Climate Control, Inc.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the offer and/or response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below
[Provide details of why you are not satisfied with this resolution.]
Regards,
*** *** February 25, - Heating system
failed. Technician called from *** *** *** This is the company used
for maintenance by previous owner. Technician *** *** attended my call.I explained that I have oil in the tank and
that the power is functioning normally.
Since there was plenty of oil, I suggested that the failure is in the
heat pump (primary), and not the oil furnace (secondary). Without testing or other analysis of the
system, he immediately declared that the problem is in the oil furnace, and not
the heat pump.After many tries at starting the oil
furnace, he checked the oil in the tank; there was fifteen inches of oil. He said that the feed pipe is above the oil
level and that the furnace is not receiving fuel; therefore, it cannot run. His report of February stated that “oil
furnace is out of fuel; switched over to heat pump”.The oil furnace was NOT out of oil; and he
was NOT successful in switching the system over to the heat pump. He charged me $which I paid with check
#*** - as stated on his bill.When the tank was filled with oil, the oil
furnace still would not start.February 27, 2015Oil truck arrived. The furnace did not start, as was promised by
*** ***. I called another
technician; a gentleman by the name of “***” arrived. He worked on the oil furnace for
approximately six hours, disassembled several systems, made several diagnostics
as to defects he found (one being the “primary”, which he replaced). At the end of this time, he concluded that
“burner motor had gone bad” and had to be replaced. It was this burner motor that was locking out
the primary and lot permitting it to start up the furnace.“***” called me on February explaining
that the motor would cost $if replaced on Saturday, or $if
replaced on Monday.February 28, 2015I was now in my sixth day without heat; the
temperature in my house ranged from degrees Fto degrees F. I called Comfort Systems, USA again and
complained. The call was fielded by a
gentleman named “***”. I explained
that I was six days without heat; he immediately said “I will get you heat
today!!!!” He arrived and started work
at approximately 2:PM. He finished at
7:30PM; and the heat was on.At the end of this time, he declared that
the heat is being provided by the oil furnace; the problem was in the heat pump
all the time, and not in the oil furnace.There was no need for a new primary,
neither for a new burner motor. Of the
5-1/hours he spent there, a full four hours were spent re-assembling systems
that the previous technician had disassembled.
Once he reconfigured the oil furnace to its original and correct mode,
it worked quite properly.“***” had isolated the heat pump so that
the oil furnace would run. He promised
to come back on Monday to discover the problem with the heat pump, repair and
reintegrate with the system.March 2, 2015“***” returned as promised. He tested the heat pump, but did not confide
to me the defect he found that stopped the heating system. It was confided to me by another source that
the system was stopped by a tripped circuit breaker, which was disconnected by
a spike in the electric main (power from the lines).Conclusion:Had the system been properly analyzed and
tested in the beginning, this problem could have been corrected in 1/hour; my
heat would have been on; and the $would have paid the total bill. AND, I would not have spent six days in a
very cold house with no heat. For an
81-year old senior, six days in a cold house is very hard on the health.I question the motive of a technician
(*** ***), who proclaimed “five years experience” in these systems to
make such a huge and foolish error without even testing the system, or checking
out what might conceivably be wrong. Invoice #*** for $is herewith
disputed

Dear Ms [redacted],In reference to your letter dated 3/25/2015, please accept
the response below regarding Revdex.com case #[redacted].Customer called on 2-27-2015 asking us to check his furnace.
We dispatched a technician to investigate the problem. The details of that visit
are included in...

the service report given to the customer after securing their
signature. The result of that visit detailed the need to return due to other
issues found with the heating unit. On 2-28-2015 we sent a different technician
out. This was a Saturday, and the original technician was unavailable. The
details of that visit are included in the service report given to the customer
after securing their signature. It is noted that the furnace was “running and
heating”. Additionally, we found that the filters to the unit were “completely
stopped up”. The second technician returned on Monday, Feb 2nd to
check on unit operation and complete the repairs which included running new
wires from primary control to heating system. The result of this visit are included
in the service report given to the customer after securing their signature.The net result of these visits are as follows, and are
detailed in the service report given to the customer:2-27-155.5 hours labor1 – Nozzle 65x80B1 – Primary control2-28-155.5 hours labor (OT)3-2-154.5 hours laborLine voltage wiringWe reviewed the work done prior to submitting an invoice to
be paid. We concluded that the fair approach would be to reduce the total bill
as follows:2-27-15No labor chargedNo charge for returned
nozzle1- Primary control2-28-155.5 hours labor (OT
reduced to straight time rate)3-2-154.5 hours labor Line voltage wiringThis resulted in a final bill for 10 hours labor, a Primary
control and the associated wiring costs. The final invoice amount of $992.04
was submitted to the customer for payment.We acknowledge the concerns raised by the customer in this
instance but feel we have adequately addressed them with this reduced billing.
We are hopeful that this billing adjustment is satisfactory to the customer and
apologize for not clearly communicating our efforts to satisfy them with a
billing adjustment.

Review: Heating unit failed. Technicians spent many hours working on oil furnace which wasn't broken. The problem was in the heat pump. Another technician spent many hours correcting damage done by original tech in attempting to repair machine which had no problem. As a result, I spent six days in a very cold house while techs attempted to repair a unit that was not broken. I am 81 years old; and six days in a very cold house is not healthy, and is certainly not comfortable.

Company is charging for all hours worked by technician who spent hours correcting problems generated by original tech.

Their Invoice #[redacted] was issued on February 28, while the last tech report was March 2.

The Invoice shows no record of hours charged.Desired Settlement: Desired outcome is a billing adjustment, an explanation of the hours, a discount of all hours spent correcting work of other technicians. The bill should reflect also the fact that Saturday work was required because of incompetence of original technicians, so that overtime is unjustified.

Business

Response:

Dear Ms [redacted],In reference to your letter dated 3/25/2015, please accept

the response below regarding Revdex.com case #[redacted].Customer called on 2-27-2015 asking us to check his furnace.

We dispatched a technician to investigate the problem. The details of that visit

are included in the service report given to the customer after securing their

signature. The result of that visit detailed the need to return due to other

issues found with the heating unit. On 2-28-2015 we sent a different technician

out. This was a Saturday, and the original technician was unavailable. The

details of that visit are included in the service report given to the customer

after securing their signature. It is noted that the furnace was “running and

heating”. Additionally, we found that the filters to the unit were “completely

stopped up”. The second technician returned on Monday, Feb 2nd to

check on unit operation and complete the repairs which included running new

wires from primary control to heating system. The result of this visit are included

in the service report given to the customer after securing their signature.The net result of these visits are as follows, and are

detailed in the service report given to the customer:2-27-155.5 hours labor1 – Nozzle 65x80B1 – Primary control2-28-155.5 hours labor (OT)3-2-154.5 hours laborLine voltage wiringWe reviewed the work done prior to submitting an invoice to

be paid. We concluded that the fair approach would be to reduce the total bill

as follows:2-27-15No labor chargedNo charge for returned

nozzle1- Primary control2-28-155.5 hours labor (OT

reduced to straight time rate)3-2-154.5 hours labor Line voltage wiringThis resulted in a final bill for 10 hours labor, a Primary

control and the associated wiring costs. The final invoice amount of $992.04

was submitted to the customer for payment.We acknowledge the concerns raised by the customer in this

instance but feel we have adequately addressed them with this reduced billing.

We are hopeful that this billing adjustment is satisfactory to the customer and

apologize for not clearly communicating our efforts to satisfy them with a

billing adjustment.

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the offer and/or response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

[Provide details of why you are not satisfied with this resolution.]

Regards,

February 25, 2915 - Heating system

failed. Technician called from [redacted] This is the company used

for maintenance by previous owner. Technician [redacted] attended my call.I explained that I have oil in the tank and

that the power is functioning normally.

Since there was plenty of oil, I suggested that the failure is in the

heat pump (primary), and not the oil furnace (secondary). Without testing or other analysis of the

system, he immediately declared that the problem is in the oil furnace, and not

the heat pump.After many tries at starting the oil

furnace, he checked the oil in the tank; there was fifteen inches of oil. He said that the feed pipe is above the oil

level and that the furnace is not receiving fuel; therefore, it cannot run. His report of February 25 stated that “oil

furnace is out of fuel; switched over to heat pump”.The oil furnace was NOT out of oil; and he

was NOT successful in switching the system over to the heat pump. He charged me $125.00 which I paid with check

#[redacted] - as stated on his bill.When the tank was filled with oil, the oil

furnace still would not start.February 27, 2015Oil truck arrived. The furnace did not start, as was promised by

[redacted]. I called another

technician; a gentleman by the name of “[redacted]” arrived. He worked on the oil furnace for

approximately six hours, disassembled several systems, made several diagnostics

as to defects he found (one being the “primary”, which he replaced). At the end of this time, he concluded that

“burner motor had gone bad” and had to be replaced. It was this burner motor that was locking out

the primary and lot permitting it to start up the furnace.“[redacted]” called me on February 28 explaining

that the motor would cost $1200.00 if replaced on Saturday, or $850.00 if

replaced on Monday.February 28, 2015I was now in my sixth day without heat; the

temperature in my house ranged from 45 degrees F. to 48 degrees F. I called Comfort Systems, USA again and

complained. The call was fielded by a

gentleman named “[redacted]”. I explained

that I was six days without heat; he immediately said “I will get you heat

today!!!!” He arrived and started work

at approximately 2:PM. He finished at

7:30PM; and the heat was on.At the end of this time, he declared that

the heat is being provided by the oil furnace; the problem was in the heat pump

all the time, and not in the oil furnace.There was no need for a new primary,

neither for a new burner motor. Of the

5-1/2 hours he spent there, a full four hours were spent re-assembling systems

that the previous technician had disassembled.

Once he reconfigured the oil furnace to its original and correct mode,

it worked quite properly.“[redacted]” had isolated the heat pump so that

the oil furnace would run. He promised

to come back on Monday to discover the problem with the heat pump, repair and

reintegrate with the system.March 2, 2015“[redacted]” returned as promised. He tested the heat pump, but did not confide

to me the defect he found that stopped the heating system. It was confided to me by another source that

the system was stopped by a tripped circuit breaker, which was disconnected by

a spike in the electric main (power from the lines).Conclusion:Had the system been properly analyzed and

tested in the beginning, this problem could have been corrected in 1/2 hour; my

heat would have been on; and the $125.00 would have paid the total bill. AND, I would not have spent six days in a

very cold house with no heat. For an

81-year old senior, six days in a cold house is very hard on the health.I question the motive of a technician

([redacted]), who proclaimed “five years experience” in these systems to

make such a huge and foolish error without even testing the system, or checking

out what might conceivably be wrong. Invoice #[redacted] for $992.08 is herewith

disputed.