The following is the complaint letter I wrote to the MN Attorney General:
07.11.08
Office of the Attorney General
State of Minnesota
Consumer Complaint Division
Suite 1400
445 Minnesota Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
RE: Allegation and Complaint of Fraud Against Luther Brookdale Buick-Pontiac-GMC an Auto Dealership and Auto Repair Shop
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Office of the Minnesota Attorney General,
Defined Terms
The following defined terms will be used in this Complaint Letter:
XXXXXXX" is Bruce XXXXXXXXX, a resident of the State of Minnesota, and the person making the allegation and complaint against Luther Brookdale with this Complaint Letter. Contact information for Bratton is:
Bruce XXXXXXXXXXX
* Lake Drive
Maple Grove, MN 55311
*-*-* (cell)
Luther Brookdale is the business Luther Brookdale Buick-Pontiac-GMC which conducted the repair on the Truck owned by Bratton. Luther Brookdale originates and conducts its business in the State of Minnesota. The contact information for Luther Brookdale is:
Luther Brookdale Buick-Pontiac-GMC
6800 Brooklyn Boulevard
Brooklyn Center, MN 55429
763.549.1600 (service department)
The Truck is that certain 1990 GMC K1500 pickup truck, owned by Bratton, which was the subject of the truck repair conducted by Luther Brookdale.
Background Information
This Complaint Letter alleges and complains of a fraud committed against Bratton by Luther Brookdale. The fraud was carried out by Luther Brookdale by means of a scheme of bait-and-switch.
On Tuesday, 05.06.08, Bratton drove the Truck to Luther Brookdale because the Truck engine was leaking anti-freeze onto the ground, underneath the Truck, when the Truck was parked. Bratton can provide three (3) eyewitnesses as to both the general volume of the leak as well as where the anti-freeze dripped to the ground underneath the Truck which could be used to help deduce the source of the leak.
Luther Brookdale diagnosed the problem as being a leak in the Truck's radiator. Luther Brookdale called Bratton with an estimated cost of repair which involved replacing the old radiator with a new radiator, and Bratton authorized Luther Brookdale to conduct the repair. Bratton was called by Luther Brookdale on Friday, 05.09.08 informing Bratton that the Truck's repair was complete.
That same day, Friday, 05.09.08, Bratton went to Luther Brookdale, paid for the radiator replacement repair for a total cost of $1,006.58 (see copy of invoice shown as Exhibit A attached to this Complaint Letter), Bratton then drove the Truck just four (4) miles from Luther Brookdale to Bratton's sister-in-law's house and parked the Truck in the driveway of that residence.
Approximately 90 minutes later, Bratton emerged from the residence and discovered anti-freeze leaking from the Truck onto the ground below. The amount of the leak was identical to the leaks seen prior to the radiator repair. And, more importantly, the leak was appearing on the ground, below the engine compartment of the Truck, in exactly the same position as the leaks seen prior to the radiator repair. Again, Bratton can provide the same three (3) eyewitnesses, at the sister-in-law's house, as to both the general volume of this leak as well as where the anti-freeze dripped onto the ground underneath the Truck so as to confirm that the radiator repair conducted by Luther Brookdale failed to repair the anti-freeze leak. Unfortunately, Luther Brookdale was closed for business for the day at the time of this discovery.
Therefore, the very next day, Saturday, 05.10.08, Bratton returned the Truck to Luther Brookdale. At that point in time, Bratton complained that the radiator repair conducted by Luther Brookdale was either inappropriate or had failed and that Luther Brookdale was to re-repair the radiator. However, Luther Brookdale staff informed Bratton they could not conduct the repair that day because they only conducted oil changes on Saturdays. Bratton then complained further that this was unacceptable given he now had a Truck he could not drive for an entire weekend if repairs could not be conducted until Monday. At this point, Luther Brookdale found an employee mechanic on-site who would try to diagnose the problem. The result of that diagnoses by Luther Brookdale was that the radiator was not the source of the leak.instead, the leak was coming from the water pump of the Truck's engine.
However, the mechanic was not sufficiently trained/certified to actually conduct the repair of the water pump therefore no water pump repair could be conducted until the following Monday. Bratton realized he had no choice but to leave the Truck at Luther Brookdale and have the water pump repaired / replaced on the following Monday when a trained/certified mechanic could conduct the water pump repair.
On Monday, 05.12.08, Luther Brookdale called Bratton with an estimated cost of repair which involved replacing the old water pump with a new water pump. Bratton complained that the evidence indicated the radiator had not been the source of the anti-freeze leak and therefore Luther Brookdale had conducted an unneeded repair. Further, Bratton requested that he not be charged for the radiator repair due to the evidence presented. Luther Brookdale argued that the evidence of the anti-freeze leak found after the radiator repair was simply a new leak which had erupted in the five (5) minute drive that occurred from Luther Brookdale to Bratton's sister-in-law's house. Realizing Luther Brookdale was going to stand by its story, and realizing he needed to have the truck repaired so he could get the Truck out of Luther Brookdale's control, Bratton authorized Luther Brookdale to conduct the water pump repair. Bratton was called by Luther Brookdale later that day informing Bratton that the Truck's repair was complete. Later that same day, Bratton paid Luther Brookdale for the water pump repair for a total cost of $359.13 (see copy of invoice shown as Exhibit B attached to this Complaint Letter), and drove the Truck home. Subsequently, no anti-freeze leaks have occurred.
The Allegation and Complaint
Luther Brookdale conducted a classic bait-and-switch form of fraud against Bratton. How? Given the evidence, shown above, the radiator repair did not fix the anti-freeze leak. This means the radiator had not been the source of the leak, therefore Luther Brookdale conducted an unneeded repair when it replaced the radiator. Luther Brookdale then furthered this bait-and-switch scheme by subsequently identifying the real source of the anti-freeze leak as being the water pump, and then charging Bratton a second set of parts and labor fees to conduct the second repair.
Moreover, Luther Brookdale's counter-argument, to justify charging Bratton with both sets of parts and repairs, is that a miracle' occurred to cause the so-called second leak' occurring after the radiator repair. What was the miracle? According to Luther Brookdale, the miracle occurred in three (3) steps. First, the so-called second leak manifested itself while I drove the Truck four (4) miles in five (5) minutes (on I-94) from Luther Brookdale to my sister-in-law's house. Second, that the so-called second leak was in approximately the same volume amount (when seen on the ground below the Truck) even though it was from the water pump and not the radiator. And, third, that the so-called second leak would drop below the Truck's engine compartment in exactly the same place (when seen on the ground below the Truck) even though it was from the water pump and not the radiator. As you can see, all of this evidence would, indeed, indicate that Luther Brookdale believes a miracle occurred.
The Remedy Sought
Bratton acknowledges and accepts the fact that the water pump was the source of the anti-freeze leak and that that specific repair was appropriate. Therefore, Bratton should pay for that specific repair. However, Bratton requests that Luther Brookdale reimburse Bratton for the parts and labor fees to conduct the first repairthe replacement of the radiatorbased upon the evidence provided in this Complaint Letter. Therefore, Bratton seeks reimbursement from Luther Brookdale of $1,006.58 (see Exhibit A) the cost of the radiator replacement.
Thank you for allowing me to present this Complaint Letter to you. And thank you for any intervention or resolution to this matter you can help me accomplish.
The information contained in this Complaint Letter is, to the best of my knowledge, accurate and true.
Sincerely,
Bruce XXXXXXXXX
See Exhibits Attached
0 comments