Aamco Transmissions Completed Unauthorized Work and Held My Vehicle Illegally Tampa, Florida

 This is in reference to a complaint filed by a customer RJ on or about 11/30/2010. This complaint is directed toward the previous owner of the shop that I now own. I am not familiar with all that happened to RJ, what or who said what I have no knowledge. I am truly sorry this customer had a unpleasant experience with this AAMCO center but I did not own the shop when this dispute occurred. It is my understanding that RJ received some sort of settlement from the previous owner to resolve this matter. Because this incident took place before I took ownership of this particular shop, I am seeking your help in removing this complaint so as not to taint any of my customers thinking. I strive extremely hard every day to do whatever it takes to achieve 100% customer satisfaction in my shop and would appreciate any help you may be able to offer to have this removed. If I can assist in any way please do not hesitate to contact me, and thank you in advance for your assistance.

Uh, no. If you had read the entire thing you would see that we have been in contact with the Department of Consumer Services, The Customer Service/Complaint Department of Aamco and the Better Business Bureau... Needless to say the parts were taken out and the car was returned to us, and we then took it to a different mechanic.

Please clarify exactly who gave that order?

That is a civil matter and only a judge could make that ruling.

Anyone else simply did not have the authority.

Under FL Law that mechanic had the legal right to not only hold your vehicle until payment was made, but could have also filed a mechanic's lien on the title, and then sold the vehicle at auction to satisfy the lien.

Somebody over reached here with their "authority", or you are outright lying here about the "order to release".

Are you confusing an "order" with a "request"?

The update right above your reply explained that Aamco was ordered to remove all the parts and release the vehicle, so one that was completed, we took it to another mechanic and had it done right for the right price.

You indicate that AAMCO did the repair work on the car (manager telling you the work was complete) and yet after you got the car back you still had to take it to another mechanic and have the work done, again?

Just to update my status here for those who have issues with Aamco in the future. I've got my car back. I spoke to the authorities and several others involving the complaints and the Aamco shop owner was ordered to remove all the parts.

A lawyer would never write ANYTHING that looks like what you posted.  First, lawyers do not usually accuse people of theft without looking at all the facts.  Second, lawyers are aware of something called a "mechanic's lien," which is what you are dealing with here.  ASSUMING the owner of the shop has written or oral permission to work on your car, the mechanic can keep your car until he gets paid.  If you refuse to pay, he could sell the car at an auction to recoup the amount owed.  Sounds like you got some free legal advice dispensed by someone who has very little clue about law.

The remaining question is whether or not you have authorized the work.  I'm afraid to say that you have no leg to stand on here.  The mechanic told you how much it would cost, told you about financing, and you gave him part of your social security number, presumably in order to apply for financing.  This constitutes a perfectly valid estimate, and applying for financing certainly implies permission to do the work.  You CAN request a written estimate before authorizing work, but in this case you didn't.  There is no legal requirement for the shop to get your signature in writing -- they just need your permission in some form.  Your social security number is more than enough in this case.  No judge would believe that you would give someone your SSN if you had no intention of having the work performed.  As far as your assertion that you could have given any 4-digit number: it would be a remarkable coincidence if a random 4-digit number matched your own SSN.

Why doesn't anyone understand that I WAS GIVEN NO PAPERWORK WHAT SO EVER!

   Nice sidestep.   I'll ask again.   Can you point to the law or regulation that prohibits someone from authorizing work over the phone?     Sounds like you're just blowing smoke to me.

Whenever I take my vehicle in for repairs I have a written estimate that is provided by the mechanic. There is a little box down at the bottom that has three choices:

1) [ ] I request a Written Estimate

2)  [ ] I do not request a written estimate as long as the repair costs do not exceed $______. The shop may not exceed this amount without my written or oral approval.

3) [ ] I do not reqest written estimate.

I have seen this in every shop I have ever used for the last decade at least. There is a little box next to each selection for you to choose which one you will allow. Naturally I always choose option 1 AND I make a huge X in that spot in INK on every copy so there is no doubt. They don't start the work without written authorization. That is what email and fax machines are all about. Written estimates and written authorizations.  

As to giving out the last 4 digits: it is common knowledge that many places now use your last 4 as a way to confirm a verbal authorization. NEVER give your social, or any part of it, out to someone over the phone.

I don't know how you didn't understand you were authorizing him to do the work. And I don't like Aamco at all so I am not defending the company.

Sorry, again you are wrong. Take into consideration that we were going to get the forms to look over, but come to find out, there are no forms.

"Lastly... YOU CANNOT AUTHORIZE WORK OVER THE PHONE WITHOUT A SIGNATURE. I could have told him straight to his face "yes I want the work done," but he didn't have a signature so he couldn't. "

   Why not?  This is common practice in the industry.   It would be quite a burden on the consumer if they had to return to the shop and sign something just to get any work done.   Could you point us to the law or regulation that prohibits authorizing work over the phone?

  I agree with the original commenter that you don't appear to have a valid argument.  The shop called you and gave you the price for the work to be done.   If you intended to go elsewhere for a second opinion, why wouldn't you just say that?  I don't think a small claims judge would buy your convoluted explanation that you were applying for financing, but at the same time planning to take your car somewhere else.   While that may in fact be the case, it doesn't sound plausible.

I see that you failed to comprehend what truly happened.

It appears that the root of the problem here is communication. And, I am not siding with Aamco because I know they are thieves, from past experience.

The second problem is your total lack of vehicle knowledge. There is NO SUCH THING on today's vehicles as a "major tune up" [as opposed to a minor tune up]? Here is a hint for you. On todays vehicles, a "tune up" is a fancy term used for a spark plug change. Nothing more.

First, he gave you the estimate as required by law. He told you approximately $900. So you have no defense there at all.

Second, when he asked you for the last 4 of your social, WHY would you just rattle it off without asking what the need for that info was, and how it would be used? Just common sense here.

And, if you thought the request for your last 4 was for financing approval, that is an indication that you approved the work to be done, right? That is how a court of law will see it. Common sense dictates you don't apply for financing unless you are getting the work done, right?

I think your best option here is to take this as a learning experience, and pay the bill, and be happy because failure to pay, your vehicle goes to auction, and fighting in court will cost more than the $900 with only a slim chance you would win anyway.

Live and learn. Grow some balls and learn how to clearly communicate, and to ask WHY on anything you don't fully understand.