Re: Gerry Lane Chevrolet I brought my car to Gerry Lane Chevrolet approximately two years ago for the first time to have a problem I was having with the car not starting fixed. Not for the usual reasons a car won’t start. The security system, I think, was disabling the car from starting. This happened randomly. Sometimes once a week. Sometimes not for a month. Sometimes on consecutive days. No rhyme or reason as to the frequency or time. I would pull in to a convenience store, for instance, come out after 2-3 minutes, try to start the car and nothing would happen. Accessory function would work, but I’d turn the ignition key and……. nothing. The engine would not even turn over. Invariably, after 15-20 minutes the system would “reset or right” itself, I’d turn the ignition key and the car would start right up. Now I’m not a mechanic, but since the car started right up again after 15-20 minutes, this doesn’t indicate a battery or starter problem to me. On the first two occasions I brought my car to Gerry Lane for this problem, I was told that my explanation on why it wouldn’t start sounded plausible, but they would have to “catch it in the act” to properly analyze and diagnose the cause. I didn’t think this was very likely because of aforementioned randomness of the malfunction. So I resigned myself to just having to live with the problem or face the very expensive proposition of having service technicians hunt and peck until the problem was found. I elected to take no action at that time. Gerry Lane has two service locations, both on Florida Boulevard in Baton Rouge, La. After being fed up with this annoying malfunction, I brought the car in on March 23, 2006, to the other of the two locations at 6550 Florida Blvd., Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and gave the same description of the problem. And got a very different assessment. Several hours after bringing the car in, I got a call from the service rep, Mr. Walt Ducek. He told me the mechanics determined the problem to be occurring in the starter and it needed to be replaced. Based on my explanation in the first paragraph, I highly doubted the starter was the problem, but tired of the inconvenience the problem was causing me, agreed to and paid for the repairs, which cost $563.57. I asked the service rep if he was sure this was the problem and was told that “this should take care of it”. A little over a year later, the problem began occurring again, adding to my suspicion that the starter wasn’t the problem to begin with. I brought the car back to Gerry Lane on August 28, 2007 for the same problem, that of the car not starting, and then, after a 15-20 minutes “break”, it would start up again. I also wanted to get my air conditioner repaired, which was on the service order as well. I talked to the same service technician who handled the complaint back in March 23, 2006, Mr. Walt Ducek. I should mention that Mr. Ducek was civil and professional throughout the ordeal I am about to describe, the last civil and professional person I would encounter at Gerry Lane Chevrolet. I called Mr. Ducek back the following day, August 29, 2007. He informed me that the “new”cause of the starting of the car being disabled was a faulty “pass code” or “pass code module” or words to that effect. This makes more sense to me as this has to do with the security system. I asked Mr. Ducek why this wasn’t diagnosed as the problem on the first visit. His incredible response was, “There are many parts to the starter assembly. We fixed the correct one at the time (March 23, 2006). It lasted you over a year didn’t it? Now this is the cause and we’ll fix it”. The cost to fix it AGAIN was stated as approximately $350. I don’t know because an invoice with estimated charges was not given to me. I do not feel I should have to pay this amount for repairs that were a result of a problem not being identified correctly and fixed correctly the first time. This was per phone conversation with Mr. Ducek. I was incredulous that one of the major car dealer repair shops in town, if not Louisiana, doesn’t have sophisticated enough diagnostic equipment that would have indicated the “pass code” problem on the first visit back in March 2006. I strongly suspect that in the initial diagnostic on March 23, 2006, a half-hearted lame, read quick, we got quotas to meet, analysis was done instead of a comprehensive one that may have shown up the real problem. Like other helpless consumers, I have no way to prove this because I can’t watch what mechanics do and listen to conversations with their superiors on what they’re instructed to do. I find the comment that, “it lasted a year this time didn’t it, to be insulting for a number of reasons. The first is the starters on Olds Intrigues, according to my internet research, last the life of the car the majority of the time, much less need to be repaired twice. The bulk of the Intrigue’s complaints lie in other areas. Two, if this reasoning is to be taken further, then it is not unreasonable, according to the Gerry Lane service philosophy, not only for a repair to be diagnosed incorrectly the first time, but also not to be expected to last! Three, the statement made by Mr. Ducek is an incredibly patronizing shirking of accountability that is systematic throughout Gerry Lane putting the “blame” on the customer. I will get into that more later. Four, where does it end?! How about a third repair if this one doesn’t work? A fourth if the one after that doesn’t work?!, etc. How many times will I have to pay for them to get it right? Can you imagine if medical doctors conducted business this way?!! I asked Mr. Ducek to transfer me to his supervisor, service manager Mr. Craig Anderson, wishing to “appeal” Mr. Ducek’s assessment. I got the same defensive explanation of why the second repair charge I was being asked to pay was justified, except with a more provoking, defensive, hostile and attacking attitude. Harsh words were exchanged. Mr. Anderson asked me how I wanted the problem resolved. I responded that I would like the original problem, with the new diagnosis, fixed at no extra charge, since it was misdiagnosed the first time. He replied, “That ain’t gonna happen!” and ended the conversation by saying, “Ah tell yew whut. We ain’t gonna werk on yore car at all. We gonna haul it tha parkin’ lot and you kin come git it!”Click! Hung up on. Pardon my spelling of Mr. Anderson’s response to me, but I wish to paint a picture of the kind of person I was dealing with. Feeling thoroughly burned now, I called the dealership back and asked to speak to Mr. Lane, the owner, knowing full well that I would get essentially the same treatment and assessment, but I wanted to cover all bases. A few hours later I was called back by not the owner, but the general manager, Mr. Patrick Campbell. His tone immediately, from the get go, was, surprise, combative and hostile. He re-iterated and defended the assessment made by Mr. Anderson. And further, in classic ad-hominem, blame the messenger, circle the wagon fashion, said that I impugned the integrity and honor of Gerry Lane, that he and his employees were human beings didn’t have to take my “abuse” and further lectured me on all the things I quote “needed to realize”. I wanted to say those carbon based units that shell out big bucks for shoddy repairs and have made you wealthy are human beings, too, but I didn’t. He went on about how Gerry Lane was a respected name in the business community and how they were above reproach. His demeanor throughout was one of, “Ha Ha. Good luck peon. We’re a big powerful respected business in the community. You’re dreaming if you think you can touch us.” He never uttered those words, but that is how he came across. I was further treated to a lovely sermon on how the dealership and Mr. Lane were “pillars of the community and had an exemplary record of customer satisfaction” ( By whom? The car dealership association? I don’t think they’re going to cannibalize each other) How about that. Again, harsh words were exchanged. I guess arguing my case aggressively constitutes the “abuse” he alleges. There was not one scintilla of an attempt to be conciliatory on Mr. Campbell’s part, right from the start. I let Mr. Campbell know that I would be pursuing every legal channel and consumer advocacy angle I could to get satisfaction, not limited to small claims court, the BBB, etc. Mr. Campbell replied that he doesn’t take kindly to threats. I replied to him that only a person and entity who is obviously comfortable with attacking the messenger, shirking accountability and getting away with routinely ignoring and rectifying consumer complaints would see that consumer’s actions to try to right a wrong as a “threat”. He then said, “Go right ahead and do what you need to do”. I ended the conversation by informing Mr. Campbell hat there’s a reason his chosen profession doesn’t enjoy a sterling reputation and Gerry lane’s actions in this incident exemplify those reasons. Consumer complaints about automobiles consistently rank in the top three complaints. So bottom line. I’m out $563.57 for a problem that is still not resolved, for a repair that no longer works, that lasted a only a year because, in my opinion was not done correctly to begin with and Gerry Lane will never admit to this in a million years. I ended up going to pick my car up with no repairs having been made. The mind boggles at how many times a day, a week, a year, this has happened to others who don’t report it because of how unpleasant the ensuing dispute will be. I am equally, if not more appalled at the way I was treated throughout. Gerry Lane made their massage to me loud and clear, “Get LOST, we don’t need customers like you who are gonna give us “trouble” “. My desire is to have Gerry Lane assume some liability and absorb at least half of the $350 being asked for in their latest attempt to fix the problem. A copy of the original invoice from March 23, 2006 for repairs totaling $563.57 and the more recent August 28, 2007 invoice from Gerry Lane are available. I will conclude my letter with a rant. Please indulge me. I have no doubt that Gerry Lane’s version of this will be that they bent over backwards to accommodate an unreasonable customer. A hothead. A person with nothing better to do with his time. (Certainly a better use of my time would have been to just shut up and pay them and not question any of their practices, right?). I suspect there are an awful lot of closet “hotheads” out there waiting to come out. It is my opinion that one of the tenets of the new corporate philosophy is to “fire” customers who are seen as a “problem”. Various business publications have even written about this. This is intimidation. It is unethical and is solely designed to marginalize said customers because the resources needed to address consumer concerns cut into their bottom line. Though unstated, it is obvious as evidenced by Gerry Lane’s behavior, that there is some customer code of conduct or rulebook that we as consumers are expected to abide by or else we don’t get to play the game. The object of the game of course is we consumers being allowed to shell out money to pay exorbitant fees for questionable quality of service or product. The transparent and disingenuous “niceness” exhibited by those in the profession are intended only to keep the conflict that this business is inherently rife with at bay. I’d love to be in on the management and service personnel training sessions and see what techniques and skills are taught to shut people down, browbeat, establish that any unfavorable outcome to the company is defacto the fault of the customer. I was a traffic engineer for two years for the Dept. of Transportation. I received many phone complaints about malfunctioning, non-working or mistimed traffic signals. I heard some pretty colorful language and got called names I didn’t know I had. But never once did I, nor was I allowed to say, ”If you don’t talk nice, I’m not going to go check out that signal”. It came with the territory. But then, I’m not a car dealer who is a member of the chamber of commerce and a “pillar of the community” who can, wink, wink, skirt the rules. All this notwithstanding, my refusal to be manipulated by their rules and “make nice” with them by their definition of making nice should not make me ineligible to dispute their practices and get quality service nor should it entitle them to stack the deck so that they are never held accountable. (Kinda like internal investigations into police brutality complaints. Invariably, the police are always found to have acted properly, by …….other police! What a shocker.) We’ve all seen the television shows 20/20, Nightline, 60 minutes, etc. where a reporter goes into a repair shop or dealer showroom and records on camera the most shocking yet routine instances of dishonesty, fraud, theft, unethical practices; e. g. charging for parts not even used, adding hidden costs to sales, using doublespeak or outright lies in closing a sales deal. Are the methods used to expose this questionable journalism? Maybe. But if the widespread outcry didn’t exist and the allegations of thousands of rip-off victims like myself wouldn’t be shown to be true and brought to light with the culprits being caught red-handed on camera, these TV show segments wouldn’t exist. The camera, even hidden, doesn’t lie. My point being, the car industry doesn’t enjoy a stellar reputation and there are some pretty good reasons why. Until the subterfuge and duplicitous techniques they employ and that permeate their industry in sales, after-sale, repair and general consumer relations improve, things will continue to be this way. Sincerely,Nick Rabalais