Patrol Radius Arm broken by Autotechnika [Resolved]

Let's just wait for Mr. JQP to reply to AT's findings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AUTOTECHNIKA

Autotechnika would like to apologize to Mr. San Mateo for the incident and for the aggravation that it had caused. Obviously, things could have been dealt with differently by both parties, but unfortunately that wasn't what happened.

---

Well, that's half the resolution to the issue. Some cases involving other shops won't even get this far.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AUTOTECHNIKA

We shall take the experience of this and learn from it so that we may better serve our customers. In the end, it's our customers that must and have to come first.

---

Eto lang ang medyo bitin. More than mere rhetoric, what are the concrete steps that AT is willing to take, not only to ensure that this doesn't happen again, but also to appease the currently aggrieved party, namely Mr. San Mateo? Customer satisfaction isn't just lip service.

As I told Chuck, metal fatigue is possible and probable IF it was tightened as claimed. However, I did not see the procedure done and over-tighteing is a more likely cause.

Regardless of this, I completely dispute Tommy's claim that my alignment procedures caused or even contributed to the breakage. I showed Chuck the Nissan Patrol repair manual that states 2 different alignment specifications for the Y60. One calls for positive toe and the other negative. I called for more negative toe when the positve setting caused pull. I really don't know how this could have caused or contributed to the breakage. Such implication is pure fiction.

I have Tommy's text saved and it states that they did what I requested and that included the "remedyo" that he implies caused the breakage. This he even told a guest (who happens to be a friend of mine) at the Grand Opening. I will not name this prominent guest nor even ask him to post unless Autotechnika disrespect me further.

I guess this concludes everything with Autotechnika and I still in some disagreement.

Though Chuck has been patient enough to elaborate as to "what caused what", I still do not agree with Autotechnika's position.

Since, this is a free country, they are free to disagree as I am free to disagree with them.

Not a happy ending but an ending nonetheless.

Since I seek no compensation nor have they offered any anyway, Autotechnika and I can now get out of each other's hair without having to deal with each other any further.

The effect of all this on Autotechnika or on my credibility as Service Manager of Jaguar/Land Rover/Ferrari is now left to the customers that believe us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AUTOTECHNIKA

Official findings of our investigation:

- Mr. San Mateo had only asked to change the toe setting on his vehicle.

- Though not part of the alignment process, the mechanic noticed that the radius arm looked like it wasn't fully tightened. He then proceeded to tighten it as a favor to Mr. San Mateo, his former boss.

- The mechanic that worked on the vehicle had not excerted enough effort nor used any additional leverage to induce the amount of force required to break the threaded portion of the radius arm.

- Probable cause for the failure of the radius arm could have been stress cracks.

- Mr. San Mateo attests that it would not only be possible but also probable. He knows the mechanic that worked on his vehicle and agrees that he would not have, in all likelihood, tried to over tighten the nut on the radius arm.

- The claims of "remedyo" or unorthodox repair was merely a way of enabling Mr. San Mateo to "limp" his vehicle back to Jaguar Land Rover Ferrari service center. It was not meant as a permanent fix or solution to the broken radius arm.

- Mr. San Mateo had actually suggested another method of installing the broken radius arm without having to cut or damage the bushing. This was just so the vehicle could be driven out of the shop and not as a permanent fix.

- A misunderstanding had come about with the facts regarding Mr. San Mateo's request, thus resulting in a heated argument as to what had really happened.

This was simply a case of a misunderstanding of facts and elevated tempers from both parties, which clouded the truth. For this, Autotechnika would like to apologize to Mr. San Mateo for the incident and for the aggravation that it had caused. Obviously, things could have been dealt with differently by both parties, but unfortunately that wasn't what happened.

We shall take the experience of this and learn from it so that we may better serve our customers. In the end, it's our customers that must and have to come first.

---

Two questions:

1. If there were stress cracks in the radius arm, wouldn't the technician have been aware of it such that he should have called the client's attention to it before making any repairs?

2. If the tech nontheless continued to make repairs or adjustment, isn't there liability already on the ground of simple negligence?

AT is not even sure as to the cause of the breakage other than its SUSPICION that "stress cracks" caused it. One thing is sure to me, it is the mechanic of AT who did the job and he was the one who caused the breakage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oknamlarry

One thing is sure to me, it is the mechanic of AT who did the job and he was the one who caused the breakage.

---

The thread starter has already said that he isn't mad at the mechanic; apparently what got his goat was AT's unwillingness to admit the fault. It had to take an 'investigation' for AT to finally acknowledge the mistake, and still with no clear resolution proposed.

that's it!? what do we expect on their investigation... that the result will be againts them? the investigation was done to save their asses...

the fact that the said part was broken in AT, then they are liable period. the investigation they did just bolster JQP's compalint...

furthermore, it didn't prove that it has a hairline crack before JQP brought it to them, since I have said before that whatever investigation they will be doing is futile 'coz the owner already denied responsiblity....

so who did the investigation? do you expect the person/s involve will contradict the owner's claim that that they are not anyway responsible....

come on give us a break....

I won your support but lost the war, guys...

Don't quite get this ... please help me sort this out ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AUTOTECHNIKA

For this, Autotechnika would like to apologize to Mr. San Mateo for the incident and for the aggravation that it had caused.

---

First they apologize to Pao ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AUTOTECHNIKA

Obviously, things could have been dealt with differently by both parties, but unfortunately that wasn't what happened.

---

Second, they insinuate that Pao should have dealt with the problem in a different manner (whatever this means) ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AUTOTECHNIKA

In the end, it's our customers that must and have to come first.

---

Third, day say that their customers come first and foremost, yet treat Pao as if he wasn't a customer?

Doublespeak if i've ever seen one, triplespeak even if this word exists...

Could this fall under the category of another bad case of "Lapse of Judgement"!

AT lost me as a costumer, ipapa dialysis ko pa naman sana yung tranny ko sa kanila. hirap yata ng ganung negosyante puro kabig ayaw maglabas. OT: saan pa ba meron nung pang linis ng transmission?