References:

1. The next service sticker was prepared incorrectly, probably because of the high volume of work S&C is doing with a booming economy. The sticker on the windshield shows the date of June 24, 2000, and 85K miles, which is the date of the recent service. Normally it should show a date approximately 3 months hence, and 3K miles of use. I recall watching Ryan prepare a new service sticker while we talked about the Work Order on Friday morning. Evidently, there was not enough time to replace the prior notice with the new one. Therefore, please submit a sticker showing the correct date and mileage for the next service.

2. S&C's invoice #338040 on June 30, 2000 seems to show that an oil/fluid leak S&C discovered during work on March 24, 2000 under your invoice #332357, which sets out in the Quality Care report that the matter needed Immediate Attention, may have been fixed by emergency service S&C performed on April 14, 2000 under your invoice #333498.

   This record presents several issues...

   1. Is it correct that the leaks reported on March 24, where those that led to emergency service on April 13 and April 14?

      If so, why didn't S&C notify the customer on March 24, 2000 that "immediate attention" was needed to fix a problem, as noted on the Quality Care report, and has been done in the past by S&C and other vendors? Wouldn't this have reduced the time, cost and inconvenience of emergency repairs? For example, on May 7, 1999 S&C issued an initial estimate of $160. Then, using Quality Care, S&C gave various notices through the day that increased the estimate to over $2,000. This shows pattern and practice for S&C's Service Advisor to expedite same-day service of issues discovered during preventive maintenance. The record is replete with similar examples over the past 5 years or so. Same-day notice helps avoid emergency repairs, which otherwise cause congestion that escalate costs, and further cause additional mistakes from distractions of new and untimely information and tasks forced into communication and work streams, to the detriment of S&C, the work force and customers?

   2. Since S&C failed to give timely notice on March 24, 2000 so that the leak could be fixed without incurring car rental expense, and additional customer time, should S&C refund the car rental expense charged by your invoice #54232, also dated April 14, 2000 in the amount of $43.01, plus reasonable compensation for the customer's time to assist S&C in remedying the error on March 24, 2000? Would $500 be reasonable compensation for customer inconvenience and loss of income on April 13 and 14, to recover from S&C's mistake?

   3. If the leak identified by S&C on March 24, 2000 was different from the leak that required emergency service on April 14, 2000, then please point out where in the record this leak has been repaired.

      A problem that needs "immediate attention" cannot simply disappear.

      If it has not been fixed, then it must now be worse, and, therefore, poses an even greater risk than on March 24, 2000 when "immediate attention" was needed. If so, where is the notice in the invoice on June 30 to fix the leak discovered on March 24?

3. Multi-point service in S&C invoice #332357 on March 24, 2000 gives no indication of what is actually accomplished. There is a separate entry in the same invoice for servicing latches, hinges, etc, and a charge of $8.40, because the Service Advisor reported that S&C's policy is to charge separately for this latter scope.

   Multi-Point service in S&C invoice #338040 on June 30, 2000 lists the following work performed...

   CK ALL LIGHT WIPERS HORN.
   LUBED ALL DOOR LOCKS,
   CK ALL FLUID AND ADDED IN LEVEL OK,
   CK THE BELT HOSES OK,
   RECOM CK
   THE LT/REAR BRAKE LIGHT IS OUT
   

   There is no charge for this scope of service.

   This record presents several issues...

   1. What is the scope of Multi-point service?

      We could take the trouble to list in this letter all of the prior invoices that show the same tasks listed under different headings on different service visits, with the result that the actual work performed is not established by S&C's record. These conflicts are more than mere paperwork.

      If it covers lubing latches, door hinges, etc., as shown on June 30, then the charge of $8.40 on the March 24, 2000 invoice is a duplication, and should be credited.

   2. On March 24, 2000 there is no record in invoice #332357 that fluids were topped off, as there is in prior invoices under Multi-Point service. There is an indication this was done in the Quality Care report, but that report has a history of conflicts, as seen from the record of service on May 7, 1999.

      One conclusion is that fluids were not topped off on March 24, 2000 and this caused the vehicle to overheat when it was used by the customer in the days following service, and thereafter either increased or compounded inconsequential seepage into harmful leaks in the cooling system, culminating in emergency service on April 13 and 14, 2000.

      A possible scenario may have occurred where a hurried mechanic reported a leak requiring "immediate attention," which cannot however, be substantiated by independent inspection, as occurred on May 7, 1999. The mechanic thereafter expected this to result in a change to the Work Order to fix the alleged leak, after which, fluid would have been added. The mechanic checked the box in the Quality Care report showing "fluid was topped off," even though it wasn't, because it is standard industry practice not to release a vehicle to the customer that requires immediate attention to a critical operating system. Limited time and a high work load created a complex dynamic that caused the leak, real or imaginary, not to be fixed. Any number of circumstances could have caused this, including getting mixed up in filling out Quality Care reports for different vehicles by different people at different times, and no review by management.

      As a result, S&C's invoice #33498 in the amount of $404.06 for work on April 14, 2000 should be credited as an expense caused by S&C's failure to perform.

   3. On April 14, 2000 several trips to S&C were required due to lack of notice about payment and scope of work. Please suggest improvements in communication that can benefit S&C and customer partnership.

4. S&C failed to give notice that a rear brake light needs to be repaired, discovered in the Multi-Point inspection on June 30, 2000.

   This seems like a safety issue, perhaps subject to regulation, statute or industry standard. S&C's Quality Care, also, mentions the need for repairing the rear brake light under Comments.

   S&C should now give prompt notice about whether this matter needs immediate repair, or can wait until the next service on or about the date established under paragraph one (1), above.

   If immediate attention is justified, how much should the customer be compensated for assisting S&C in recovering from this mistake?

5. S&C's invoice #338040 on June 30, 2000 shows a charge of $12.95 for rotating tires, which conflicts with terms of sale by S&C on May 5, 1999, and should therefore be credited. When the car was received on Friday afternoon, S&C's service advisor, Antone, maintained that S&C has a policy of charging for rotating tires. He argued S&C's policy supersedes terms of sale. Antone consulted a colleague, Jasvir, who affirmed Antone's understanding that S&C has a policy of always charging for rotating tires, and has never included this work with the cost of selling tires. Neither Antone nor Jasvir produced a policy statement to support their memory. Antone placed a call for Wendell to double check S&C's policy; but, Wendell did not answer. Additionally, on November 19, 1999 S&C rotated the tires at no charge in conformance the terms of sale, as shown in S&C's invoice #325875. Jasvir was the Service Advisor for that work, and given the passage of time, understandably may not have recalled this transaction he supervised on November 19, 1999, in the discussion with Antone on June 30, 2000.

   Regardless of what people remember, or what S&C policy may be about rotating tires, the best course is to follow the terms of sale.

6. The Work Order called for balancing the tires on June 30, 2000. This work was not performed. Antone advised this failure occurred due to a communication mistake by S&C.

   Balancing tires was written in ink, as an additional scope, because the Service Advisor did not include it in the printed Work Order. This is a relatively minor matter, except the tire warranty requires the customer to rotate and balance the tires regularly. Since S&C is the tire vendor, we hold S&C responsible in the event of any subsequent issue of improper wear that might require tire replacement, as occurred, for example, on May 7, 1999.

   The Quality Care report on June 30, 2000 shows no comments on tire wear, but that may reflect inadequate reporting due to limited time from a heavy schedule that causes lack of attention by a mechanic.

7. S&C's Quality Care report on June 30, 2000 shows the brakes were inspected, which was also entered as an additional request on the Work Order, similar to balancing the wheels. The invoice ( #338040 does not show this work, which is highly unusual, since it is normally a $50 or $60 charge.

   Accordingly, we ask that S&C confirm that a brake inspection was actually performed. Of additional concern is that the valuations are all 5 MM. It seems unusual that front and back brakes would have the same readings. Our records seem to indicate that past measurements were in 32nds of an inch. On October 1, 1999 NASA reported that a change in units of measure caused the loss of a $125M vehicle that crashed on Mars due to the compounding effect over time of errors. S&C should make a reasonable effort to establish that similar fate is not at risk from this change in reporting standards. A possible concern is that on November 19, 1999, S&C reported the rear brakes were at 10/32nds; after 7 months and approximately 4K miles, the reading is now 5 MM. This is 3 months less time for a prior comparable change in lining on the rear brakes.