6 months later and the paint is bubbling already (check out the photos). They have lots of excuses, but I think it's from poor prep work because the other side of the car is in much better condition. It's almost like they had two people prepping the car, one person did it properly and the other one worked on the driver's side.
Here's a quick overview:
- I went back to Macco about the problems and they asked if I had the car undercoated as I had been told to do (I did and showed them the receipt from Ziebart). I explained to Ziebart the body work which had been done and the rust proofing requirements that Maaco required.
- The car went in to have the problems fixed under warranty and Maaco said they would supply me with a rental car. Maaco had the car for 4 days then told me that the undercoating hadn't been done to their satisfaction (why did it take 4 days to tell me?) and suggested I take the car back to Ziebart.
- I went to Ziebart and was told that the undercoating had been done and that they've had quite a few problems with this Maaco dealer. The Ziebart folks seemed to be getting a bit hostile at this point and then claimed the work I had done by Ziebart wasn't covered by any kind of warranty anyway (that was news to me). I'm beginning to get a bad feeling about this.
- From the looks of it, I think Ziebart undercoated the plastic lined wheel well inserts and not the fender areas behind the plastic inserts (DUH!).
- I've been back to the Maaco dealer several times to see what they are going to do about this situation and each time I've been told "don't worry, we'll look after it".
- In the meantime, I got a bill from the car rental agency for use of the car. The car rental agency and myself were both under the impression that Maaco would be paying for the rental since the repairs were a warranty item.
Update: 1 year later. Maaco have refused to do anything about the problem (their response in full is shown at the bottom of this page), it seems like they have an predefined list of reasons. I contacted their Head Office (who said they'd get right on it) and they referred me back to the dealer. Finding an actual person via their website was interesting, it's designed for promoting and selling their franchise, nothing about customer comments, complaints, etc. I guess they aren't really interested in hearing from their customers. So much for their top-of-line Signature Service with Prep Plus package and the multi-year warranty.
Update #2: Guess what showed up in the mail? A reminder from Ziebart to bring my car in for its annual checkup to maintain the warranty. I felt like paying them a visit and raising hell, then decided to update this page instead.
Maaco's final "offer"... I get to pay them another $1,000... what a deal!
The part about "...warranty period of 90 days..." is interesting, because the Signature Plus package is supposed have a multi-year warranty. Unfortunately (for me), the only place where the warranty info was posted was on a sign in their shop.
The bit about the rental car costing only $120 is out to lunch as well, I was billed double that amount by the rental agency.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Warranty Claim 1994 Subaru
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 17:21:55 -0400
From: Maaco Thunder Bay email@example.com
Mr. Rob Chandler
Re: Warranty Claim
Dear Mr. Chandler
Regarding the warranty claim on your 1994 Subaru Legacy. It was explained to you at the time the rust repairs were completed that you would need to have the (repaired areas rust proofed). You feel that you have met the warranty criteria by having your vehicle oil guarded (or at least you were lead to believe so) at Ziebart in Thunder Bay.
Upon further inspection of the repaired areas, one can clearly see that there is no rust protection evident. All we require is that the repaired areas be rust proofed. All the warranty issues are related to these areas, none of which have had any oil sprayed on them whatsoever.
You were notified by phone on the 24th of May, that these areas had not been rust proofed. At that time, on your behalf I placed a call to Ziebart and spoke with Brad, then John and was told that they would look after it. I then proceeded to present them an estimate, at that time they stated that they have no interest in being responsible for the fees of re-repairing the affected areas. At that point I put the onus on you to resolve the issue with Ziebart. I again informed you that they would not be held accountable. Once again I spoke John on the 13th of June 2006 at which time I proposed a comprise for the two parties (MAACO & Ziebart) to cover the cost of repairs as you are a customer to the both of us. Again Ziebart has chosen to decline. At this point our hands are tied as we have fulfilled our obligations of the repairs as set out in the work order. The fact that the rust returned to the repaired areas is strictly because the was no rust protection applied to these areas.
Regardless of the fact that the warranty period of 90 days has long since lapsed (164 days), we are still willing to compromise with either yourself or Ziebart for fifty per cent of the estimated repair cost of $1,030.96. However this offer will expire on June 30, 2006. Also on May 23 you were told you would recive our preferred rate on the rental, which is $30 per day; at 4 days the rental should have been $120.00 plus tax. The type of vehicle and the amount of insurance would adversely affect this rate.
In conclusion, we have extended ourselves to pay for half the repair even though the warranty period is over and the repaired areas were not rust proofed. We feel that we have fulfilled our obligation as set out in the work order, and feel that your issue should be with the improper application of rust proofing, not with us, as we are the only ones at this point willing to work with you at all.