Thursday, December 9, 2021

MENU

Storage charges while waiting for service? The other side of the story

By Russ and Tiña De Maris
Last week we published a story regarding an RVer who had brought his rig in for service to a big RV dealer in Ontario, Canada. After four months, the reader tells us his rig is still in the dealer’s hands, and he’s being told he’s being charged $10 per day storage fees. The reaction from readers was swift, and some pretty angry. But then, like the man says, there’s always the “other side of the story.”

More information develops since last week

As we mentioned in our initial story, prior to publishing we made attempts to contact the dealership. Phone calls were fruitless, but an email was responded to. The dealership told us they couldn’t respond to particulars due to privacy concerns. Since press time, however, we’ve received more information that adds a bit more insight to the matter.

So what’s the other side of the story? First, the dealership tells us the RVer will not be charged any storage fees. But why would they ever consider charging storage fees? The dealership’s manager tells us they’ve had a huge problem with some of their customers. Some dealership customers “drop them off for service and leave them here until they can find a buyer, have a place to park it, or simply just to get free storage.” One RVer brought their rig in for a repair estimate and hasn’t authorized work to be done, nor picked it up. The drop-off was almost two years ago. If enough folks were to take unfair advantage of a dealer to get some “free parking,” then, understandably, dealers will have to do something to discourage such actions.

Is there more to the other side of the story? While there are warranty issues involved in the repair of this rig, the dealer says that wasn’t the whole problem. They tell us the customer’s unit needed a fair amount of insurance work, in addition to the warranty problems. “The lengthy delay is simply over the insurance claim, approval process, parts ordering, etc.,” we’re told.

A darker side

Had we been given this information prior to going to press, there might never have been a story here. But there is a darker side to the other side of the story. The dealer tells us that since the story was run, some unnamed individuals have vented their wrath on the dealer. “My already worn thin management team,” says the dealer, “has started to receive what I can only describe as hate messages from individuals who have had no experience with us.”

Hate messages? We do our best to accurately report the news, based on the facts we have available. Sometimes it stings. But for folks who’ve never dealt with a company to shoot arrows at a firm, based on what we’ve published, makes us sick at heart. The story has been picked up and spread on other media. We’d like to think that if there were any truly “hate messages” that they didn’t come from RVtravel.com readers. Yes, there’s plenty of room for disagreement on views here, but for someone to act in this way is uncalled for.

We’re happy that our reader has the cloud of “storage charges” cleared from hanging over his head. And we’re happy to be able to present the other side of the story from the dealer’s viewpoint. Please keep us in the loop.

More stories from Russ and Tiña De Maris

##RVT1026b

Comments

Subscribe
Notify of

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

38 Comments
Newest
Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bob Weinfurt
22 days ago

So, there’s also an insurance claim? That means the owner of the RV must’ve had a little mishap. I wonder why he never disclosed that tid bit? We all know that dealing with an issue with an insurance company can take time to be resolved. The people that “tore” into the dealer should go back and offer an apology.

ChiefW78
22 days ago

Back in the day we would have gotten the whole story from Gabriel Heater, Ed Murrow and Walter Cronkite? Have a great time RVing!

Donald N Wright
23 days ago

A repair facility in Plano, Texas that I use requires you to leave your RV on site out front for the three to four weeks till they can get started repairing it. I prefer to rent a site inside the fence for the three weeks till the technicians can work on it.

rottenrollin
24 days ago

Signs of the times, I’m afraid…….

Costs pushing people to cheat…….

Ethics downhilling and allowing more people to cheat…….

And a very contentious society overall.

The RV community USED TO BE an escape from these adversities……………..

Stefan trestyn
24 days ago

Why charge him $10 per day when somebody else is taking advantage of them? Shouldn’t they stop the person taking advantage of them and not take it out on another customer?
I just read some of the reply’s. The story was factual. The guy dropped off his RV and they were billing him a storage fee while they were waiting on parts.
Why is it that last week they were not allowed to talk to RVTravel but this week they are?

Last edited 24 days ago by Stefan trestyn
Vanessa Simmons
24 days ago
Reply to  Stefan trestyn

Did you read the article? So what’s the other side of the story? First, the dealership tells us the RVer will not be charged any storage fees. 

tom
24 days ago

Too bad that the dealer did not respond to your e-mail. Definitly a fault on his part. However, the individual who left their rv for the very extended stay needs a action taken against them. Both the dealer and the owner seems to have a failure to communicate.

littleleftie
24 days ago
Reply to  tom

In fact, the story states that email WAS responded to….but not the phone. These days, with, as the dealer said, an “already worn-thin management team”, sometimes phone calls do not take precedent over in-person customers. That is how I would like to be treated—-as a priority when shopping in-person.

Drew
24 days ago

Thanks for “the other side”.

The Lazy Q
24 days ago

Maybe if you print the other side of the story at the same time with all the facts this wouldn’t happen. But like all media today it’s best to inflame the story, be the first to get it out there and let people get their panties in a wad, all true facts be damned.

Vet your story and vet again and again before publishing.

Mitzi Agnew Giles and Ed Giles
24 days ago

I must state that the staff here is really good and even minded in their writing. Staff here have never shied away from “the other side of the story”. And people lambasting social media- THis is Social Media – and not to be blamed for the uses that Karens and Kens (?) have chosen to make of it.If some of you are so upset that articles are posted with the caveat that :”other side did not comment when contacted” maybe you shouldn’t read those articles.

Richard Davidson
24 days ago

The “cancel culture” is alive and well even in the RV park.

Billy B
24 days ago

True; there are 2 sides to the Story!!
As am from Ontario; wish to say Thanks for both sides being told.
People/Dealers who misrepresent Fair Practice should be “Charged”!!

Steven Sims
24 days ago

The folks here who are criticising Russ & Tiña’s reportage in the original story need to lighten up. I have gone back and re-read the first installment of this saga and it appears to be 100% factual, with no conjecture or bias.

  • Customer buys rig;
  • Customer leaves rig with dealership for covered repairs;
  • Dealer bills for storage fees;
  • Dealer is non-responsive to requests for explanation of charges.

The original article asks fair questions: Is this typical? Is this fair? I don’t find any pointed criticism directed at the dealership. I don’t find any “ready-fire-aim” reportage, nor any “getting the facts wrong”.

The original article is in no way biased or unfair; it describes an issue someone is having, and offers readers advice on how to avoid a similar problem themselves.

Steven Sims
24 days ago

The dealer’s story sounds fishy to me.
First, they were non-responsive to inquiries.
Second, they claim others abuse the system, but this owner was a CUSTOMER of this dealership (show the dealership should have all the contact information and service issues available to them before billing the customer).
Third, There’s a “trust” factor. I’ve dealt with enough RV dealers to know they’ll try any stunt they can think of to bilk customers.
This feels like an “easier to get forgiveness than get permission” type of situation on the dealer’s part. I’m sure some of their customers have fallen for this and just paid up in the past.

Mark
24 days ago

That is part of the problem today. We rush to put out a story without completely getting the whole story. Not sure what another week would have meant to this story. Would you have even wrote it if you just did a little more homework first?

Jerry
24 days ago
Reply to  Mark

You’re exactly right. They shouldn’t have published the story until they had all the facts.

Traveler
24 days ago
Reply to  Mark

The authors stated they tried several ways of reaching the dealership before running the article.

Dave
24 days ago

This is so typical of social media and of news organizations these days getting things wrong Although there is a lot of unscrupulous businesses out there, it seems the people that scream the loudest that they have been wronged somehow, weather it’s true or not,get all the attention in the news Facts matter, even more now with all the mis information, and for those who write these articles to print without all the facts is wrong in many ways. The dealership should have commented earlier, but with privacy issues that we all have been forced to adhere to, it took the negativity towards them to force their response.

Engineer
24 days ago

When I first read this article I knew the other side of this story. It’s the responsibility of this newsletter to be 100% sure of the FACTS not what some owner describes as facts. Now this dealership has been targeted by the armchair social media elites. Shame on you!!

Mark
24 days ago
Reply to  Engineer

Can’t let the facts get in the way of the story.

Jeff
24 days ago

If I remember the original story correctly, the newsletter tried to get input from the dealer but the dealer makes it difficult to speak with anyone. There’s a lesson for the dealer too- answer the phone.

Sue
24 days ago
Reply to  Jeff

If they couldn’t get verification the story was factual, they should not have printed the story. That is responsible journalism as opposed to tabloid journalism.

Ron Sifford
24 days ago
Reply to  Sue

Like fox entertainment?

Jeff
24 days ago
Reply to  Sue

So that way, the subject of any negative story can refuse to comment, and no story gets published? Seems like a ploy to me to keep a lid on negative publicity.

Mitzi Agnew Giles and Ed Giles
24 days ago
Reply to  Jeff

good one Jeff

The Lazy Q
24 days ago
Reply to  Jeff

They could have said we are getting ready to publish a damning story against your business in next weeks newsletter that goes out to thousands of readers and would like your input also…maybe they did maybe they didn’t.

Fred
24 days ago

There’s a lesson here for the editor of this newsletter too. Don’t print an article with negative news until you get both sides of the news. It sounds like you tried to get the dealerships side, but couldn’t & then published the one sided piece. Now it’s come back to bite you. Granted, you tried & didn’t get a response from the dealership, but you probably should have made additional attempts to contact them, & postponed the article until you had heard both sides of the issue.
When I read the original article, my first impression was that most dealerships aren’t stupid enough to enact a blanket storage charge policy that would anger customers. There had to be a more logical reason for the storage charge policy. I can see, & agree with, a judicious application of this policy. It appears that everybody made mistakes in the way they handled the application & communication & publication of this issue.

Mark
24 days ago
Reply to  Fred

What is tried to get the other side mean? 5 minutes before we published the story we called?

Ron Sifford
24 days ago
Reply to  Fred

Like Fix entertainment?

Mitzi Agnew Giles and Ed Giles
24 days ago
Reply to  Fred

Silence IS an answer

Bob P
24 days ago

Perhaps delaying the story until all the facts were presented. I’m not trying to condemn anyone, maybe the person(s) contacted at the dealership was less than stellar at their job. I find that situation weekly here in our small town. An employee thinks they’re speaking for the boss and puts their own spin into the reply.

Ron Sifford
24 days ago
Reply to  Bob P

The original article was factual at the time.

Andrew Kapusta Jr
24 days ago

I would like to know why someone would jump to a conclusion, before getting the whole story. But, that is nothing new. I have over 35 years of law enforcement experience and know first hand, how someone would make the wrong decision on very few facts. That is the main reason, I do not follow social media. You have to get the whole story from both sides, before making a decision. For someone to make threats based on a few facts is the main problem with todays world. You have to step back, see the big picture, get informed, then decide who to support. The old saying, the pen is mightier then the sword, still rings true today. It is incumbent that we get all the facts before making a decision on any issue we are concerned about. Stay safe, stay healthy and see you down the road.

Leonard Rempel
24 days ago

Sorry Andrew, BUT this is a social media site! lol.

Engineer
24 days ago
Reply to  Leonard Rempel

So that excuses the editor? If he claims a journalistic title, then do what’s right….

Rick K
24 days ago
Reply to  Leonard Rempel

Sorry Leonard, this is an email NEWSLETTER, complete with editors and should perform as such.

Andrew Kapusta Jr
24 days ago
Reply to  Leonard Rempel

Yes, the ones I am referring to cause more harm then the good ones. LOL