Blatz Mechanical, LLC

Attached picture shows grass surrounding the condenser does NOT have the manufacturer's specified requirement of a minimum of 18" clearance around the coil for proper airflow. The attached picture also shows the condenser fan motor running at time of picture."In response to [redacted]...

[redacted] complaint. Ms. [redacted] has a contract with a home warranty company. Our company was sent a dispatch from the home warranty company on 8/15/16 which we accepted and set for service on 8/16/2016. Once this dispatch is accepted, our company then becomes a third party contractor and are required to submit our findings and recommendations to the home warranty company. The home warranty company then makes their decision on coverages based on the contract which the policy holder has signed with them. Once the call was completed, we called the home warranty company with our diagnosis. The home warranty company apparently sent out another company for a second opinion. We have no access to the second opinion diagnosis.Our company did not collect any money directly from Ms. [redacted]. Unfortunately, this appears to be another case of the homeowner not being happy with the home warranty company's processing of this claim. We would hope that the Revdex.com would take all of this into account.

This customer has a contract with a home warranty company. The home warranty company issued the service call to Blatz Mechanical, LLC. At that point, Blatz Mechanical, LLC is considered to be a third party contractor. Our company installed a furnace for this property on 1/3/2017. Some of the charges...

involved with the installation were not covered according the home warranty company and their contract with the policy holder. The home warranty company then called the policy holder to inform them of the non-covered charges. At that point, the first call that we received from this policy holder was to inquire about getting the non-covered costs discounted if we didn't charge them for disposal of the old unit, we agreed to remove that charge (however, we still removed and disposed of the old unit at no charge) and the policy holder agreed for our company to proceed with the install for the remaining balance of non-covered items.During the install, our technicians installed a filter rack for ease of changing the filter(previously did not have a filter rack). This would have been considered a non-covered charge by the home warranty company as well but our installers thought it was something that was needed. Also, the homeowner insisted that we replace a swivel tee for their water heater/furnace flue (this item is also not covered). The installer called into the office questioning whether we had included that in our non-covered charges, I told him that we did not but that if it would make the customer happy then he should go get a swivel tee and install it and he did (no additional charge).As soon as the install was finished and my technicians had left, we received a call from the policy holder stating that the ductwork was leaking carbon monoxide into her house. We assured her that it wasn't but agreed to send a technician anyways. When our technician arrived at the home, the policy holder was pointing out that the supply plenum had silicon caulk in the corners and demanded that the entire plenum be rebuilt. We have informed the policy holder numerous times that their is nothing functionally improper or unsafe with the metalwork. The homeowner then called us again and demanded that we rebuild the plenum because it was leaking carbon monoxide into her house. ( NOTE: THE PLENUM IS SUPPLY AIR. CARBON MONOXIDE DOES NOT EXIT THE FURNACE THROUGH THE PLENUM UNLESS THE HEAT EXCHANGER IS CRACKED. THE FLUE IS WHERE THE CARBON MONOXIDE IS VENTED! ) At that point, I asked her to call [redacted] to have the system checked. The next day, the homeowner called back and said Laclede wouldn't come out because her carbon monoxide detectors aren't showing any CO. After that, we called the warranty company and asked that another company be dispatched to the property to verify the furnace was installed properly. Again, we received another call from the homeowner saying that she refused the 2nd opinion offered by the home warranty company.We have gone above and beyond at this point to please this customer. NOTE: The general manager ([redacted]) has spoken with the homeowner on three separate occasions since the install and made repeated attempts to resolve this complaint.

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: In October [redacted] assured me it would be a Carrier furnace. [redacted] also confirmed it would be a Carrier unit. I was told I had to pay a modification fee that would include all new duct work and piping. November 9th the installers took my furnace and replaced it with a non Carrier brand. I felt I was misled and over charged for what I was told I would receive. Also, my old unit had a humidifier but the new one does not.
Sincerely,
[redacted]