Auto workshop alleges Audi owner's wife called police to avoid paying outstanding $174 repair bill
The auto workshop where the police were called over the repair of an Audi A4 is disputing the car owner's version of events.
A spokesperson for GSC Auto Services said she wanted to provide clarification on several points raised by the Audi owner, Sean, in the Nov 17 Stomp report.
"Also, we would like to emphasise this incident raises a significant question regarding the potential implications of police involvement in situations where a customer successfully sought to avoid payment for services rendered," said the spokesperson.
She also emphasised that it was not the workshop that called the police. It was Sean's wife, who was at the workshop with Sean's brother. Sean himself was not there.
"The customer sought police assistance to retrieve their vehicle without settling the outstanding balance for services and repairs already performed," said the spokesperson.
"When Sean's vehicle arrived at our workshop, it was emitting thick white smoke and had to be towed in. Yet, when he drove it away with police present it moved smoothly, without issue.
"This isn't magic. It's undeniable proof that our technicians performed essential dismantling and repairs."
One point of contention was that even though Sean initially approved certain repairs, he insisted that he did not approve other work, such as turbo replacement.
The spokesperson said: "We sought approval from Sean before proceeding with any repairs to ensure that he is aware of all the repair costs before proceeding. Our standard procedure involves obtaining customer approval before commencing any repairs.
"At 5.11pm on Nov 10, our employee J provided Sean with pricing for the turbo and fuel injector, confirming a 5pm collection on Nov 13.
"J then sought his approval to proceed which he agreed. With Sean's approval, our skilled technicians commenced the complex process to dismantle some parts before they could access the turbo."
But Sean claimed that he did not agree.
He told Stomp: "J texted me the estimated cost and offered installment plans via Atome. I clearly stated that she should wait for my payment the next morning before proceeding to order any parts as she had mentioned wanting to place the order immediately."
What happened was that at 6.26pm, when J messaged "Let me order parts for you first", Sean simply replied "Thank u."
The workshop took this as the green light to proceed.
But then at 7pm, he repeated the message: "Let me pay you first, then you order the item."
So in his mind, he did not give the green light.
The spokesperson said: "At a staggering 8.08pm, Sean abruptly declared he no longer wished to proceed, stating he intended to auction his car.
"This is a typical example of a last-minute decision, which GSC Auto shall not be liable for."
Sean told Stomp: "J then said she would check with her boss, Mr Soh, and subsequently texted that I owed $60 for diagnostic check, $160 for dismantling, $190 for 'halfway work' to remove and replace the turbo."
"I was also told I could only tow back the car at 3pm the next day as they needed to 'reinstall the turbo' which they claimed to have removed.
"This raised serious red flags — how could the turbo have been removed between 5.40pm and 8pm when J stated they do no work after 5pm?"
The spokesperson explained: "We believe there may have been a misunderstanding on Sean's end.
"The message from J indicating a 5pm collection time was intended as a proposed time to collect the vehicle on Nov 13, not an indication that repair work would cease or that the workshop would close at that hour.
"Our workshop's operating hours extend until 10pm daily, and repair work routinely occurs after 5pm."
Sean told Stomp: "When I called J at 9.28pm to clarify, she became defensive and insisted we must pay to retrieve the car, and then stopped replying altogether, telling us not to contact her — behaviour we found deeply unprofessional and concerning."
The spokesperson said: "It is only right for businesses to claim payment before releasing the product. As such, we wish to state that there was no need to engage him further. Such behaviour towards an unreasonable customer should not be classified as unprofessional and concerning."
The next morning, Sean's wife and brother went to the workshop in Sembawang to retrieve the Audi.
Sean recounted: "My wife called J at 9.03am, very patiently explaining that there was no visible indication any turbo or parts were removed. She requested proof — photos, videos, or a report — since we were being asked to pay for dismantling and turbo removal.
"J got defensive, claimed I had approved the work (untrue) and hung up mid-conversation. My wife warned that if proof wasn't provided, she would involve the police.
"J replied via text demanding full payment and warning us that the car was in an unstable condition and could be towed, but they would not be liable for issues — this felt like an attempt to pressure us."
The spokesperson said: "In relation to J's words, this is only proper and practical protocol for businesses to protect and safeguard their interests."
This led to the police being called to the workshop.
Partial payment made
The spokesperson said: "Prior to this, Sean had communicated to our representative, Mr Soh, his willingness to pay for dismantling and diagnosis.
"However, in the presence of the police and our staff, he subsequently stated he did not wish to pay the dismantling fee. Given the circumstances, we acceded to his request for partial payment at that moment.
"Sean made a partial payment of $65.40. This resulted in an outstanding balance of $174.40 inclusive of GST."
Sean told Stomp: "While my brother removed the car, Mr Soh began shouting, falsely accusing us of stealing the keys, which were left in the car ignition by his own staff."
Regarding this, the spokesperson said: "We wish to state that it is normal for anybody to feel aggrieved after not being paid for the services that were professionally provided. This emotional state should not be used against GSC.
"It should also be known that Sean's wife and the unknown man had entered a restricted repair zone within our workshop to unilaterally retrieve the car keys."
Sean also said: "Mr Soh has since posted misleading content online alleging that repairs were carried out.
"To this day, GSC has provided no proof that any work — especially the turbo removal — was done. No photos, no video, no documentation. Their refusal to show CCTV footage only reinforces our belief that we were being charged for work that never happened."
The spokesperson said: "We wish to state that our Facebook's post contains facts that the car was indeed repaired. Further proof can be shown by a professional surveyor.
"It is worthwhile noting that Sean's wife and the unknown man even asked the police to find where his car cover was, which is circumstantial evidence that there were indeed works carried out for the dismantling."
The spokesperson added: "As regards the evidence of dismantling of works, we are ready to hire a surveyor to check and verify on our account.
"Our technicians are also ready to provide their statements on work done Sean's car. It should be well noted that three technicians attended to his car.
She concluded: "The main points lie with the fact that Sean had withdrew his consent to repair the parts last minute after approving the work done for dismantling and reinstalling the turbo.
"He even asked employee J for methods to pay and said that he wanted to pay the fees involved. It is only rightful for GSC to charge him the fees owed to us before releasing his car to him."
