Well now its up on Yahoo News 


https://autos.yahoo.com/articles/arizona-driver-says-just-days-110000410.html?guccounter=1

https://youtu.be/1a4KgVOlbq0?feature=shared

chatgpt has become my newest diary:
Sure, here's a quick recap of your Take 5 issue:

On April 24, you took your vehicle to Take 5 for an oil change. Just two days later, on April 26, your vehicle broke down on the I-10 in Laveen due to a lack of oil, allegedly caused by negligence during the oil change service.

Despite filing a claim, Take 5 and their claims processor (Fleet Response) have since denied responsibility, leaving you stuck with towing and storage fees, diagnostic charges, and costs related to the breakdown. You've dealt with weeks of silence, lack of accountability, and no support or resolution, prompting you to consider civil legal action and potentially take your story to the media.

Be sure to watch Channel 3 and 5 tonight, where we talk to "3 on your side."

Day 56:
Take 5 has officially denied our claim—refusing to take even the slightest responsibility for the damage they caused to our vehicle during service at their shop.

Instead, they’ve dumped every penny of the financial burden on us—from towing and storage fees to diagnostics and repair costs—all stemming from their gross negligence and incompetence.

The lack of communication, professionalism, and basic human decency from both the local shop and corporate is absolutely shameful. Take 5 made a mess and walked away without a second thought.

Let this be a warning: if you're considering Take 5 for vehicle service, think again. You may end up paying for their mistakes—literally.

📺 Channel 3 and Channel 5 will be airing our story tomorrow, 06/18/25, at 5:30 PM.

If you’ve been screwed over by Take 5 too or have legal insight to share, message me. We’re not staying quiet.

 I spoke with the claims department on June 6, and they informed me that additional diagnostics were needed. However, as both the claims team and Take 5 should be aware, no further diagnostics can be performed because the engine is seized and the vehicle is no longer operable.

When I explained this to claims, they suggested I pay out of pocket to add oil to the vehicle to observe whether it leaks out. This suggestion is unreasonable given the current condition of the engine.

According to the claims department, there is already video evidence showing a significant oil leak after the oil change. However, Take 5 continues to assert that the leak is merely residual from the service. Claims maintains that the leak was visibly present on video as the vehicle exited the garage, and they also referenced photographs from both repair shops which confirm the leak.

I have contacted the media, who contacted Take 5’s parent company. Their response was that they were told I was going to provide video evidence of the leak. Given that the engine is seized, I am unable to recreate the conditions to produce a new video.

When I requested access to the existing video and photographic evidence, I was told that all such materials are the property of Take 5 and that I would need a court order to obtain them. I was also informed that any further steps regarding the vehicle would be at my own expense.

Throughout this process, I have made every effort to cooperate and provide the necessary information. However, I have been left to handle much of the investigative burden alone—communicating between the claims department, the shop, and other parties—instead of the claims department managing this as expected.

The shop has provided both photographs and a diagnostic report stating that the engine failure was due to oil starvation caused by a faulty oil change. I am no longer in a position to supply additional evidence beyond what has already been shared.

I respectfully request that this matter be escalated and resolved promptly. I am not responsible for resolving this issue by doing the job their claims department (fleet response) should be doing.