Red Dragon
New Member
- Jan 23, 2003
- 310
- 0
- 0
<Batman flame retardant cloths on>
I see both sides of this issue. Being in a service industry and being a customer of service companies, I can relate to both sides. So, who is right? IMHO..... both. Kind of. The customer should be billed for some stuff, but not most of it. I will go into more details.
The guy came in for a tune. A mechanical problem was discovered. The customer should have been informed that the tune could not continue, told the customer of the inccured charges to that point (not full tune price, btw, because it was not completed), and then asked if the garage should pursue looking for the problem at XX.XX dollars per hour. If the customer agreed, then a new ticket should have been written for diagnosing the mechanical problem. There should also be stipulation for a cost cutoff point BEFORE the ticket is signed. This protects the customer from runaway charges that can not be afforded. The garage will bare the risk of not being able to diagnose the problem within a certain time period, however. So what happens when the problem is not found and not fixed within the agreed time frame? No charge. The customer signs the ticket (and the garage accepts the responsibility) agreeing to have a problem discovered and fixed within an acceptable time from by both parties. If the service is not provided, then there should be no charge. It is the responsibility for the service company to have staff that can diagnose and fix a problem if they agree to take on the job. If they do not have the expertise to fix the problem, then they should not take on the job at all. Again, this protects the customer more than the garage. But that is how it should be. Garages should understand their limitations. Businesses are also where risk is at. This is part of the deal. Sometimes we as businesses loose on some jobs. But in the long run, the risk is well worth it in the end and some losses are just a cost of doing business. Because we are at higher risks being in our own business, we also stand to gain more as well. Deal with it. It is just plain Business/Risk 101.
So why should a garage do work and not get paid? Because it is the right thing to do from a business aspect. Ethics don't even have to be at play here. Had the garage not billed the customer, this thread would have had an entirely different flavor. It would say that Mike was the best person in the world because he did not bill so-and-so when he could not fix the problem. I can speak from experience and my buddy's experience with this exact same issue. A good reputation is WELL worth the small amount of money lost on a bad job. Every company gets the problem from hell. It just happened to be Mike's turn this time. He will make more money by loosing some money on this job in the LONG term. He will sustain a short term loss, obviously. He should not be blinded by this. It is too easy to not keep a healthy business perspective.
So, Mike, take it on the chin and learn from it. But don't piss off customers. They talk. When I was a mechanic, I had a saying I told ALL of my customers. It was: "If you like my service, then tell everyone. If you do not like my service then only tell ME." I was not perfect, as nobody is. I had some problems from hell that I had to send away. But when I sent them away, they got NO bill. I can not expect a customer to pay because I do not have the skill to fix their problem. It happens. In EVERY case, the customer ALWAYS returned because they felt safe. They knew that they would only pay for services rendered. Same with my buddy. He started off slow, but now has more work than he can handle. But I remember a time when he had to send customers away at zero cost to them when he could not fix their problem. He REALLY needed money because he was just starting out, but in the end he earned customer loyalty. He got back ten-fold what he lost on those bad days.
This is not just my opinion, it is solid fact. I still run my business the same way and I have more work than I can handle. I also tell my customers that not only are they purchasing good services, but they are also buying sleep. My customers NEVER worry that I will screw them. And they all know I will always take care of them. I too can sleep at night because I have earned the right to provide good services to GOOD CUSTOMERS. Good customers, that is another whole issue I could write about, but won't. I just spewed enough.
Good luck to both partys. I would suggest that both partys get together and work out a fair agreement so both come away from the table in good shape. Sometimes, when a business walks away from the table with no money, but a good reputation, it is the best scenario that could have happened.
I see both sides of this issue. Being in a service industry and being a customer of service companies, I can relate to both sides. So, who is right? IMHO..... both. Kind of. The customer should be billed for some stuff, but not most of it. I will go into more details.
The guy came in for a tune. A mechanical problem was discovered. The customer should have been informed that the tune could not continue, told the customer of the inccured charges to that point (not full tune price, btw, because it was not completed), and then asked if the garage should pursue looking for the problem at XX.XX dollars per hour. If the customer agreed, then a new ticket should have been written for diagnosing the mechanical problem. There should also be stipulation for a cost cutoff point BEFORE the ticket is signed. This protects the customer from runaway charges that can not be afforded. The garage will bare the risk of not being able to diagnose the problem within a certain time period, however. So what happens when the problem is not found and not fixed within the agreed time frame? No charge. The customer signs the ticket (and the garage accepts the responsibility) agreeing to have a problem discovered and fixed within an acceptable time from by both parties. If the service is not provided, then there should be no charge. It is the responsibility for the service company to have staff that can diagnose and fix a problem if they agree to take on the job. If they do not have the expertise to fix the problem, then they should not take on the job at all. Again, this protects the customer more than the garage. But that is how it should be. Garages should understand their limitations. Businesses are also where risk is at. This is part of the deal. Sometimes we as businesses loose on some jobs. But in the long run, the risk is well worth it in the end and some losses are just a cost of doing business. Because we are at higher risks being in our own business, we also stand to gain more as well. Deal with it. It is just plain Business/Risk 101.
So why should a garage do work and not get paid? Because it is the right thing to do from a business aspect. Ethics don't even have to be at play here. Had the garage not billed the customer, this thread would have had an entirely different flavor. It would say that Mike was the best person in the world because he did not bill so-and-so when he could not fix the problem. I can speak from experience and my buddy's experience with this exact same issue. A good reputation is WELL worth the small amount of money lost on a bad job. Every company gets the problem from hell. It just happened to be Mike's turn this time. He will make more money by loosing some money on this job in the LONG term. He will sustain a short term loss, obviously. He should not be blinded by this. It is too easy to not keep a healthy business perspective.
So, Mike, take it on the chin and learn from it. But don't piss off customers. They talk. When I was a mechanic, I had a saying I told ALL of my customers. It was: "If you like my service, then tell everyone. If you do not like my service then only tell ME." I was not perfect, as nobody is. I had some problems from hell that I had to send away. But when I sent them away, they got NO bill. I can not expect a customer to pay because I do not have the skill to fix their problem. It happens. In EVERY case, the customer ALWAYS returned because they felt safe. They knew that they would only pay for services rendered. Same with my buddy. He started off slow, but now has more work than he can handle. But I remember a time when he had to send customers away at zero cost to them when he could not fix their problem. He REALLY needed money because he was just starting out, but in the end he earned customer loyalty. He got back ten-fold what he lost on those bad days.
This is not just my opinion, it is solid fact. I still run my business the same way and I have more work than I can handle. I also tell my customers that not only are they purchasing good services, but they are also buying sleep. My customers NEVER worry that I will screw them. And they all know I will always take care of them. I too can sleep at night because I have earned the right to provide good services to GOOD CUSTOMERS. Good customers, that is another whole issue I could write about, but won't. I just spewed enough.
Good luck to both partys. I would suggest that both partys get together and work out a fair agreement so both come away from the table in good shape. Sometimes, when a business walks away from the table with no money, but a good reputation, it is the best scenario that could have happened.
