I feel the consumer is changing their complaint with each response My initial response is going to stand because it's the truth as to the events that took place
I'm sorry we can't fix the installation We have spoken with the selling dealer and they have informed us this matter has been taken care of.Tell us why here
Complaint: I am rejecting this response because: As noted - the unit did not run for ten days - it took ten days to get a followup visitThe unit was inadequately diagnosed and homeowner was misledThe repair resulted in other damage to the homeThe unit should have been diagnosed as too expensive to repair before some $in costs and $in home damage to floor and water damage to the ceiling was doneThe facts of the situation have been misrepresented by the owner Sincerely, [redacted]
Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because: The method of installation was not improper, based on the manufacturer's installation instructions Because the technician refused to consider that the electrical whip needed to be ran along the side of the unit, versus the back This method worked for both the original installation as well as a second installation when the unit had to be replaced (faulty program board/panel) As such, there was no additional liability Additionally, what compounded the matter was the technician's disregard for finishing the job and stating "there's nothing I can do Chief." All in all, just poor form
Sincerely,
*** ***
*** went out the first time 2/22/found the unit running but not making ice. Found the condenser coils clogged with dog hair and debris. Cleaned the coils off, the unit started to cool the ice production resumed. The customer called back weeks later with the complaint not
making ice. *** went back out at no charge for the service call. Found the icemaker this time not running at all. Advised at this timethat since the original repair was not the same issue as today, there would not be a service call charge but there will be a labor charge to determine the cause of this new failure. The ice maker at this time now had a defective main control and transformer. Gave the customer the estimate to replace these parts and he declined the repair.The parts that failed three weeks after the coils were cleaned are electrical parts and therefor could not have failed due to cleaning the coil. The customer had ice production for three weeks after the first repair.The charges are valid and the failure of the parts is not attributed to the original repair from 2/22/2016. If you have any further questions please contact me.***
We still have the same response. The unit was fixed for a water line repair and as the customer states it cooled and made ice for days. If the unit had been damaged by us it would never have cooled and made ice at all. It worked fine for days. The unit has a secondary failure. This time the electronic parts have failed. It has nothing to do with the water line or the water line repair. There are may functional parts on an appliance and any can fail at any time. We did not charge a service call because we guarantee the call for days. This is for the same repair. When we got there it was a different failure and not related to the repair we made. We then agreed not to charge a second service call but the labor to diagnose the new problem is not part of the original service. We guarantee our work and stand behind anything we repair. We can't guarantee every component in each appliance we work on if we didn't repair that component
I'm sorry we missed this complaint earlier. I will take care of the reimbursement today. The customer originally paid by check so I will send a check out today. I'm sorry we missed this earlier
We're sorry to hear of this complaint. We were called to repair an oven as part of a warranty call with the manufacturer. When we find an installation problem we're not allowed to correct it. We are only to repair the oven and advise the installers to correct the...
installation. Sometimes it's confusing as to why we can't handle the install but we aren't insured for that type of work.Tell us why here...
We have repaired this refrigerator with an authorization from [redacted]. This makes this a warranty call at this time. As per [redacted] there is no other repair we can try. The water valve and ice maker replacement is all they have authorized. We are the second company...
they've had try to resolve this issue. The customer did pay us a service call of $89.00 I will refund that charge as the remainder of the bill was paid by [redacted] and they are telling us there is nothing else they want us to replace.Tell us why here...
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.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
I feel the consumer is changing their complaint with each response. My initial response is going to stand because it's the truth as to the events that took place.
I'm sorry we can't fix the installation. We have spoken with the selling dealer and they have informed us this matter has been taken care of.Tell us why here...
Complaint: 11194491
I am rejecting this response because:The business failed to adequately diagnose the original problem - it did not make ice for 3 weeks. It made ice for about 28 hours. It took a couple days to notice because we were not using it substantially. When we filled ice bags, it did not remake sufficient amounts of ice - the same problem for which we had turned off the machine originally. We notified Jensen - it took them another week to return. the unit had been inoperable for more than a year. We requested a competent analyst of the problem. He diagnosed a water leak - said that was fixed, vacuumed dust off the coils, sand said theunit was in good dependable working order. It was not. Had he diagnosed the repair of the circuit board in the original visit - we would have disposed of the unit as unrepairable. Further, on close scrutiny following the original complaint, the vendor did damage to the hardwood floor when re removed the appliance - and when he caused water to spill onto the floor behind the unit during the repair (which he tried to mop up) but which it is now visible that it damaged the ceiling of the room below. We have suffered not only the loss of the inadequate first repair but damage to property. We reject this response as irresponsible.
Sincerely,
Dan Luzadder
Complaint: 11194491
I am rejecting this response because: As noted - the unit did not run for ten days - it took ten days to get a followup visit. The unit was inadequately diagnosed and homeowner was misled. The repair resulted in other damage to the home. The unit should have been diagnosed as too expensive to repair before some $400 in costs and $500 in home damage to floor and water damage to the ceiling was done. The facts of the situation have been misrepresented by the owner.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
I feel the consumer is changing their complaint with each response My initial response is going to stand because it's the truth as to the events that took place
I'm sorry we can't fix the installation We have spoken with the selling dealer and they have informed us this matter has been taken care of.Tell us why here
Complaint: I am rejecting this response because: As noted - the unit did not run for ten days - it took ten days to get a followup visitThe unit was inadequately diagnosed and homeowner was misledThe repair resulted in other damage to the homeThe unit should have been diagnosed as too expensive to repair before some $in costs and $in home damage to floor and water damage to the ceiling was doneThe facts of the situation have been misrepresented by the owner Sincerely, [redacted]
Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because: The method of installation was not improper, based on the manufacturer's installation instructions Because the technician refused to consider that the electrical whip needed to be ran along the side of the unit, versus the back This method worked for both the original installation as well as a second installation when the unit had to be replaced (faulty program board/panel) As such, there was no additional liability Additionally, what compounded the matter was the technician's disregard for finishing the job and stating "there's nothing I can do Chief." All in all, just poor form
Sincerely,
*** ***
*** went out the first time 2/22/found the unit running but not making ice. Found the condenser coils clogged with dog hair and debris. Cleaned the coils off, the unit started to cool the ice production resumed. The customer called back weeks later with the complaint not
making ice. *** went back out at no charge for the service call. Found the icemaker this time not running at all. Advised at this timethat since the original repair was not the same issue as today, there would not be a service call charge but there will be a labor charge to determine the cause of this new failure. The ice maker at this time now had a defective main control and transformer. Gave the customer the estimate to replace these parts and he declined the repair.The parts that failed three weeks after the coils were cleaned are electrical parts and therefor could not have failed due to cleaning the coil. The customer had ice production for three weeks after the first repair.The charges are valid and the failure of the parts is not attributed to the original repair from 2/22/2016. If you have any further questions please contact me.***
We still have the same response. The unit was fixed for a water line repair and as the customer states it cooled and made ice for days. If the unit had been damaged by us it would never have cooled and made ice at all. It worked fine for days. The unit has a secondary failure. This time the electronic parts have failed. It has nothing to do with the water line or the water line repair. There are may functional parts on an appliance and any can fail at any time. We did not charge a service call because we guarantee the call for days. This is for the same repair. When we got there it was a different failure and not related to the repair we made. We then agreed not to charge a second service call but the labor to diagnose the new problem is not part of the original service. We guarantee our work and stand behind anything we repair. We can't guarantee every component in each appliance we work on if we didn't repair that component
I'm sorry we missed this complaint earlier. I will take care of the reimbursement today. The customer originally paid by check so I will send a check out today. I'm sorry we missed this earlier
We're sorry to hear of this complaint. We were called to repair an oven as part of a warranty call with the manufacturer. When we find an installation problem we're not allowed to correct it. We are only to repair the oven and advise the installers to correct the...
installation. Sometimes it's confusing as to why we can't handle the install but we aren't insured for that type of work.Tell us why here...
We have repaired this refrigerator with an authorization from [redacted]. This makes this a warranty call at this time. As per [redacted] there is no other repair we can try. The water valve and ice maker replacement is all they have authorized. We are the second company...
they've had try to resolve this issue. The customer did pay us a service call of $89.00 I will refund that charge as the remainder of the bill was paid by [redacted] and they are telling us there is nothing else they want us to replace.Tell us why here...
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.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
I feel the consumer is changing their complaint with each response. My initial response is going to stand because it's the truth as to the events that took place.
I'm sorry we can't fix the installation. We have spoken with the selling dealer and they have informed us this matter has been taken care of.Tell us why here...
Complaint: 11194491
I am rejecting this response because:The business failed to adequately diagnose the original problem - it did not make ice for 3 weeks. It made ice for about 28 hours. It took a couple days to notice because we were not using it substantially. When we filled ice bags, it did not remake sufficient amounts of ice - the same problem for which we had turned off the machine originally. We notified Jensen - it took them another week to return. the unit had been inoperable for more than a year. We requested a competent analyst of the problem. He diagnosed a water leak - said that was fixed, vacuumed dust off the coils, sand said theunit was in good dependable working order. It was not. Had he diagnosed the repair of the circuit board in the original visit - we would have disposed of the unit as unrepairable. Further, on close scrutiny following the original complaint, the vendor did damage to the hardwood floor when re removed the appliance - and when he caused water to spill onto the floor behind the unit during the repair (which he tried to mop up) but which it is now visible that it damaged the ceiling of the room below. We have suffered not only the loss of the inadequate first repair but damage to property. We reject this response as irresponsible.
Sincerely,
Dan Luzadder
Complaint: 11194491
I am rejecting this response because: As noted - the unit did not run for ten days - it took ten days to get a followup visit. The unit was inadequately diagnosed and homeowner was misled. The repair resulted in other damage to the home. The unit should have been diagnosed as too expensive to repair before some $400 in costs and $500 in home damage to floor and water damage to the ceiling was done. The facts of the situation have been misrepresented by the owner.
Sincerely,
[redacted]