Tuesday, June 7, 2011

There is certitude and then there is certitude...

Maybe I should take this case to Judge Judy. I suppose there are people who knowingly file false claims but I do know with absolute certitude that until the garage brought my car to me I had never seen the dent in question (and I think I would have noticed it if had occurred earlier). That is not proof that the dent was caused by the garage but some things we know with certitude and some things apparently we say we do not when we do (but that is a circus of another color entirely).

Dear Ms. Smith,

I received your letter of May 31, 2011 denying my claim (reference number above) in view of the fact that the damage I am claiming was documented as pre existing.

The issue I have is that to begin with the car is about two months old and while it is possible that the damage was pre existing, I really do not believe it was as I would have noticed it. Second, although the manager did produce a ticket showing what looked like an x mark indicating that when I dropped the car off the damage was noted, he produced it after the fact. That is to say that when I dropped the car off, the attendant did not walk around the car in my presence, mark the ticket and show it to me. In fact, I had been using that garage on multiple occasions in the prior week or so as I was visiting a patient in the hospital and I never saw an attendant review my car or any other car and certainly know one ever pointed out any damage to me either prior or on the day in question. Nor did I ever see any attendant filling out any damage tickets on my car or anyone else's. From what I can tell they simply got in the car and drove it to a parking spot.

In addition, when I noticed the damage, the manager did not bring me into the office and pull out the ticket indicating the dent - he had me wait outside in the lot while he went in to the office and few minutes later he emerged with a claim ticket showing the dent marked with an X. I am not accusing him of falsely producing a damage record after the fact but it does not seem fair to bind me to a denial of claim based on a report indicating pre existing damage that I was not aware of, did not agree to, nor was I even told that a pre parking car check was done. Had I known that and if a procedure was followed this would have been avoided. It does not seem right for the parking lot to have it both ways, not review the car condition with the customer in advance but then deny a claim on the basis that the car was reviewed. This is especially true when the supposed ticket is produced only after the fact with the customer being unable to see that in fact the ticket was not simply drawn up after the complaint of damage. In other words there was no consent and no agreement with the customer about the very fact at issue - something that could have easily been done if the attendant simply (as he should have) pointed out the damage to me when I arrived instead of simply claiming he saw it in advance but for some reason failed to tell me about it.

As you can see from the report and presumably the photo the manager took, the damage is not very significant and so it does not entail a costly repair. I think under the circumstances (new car, no contemporaneous damage report done when I brought the car in, customer not seeing that the ticket was in fact prepared when the car was brought in, no informing of the customer of the damage assessment process when the car was brought in, a new car where damage (if there was any) would have been noticed prior) that you should in fact compensate for me for the cost of repair.

I have not had the damage repair estimated but can do that and will be happy to send you a written estimate in advance.

I look forward to hearing from you.


Rough Fractals

No comments:

Post a Comment


Add to Technorati Favorites