Blue Springs Auto Repair

We take an accusation that we were “predatory” toward a 16-year-old customer very seriously, and we strongly disagree with that characterization. The customer came to us without an appointment believing the vehicle needed an A/C recharge. We offered to work the vehicle into our already scheduled work so we could help her. When we checked the vehicle, the A/C system was completely empty at 0 PSI. Because the system was empty, it had to be serviced with refrigerant before we could properly operate and evaluate the A/C system, verify compressor and system operation, determine whether it would produce cold air with the proper charge, and continue checking for the source of the refrigerant loss. We charged the system to its specified capacity, added UV dye, ran the vehicle, verified that the A/C was operating and blowing cold, and checked for leaks. Unfortunately, no leak was detectable at that time. Three days later, when we were contacted because the A/C had stopped cooling, we immediately offered to recheck the vehicle. We performed that inspection at no additional charge and were then able to identify a leaking evaporator core. The approximately $2,000 estimate was not for a “new” or unrelated problem. The leaking evaporator core was the source of the refrigerant loss and the reason the A/C would not remain charged. It is also important to clarify that the original A/C service was not an unnecessary expense simply because a leak was ultimately found. With a completely empty system, the A/C had to be serviced in order for us to properly operate and evaluate it. Our normal A/C diagnostic service includes the A/C service as needed along with additional diagnostic time. In this situation, we only charged for the A/C service performed. We absolutely understand the frustration of having the A/C stop cooling again and then learning that an older vehicle needs a costly evaporator repair. However, we do not agree that this means the customer was taken advantage of. The service she paid for was performed, the vehicle was checked for leaks, and when the problem returned we reinspected it at no charge and identified the underlying failure. We care very much about how our customers are treated, regardless of their age, and would never intentionally take advantage of a young or inexperienced customer. We believe the documented circumstances of this visit are important context for anyone reading this review.

We appreciate the feedback, and we do want to acknowledge that we should have done a better job communicating and confirming the final estimate with you before proceeding with the repair. The vehicle was brought to us for a rattling noise that Ford had previously indicated may be a cracked flex plate. After inspecting the vehicle, checking the torque converter fasteners and inspecting the flex plate with a scope, we confirmed that the flex plate was cracked and needed to be replaced. We then completed the repair that the vehicle was brought in for. We're unsure where the $2,500 figure referenced in the review came from, as the estimate in our system for the flex plate repair was around $3,500. However, given the total cost of the repair, we should have contacted you again to verify the final amount before beginning the work. That lack of communication is on us, and we apologize for it. We would also like to clarify that the final invoice was just over $3,600, not $3,800, and no additional or unauthorized repairs were added to the job. The increase was not the result of us performing additional work beyond the repair the vehicle was brought in for. We're glad to hear that the vehicle was repaired correctly, but we understand that good service also includes clear communication about cost. We missed the mark on that part of your experience and will use this as an opportunity to improve our approval process going forward.

Thank you Emily!

Jackson, we appreciate you sharing your experience, and we do want to clarify a few important details because some of the information in this review does not accurately reflect what occurred. The previous inspection we performed for JKB Auto Sales was an ID/OD inspection, which is limited to verifying identification and odometer information and is not a mechanical inspection of the vehicle. The pre-purchase inspection was performed specifically for you as the prospective buyer. You requested the inspection, received the inspection results, and paid Dave’s Service Center directly for the inspection. JKB transported the vehicle to us, but they were not the customer for the pre-purchase inspection and did not pay for it. During that inspection, we documented that the coolant level was low and topped it off. Because of that finding, we specifically checked for evidence of a coolant leak. The vehicle had been running and was road tested, and we did not observe overheating or an active/external coolant leak at that time. Had we found evidence of a radiator leak, it absolutely would have been documented on the inspection report. When the vehicle returned approximately three weeks later, a coolant leak was present and we were able to confirm it. We understand how frustrating it is to purchase a vehicle and encounter a significant repair shortly afterward. However, a pre-purchase inspection reflects the condition of the vehicle and the problems that can reasonably be identified at the time of inspection. Unfortunately, not every developing or intermittent problem will be visible during that inspection. We stand behind the inspection we performed and the findings documented at that time. We also want to be clear that Dave’s Service Center does not have a financial interest in whether a customer purchases a vehicle from JKB or any other dealership. Our job during a pre-purchase inspection is to give the prospective buyer an independent assessment of what we can identify at that time, and that is what we did here.