Volvo Car Corporation Prague 9 Other

Complaint: The case below is baffling in many ways: lack of interest to thoroughly investigate complaints against large corporations such as Volvo Cars or their agents (Centrum Praha Streboholy) and the arrogance of the so-called investigators in taking sides with material and documentary evidence irrespective. In all cases of customer service, the customer is right’ but for Volvo Cars, the customer is automatically wrong until he/she proves the contrary, albeit such media to prove the contrary is also taken away from the customer. Read on and be amazed with the customer service of Volvo Cars. I have copied the correspondences with Centrum Praha Streboholy, Volvo Czech, s.r.o. and Volvo Cars below for a first hand account of the events that occured. Note that all procedural and legal remedies have been exhausted with Volvo Cars, thus, this report. Some parts of this report are in Czech Language and the reader can copy and paste into one of the numerous translation search engines. _______________________________________________ Dear Ms. Montin: Thanks for reverting to me about the finality of Volvo Cars regarding the above matter. We now consider that EVERY and ALL procedural and legal options has been exhausted with Volvo Cars. Best wishes, Edward A. FCMI _________________________ Your Global Customer Relations File Number is 80743. Dear Mr A., Thank you for your email dated 14th June, regarding your Volvo S40, chassis 468484. Please be assured that we have forwarded your comments to our market representatives for their information. We need to inform you that they have made their final decision with regards to your case and we also understand that the matter has been closed. We count on your understanding for not being able to respond as you may have wished. Yours sincerely, ———————————- Linda Montin Global Customer Relations Advisor Dept 57130, SAA2 Volvo Car Corporation SE-40531 Gteborg Sweden Telephone: +46 31 3250077 Fax: +46 31 59 55 55 Website: www.volvocars.com/gcr ______________________________________ Mr. Gustafsson, I write to you in respect of the above matter which involves our Volvo S40. We would like to get Volvo Cars reaction based on which we must have fully exhausted all legal, procedural and other remedies with Volvo Cars and will be justified in implementing other options under now consideration. Let me state from the outset that we are not satisfied with the way this case has been handled and we are unimpressed by the lack of proper investigation and impartial decision of both Volvo Cars who effectively concurred with the uninvestigated and baseless decision of Volvo Czech. I would have directed this e-mail to Fredrik Arp, Volvo Cars President and CEO, but I continue to beleive that the remedies we requested can be met without involving him at this stage. Please read the full case below. Thanks for gving this matter the high and prompt attention that it deserves. _____________________ Edward A., LL.M., FCMI* _____________________ Od: Komu: GLOBAL CUST RELTNS GCR (.) Pedmt: Re:File No: 80743 Mr Asu Datum: 14.6. 2006, 18:10 – vera v 18:10 Your Global Customer Relations File Number is 80743. Dear Ms. Montin: Thanks for your reply which is not surprising and same as that of your daughter company; Volvo Czech Republic. Be rest assured that we are very much unsatisfied with your decision which mirrors that of Volvo Czech Republic, while we consider our next options in the matter, we effective appeal your decision to a superior officer who will thoroughly investigate the matter and hand down a reasoned and explained decision. We cannot accept a decision based on incomplete information that is not fully investigated. Further, what Volvo Sweden has stated here is that NO MATTER NONSESICAL VOLVO CZECH REPUBLIC s.r.o. decision is, VOLVO SWEDEN HAS NOT ONLY ACCEPTED IT BUT HAS BACKED sa you have stated in your on words: ‘We fully support their decision and have confidence in their handling.’ Regards, Edward A. FCMI > ———— Pvodn zprva ———— > Od: GLOBAL CUST RELTNS, GCR (.) > Pedmt: File No: 80743 Mr Asu > Datum: 14.6.2006 16:20:12 > —————————————- Dear Mr A., Thank you for your emails dated 2nd and 14th June, 2006, informing us of the matter with your Volvo S40, chassis 468484, and the concern this has caused. It is with regret that we learn of your situation and we understand your wish to bring this matter to our attention. We have, on your behalf, investigated this matter along with Volvo Auto Czech s.r.o. We understand that you have been in contact with Mr Milan Vondracek and we have been informed that your car was handed over to you, fully repaired, on the 19th May, 2006. The cylinder head repair resulted in a cost of 1000 Euro only. This is 1000 Euro less than if the cylinder head had been replaced instead of repaired (which would have cost you 2000 Euro). Volvo Auto Czech, s.r.o are according to policy, responsible for all matters related to our products in the Czech Republic. They have made their final decision regarding your issue, basing their actions on the information available to them. We fully support their decision and have confidence in their handling. Volvo Car Corporation does not take responsibility for out-of-pocket expenses, such as accommodation, flight tickets etc. We recommend that you contact your insurance company for such issues. If you have further inquiries, you are welcome to contact our representatives directly as follows: Mr Milan Vondracek Customer Relations Volvo Auto Czech, s.r.o. V Oblouku 731 25243 Pruhonice Tel: +420-296-787111 Fax: +420 (2) 96787 222 Email: [email protected]; [email protected]; We would like to thank you for taking the time to bring this matter to our attention. Yours sincerely, ———————————- Linda Montin Global Customer Relations Advisor Dept 57130, SAA2 Volvo Car Corporation SE-40531 Gteborg Sweden Telephone: +46 31 3250077 Fax: +46 31 59 55 55 Website: www.volvocars.com/gcr ______________________________ Mail address: 405 31 Gteborg SWEDEN Switchboard phone: +46-(0)31-59 00 00 Headquarter’s visiting address: VAK building Assar Gabrielssons vg Topic: Appeal against the decision of Volvo Cars, Czech Republic in the matter of Centrum Praha and Volvo Cars Sweden Summary: 1. We have a 1998 model S40T which has not missed a Volvo service from when it was purchased till date. To fully understand this case, may I suggest that you first read the history below and then return to the complaint. We have serious problems with the block, that was bent due to overheating as a result the engine did not start. Volvo Streboholy technicians advised that from the damage caused, it appears that car was doing over 800 kph. Volvo is for life and such damage may be a result of some quality issues of the parts used and the costs are now astronomical. Find below the history of our correspondences, requests for explanation, responses from Centrum Praha Streboholy and the decision of Volvo Cars Czech Republic, which is the crux of this appeal. Also attached are the invoices, takeover protocols, etc. Let me state from the outset that this decision makes a mockery of the term investigation. The investigator himself has stated that there is insuffificent information about the steps of the repairs and the time frame involved but he proceeded to reach a decision without requesting for clarifications of whatever points may be unclear or request additional information. 2. The customer service, or lack thereof, was really unspeakable to say the least. Including, no apology for the excersive delay (2 Months) in repairing our car; it took over six weeks for them to discover that the engine leaked water which we advised them while still in Germany, et cetera. 3. The relevant points of Volvo Cars (Mr. Vondracek’s) decision which appears to have been written by Centrum Praha Streboholy instead of Volvo Cars are the allegations of Centrum Praha Streboholy without any mention of the very serious issues we raised in our complaint: a) the 8 weeks time frame for the repairs to be made was proper: It is clearly irresponsible and incomprehensible for Volvo Cars to find that 8 weeks duration to repaire a customer’s car is proper time frame with the explanation that there were two types of repairs. The records show that the takeover by Centrum Praha Streboholy was on April 3 2006. Centrum Praha Streboholy was supposed to repair an accident (which involved removal of the fender, and painting), and the engine problems caused as a result of overheating. The due date to complete the accident repairs was April 13. Given that the car was in Centrum Praha Sterboholy possession and the unrelated repairs, it seems a nonsensical and unjustifiable decision to say that it took more than one Month after that date to complete the repairs. Further, as stated in my previous complaint, Centrum Praha Sterboholy discovered that the water was leaking from the engine block on May 16 2006, this is after the repairs were supposedly completed. We agreed to make full payment and to get reimbursement from the insurance later but the car was not ready, thus the issue of a delay (slow dealing) by the insurance company in solving the claim is untrue. The undisputed facts point to a allegedly late submission to the insurance company (May 5 2006), which the insurance company did not receive until after a week later, upon resending. Upon receipt, the written approval was done in three days but the car was not ready for takeover as the water leakage was not fixed because the test drive did not occur until May 12. On May 16 2006 we were informed of the engine leakage. Also we were advised of the e-mail was sent to the insurance company. On May 17 or 18 the take over protocol was prepared and on that same day the insurance company issued a written notification that they will cover most of the charges for the repairs caused by the accident. On May 19 2006, I personally went there to takeover the car. The above stipulations are all documented by the attachements. b) this was not a case of faulty engine without any further explanation rather than the allegations of Centrum Praha Sterboholy: The fabrication of stories that we were advised about the thermostat and that the air vent was blocked with a carton thus, the problem was caused by us. Facts are as follows, I personally took the car to Centrum Praha Sterboholy a day before we traveled to change the left traficator (and paid over 70 for it) which was broken as a result of the accident. I informed them about the accident and the thermostat which cost less than 25. The logic in the decision is that I could pay for the traficator but not the thermostat. Further, the decision seem to suggests that the thermostat which controls the vent was open and because the cause of the overheating could not be explained, it therefore MUST be our fault; despite requests that the car be examined. This ruling begs the following questions, who is the specialist and who is the client? If a patient visits a doctor with a headaches and is willing to pay the doctor for his/her medical services, the decision suggests that the doctor will not treat the patient. Centrum Praha Sterboholy was informed that we (less than two year old son, wife and myself) all planned to travel to Holland,and with the car the next day (April 1 2006). And we did but did not get to our destination due to the engine overheating. Whether or not the overheating was caused by the thermostat remains a question yet to be answered. The so-called carton blocking the vent was not there during our trip to Holland. Interestingly, Volvo Cars state that there is insufficient informtaion about the steps and time frame for the repairs but failed to request any clarification and relied wholly on what Centrum Praha Sterboholy advised him irrespective of the material evidences and records which state otherwise. The decision discusses cheaper (repair of the engine components) versus expensive (purchase of new engine or components) options which are here irrelevant as to the steps and time frames for the repairs. Apparently, every other company and the clients are absolutely wrong but Centrum Praha Sterboholy, again despite the evidence suggesting that Centrum Praha Sterboholy delayed in the repairs and there may appear another reason for the engine overheating other than that Centrum Praha Sterboholy said it is the clients fault, thus it must be. It appears from this decision that where a big company is involved in a dispute, the customer has little or no rights. c) Our request for a thorough examination of the car to prevent similar recurrence and for this reason, we do not drive the car outside Prague. This may begin as small but can end up being huge and trully costly for Volvo Cars, Centrum Praha Sterboholy and others; d) Our remedies remains the same as that in the previous complaint: FINACIAL: Costing: EURO -> Assistance and towing in Germany – 200.00 -> Car Rental – 700.00 -> Accommodation/feeding (1 day/night) – 200.00 -> Flight tickets (one way Germany to Prague) – 150.00 -> Towing to Prague – 450.00 -> Deprived vacation – 3000.00 -> Inconviniences and car rental – 2446.00 (Prague) -> Actual repairs (reimbursement) – 1582.00 TOTAL: 8728.00 EUROS IN KIND: -> Further tests of the engine to ensure that similar problems does not recur Volvo should return the car to its factory for a complete overhaul to see what the real problems are and provide us another car until it is fully tested and repaired. -> A written apology from Volvo Cars and Centrum Praha Sterboholy management for all of the above. Miriam A. Petitioner —–Original Message—– From: Vondracek, Milan (M.) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 12:40 PM To: A., Miriam, Cc: Daniel Kadlec Subject: RE: stiznost Dobr den, pan Asu, Vai stnost jsme peliv provili. Z naich zjitn nevyplv, e by se dealerstv Centrum Praha nm vznam0 |znm provinilo. Z vc, kter by se daly vytknout, je to nedostaten mra informac o prbhu opravy a doba opravy. Co se tk celkov doby opravy, znan st doby po kterou jste nemohli vz pouvat jde na vrub pomalho jednn pojiovny. I tak zstv doba cca 1 msc, kterou vz strvil v servise. Pokud by se jednalo pouze o opravu havarovan sti vozu, souhlasm, e by doba opravy byla nemrn dlouh. Soubn se vak na voze opravovala zvada niku chladc kapaliny. Pi diagnostice byla zjitna deformace hlavy vlc, zpsoben pehtm motoru. Oprava se dala eit bu mont nov hlavy vlc nebo jej opra vou. Takovto oprava je vak provdna extern a zabrala njak as. Pokud by z Va strany bylo projeveno pn na proveden co nejrychlej opravy, urit by Vm servis nabdnul monost monte nov hlavy vlc – celkov cena opravy by se pak zhruba zdvojnsobila. Takovto vmna by samozejm byla pro servis jednodu a finann zajmavj. Pokud servis zvolil opravu hlavy, nebylo to proto, aby protahoval dobu opravy vozu, ale aby uetil Vae penze. Co se tk samotn piny peht motoru, byli jsme pracovnky dealerstv informovni, e ve vozidle byl nefunkn termostat a v dob kontroly vozu a objednvn novho termostatu byl chladi vozu zakryt paprovmi kartony. Na nevhodnost zakrvn chladie jste dle pracovnk servisu byli upozornni. Zatmco pi bnm provozu, kdy je motor minimln namhn, me toto provizorn een pomoci zvit provozn teplotu motoru a zajistit komfortn teplotu pro posdku, pi poadavku na dlouhodob pln vkon motoru (V manel zmiuje jzdu rychlost 230 km/h po dlnici v Nmecku) vede zakryt chladie nevyhnuteln k peht motoru a jeho pokozen. K otzce zda nemohl peht zpsobit vadn termostat meme ci s jistotou, e nemohl. Pokud dojde u termostatu k porue “trvale oteven””

Tags: Auto Manufacturers

Address: nen ji technicky mon

Website: May 26

Phone: aby se znovu samovoln zavel a zpsobil peht motoru. Vme

Share Review:
Yes it is. Based on the user review published on AngryConsumers.com, it is strongly advised to avoid Volvo Car Corporation Prague 9 Other in any dealing and transaction.
Not really. In spite of the review published here, there has been no response from Volvo Car Corporation Prague 9 Other. Lack of accountability is a major factor in determining trust.
Because unlike AngryConsumers.com, other websites get paid to remove negative reviews and replace them with fake positive ones.
Volvo Car Corporation Prague 9 Other is rated 1 out of 5 based on the reviews submitted by our users and is marked as POOR.
Never trust websites which offer a shady ‘advocacy package’ to businesses. Search for relevant reviews on Ripoff Report and Pissed Consumer to see more unbiased reviews.
>