From this reading, no consumer should purchase or seek repairs from River Oaks Toyota. If this writing can in any way prevent another consumer from suffering the nefarious, insensitive and irresponsible nature of the acts complained of, C.L.I.C.K. for Justice and Equality has fulfilled its role of giving information to the public to allow the consumer to make better choices in where they shop for their needs. In Illinois, the consumer will not get any meaningful assistance from the Attorney General Office.
On October 21, 2005, I received correspondence from the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Illinois, which had as an attachment a letter written by River Oaks Toyota. I have posted the cover letter of the Office of the Attorney General and the River Oaks Toyota response in the comment section of this writing. Please read to understand the following statement.
The Office of the Attorney General, State of Illinois, avoids addressing the validity of my claim. I submitted appropriate supporting documentation with my argument. From what is written, which are the facts, no one in their right mind could come to a conclusion such as reported by Ms. Dolores Rodman, Citizen's Advocate, Consumer Protection Division.
It appears Ms. Rodman is "protecting" the perpetrator of this deceptive practice, River Oaks Toyota. No where in her correspondence to me does she outline why she came to the conclusion she did in closing my file on River Oaks Toyota. What she did was refer me, the consumer, to another exhausting remedy of "Small Claims Court, which I will pursue.
The Illinois Attorney General Office for the State of Illinois does not act on the behalf of its constituents under this regime. All voters must be aware of who they are voting for in their individual elections. Consumer fraud must not be part of "mainstream" thinking as is "sex offense crimes." I am a sex offense counselor. I know how vigorously Ms. Lisa Madigan, Illinois Attorney General, acts in behalf of her constituents. Sex offenses are part of "mainstream" thinking because of its notariety. Ms. Lisa Madigan allows companies like River Oaks Toyota to operate as dipicted in my posted writing.
Regarding River Oaks Toyota's letter written by their General Manager, James Lebo, he reports River Oaks Toyota has been in business for over 30 years. I would like to know what does this have to do with clear deceptive practices as written by me. Mr. Lebo suggest they would not have met this "milestone" if they practiced what I have written. I beg to differ. If no one complains to the appropriate authority, allegations such as I have written will continue.
Mr. Lebo has yet to discuss or write to the Illinois Attorney General's office a defense to my allegations. He simply has not addressed my allegations, and what is more important, the Illinois Attorney General's office has not insisted he address the allegations. Instead, the Illinois Attorney General's office closes my file. Who side are they own? It surely is not the right side. It surely does not address justice and equality.
Mr. Lebo instead leads the Illinois Attorney General's office to my website, providing them with an exhaustive photocopy list of the writings I have posted on this website suggesting they are false claims made to the Illinois Attorney General's office. Mr. Lebo reports I have over fifty claims on my website. I guess Mr. Lebo cannot count either. Nevertheless, my website may well have over a 1000 writings about different social issues in the near future. What do these apples have to do with his oranges?
Mr. Lebo reports in his letter his attempt to resolve my issues. This is an outright lie. Mr. Lebo has not addressed any of my issues regarding the deceptive practice allegation. With this statement, we can assume they are continuous with other customers.
Mr. Lebo reports because his "attempt" to resolve my issues have failed, in his mind my allegations are closed. What arrogance!!! Mr. Lebo reports I lack understanding. I would like to know, as you (the reader)would like to know, what is there to understand about a deceptive practice. There is no misunderstanding. The allegations are clear and concise. I submitted documentation to the Illinois Attorney General's office to support my allegations. Nevertheless, Ms. Rodman dismissed my claims, evidently without examining or giving credence to the obvious deprivation of rights for the consumer.
Mr. Lebo needs to address the allegation of deceptive practices in his advertising. The Illinois Attorney General's office should have River Oaks Toyota address the issues I raised, especially the issue of deceptive practices in their advertising. If this is not addressed, the Illinois Attorney General's office for the State of Illinois condones this behavior of every other company operating within its boundaries.
What do you think as consumers? From reading the writing posted, how do you feel about River Oaks Toyota? If you want to respond and remain anonymous, please send an email. I will report your comment. We as consumers need to ask, request and provide a consensus on any company who deprives the consumer of the right to have a just and fair service from a business owner.
Fred Nance Jr.
October 5, 2005
River Oaks Toyota responds to the Illinois Attorney General’s Office.
River Oaks Toyota never addresses the issues of deceptive practices and advertising, and pricing rates. The Illinois Attorney General’s Office request Nance review this response and contact Ms. Dolores Rodman, Citizen’s Advocate, Consumer Protection Division of the Illinois Attorney General’s Office, in writing within ten (10) days of Nance’s receipt of this response. Nance received this response in the U.S. Mail on October 5, 2005.
River Oaks Toyota’s response letter dated September 30, 2005, typed word-for-word, states as follows:
On July 19, 2005 Mr. Fred Nance Jr.’s wife brought his vehicle which is a 2003 Corolla in for service complaining that the check engine light was on and that the brakes were making noise also he stated that he needed an oil change. After the technician diagnosed the vehicle he found that the problem with the check engine light was that the fuel cap was bad and needed to be replaced. The ASM which was Todd Sobczak called Mrs. Nance and explained to what the vehicle needed as well as what the cost would be for the repairs. Mrs. Nance agreed to have the repairs done. Upon picking the vehicle up after repairs Mr. Nance disagreed with the cost of the repairs. At that time Todd Sobczak explained to Mr. Nance that the time spent on his vehicle is based on a flat rate labor time. Mr. Nance then wanted to speak to the Service Manager. Service Manager Sylvester Jackson explained to Mr. Nance and was not happy with the response. He proceeded to write a letter to his Colleagues. On Tuesday September 27, 2005 Mr. Nance called Service Manager Sylvester Jackson and stated that his brakes were squeaking and wanted to bring his vehicle in to be checked out. Service Manager told him to bring his vehicle in there would be no wait and no appointment needed. September 28, 2005 Mrs. Nance brought the vehicle in at 8:30 am for inspection to the brake problem. Service Manager Sylvester Jackson greeted Mrs. Nance and proceeded to write a service order to have her brakes inspected. Service Manager asked Mrs. Nance if she wanted to wait for her vehicle, she stated that she had to go to work and would pick up her vehicle after 3:30 pm that same day. The technician begins to inspect the vehicle and could not duplicate the problem. At 2:15 pm Mr. Nance entered the service department to pick up vehicle he was told the vehicle was not ready yet. At that time Mr. Nance became belligerent and due to his actions all of our customers that were in the waiting room as well as the showroom witness the slander against River Oaks Toyota. Mr. Nance had our customer un-eased. As Mr. Nance went to pick up his receipt from the cashier he begin yelling at Shawn Sprang one of our Sales Manager. Mr. Sprang told Mr. Nance if he didn’t calm down he would call the police. He demanded his vehicle then left.
Signed
Jim Lebo, General Manager
File Number – 132352
October 5, 2005
Office of the Attorney General
State of Illinois, Lisa Madigan Attorney General
Ms. Dolores Rodman, Citizen Advocate
Consumer Protection Division
100 West Randolph Street
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Re: River Oaks Toyota File # 2005-CONSC-00132352
Response to River Oaks Toyota Letter dated September 30, 2005
Ms. Rodman:
This is my reply to River Oaks Toyota’s response dated September 30, 2005. I, Fred Nance Jr., faxed copies of my letters to River Oaks Toyota on July 20, 2005 and September 28, 2005. River Oaks Toyota has working knowledge of all the issues discussed. The Illinois Attorney General’s Office supplied River Oaks Toyota with the same documentation they had already, which is what I gave the Illinois Attorney General.
River Oaks Toyota never addresses the issues of deceptive practices and advertising, and their pricing rates. Therefore, my allegations on deceptive practices and advertising, and pricing rates must be taken as true statements. Nevertheless, I, Fred L Nance Jr., will address the statements of their response letter. I will re-emphasize my allegations first.
River Oaks Toyota uses deceptive practices and advertising to get customer’s to service their vehicles. Their advertisement, specifically for the service we had with an oil change and brake service, never stated there is an additional labor charge to their promotion of a particular service advertised in their brochure, which has an expiration date of July 31, 2005. An example of an appropriate business practice of an advertisement, in this instance, is Royal Ford of South Holland, which is approximately a ¼ mile west of River Oaks Toyota. Royal Ford of South Holland advertised an oil change for about $24.95. I serviced my 1998 Nissan Altima on August 10, 2005 with this advertisement for an oil change. Royal Ford of South Holland listed their normal pricing on my receipt but subtracted it out through the “less insurance” item to reflect their “public” advertisement (invoice and advertisement attached). This is an appropriate business practice for advertisement (attached invoice and advertisement of Royal Ford). I can also give examples of Oil Express and many like companies advertising oil changes that do not add labor cost to their advertised cost unless listed in their advertisement. Therefore, I stand on my letters dated July 20, 2005 and September 28, 2005 as if set forth fully within this document.
River Oaks Toyota never addresses in writing the “deceptive practices and advertising or book hours” used for the labor cost. The labor charges I incurred were not reflected in their advertisement for the services (advertisement brochure attached). In addition, Toyota charged me an $88.00 labor charge for a gas cap I never asked for. I told Todd I could buy a gas cap for my car requesting he leave that item out of our cost. River Oaks Toyota charged me 4 hours labor for 2 hours of work.
Response to River Oaks Toyota letter (Toyota)
Toyota reports the technician diagnosed the vehicle needing a gas cap. Toyota’s gas cap cost $16.64. I was charged an $88.00 labor cost for Toyota replacing my gas cap, which my wife and I did not authorize. As I stated in my letter of July 20, 2005 5th paragraph, “she told him she would call him back.” In the 6th paragraph of this letter I report after my wife gave me the information about the analysis I called Todd Sobczak. Todd states Mrs. Nance agreed to have the repairs done. After my wife and I discussed the analysis, my wife called Todd back an authorized him to provide the brake service and oil change according to the advertisement, stating do not replace the gas cap. This is the agreement my wife had with Todd. River Oaks Toyota’s advertisement did not state that there would be a labor charge added to the advertised price. This is a deceptive business practice.
Toyota’s letter states Todd explained to me the time spent on the vehicle is based on a flat rate labor time. Whether this is true or not this flat labor rate flies in the face of the listed advertisement for the service rendered. The advertisement clearly does not state there will be a labor cost to the services advertised.
Toyota’s letter acknowledges me calling on September 27, 2005 about needing service to the brake service previously acquired from Toyota. Toyota’s letter states on September 27, 2005 the Service Manager told me that if I brought my vehicle in there would be no wait and no appointment needed. What the Service Manager really told me was that there is a first-come, first-serve policy. Nevertheless, if we use their statement it still flies in the face of a “no wait” policy, with my car being at Toyota without the work being done from 8:30 am to 2:00 pm.
The Toyota letter states, “Mrs. Nance brought the vehicle in at 8:30 am for inspection to the brake problem. Service Manager Sylvester Jackson greeted Mrs. Nance….” When my wife left home on September 28, 2005 to “drop” the car off as spoken about with Mr. Jackson and I on September 27, 2005, we arranged that I would be taking her to work and picking her car up when I contacted my brother. When Mr. Jackson informed my wife the work would be done in 1-½ hours he, Mr. Jackson, knew we were dropping the car off because of the conversation I had with the day before. This time frame had nothing to do with whether we would wait for the car or come back and pick the car up. This contradicts the statement Mr. Jackson made to me, which is the “first-come, first-serve policy of River Oaks Toyota or if we use River Oaks Toyota’s earlier statement in their response letter, where they state, “Service Manager told him to bring his vehicle in there would be no wait and no appointment needed.”
The Service Manager tells an outright lie about my wife. He reports in the Toyota letter that my wife stated, “…she had to go to work and would pick up her vehicle after 3:30 pm that same day.” In my letter dated September 28, 2005, I report the Service Manager, Sylvester Jackson, told my wife, in front of me and his service personnel, in a sarcastic manner, “I told you if you are going to wait for your car it would be ready in 1-½ hours, and that if you were leaving it, it would not be ready until 3:00 pm.” This contradicts the “first-come, first-serve policy of River Oaks Toyota. My wife told Mr. Jackson he did not say anything about 3:00 pm. My wife told Mr. Jackson she was gong to work, but this had nothing to do with what time she would pick it up. My wife and I discussed if I should pick up the car earlier in the day because of 1 ½ hour time frame set by my wife and Mr. Jackson upon entering into the service department.
The Toyota letter further states, “The technician begins to inspect the vehicle and could not duplicate the problem.” Now, this statement follows after the Service Manager’s statement in the previous paragraph, that is, “…and would pick up her vehicle after 3:30 pm that same day.” This would infer the technician’s inspection took place after 3:30 pm. According to Toyota’s invoice for September 28, 2005 my wife and I received our car at 1:58 pm. How could Toyota’s technician inspect a car he does not have in his possession? The invoice is attached and submitted with this letter and the letter of September 28, 2005.
The Toyota letter goes on to say I entered the service department at 2:15 pm to pick up my vehicle. Toyota’s letter states I became belligerent and due to my actions all of their customers witnessed me slander River Oaks Toyota. This sentence is really stretching the arms of a civil slander. In my letter dated September 28, 2005, I report talking about the character and behavior of the Service Manager Sylvester Jackson and Sales Manager Shawn Sprang. The Service Manager decided to hold our conversation about their deceptive business practices and advertising in front of everyone present. The Sales Manager decided to sit in his seat in the open showroom while we discussed the deceptive business practices and advertising of River Oaks Toyota. I did not have the accessibility to offer a private room to the Service and Sales Manager to discuss these issues. If their public heard our discussions it is because of the unprofessional conduct and behavior of these managers. Sales Manager Sprang decided he wanted to hold our discussion/conversation in the open showroom. He did not invite me into a private area to discuss my issues.
Toyota’s letter states, “As Mr. Nance went to pick up his receipt from the cashier he begin yelling at Shawn Sprang one of our Sales Manager.” I did not go to the cashier’s window to pick up our receipt. My wife went to the window and picked up the receipt. I went outside where our car was preparing to get into our 1998 Nissan to leave River Oaks Toyota. Toyota’s letter continues with “Mr. Sprang told Mr. Nance if he didn’t calm down he would call the police.” I reported in my letter of September 28, 2005 what really happened at this time. Starting on page 2, paragraph 6, I state, Mr. Sprang informed my wife and I that our car was outside waiting on us. Mr. Sprang told me that he suggest I find somewhere else to take my car and that he did not care if I never came back up to River Oaks Toyota stating he did not like that I addressed my complaint and issues of their services in the open area of their showroom floor further threatening to call the police on me for disturbing his showroom. I told him to call them. If Mr. Sprang had cause he would have called the police.
In conclusion, River Oaks Toyota attempts to cloud the issues of deceptive business practices and advertisement, along with labor cost attached to the service acquired from the deceptive advertisement. The River Oaks Toyota advertisement does not include a clause stating there will be an additional labor cost to the cost of the services listed. There is no disclaimer.
River Oaks Toyota distorts the truth to cover up the issues presented. River Oaks Toyota continued deprivation of services and retaliatory nature of acts presented are a direct result of the complaint filed Fred L Nance Jr. to the Illinois Attorney General’s office. This can also be inferred when River Oaks Toyota mentions in their letter that I contacted my “Colleagues.” River Oaks Toyota’s intention was to defame and insult my wife and I when we brought our car back for them to check the work they had done to our car.
My wife and I never instructed them to install a new gas cap with labor cost of $88.00 to our car. If we take there conversation as true when they state I was told that they would charge $88.00 to install a gas cap, I would be an idiot to go along with a charge of this caliber. No uneducated or demented person would have agreed to this charge to replace a gas cap. White people think they can say anything they want about a black person and the public will believe them.
Wherefore, I pray that the Illinois Attorney General’s Office finds River Oaks Toyota liable and in violation of laws and policies that protect the citizens of Illinois from deceptive business practices, advertising, and pricing.
Respectfully submitted,
cc: http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/
September 28, 2005
Office of the Attorney General
State of Illinois, Lisa Madigan Attorney General
Ms. Dolores Rodman, Citizen Advocate
Consumer Protection Division
100 West Randolph Street
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Re: River Oaks Toyota File # 2005-CONSC-00132352
Complaint #2
Ms. Rodman:
This is a follow-up to my complaint dated July 20, 2005, which is filed with the Office of the Attorney General, State of Illinois, Lisa Madigan, Attorney General. I received the Illinois Attorney General office’s response letter to my complaint on River Oaks Toyota dated September 16, 2005. I also received a response letter from Mr. David Miller, my Illinois State Representative for the 29th District, dated August 26, 2005, who directed me to your office regarding addressing my issues complained about on River Oaks Toyota. The River Oaks Toyota complaint of July 20, 2005 is also posted on http://www.complaints.com/. I will post this second complaint on http://www.complaints.com/. I will also post and publish this complaint, with the first complaint which is already posted and published, on http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/. I am faxing a copy of this letter and the original letter of July 20, 2005 to River Oaks Toyota, specifically to Mr. Shawn M. Sprang, General Sales Manager, who responded to my issues today, September 28, 2005.
On September 27, 2005 I, Fred Nance Jr., called and spoke to River Oaks Toyota Service Manager, Sylvester Jackson (black male), stating I wanted to bring my Toyota Corolla in on Wednesday September 28, 2005 for inspection due to the brakes squeaking. I reminded Mr. Jackson of my previous complaint against him and the service I received from River Oaks Toyota. Mr. Jackson stated he remembered me, and my complaint. I informed Mr. Jackson that the service I required had a direct link to the service I received from River Oaks Toyota on July 19, 2005. I asked Mr. Jackson what time should I bring the car in for inspection. Mr. Jackson informed me I could bring it in anytime because it would be evaluated on a “first-come, first-serve” basis.
On September 28, 2005 at approximately 8:32 am, my wife Darlene Bouyer-Nance arrived at River Oaks Toyota with our 2003 Toyota reporting the “brakes” were squeaking. The brakes were the primary repair service done at River Oaks Toyota on July 19, 2005.
I instructed my wife to ask for Mr. Jackson because of the previous problems we have had with River Oaks Toyota. I informed my wife I had talked Mr. Jackson on Tuesday, September 27, 2005. My wife reports, she informed Mr. Jackson of the problem with the brakes. My wife reports, Mr. Jackson informed her the car would be ready in 1-½ hours. I picked my wife up and took her to work. The car was supposed to ready by 10:00 am.
My wife and I returned to River Oaks Toyota at approximately 1:45 pm to pick up the car. Mr. Jackson informed my wife the car was not ready. My wife stated to Mr. Jackson that he told her it would be ready in 1-½ hours this morning. Mr. Jackson told my wife, in a sarcastic manner, I told you if you are going to wait for your car it would be ready in 1-½ hours, and that if you were leaving it, it would not be ready until 3:00 pm. My wife told Mr. Jackson he did not say anything about 3:00 pm. I informed Mr. Jackson that we wanted our car now. Mr. Jackson informed us that there had not been any work done on the car. My wife stated she was on her lunch break and wanted her car now.
I immediately became irritated at this behavior and character of acts displayed by Mr. Jackson. I asked to speak to his boss. Mr. Jackson stated “you are talking to him.” I asked to speak to the person who owned this business. Mr. Jackson informed me that person would be up in the front. I went to the front of the store asking a gentleman I passed if he worked here. The gentleman informed me he worked for River Oaks Toyota. I asked for directions to address my issues with the owner of River Oaks Toyota. The gentleman pointed to a space in the front of the store where there were approximately 3 white males and two white females.
I requested to speak to the owner of River Oaks Toyota. Mr. Shawn M. Sprang, General Sales Manager, informed me the owner was out of town, and that I could address my issues with him. I began articulating my issues and position scanning the faces of the 3 white males and two white females as I spoke. Mr. Sprang suggested that if I wanted to obtain some resolve to my issues, I should only address him and not talk as if I am talking to everyone else.
I articulated my “free-speech” rights guarded by the 1st Amendment of our Constitution. Nevertheless, I looked directly at him and stated, “What are you going to do?” I informed him of Mr. Jackson statements, listed above, that he did not have a boss. Mr. Sprang stated if Mr. Jackson is talking about the service department, he does not have a boss. I stated to Mr. Sprang, “I am talking about the person who owns this business as I said to Mr. Jackson.” Mr. Sprang stated he would go back to the service department to see what is going on.
Mr. Sprang came back to me stating the service department told him they told my wife that her car would be ready in an hour and half if she was going to wait for the car or it would be ready at 3:00 pm if she left. I told Mr. Sprang that they were lying and protecting each other. I also informed Mr. Sprang of the conversation I had with Mr. Jackson on Tuesday, September 27, 2005, Mr. Jackson stating, “Work is done to cars on a first-come, first-serve basis.” I also told Mr. Sprang what difference did it make if a person leaves their car or stays with their car if you operate on a “first-come, first-serve basis.”
Mr. Sprang informed my wife and I that our car was outside waiting on us. Mr. Sprang told me that he suggest I find somewhere else to take my car and that he did not care if I never came back up River Oaks Toyota stating he did not like that I addressed my complaint and issues of their services in the open area of their showroom floor. Mr. Sprang threatened to call the police on me for disturbing his showroom. I told him to call them. My wife and I left River Oaks Toyota without getting any follow-up service on a possible fault in the services received from River Oaks Toyota on July 19, 2005. River Oaks Toyota owes us the responsibility of their performed work on our vehicle.
My wife and I are black. The personnel of River Oaks Toyota disrespected us. We have suffered disparate and indifferent treatment, along with being discriminated against by Mr. Shawn M. Sprang representing River Oaks Toyota. Mr. Sprang does not treat his “white” customers as we were treated. If a company operates it auto service department on a “first-come, first-serve basis” it does not matter if one stays with their car or leaves it. Either way when an estimated time is determined for completion of the service, the service should be completed. The service to one’s vehicle should not be determined by whether they will wait on their car or leave it. This does not meet the criteria for “first-come, first-serve.”
I respectfully request the Illinois Attorney General’s office continue to press forward conducting a complete and thorough investigation into the issues presented in this letter and the letter dated July 20, 2005. I will hand-deliver this follow-up (complaint letter #2) letter to the Illinois Attorney General’s office located at 100 West Randolph Street, Chicago, Illinois, 60601, on September 29, 2005.
cc: Mr. David Miller (fax copy)
Illinois Attorney General (fax copy Chicago & Springfield)
http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/
http://www.complaints.com/
www.riveroakstoyota.com
Mr. Shawn M. Sprang, General Sales Manager, River Oaks Toyota
Mr. Sylvester Jackson, Service Manager, River Oaks Toyota
Toyota Motor Corporation, USA, National Customer Relations
July 20, 2005
Toyota Sales USA
National Customer Relations
19001 South Western Avenue, Dept. WC11
Torrance, California 90509
Re: River Oaks Toyota – Case # 200507200135
Dear Sir/Madam:
I, Fred Nance Jr., am writing this formal complaint to Toyota Sales USA. On July 19, 2005 at approximately 7:45 am (CST), my wife, Darlene Bouyer-Nance, took our 2003 Toyota Corolla (1NXBR32E43Z023573) to River Oaks Toyota for automobile service. She informed Mr. Todd Sobczak that she needed her brakes fixed, the service light was on, and she needed an oil change. She presented River Oaks Toyota’s advertisement for discount on the brake service and oil change.
The Brake Inspection advertisement reads: Service includes: Inspection of rotors/drums, calipers and cylinders (brake pads and shoes for wear); Report of brake system condition or estimate of repair cost; and Inspection charge will be applied to repair cost if repairs are performed here; cost $29.95.
The Front Brake Service advertisement reads: Service includes: Replace front brake pads; Inspect front and rear rotors/drums; Check parking brake, inspect all hardware; Road test; cost $99.95.
The Oil & Service Change Service advertisement reads: Service includes: Up to five quarts of premium oil; Genuine Toyota oil filter; and Check all fluid levels; cost $23.95.
My wife called me at 1:44 pm (CST) on my cell phone informing me that Mr. Todd Sobczak called her informing her that she needed to replace the front pads, resurface rotors, clean and adjust rear brakes, oil change, replace gas cap, rescan computer and clear codes. He quoted a price of $545.00 with the coupons (advertisement). She told him she would call him back.
After my wife gave me this information, I called Todd. I asked Todd why was the price so high and why did the gas cap need replacing. Todd informed me that with the advertisement the cost was $445.00. Todd informed me that the car had to be put on a system to determine why the service light was on. Todd informed me that the computer determined that the gas cap was faulty and was losing pressure triggering the system to alert the driver by the service light coming on. I asked Todd why did I have to pay for a faulty gas cap. Todd told me that since the car had over 50,000 miles I must have taken the gas cap off more than 2000 times to put gas in the car. I asked Todd what does that have to do with a faulty gas cap.
I called my wife back telling her I had talk to Todd. My wife called Todd back. This had to be after 2:00 pm (CST). The work had not been done yet. Todd admitted this work did not start until after 2:00 pm. The work was completed at 3:55 pm (per invoice).
On July 20, 2005, my wife and I went to pick up our car. We received an invoice for $430.74. The invoice displays the time the service to the automobile was done. The time listed is 15:55 (3:55 pm CST). This is less than two hours. I asked Todd to explain why I was charged $343.75 for labor. First, Todd informed me that my car had been at River Oaks Toyota for more than 8 hours. I asked him what does that have to do with the labor cost. Second, Todd informed me that the guys who work on the cars have over 20 years experience. I asked Todd what does this have to do with my labor cost. Third, Todd informed me that the guys work on “book hours.” I asked Todd to explain “book hours” to me. Todd informed me that this labor cost is based on “book hours.” Todd reports that I was charged 4 hours labor for 2 hours of actual work done on the car. Todd did not explain “book hours” to me. Jackie of Toyota Customer Relations informed me later that Toyota developed “book hours” from a normal industry cost for repairs to an automobile.
I talked to Mr. Sylvester Jackson, Service Manager, who basically pushed aside my issues. I asked for his name. He gave me his card. I asked for Todd’s information, he instructed me to get Todd’s card from him. I asked for a corporate address, a vice-president of operations, and a phone number. He gave me 1-800-331-4331.
My River Oaks Toyota invoice for labor repairs reads:
Replace Front Brake Pads $ 88.00 Labor
Machine Front Brake Rotors 158.40 Labor
Clean and Adjust Rear Brakes 34.95 Labor
Replace Fuel Cap Assembly 88.00 Labor
_______
$ 369.35
The River Oaks Toyota invoice reports: Customer states check engine light is on? Check and advise, no charge. Customer states brakes are making noise? Check all 4 wheels and advise, no charge.
River Oaks Toyota post a sign reflecting a labor charge of $88.00 an hour for service on all vehicles in their shop area. This labor cost is not reflected in their advertisement. Most other automobile advertisement for services such as complained about do not charge labor cost, unless specifically mentioned in the advertisement.
Analysis:
River Oaks Toyota charged me for 4 hours of work when I actually had 2 hours of work done on my car. Todd informed me that his men have over 20 years of experience, reporting they work faster than the “book hours.” Yet, I was charged an extra 2 hours for labor not done.
With River Oaks Toyota charging 4 hours for 2 hours of labor, they are able to bill a customer 16-hours for an 8-hour labor day, if you use the criteria for measurement as illustrated here. This is preposterous, outrageous, contemptible, and ludicrous.
River Oaks Toyota has no “Customer Relations Manager” as most Toyota facilities have to expedite and examine customer complaints before it rises to levels of corporate interference in its affairs.
Toyota Sales USA should have a recall of all faulty gas caps for their vehicles if they cannot keep the pressurized system intact without creating a cost to the customer for repairs and replacement because of a service light coming on. I was told that the whole cap assembly had to be replaced. The invoice reflects this replacement also. I had to pay a cost for the rescanning of my vehicle and clearing of codes (whatever that means), and the resetting of the computer system to my car just because I had a faulty gas cap system. There is clearly something wrong here. I should not be paying the cost for a faulty system or the labor charges incurred because of it.
Therefore, I respectfully request a complete and thorough investigation into this matter. If deemed appropriate, I expect to be refunded monies for this overcharge and any and all other equitable remedies for relief.
cc: Senator James Meeks, State Representative David Miller, http://www.complaints.com/, http://www.clickservices.org/, River Oaks Toyota Owner Tony Cassello, River Oaks Toyota General Manager James Lebo
