Complaints

The complaint text that is displayed might not represent all complaints filed with BBB. Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:17/07/2023

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  In 2019, my car caught fire due to an electrical fault and was towed to Nordic collision. They were not able to find the cause of the fire. My insurer declared the car a total loss eligible for full replacement value ($40,000+). Upon learning that, Nordic collision convinced my insurer that they should repair the car instead of declaring it a total loss. I objected to having the repair done without first finding the cause of the fire to avoid another fire. According to the Ontario Insurance Act, I am entitled to a second inspection before any work is done. The insurer said the work would be put on hold until then. However, Nordic proceeded to have the repair done anyways. I had no choice but to accept the car back. Nordic told me the repair came with a lifetime warranty that would cover the cost of future related repairs. One year later, I had another electrical short. A wire that had not been properly attached during the original work. I paid the repair ($160) to avoid having to deal with Nordic collision again. This past spring (2023), I had another major electrical short involving the rear electrical harness and rear parking sensors that were replaced in 2019. I contacted Nordic and invoked the life time warranty but was told it was limited to one year and that I needed to contact the ******* dealership that had actually done the original repair, but they also refused to cover the cost. I recontacted Nordic again 3 times to insist they cover the cost ($3,000) but they did not return my calls. Nordic acted unprofessionally to make a quick buck from the repair at my expense. They contravened the Ontario Insurance act by preventing a second inspection and they lied about their lifetime warranty. The car has many years left in it and I want it to be safe again. I want Nordic to cover the cost of the repairs: a fair compromise as I feel I was fully entitled to the full replacement value of the car but their actions preventing me from receiving this compensation.

  Business Response

  Date: 24/07/2023

  Mr. *****,
  
  We appreciate the opportunity to address your concerns and clarify matters. The nuances of the auto insurance claim and repair process is almost always unfamiliar to those who aren't in the business, particularly because of the multiple parties and policies involved. The primary party, second only to yourself, is the insurance company. They determine the total loss thresholds for their claims, and whether or not the vehicle is a total loss or repair, not the repair facility. Furthermore, they determine the repairs and amounts they authorize for payment, subject to your authorization. As such, in all cases, we obtain work order authorization from our clients and approval for payment by the insurance company. Without such, there is no assurance of payment for work done on a vehicle. With respect to the repair work performed, there are often numerous parties involved. The collision repair facility will perform the auto body repair work, while other aspects of a repair are performed by others, such as mechanical, electrical, diagnostics, glass, and other possible aspects of the repair. In this case of your vehicle, the electrical work was performed by *******. We only performed the auto body collision related repairs. And our repairs are warrantied, as per the warranty information provided during our vehicle delivery process, when the vehicle was returned to you. After 1 year, when you contacted us regarding a short, we simply asked you to contact your insurance carrier to inform them and open a file on the matter, following which we could assist accordingly, as per their direction and within our purview. We have no record of subsequent contact from your insurer with respect to the matter. It would seem you chose an alternative course of action; choosing to instead take your vehicle outside of the original repair circle, involving other parties, for whom we have no insight into their diagnostics, repairs, etc. From what you note, it would seem that 3 more years later, you then elected to contact *******, who refused to cover the cost of repairs you had performed elsewhere. Although we sympathize with your car troubles, reiterate our original request, and ask that you contact your insurance provider. It's unfortunate that our advice wasn't heeded originally, and that you feel the need to make defamatory accusations as a result. Upon hearing from your insurance provider, we will be happy to assist accordingly, within our purview to do so. 
  
  Sincerely, 
  *** **** *******

  Customer Answer

  Date: 31/07/2023

  
  Complaint: 20332340
  
  There is nothing defamatory in my complaint.  It is just an account of how things turned out.  All supporting email exchanges are available.  Here are a few excerpts.

  On May 17th, we received this from the insurer:

  May 17, 2019 7:01 PM, ******* ****** ***************************** wrote:
  Hi ******,
  Sorry to reach out so late, I finally received your appraisal report. As we feared, this will be treated as a total loss.
  Please review this enclosed equipment report and let me know if I'm missing any features for your car that may add value.
  Ill be back in office on Tuesday.

  On May 22nd, I was instructed as follows from the insurer:

  "Please make sure to remove all personal content including your license plates (except for New Brunswick) from your vehicle before: May 27th 2019"

  Upon reaching out to Nordic to get access to my vehicle to remove my effects, Nordic told me they argued the vehicle was repairable, but were not able to determine the cause of fire.

  On May 29th, the insurer reversed their decision after being approached by Nordic.  In which message, the insurer itself complained about poor communications from Nordic:

  "The shop hasn’t been particularly helpful in communicating on this once, which is one of the reasons for the delay that we've had."

  I requested that repairs not proceed as I am entitled to have a second opinion.  Here is the reply I got from the insurer on June 3rd:

  "At this point we can arrange for another estimate if you like, to possibly clarify the cause of the fire, or you can authorize the repairs at *** ****. As this is one of our preferred shops their work would be guaranteed for as long as you own the car and as long as you are insured with us.
  

  You could also choose a cash settlement instead of the repair, we would give you the $9609.57 to do with as you wish."

  I was interested in the cash settlement instead of the repairs but Nordic went ahead without our consent.

  In any case, we could argue a long time about the legalities involved here.  But the bottom line is that Nordic did a poor job of repairing my car and the problem reoccured.

  This is why I believe they should stand behind their work and address the shortcomings in the way they handled this case.
  

  ****** *****

   

  Business Response

  Date: 03/08/2023

  Mr. *****,

  Thank you for sharing excerpts of your communications with your insurer. From our perspective, they reinforce our prior statement and position. It would seem that you asked your insurer to hold on the repairs, and they offered you three options: another estimate option, repair the vehicle with *** **** Nepean, or take a cash settlement. Again, the insurance company is the primary party, second only to you, the owner of the vehicle. Prior to commencing repairs, we obtain authorization and approval for payment. Why would we do otherwise? It simply doesn't make sense to do any work, without certainty of payment and approval. We repaired your vehicle with authorization, in accordance with best practices, the policies of your insurer, and the estimate approved by you and your insurance company. Furthermore, we conducted the auto body repairs, not the electrical, which was done at a ******* dealership. With respect to our warranty, information on the warranty was provided to you and explained, when you picked up your vehicle. You may wish to review your warranty package and the signed invoice. Lastly, your insurer would have no issue with reopening the claim if they believed your subsequent car troubles, years later, were related to the repair. Mr. *****, we stand by our original reply and position: although we sympathize with your car troubles, we reiterate our original request, and ask that you contact your insurance provider.
  
  
  Sincerely,
  *** **** Nepean