To the DML, this is simply a copy and paste from DMCtalk.org. The documents are already online that's why i didn't post the court ruling.
I want to start by saying a lot or most of this is directed at DMCtalk. So if you aren't familiar the has nothing to do with the DML.
So from the next sentence down it is just copied and pasted...
I have been asked to follow up on the issues with DPI. I was going to do
this sooner, however as many of you know what happened with 5898.
Just so I don't have to revisit to much history, here is a link to the problems I had.
http://dmctalk.org/showthread.php?68...nd-faulty-work
I can provide conversations as well showing that I was informed my car
had every item either replaced and or fabricated to finish the car when
the final payment was demanded. Prior to this I had made arrangements to
pick the car up because I feared I would not be able to finish the car,
since our agreement (verbal, however you can see in the conversations
this was true) was only that work be preformed when a payment was made.
And being I had paid over 50% of the final cost I was told I could take
the car unfinished. However that quickly turned to being told I needed
to pay in full prior to taking the car. By this time I had already
started to fill out and apply for a loan. I informed Josh that the check
would not be available until after the weekend. The other option I was
given since my car was "complete" was to send the title if not the
check.
Being I wanted to extend the benefit of the doubt that perhaps DPI
misunderstood our agreement, I sent the check in anticipation of
receiving the car. A deadline of Jan 2012 was when Josh felt the
DeLorean would be complete. Again this was verbal, however we had many
exchanges between Jan 2012-Jan2013 that the car would have been ready
several times.
Finally I gave DPI a notice that since the car was paid in full I will
be coming to pick it up in Jan 2013. Over a year later from when I was
told the car was complete.
In that year span I was told that two motors were bought and turned out
to be bad, that his garage was robbed, they had a filming crew as well,
had issue sourcing my parts etc...
I just want to make this clear because this seems to be the misunderstanding from nearly everyone.
My bill was PAID IN FULL, I was informed the car was complete just not
finished. So this nonsense that it was a money issue is totally bogus.
When picking up the DeLorean, not only was it not finished my personal
belongings which DPI requested be sent with the car was missing.
Again you will recall I was told it was complete and all items had been
fabricated or installed. Finished just meant that the car didn't have a
proper working motor. Until sometime in the fall of 2012 when I was told
it had a good working motor installed.
This brings us to this:
Missing items- DeLorean badge, original trunk carpet, laptop plus cable, tail light board.
Damage- Starter stud for main power
Work not preformed- wiring the relays and most of the sensors to the motor
Work done wrong- wiring causing the ecu to burn up, fuel regulator
leaking, missing coolant hose at radiator, loose clamp under the intake
resulting in the hose blowing off, missing bleeder screw at water pump,
leaking timing cover to the point oil dripped on the ground near the oil
filter where it ran down, right side valve cover leaking, oil dipstick
was loose as well.
Again, I have pictures and documents for each of these plus each invoice I received.
As for the invoices, The fourth invoice which was the final one I agreed
to pay the remaining balance: Also listed a new EDIS kit, coolant
charge, two separate charges for installing the wiring harness as well.
Dated in 2010.
The last invoice I received which I did not get until weeks after I got
the car, had those items taken off and charges applied to other items I
did not ok or was ever notified. Also you will see I contacted DPI more
than once a day almost every day using FB, text, phone calls and emails.
prior to picking up the car. So if there were any issues I needed to
know about, and made myself very available.
I then asked DPI for a refund to the work that was not preformed. When
this failed (after several attempts) I contacted the BBB of Ohio. Right
now DPI has a grade F rating.
I then contacted the AG of Ohio. Where they were also brushed off by DPI. So I was left with no choice other than court.
I sued for over $2,600. I was awarded over $1,800 back.
Attached is the findings. Because of a very busy schedule I'm not going
to post every conversation. So I will make them available here with
request. Just please understand it may take sometime. I saved well over
90% of any documentation. Once school ends and I have hours to spend
submitting the hundreds of pages I will if anyone wants them.
I will attach the courts findings.
Now I want to make this clear as well.
I have been asked "why are you making this so public?"
So the best way I can answer that is when I tried to keep this private
with just DPI I was ignored. Had I not been quick enough and kept
everything documented I could have lost my car to no fault of my own. I
also have been told by more than a hand full of people that they have
had a similar problem and some are/may being suing as well. However
again this is their call, but I will make very piece of information
available to them.
This community, which should stand together before backing any vendor.
Blindingly following someone simply because you like them isn't an
excuse.
Some who have brought DPI up the way I did, given again by my peoples
comments and reactions they ask why this had happened to them they are
ignored as well and chalked up to someone who simply couldn't pay in
some cases. So I'm disappointed a lot of you don't hold the people who
depend on us for business, responsible.
Also if any other vendor did this, it should warrant just as much
attention. None of them are above criticism, or the law. In my case the
court had the last word and I was found to not only right but truthful.
I don't care to have a he said, he said match. Again the court decided
this, I can simply provide to you what I did to the court as well. Also I
don't want this to become a mythical issue as well. I'd rather this
stay with the facts. I'm not here to name call, perhaps DPI has given
you fantastic service, and credit is due where it belongs. However for
the minority (as I'm aware) we have just as much of a right to offer our
experiences. I just ask you be objective when looking at the situation.
What comes to mind is simply this:
DPI (paraphrasing it): I didn't finish your car because it was unsafe, yet I started it I charged you for it.
Me: Why would you start it and not finish it and charge me for it and take my money that I paid in full.
DPI (paraphrasing) Your car was unsafe.
Other multiple members on DMCtalk : People only pick on DPI when they can't pay! DPI only does quality work.
I also received messages saying DPI would bash my car at every chance no matter what condition I ever got it to.
So first of all to bad now huh? And haven't any of you ever heard of harassment? Slander? Liable?
Not saying DPI did this to me, however you people can't be this scared.
And before this gets taken out of context, no, DPI never threaten me
besides on DMCtalk about reporting my car to the state. However I am a
state inspector and very aware of the law and offered to let Josh make
his claim to the State Police, it would be a joy watching him make a
false police report or claim. In fact in court Josh did not try and make
excuses or present the excuses he made on DMCtalk. He did take
responsibility however trying to pass some blame to me. Also each claim
that was made to how terrible my car is (as in that particular day) I am
able to refute with a simple document or picture here or there.
(exception of fire)
As long as you are honest you can't worry about a garage pushing you around, just save all your documents.
Also if I sued for the cost of what Firestone charged me to fix the
mistakes made by DPI my suit, had it been a customer who did enjoy my
discount, would be 3x higher. I was honest enough to only seek the
actual cost.
Darryl
5898
From: "lordvadus@xxxxxxxxx" <lordvadus@xxxxxxxxx>
To: dmcnews@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2013 9:42 AM
Subject: [DML] DPI Sued for Unethical Business Practices
Here's the details from the court case; the judge ruled against DPI for $1,864.04 in work that he either didn't perform or failed to properly repair and items that he failed to return to their owner.
Be forewarned that DPI will engage in less than ethical practices. The individual in this case paid over $13,000 to DPI for repairs and still didn't have a running car when it was returned.
Case No. 2013 CVI 1531 via the Stow Municipal Court in Summit County, Ohio
__._,_.___
Back to the Home of PROJECT VIXEN