to absolve responsibility is a gross double standard.
  

  The repeated denials and justifications suggest a coordinated effort to evade liability rather than seek the truth. Fleet Response, I urge you to reassess this claim with the transparency and accountability expected of a professional entity otherwise further actions will be taken.
  
  I am requesting the full repair or replacement cost of my vehicle as well as compensation based on the tactics used in mishandling the claim, mechanical diagnosis and admissions from Take 5’s store manager. This matter has cost me significant time, money, and hardship, and any further denial will force me to escalate the matter to higher proceedings. 
  

  [[BBB transcription via phone call]]

  Consumer stated they reached out to the business directly to see what exactly is needed in order to proceed with the claim and approve seeing as the consumer has provided all the information requested and has documentation of the business accepting fault. The business was unable to answer. Please provide what information is needed in order to continue

   

  
  

  Business Response

  Date: 04/24/2025

  The recording the claimant claims to have outlining a store manager admitted fault was reviewed at length. In the recording the store manager advises that all claim information needs to be directed to Fleet Response as Fleet Response is handling the claim file .The person on the other end of the line also advises the claimant he was not employed at the time of the service. The District Manager, the claimant was advised, would not know what happened at the store level either. The voice on the other line does also advise the claimant that one of the employees who worked on their vehicle is no longer with Take 5 Oil and the second employee was in the store on the same date of the recording and advised they had no recollection of any wrongdoing. Leadership with Fleet Response has listened to the recording and confirmed the details listed above are true and accurate. We would be willing to provide the recording, however, the file size is too large. We further would be confident in providing the recording to any DOI complaint or in court for a suit as we are that confident the details of the recording dispute the details the claimant has laid forth in their BBB complaint.
  
  At no point in the recording does anyone from Take 5 Oil take fault, admit fault, admit wrongdoing, or give any indication of acceptance of the damages to the claimant vehicle. The claimant's statements throughout his BBB complaint have been proven to be incorrect and false.
  
  The video footage has not been brushed off by Fleet Response. In fact, the claimant called in to speak with a supervisor today, 4/24/2025, at Fleet Response and the supervisor advised the claimant it was seen that the Take 5 Oil employee did change the oil filter underneath the vehicle. The footage has been and continues to be acknowledged and a key piece of evidence in the denial determination rendered on the claim file.
  
  We are confident in our investigation as it followed all fair claims handling guidelines set forth by the DOI. The claimant has not met their duty of burden of proof and have not provided sufficient evidence to support their claim that Take 5 Oil damaged their drain plug. All the evidence obtained and reviewed indicates Take 5 Oil is not at fault for the damages as they never interacted with the claimant drain plug.

  Customer Answer

  Date: 04/25/2025

   I am rejecting this response because:
  
  I am writing in continued response to your most recent denial of my claim. At this point, it is clear that Fleet Response is actively disregarding key evidence, mischaracterizing both witness statements and physical diagnostics, and providing conflicting justifications in an attempt to avoid liability.
  
  
  Misrepresentation of Key Testimony
  
  
  Your repeated reference to the store manager’s statement deliberately omits critical context. The manager not only acknowledged the service error but also provided contact information for the regional manager, expressed sympathy for the situation, and confirmed that an employee responsible for the service was let go. Whether or not the termination was “officially documented” as related to my incident is irrelevant—the fact that you acknowledge that one of the two employees involved is no longer with the company underscores that an issue was identified at the store level.
  
  Furthermore, your insistence that the voices in the recording “do not admit fault” is disingenuous. While the individuals may not have used legal terminology such as “we are liable,” the statements made clearly acknowledge a service error, the consequences of that error, and express a desire for the issue to be resolved.
  
  Contradiction Between Video Footage and Mechanical Evidence
  
  Fleet Response claims the drain plug was not touched based solely on video footage. However, the same footage shows an employee working underneath the vehicle. You then assert this was “only to change the oil filter.” This interpretation is speculative and does not negate the physical diagnosis by a licensed mechanic—who clearly identified that the vehicle suffered a catastrophic oil leak due to a missing gasket on the drain plug, which had been serviced weeks prior at your location.
  
  No vehicle begins leaking from the drain plug coincidentally weeks after an oil change—unless the plug was mishandled. The logical conclusion, supported by expert analysis, is that negligence occurred during the oil change.
  
  Tampering and Obstruction
  Your continued refusal to acknowledge physical evidence and insistence on blurry photos while ignoring the written and verbal diagnosis of a qualified mechanic constitutes an unreasonable obstruction of this claim process. The burden of proof has been met multiple times over—and rather than take accountability, you continue to shift responsibility while hoping to wear me down.
  
  Let me be clear: I will not allow that to happen.
  
  If this matter is not fairly resolved within 10 business days of this correspondence, I will be proceeding with the following actions:
  
  Filing a formal complaint with the Department of Insurance for bad-faith claims handling.
  Filing a small claims suit against Take 5 Oil and Fleet Response for the full cost of engine replacement and related damages.
  Submitting a complaint with the Better Business Bureau and Attorney General’s office, along with a public record of how this claim was mishandled.
  I have provided more than sufficient documentation to support my claim. I am still willing to resolve this matter cooperatively and without litigation, but continued denial in the face of overwhelming evidence will only strengthen my case when this moves forward.
  
  
  
  

• Initial Complaint

  Date:04/21/2025

  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.

  Oil Change Damage High Mileage Oil Change at Take 5 on March 5 at 9:29 AM $92.12 with Military discount **** ***** **** *** **** ****** (Hood work)/ ***** ( Pit Work) After being serviced on March 15, 2025, two days later, I received an alert on my driver's panel that my oil level was low. I immediately returned to Take 5, where ****** verified by retrieving the parts replaced by Take5 Saturday, March 15, 2025, that there was flooding on the Oil Housing Cap and the unit required replacement. He then called the local Auto parts store because he stated, " They did not have one on hand." Then just offered for me to go buy the part and he would replace it! I am not a mechanic, I am a teacher, and this issue is due to the negligence of Take 5! This has taken FLEET, their claim company, a month, and there is still no resolution! They paid for my SUV to be towed to ******* VW for repair estimates and have received the diagnosis in writing, and I have emailed FLEET the video of evidence and spoke with 3 claim reps, Mr. ****** ****, ****** ******, and **** *********! ****** at ******* can attest to the back-and-forth emails at ************. Please RESOLVE this issue, my vehicle has been sitting for 30 days, which may trigger other issues to be filed if not completed this week.

  Business Response

  Date: 04/22/2025

  Fleet Response received the claim file for the claimant on 3/20/2025. We provided a complimentary tow of the claimant’s vehicle to their selected dealership so that a diagnostic can be performed on the claimant’s vehicle. Fleet Response received this diagnostic along with supporting photos from the dealership on 3/25/2025. After reviewing the details of the diagnostic as well as limited photos received it was determined that additional photos were needed from the dealership of the claimant’s vehicle to further evaluate the extent of the damages claimed to be the fault of our client. We reached out directly to the claimant on 3/28/2025 to advise of additional pictures we needed. We also reached out to the dealership on 4/1/2025 to request additional photos of the claimant vehicle’s oil filter housing. We received these photos of the oil filter housing on 4/3/2025 and continued our liability investigation.
  
  On 4/8/2025 the determination was made that the claimants claim of Take 5 Oil damaging their oil filter housing and causing oil to leak out of their vehicle was not supported based on the evidence received. It was further determined that there were no signs of an oil leak anywhere on the claimant’s vehicle, determined by the photos reviewed of the claimant’s engine bay and where the oil filter housing was located. After this determination was made we attempted to call the claimant to deliver the denial determination on 4/9/2025 where we received no answer and left a voicemail. On 4/10/2025 we exchanged an email with the claimant advising them of the denial determination and the reasoning for the denial.
  
  On 4/21/2025 we received a new diagnostic document from the claimant’s selected dealership which ultimately did not provide any further details or new evidence review, rather, outlined additional repairs needed to the claimant vehicle that are unrelated to the oil change service performed by our client, Take 5 Oil.
  
  As part of the claimant’s formal dispute on the denial determination the claim file was further reviewed on 4/21/2025. The footage of the second trip to Take 5 Oil on 3/17/2025 by the claimant was reviewed in detail, along with all photos received from the claimant’s selected dealership. In the footage you do see a technician change out the claimant vehicle oil filter housing and add additional oil to the claimants vehicle. However, there were no signs of an oil leak in the claimant’s engine bay where the oil filter housing was located. The photos of the claimant vehicle’s engine bay shows no signs of oil spillage or an oil leak.
  
  The diagnostic received from the dealership only highlights they changed the “aftermarket” oil filter and oil filter housing to OEM (original manufacturer) parts, however, the diagnostic does not note any cause of the low oil levels nor indicate any specific leaks on the claimant vehicle.
  
  Based on all of the evidence reviewed there is nothing to indicate our client acted negligently during the oil change service the claimant received nor does any of the evidence indicate our client is at fault for any of the issues the claimant’s vehicle faced after service. While we cannot indicate the cause of the issues the claimant vehicle experienced, we also cannot determine our client is responsible based on the evidence at hand. The claimant was made aware of this final determination on 4/21/2025 via a phone call and the proper denial letter was put in the mail to the claimant. 

  Customer Answer

  Date: 04/22/2025

   I am rejecting this response because:
  
   I am rejecting this response because:
  
  They know that it was all everywhere. The representative for Take five ****** even showed me. He pulled it out and it was on video even though they’re saying that it wasn’t! I have no reason to lie. It was on video when I came back. He pulled it out of the unit show me it was filled over. It’s a shame that I should have just recorded the whole thing because this company has now ripped me off !
  
  

  Business Response

  Date: 04/24/2025

  The video footage from the date of service was reviewed thoroughly by Fleet Response during the initial investigation process, as well as during the denial dispute process. The service footage does not support the claimant statements nor claims. This footage was not tampered with nor altered in anyway.
  
  The claimant has the burden of proof to support their claim that Take 5 Oil is liable for the damages to their vehicle. To date, that burden of proof has not been met and all evidence received and reviewed does not indicate any negligence on the part of Take 5 Oil. 

• Initial Complaint

  Date:04/16/2025

  Type:Sales and Advertising 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 was assigned a Claims specialist **** for a third-party issue with discount tire. **** delivered extremely unprofessional service. He refused to call me back or return my emails, after waiting 7 days he emailed me stating the adjuster found no fault. He listed off several reason why but all were inaccurate. He said the claim was reported 4 days after the vehicle was worked on by discount tire, that’s incorrect. The incident was reported within 24 hours. **** also stated discount denied any possible damage. I spoke with Adam the store manager and he told me one of the techs could have bumped into the grill with a tire causing the damage. **** would have had all this information had he not performed such unprofessional communication. They offered me $200 but the damage is way more than $200. This company is so poorly managed I feel my case was handled with negligence. I would call in each day and no one could find **** or his supervisor, they were supposed to be at work but no where to be found. Very poor business practices.

  Business Response

  Date: 04/21/2025

  I received a request to review this claim and reach out to customer before this BBB complaint was received.  Store manager filed the claim as disputed and asked Fleet Response to investigate. Damage photos are not indicative of cause and cannot be related to client’s tools or equipment. I have contacted Mr. ******* and reviewed these details with him.  I advised him that the concession offer made by the claim representative was not meant to cover the damage but was a gesture of goodwill offered to settle the claim in spite of not having evidence that our client is responsible for the damage.  I advised Mr. ******* that if the concession offer was not accepted, I would be issuing a denial of liability, and a letter would be mailed to him.  The claim representative received an email communication from the customer on 4/16 accepting the concession and the claim has now been settled. 

• Initial Complaint

  Date:04/10/2025

  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.

  On 3-6-2025 Milan trucking lost part of his load on hwy 45 I ran over it causing damage to my ***************************************************************************************************** to take it to ********* I did the estimate was higher now they don't want to me saying it's from wear and tear .

  Business Response

  Date: 04/17/2025

  To Whom it May Concern,
  
  ***** **** submitted a claim for damages to his vehicle,which he alleges resulted from debris that fell from our insured's vehicle on 03/06/25. It was determined that the damage to the vehicle was preexisting and due to normal wear and tear, as well as insufficient maintenance. The denial was delivered on 04/04/25. We respectfully requested that he provide any additional evidence that had not been previously considered. The consumer submitted supplementary evidence on 04/10/25. This evidence was thoroughly reviewed, and it has been determined that we will uphold our initial denial.The denial was reiterated to the consumer on 04/11/25. While reiterating the denial, the consumer was informed that will review and consider any additional evidence that has not been submitted to date.
  
  I will request that the assigned claims representative contact the consumer to reiterate the denial, address any additional questions,and confirm if there is any further information available. Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. 
  
  
  
  
  ****** ****** | Third- Party Claims Supervisor
  Direct: ************
  ******************************
  Celebrating Excellence as an Award-Winning Workplace!

• Initial Complaint

  Date:03/30/2025

  Type:Product 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 rented a car from Sixt Rental Car at San Francisco Airport in 2024. Recently I received a bill from "Fleet Response" alleging that I owe $772.00 for putative damages to the car. Fleet Rental has not indicated to me how they are linked to Sixt Rental Car and has not sent an itemized bill--I do not know the date the damages allegedly occurred, what specifically those alleged damages are, and what they are demanding payment for. Given that, I suspect that this is a scam. They are demanding payment by check or money order and threatening to suspend my driver's license. I have also filed a BBB complaint against Sixt Rental. I have attached a copy of the demand for payment here, and a copy of my third request to receive and itemized bill.

  Business Response

  Date: 04/02/2025

  *** ******** was notified of the damage to the rental by SIXT on 9/24/2024. (see the attachment)  SIXT has outsourced this claim to us to recover for the damages to the rental vehicle. A demand for the damages was mailed to *** ******** and most recently emailed to *** ******** on 3/3/2025. The demand included photos of the damage, the estimate of repairs and a copy of the rental agreement. This demand package includes all the information *** ******** has asked for, including the date of loss 9/23/2024 which is outlined on the cover page.  

• Initial Complaint

  Date:03/04/2025

  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.

  Refer to the Original Complaint ID: ******** filed with BBB:Returned a rental car to SIXT in ************** on October 12th 2024. Representative inspected car in my presence and informed me that everything was fine and I could go. 3 MONTHS later I received a letter claiming alleged damage to the vehicle. I responded with photo evidence that there were no damages. I received a letter from Fleet Response with a bill for $1,401.17 for said damages. I cannot be held responsible on damages once I turn over the keys. Any damage should have been noted at time of return in the same manner that they do at the time of rental. #1 - There was no damage when the vehicle was returned. #2 - The report indicates there was a T-Bone collision. This never happened. #3 - I have attached pictures from when the car was returned. #4 - I have attached the first three pages of the report where reference to a T-Bone was made. CLEARLY my pictures indicate otherwise.Sixt Provided a response that:MESSAGE FROM BUSINESS:Upon a final review of ******* Ippolitis damage file, in a effort of goodwill we have decided to close and no longer continue financial pursuit of it. We look forward to the opportunity to service his/her rental needs in the future.On March 1st I AGAIN received a letter from Paragon indicating that they would continue to seek monetary damages AND would be asking the state to suspend my license.Paragon needs to cease with collections or I will be pursuing this as harassment in a court of law,

  Business Response

  Date: 03/04/2025

  This file was referred to us by **** for damages that were discovered at the time the rental was returned. Weve closed our file, and you will no longer receive any correspondence related to this matter. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused

  Business Response

  Date: 03/04/2025

  This file was referred to us by **** for damages that were discovered at the time the rental was returned. Weve closed our file, and you will no longer receive any correspondence related to this matter. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused

• Initial Complaint

  Date:02/15/2025

  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.

  Fleet Response is the third-party claims administrator for Metropolis Technologies, a parking garage operator. I filed a damage claim for the rear bumper of my car around November/December of 2024. On Dec 30, 2024 Fleet Response emailed me to deny my damage claim but didn’t provide details as to why. I sent three follow up emails ( Dec 30, 2024; Jan 3, 2025; Jan 18, 2025) to seek clarification but none were replied to.

  Business Response

  Date: 02/27/2025

  February 27, 2025
  
  ****** ******** ************* **** ********* ***** **** ****** ********* ******* ********
  
  To Whom it May Concern,
  
  ****** **** filed a claim for alleged damage to his vehicle while parked in our client’s parking facility on 12-26-24. It was determined that the damage to this vehicle was preexisting damage, and a denial letter was issued to him via mail and email on 12-27-24. In that letter we did ask him to provide any additional evidence that has not been considered. I have included a copy of the denial letter for reference. 
  
  I will ask that the assigned claims representative reach out to the consumer to reiterate the denial as well as our client to see if there is any additional information available.
  
  Please feel free to contact me with any further questions or concerns regarding this matter.
  
  Sincerely,
  ***** ******* ***** ***** ***** ********** ******* ************   **** ************ 
  

  Customer Answer

  Date: 02/28/2025

   I am rejecting this response because: the business reiterates its denial but still has not provided an explanation of how they determined damage was pre-existing.
  
  
  

  Business Response

  Date: 03/05/2025

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

  
  To Whom it May Concern,
  ****** **** filed a claim for alleged damage to his vehicle while parked in our client's parking facility on 12-26-24. It was determined that the damage to this vehicle was preexisting damage, and a denial letter was issued to him via mail and email on 12-27-24.

  
   In further response to the consumers response:  I have attached a copy of the incident report showing the consumer reported that damage to their rear bumper allegedly occurred while visiting the facility on December 26, 2024. Additionally, I have included a photograph of the vehicle from a prior visit to the facility on July 28, 2024, which displays the same damage the consumer is claiming occurred in December. As such, the claim will remain denied as the damage being claimed was preexisting damage. 

  Please feel free to contact me with any further questions or concerns regarding this matter.
  Sincerely,
  ***** ******* ***** ***** ***** ********** ******* ************ **** ************

• Initial Complaint

  Date:02/10/2025

  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.

  This company is trying to collect $669.56 from me, on behalf of SIXT RENT A CAR. The claim with a number of ******* is fraudulent. SIXT RENT A CAR is claiming damages on a rental car that I did not cause. The agent representing SIXT RENT A CAR did not conduct an inspection of the rental car at the time of the handover of the car keys. The rental car company is trying to blame me for some scratches on the body of vehicle, which were present before I rented the car. I believe the agent who took the keys at the drop off location was biased.

  Business Response

  Date: 02/11/2025

  We have closed our file and referred this complaint to SIXT for further review.