PCTG Consumer Complaint Report Record ID#: 9120102524

Formal Complaint Regarding Barry’s Auto Body – Negligent Repairs, Failure to Identify Structural Damage, and Improper Vehicle Retention My vehicle was involved in an accident and subsequently taken to Barry’s Auto Body for an assessment of the damage and necessary repairs. Barry’s worked directly with Progressive Insurance to identify and document the initial damages. From the beginning, I specifically expressed concerns to both the repair facility and insurance company regarding the possibility of underlying frame or structural damage. Progressive’s documentation also referenced the need to investigate the cause of the fender being out of alignment. Barry’s proceeded with the initially identified repairs but failed to identify or properly investigate any additional underlying damage. After completing the repairs, Barry’s informed me that the vehicle was finished, had passed a test drive, and was ready for pickup. Upon picking up the vehicle, I immediately noticed several concerning issues. The vehicle had a slight pull to the left, and I heard unusual noises coming from the front-left corner when driving over bumps. This was particularly concerning because that area was directly associated with the original accident damage. Additionally, the vehicle displayed a low washer fluid warning. When I attempted to refill the washer fluid, it immediately began leaking and pouring onto my driveway. I promptly notified Progressive of these issues, including the unusual noises, handling concerns, and washer fluid leak. Progressive instructed me to return the vehicle to Barry’s, where the insurance adjuster, Zeb, would arrange a follow-up inspection. At this point, I had not signed any paperwork with Barry’s acknowledging completion or acceptance of the repairs. Importantly, Barry’s had not performed any additional work or further inspection of the vehicle before Zeb arrived. Once the adjuster was present, the vehicle's plastic protective covers were removed, and Zeb—not Barry’s—identified extensive structural damage that had been overlooked during the original inspection and repair process. It was subsequently determined that, due to the vehicle's make, model, and extent of the damage, Barry’s was not equipped to complete the necessary repairs. Specifically, General Motors (GM) would not sell Barry’s the required parts to perform the repairs. As a result, we located a GM-certified C8 repair facility that was qualified to complete the necessary structural repairs. However, when arrangements were made to transfer the vehicle to the certified repair facility, Barry’s refused to release it until its additional bill was paid. These charges reportedly included fees for having the vehicle on its lift and for the time an employee spent with Progressive’s adjuster, Zeb, during the reinspection. I contacted Barry’s directly and requested that my vehicle be released so it could be transferred to the appropriate repair facility. I explained that the underlying issue involved the insurance claim and that my vehicle should not be held while Barry’s and Progressive disputed responsibility for these additional charges. Barry’s refused to accommodate the request and repeatedly stated that “whomever comes to get the vehicle, as long as they pay the bill, the vehicle will be released.” Essentially, Barry’s was refusing to release my personal property until payment was made on charges arising from the reinspection of damage that should have been identified during the original repair process. This was particularly concerning given that Progressive had already paid for the initial repairs. My Concerns and the Accountability I Am Seeking There are several significant concerns surrounding Barry’s handling of this matter: 1. Failure to identify substantial structural damage: Despite my initial concerns regarding possible frame damage and the documented need to investigate the fender misalignment, Barry’s failed to identify extensive structural damage before completing the repairs and releasing the vehicle. 2. Returning a potentially unsafe vehicle: Barry’s represented that the vehicle was repaired, test-driven, and ready for pickup. However, immediately upon driving it, I experienced abnormal handling and noises originating from the same area as the original impact. The subsequent discovery of extensive structural damage raises serious concerns about the safety of the vehicle when it was returned to me. 3. Failure to perform an adequate inspection: The significant structural damage was ultimately identified by Progressive’s adjuster during the subsequent inspection, rather than by Barry’s during its original assessment and repair process. 4. Attempting to collect additional fees resulting from the reinspection: Barry’s attempted to charge additional fees for the vehicle being on its lift and for employee time spent with the insurance adjuster, despite the fact that the reinspection was necessary after previously overlooked damage came to light. 5. Refusal to release my personal property: Barry’s refused to release my vehicle to a qualified GM-certified C8 repair facility unless its additional charges were paid. This effectively placed my vehicle in a position of being held hostage over a billing dispute between the repair facility and the insurance company. The most troubling aspect of this entire situation is the potential safety risk. Had my spouse and I continued driving the vehicle after Barry’s represented that the repairs were complete, we could have been exposed to serious injury due to the undiscovered structural or suspension damage. A collision repair facility has a responsibility to properly assess the damage, perform repairs within its capabilities, and communicate any deficiencies or concerns before representing that a vehicle is safe and ready to return to the road. In this situation, Barry’s failed to identify significant damage, released the vehicle with unresolved safety concerns, and subsequently attempted to impose additional charges while preventing the vehicle from being transferred to a qualified repair facility. I believe this matter warrants a formal investigation and accountability. I am requesting that Barry’s actions, inspection procedures, repair practices, additional billing, and refusal to release my vehicle be thoroughly reviewed. I also believe Progressive should review the circumstances surrounding the original repair authorization and the subsequent discovery of structural damage. This is not simply a disagreement over a repair bill. It involves the failure to identify potentially dangerous structural damage, the return of a vehicle with unresolved safety concerns, and the subsequent refusal to release my personal property over disputed charges. I expect this matter to be taken seriously, appropriately investigated, and addressed with the accountability it warrants.