A C Carwash

on September 10, 2015, Mark Lindsay was contacted by [redacted] , who requested emergency services for their non-cooling Air Conditioning system (“System”) at the Premises It is important to note that the original System was installed in 1994, including the inside attic equipment (“Attic Equipment”)The outside condenser (“Condenser”) was replaced in On September 10, 2015, Mark Lindsay arrived at the Premises and performed the work requested by [redacted] Unfortunately, the contractor (not Mark Lindsay) that originally installed the System in or around did not clearly mark the System stating that NUrefrigerant was requiredIn fact, the Attic Equipment clearly states that only Rrefrigerant should be used and the manufacturer’s recommendation is for RrefrigerantAdditionally, the Condenser states that Rrefrigerant is required, while there is a smaller sticker below stating that NUrefrigerant should be usedIt is assumed that a previous contractor placed this NUsticker on the Condenser but provided no additional information regarding how much NUrefrigerant was used or when it was usedIt is standard industry practice to provide this informationSeeing that both the Attic Equipment and Condenser called for Rrefrigerant, the Mark Lindsay technician used Rrefrigerant and serviced the System as such Immediately after realizing that the incorrect type of refrigerant was added into the System, Mark Lindsay made all efforts to remove the Rrefrigerant and replace it with the correct NUrefrigerantProviding temporay Air conditioning units to the homeowner until the work was completed At that time, and after Mark Lindsay’s completion of that work and removing the incorrect R refrigerant, the System was fully operational The use of the incorrect refrigerant in was not a mistake per se, but rather an error due to the unknown facts and the negligence of the prior contractor’s failure to properly and accurately mark all of the equipment related to the SystemDespite this, Mark Lindsay stood behind its work (and the oversight) and took the necessary steps to remedy the situation at that time.It was not until June 23, that Mark Lindsay was contacted by [redacted] and informed that the System had failed [redacted] believed it was due to the use of the incorrect refrigerant in As previously stated, the Attic Equipment was first installed in and, as such, was over twenty-three (23) years oldIt is Mark Lindsay’s position that the Attic Equipment failed due to the expiration of its life span, not due to the incorrect refrigerant used two years ago But, as previously stated, Mark Lindsay was more than willing to take on some of the responsibility and work out an amicable resolution with [redacted] Upon review and evaluating [redacted] ’s request for resolution on this matter, Mark Lindsay offered $3,to compensate [redacted] for the Condenser that was installed in and the labor associated with an installMark Lindsay did not and still does not believe it is responsible for the full replacement value of a twenty-three (23) year old unitIn fact, Mark Lindsay recommended that [redacted] get two proposals from other contractors for the work so that Mark Lindsay could properly evaluate the costsThe $3,offered in a settlement more than covers the work to replace the CondenserBut [redacted] was looking for full replacement value of the entire System, including the Attic Equipment, despite the fact that the System was over twenty-three (23) years oldRather than continue to work out a settlement with Mark Lindsay, Mrs [redacted] proceeded to threaten and proceed to post unfavorable reviews on various social media outlets and filed a complaint with the Revdex.com (“Revdex.com”).Mrs [redacted] has stated untruths in her complaints in her effort to get the full amount of $8,.Lastly, please be advised that Mark Lindsay is still willing to resolve this situation in an amicable fashion, without the need to resort to litigation or any other legal actionIf Mrs [redacted] would like to reach a settlement on this matter, please feel free to reach out to me A letter is also being sent to Mr& mrs [redacted] that we are willing to resolve this matter

Please note that Complaint Number [redacted] has been resolved with the company (Mark Lindsay and Sons), and my complaint can be deleted. Please let me know how to proceed.
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
Regards,
[redacted]

on September 10, 2015, Mark Lindsay was contacted by [redacted], who requested emergency services for their non-cooling Air Conditioning system (“System”) at the Premises.  It is important to note that the original System was installed in 1994, including the inside attic equipment (“Attic...

Equipment”). The outside condenser (“Condenser”) was replaced in 2013.  On September 10, 2015, Mark Lindsay arrived at the Premises and performed the work requested by [redacted]. Unfortunately, the contractor (not Mark Lindsay) that originally installed the System in or around 1994 did not clearly mark the System stating that NU22 refrigerant was required. In fact, the Attic Equipment clearly states that only R22 refrigerant should be used and the manufacturer’s recommendation is for R22 refrigerant. Additionally, the Condenser states that R22 refrigerant is required, while there is a smaller sticker below stating that NU22 refrigerant should be used. It is assumed that a previous contractor placed this NU22 sticker on the Condenser but provided no additional information regarding how much NU22 refrigerant was used or when it was used. It is standard industry practice to provide this information. Seeing that both the Attic Equipment and Condenser called for R22 refrigerant, the Mark Lindsay technician used R22 refrigerant and serviced the System as such.  Immediately after realizing that the incorrect type of refrigerant was added into the System, Mark Lindsay made all efforts to remove the R22 refrigerant and replace it with the correct NU22 refrigerant. Providing temporay Air conditioning units to the homeowner until the work was completed .   At that time, and after Mark Lindsay’s completion of that work and removing the incorrect R 22 refrigerant, the System was fully operational.      The use of the incorrect refrigerant in 2015 was not a mistake per se, but rather an error due to the unknown facts and the negligence of the prior contractor’s failure to properly and accurately mark all of the equipment related to the System. Despite this, Mark Lindsay stood behind its work (and the oversight) and took the necessary steps to remedy the situation at that time.It was not until June 23, 2017 that Mark Lindsay was contacted by [redacted] and informed that the System had failed. [redacted] believed it was due to the use of the incorrect refrigerant in 2015. As previously stated, the Attic Equipment was first installed in 1994 and, as such, was over twenty-three (23) years old. It is Mark Lindsay’s position that the Attic Equipment failed due to the expiration of its life span, not due to the incorrect refrigerant used two years ago.  But, as previously stated, Mark Lindsay was more than willing to take on some of the responsibility and work out an amicable resolution with [redacted].         Upon review and evaluating [redacted]’s request for resolution on this matter, Mark Lindsay offered $3,500.00 to compensate [redacted] for the Condenser that was installed in 2013 and the labor associated with an install. Mark Lindsay did not and still does not believe it is responsible for the full replacement value of a twenty-three (23) year old unit. In fact, Mark Lindsay recommended that [redacted] get two proposals from other contractors for the work so that Mark Lindsay could properly evaluate the costs. The $3,500.00 offered in a settlement more than covers the work to replace the Condenser. But [redacted] was looking for full replacement value of the entire System, including the Attic Equipment, despite the fact that the System was over twenty-three (23) years old. Rather than continue to work out a settlement with Mark Lindsay, Mrs. [redacted] proceeded to threaten and proceed to  post unfavorable reviews on various social media outlets and filed a complaint with the Revdex.com (“Revdex.com”).Mrs. [redacted] has stated untruths in her complaints in her effort to get the full amount of $8,500.00 .Lastly, please be advised that Mark Lindsay is still willing to resolve this situation in an amicable fashion, without the need to resort to litigation or any other legal action. If Mrs. [redacted] would like to reach a settlement on this matter, please feel free to reach out to me.  A letter is also being sent to Mr. & mrs. [redacted] that we are willing to resolve this matter.