Audio Express Audio equipment, stereo, subwoofer, car audio Scottsdale Arizona

I wanted to attach a screenshot of my better business bureau complaint.  The reason I wanted to do so was so the "What Else" Mr. Link (President of Audio Express) mentions in his rebuttal is clearly identified within this complaint.  This complaint was issued before Mr. Link's rebuttal and is the consistent request I have had with staff.  Please note that my "What else" is a full refund, nothing like Mr link is trying to imply.  He is using this arena to make me out to be some sort of oppotunity seeker on this bad situation.

Potential customer, ask yourself if this is above and beyond the scope of reasonable requests.  I have not ever suggested I want anything else, simply a return of my purchase and indemnification of future car trouble that can be linked back to this incedent.  Many of you would probably think that this should have been standard; not only is this not standard from Audio Express, this is also faught against as evidence by Mr. Link's rebuttal.  Again, it is no wonder I am mad and it is of no wonder why I consider it my consumer duty (and capitalist reaction) to provide you with evidence of Mr. Link's and Audio Express's negligent behavior.  

Dear Public,

I have not had the opportunity to speak with Mr. Link nor has he tried to reach out to me.  The fact he is even responding to this report and not contacting me is direct evidence as to the poor business practices that Audio Express engages in.  Furthermore "what else" is appropriate in this situation and to play the card that I am looking to gain something by this is to say that I planned when walking into Audio Express that I expected or even encouraged this all to happen.  As far as the insurance adjuster, this gentleman (In which I am sure Mr. Link has not spoken with) merely stated that he would cover the car repair and rental car (never mentioned he would cover the rest of the damage).  This gentleman also mentioned that he was contacted by Audio Express 6 days after the incident (which contradicts Mr. Links account of events) which resulted in charges to my debit card that were never suppose to happen.  Please use that instance as even further evidence that that the "Normal process" in which this president is refering to resulted in further damage to the customer.

Regarding his mentioning that I am mad, this is probably the only thing we will agree on.  I am mad, very mad; my home was covered in gas and I drove a car that was leaking with gas.  Both circumstances put my life and my children's lives in greater danger than they were without that happening.  Sands Chevrolet said "there was no way that the company did not know they did this damage; gas tanks are pressurized and they would have immediately smelled the gas."  It is futher compounded that Audio Express wanted to make me feel like they were losing out on something; like somehow we were in this together.  It is very convenient that the president of this company fails to address that, or the fact that their installation process could potentially put your life and families life in danger.  The fact he (or the company) has not provided any "what else" is a direct testiment to their business and thier inherendt status quo attitude.

Buyer I urge you to beware, you have read this companies rebuttal and it was filled with pointing the finger back at you; the customer.  They will come back to defend themselves vehimantly without ever reaching out to the customer.  Shame on Mr. Link for discouraging the consumer process, I have every right to get onto every website and speak to everyone that will hear me that this company is terrible.  I am a disgruntled customer Mr. Link so instead of insulting me, challenging my testimony, and saving face I suggest you spend your time calling me and trying to actually resolve the damage your company has done.

Thank you

An unfortunate incident occurred at one of our locations Friday of last week which resulted in accidental damage to the gas tank of a customers' vehicle. Despite the very inaccurate account provided by this customer in his internet postings and complaints to consumer groups, our Company did everything within our control, in a timely manner, to get his vehicle promptly repaired.   In the rare situation a customers' car is damaged, (unfortunately no stereo shop can boast a perfect record) we immediately contact our insurance carrier.  We did that in this case as well, but since our call went out on a Friday afternoon it wasn't until Monday that the claim was initially processed. According to the time line provided by our insurance company, it did take several days to assign it to an adjuster, but during that process we did not "ignore the customer for five days" or "ask the customer to find a car, tow truck and local dealership" as

represented in his complaint.  We had multiple communications with customer, the repair facility and the rental car agency coordinating the repair effort and informing all this was now an insurance matter and to bill accordingly.  As of today, exactly one week since the incident, all repairs have been successfully completed and the vehicle has been completely detailed.  (The repair facility has expressly denied the customers claim they stated we have a "don't  care" attitude- actually praising us for authorizing the ordering of the part early to expedite the process).

 In addition our insurance adjuster has communicated his willingness to reimburse the customer for any documented expenditures related to the clean up or any loss of wages the customer is claiming.  It was our insurance agent (and not our company as represented by the customer) that requested the customer deal with him in factual losses vs. hypothetical claims when the customer was looking to be compensated for an assortment of "what ifs" that didn't occur.

 The bottom  line is that we did make an installation error that resulted in damage to this customers' vehicle. We regret the error, apologized for the incident and worked promptly and diligently to get everything handled.  From the onset, the customer was demanding (in a less than pleasant manner) "what else" would we be doing for him in addition to getting his vehicle repaired. He was informed that we would take his request under consideration, but our primary objective was to first have the vehicle repaired.  While we certainly can understand why the customer is unhappy, the manner in which he chose to deal with our staff without  allowing the normal process to take place, and now the manner

in which he is slandering our Company with false statements, isn't helping his chances for us to further consider "what else" we might do. We've been in business for nearly 40 years and take pride in not only delivering exceptional customer service, but also handling problem situations fairly and professionally.  We only wish Mr. Decknick had chosen to follow the same protocol. 

John Link, President