This letter is our response to your letter regarding file No [redacted] .On April 6, we submitted a proposal to replace components of [redacted] ’s Heat Pump systemWe replaced the outdoor unit and the indoor coil with metering deviceAll the equipment and warranty terms were stipulated in writing in the proposalWe are attaching the proposal; it is the same document [redacted] has already furnishedWe are also attaching the receipt from the supplier for the Evaporator Coil and [redacted] Metering DeviceThis receipt is dated the exact day we did the work at [redacted] ’s propertyThe work order from that day is also attached, it was written by the technician while at the jobIt indicates that all work was completed as per the proposal and is signed by the person living there.We replaced the indoor Evaporator Coil and [redacted] Metering Device with the exact coil for that Air Handler per manufacturer’s specifications We installed a new 30,BTU [redacted] Heat Pump outside after removing the Ducane 30,BTU Heat Pump that was thereAll equipment capacities and BTU ratings remained exactly the same as the prior set upIt should be noted that [redacted] had a Ducane outdoor unit with a [redacted] indoor unit prior to our workShe chose only to replace the outdoor unit with a new [redacted] unit and to replace only the indoor coil that was leaking refrigerant, not the entire indoor Air Handler, though she was offered the opportunity to replace both [redacted] needed some repairs after plus years of system operationThe parts she required were under manufacturer’s warrantyThe labor was notOur labor warranty was for one year as stipulated in our proposalWhen [redacted] realized she would have some cost related to these repairs she refused to have the work done and brought in a CompetitorThe Competitor’s stated analysis is unsubstantiated, hedged as not their own based on apparent hearsay and contrary to the hard data we developed during our investigation in an effort to save [redacted] the cost of replacing the entire indoor Air Handler.Fundamentally, what’s happened here is that we originally did [redacted] a professional favor, for which she was very gratefulWhat made it professional is that it would have been more profitable for RSI to sell and install the additional unitAt that time we explained to [redacted] what we were doing and she enthusiastically accepted the work.Two points are additionally noteworthy here:The property in question is tenant-occupied, so we question whether her tenants were properly instructed in the care and use of the equipment, even if instructed, adhered to those instructions[redacted] has had the benefit of over four (4) years of operation and could have had the benefit of the balance of the manufacturer’s warranty for the parts to be replacedInstead, in reliance on hearsay from a Competitor whose motives and professionalism we also question, she has chosen to engage in a crusade to try to force RSI to refund money when none is due.We had a very straight forward proposal that saved [redacted] substantial moneyWe made full disclosure to our customer and performed in accord with those disclosuresWe did the work exactly as we proposedThe person living in [redacted] ’s property signed our work order stating the work was completed satisfactorily, which in fact it wasThe system ran without fail for plus yearsNow [redacted] wants to be reimbursed to pay for a new system she had installed by a competitor that has mischaracterized our work, apparently to its own benefit.There has been no regulatory or legal violation by RSI, and, for that matter, no ethical or moral violationAccordingly, we look forward to the prompt dismissal of this misguided claim.Please let me know if I can be of further assistanceThank you for your consideration.Sincerely,Boris E [redacted] President Residential Systems, Inc
*** *** is not giving an accurate accounting of this service callBoth the furnace and duct work in his home were full of sootThe heat exchanger liner or the exchanger itself was breachedWe would not even turn the furnace on due to concerns of blowing soot and debris throughout
the duct work and houseWe were told by the equipment manufacturer that because *** *** was not the original owner of the furnace the parts were NOT warrantyWe deferred back to *** ***'s home warranty company for reviewWe obviously did not attempt to take advantage of *** ***, we put his home warranty claim back in the hands of his home warranty company as per our agreement with them*** *** should focus his concerns on his warranty policy and it's terms and conditions rather than making accusations
[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the responseIf no reason is received your complaint will be closed as Answered]
Complaint: ***
This company did not advise me that the parts they sold to me were not suitable parts I did not receive coil I paid for I subsequently paid labor for two compressors while the heat pump was still under warrantyThe system shortly broke down again after the second compressor was put in I did not receive all the service calls I paid forThe company has refused , in any reputable way, to try and resolve this issue They have refused to provide any information to me
Regards,
*** ***
This letter is our response to your letter regarding file No. [redacted].On April 6, 2011 we submitted a proposal to replace components of [redacted]’s Heat Pump system. We replaced the outdoor unit and the indoor coil with metering device. All the equipment and warranty terms were stipulated in...
writing in the proposal. We are attaching the proposal; it is the same document [redacted] has already furnished. We are also attaching the receipt from the supplier for the Evaporator Coil and [redacted] Metering Device. This receipt is dated the exact day we did the work at [redacted]’s property. The work order from that day is also attached, it was written by the technician while at the job. It indicates that all work was completed as per the proposal and is signed by the person living there.We replaced the indoor Evaporator Coil and [redacted] Metering Device with the exact coil for that Air Handler per manufacturer’s specifications. We installed a new 30,000 BTU [redacted] Heat Pump outside after removing the Ducane 30,000 BTU Heat Pump that was there. All equipment capacities and BTU ratings remained exactly the same as the prior set up. It should be noted that [redacted] had a Ducane outdoor unit with a [redacted] indoor unit prior to our work. She chose only to replace the outdoor unit with a new [redacted] unit and to replace only the indoor coil that was leaking refrigerant, not the entire indoor Air Handler, though she was offered the opportunity to replace both. [redacted] needed some repairs after 4 plus years of system operation. The parts she required were under manufacturer’s warranty. The labor was not. Our labor warranty was for one year as stipulated in our proposal. When [redacted] realized she would have some cost related to these repairs she refused to have the work done and brought in a Competitor. The Competitor’s stated analysis is unsubstantiated, hedged as not their own based on apparent hearsay and contrary to the hard data we developed during our investigation in an effort to save [redacted] the cost of replacing the entire indoor Air Handler.Fundamentally, what’s happened here is that we originally did [redacted] a professional favor, for which she was very grateful. What made it professional is that it would have been more profitable for RSI to sell and install the additional unit. At that time we explained to [redacted] what we were doing and she enthusiastically accepted the work.Two points are additionally noteworthy here:The property in question is tenant-occupied, so we question whether her tenants were properly instructed in the care and use of the equipment, even if instructed, adhered to those instructions.[redacted] has had the benefit of over four (4) years of operation and could have had the benefit of the balance of the manufacturer’s warranty for the parts to be replaced. Instead, in reliance on hearsay from a Competitor whose motives and professionalism we also question, she has chosen to engage in a crusade to try to force RSI to refund money when none is due.We had a very straight forward proposal that saved [redacted] substantial money. We made full disclosure to our customer and performed in accord with those disclosures. We did the work exactly as we proposed. The person living in [redacted]’s property signed our work order stating the work was completed satisfactorily, which in fact it was. The system ran without fail for 4 plus years. Now [redacted] wants to be reimbursed to pay for a new system she had installed by a competitor that has mischaracterized our work, apparently to its own benefit.There has been no regulatory or legal violation by RSI, and, for that matter, no ethical or moral violation. Accordingly, we look forward to the prompt dismissal of this misguided claim.Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. Thank you for your consideration.Sincerely,Boris E[redacted] ...⇄ President Residential Systems, Inc
This letter is our response to your letter regarding file No [redacted] .On April 6, we submitted a proposal to replace components of [redacted] ’s Heat Pump systemWe replaced the outdoor unit and the indoor coil with metering deviceAll the equipment and warranty terms were stipulated in writing in the proposalWe are attaching the proposal; it is the same document [redacted] has already furnishedWe are also attaching the receipt from the supplier for the Evaporator Coil and [redacted] Metering DeviceThis receipt is dated the exact day we did the work at [redacted] ’s propertyThe work order from that day is also attached, it was written by the technician while at the jobIt indicates that all work was completed as per the proposal and is signed by the person living there.We replaced the indoor Evaporator Coil and [redacted] Metering Device with the exact coil for that Air Handler per manufacturer’s specifications We installed a new 30,BTU [redacted] Heat Pump outside after removing the Ducane 30,BTU Heat Pump that was thereAll equipment capacities and BTU ratings remained exactly the same as the prior set upIt should be noted that [redacted] had a Ducane outdoor unit with a [redacted] indoor unit prior to our workShe chose only to replace the outdoor unit with a new [redacted] unit and to replace only the indoor coil that was leaking refrigerant, not the entire indoor Air Handler, though she was offered the opportunity to replace both [redacted] needed some repairs after plus years of system operationThe parts she required were under manufacturer’s warrantyThe labor was notOur labor warranty was for one year as stipulated in our proposalWhen [redacted] realized she would have some cost related to these repairs she refused to have the work done and brought in a CompetitorThe Competitor’s stated analysis is unsubstantiated, hedged as not their own based on apparent hearsay and contrary to the hard data we developed during our investigation in an effort to save [redacted] the cost of replacing the entire indoor Air Handler.Fundamentally, what’s happened here is that we originally did [redacted] a professional favor, for which she was very gratefulWhat made it professional is that it would have been more profitable for RSI to sell and install the additional unitAt that time we explained to [redacted] what we were doing and she enthusiastically accepted the work.Two points are additionally noteworthy here:The property in question is tenant-occupied, so we question whether her tenants were properly instructed in the care and use of the equipment, even if instructed, adhered to those instructions[redacted] has had the benefit of over four (4) years of operation and could have had the benefit of the balance of the manufacturer’s warranty for the parts to be replacedInstead, in reliance on hearsay from a Competitor whose motives and professionalism we also question, she has chosen to engage in a crusade to try to force RSI to refund money when none is due.We had a very straight forward proposal that saved [redacted] substantial moneyWe made full disclosure to our customer and performed in accord with those disclosuresWe did the work exactly as we proposedThe person living in [redacted] ’s property signed our work order stating the work was completed satisfactorily, which in fact it wasThe system ran without fail for plus yearsNow [redacted] wants to be reimbursed to pay for a new system she had installed by a competitor that has mischaracterized our work, apparently to its own benefit.There has been no regulatory or legal violation by RSI, and, for that matter, no ethical or moral violationAccordingly, we look forward to the prompt dismissal of this misguided claim.Please let me know if I can be of further assistanceThank you for your consideration.Sincerely,Boris E [redacted] President Residential Systems, Inc
We have responded to this erroneous complaint in writingWe will upload the letter again for your review.Thank you
*** *** is not giving an accurate accounting of this service callBoth the furnace and duct work in his home were full of sootThe heat exchanger liner or the exchanger itself was breachedWe would not even turn the furnace on due to concerns of blowing soot and debris throughout
the duct work and houseWe were told by the equipment manufacturer that because *** *** was not the original owner of the furnace the parts were NOT warrantyWe deferred back to *** ***'s home warranty company for reviewWe obviously did not attempt to take advantage of *** ***, we put his home warranty claim back in the hands of his home warranty company as per our agreement with them*** *** should focus his concerns on his warranty policy and it's terms and conditions rather than making accusations
[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the responseIf no reason is received your complaint will be closed as Answered]
Complaint: ***
This company did not advise me that the parts they sold to me were not suitable parts I did not receive coil I paid for I subsequently paid labor for two compressors while the heat pump was still under warrantyThe system shortly broke down again after the second compressor was put in I did not receive all the service calls I paid forThe company has refused , in any reputable way, to try and resolve this issue They have refused to provide any information to me
Regards,
*** ***
This letter is our response to your letter regarding file No. [redacted].On April 6, 2011 we submitted a proposal to replace components of [redacted]’s Heat Pump system. We replaced the outdoor unit and the indoor coil with metering device. All the equipment and warranty terms were stipulated in...
writing in the proposal. We are attaching the proposal; it is the same document [redacted] has already furnished. We are also attaching the receipt from the supplier for the Evaporator Coil and [redacted] Metering Device. This receipt is dated the exact day we did the work at [redacted]’s property. The work order from that day is also attached, it was written by the technician while at the job. It indicates that all work was completed as per the proposal and is signed by the person living there.We replaced the indoor Evaporator Coil and [redacted] Metering Device with the exact coil for that Air Handler per manufacturer’s specifications. We installed a new 30,000 BTU [redacted] Heat Pump outside after removing the Ducane 30,000 BTU Heat Pump that was there. All equipment capacities and BTU ratings remained exactly the same as the prior set up. It should be noted that [redacted] had a Ducane outdoor unit with a [redacted] indoor unit prior to our work. She chose only to replace the outdoor unit with a new [redacted] unit and to replace only the indoor coil that was leaking refrigerant, not the entire indoor Air Handler, though she was offered the opportunity to replace both. [redacted] needed some repairs after 4 plus years of system operation. The parts she required were under manufacturer’s warranty. The labor was not. Our labor warranty was for one year as stipulated in our proposal. When [redacted] realized she would have some cost related to these repairs she refused to have the work done and brought in a Competitor. The Competitor’s stated analysis is unsubstantiated, hedged as not their own based on apparent hearsay and contrary to the hard data we developed during our investigation in an effort to save [redacted] the cost of replacing the entire indoor Air Handler.Fundamentally, what’s happened here is that we originally did [redacted] a professional favor, for which she was very grateful. What made it professional is that it would have been more profitable for RSI to sell and install the additional unit. At that time we explained to [redacted] what we were doing and she enthusiastically accepted the work.Two points are additionally noteworthy here:The property in question is tenant-occupied, so we question whether her tenants were properly instructed in the care and use of the equipment, even if instructed, adhered to those instructions.[redacted] has had the benefit of over four (4) years of operation and could have had the benefit of the balance of the manufacturer’s warranty for the parts to be replaced. Instead, in reliance on hearsay from a Competitor whose motives and professionalism we also question, she has chosen to engage in a crusade to try to force RSI to refund money when none is due.We had a very straight forward proposal that saved [redacted] substantial money. We made full disclosure to our customer and performed in accord with those disclosures. We did the work exactly as we proposed. The person living in [redacted]’s property signed our work order stating the work was completed satisfactorily, which in fact it was. The system ran without fail for 4 plus years. Now [redacted] wants to be reimbursed to pay for a new system she had installed by a competitor that has mischaracterized our work, apparently to its own benefit.There has been no regulatory or legal violation by RSI, and, for that matter, no ethical or moral violation. Accordingly, we look forward to the prompt dismissal of this misguided claim.Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. Thank you for your consideration.Sincerely,Boris E[redacted] ...⇄ President Residential Systems, Inc
We have responded to this erroneous complaint in writing. We will upload the letter again for your review.Thank you.