Bob's Autotorium Unreputable dishonest and completely unprofessional Does not stand behind their work. Whitaker Pennsylvania

Grandview Investigations, I am writing in response to your report, accusing Bob's Autotorium of ripping you off. My family and I have been taking our vehicles to Bob's for years without any complaints, the employees there are always courteous and helpful. They are without question one of the most professional and reputable shops in the general area. I don't know what your problem was, but I can tell you we've had no problems with any of their staff, owners or employees. It sounds like maybe you were trying to rip them off!

With regards to your final comment that maybe I was trying to rip Bob's Autotorium off, that could not be farther from the truth. You see, we went there to get a new motor in our Dodge Ram. It was originally to be $2,100 and ended up $3,600 and change. Mr. Ackerman, owner, had been told to save the old parts, which he did not and these old parts are ours to claim. We were given a 30 day warranty, which he did not honor. We also did not get an explanation as to how a dent got into the rear quarter panel. After all that money spent with Bob, you would think we would get these agreed upon elements of our contract.

So, as a consumer, after spending all this money and not getting what was agreed upon, would you pay the final $314.00? To make a long story short, before we realized all these things were not honored by Mr. Ackerman, we actually left our other truck, an S-10 to be fixed also. But when these things were not honored, we had to get the Attorney General to get Mr. Ackerman to release the S-10, which he was trying to hold "hostage, " but could not under Pennsylvania law.

So, like a spoiled child because an intelligent woman stood up to him, Mr. Ackerman, decided to go to court to have the Ram sold for this small amount, knowing full well HE was far from fufilling his own agreement. So, Mr. Consumer, would you appreciate a Constable showing up at your door early one Saturday morning to attempt to sell your vehicle for $314.00, when had he provided all the used parts, which are technically ours, taken the newly installed motor to have its "tweaks" performed per the 30 day warranty, we would have had no problem paying the final amount PLUS having our other truck fixed also.

Quite frankly, if we were intending to rip Bob's Autotorium off, we would have never left our other truck. It just doesnt make sense. We are now dealing with this matter downtown, out of the prejudices of the local District Magistrate and hopefully Mr. Ackerman will be putting good money after bad and get stuck with all the additional fees it has cost him to pursue this matter as I have the law on my side AGAIN and will prevail.

Mrs. Grandview Investigations, Instead of fabricating yet another lie, why don't you tell the visitors of this website the real truth,or maybe I will instead.With regards to your response, I'll set the record straight,your boyfreind Mr. Desantis had called on Bob's Autotorium to install a used engine NOT a new engine in the Dodge,(the old engine remained at Bob's Autotorium for several months after delivery of the vehicle, and no attempt to pick it was made), and the original cost of the engine and installation remained the same, however, when he asked Bob's Autotorium to perform a state inspection on the same vehicle and it needed repairs in order to pass a legal pa state inspection(which you neglected to mention), this made the difference between the engine installation and the total cost of the repair. Well whenever Mr. Desantis agreed to have Bob's Autotorium repair the vehicle and it was completed, he paid all of the invoice, except for the mentioned $314.00, and he asked if leaving the Chevrolet S-10 truck was possible to hold as collateral, as it also need repairs, which was agreed upon, without knowing 2 parties names appeared on the title, so when Bob's Autotorium was forced to return the vehicle, (at no cost to the owner),which was there for several months, while no attempt to pay the remainder of the bill by Mr. Desantis was made, unfortunately,  after countless attepts to receive payment on the bill, Bob's Autotorium had no choice but to turn the matter over to the magistrate. when the magistrate found the case in favor of Bob's Autotorium and once again a payment by Mr. Desantis was NOT made, so the magistrate summond the constable to sell the vehicle to pay off the bill.As for the said damage of the vehicle Bob's Autotorium was NEVER  contacted about it nor was the vehicle ever returned for any repairs, and had only learned about this at the time of the hearing at the magistrate.

Who got ripped off by in this case... I'd say Bob's Autotorium!!

As in any adversarial situation, there are always two sides to every story, as is in this case. I do understand that it was a used motor. I also understand there were other repairs involved, like the inspection. However, that was not the point, because I do understand sometimes when a vehicle is taken in for repairs, a consumer will incur other additional expenses. That is understandable and reasonable. It was the details that surround this case that was central to my statements with regards to Bob's Autotorium. So, for the consumers reading this situation, lets use the reasonable mans standard to decide which truly is the more credible.

1. From the beginning, Mr. DeSantis requested that he wanted all the used parts. That would include the old motor, ball joints, brake line and any other part that was replaced. These parts were to be placed in the bed of the Dodge Ram, which is more than adequate to hold and store these used parts. So, as the part was repaired, Bob should have just thrown it in the bed of the truck, which was not done. Sitting it in the shop to be picked up is ridiculous as they should have already been placed in the bed of the truck per Mr. DeSantis' instructions and would have also benefited Mr. Ackerman, as it would not take up room in his shop. Therefore, the arguement that it was never picked up is unreasonable.

2. In a total bill of $3,600 and change, which we also have been requesting an itimized bill from Mr. Ackerman and still have not received, all was paid except $314.00. This shows that money was not a problem for Mr. DeSantis as when he would contact Mr. Ackerman to check on the status of the truck and more money was requested, Mr. DeSantis would promptly pay Mr. Ackerman with no problems. He asked, we paid. This shows credibility on the part of Mr. DeSantis and a willingness to take care of his responsiblities with regard to the repair of his truck. So, with all of that in mind, a reasonable person might conclude that something had to have happened to cause Mr. DeSantis not to pay the remaining money especially when they had his second truck, the S-10 to be repaired also.

3. A 30 day warranty was part of the repair, which was not honored by Mr. Ackerman. After Mr. DeSantis picked up the Ram, approximately one week later, he contacted Mr. Ackerman to make adjustments that are not unusual for such a major undertaking. Also, a dent was located in the rear quarter panel by Mr. DeSantis. He requested an explanation of such dent by Mr. Ackerman, which was never given. So, the combination of no used parts, no honoring of the warranty by making adjustments to motor or an explanation of how the dent got in the quarter panel, Mr. DeSantis decided not to pay the remaining monies and attempted to remove the S-10 from his place of business. Mr. Ackerman did not fully adhere to his agreement, so why should Mr. DeSantis? This is not difficult for a reasonable person to understand.

4. Regarding the removal of the S-10, "Ms. Grandview Investigations," as I have now been referred to, contacted Mr. Ackerman to make arrangements for the removal of the S-10. He blatently refused to release it. I told him that there would be no problem had he been honorable with regards to the Ram and that I no longer wished to have him work on the S-10, which I was part owner of. I then contacted the Attorney General, who promptly contacted Mr. Ackerman to inform him that he had to release the S-10. According to the Agent, Mr. Ackerman was very nice and said that he would release the S-10. but when the time came and the wrecker was there to pick it up, he would not release it. Why would he tell the agent at the Attorney General he would release the truck, but in reality had no intentions of doing so? Another example of deception and untruth by Mr. Ackerman not only to us but to the States Attorney General! So, to finally have it removed I had to contact the Attorney General again, the Whitaker police and the District Magistrate Olaz. THAT is why the S-10 stayed at his location for so long.

5. With regards to the rulings at the local District Magistrate Olaz, well readers, this is where we throw out a reasonable mans standards and have to rely on personal experiences with local authorities and their predjudicial rulings. Basically, Mr. Ackerman fixes local boroughs vehicles and at one time an auxillary police station was located at his place of business. At the hearing, we signed in and sat down like most litigants. Mr. Ackerman signed in and went back in to see the Judge. You tell me? Pennsylvania law, with regards to civil judgements have rules. Rules that should be applied. And without argueing this case on this website, a defense, which is given to everyone that has been served with a Writ of Execution, which is the sale of property to collect this judgment, is that the property is excessive compared to the amount of the judgment. Which in plain language simply means the property to be sold is way more valuable than the amount of the Judgement. Kelly blue book gives the Ram a value at almost $5,000 and the actual debt incurred to date is $510.00. That is a viable defense and one that should have prevailed. But Judge Olaz's remarks of, "Well, you have to sell something to pay this man his money..." is completely wrong. But what do you expect when you have a non-lawyer making rulings on law? So, Excuse me Judge Olaz, no, something does not have to be sold to get this man his money if the property is exempt! Pennsylvania law. Hopefully, real educated individuals with real legal educations will see this when we go into Arbitration in February and we can finally recieve justice.

So, whoever you are and all the other consumers reading this story, I hope you can see where we have a reasonable, viable defense to this rebuttal. We truly intended to pay the remaining monies owed to Mr. Ackerman and have the S-10 fixed and back on the road again as we had paid the previous months faithfully while the Ram was in for repairs. All we wanted was what we agreed upon from the beginning, which we were never given.