I would like to describe my experience with having my Mercedes repaired at Bob King. The car was delivered to Bob King because the ignition keys would not turn in the ignition. I told the advisor that the car had displayed codes that pointed to replacing the EIS (electronic ignition switch). His reply was that to be able to diagnose the issue, he needed to replace the front SAM (signal acquisition module). This part costs about $1000. I was offered a discount so that the SAM replacement would be more palatable. Before authorizing this repair I felt that I needed justification, so I took time away from a busy day and went to investigate. I did not see the issues that had been explained to me with the SAM so I declined the replacement of the SAM. It turned out that this part did not need replacing to fix the ignition issue. This appears to be a violation of North Carolina GS 20-354.8(3).
After the EIS was replaced, my keys would not program to the EIS. I was asked to authorize the purchase of another key. I was hesitant and did some research before I gave permission. When the new key also didn’t work, the ignition lock was replaced. I asked the advisor about the repairs and he stated that both the EIS and the ignition lock were electrically faulted.
I requested that a copy of the bill be sent to me before I picked up the car to expedite my time at the dealership. I received a photograph via text that was illegible, so I requested that a copy be e-mailed to me and I gave my e-mail address. Even with several communications, a copy of the bill never arrived.
Upon arrival at the dealership and review of the bill, I noticed that the discount promised to me was not accounted for. Further review of the bill showed that the car had been washed and detailed. When I finally got the car, I could see from quite a distance that there was substantial amounts of tape residue left on the car surrounding the driver side door. I also saw patches of dirt on the front fender. Even with this evidence pointed out, the advisor insisted that the car had been washed. The car was taken back and cleaned and although it was better, there was still tape residue. Once again, it was taken back and cleaned and brought to me again with tape residue.
I was expecting that I should have to spend at most fifteen minutes to pay for and pick up the car, instead I was at the dealership for two and a half hours.
After an e-mail to the customer service manager, I learned that the advisor had once again lied to me by telling me that the EIS was faulted. I was reimbursed for the cost of the EIS and the associated labor. The dealership has declined to finish the job of removing the tape residue which is fine with me because I do not trust them.