Well, we are going a little off topic, but it appears to me that the servicing dealer was asked to perform a service, and charged the going rate for that service. I don't know for sure in this case, but there is usually a work order involved, and it is usually signed, so as to permit a mechanic's lien to be placed on the vehicle if payment is not made. Cancelling payment (in my province) would allow the shop to place a lien on the vehicle, if they have the work order signed. It is usually more hassle than it is worth, for both the customer and the shop, but it is how the shop is protected from people promising to pay, and then not doing so.

Taking it out on the servicing dealer is really what I was wondering about here. I fully understand taking the dispute up with the dealer that sold the vehicle. Getting BMWNA involved might not be a bad idea. But promising to pay the servicing dealer (by signing the credit card slip) and then cancelling that payment once a person has left the premises just seems shady.

I agree that it is good practice to inform the customer of the charges before performing the service. It makes for good relations all around. If that wasn't done, however, I would first read the repair order, including the fine print. It likely has standard boilerplate language that doesn't require the shop to give a price first. If a consumer wants to protect themselves from this practice, it is a good idea to ensure that the repair order includes the notation "contact customer with quote and obtain authorization prior to performing service" or something to this effect.

I just think that the Fair Credit Act is more about you being able to protest charges that you didn't agree to, not charges that you did agree to when the vehicle was picked up.

__________________
2007 X3 3.0si, 6 MT, Premium, White

Retired:
2008 535i, 6 MT, M Sport, Premium, Space Grey
2003 X5 3.0 Steptronic, Premium, Titanium Silver
2002 325xi 5 MT, Steel Grey
2004 Z4 3.0 Premium, Sport, SMG, Maldives Blue