Central Valley Appliance

Central Valley has several secretaries that schedule several dozen customers each day, and they are all given the same information. Just like many other service companies out there, we have a basic service fee, $65, payable on first visit. Mr. [redacted] did not want to pay this fee. We told him we...

could not do business with him because of this. Thank you for your time

Dear Revdex.com, This letter is concerning [redacted], ID # [redacted]. My name is [redacted]. I’m with Central Valley Appliance. We do service work for [redacted]s and many other companies, as well as private repair work. Here is a timeline of work done for this customer for [redacted]s: 7/27 Received dispatch 8/1...

Installed Ice Maker 8/8 Received 2nd dispatch. Scheduled appointment for the same day in the afternoon. Determined that factory Tech Support did need to be called, but it was already too late in the day. Rescheduled for 8/16 in the am. Tech Support was called & they said to install control. Tech Support also stated that this ice maker does not produce a lot of ice. The newer style ice makers built into the French door refrigerators harvest ice one every 2 to 2 ½ hours. This is an icemaker that is built into the fresh food section of the refrigerator, as opposed to an ice make that is built into the freezer section of a refrigerator, in a normal side x side refrigerator. The latter kind of icemaker harvest ice at a rate of about once per hour. 9/1 Scheduled for Tech to install the control per Tech Support. After control was installed, customer told tech about a diet she was on & she is drinking 4-6 glasses a day using ice each time. Tech reported that Ice Maker is producing ice but not refilling fast enough to keep up with usage. 9/6 Called [redacted]s & reported above information. Customer claims we would have no knowledge of amount of ice used, however she told our tech herself how much ice she was using. 9/7 Customer called the office and spoke with [redacted]. She insisted that we call [redacted]s and tell them the issue was still unresolved. [redacted] offered to have our Tech go back out & have him re-diagnose. (Then we would contact [redacted]s and advise of new diagnosis. Customer refused to have tech out again. Work order was closed out. [redacted]s can optionally call another company out for a second opinion. When we call the factory for information, they have the final say on how a product is supposed to act; we have no other recourse. All of our appointments are 4 hour windows as is normal for most service calls by other companies. It was customer’s choice to refuse any further service. Thank you,   [redacted]

Absolutely terrible!!! Had an appt between one and five got a call from the technician saying he'd be there in 15 to 20 minutes which was fine because I would be there about the same time I wound up being a little early at 1:13 which was only 13 minutes late, got a call from the manager saying because we weren't there the technician left! We have a camera and The technician was never there!! The so called Manager Liz wouldn't stop interrupting and being rude I even had to ask her to stop interrupting. She said he showed up and we weren't there but then backtracked and said that he wasn't in the area and then backtracked again and said something else. She told us we wouldn't be able to have service, we would have to reschedule. I have never met a more incompetent rude person in customer service in my life and shes supposed to be a manager? Not once did she offer to call the technician to find out what happened.

Review: Maytag safety dept. in Michigan has made arrangement with Central Valley Appliance to repair a gas leak on the cooktop burner at their own expense (bought in July 2010 after) after I reported that PG&E determined gas leak from range bypassing the control valve. A technician that came was handed the "hazard report" from PG&E. He did check the range or attempt to open the range to check for leak on the left front burner. He was at my house for more or less than 5-10 minutes and left without letting me know the problem. I called the store spoke several times on different occasions with Louise (Only learn today that there is no Louise but Liv in the store.) I was told that technician reported that there is a visible rust on the cooktop but changed her version that the rust was inside when I told her that I don't see a visible rust on the outside as what the technician claimed. I reiterated that the technician did not attempt to inspect or open the range to check for gas leak as I was around the whole time that he was there. The range is a sealed burner cooktop with removable burner covers. This wrong report by the technician has impacted the outcome of decision by the Maytag safety department by believing that the unit is rusty and unrepairable and was given an option to buy a new unit online with a discount. For the technician to conclude that it is rusty and non-repairable without checking or opening the cook top is unacceptable.Desired Settlement: I am asking for the repair store to sent technician other than the first one to fix the leak. For me to buy a new range as per manufacturer basing on the report of the technician is not an option and is unfair. The manufacturer to cover repair expense as this involve a hazardous or safety concern to the consumer with a potentially defective or faulty range. The repair store should correct the erroneous report the first technician has submitted as no attempt on his part to check leak.

Business

Response:

I was the technician at Ms. [redacted]'s house. I was there to inspect a gas leak. To inspect the gas leak requires removal of the top of the range. The top of the range is held on by 8 screws attaching the top to the main body of the range. I was unable to remove the screws and noticed the detetioration of the screw metal. Not being able to remove the screws I could not remove the range top to inspect for gas leakage. I reported this to the customer on site, and then notified the manufacturer. We don't have a [redacted] or [redacted] at our business, but we do have a [redacted], as in [redacted].

Consumer

Response:

I am rejecting this response because: The technician that came to the house was handed the hazard notice from PG &E. He took his time reading the notice and then he asked me if I have an insurance. When I told him that I don't have one, he said that their office is going to call Matag and will call me back and did not say anything else except asked me if I want him to push back the range ( which was left slid forward from it's location to extinguish the left front burner when the incident happened in 3/16/14 and left out that way after PG&E technician disconnected the supply range tube from the gas supply line). The only time that he touch the oven was when he pushed back the range after I consented to have it moved back. He left without checking the leak or attempted to open the range and no other explanations whatsoever.

Business

Response:

This is a response to your second notice to us concerning this customer. This range cannot be checked for leakage because the screws holding the top cover onto the range cannot be removed. I was there, I attempted to remove these screws and couldn't. She is saying that I didn't attempt to open the range and I'm saying that I did. She is saying that I gave her no explanation and I'm saying that I did. We do gas leak checks all the time, we attempt to keep our customers happy, and we generally do. Why would we turn away jobs that we can do and that we can get paid for doing. This makes no sense. That there is a problem with taking apart her range can be verified by another qualified tech, anyone can take a screwdriver to the top of this range and verify that the top cannot be removed. Given that this is so easy to check, why would we attempt to falsify this? This customer was not paying attention when I was there, but if she is claiming that I did not do my job correctly, then why didn't she discuss this with the manufacturer and request another company for a second opinion? If she wasn't happy with our service she had the option of getting another company out to do the service, we run second opinions on other companies. Please feel free to contact us if you have further questions. Thank you for your time.

Consumer

Response:

I am rejecting this response because: As far as I am concern, the explanation of the technician is unacceptable. As a customer , I have voiced my complaint re: outcome of the technician's report exactly to the best of my recollection. I don't understand what the technician is aiming for. It is his words against mine. If the technician has presented another version of what transcribed during the time of his visit, I leave it up to Revdex.com to decide what is the best way for them to help customers like me. I DON'T SEE THE ANY BENEFIT OF MAKING UP STORIES. I TOLD THE TRUTH.

Business

Response:

This note is in response to the customer's message dated 4/30/14. We could not test the customers range for gas leakage because we could not disassemble the range. This was explained to the customer on site. The customer was not charged any type of fee. Ms. [redacted] is free to contact any other servicer to do the same job. I wish her well, but I don't understand her persistence in persuing this issue given that she paid us nothing, that we can't do the leakage test that she is requesting, and that she can have any other company attempt to do the job she thinks we didn't do.

Consumer

Response:

I am rejecting this response because: In the first place , I did not make the appointment with Central Valley Appliance. When I reported the gas leak to safety department , Maytag staff was the one who contacted Central Valley Appliance and made the arrangement for the servicing of the range , at Maytag's own expense as this is a matter of safety concern/issue which pose a potential hazard to the consumer. I was contacted by [redacted] at Central Valley Appliance through the phone ( on the same day right after I reported the gas range leak to Maytag ) and settled the date and time of the service (for technician to come to my house). It's frustrating, because. I feel both parties involve appears not dealing with me in good faith. The range was bought in 2010 and an early sign of corrosion (as claimed, though am disputing this) must be a concern of the manufacturer and it's affiliates (authorized repair shop) and must remedy the issue of a possible defective or faulty appliance related to gas leak, bypassing the control valve, which is a safety hazard. For them to tell me that I did not pay anything, lack good customer service considering the situation am in.

Central Valley Appliance will not reimburse any portion of the amount I paid to fix my washing machine. The tech replaced a part and said the problem was fixed and was now working. When I turned on the machine, it would not stop filling with water. I had to turn the machine off to stop the water. I called Central Valley Appliance back and stated that the machine was indeed not fixed. The same tech came out again and found that there was an additional problem (which he failed to find the first time he came out) that would be much more costly. I chose not to have the tech move on to this next problem since the washing machine was so old. I think that the tech should have found the underlying problem during his first visit, then I wouldn't have had to pay for any work beyond the original 1 hour fee. I spoke to the owner and she would not listen to the full story. She stated she had discussed the issue with the tech and the decision was final. I think this company is incompetent and definitely not concerned with customer satisfaction.

Worst customer service experience ever! I had a scheduled appt to have my washing machine serviced. I requested a courtesy call prior to the service tech arriving. As I was trying to pick the call up it went to my voicemail. I immediately returned the call to Central Valley Appliance and was advised because I did not answer on the original call I would have to reschedule. Really!! My husband was at the house waiting for the service tech. I asked to speak to a supervisor, the supervisor was so unprofessional. Never identified herself, got on the phone and keep saying you have to reschedule. Well at this point I don't want this company anywhere near my home if this is how they run their business and treat customers. I found another company to service my machine and they have no problem with contacting me prior to my appt.