14 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHIs my brother hosed?
Leading reported evidence
Replace vin#
Suggestion or failed attempt
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Reported fixes
0
Unsuccessful attempts
1
Discussions
Read evidence and context
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Leading evidence: 'Replace vin#' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, The most frequently discussed action is 'Replace vin#' (1 discussions). For that action, 0 discussions report a resolution and 0 report an unsuccessful attempt. No action has an explicit, attributable resolution report under the current rules. These are forum reports and suggestions, not a confirmed diagnosis.
Source reports, not a diagnosis or a success probability. Counts refer to discussions and can overlap.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
Have documentation showing the sale and purchase of respective vehicles and any parts used during the service from the receipts (which would be 996 specific vs 987) to prove the point and the error, and this will get resolved.
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
Have documentation showing the sale and purchase of respective vehicles and any parts used during the service from the receipts (which would be 996 specific vs 987) to prove the point and the error, and this will get resolved.
Counts describe captured discussions, not unique people or a diagnosis. Author identities are not reliably stored. Exact duplicate evidence is counted once across matching discussions; one discussion counts at most once per action/state. Multiple repairs reported together remain a combination. Suggestions and failed attempts do not establish a fix. Matches cover whole discussions and can include related faults, model variants and incomplete threads.
14 eligible posts · 0 unverified posts · 1 discussions match the subject in their title or opening post.
Rennlist: 1 discussions
0 evidence records excluded for query context · 0 excluded by outcome qualification · 0 adjusted by outcome qualification.
0 acknowledgements have no verified action link; they do not establish a repair result.
Generation: 20261027T000231Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
You guys won't believe this. 7 years ago, my brother took over the final two years of my lease payments on a Boxster since I wasn't driving it much due to work travels. After my lease turn-in in '05, he purchased a used 996, which he serviced at the same dealership that did all the work on the Boxster while he had it. Lo and behold, the service advisor never changed the model info in the dealership computer to reflect the 996, so all the work subsequently done on the 996 continued under the Boxster -- even after the lease turn-in! I don't even understand how this could happen since the VINs and plates are different, not to mention one's a coupe and the other a droptop. The only thing in common is they're both arctic silver.
Fast-forward to present day, naturally my brother now has a serious problem on his hand trying to sell his 996. His car "appears" as if it has never been serviced since '05. My brother never even noticed the mishap until the prospective buyer tried to verify the service records obtained from the dealership. Imagine the guy's surprise when he's looking to buy a 996, but the service papers show it's actually a Boxster.
I'm going through my records to locate a copy of the lease turn-in paperwork back in 2005, as an attempt to reassure the buyer it's not some stunt being pulled by my brother, but the fault of the idiotic dealer. I'd imagine the same kind of headache is now on the owner of that Boxster, as there are most likely two sets of service records with varying mileage reports, I'm sure.
Talk about a screw-up!
He did. He has every single receipt of the service work, except they all show the VIN of the Boxster instead of the 996. The dealer continued to service his 996 under the Boxster record in their system. WTF, they never noticed it wasn't even the same car?! My brother's kicking himself for not looking at his paperwork more closely all these years. Come to think of it, I don't look that closely at the VIN on the service receipts myself.
I assume all the while your brother's 996 never needed a part replaced, and all the services were just maintenance? Coz' if there had been a part request, it should have raised a flag to the service advisor or technician.
Can't the dealer simply go back into their computer records and correct the VIN & model info retroactively and then print out the corrected records for your bro and any potential buyer? Doesn't seem like an impossible task..... just sayin'
Couldn't the general manager of the dealership just write a letter to the prospective buyer verifying all the service records were for the 996 and references to the Boxster were a mistake. If the buyer is still suspicious, they could just pick up the phone and call the GM to confirm it's all bona fide. Any buyer that won't accept that is just being tool.
I agree w/Quick. Depending on what processing system they have(ADP or Reynolds and Reynolds) they can just go in and correct the VIN and transfer the info. I am in the business and have had to do the same thing once or twice by making the honest. One owner, multiple cars, similar features, not enough coffee, mistakes happen. Should be no problem to correct it.
My brother tried to get the service advisor to correct the info in their computer, but they weren't very cooperative or sympathetic to his cause. They even asked him, "Are you sure we weren't servicing the Boxster because that's what our records show?" Geez...really? The fact that they're a snooty dealership in Los Angeles likely doesn't help. My brother is a reserved person by nature, but he'll need to press this issue with them. You'd think in these tough economic times, customer service would be a higher priority now.
I think you really should consider kicking this up to the PCNA regional rep. Have documentation showing the sale and purchase of respective vehicles and any parts used during the service from the receipts (which would be 996 specific vs 987) to prove the point and the error, and this will get resolved. It's a silly issue and can be fixed, they are just being lazy at the dealership.
