Air Wind & Solar, Inc

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID *** and have determined that this does not resolve my dispute
Please enter your reason(s) for rejecting the business response below.As you compare the two attached invoices, you see the misrepresentation that Air Wind Solar has by trying to bilk us by billing us $8,160.58, yet telling you that they have offered us $750.Air Wind Solar offers no proof that there is no Oncor rebate and indeed is attempting to double bill us to hide their bad efforts to resolve the issue.Prove no rebate.Prove that installers were paid.Prove that panels were unavailable when we paid.Air Wind Solar are the ones who have manifestly broken the contract
Regards,
*** ***

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me
Regards,
*** ***

Complaint:
I am rejecting this response because:Multiple email and phone conversations have been made on including but not limited to the following dates:8-24-- Called *** *** the Chief Operating Officer of the company and informed him of the issue.8-30-- Emailed *** *** requesting an update on the service8-31-Response from *** stating "We have them statused as need service call on mid priority (i.enon safety concern)"9-8-- Emailed *** *** asking for an updateNo responseThere were multiple phone conversations with *** *** from 9-8-to 11-2-and we can provide phone records if necessary.11-2-- Emailed *** *** about service call.
Regards,
*** ***

We've offered to assist Ms***. She has declined to follow our customer service process. We sent her a document to fill out. After she fills that out, we typically try to remotely troubleshoot the problem over the phone or via video chat. If that does not work, then we
send an electrician for a physical inspection. The customer is required to pay $for the inspection. If the problem is a workmanship issue, then then money is refunded. If the problem was caused by the customer, weather, etc, then the $can be applied to a repair bill. We're happy to go through the process with Ms***, however she is not interested in following our customer service procedures

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID *** and have determined that this does not resolve my dispute
Please enter your reason(s) for rejecting the business response below.The company's claim that they cull their data from other sources seems very convenient The fact remains their proposal estimated production of 17,kwh hours per year and for example the month of February estimated production of Kwh When the system produced approximately hours that month, I contacted *** *** to express my concern and was told that my system was over producing and we should hope that it continues to do so If AWS has data that implies that my system is overproducing at kwh in February when their proposal estimates kwh, that is evidence that they knew the numbers they were using to project production were grossly inflated Mr*** claims that I had requested a "less than optimum" orientation of the panels at degrees This is absolutely false My proposal from AWS states degrees not degrees I specifically requested an optimum orientation as the panels are installed behind a storage building at an angle to the buildingFurther we live on acres so orientation for asthetic purposes is not an issue Had I not been concerned about optimal orientation, I would have installed on roof of home and saved the money for the supporting structure This is the first I have heard about my system not being installed properly No mention of this had been made in all my subsequent discussions with *** *** relative to my concerns of under production If I am losing 5-9% production due to their contractor improperly installing my system or confusion on their part, they should remedy this error The first contractor proved to be unreliable as they started project and abruptly quit before finishing work delaying the completion of system AWS had to bring in another contractor to complete the job Perhaps their unreliable contractor made the mistake or AWS requested the wrong orientation Either way, it was NOT due to my request Again, my revised proposal indicates a degree orientation and I made no request to change what I believed was the optimal orientation.I consistently expressed my concerns to *** *** during the first year of service *** agreed that if system was still under producing after one year of service, someone would perform a service call to evaluate if panels were performing properly Despite multiple attempts by phone and email to contact ***, I received no response and no one has reevaluated our system to my knowledge Their failure to have the courtesy to return a customer's phone calls and emails suggests that their is no service after the sale.Regarding my energy costs, I provided AWS with copies of my energy usage from my energy provider prior to receiving a proposal My cost for the preceding year including all delivery charges, etc was per kwh Their proposal estimated a cost of per kwh so in essence my energy costs were inflated by 25% and my production has been 73% of estimated productionDespite providing my data from my energy provided, AWS used an inflated energy cost in their proposal Copies of my energy bills were provided to *** *** via email supporting this on 6/23/ This changes my payback period on this system dramatically and I would not have gone forward based on current production and energy costs I found no better rate; I have been using the same energy provider since 2002.Given AWS will not even bother to return my phone calls, I suspect that I will have to find another Solar contractor should I need any work, including warranty work done on my system in the future I can support all the claims I have made above
Regards,
*** ***

I wish there was another option besides "accept or reject" to this matter as neither fits the situationAs I believe the company would agree, one wouldn't typically say such a problem has been resolved simply because a message was sentAt such a time as the system is functioning properly again, I would be glad to revisit that choice but for now, I still have an idle solar system on my roof, so it would be illogical for me to close this complaintMoreover, to the company's response, I would add that I was only told that I was on a list for service AFTER my complaintI had spoken with the company in late June and was told I would hear from someone in operations within two daysWhen I didn't, I called again and left a messageHaving not heard anything for two weeks, I finally filed this complaint and called the company againAt that time, I was told about the company's heavy schedule of hail-related repairs and that I was on a service call listHad I not decided to call them again after filing this complaint, I would not have known any of thatI simply can't begin to understand the customer service or business model of a company that would rather wait weeks for an angry customer to corner them for a response, instead of just take a couple of minutes to return a callFurther to this point, in my last conversation with the company, the operations manager began to try to give me instructions for resetting the system - with the possibility that might be a fixI would have been glad to try it but was not at home when we spoke, so asked if we could circle back so he could instruct me while I had the various hardware in front of meHe advised that would be great because it would also give him time to look up my installation diagram and he could be more specificGreat! So I called back later that day and again got his answering machineI left a message and he didn't call the next day eitherNow, this coming week I will be out of town, so will miss yet another week of hot summer weather during which my utility bills will peak and my solar system will be idleIt's just always the same lack of responsiveness from these guys & from their Yelp complaints, I guess I can't take it personallyAgain, I wish I could have a third option to neither accept nor reject their communication because what I'd really like is to just have the system work & to never have to deal with them againI'm sure they probably feel the same way about me but I'm the one with useless hardware on my roof and there is no such thing as a good deal on junk Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this does not resolve my dispute
Please enter your reason(s) for rejecting the business response below
Regards,
*** ***

The Customer is correct that he won a Solar System from Air Wind & Solar, Incat a trade show. The only cost to the Customer directly was for anything beyond what was included in the prize package. Air Wind & Solar, Incpaid the portion that was due on the Customer's Behalf
from from a Solar Account Fund that was established by Air Wind & Solar, Incto promote Renewable Energy for Consumers in Texas. Air Wind & Solar, Incoffers a One Year Workmanship Warranty, standard. The Array itself is covered under a manufacturer's warranty, to include, but not limited to, the modules and inverter(s). The Customer is in fact in our Service list for trouble-shooting his system to see why it is not functioning. However, as the Customer has been informed by telephone, our Service Calls have a high number of customers due to hail damage during this past year. While every customer is valuable to Air Wind & Solar, Inc., by necessity, the older issues are resolved first, with any simple remedies that are near by scheduled on a case by case basis. However, the Customer's System is showing as completely non-functional, according to the Customer. This will necessitate an in-depth evaluation by one of our technicians. The Customer's system will be looked at by Air Wind & Solar, Incas soon as we have personnel available to do so

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: We were contacted by Air, Wind and Solar on Tuesday, April 18, they claimed to be unaware of previous employees behavior and assured us that it would not continue. After speaking they referred us to a different department which would return our call. It is now Friday, April 21, outside of our initial conversation we have called 8 times and left 3 messages. At this point we have received no resolution.
Regards,[redacted]

Thank you for the notification on behalf of the Customer.  Unfortunately, the Customer seems to have a few of the facts mistaken. The Customer's system was installed within the period of time that CPS Customers were eligible to receive a rebate from the Utility.  Air Wind & Solar,...

Inc. does not control, administer, or approve the rebates associated with CPS Energy, as stated in the Purchase Agreement that the Customer has referenced.  Air Wind & Solar, Inc. only agreed to apply for the Rebate on the Customer's behalf, to lower the Customer's out of pocket expenses.  In point of fact, Air Wind & Solar, Inc. experienced a significant delay and incurred a substantial expense involving the Customer's project due to the results of the initial City Inspection, performed by the City of San Antonio.  The Customer had previously applied for a Building Permit on 5-24-2004 for a "detached garage/storage shed" in their back yard, specifically stating on the application that the unit would NOT be for live quarters, but for storage only.  The City Inspector, while visiting the site, discovered that the Customer had, in fact, constructed a detached garage apartment.  Furthermore, the Customer had non-permitted work done to the house itself, to include, but not limited to, a Carport/Patio Cover, which the Customer did NOT disclose to Air Wind & Solar, Inc. prior to commencement of the installation.  Air Wind & Solar, Inc. was authorized by the Customer for the installation of the Solar Modules, without Air Wind & Solar's knowledge that the existing structure had not been reviewed or approved for permitting.  Due to the fact that the patio cover was not certified by the City, there was a concern by the City regarding the structural integrity of the non-permitted work.  Air Wind & Solar, Inc. reached out to the Customer multiple times trying to address the issue in order to get the permit cleared for r[redacted]s unrelated to any work performed by or for Air Wind & Solar, Inc.  As the Customer had already established a past history of questionable decisions involving the City's Permitting Process, the City of San Antonio required the Customer to provide an Engineered report for the non-permitted work stating that it was structurally sound.  As Air Wind & Solar, Inc. desired to clear the project for the Customer, Air Wind & Solar, Inc. retained the Services of a Site Evaluation Technician and a Structural Engineer to analyze the Structure and prepare a report that would meet the City of San Antonio's needs. Regarding the expiration of the Rebate.  Unfortunately, due to the delays involving the Customer's existing permitting issues that were unrelated to Air Wind & Solar, Inc, by the time the permit was finally cleared after Air Wind & Solar, Inc. provided all of the engineering documents, due to the Customer's previous actions, the rebate assigned to the project had expired.  While Air Wind & Solar, Inc. made no guarantees regarding the availability or amount of the rebate, at this time, Air Wind & Solar, Inc. has not enforced the requirement that the Customer remit the estimated rebate amount to Air Wind & Solar, Inc., as the Customer agreed to do so in her Agreement. While the Customer has mentioned her desire to receive $700 per referred Customer, I have found no documentation within her Agreement stating that Air Wind & Solar, Inc. had made that offer.  It's possible that the Independent Sales Contractor who brought the Customer's Agreement to Air Wind & Solar, Inc.  may have been offering some form of incentive, that would be between the Contractor that she purchased the Solar System through.  However, the Customer can submit a request to Air Wind & Solar, Inc. and I will see that it is addressed.Lastly, the Customer is stating that her Solar System is not functioning.  At this time, the Customer is significantly delinquent on monthly payments, as well as the Balloon Payment she is contractually obligated to pay.  While Air Wind & Solar, Inc. is willing to ensure that all contractual obligations are met on our end, the Customer must adhere to their requirements as well.  Until the Customer brings the Account into Good Standing, I am not authorized to send any technicians to the Customer's site.  When I have attempted to resolve the Customer's issues previously, they've either failed to answer my calls, or denied understanding English as soon as I bought up the status of their Account.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] and have determined that this does not resolve my dispute.
Please enter your reason(s) for rejecting the business response below.Air Wind Solar made no attempt to refund the $705.20.The 216.4W per panel GCLs are more efficient than the 215.9W per panel Hanwha Panels.If Air Wind Solar had provided 245W Hanwha Panels, we would not be here now.The GCL panels are physically smaller, thus they are more efficient (higher quality) per square foot.No proof product is better, only hearsay from a biased supplier providing a cheap alternative.No evidence is provided that the Oncor rebate will be significantly reduced.  If it were to be reduced, this is further proof that Air Wind Solar did not provide an adequate system.According to the availability clause, Air Wind solar has 20 days to make the refund in check, which did not happen.Air Wind Solar did not respond to emails discussing this.At least we were trying to negotiate an alternative with more generation capacity to make up for Air Wind Solar's system deficiencies.  Air Wind Solar did not respond as is evidenced by the length of time to respond to this original complaint.
Regards,
[redacted]

This is the FInal Response to the Customer regarding this issue on the Better Business Website.  The Customer is welcome to contact Air Wind & Solar, Inc. directly via the contact information provided to the Customer.  As stated in the customer's Agreement, the Customer is charged by the overall DC system wattage, calculated by the number of panels, as installed, multiplied by the panels' wattage rating by the manufacturer.  Air Wind & Solar, Inc. does not discuss transactions with Customers involving outside suppliers, contractors, or other entities.  Air Wind & Solar has not misrepresented anything to the Customer.  At this point, Air Wind & Solar, Inc. feels that further response via the Revdex.com will further aggravate a situation with the Customer while Air Wind & Solar, Inc. is making every effort to resolve the customer's satisfaction directly.

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]

Air Wind & Solar, Inc. is making the final response.  While Air Wind & Solar, Inc. does not release customer purchase information, and request that any invoices not be posted to the Revdex.com website, the customer's information shows exactly what Air Wind & Solar, Inc. has maintained.  The Customer has not been charged for the wattage that was not installed.  On the first line, the Solar System's price is listed.  On the older invoice, if  you subtract the amount that Air Wind & Solar, Inc. stated previously as the difference between the Old System Size and the As-Installed System Size, you'll see they did in fact receive the reduction.  Second, the customer seems to be focused on availability.  Availability includes, but is not limited to, on hand or deliverable status as well as quality and serviceability.  As has been stated, to the customer, the product that was originally listed in the Agreement did not meet the installation requirements of Air Wind & Solar, Inc. due to manufacturing defects.  The Original Manufacturer could not provide replacement modules from a different batch within a reasonable time frame due to the over-seas shipment.  Even then, they could not guarantee the quality of the product to exceed what Air Wind & Solar, Inc. had already received.  Regarding the Sub-Contractor that the Customer has referenced, Air Wind & Solar, Inc. does not discuss Agreements between Sub-Contractors and Customers, nor with the public.  Air Wind & Solar, Inc. has never claimed there was not a rebate incentive for the Customer.  When Air Wind & Solar, Inc. has received the Rebate, it will be applied to the Customer's Invoice.  This is the Final Response from Air Wind & Solar, Inc.  At this time, Air Wind & Solar, Inc. is trying to resolve the issues to the Customer's Satisfaction and at this time, responses to this complaint online is not assisting in coming to a resolution.  The Customer is encouraged to communicate directly with their Project Manager at Air Wind & Solar, Inc.

We have no record of an [redacted] being a customer of ours.  Please have them provide the street address so that we can determine if they are a customer.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my dispute.
Please enter your reason(s) for rejecting the business response below.Air Wind Solar is stating that the panels are 215.9W per panel.  According to the contract, Air Wind & Solar Inc. agrees to sell and install a solar generation system as defined below, at the property location indicated above; the customer agrees to purchase such system under the terms herein defined.System Description: [10.045 kW Grid Tied, Roof Mounted Solar System],But the 215.9W per panel (as furnished by Daryl Eason, Air Wind Solar in the previous response) x 41 panels is 8.8519 kW.  Significantly below the 10.045kW system specified in the contract.According to the availability clause, "Due to recent market volatility photovoltaic module availability can fluctuate".  Air Wind Solar needs to provide proof that as of 12/29/2014, the GCL-Poly Energy 245 panels were unavailable, else the availability clause cannot be invoked.  I checked their availability on 12/29 before we mailed the check with the invoice of that date and they are $220 each quantity 24.  So the availability clause does not apply.As Air Wind Solar is attempting to charge an additional $8150, Air Wind Solar needs to provide proof that Oncor is not going to pay an incentive rebate.  See the attached Oncor agreement for details. [Lamb 1 (15SPVRES - 2015 - 36792)]Air Wind Solar must also provide proof that they paid Afforda Solar for the installation.  [redacted] of Afforda Solar stated that Air Wind Solar did a charge back and pulled back the money initially paid by credit card from Air Wind Solar to Afforda Solar.Air Wind Solar misrepresented themselves to us as an Oncor approved supplier of solar panels eligible for participation in the rebate program.What is clear is a pattern of misrepresentation and pettiness over a handful of watts. At the time of installation, the Hanwha 240 panels had already been discontinued, so an upgrade to an available 245W or higher panel would have made a satisfied customer.Air Wind Solar did not even install the solar panel monitoring system listed in the contract.  I had to install it.
Regards,
[redacted]

Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because:We disagree that this is a non life threatening case. Upon inspection we found that there is exposed ground wires and exposed live electric on the panels. Also the fasteners that were used do not appear to be adequate for holding the panels to the roof. It is our fear and the homeowner's fear that the panels could fly off with any amount of high wind, potentially causing serious injury or death. We would like a call from Air wind and Solar to set up a specific time to come out and properly install these panels. Our phone numbers are [redacted] and [redacted].Regards,[redacted]

I have reviewed the case file for the complainant.  As the Complainant explained, Air Wind & Solar, Inc. de-installed and re-installed the Solar Array for the Customer in order to facilitate that the roof could be repaired.  After receiving your e-mail, I searched our Service Request...

e-mail and my Office e-mail to see if I had any correspondence with the Complainant.  Up until this time, I have received no e-mails from the Complainant of any sort, much less an issue with the re-installation.  Having said that, I will personally reach out to the Complainant to schedule a Service Call for the Complainant.However, Air Wind & Solar, Inc. cannot warranty the equipment related to this Solar System, as it was already in Service when the de-installation occurred.  The likelihood of the physical installation causing a loss of performance is negligible.  It is far more likely that the system has experienced a loss of performance due to a failure, or partial failure, of one of the existing components, such as, but not limited to, a Solar Module or the Inverter.  However, Air Wind & Solar, Inc. will ensure that the physical install is not the cause of the performance loss.

Air Wind & Solar, Inc. is not in the habit of providing our client list to other customers.  We respect their privacy.  However, Mr. [redacted]'s issue is related to a warranty claim.  He's on the list for a replacement inverter, warrantied, that will be of no cost to him.  This was discovered after I sent a technician out for a Service Call.  Once there is a replacement inverter is received at the warehouse, one of the Technicians from Air Wind & Solar, Inc. will swap out the Inverter for the Customer.

The Customer's response is factually incorrect.  While it is true that the customer has not received a refund in the sense of a check, they have received a reduction in the amount owed prior to the installation.  The Customer had a purchase price of $X, not including sales tax or with the rebates that were associated with the wattage of the system.  When the customer was invoiced, a copy of which they were provided, and will be sent to them again, the Customer was invoiced for $Y, a reduction of $705.20 to reflect the change in gross panel wattage.  In addition to the fact that Air Wind & Solar, Inc. provided a reduction in the Purchase Price, Air Wind & Solar, Inc. did not alter the price per watt cash rebate extended to the customer at the time of signing, instead offering a full cash rebate on wattage that was not installed.  This effectively gave them a free bonus since the system's overall gross rating was lower, but their rebate remained the same. As my previous response stated, and showed, the Hanwha panels are a superior product based on manufacturing quality as well as CEC production.  The customer's claim concerning physical size has more to do with the dimensions of the aluminum frame and spacing between solar cells than it does with any production capability of the solar modules.  There is a 1 percent difference in overall square footage of the panels.  Power production per watt favors the Hanwha Solar Module.  The proof is provided by the California Energy Commission based on their regimented testing procedures, not information provided by the manufacturer or Air Wind & Solar, Inc.  The customer was provided information to independently verify the difference in module quality by me personally.  The customer is correct that the Oncor Rebate was not significantly reduced, only reduced in the amount of the difference between the original over-all wattage and the as-installed wattage, as is common with any solar installation, as the Customer was made aware.  Air Wind & Solar, Inc. responded multiple times to the Customer via telephone on options to meet their needs.  While Air Wind & Solar, Inc. would be happy to expand their system for them, again, we could not do so under the terms they were demanding, even though Air Wind & Solar, Inc. adhered to the Agreement between the Customer & Air Wind & Solar, Inc., provided a purchase rebate greater than they were entitled to, and provided a superior product that provided more power per watt than the original panel and is free of manufacturing defects that were prevalent in the GCL modules.

Mr. [redacted]: I apologize for this situation.  There was a scheduling mishap due to the fact that I have two customers with the same name.  A service call was performed in your name, but was conducted at the other customer's location.  I have contacted one of my Master...

Electricians, and dispatched him to your location, as provided by the Revdex.com.  My Master Electrician that I utilize for the highest level service calls will be contacting you via the phone number you have provided to the Revdex.com to arrange a Service Call Date and Time at the address provided to the Revdex.com.  I have spoken with [redacted] directly this morning and have been assured that he will be contacting you today. Respectfully, [redacted]Director of Compliance & TechnologyAir Wind & Solar, Inc.