Arizona Aeroseal

This is in response to our customer Daryl L[redacted] and his complaint filed with the Revdex.com. Firstly, I would like to apologize for the delay in response, I have personally reached out to Mr. L[redacted] with no response back. I do understand where his concerns regarding the seal are coming...

from considering he voluntarily spent another $800 dollars in which he did not need to spend we would have happily fixed any issue as we do guarantee our work. When Mr. L[redacted] reached out to us early this year, we missed his initial call but Blaine did respond back later that day and his call was not answered. Blaine did leave a voicemail and we were never contacted back. When we attempted to call back we had every intention of returning to the jobsite to discover the breach that was mentioned in this complaint. However, I have since pulled the completion form of Mr. L[redacted]’s home to verify that we were not capable of completing the seal. When I reviewed the document It states that he was left with only 2 CFM of air loss after the seal was finished which is completely normal when a seal is finished. There is no way to fake this number with our equipment which is why APS and SRP prefer the [redacted] method when sealing ductwork. I am willing to provide a copy of Mr. L[redacted]’s completion form to verify my claim. Because of this completion form it makes it impossible for me to verify this breach that is being claimed. If Mr. L[redacted] would like to contact us again we are more than happy to refund half of the $800 paid to [redacted] in good faith because we do not feel he should have had to spend that money, had we been given the opportunity to fix the problem and were not capable we would have refunded the entire amount. We do not find it plausible for us to refund the amount of the seal due to the fact that my completion form clearly states a completed and fully sealed system.

I don’t believe AA has addressed any of the primary concerns from my complaint. It states that I had asked AA if there was a way to tell up front before the actual application, if there was a large leak that would prevent the AS process from working, and if so, is it customary for the contractor to inform the customer of this so they have the option to cancel with little chance of working from being done. AA responded that they would be able to tell if a duct system has much air loss, that the process could not work and that there would be an option for me to abort the application, although I believe it should be presumed AA should make this determination in their own good faith.  The only other plausible explanation of why they would have performed a procedure that could never work was that their equipment was incapable of giving an accurate pressure reading prior to the application of AS. The reported reduction in duct leakage from their COC was 89%, yet in reality, there was none at all. The percentage on the COC if accurate would be near zero %.  My ability to make this statement is that it was known to me immediately when the air conditioning system was turned on after the procedure, that the same large breach was still present and the same exact amount of air was leaking into the attic. The claim that AA would have been able to perform the diagnosis and repair if given the chance is also false.  The repair involved cutting into the duct system via the roof to allow entry. This is far outside the business scope of AA. The claim that I have been unwilling to communicate is false. I and the Revdex.com have been unable to communicate with AA for a while now. I was not contacted as AA describes. I would be unable to accept their offer to reimburse 32% of the cost I have paid to them. Acceptable resolution is for 65 % reimbursement of the cost of the procedure, leaving 35% unreimbursed for their incurred costs of the initial equipment set up and pressure reading effort.

Arizona [redacted] stands firm on its claims. Firstly The [redacted] equipment is physically incapable of providing a false reading, the [redacted] equipment was designed by the [redacted] and funded by the [redacted], and is also [redacted] and [redacted] preferred method of duct sealing due to its extremely accurate ability to test and seal a ventilation system. Secondly we absolutely called Mr L[redacted] I'm positive of this because as the owner of the business I attempted to reach him twice. As far as not being able to fix the ductwork issue, this is also a false claim. When Mr L[redacted] reached out to us I attempted to reach him personally in order to address his issue because I own a second business in which we perform both residential and commercial HVAC services and minor duct repair is in fact a scope of work that we are more than capable of doing which had I been able to inspect the system before another contractor touched the system I would have happily done at no additional expense to Mr L[redacted]. At this point I feel that my offer to refund half of the unnecessary expense occurred by Mr L[redacted] of $800 to Ace Home Sevices is a generous offer. I am still willing to pay the $400 dollars but also require all false claims about the business on our social media sites including Yelp, Facebook, Google, and any other review sites be removed immediately for they are slanderous. Also I will require a document signed by Mr L[redacted] drafted by my attorney that states he will Remove the false claims from social media stating that our [redacted] technicians or "kids with some equipment"  own the business and that our reputation is "terrible." Once I receive that signed document I will be happy to sign a reimbursement check to Mr L[redacted].