Quote:
Originally Posted by mav1178
That's why I have been saying the same thing over and over again: you want the dealer to be on your side.
The LAST person you want to be against you is the dealer, because the management of the dealer owns the relationship with the regional and corporate reps at Subaru (or any other maker, for that matter), and those relationships come up important if you have a legitimate issue.
I don't understand this whole M-M Act + lawsuit mentality that people have and the internet stories that prop up this myth.
-alex
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by mav1178
I wouldn't plead ignorance completely... but I often find it best to provide the dealer with a business case of why the warranty claim should be approved and why it's in their interest.
No threats about taking business elsewhere, but I lay out arguments as to why my claim is pretty much guaranteed work and why the dealer should support my position. What is implied is that the legitimate work can be taken to a more sympathetic dealer or someone who can see the cost/benefit of doing business with me.
-alex
|
I shouldn't have to show up with a 'business case' to have the dealership be on my side. I always feel like I'm on the defensive in those interactions so I'd rather avoid the interaction altogether.
I am not alone in this sentiment and that should be evidence enough that this relationship is not ideal, my experiences are not unique. Your resolve is stronger than mine, no argument.
It's kind of like calling up your ISP every year or two to get the lower introductory rate back, some people go "oh it's easy and so worth it" most people go "why don't they just make that rate standard instead of wasting a half hour of my time and a call center employees time?"
Praise be to Google Fiber.
Edit: Agreed, legal recourse should be a last course of action when arbitration reaches a stalemate.