ULTiMaX99

iTrader: (5)

Backstory: Took my car into Cerritos Lexus for the 10k complimentary service back in Feb. Asked about replacing my cabin air filter, but the SA said I didn't need it (it should be included, per the warranty and services guide). When I picked up my car, I wanted to ask the SA about the discrepancy, but he wasn't there. Asked the cashier to speak to someone regarding this, but she assured me the techs would've changed it. She called up 2 techs and they both said it's included in the 10k service. I go home and check and sure enough, old filter still there. I call up the SA and he still insists it doesn't need to be changed. Finally relents and tells me to bring it in if I want it changed. A few weeks later, I check my dash cam and have footage of my SA cussing me out and talking behind my back to the tech. Wouldn't be surprised if they bill corporate for the filter and pocket the money.

ISFPOWER

iTrader: (20)

i don't see anything wrong here.

aznxenon

I'm not a lawyer but if you didn't disclose the dash cam picking up the audio recording, you could be violating the Eavesdropping law California Penal Code Section 632, FYI. Try not to get yourself into any legal troubles

defrag

iTrader: (4)

Found this post on another forum and some great information if it is accurate:

California Vehicle Code (CVC 26708(b)(13)) explicitly authorizes certain kinds of dashcams (or, as they call them, "video event recorders") and allows you to hang one in certain places on the windshield (bottom right corner, bottom left corner, and top center). Check the link for specific requirements.

As far as I can tell, there are no restrictions if the dashcam is not hung directly on the windshield and it does not obstruct driver's view.

One important caveat that applies in CA and about ten other states has to do with the ability to record audio. CA is a "two-party consent state". Meaning that you are only allowed to make audio recordings of conversations with consent of all parties present. The CVC section above requires you to post a visible notice to passengers if your dashcam can record sound. The safest course of action is probably to disable sound recording altogether or to buy a dashcam without this functionality.

(Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, and this advice is worth is exactly as much as you paid for it.)

bnizzle87

If anything, this sheds light on the SA moving forward. There were a few legal codes discussed earlier, so what I am thinking is, while none of what was recorded in the state of CA is legal (because the SA did not consent), the OP wouldn't be able to use that legally to obtain what should've been included in the 10k service- a filter. That being said, there isn't anything wrong with deterring members in that area who use Lexus of Cerritos to NOT go through this particular SA. If this was my car and I had his voice degrading me as a customer on my cam, Lexus Corporate will get a call from me. The SA made it seem like he needed to go out of his way just to drive the car to the back and get a tech to install an air filter. AC must've not been working in the office that day, so he might've actually needed to sweat by walking outside. Poor guy! It might not do much, but putting guys like this on blast who think they have authority when they're nothing more than paper pushers in suits is more than fair game to me. It might do nothing to the unsuspecting future owners to go through this SA to have their vehicles serviced, but at least here in a community where we look after one another, it might do enough to at the very least create an unofficial list of who not to go to for dealer work.

I'm picky as hell when it comes to my SA and the techs that work on my car, which is why I rarely choose to go to the dealer anymore. Bad experiences, poorly done work, rude "customer" service- why should we need to put up with that? The answer is we don't.

mk416

Perjury is usually criminal and punishable by jail time of up to 5 years in federal prison. California version is up to 4 years or so with the exception of peace officers being that it can either be a misdemeanor or felony.

link13

Sounds like the SA is swearing at the tech about not having the part and not about the OP.