Commonwealth Irrigation & Landscape

MESSAGE FROM BUSINESS: We installed an irrigation system for the [redacted] 's on March 23, During that installation, we were asked to leave a portion of that system incomplete as they were having landscaping done On April 7, 2015, we responded to a service request that the landscape contractor damaged the system This visit was not warranty and was invoiced at $THE LANDSCAPER NICKED ONE SPRINKLER LINE BECAUSE...CW DID NOT BURY THE SPRINKLER LINE AT LEAST 6'' AS THEY PROMISEDI HAVE MULTIPLE PHOTOS TO PROVE THE LINE WAS BURIED LESS THAN 2'' DEEP IN THIS AREA THE LANDSCAPER ALSO TRIED SEVERAL TIMES TO CALL CW AS HE WANTED TO EXPLAIN HOW SHALLOW THE LINE WAS BURIEDCW WAIVED THE BILL BECAUSE THEY HAD NO CHOICE, ONCE THEY SAW THE PIPE WAS BARELY BURIED IN THE GROUNDAS USUAL, THEY NEVER RETURNED ANY CALLS! THIS IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT TO THIS DISPUTE ANYWAYWe received a phone call complaint and were asked to waive the invoice After a discussion, we did...that invoice was waived On 7/2/we were responded to a service request for a "broken line the homeowner damaged" AGAIN, ANOTHER INACCURACYWE "THE HOMEOWNERS" NEVER BROKE ANY LINEWE HAD A PATIO INSTALLED, AND THE INSTALLER ADMITTEDLY BROKE THE LINEAGAIN, IRRELEVANT TO THIS DISPUTEWe provided a repair service and invoiced accordingly The [redacted] 's did pay that bill We responded to another service request about "heads leaking @ hillside" We responded and found that there was dirt in the valves and they were stuckFIRST OF ALL, IT WAS ONE HEAD, AND ONE VALVE (READ YOUR INVOICE YOU COPIED ME ON)THE TECH THAT DID THE REPAIR SHOWED ME THE VALVE THAT SUPPOSEDLY HAD DIRT IN IT AFTER HE "FIXED" THE VALVE WE CONTINUED TO HAVE $WATER BILLS! AND THIS WAS AFTER WE ALREADY REDUCED THE TIME AND FREQUENCY OF WATERINGCLEARLY THAT VALVE WASN'T THE LEAK THAT CAUSED THE HIGH WATER BILLSIT'S A STRETCH ON CW'S PART TO EVEN SUGGEST THAT VALVE (OR ANY VALVE FOR THAT MATTER ) HAD ANY RELATIONSHIP TO THE OTHER TWO REPAIRSTHE OTHER REPAIRS WERE FOR TWO ACCIDENTAL BROKEN LINESNOTHING TO DO WITH A VALVEI WAS PRESENT BOTH TIMES WHEN THE WORKERS BROKE THE LINESTHEY WERE FIXED A FEW DAYS LATERMOST IMPORTANTLY, OUR WATER WASNT EVEN TURNED ON FOR THE APRIL REPAIR AND THE JULY REPAIR, THE WATER WAS SHUT OFF TIL THE REPAIR WAS COMPLETEDFOR CW TO TIE THE REPAIRS IN WITH OUR HIGH WATER BILLS IS JUST DESPERATION TO MAKE A CASE ON THIER PARTThis is what contributed to high water bills and is likely related to the two damage instances sited above This visit was invoiced and paid for by the homeowner On 10/16/15, we provided the contracted winterization (*shutting system down)IT'S ALSO WORTH NOTING THAT THE TECHNICIAN FROM ALL SEASONS IRRIGATION SAID THEY ARE CONSTANTLY HAVING TO DO REPAIRS/SERVICE CALLS ON CW'S IRRIGATION SYSTEMSHE POINTED OUT SEVERAL THINGS ON OUR SYSTEM THAT WERE DONE INCORRECTLY ON YOUR INSTALLWE HAVE SEVERAL AREAS ON OUR LAWN THAT ARE NOT GETTING WATER BECAUSE THE HEADS ARE NOT OVERLAPPING DURING WATERINGYET, WE JUST PAID YOU FOR A SPRING START UP WHERE YOU INDICATED ALL HEADS WERE CHECKEDCLEARLY, THIS WASN'T DONE, OR IT WAS DONE INCOMPETENTLY On April 5th, we received a phone call from Mrs [redacted] In that phone call she stated she saw a contractor on her street and she waived him over to do a back flow test THIS STORY NEVER CAME OUT OF MY MOUTH! WE HIRED A LOCAL COMPANY, ALL SEASONS IRRIGATION FOR A SECOND OPINION (I HAVE THEIR BILL AND SERVICE DESCRIPTION TO PROVE IT) SO, SORRY I DIDN'T FLAG SOMEONE OFF THE STREET! I'M NOT SURE WHO'S WRITING THESE LIES IN THE CW OFFICE, BUT CLEARLY THEY HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT HAS TRANSPIRED OVER THE LAST YEAR WITH THE SHODDY SERVICE WE HAVE RECEIVEDThe contractor would have neededto turn the system on to perform this service In doing so and connecting a pressure gauge, the contractor told Mrs [redacted] she had a leak in her system and could not go any further as to not void her warranty (not sure how he knows what her warranty is)HE ASKED IF I'M STILL IN WARRANTYA NATURAL QUESTION TO ASK, AS HE KNOWS THE SYSTEM IS NEWMrs [redacted] spoke to Billy T [redacted] (our Irrigation Division Manager) on April 7th, about the up coming service visit During that conversation she was informed that we would need to turn the system on (start-up) and go through the system to determine if there was in fact a leakTHIS IS JUST A LIEI TOLD BILLY THE SYSTEM WAS ALREADY TURNED ONI NEVER TURNED IT OFF AFTER ALL SEASONS CHECKED FOR A LEAKYou can not look for a leak with out turning the system on I was not involved in that conversation, EXACTLYYOU WERE NOT THERE, NOR HAVE YOU EVER BEEN PRESENTTHEREFORE, YOU CAN NOT ATTEST TO WHAT BILLY SAID TO MEHE SAID, HE WON'T CHARGE ME FOR A SERVICE IF WE DON'T FIND A LEAKHOWEVER, IF WE DO, WE WILL HAVE TO CHARGE FOR THE SERVICE REPAIR VISITTO YOUR WORDS, THERE WAS NO LEAKAT NO TIME DID HE MENTION A SPRING START UP! but can only imagine what was discussed was agreed too as we went to the home on April 11, The homeowner was given a service window of 8am-12noon, we arrived at 10:25am We proceeded to inspect the system and during our visit we could not find any indication of a leak OnApril 12th Mrs [redacted] called and asked if she could run her system, she was informed that she couldFINALLY, SOMETHING IS CORRECTI SPOKE TO TRACY, SHE SAID NO LEAKS WERE FOUND AND IT WOULD BE SAFE TO START WATERING SHE LEAD ME TO BELIEVE THAT THEY ONLY CHECKED FOR LEAKSSHE NEVER MENTIONED ANY OTHER SERVICES WERE PERFORMEDTHEN ONE MONTH LATER, I RECEIVED A BILL FOR SPRING START UP SERVICE We sent the [redacted] 's an invoice for this visit Just like other non-warranty leak visits in the past The warranty does not cover unlimited visits to the home WE HAD THREE REPAIRS, AND PAID FOR TWO OF THEMTHEREFORE, WE UNDERSTAND VISITS ARE NOT UNLIMITEDTHE WARRANTY DOES HOWEVER, COVER INSTALL LEAKSTHIS IS WHY BILLY SAID NO CHARGE TO ONLY CHECK FOR A LEAK, A "WORKMANSHIP ISSUE"It covers items like manufacture defects and workmanship issues, in which this case neither existed We came out at her request based on feedback she got from another contractor that she waved to her home from the street It is clear Mrs [redacted] did not want to pay for a Spring Start Up because she did not ask for that service While we did effectively perform one in order to provide the service a leak inspection and after learning there was not a leak, left her system on in order for it to be usedHONESTLY, DOES CW REALLY JUSTIFY CHARGING ME BECAUSE THEY LEFT A DIAL TO "ON"THAT I CAN DO AS WELL WITH A FLICK OF MY FINGER? IF THEY DID MORE TO OUR SYSTEM THAN CHECKING FOR A LEAK (ALTHOUGH I SEE NO EVIDENCE OF THIS) THEN THANKS, FOR SOMETHING I NEVER ASKED THEM TO DOTHAT HOWEVER, DOESN'T MEAN THEY NOW GET TO CHARGE ME FOR THIER MISTAKE I understand that she feels this is not a correct charge The reality is, we billed this visit at a cheaper rate to save her money from what the service call should have cost The [redacted] 's should have been charged our standard service call fee and standard labor rates for this visit That would have been $ AGAIN, IRRELEVANTBILLY SAID YOUR FEES ARE $70, NEVER HEARD OF $BEFOREThis would be consistent with previous non-warranty service visits we have provided If she feels being charged for a spring start up that she did not request, then we would need to provide her with a revised invoice for the remaining amount WOW! SO MUCH FOR STAYING AT BILLY'S WORD, WHICH WAS $SHOULD WE NEED ADDITIONAL SERVICECW CAN'T EVEN AGREE ON PRICING WITHIN THIER OWN OFFICE! We felt we were providing better service by just invoicing for a start up and leaving her system operational, as she confirmed it was on April 12th The above service history is a complete list of all visits to the [redacted] property since the system was installed on March 23, With one of those visits being waived, I am not sure I understand the "thieves" comment We had no "mistake" in this last service visit and therefore the visit is a chargeable service ANOTHER LIE...THE OWNER WASN'T PRIVY TO ANY OF THIS AS HE WAS ON VACATIONTHERE IS A COMPLETE BREAKDOWN OF COMMUNICATION IN THIS BUSINESSJust like the other visits we billed for, while the system is under warranty, for times that we had no "mistake" The invoice for this service went out on April 19th, There was no contact from the customer to us after that invoice went out WRONG!! I IMMEDIATELY MAILED THE INVOICE BACK WITH TWO PARAGRAPHS OF EXPLANATIONS AS TO WHY I SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN CHARGEDIN FACT, I ASKED THAT BILLING CONFIRM THIS WITH BILLY(I HAVE A COPY OF THIS).We mailed another invoice on May 19th, 2016, this also included late feesIT REALLY TAKES SOME NERVE TO ADD LATE FEES, WHEN CW NEVER ADDRESSED MY FIRST INVOICE RESPONSEIf there was a concern about the invoice I wish Mrs [redacted] would only had called after receiving the first bill and she not have waited days to raise any concern, as this matter could have been resolved much more quicklyRESOLVED IN WHAT WAY, I ASK?? "I WISH CW WOULD OF CALLED ME AFTER READING MY EXPLANATION AS TO WHY I DON'T OWE $70"INSTEAD, I NEVER HEARD A WORD FROM CWANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THIER TERRIBLE CUSTOMER SERVICE Mrs [redacted] emailed the owner on May 26th The owner was on vacation during through from 5/through Memorial Day weekend returning on 6/ During that time Mrs [redacted] sent other emails to the owner, in the owners absence, his emails are pulled to see what may need to be handled THEN WHY DIDN'T SOMEONE REACH OUT TO ME SOONER? INSTEAD, I WAITED DAYSThey were first pulled on 5/31, given the holiday weekend On June 2nd, she was contacted by Billy T*** She did not return his phone call, only decided to send another email to the owner...this stated....I DIDNTRETURN BILLY'S CALL FOR TWO REASONS...HE WAITED DAYS TO CALL ME BACK AFTER I LEFT A MESSAGE WITH TRACY TO HAVE HIM CALL METHIS IS WHEN I DECIDED TO EMAIL THE OWNER, BECAUSE BILLY DIDN'T RESPONDAT THAT POINT I WAS COMMUNICATING WITH THE OWNERI'M NOT GOING TO HAVE A THREE PERSON CONVERSATION THAT JUST GOES IN CIRCLES Billy left me a message regarding our bill for $He said we weren't charged for checking for a possible leakWe were charged for a spring start upAs I stated before, we DID NOT ask for a start up serviceHe seemed to think we had discussed doing this serviceWe did not! Our conversation was about a potential leakI never told Billy to do a spring start upMy mind was on a leak, not starting up the systemThat certainly wasn't my priority at that time This really is beyond ridulous! First, I haven't heard a word from you, the ownerI'm assuming you pushed this back to Billy to deal with and that's why he finally called me backAny buisness owner that can't reply directly to a customer when the customer specifically contacted the owner, is frankly, just terrible buisness practice on your part! I'm not hurting for $It's the principal of the matterYou don't charge customers for a service they never asked for! I'll pay you your $70, and not a penny more! No way will I pay any late feesI've been trying for over a month to get a response from your staff regarding this billSo please inform your staff to not send me another bill for any additional charges I am also discontinuing service with your company at our other home in [redacted] **...I'm going to file this complaint with the Revdex.com, and All Internet Irrigation websites in our areaI will express my negative reviews about your companyYour terrible buisness practice, falsly charging customers, and the overall incompetent customer service, etcI will also make it known to all I come in contact with through my design buisness to stay away from your company! I sure hope this was worth $to you! [redacted] While we would have never sent her $to collections, we will follow through with any defamation concernsTHIS IS NOTHING SHORT OF A JUVENILE SCARE TACTICONE CAN HARDLY THREATEN DEFAMATION WHEN DEALING WITH A COMPANY THAT HAS ALREADY DEFAMED THEMSELVES AND OTHERS BY PROVIDING SHODDY, DISHONEST WORK, WITH TERRIBLE COMMUNICATIONS AND INCOMPETENT CUSTOMER SERVICE! The last email from Mrs [redacted] on June 2nd was MrC [redacted] , There is nothing further to discuss with you or your staff, unless it's to inform me that I have a zero balanceBilly and I never agreed at any time that a start up service would be done the SAME day as checking for a leakHe was suppose to check the main line for a leakThat's itIt's that simpleTherefore, there is no reason to discuss this further with your staff We informed her earlier what the charge was for We were not waiving the fee and after this email, did not contact the customer per the customer request On June 7th a $check arrived for this service, short the late feesLET'S BE CLEAR...CW DIDN'T CONTACT ME BECAUSE I LEFT MY LAST EMAIL OPEN-ENDEDSTATING, IF THE $IS NOT WAIVED, THEN NO FURTHER COMMUNICATION IS NECESSARYMEANING, I WOULD TAKE THIS TO A HIGHER LEVELTHE Revdex.com, AS I STATED EARLIER IN MY EMAILI REALLY COULD CARE LESS ABOUT THE $THIS IS ABOUT THE LACK OF INTEGRITY WITHIN YOUR COMPANY AND A CRAP SYSTEM THAT WAS INSTALLED! I'M STILL IN WARRANTY, AND SHOULDN'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH THISBOTTOM LINE! MY NEIGHBORS IRRIGATION SYSTEM WORKS BEAUTIFULLY AND WE HAD OURS INSTALLED AT THE SAME TIMEWE ALSO WATER MORE THAN THEY DOI HAVE BETTER THINGS TO DO WITH MY TIME THAN TO ARGUE WITH YOUR COMPANYWE PAID A LOT OF MONEY FOR THIS SYSTEM AND YOU SHOULD BE A COMPANY THAT'S REPUTABLE ENOUGH TO MAKE SURE THIS SYSTEM IS WATERING OUR LAWN CORRECTLYNOT NICKLE AND DIME US AT EVERY TURN! [redacted]

At the Customers request we were on the property on 4/28/to perform a spring start up to the irrigation system We were on site from 11:28am to 12:noon The customer was home during the service stop Our service ticket shows a complete service performed, controller set to water at 5:30am on Monday, Wednesday and Friday it was signed by the customer on site as service complete and the customer paid our service technician at the completion The amount paid was $not $as the customer stated The customer called to ask for a follow up appointment expressing concerns about her controller function We set that follow up appointment with her The morning before her appointment she called to ask when we would be on site She was informed that the routes were in process of being routed and we would be able to give her a time later in the day for her appointment She became rude, insulting and threatening Making comments like, "I am a lawyer I am going to sue you guys", "you do not know how to run a business." From that conversation we made a decision to remove her appointment from our schedule.Please note, we did not install this system, it is not protected by any warranty from our company This was our first and will be our last visit to this property But, because we are a good company servicing our customers and community, our service tech noted that the irrigation system is not to County required code and there was not a required permit pulled for the original installation We will not be providing a refund for the $70.00, not $40.00, service and we will not be providing any future service to this customer

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the offer 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 I have read the response from Commonwealth and disagree with its premisesI do not consider the matter resolvedThe key points are summarized below, followed by an addendum that addresses this matter in greater detail There are three fundamental points: Commonwealth induced us to purchase a smart irrigation controller with claims of expected water savings We paid for, and Commonwealth installed, a system that doubled our water usage instead of saving any water Commonwealth asserts that this performance is and consistent with its savings claimsIt refuses to deliver a system that performs remotely consistent with what was advertised Commonwealth offers to let us pay them additional money to come back and make adjustments that were supposed to be part of the initial installationNo assurance is offered that this will solve the problem, which seems unlikely I expect Commonwealth, at its expense, to deliver a system that performs in a manner reasonably consistent with the sales claimsAs an alternative, I would be satisfied with a refund and reimbursement of all costs associated with committing to a system based on a smart controller and the claims associated with it, and reversion of the system to its original configuration Addendum re: complaint ID [redacted] ; addressing the key points in Commonwealth's response Water Usase vsAdvertised Claims The basic question is whether the system is performing as advertisedThe main point of Commonwealth's response seems to be that the system was not run long enough to know anything about its performanceRather than get into a lengthy discussion about the claims, I'll focus on that point Smart controllers are "weather based systems" Commonwealth characterizes performance as almost random on a day to day basisTheir answer describes the system responding to daily temperature, rainfall, evaporation, etcThis is a complete misrepresentationThe opposite is true A smart controller is set to average requirements based on a more precise description of the property and makes some seasonal adjustments based on average historical weather patternsIt has no sensors to know day-to-day conditionsOnce the smart controller is configured for the characteristics of the property, day to day performance is almost identical over periods on the order of weeksIt is somewhat disingenuous to knowingly obfuscate the facts in this manner while claiming that it is unfounded to suggest that Commonwealth has been less than forthright Seasonal savings Irrigation requirements are less in May, September, and October and more in July and AugustThe requirements in July and August are higher but cannot be extremely higher because the average water that a standard controller provides is adequate to keep lawns and plants healthyDouble the water of a standard controller should not be needed, even in July or AugustThat, alone, indicates that something is not right with our controller However, July and August requirements will be some amount higher than the requirements in JuneThus, our controller would use more water relative to the old one in July and August than it did in June, and it was already double in June In the response, Commonwealth qualified their savings claim with, "after they have been in use for some time"The amount of savings does vary across the irrigation season so it is true that the net savings represents savings in some months and perhaps slightly higher usage in other months, as described above However, there is some basic arithmeticIf during June, July, and August you use more than 100% additional water, you have already matched the standard controller's usage for the entire seasonEven with zero water the other months, the best you can average is to break even with no savingsIf some amount of water is also used in May, September, and October, the net must, predictably, be an increase in water usage, not savingsThat is inconsistent with the claims; it would never be possible to average 50%, or 14%, or even 10% savings across the season, That is why either our system is not working properly or the savings claims are false Adequacy of usage information Commonwealth questions whether we have adequate information to know that water usage doubledThe facts cited are incorrectI contacted Commonwealth after the second day of identical irrigation activityI did this based on irrigation still occurring 1/hours after it started when the standard controller ran for only 1/hoursWe received the water bill later, and those two irrigation days were the only days covered in that billing periodThe standard controller used gallons per irrigation dayThe billed usage for those two days was 3,gallons, which confirms the visible evidence of double the irrigation time Other potential causes Commonwealth made a point about not having investigated potential problems other than the controllerThe only thing that changed is the controllerIf there was any pre-existing problem, the standard controller would also have used excessive waterThe increased water usage is perfectly accounted for by the time period over which the system is activated--1/hours vs1/hours-- and that is governed entirely by the controller Bottom line We invested over $1,to reduce our water billRunning the system in a node that uses double the water would result in much higher water bills than we already haveIt is unrealistic to expect us to incur those additional significant costs just to demonstrate that the usage pattern does not improveAfter burning your hand on a hot stove twice, you don't keep doing it to see if it will average out coldEven if we were to incur the cost to "definitively demonstrate" the extreme water usage, Commonwealth has made no commitments as to what they would do at that later point in terms of resolving the issue Responding to Commonwealth emails I received a message from [redacted] *** on July asking if I wanted Commonwealth to look at the controllerI replied the same day that Commonwealth had never answered the question about the previous service fee and had not yet provided a system that performed as advertisedI stated that I did want Commonwealth to complete the job and that I did not expect additional charges for doing soThe email discussions suddenly stoppedI sent a follmessage on 8/and received no response to that, eitherI filed this complaint approximately days after the final communication I had received Commonwealth's letter of 8/mentions three email messages that I did not respond toUpon investigation, I discovered that Commonwealth did, indeed, send emails on those datesAfter numerous email exchanges, [redacted] *** started using an obsolete email addressHis 8/and 8/messages went to a spam box thereThe 8/message was treated differently and was forwarded to meI did receive that one (subsequent to filing this complaint), and didn't notice that it came from the obsolete accountIt was a request to set up an appointment to adjust the controller I assumed that this complaint had prompted it as the first response since July I did immediately respond, asking how to arrange an appointmentSince I had previously stated a position on further charges, I assumed his reply was a confirmation that there would be no further charges until the system is working properlyI later received Commonwealth's official response, stating an intention to charge additional labor fees Service ticket and service fee This issue is based on information provided by Commonwealth's technician, which their response does not addressMy agreeing to temporarily change the settings was based on the technician's claim that it was the only way to stop the system from extreme water usageCommonwealth currently says that adjustments are required for proper functioningThe premise of the technician's claim was falseObviously, I would not tell the technician to disable the smart feature when it could be adjusted to work properly and that's what Commonwealth was called to doCommonwealth should have made the proper adjustments at that time The technician entered the $charge on the form before I pointed out that the call was to correct the initial installation and work done the previous weekHe told me that he had been unaware of that and was required to record his time and the chargeHowever, because of the nature of the call, the billed amount would be determined back at the office and the actual invoice, if there would be one, would be sent from there (false)He assured me that based on the company's policies, there would not be one (false) I signed the form to acknowledge that he was there and relied on his assurances regarding the chargesSo yes, my signature is on a form listing a $charge to bypass the smart functions of the controllerTo charge for doing the wrong fix to an incomplete installation is a questionable business practiceCommonwealth insists they are due the money because someone showed up, and now they want to charge me yet again to undo it Commonwealth's proposed resolution Commonwealth will reprogram the controller At the initial installation and spring activation, the smart controller had all settings configured to their "normal" values for our propertyFrom that baseline, there is some tweaking that can be done for things like degree of shadeLack of that fine tuning is unlikely to account for 100% additional water usageTherefore, I am skeptical that adjustments can correct the extreme performance problem I am willing to let Commonwealth adjust settings or do whatever they think is needed to correct the problemHowever, adjusting settings is not my objectiveIt will not be a satisfactory resolution to have a technician show up and change some settings if that does not fix the extreme water usageThe goal is to make a smart controller work as advertisedThe solution might be to replace the controller because it is defectiveIt might be to fix some bad settingsIt might be that smart controllers do not necessarily save water and nothing will make one use less water than the original I paid for a smart controller that uses less waterSo far, Commonwealth has not delivered thatI want them to do whatever is necessary to complete that deliveryAs a matter of compromise, I am willing to accept a smart controller that achieves no water savings but does not use more water Commonwealth will charge additional fees to make the controller work properly I have already paid for installation and set up of a controller that performs reasonably consistent with the claimsSo far, Commonwealth has not been able to make the current controller work properly and has done the wrong fix by their own standardsI will not engage Commonwealth in some open-ended fee-for-service while they dabble and correct their own mistakes and run up serious water bills in the processIf Commonwealth is willing to make a good faith effort to remedy the problem in a timely way, I am willing to absorb the extra water costs in the interimHowever, Commonwealth has already been paid in full, and I will not pay additional costs to make it work correctly Regards, [redacted]

We installed an irrigation system for the ***'s on March 23, During that installation, we were asked to leave a portion of that system incomplete as they were having landscaping done On April 7, 2015, we responded to a service request that the landscape contractor damaged
the system This visit was not warranty and was invoiced at $ We received a phone call complaint and were asked to waive the invoice After a discussion, we did...that invoice was waived On 7/2/we were responded to a service request for a "broken line the homeowner damaged" We provided a repair service and invoiced accordingly The ***'s did pay that bill We responded to another service request about "heads leaking @ hillside" We responded and found that there was dirt in the valves and they were stuck This is what contributed to high water bills and is likely related to the two damage instances sited above This visit was invoiced and paid for by the homeowner On 10/16/15, we provided the contracted winterization (*shutting system down).
On April 5th, we received a phone call from Mrs*** In that phone call she stated she saw a contractor on her street and she waived him over to do a back flow test The contractor would have needed to turn the system on to perform this service In doing so and connecting a pressure gauge, the contractor told Mrs*** she had a leak in her system and could not go any further as to not void her warranty (not sure how he knows what her warranty is) Mrs*** spoke to Billy T*** (our Irrigation Division Manager) on April 7th, about the up coming service visit During that conversation she was informed that we would need to turn the system on (start-up) and go through the system to determine if there was in fact a leak You can not look for a leak with out turning the system on I was not involved in that conversation, but can only imagine what was discussed was agreed too as we went to the home on April 11, The homeowner was given a service window of 8am-12noon, we arrived at 10:25am We proceeded to inspect the system and during our visit we could not find any indication of a leak On April 12th Mrs *** called and asked if she could run her system, she was informed that she could
We sent the ***'s an invoice for this visit Just like other non-warranty leak visits in the past The warranty does not cover unlimited visits to the home It covers items like manufacture defects and workmanship issues, in which this case neither existed We came out at her request based on feedback she got from another contractor that she waved to her home from the street It is clear Mrs*** did not want to pay for a Spring Start Up because she did not ask for that service While we did effectively perform one in order to provide the service a leak inspection and after learning there was not a leak, left her system on in order for it to be used
I understand that she feels this is not a correct charge The reality is, we billed this visit at a cheaper rate to save her money from what the service call should have cost The ***'s should have been charged our standard service call fee and standard labor rates for this visit That would have been $ This would be consistent with previous non-warranty service visits we have provided If she feels being charged for a spring start up that she did not request, then we would need to provide her with a revised invoice for the remaining amount We felt we were providing better service by just invoicing for a start up and leaving her system operational, as she confirmed it was on April 12th
The above service history is a complete list of all visits to the *** property since the system was installed on March 23, With one of those visits being waived, I am not sure I understand the "thieves" comment We had no "mistake" in this last service visit and therefore the visit is a chargeable service Just like the other visits we billed for, while the system is under warranty, for times that we had no "mistake" The invoice for this service went out on April 19th,
There was no contact from the customer to us after that invoice went out We mailed another invoice on May 19th, 2016, this also included late feesIf there was a concern about the invoice I wish Mrs*** would only had called after receiving the first bill and she not have waited days to raise any concern, as this matter could have been resolved much more quickly
Mrs*** emailed the owner on May 26th The owner was on vacation during through from 5/through Memorial Day weekend returning on 6/ During that time Mrs*** sent other emails to the owner, in the owners absence, his emails are pulled to see what may need to be handled They were first pulled on 5/31, given the holiday weekend On June 2nd, she was contacted by Billy T*** She did not return his phone call, only decided to send another email to the owner...this stated
Billy left me a message regarding our bill for $He said we weren't charged for checking for a possible leakWe were charged for a spring start upAs I stated before, we DID NOT ask for a start up serviceHe seemed to think we had discussed doing this serviceWe did not! Our conversation was about a potential leakI never told Billy to do a spring start upMy mind was on a leak, not starting up the systemThat certainly wasn't my priority at that time.
This really is beyond ridulous! First, I haven't heard a word from you, the ownerI'm assuming you pushed this back to Billy to deal with and that's why he finally called me backAny buisness owner that can't reply directly to a customer when the customer specifically contacted the owner, is frankly, just terrible buisness practice on your part!
I'm not hurting for $It's the principal of the matterYou don't charge customers for a service they never asked for!
I'll pay you your $70, and not a penny more! No way will I pay any late feesI've been trying for over a month to get a response from your staff regarding this billSo please inform your staff to not send me another bill for any additional charges.
I am also discontinuing service with your company at our other home in Stafford, Brush Everard Ct...I'm going to file this complaint with the Revdex.com, and All Internet Irrigation websites in our areaI will express my negative reviews about your companyYour terrible buisness practice, falsly charging customers, and the overall incompetent customer service, etcI will also make it known to all I come in contact with through my design buisness to stay away from your company! I sure hope this was worth $to you!
Brenda and Gordon ***
While we would have never sent her $to collections, we will follow through with any defamation concerns
The last email from Mrs*** on June 2nd wasMrC***,
There is nothing further to discuss with you or your staff, unless it's to inform me that I have a zero balanceBilly and I never agreed at any time that a start up service would be done the SAME day as checking for a leakHe was suppose to check the main line for a leakThat's itIt's that simpleTherefore, there is no reason to discuss this further with your staff.
We informed her earlier what the charge was for We were not waiving the fee and after this email, did not contact the customer per the customer request On June 7th a $check arrived for this service, short the late fees
If, at any time, our staff was rude...I apologize for that We certainly do not need to come across in that manner

[redacted],
I am writing regarding ID [redacted] complaint from [redacted].
First let me say that [redacted] comment to suggest that he and the County were sold "a bill of goods" is very much misguided, as we were not involved in any way with the formation of...

the [redacted]. Like [redacted], we are following the rules set out by the program and its developers. It is unfounded comments like this and others that move this conversation no where.
The manufacturers of these controllers suggest a 50% reduction rate in water usage; we try to set a more realistic expectation of saving between 10-14%. This is what we have seen with systems after they have been in use for some time.
On 6/6/14, we started the irrigation system for the customer and programmed his new [redacted]. On 6/23/14, a mere seven days later, we responded to the customers' house from a service request he made 6/18/14 at 12:41pm (only 2 days after controller was in use). The customer called to suggest he was using double the amount of water, but could not have had any billing information from the County for this short period to quantify claim. The service ticket for this visit states "Customer Description: Set box to 5am", "Technician Findings: Ran through system with H/O, wanted to change smart system to bypass". This is signed by the customer. As he stated, he was not charged our $70 service fee, but was billed $26.00 for the time the technician was on site.
The [redacted] are weather based systems. During the 7 day period the system was in "Smart Use" (6/14-6/23), the average temperature was 87 degrees (with 3 days at or above 90 degrees) and the average rainfall was 0.07", with most days at 0.00 and the highest rainfall day being 0.34". Given this data and how the controller functions, it would make sense that the [redacted] would calculate the needed "Evapotransporation Rate" and put the needed water back out. On 6/17 temperature was 94 degrees and on 6/18 it was 95 degrees with both days having 0.00 rainfall. These are the two days the customer had usage of before his call to our office requesting service that we provided on 6/23/14.
For the customer to give his new controller the reality of 2 days of use and have that be the measure of success is at best premature. The results that we provide for customers are a year or more of usage data to suggest the 10-14% reductions. The 5-7 year ROI number provided by the County coincides with our findings.
Furthermore, we did not install this irrigation system and to date, this controller upgrade withstanding, have only completed 1 spring start up, 2 back flow tests and 1 winterization. There may be other issues with the system that could contribute to inefficiencies, if this 2 day window of use is the measure of the systems performance; which I believe it should not.
If the customer would have responded to our emails from 8/8, 8/7, and 8/13, in the time it took to write this letter, the controller could have been reset for the customer.
If the customer would like his controller but back in Smart mode and reprogrammed, I am willing to do that. We will waive the service call fee as we did previous and invoice for the labor time while on site. At programming appointment we will collect this amount and the amount due from the previous visit. If the customer would like this to occur he can contact our office to schedule his appointment.
Sincerely,
Commonwealth Irrigation and Landscape

MESSAGE FROM BUSINESS:
 
We installed an irrigation system for the [redacted]'s on March 23, 2015.  During that installation, we were asked to leave a portion of that system incomplete as they were having landscaping done.  On April 7, 2015, we responded to a service request that the landscape contractor damaged the system.  This visit was not warranty and was invoiced at $85.00. THE LANDSCAPER NICKED ONE SPRINKLER LINE BECAUSE...CW DID NOT BURY THE SPRINKLER LINE AT LEAST 6'' AS THEY PROMISED. I HAVE MULTIPLE PHOTOS TO PROVE THE LINE WAS BURIED LESS THAN 2'' DEEP IN THIS AREA.  THE LANDSCAPER ALSO TRIED SEVERAL TIMES TO CALL CW AS HE WANTED TO EXPLAIN HOW SHALLOW THE LINE WAS BURIED. CW WAIVED THE BILL BECAUSE THEY HAD NO CHOICE, ONCE THEY SAW THE PIPE WAS BARELY BURIED IN THE GROUND. AS USUAL, THEY NEVER RETURNED ANY CALLS! THIS IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT TO THIS DISPUTE ANYWAY. We received a phone call complaint and were asked to waive the invoice.  After a discussion, we did...that invoice was waived.  On 7/2/15 we were responded to a service request for a "broken line the homeowner damaged".  AGAIN, ANOTHER INACCURACY. WE "THE HOMEOWNERS" NEVER BROKE ANY LINE. WE HAD A PATIO INSTALLED, AND THE INSTALLER ADMITTEDLY BROKE THE LINE. AGAIN, IRRELEVANT TO THIS DISPUTE. We provided a repair service and invoiced accordingly.  The [redacted]'s did pay that bill.  We responded to another service request about "heads leaking @ hillside".  We responded and found that there was dirt in the valves and they were stuck. FIRST OF ALL, IT WAS ONE HEAD, AND ONE VALVE (READ YOUR INVOICE YOU COPIED ME ON). THE TECH THAT DID THE REPAIR SHOWED ME THE VALVE THAT SUPPOSEDLY HAD DIRT IN IT.  AFTER HE "FIXED" THE VALVE WE CONTINUED TO HAVE $600 WATER BILLS! AND THIS WAS AFTER WE ALREADY REDUCED THE TIME AND FREQUENCY OF WATERING. CLEARLY THAT VALVE WASN'T THE LEAK THAT CAUSED THE HIGH WATER BILLS. IT'S A STRETCH ON CW'S PART TO EVEN SUGGEST THAT VALVE (OR ANY VALVE FOR THAT MATTER ) HAD ANY RELATIONSHIP TO THE OTHER TWO REPAIRS. THE OTHER REPAIRS WERE FOR  TWO ACCIDENTAL BROKEN LINES. NOTHING TO DO WITH A VALVE. I WAS PRESENT BOTH TIMES WHEN THE WORKERS BROKE THE LINES. THEY WERE FIXED A FEW DAYS LATER. MOST IMPORTANTLY, OUR WATER WASNT EVEN TURNED ON FOR THE APRIL REPAIR AND THE JULY REPAIR, THE WATER WAS SHUT OFF TIL THE REPAIR WAS COMPLETED. FOR CW TO TIE THE REPAIRS IN WITH OUR HIGH WATER BILLS IS JUST DESPERATION TO MAKE A CASE ON THIER PART. This is what contributed to high water bills and is likely related to the two damage instances sited above.  This visit was invoiced and paid for by the homeowner.  On 10/16/15, we provided the contracted winterization (*shutting system down).
IT'S ALSO WORTH NOTING THAT THE TECHNICIAN FROM ALL SEASONS IRRIGATION SAID THEY ARE CONSTANTLY HAVING TO DO REPAIRS/SERVICE CALLS ON CW'S IRRIGATION SYSTEMS. HE POINTED OUT SEVERAL THINGS ON OUR SYSTEM THAT WERE DONE INCORRECTLY ON YOUR INSTALL.
WE HAVE SEVERAL AREAS ON OUR LAWN THAT ARE NOT GETTING WATER BECAUSE THE HEADS ARE NOT OVERLAPPING DURING WATERING. YET, WE JUST PAID YOU FOR A SPRING START UP WHERE YOU INDICATED ALL HEADS WERE CHECKED. CLEARLY, THIS WASN'T DONE, OR IT WAS DONE INCOMPETENTLY.
 
On April 5th, 2016 we received a phone call from Mrs. [redacted].  In that phone call she stated she saw a contractor on her street and she waived him over to do a back flow test.  THIS STORY NEVER CAME OUT OF MY MOUTH! WE HIRED A LOCAL COMPANY, ALL SEASONS IRRIGATION FOR A SECOND OPINION (I HAVE THEIR BILL AND SERVICE DESCRIPTION TO PROVE IT) SO, SORRY I DIDN'T FLAG SOMEONE OFF THE STREET! I'M NOT SURE WHO'S WRITING THESE LIES IN THE CW OFFICE, BUT CLEARLY THEY HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT HAS TRANSPIRED OVER THE LAST YEAR WITH THE SHODDY SERVICE WE HAVE RECEIVED. The contractor would have neededto turn the system on to perform this service.  In doing so and connecting a pressure gauge, the contractor told Mrs. [redacted] she had a leak in her system and could not go any further as to not void her warranty (not sure how he knows what her warranty is). HE ASKED IF I'M STILL IN WARRANTY. A NATURAL QUESTION TO ASK, AS HE KNOWS THE SYSTEM IS NEW. Mrs. [redacted] spoke to Billy T[redacted] (our Irrigation Division Manager) on April 7th, 2016 about the up coming service visit.  During that conversation she was informed that we would need to turn the system on (start-up) and go through the system to determine if there was in fact a leak. THIS IS JUST A LIE. I TOLD BILLY THE SYSTEM WAS ALREADY TURNED ON. I NEVER TURNED IT OFF AFTER ALL SEASONS CHECKED FOR A LEAK. You can not look for a leak with out turning the system on.  I was not involved in that conversation, EXACTLY. YOU WERE NOT THERE, NOR HAVE YOU EVER BEEN PRESENT. THEREFORE, YOU CAN NOT ATTEST TO WHAT BILLY SAID TO ME. HE SAID, HE WON'T CHARGE ME FOR A SERVICE IF WE DON'T FIND A LEAK. HOWEVER, IF WE DO, WE WILL HAVE TO CHARGE FOR THE SERVICE REPAIR VISIT. TO YOUR WORDS, THERE WAS NO LEAK. AT NO TIME DID HE MENTION A SPRING START UP! but can only imagine what was discussed was agreed too as we went to the home on April 11, 2016.  The homeowner was given a service window of 8am-12noon, we arrived at 10:25am.  We proceeded to inspect the system and during our visit we could not find any indication of a leak.  OnApril 12th Mrs [redacted] called and asked if she could run her system, she was informed that she could. FINALLY, SOMETHING IS CORRECT. I SPOKE TO TRACY, SHE SAID NO LEAKS WERE FOUND AND IT WOULD BE SAFE TO START WATERING.  SHE LEAD ME TO BELIEVE THAT THEY ONLY CHECKED FOR LEAKS. SHE NEVER MENTIONED ANY OTHER SERVICES WERE PERFORMED. THEN ONE MONTH LATER, I RECEIVED A BILL FOR SPRING START UP SERVICE.
 
We sent the [redacted]'s an invoice for this visit.  Just like other non-warranty leak visits in the past.  The warranty does not cover unlimited visits to the home.  WE HAD THREE REPAIRS, AND PAID FOR TWO OF THEM. THEREFORE, WE UNDERSTAND VISITS ARE NOT UNLIMITED. THE WARRANTY DOES HOWEVER, COVER INSTALL LEAKS. THIS IS WHY BILLY SAID NO CHARGE TO ONLY CHECK FOR A LEAK, A "WORKMANSHIP ISSUE". It covers items like manufacture defects and workmanship issues, in which this case neither existed.  We came out at her request based on feedback she got from another contractor that she waved to her home from the street.  It is clear Mrs. [redacted] did not want to pay for a Spring Start Up because she did not ask for that service.  While we did effectively perform one in order to provide the service a leak inspection and after learning there was not a leak, left her system on in order for it to be used. HONESTLY, DOES CW REALLY JUSTIFY CHARGING ME BECAUSE THEY LEFT A DIAL TO "ON". THAT I CAN DO AS WELL WITH A FLICK OF MY FINGER? IF THEY DID MORE TO OUR SYSTEM THAN CHECKING FOR A LEAK (ALTHOUGH I SEE NO EVIDENCE OF THIS) THEN THANKS, FOR SOMETHING I NEVER ASKED THEM TO DO. THAT HOWEVER, DOESN'T MEAN THEY NOW GET TO CHARGE ME FOR THIER MISTAKE.
 
I understand that she feels this is not a correct charge.  The reality is, we billed this visit at a cheaper rate to save her money from what the service call should have cost.  The [redacted]'s should have been charged our standard service call fee and standard labor rates for this visit.  That would have been $100.00.  AGAIN, IRRELEVANT. BILLY SAID YOUR FEES ARE $70, NEVER HEARD OF $100 BEFORE. This would be consistent with previous non-warranty service visits we have provided.  If she feels being charged for a spring start up that she did not request, then we would need to provide her with a revised invoice for the remaining amount.  WOW! SO MUCH FOR STAYING AT BILLY'S WORD, WHICH WAS $70 SHOULD WE NEED ADDITIONAL SERVICE. CW CAN'T EVEN AGREE ON PRICING WITHIN THIER OWN OFFICE!
We felt we were providing better service by just invoicing for a start up and leaving her system operational, as she confirmed it was on April 12th.
 
The above service history is a complete list of all visits to the [redacted] property since the system was installed on March 23, 2015.  With one of those visits being waived, I am not sure I understand the "thieves" comment.  We had no "mistake" in this last service visit and therefore the visit is a chargeable service.  ANOTHER LIE...THE OWNER WASN'T PRIVY TO ANY OF THIS AS HE WAS ON VACATION. THERE IS A COMPLETE BREAKDOWN OF COMMUNICATION IN THIS BUSINESS. Just like the other visits we billed for, while the system is under warranty, for times that we had no "mistake".  The invoice for this service went out on April 19th, 2016.
 
There was no contact from the customer to us after that invoice went out.  WRONG!! I IMMEDIATELY MAILED THE INVOICE BACK WITH TWO PARAGRAPHS OF EXPLANATIONS AS TO WHY I SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN CHARGED. IN FACT, I ASKED THAT BILLING CONFIRM THIS WITH BILLY. (I HAVE A COPY OF THIS).We mailed another invoice on May 19th, 2016, this also included late fees. IT REALLY TAKES SOME NERVE TO ADD LATE FEES, WHEN CW NEVER ADDRESSED MY FIRST INVOICE RESPONSE. If there was a concern about the invoice I wish Mrs. [redacted] would only had called after receiving the first bill and she not have waited 37 days to raise any concern, as this matter could have been resolved much more quickly. RESOLVED IN WHAT WAY, I ASK?? "I WISH CW WOULD OF CALLED ME AFTER READING MY EXPLANATION AS TO WHY I DON'T OWE $70". INSTEAD, I NEVER HEARD A WORD FROM CW. ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THIER TERRIBLE CUSTOMER SERVICE.
 
Mrs. [redacted] emailed the owner on May 26th.  The owner was on vacation during through from 5/25 through Memorial Day weekend returning on 6/7.  During that time Mrs. [redacted] sent 3 other emails to the owner, in the owners absence, his emails are pulled to see what may need to be handled.  THEN WHY DIDN'T SOMEONE REACH OUT TO ME SOONER? INSTEAD, I WAITED 7 DAYS. They were first pulled on 5/31, given the holiday weekend.  On June 2nd, she was contacted by Billy T[redacted].  She did not return his phone call, only decided to send another email to the owner...this stated....I DIDNTRETURN BILLY'S CALL FOR TWO REASONS...HE WAITED 8 DAYS TO CALL ME BACK AFTER I LEFT A MESSAGE WITH TRACY TO HAVE HIM CALL ME. THIS IS WHEN I DECIDED TO EMAIL THE OWNER, BECAUSE BILLY DIDN'T RESPOND. AT THAT POINT I WAS COMMUNICATING WITH THE OWNER. I'M NOT GOING TO HAVE A THREE PERSON CONVERSATION THAT JUST GOES IN CIRCLES. 
 
 
Billy left me a message regarding our bill for $70. He said we weren't charged for checking for a possible leak. We were charged for a spring start up. As I stated before, we DID NOT ask for a start up service. He seemed to think we had discussed doing this service. We did not! Our conversation was about a potential leak. I never told Billy to do a spring start up. My mind was on a leak, not starting up the system. That certainly wasn't my priority at that time. 
This really is beyond ridulous! First, I haven't heard a word from you, the owner. I'm assuming you pushed this back to Billy to deal with and that's why he finally called me back. Any buisness owner that can't reply directly to a customer when the customer specifically contacted the owner, is frankly, just terrible buisness practice on your part!
I'm not hurting for $70. It's the principal of the matter. You don't charge customers for a service they never asked for!
I'll pay you your $70, and not a penny more! No way will I pay any late fees. I've been trying for over a month to get a response from your staff regarding this bill. So please inform your staff to not send me another bill for any additional charges. 
I am also discontinuing service with your company at our other home in [redacted]...I'm going to file this complaint with the Revdex.com, and All Internet Irrigation websites in our area. I will express my negative reviews about your company. Your terrible buisness practice, falsly charging customers, and the overall incompetent customer service, etc. I will also make it known to all I come in contact with through my design buisness to stay away from your company! I sure hope this was worth $70 to you!
[redacted] 
 
While we would have never sent her $70 to collections, we will follow through with any defamation concerns. THIS IS NOTHING SHORT OF A JUVENILE SCARE TACTIC. ONE CAN HARDLY THREATEN DEFAMATION WHEN DEALING WITH A COMPANY THAT HAS ALREADY DEFAMED THEMSELVES AND OTHERS BY PROVIDING SHODDY, DISHONEST WORK, WITH TERRIBLE COMMUNICATIONS AND INCOMPETENT CUSTOMER SERVICE!
 
The last email from Mrs. [redacted] on June 2nd was...
 
Mr. C[redacted],
There is nothing further to discuss with you or your staff, unless it's to inform me that I have a zero balance. Billy and I never agreed at any time that a start up service would be done the SAME day as checking for a leak. He was suppose to check the main line for a leak. That's it. It's that simple. Therefore, there is no reason to discuss this further with your staff. 
 
 
We informed her earlier what the charge was for.  We were not waiving the fee and after this email, did not contact the customer per the customer request.  On June 7th a $70.00 check arrived for this service, short the late fees.
LET'S BE CLEAR...CW DIDN'T CONTACT ME BECAUSE I LEFT MY LAST EMAIL OPEN-ENDED. STATING, IF THE $70 IS NOT WAIVED, THEN NO FURTHER COMMUNICATION IS NECESSARY. MEANING, I WOULD TAKE THIS TO A HIGHER LEVEL. THE Revdex.com, AS I STATED EARLIER IN MY EMAIL. I REALLY COULD CARE LESS ABOUT THE $70. THIS IS ABOUT THE LACK OF INTEGRITY WITHIN YOUR COMPANY AND A CRAP SYSTEM THAT WAS INSTALLED! I'M STILL IN WARRANTY,  AND SHOULDN'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH THIS. BOTTOM LINE! MY NEIGHBORS IRRIGATION SYSTEM WORKS BEAUTIFULLY AND WE HAD OURS INSTALLED AT THE SAME TIME. WE ALSO WATER MORE THAN THEY DO. I HAVE BETTER THINGS TO DO WITH MY TIME THAN TO ARGUE WITH YOUR COMPANY. WE PAID A LOT OF MONEY FOR THIS SYSTEM AND YOU SHOULD BE A COMPANY THAT'S REPUTABLE ENOUGH TO MAKE SURE THIS SYSTEM IS WATERING OUR LAWN CORRECTLY. NOT NICKLE AND DIME US AT EVERY TURN!
[redacted]

Revdex.com:
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.
This response is not accurate at all.  The sprinklers were supposed to be set to 530 am - Mon Wed And Fri but were not.  The sprinkler system is in great working order but the tech did not turn on all sprinklers and they go off everyday at different times- not 530 am mon wed fri.  I called the office to have the tech come back out and fix the issue that he created- I was told by the rude woman who always answer the phone we don't know what time he will be there?  I asked her to have he manager call me and she said- okay- I never got a call back.  The next day I called back and the same rude receptionist (check your reviews I am not the only customer at all that feels this way) said yes I talked to my boss and she said she is not calling you or giving you a refund.  How is this okay when you run a business, I paid you 70 (thank you for the correction) and you did not perform your job.  The sprinkler is not broken and it is within county code. I have since had another business here who set the timers and turned on the entire system and it works great.  I want a refund since I did not get the service and had to pay another company to do the correct job.
Regards,
[redacted]

Revdex.com:
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.This response is not accurate at all.  The sprinklers were supposed to be set to 530 am - Mon Wed And Fri but were not.  The sprinkler system is in great working order but the tech did not turn on all sprinklers and they go off everyday at different times- not 530 am mon wed fri.  I called the office to have the tech come back out and fix the issue that he created- I was told by the rude woman who always answer the phone we don't know what time he will be there?  I asked her to have he manager call me and she said- okay- I never got a call back.  The next day I called back and the same rude receptionist (check your reviews I am not the only customer at all that feels this way) said yes I talked to my boss and she said she is not calling you or giving you a refund.  How is this okay when you run a business, I paid you 70 (thank you for the correction) and you did not perform your job.  The sprinkler is not broken and it is within county code. I have since had another business here who set the timers and turned on the entire system and it works great.  I want a refund since I did not get the service and had to pay another company to do the correct job.
Regards,
[redacted]

At the Customers request we were on the property on 4/28/15 to perform a spring start up to the irrigation system.  We were on site from 11:28am to 12:00 noon.  The customer was home during the service stop.  Our service ticket shows a complete service performed, controller set to...

water at 5:30am on Monday, Wednesday and Friday.  it was signed by the customer on site as service complete and the customer paid our service technician at the completion.  The amount paid was $70.00 not $40.00 as the customer stated.  The customer called to ask for a follow up appointment expressing concerns about her controller function.  We set that follow up appointment with her.  The morning before her appointment she called to ask when we would be on site.  She was informed that the routes were in process of being routed and we would be able to give her a time later in the day for her appointment.  She became rude, insulting and threatening.  Making comments like, "I am a lawyer I am going to sue you guys", "you do not know how to run a business."  From that conversation we made a decision to remove her appointment from our schedule.Please note, we did not install this system, it is not protected by any warranty from our company.  This was our first and will be our last visit to this property.  But, because we are a good company servicing our customers and community, our service tech noted that the irrigation system is not to County required code and there was not a required permit pulled for the original installation.  We will not be providing a refund for the $70.00, not $40.00, service and we will not be providing any future service to this customer.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the offer 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.
I have read the response from Commonwealth and disagree with its premises. I do not consider the matter resolved. The key points are summarized below, followed by an addendum that addresses this matter in greater detail.
There are three fundamental points:
1. Commonwealth induced us to purchase a smart irrigation controller with claims of expected water savings.
2. We paid for, and Commonwealth installed, a system that doubled our water usage instead of saving any water.
3. Commonwealth asserts that this performance is normal and consistent with its savings claims. It refuses to deliver a system that performs remotely consistent with what was advertised.
Commonwealth offers to let us pay them additional money to come back and make adjustments that were supposed to be part of the initial installation. No assurance is offered that this will solve the problem, which seems unlikely.
I expect Commonwealth, at its expense, to deliver a system that performs in a manner reasonably consistent with the sales claims. As an alternative, I would be satisfied with a refund and reimbursement of all costs associated with committing to a system based on a smart controller and the claims associated with it, and reversion of the system to its original configuration.
Addendum re: complaint ID [redacted]; addressing the key points in Commonwealth's response.
1. Water Usase vs. Advertised Claims
The basic question is whether the system is performing as advertised. The main point of Commonwealth's response seems to be that the system was not run long enough to know anything about its performance. Rather than get into a lengthy discussion about the claims, I'll focus on that point.
Smart controllers are "weather based systems"
Commonwealth characterizes normal performance as almost random on a day to day basis. Their answer describes the system responding to daily temperature, rainfall, evaporation, etc. This is a complete misrepresentation. The opposite is true.
A smart controller is set to average requirements based on a more precise description of the property and makes some seasonal adjustments based on average historical weather patterns. It has no sensors to know day-to-day conditions. Once the smart controller is configured for the characteristics of the property, day to day performance is almost identical over periods on the order of weeks. It is somewhat disingenuous to knowingly obfuscate the facts in this manner while claiming that it is unfounded to suggest that Commonwealth has been less than forthright.
Seasonal savings
Irrigation requirements are less in May, September, and October and more in July and August. The requirements in July and August are higher but cannot be extremely higher because the average water that a standard controller provides is adequate to keep lawns and plants healthy. Double the water of a standard controller should not be needed, even in July or August. That, alone, indicates that something is not right with our controller.
However, July and August requirements will be some amount higher than the requirements in June. Thus, our controller would use more water relative to the old one in July and August than it did in June, and it was already double in June.
In the response, Commonwealth qualified their savings claim with, "after they have been in use for some time". The amount of savings does vary across the irrigation season so it is true that the net savings represents savings in some months and perhaps slightly higher usage in other months, as described above.
However, there is some basic arithmetic. If during June, July, and August you use more than 100% additional water, you have already matched the standard controller's usage for the entire season. Even with zero water the other months, the best you can average is to break even with no savings. If some amount of water is also used in May, September, and October, the net must, predictably, be an increase in water usage, not savings. That is inconsistent with the claims; it would never be possible to average 50%, or 14%, or even 10% savings across the season, That is why either our system is not working properly or the savings claims are false.
Adequacy of usage information
Commonwealth questions whether we have adequate information to know that water usage doubled. The facts cited are incorrect. I contacted Commonwealth after the second day of identical irrigation activity. I did this based on irrigation still occurring 5 1/2 hours after it started when the standard controller ran for only 2 1/2 hours. We received the water bill later, and those two irrigation days were the only days covered in that billing period. The standard controller used 900 gallons per irrigation day. The billed usage for those two days was 3,500 gallons, which confirms the visible evidence of double the irrigation time.
Other potential causes
Commonwealth made a point about not having investigated potential problems other than the controller. The only thing that changed is the controller. If there was any pre-existing problem, the standard controller would also have used excessive water. The increased water usage is perfectly accounted for by the time period over which the system is activated--5 1/2 hours vs. 2 1/2 hours-- and that is governed entirely by the controller.
Bottom line
We invested over $1,000 to reduce our water bill. Running the system in a node that uses double the water would result in much higher water bills than we already have. It is unrealistic to expect us to incur those additional significant costs just to demonstrate that the usage pattern does not improve. After burning your hand on a hot stove twice, you don't keep doing it to see if it will average out cold. Even if we were to incur the cost to "definitively demonstrate" the extreme water usage, Commonwealth has made no commitments as to what they would do at that later point in terms of resolving the issue.
2. Responding to Commonwealth emails.
I received a message from [redacted] on July 30 asking if I wanted Commonwealth to look at the controller. I replied the same day that Commonwealth had never answered the question about the previous service fee and had not yet provided a system that performed as advertised. I stated that I did want Commonwealth to
complete the job and that I did not expect additional charges for doing so. The email discussions suddenly stopped. I sent a follow-up message on 8/5 and received no response to that, either. I filed this complaint approximately 10 days after the final communication I had received.
Commonwealth's letter of 8/14 mentions three email messages that I did not respond to. Upon investigation, I discovered that Commonwealth did, indeed, send emails on those dates. After numerous email exchanges, [redacted] started using an obsolete email address. His 8/5 and 8/7 messages went to a spam box there. The 8/13 message was treated differently and was forwarded to me. I did receive that one (subsequent to filing this complaint), and didn't notice that it came from the obsolete account. It was a request to set up an appointment to adjust the controller.
I assumed that this complaint had prompted it as the first response since July 30. I did immediately respond, asking how to arrange an appointment. Since I had previously stated a position on further charges, I assumed his reply was a confirmation that there would be no further charges until the system is working properly. I later received Commonwealth's official response, stating an intention to charge additional labor fees.
3. Service ticket and service fee.
This issue is based on false information provided by Commonwealth's technician, which their response does not address. My agreeing to temporarily change the settings was based on the technician's claim that it was the only way to stop the system from extreme water usage. Commonwealth currently says that adjustments are required for proper functioning. The premise of the technician's claim was false. Obviously, I would not tell the technician to disable the smart feature when it could be adjusted to work properly and that's what Commonwealth was called to do. Commonwealth should have made the proper adjustments at that time.
The technician entered the $26 charge on the form before I pointed out that the call was to correct the initial installation and work done the previous week. He told me that he had been unaware of that and was required to record his time and the charge. However, because of the nature of the call, the billed amount would be
determined back at the office and the actual invoice, if there would be one, would be sent from there (false). He assured me that based on the company's policies, there would not be one (false).
I signed the form to acknowledge that he was there and relied on his assurances regarding the charges. So yes, my signature is on a form listing a $26 charge to bypass the smart functions of the controller. To charge for doing the wrong fix to an incomplete installation is a questionable business practice. Commonwealth insists they are due the money because someone showed up, and now they want to charge me yet again to undo it.
4. Commonwealth's proposed resolution
Commonwealth will reprogram the controller
At the initial installation and spring activation, the smart controller had all settings configured to their "normal" values for our property. From that baseline, there is some tweaking that can be done for things like degree of shade. Lack of that fine tuning is unlikely to account for 100% additional water usage. Therefore, I am skeptical that adjustments can correct the extreme performance problem.
I am willing to let Commonwealth adjust settings or do whatever they think is needed to correct the problem. However, adjusting settings is not my objective. It will not be a satisfactory resolution to have a technician show up and change some settings if that does not fix the extreme water usage. The goal is to make a smart controller work as advertised. The solution might be to replace the controller because it is defective. It might be to fix some bad settings. It might be that smart controllers do not necessarily save water and nothing will make one use less water than the original.
I paid for a smart controller that uses less water. So far, Commonwealth has not delivered that. I want them to do whatever is necessary to complete that delivery. As a matter of compromise, I am willing to accept a smart controller that achieves no water savings but does not use more water.
Commonwealth will charge additional fees to make the controller work properly
I have already paid for installation and set up of a controller that performs reasonably consistent with the claims. So far, Commonwealth has not been able to make the current controller work properly and has done the wrong fix by their own standards. I will not engage Commonwealth in some open-ended fee-for-service while they dabble and correct their own mistakes and run up serious water bills in the process. If Commonwealth is willing to make a good faith effort to remedy the problem in a timely way, I am willing to absorb the extra water costs in the interim. However, Commonwealth has already been paid in full, and I will not pay additional costs to make it work correctly.
Regards,
[redacted]

MESSAGE FROM BUSINESS: We installed an irrigation system for the [redacted]'s on March 23, 2015.  During that installation, we were asked to leave a portion of that system incomplete as they were having landscaping done.  On April 7, 2015, we responded to a service request that the landscape contractor damaged the system.  This visit was not warranty and was invoiced at $85.00. THE LANDSCAPER NICKED ONE SPRINKLER LINE BECAUSE...CW DID NOT BURY THE SPRINKLER LINE AT LEAST 6'' AS THEY PROMISED. I HAVE MULTIPLE PHOTOS TO PROVE THE LINE WAS BURIED LESS THAN 2'' DEEP IN THIS AREA.  THE LANDSCAPER ALSO TRIED SEVERAL TIMES TO CALL CW AS HE WANTED TO EXPLAIN HOW SHALLOW THE LINE WAS BURIED. CW WAIVED THE BILL BECAUSE THEY HAD NO CHOICE, ONCE THEY SAW THE PIPE WAS BARELY BURIED IN THE GROUND. AS USUAL, THEY NEVER RETURNED ANY CALLS! THIS IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT TO THIS DISPUTE ANYWAY. We received a phone call complaint and were asked to waive the invoice.  After a discussion, we did...that invoice was waived.  On 7/2/15 we were responded to a service request for a "broken line the homeowner damaged".  AGAIN, ANOTHER INACCURACY. WE "THE HOMEOWNERS" NEVER BROKE ANY LINE. WE HAD A PATIO INSTALLED, AND THE INSTALLER ADMITTEDLY BROKE THE LINE. AGAIN, IRRELEVANT TO THIS DISPUTE. We provided a repair service and invoiced accordingly.  The [redacted]'s did pay that bill.  We responded to another service request about "heads leaking @ hillside".  We responded and found that there was dirt in the valves and they were stuck. FIRST OF ALL, IT WAS ONE HEAD, AND ONE VALVE (READ YOUR INVOICE YOU COPIED ME ON). THE TECH THAT DID THE REPAIR SHOWED ME THE VALVE THAT SUPPOSEDLY HAD DIRT IN IT.  AFTER HE "FIXED" THE VALVE WE CONTINUED TO HAVE $600 WATER BILLS! AND THIS WAS AFTER WE ALREADY REDUCED THE TIME AND FREQUENCY OF WATERING. CLEARLY THAT VALVE WASN'T THE LEAK THAT CAUSED THE HIGH WATER BILLS. IT'S A STRETCH ON CW'S PART TO EVEN SUGGEST THAT VALVE (OR ANY VALVE FOR THAT MATTER ) HAD ANY RELATIONSHIP TO THE OTHER TWO REPAIRS. THE OTHER REPAIRS WERE FOR  TWO ACCIDENTAL BROKEN LINES. NOTHING TO DO WITH A VALVE. I WAS PRESENT BOTH TIMES WHEN THE WORKERS BROKE THE LINES. THEY WERE FIXED A FEW DAYS LATER. MOST IMPORTANTLY, OUR WATER WASNT EVEN TURNED ON FOR THE APRIL REPAIR AND THE JULY REPAIR, THE WATER WAS SHUT OFF TIL THE REPAIR WAS COMPLETED. FOR CW TO TIE THE REPAIRS IN WITH OUR HIGH WATER BILLS IS JUST DESPERATION TO MAKE A CASE ON THIER PART. This is what contributed to high water bills and is likely related to the two damage instances sited above.  This visit was invoiced and paid for by the homeowner.  On 10/16/15, we provided the contracted winterization (*shutting system down).IT'S ALSO WORTH NOTING THAT THE TECHNICIAN FROM ALL SEASONS IRRIGATION SAID THEY ARE CONSTANTLY HAVING TO DO REPAIRS/SERVICE CALLS ON CW'S IRRIGATION SYSTEMS. HE POINTED OUT SEVERAL THINGS ON OUR SYSTEM THAT WERE DONE INCORRECTLY ON YOUR INSTALL.WE HAVE SEVERAL AREAS ON OUR LAWN THAT ARE NOT GETTING WATER BECAUSE THE HEADS ARE NOT OVERLAPPING DURING WATERING. YET, WE JUST PAID YOU FOR A SPRING START UP WHERE YOU INDICATED ALL HEADS WERE CHECKED. CLEARLY, THIS WASN'T DONE, OR IT WAS DONE INCOMPETENTLY. On April 5th, 2016 we received a phone call from Mrs. [redacted].  In that phone call she stated she saw a contractor on her street and she waived him over to do a back flow test.  THIS STORY NEVER CAME OUT OF MY MOUTH! WE HIRED A LOCAL COMPANY, ALL SEASONS IRRIGATION FOR A SECOND OPINION (I HAVE THEIR BILL AND SERVICE DESCRIPTION TO PROVE IT) SO, SORRY I DIDN'T FLAG SOMEONE OFF THE STREET! I'M NOT SURE WHO'S WRITING THESE LIES IN THE CW OFFICE, BUT CLEARLY THEY HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT HAS TRANSPIRED OVER THE LAST YEAR WITH THE SHODDY SERVICE WE HAVE RECEIVED. The contractor would have neededto turn the system on to perform this service.  In doing so and connecting a pressure gauge, the contractor told Mrs. [redacted] she had a leak in her system and could not go any further as to not void her warranty (not sure how he knows what her warranty is). HE ASKED IF I'M STILL IN WARRANTY. A NATURAL QUESTION TO ASK, AS HE KNOWS THE SYSTEM IS NEW. Mrs. [redacted] spoke to Billy T[redacted] (our Irrigation Division Manager) on April 7th, 2016 about the up coming service visit.  During that conversation she was informed that we would need to turn the system on (start-up) and go through the system to determine if there was in fact a leak. THIS IS JUST A LIE. I TOLD BILLY THE SYSTEM WAS ALREADY TURNED ON. I NEVER TURNED IT OFF AFTER ALL SEASONS CHECKED FOR A LEAK. You can not look for a leak with out turning the system on.  I was not involved in that conversation, EXACTLY. YOU WERE NOT THERE, NOR HAVE YOU EVER BEEN PRESENT. THEREFORE, YOU CAN NOT ATTEST TO WHAT BILLY SAID TO ME. HE SAID, HE WON'T CHARGE ME FOR A SERVICE IF WE DON'T FIND A LEAK. HOWEVER, IF WE DO, WE WILL HAVE TO CHARGE FOR THE SERVICE REPAIR VISIT. TO YOUR WORDS, THERE WAS NO LEAK. AT NO TIME DID HE MENTION A SPRING START UP! but can only imagine what was discussed was agreed too as we went to the home on April 11, 2016.  The homeowner was given a service window of 8am-12noon, we arrived at 10:25am.  We proceeded to inspect the system and during our visit we could not find any indication of a leak.  OnApril 12th Mrs [redacted] called and asked if she could run her system, she was informed that she could. FINALLY, SOMETHING IS CORRECT. I SPOKE TO TRACY, SHE SAID NO LEAKS WERE FOUND AND IT WOULD BE SAFE TO START WATERING.  SHE LEAD ME TO BELIEVE THAT THEY ONLY CHECKED FOR LEAKS. SHE NEVER MENTIONED ANY OTHER SERVICES WERE PERFORMED. THEN ONE MONTH LATER, I RECEIVED A BILL FOR SPRING START UP SERVICE. We sent the [redacted]'s an invoice for this visit.  Just like other non-warranty leak visits in the past.  The warranty does not cover unlimited visits to the home.  WE HAD THREE REPAIRS, AND PAID FOR TWO OF THEM. THEREFORE, WE UNDERSTAND VISITS ARE NOT UNLIMITED. THE WARRANTY DOES HOWEVER, COVER INSTALL LEAKS. THIS IS WHY BILLY SAID NO CHARGE TO ONLY CHECK FOR A LEAK, A "WORKMANSHIP ISSUE". It covers items like manufacture defects and workmanship issues, in which this case neither existed.  We came out at her request based on feedback she got from another contractor that she waved to her home from the street.  It is clear Mrs. [redacted] did not want to pay for a Spring Start Up because she did not ask for that service.  While we did effectively perform one in order to provide the service a leak inspection and after learning there was not a leak, left her system on in order for it to be used. HONESTLY, DOES CW REALLY JUSTIFY CHARGING ME BECAUSE THEY LEFT A DIAL TO "ON". THAT I CAN DO AS WELL WITH A FLICK OF MY FINGER? IF THEY DID MORE TO OUR SYSTEM THAN CHECKING FOR A LEAK (ALTHOUGH I SEE NO EVIDENCE OF THIS) THEN THANKS, FOR SOMETHING I NEVER ASKED THEM TO DO. THAT HOWEVER, DOESN'T MEAN THEY NOW GET TO CHARGE ME FOR THIER MISTAKE. I understand that she feels this is not a correct charge.  The reality is, we billed this visit at a cheaper rate to save her money from what the service call should have cost.  The [redacted]'s should have been charged our standard service call fee and standard labor rates for this visit.  That would have been $100.00.  AGAIN, IRRELEVANT. BILLY SAID YOUR FEES ARE $70, NEVER HEARD OF $100 BEFORE. This would be consistent with previous non-warranty service visits we have provided.  If she feels being charged for a spring start up that she did not request, then we would need to provide her with a revised invoice for the remaining amount.  WOW! SO MUCH FOR STAYING AT BILLY'S WORD, WHICH WAS $70 SHOULD WE NEED ADDITIONAL SERVICE. CW CAN'T EVEN AGREE ON PRICING WITHIN THIER OWN OFFICE!We felt we were providing better service by just invoicing for a start up and leaving her system operational, as she confirmed it was on April 12th. The above service history is a complete list of all visits to the [redacted] property since the system was installed on March 23, 2015.  With one of those visits being waived, I am not sure I understand the "thieves" comment.  We had no "mistake" in this last service visit and therefore the visit is a chargeable service.  ANOTHER LIE...THE OWNER WASN'T PRIVY TO ANY OF THIS AS HE WAS ON VACATION. THERE IS A COMPLETE BREAKDOWN OF COMMUNICATION IN THIS BUSINESS. Just like the other visits we billed for, while the system is under warranty, for times that we had no "mistake".  The invoice for this service went out on April 19th, 2016. There was no contact from the customer to us after that invoice went out.  WRONG!! I IMMEDIATELY MAILED THE INVOICE BACK WITH TWO PARAGRAPHS OF EXPLANATIONS AS TO WHY I SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN CHARGED. IN FACT, I ASKED THAT BILLING CONFIRM THIS WITH BILLY. (I HAVE A COPY OF THIS).We mailed another invoice on May 19th, 2016, this also included late fees. IT REALLY TAKES SOME NERVE TO ADD LATE FEES, WHEN CW NEVER ADDRESSED MY FIRST INVOICE RESPONSE. If there was a concern about the invoice I wish Mrs. [redacted] would only had called after receiving the first bill and she not have waited 37 days to raise any concern, as this matter could have been resolved much more quickly. RESOLVED IN WHAT WAY, I ASK?? "I WISH CW WOULD OF CALLED ME AFTER READING MY EXPLANATION AS TO WHY I DON'T OWE $70". INSTEAD, I NEVER HEARD A WORD FROM CW. ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THIER TERRIBLE CUSTOMER SERVICE. Mrs. [redacted] emailed the owner on May 26th.  The owner was on vacation during through from 5/25 through Memorial Day weekend returning on 6/7.  During that time Mrs. [redacted] sent 3 other emails to the owner, in the owners absence, his emails are pulled to see what may need to be handled.  THEN WHY DIDN'T SOMEONE REACH OUT TO ME SOONER? INSTEAD, I WAITED 7 DAYS. They were first pulled on 5/31, given the holiday weekend.  On June 2nd, she was contacted by Billy T[redacted].  She did not return his phone call, only decided to send another email to the owner...this stated....I DIDNTRETURN BILLY'S CALL FOR TWO REASONS...HE WAITED 8 DAYS TO CALL ME BACK AFTER I LEFT A MESSAGE WITH TRACY TO HAVE HIM CALL ME. THIS IS WHEN I DECIDED TO EMAIL THE OWNER, BECAUSE BILLY DIDN'T RESPOND. AT THAT POINT I WAS COMMUNICATING WITH THE OWNER. I'M NOT GOING TO HAVE A THREE PERSON CONVERSATION THAT JUST GOES IN CIRCLES.   Billy left me a message regarding our bill for $70. He said we weren't charged for checking for a possible leak. We were charged for a spring start up. As I stated before, we DID NOT ask for a start up service. He seemed to think we had discussed doing this service. We did not! Our conversation was about a potential leak. I never told Billy to do a spring start up. My mind was on a leak, not starting up the system. That certainly wasn't my priority at that time. This really is beyond ridulous! First, I haven't heard a word from you, the owner. I'm assuming you pushed this back to Billy to deal with and that's why he finally called me back. Any buisness owner that can't reply directly to a customer when the customer specifically contacted the owner, is frankly, just terrible buisness practice on your part!I'm not hurting for $70. It's the principal of the matter. You don't charge customers for a service they never asked for!I'll pay you your $70, and not a penny more! No way will I pay any late fees. I've been trying for over a month to get a response from your staff regarding this bill. So please inform your staff to not send me another bill for any additional charges. I am also discontinuing service with your company at our other home in [redacted]...I'm going to file this complaint with the Revdex.com, and All Internet Irrigation websites in our area. I will express my negative reviews about your company. Your terrible buisness practice, falsly charging customers, and the overall incompetent customer service, etc. I will also make it known to all I come in contact with through my design buisness to stay away from your company! I sure hope this was worth $70 to you![redacted]  While we would have never sent her $70 to collections, we will follow through with any defamation concerns. THIS IS NOTHING SHORT OF A JUVENILE SCARE TACTIC. ONE CAN HARDLY THREATEN DEFAMATION WHEN DEALING WITH A COMPANY THAT HAS ALREADY DEFAMED THEMSELVES AND OTHERS BY PROVIDING SHODDY, DISHONEST WORK, WITH TERRIBLE COMMUNICATIONS AND INCOMPETENT CUSTOMER SERVICE! The last email from Mrs. [redacted] on June 2nd was... Mr. C[redacted],There is nothing further to discuss with you or your staff, unless it's to inform me that I have a zero balance. Billy and I never agreed at any time that a start up service would be done the SAME day as checking for a leak. He was suppose to check the main line for a leak. That's it. It's that simple. Therefore, there is no reason to discuss this further with your staff.   We informed her earlier what the charge was for.  We were not waiving the fee and after this email, did not contact the customer per the customer request.  On June 7th a $70.00 check arrived for this service, short the late fees.LET'S BE CLEAR...CW DIDN'T CONTACT ME BECAUSE I LEFT MY LAST EMAIL OPEN-ENDED. STATING, IF THE $70 IS NOT WAIVED, THEN NO FURTHER COMMUNICATION IS NECESSARY. MEANING, I WOULD TAKE THIS TO A HIGHER LEVEL. THE Revdex.com, AS I STATED EARLIER IN MY EMAIL. I REALLY COULD CARE LESS ABOUT THE $70. THIS IS ABOUT THE LACK OF INTEGRITY WITHIN YOUR COMPANY AND A CRAP SYSTEM THAT WAS INSTALLED! I'M STILL IN WARRANTY,  AND SHOULDN'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH THIS. BOTTOM LINE! MY NEIGHBORS IRRIGATION SYSTEM WORKS BEAUTIFULLY AND WE HAD OURS INSTALLED AT THE SAME TIME. WE ALSO WATER MORE THAN THEY DO. I HAVE BETTER THINGS TO DO WITH MY TIME THAN TO ARGUE WITH YOUR COMPANY. WE PAID A LOT OF MONEY FOR THIS SYSTEM AND YOU SHOULD BE A COMPANY THAT'S REPUTABLE ENOUGH TO MAKE SURE THIS SYSTEM IS WATERING OUR LAWN CORRECTLY. NOT NICKLE AND DIME US AT EVERY TURN![redacted]

We installed an irrigation system for the [redacted]'s on March 23, 2015.  During that installation, we were asked to leave a portion of that system incomplete as they were having landscaping done.  On April 7, 2015, we responded to a service request that the landscape contractor damaged the...

system.  This visit was not warranty and was invoiced at $85.00.  We received a phone call complaint and were asked to waive the invoice.  After a discussion, we did...that invoice was waived.  On 7/2/15 we were responded to a service request for a "broken line the homeowner damaged".  We provided a repair service and invoiced accordingly.  The [redacted]'s did pay that bill.  We responded to another service request about "heads leaking @ hillside".  We responded and found that there was dirt in the valves and they were stuck.  This is what contributed to high water bills and is likely related to the two damage instances sited above.  This visit was invoiced and paid for by the homeowner.  On 10/16/15, we provided the contracted winterization (*shutting system down).  On April 5th, 2016 we received a phone call from Mrs. [redacted].  In that phone call she stated she saw a contractor on her street and she waived him over to do a back flow test.  The contractor would have needed to turn the system on to perform this service.  In doing so and connecting a pressure gauge, the contractor told Mrs. [redacted] she had a leak in her system and could not go any further as to not void her warranty (not sure how he knows what her warranty is).  Mrs. [redacted] spoke to Billy T[redacted] (our Irrigation Division Manager) on April 7th, 2016 about the up coming service visit.  During that conversation she was informed that we would need to turn the system on (start-up) and go through the system to determine if there was in fact a leak.  You can not look for a leak with out turning the system on.  I was not involved in that conversation, but can only imagine what was discussed was agreed too as we went to the home on April 11, 2016.  The homeowner was given a service window of 8am-12noon, we arrived at 10:25am.  We proceeded to inspect the system and during our visit we could not find any indication of a leak.  On April 12th Mrs [redacted] called and asked if she could run her system, she was informed that she could. We sent the [redacted]'s an invoice for this visit.  Just like other non-warranty leak visits in the past.  The warranty does not cover unlimited visits to the home.  It covers items like manufacture defects and workmanship issues, in which this case neither existed.  We came out at her request based on feedback she got from another contractor that she waved to her home from the street.  It is clear Mrs. [redacted] did not want to pay for a Spring Start Up because she did not ask for that service.  While we did effectively perform one in order to provide the service a leak inspection and after learning there was not a leak, left her system on in order for it to be used. I understand that she feels this is not a correct charge.  The reality is, we billed this visit at a cheaper rate to save her money from what the service call should have cost.  The [redacted]'s should have been charged our standard service call fee and standard labor rates for this visit.  That would have been $100.00.  This would be consistent with previous non-warranty service visits we have provided.  If she feels being charged for a spring start up that she did not request, then we would need to provide her with a revised invoice for the remaining amount.  We felt we were providing better service by just invoicing for a start up and leaving her system operational, as she confirmed it was on April 12th. The above service history is a complete list of all visits to the [redacted] property since the system was installed on March 23, 2015.  With one of those visits being waived, I am not sure I understand the "thieves" comment.  We had no "mistake" in this last service visit and therefore the visit is a chargeable service.  Just like the other visits we billed for, while the system is under warranty, for times that we had no "mistake".  The invoice for this service went out on April 19th, 2016. There was no contact from the customer to us after that invoice went out.  We mailed another invoice on May 19th, 2016, this also included late fees. If there was a concern about the invoice I wish Mrs. [redacted] would only had called after receiving the first bill and she not have waited 37 days to raise any concern, as this matter could have been resolved much more quickly. Mrs. [redacted] emailed the owner on May 26th.  The owner was on vacation during through from 5/25 through Memorial Day weekend returning on 6/7.  During that time Mrs. [redacted] sent 3 other emails to the owner, in the owners absence, his emails are pulled to see what may need to be handled.  They were first pulled on 5/31, given the holiday weekend.  On June 2nd, she was contacted by Billy T[redacted].  She did not return his phone call, only decided to send another email to the owner...this stated.... Billy left me a message regarding our bill for $70. He said we weren't charged for checking for a possible leak. We were charged for a spring start up. As I stated before, we DID NOT ask for a start up service. He seemed to think we had discussed doing this service. We did not! Our conversation was about a potential leak. I never told Billy to do a spring start up. My mind was on a leak, not starting up the system. That certainly wasn't my priority at that time. This really is beyond ridulous! First, I haven't heard a word from you, the owner. I'm assuming you pushed this back to Billy to deal with and that's why he finally called me back. Any buisness owner that can't reply directly to a customer when the customer specifically contacted the owner, is frankly, just terrible buisness practice on your part!I'm not hurting for $70. It's the principal of the matter. You don't charge customers for a service they never asked for!I'll pay you your $70, and not a penny more! No way will I pay any late fees. I've been trying for over a month to get a response from your staff regarding this bill. So please inform your staff to not send me another bill for any additional charges. I am also discontinuing service with your company at our other home in Stafford, 63 Brush Everard Ct...I'm going to file this complaint with the Revdex.com, and All Internet Irrigation websites in our area. I will express my negative reviews about your company. Your terrible buisness practice, falsly charging customers, and the overall incompetent customer service, etc. I will also make it known to all I come in contact with through my design buisness to stay away from your company! I sure hope this was worth $70 to you!Brenda and Gordon [redacted]  While we would have never sent her $70 to collections, we will follow through with any defamation concerns. The last email from Mrs. [redacted] on June 2nd was...Mr. C[redacted],There is nothing further to discuss with you or your staff, unless it's to inform me that I have a zero balance. Billy and I never agreed at any time that a start up service would be done the SAME day as checking for a leak. He was suppose to check the main line for a leak. That's it. It's that simple. Therefore, there is no reason to discuss this further with your staff.  We informed her earlier what the charge was for.  We were not waiving the fee and after this email, did not contact the customer per the customer request.  On June 7th a $70.00 check arrived for this service, short the late fees. If, at any time, our staff was rude...I apologize for that.  We certainly do not need to come across in that manner.

Review: Commonwealth Irrigation (CW) installed our sprinkler system last summer. We called them twice to ask that they investigate for a possible leak(s), as our water bills were ridiculously high. Both times we were given bogus reasons for why it couldn't be a leak. They made this assumption before they even came out to test the system. Also keep in mind, we still have another year left on our warranty for such failures! We even had the water company involved and they suggested a leak due to their water activity documentation. We decided to get a second opinion from another irrigation company. It only took them a few minutes to determine there was in fact a leak. I contacted the CW manager since we are still in warranty, asking that they find the leak and repair it. We agreed that I wouldn't be charged for service if just checking for a leak. I stressed that I wanted to be present when they check our system. When I came home from work CW had placed their notice sign that they performed service. I immediately called their office and spoke to Tracy. She was very rude and unprofessional, as she has always been (I have since discovered that several complaints have been lodged against her). I complained that no one bothered to call me, as I requested. A few weeks later I received a bill for $70 for a spring turn on fee! I contacted the manager and owner via email, informing them of the inaccurate bill, I explained at NO time did I ask for a spring turn on service.Therefore, they can not bill me for a service I never requested. They were ONLY suppose to check for a leak at no charge per the manager. They claim they determined there wasn't leak. Even though I've been told otherwise. I decided to pay their bogus bill of $70, simply because I knew these thieves would turn this into collections! I knew from dealing with them that they have no credibility as a company. I even asked the owner to reverse the $70. He did not!Desired Settlement: Simple...They need to refund my $70 for a service I did not authorize them to perform. Nor can they prove they performed the service, since they never contacted me as I instructed. I also see no evidence that they did start up our system. Our system was already turned on from the company we hired in getting a second opinion. Furthermore, the service was to check for an install leak, this falls under my ongoing warranty contract. Either way, they should never charge a customer to come out to check for a install leak in the system (their mistake), especially under contract! They knew that they wouldn't make any money on this service call, so they billed me for something entirely different to recoup their loss! It's also worth noting, that I tried for weeks to get someone to call me back! That's what happens when a company has something to hide.

Business

Response:

We installed an irrigation system for the [redacted]'s on March 23, 2015. During that installation, we were asked to leave a portion of that system incomplete as they were having landscaping done. On April 7, 2015, we responded to a service request that the landscape contractor damaged the system. This visit was not warranty and was invoiced at $85.00. We received a phone call complaint and were asked to waive the invoice. After a discussion, we did...that invoice was waived. On 7/2/15 we were responded to a service request for a "broken line the homeowner damaged". We provided a repair service and invoiced accordingly. The [redacted]'s did pay that bill. We responded to another service request about "heads leaking @ hillside". We responded and found that there was dirt in the valves and they were stuck. This is what contributed to high water bills and is likely related to the two damage instances sited above. This visit was invoiced and paid for by the homeowner. On 10/16/15, we provided the contracted winterization (*shutting system down). On April 5th, 2016 we received a phone call from Mrs. [redacted]. In that phone call she stated she saw a contractor on her street and she waived him over to do a back flow test. The contractor would have needed to turn the system on to perform this service. In doing so and connecting a pressure gauge, the contractor told Mrs. [redacted] she had a leak in her system and could not go any further as to not void her warranty (not sure how he knows what her warranty is). Mrs. [redacted] spoke to Billy T[redacted] (our Irrigation Division Manager) on April 7th, 2016 about the up coming service visit. During that conversation she was informed that we would need to turn the system on (start-up) and go through the system to determine if there was in fact a leak. You can not look for a leak with out turning the system on. I was not involved in that conversation, but can only imagine what was discussed was agreed too as we went to the home on April 11, 2016. The homeowner was given a service window of 8am-12noon, we arrived at 10:25am. We proceeded to inspect the system and during our visit we could not find any indication of a leak. On April 12th Mrs [redacted] called and asked if she could run her system, she was informed that she could. We sent the [redacted]'s an invoice for this visit. Just like other non-warranty leak visits in the past. The warranty does not cover unlimited visits to the home. It covers items like manufacture defects and workmanship issues, in which this case neither existed. We came out at her request based on feedback she got from another contractor that she waved to her home from the street. It is clear Mrs. [redacted] did not want to pay for a Spring Start Up because she did not ask for that service. While we did effectively perform one in order to provide the service a leak inspection and after learning there was not a leak, left her system on in order for it to be used. I understand that she feels this is not a correct charge. The reality is, we billed this visit at a cheaper rate to save her money from what the service call should have cost. The [redacted]'s should have been charged our standard service call fee and standard labor rates for this visit. That would have been $100.00. This would be consistent with previous non-warranty service visits we have provided. If she feels being charged for a spring start up that she did not request, then we would need to provide her with a revised invoice for the remaining amount. We felt we were providing better service by just invoicing for a start up and leaving her system operational, as she confirmed it was on April 12th. The above service history is a complete list of all visits to the [redacted] property since the system was installed on March 23, 2015. With one of those visits being waived, I am not sure I understand the "thieves" comment. We had no "mistake" in this last service visit and therefore the visit is a chargeable service. Just like the other visits we billed for, while the system is under warranty, for times that we had no "mistake". The invoice for this service went out on April 19th, 2016. There was no contact from the customer to us after that invoice went out. We mailed another invoice on May 19th, 2016, this also included late fees. If there was a concern about the invoice I wish Mrs. [redacted] would only had called after receiving the first bill and she not have waited 37 days to raise any concern, as this matter could have been resolved much more quickly. Mrs. [redacted] emailed the owner on May 26th. The owner was on vacation during through from 5/25 through Memorial Day weekend returning on 6/7. During that time Mrs. [redacted] sent 3 other emails to the owner, in the owners absence, his emails are pulled to see what may need to be handled. They were first pulled on 5/31, given the holiday weekend. On June 2nd, she was contacted by Billy T[redacted]. She did not return his phone call, only decided to send another email to the owner...this stated.... Billy left me a message regarding our bill for $70. He said we weren't charged for checking for a possible leak. We were charged for a spring start up. As I stated before, we DID NOT ask for a start up service. He seemed to think we had discussed doing this service. We did not! Our conversation was about a potential leak. I never told Billy to do a spring start up. My mind was on a leak, not starting up the system. That certainly wasn't my priority at that time.

Review: We paid to have our sprinklers turned on and put on timers. Some of the sprinklers were never turned on and they were not set on timers. I called twice asking for this to get fixed and it never has been. I called back asking for a refund and the girl who answers said her boss said no and that was it. I paid 40 dollars for nothing and have to pay a new company to come out and turn the sprinklers on.Desired Settlement: I want a 40 dollar refund to pay a new company for the turn on and timers

Business

Response:

At the Customers request we were on the property on 4/28/15 to perform a spring start up to the irrigation system. We were on site from 11:28am to 12:00 noon. The customer was home during the service stop. Our service ticket shows a complete service performed, controller set to water at 5:30am on Monday, Wednesday and Friday. it was signed by the customer on site as service complete and the customer paid our service technician at the completion. The amount paid was $70.00 not $40.00 as the customer stated. The customer called to ask for a follow up appointment expressing concerns about her controller function. We set that follow up appointment with her. The morning before her appointment she called to ask when we would be on site. She was informed that the routes were in process of being routed and we would be able to give her a time later in the day for her appointment. She became rude, insulting and threatening. Making comments like, "I am a lawyer I am going to sue you guys", "you do not know how to run a business." From that conversation we made a decision to remove her appointment from our schedule.Please note, we did not install this system, it is not protected by any warranty from our company. This was our first and will be our last visit to this property. But, because we are a good company servicing our customers and community, our service tech noted that the irrigation system is not to County required code and there was not a required permit pulled for the original installation. We will not be providing a refund for the $70.00, not $40.00, service and we will not be providing any future service to this customer.

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.

This response is not accurate at all. The sprinklers were supposed to be set to 530 am - Mon Wed And Fri but were not. The sprinkler system is in great working order but the tech did not turn on all sprinklers and they go off everyday at different times- not 530 am mon wed fri. I called the office to have the tech come back out and fix the issue that he created- I was told by the rude woman who always answer the phone we don't know what time he will be there? I asked her to have he manager call me and she said- okay- I never got a call back. The next day I called back and the same rude receptionist (check your reviews I am not the only customer at all that feels this way) said yes I talked to my boss and she said she is not calling you or giving you a refund. How is this okay when you run a business, I paid you 70 (thank you for the correction) and you did not perform your job. The sprinkler is not broken and it is within county code. I have since had another business here who set the timers and turned on the entire system and it works great. I want a refund since I did not get the service and had to pay another company to do the correct job.

Regards,

Review: I asked [redacted], the owner of Commonwealth Irrigation, if he was aware of a way to reduce the high water bills associated with an irrigation system. He described a water conservation program offered by the county that applies a lower utility rate in exchange for replacing the existing irrigation controller with a "[redacted] that reduces water usage. He said that the [redacted] manufacturers claim up to a 50% reduction in water usage but his real life experience was more in the range of a 10% to 14% reduction.

The cost of the system was $520 to replace the controller and hookup, plus $500 to the county for a second water meter. The combination of lower water usage and a lower utility rate were expected to cover the costs in 5 to 7 years, after which we would be able to actually save some money. The existence of the county's program is justified by the expectation that a [redacted] will reduce usage of potable public water. To remain on the program, the smart features of the controller cannot be disabled. Doing so disqualifies it and the cost to revert the system back is on the owner.

I had the work done and the system was activated in June. The original controller ran for 2 1/2 hours, using 900 gallons of water per irrigation day. The new controller watered 5 1/2 hours, using 100% additional water. After investing over $1000, it doubled my water bill. Commonwealth Irrigation sent a technician to investigate. The technician said that the only way to reduce the water usage back to what it was previously was to disable the smart feature of the controller, which he did. He advised me that there would not be a service charge. About a month later, I received an invoice from Commonwealth for the service charge plus a late fee.

I contacted [redacted] to complain about both the performance of the system and the service charge. Commonwealth could not explain how the baseline rate for normal water requirements is 100% more than the standard at which regular controllers are set when the purpose of a [redacted] is to save water. They advised that it was important for the system to be fine-tuned to realize the most savings. The maximum adjustment on the smart feature is a 50% reduction for special conditions like high shade. So if, instead of optimizing the settings, everything is simply set to the limits of reduction, the best possible case would be to reduce the excessive water usage back to the performance of the old controller. Further, if the excessive watering is not uniform across all of the irrigation zones, the approach of blindly cutting all water in half could end up damaging the property.

Commonwealth offered to send out another technician to adjust the settings. I clarified my position that Commonwealth had not yet delivered a properly working system. Since the price included setup and making it function properly, I expected no additional charges to get the system performing reasonably in the range we were led to expect. Commonwealth did not reply or acknowledge my follow-up. They have done nothing to remedy the problem.

On this automated complaint form, the closest selectable "nature of the complaint" was a defective product. In reality, there is no way for me to know whether the controller is defective, or it was not set up correctly by Commonwealth, or the claims about expected savings were totally without foundation and I (and the county), were sold a bill of goods.Desired Settlement: The resolution depends on the underlying problem. A determination needs to be made whether the smart controller is defective. If so, it needs to be replaced and properly set up. If it is not defective, it needs to be determined whether there were any improper settings that would explain the extreme excessive water usage. If so, these need to be corrected. If the controller is not defective and there were no improper settings, it needs to be determined whether the controller can be properly fine tuned. As a practical matter at this point, I would probably have to be satisfied with water usage that does not exceed that of the prior controller, even if that means no reduction in usage. If the controller cannot be set to not exceed the old water usage with the smart feature enabled, Commonwealth and/or the controller manufacturer should be responsible for refunding all original costs and any costs to revert the system. The controller portion of reverting the system can include either leaving the new controller in place with the smart feature disabled or reinstalling the original controller and setting it up again.

The process of setting up and fine tuning the smart controller is likely to entail a repeat of the excessive water charges until it is verified to either be working properly or not capable of operating properly. It could require multiple service visits. My expectation would be that Commonwealth would provide the needed service promptly to minimize the excessive water charges and at their expense. However, we would be responsible for the county water charges.

Business

Response:

[redacted],

I am writing regarding ID [redacted] complaint from [redacted].

First let me say that [redacted] comment to suggest that he and the County were sold "a bill of goods" is very much misguided, as we were not involved in any way with the formation of the [redacted]. Like [redacted], we are following the rules set out by the program and its developers. It is unfounded comments like this and others that move this conversation no where.

The manufacturers of these controllers suggest a 50% reduction rate in water usage; we try to set a more realistic expectation of saving between 10-14%. This is what we have seen with systems after they have been in use for some time.

On 6/6/14, we started the irrigation system for the customer and programmed his new [redacted]. On 6/23/14, a mere seven days later, we responded to the customers' house from a service request he made 6/18/14 at 12:41pm (only 2 days after controller was in use). The customer called to suggest he was using double the amount of water, but could not have had any billing information from the County for this short period to quantify claim. The service ticket for this visit states "Customer Description: Set box to 5am", "Technician Findings: Ran through system with H/O, wanted to change smart system to bypass". This is signed by the customer. As he stated, he was not charged our $70 service fee, but was billed $26.00 for the time the technician was on site.

The [redacted] are weather based systems. During the 7 day period the system was in "Smart Use" (6/14-6/23), the average temperature was 87 degrees (with 3 days at or above 90 degrees) and the average rainfall was 0.07", with most days at 0.00 and the highest rainfall day being 0.34". Given this data and how the controller functions, it would make sense that the [redacted] would calculate the needed "Evapotransporation Rate" and put the needed water back out. On 6/17 temperature was 94 degrees and on 6/18 it was 95 degrees with both days having 0.00 rainfall. These are the two days the customer had usage of before his call to our office requesting service that we provided on 6/23/14.

For the customer to give his new controller the reality of 2 days of use and have that be the measure of success is at best premature. The results that we provide for customers are a year or more of usage data to suggest the 10-14% reductions. The 5-7 year ROI number provided by the County coincides with our findings.

Furthermore, we did not install this irrigation system and to date, this controller upgrade withstanding, have only completed 1 spring start up, 2 back flow tests and 1 winterization. There may be other issues with the system that could contribute to inefficiencies, if this 2 day window of use is the measure of the systems performance; which I believe it should not.

If the customer would have responded to our emails from 8/8, 8/7, and 8/13, in the time it took to write this letter, the controller could have been reset for the customer.

If the customer would like his controller but back in Smart mode and reprogrammed, I am willing to do that. We will waive the service call fee as we did previous and invoice for the labor time while on site. At programming appointment we will collect this amount and the amount due from the previous visit. If the customer would like this to occur he can contact our office to schedule his appointment.

Sincerely,

Commonwealth Irrigation and Landscape

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the offer 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.

I have read the response from Commonwealth and disagree with its premises. I do not consider the matter resolved. The key points are summarized below, followed by an addendum that addresses this matter in greater detail.

There are three fundamental points:

1. Commonwealth induced us to purchase a smart irrigation controller with claims of expected water savings.

2. We paid for, and Commonwealth installed, a system that doubled our water usage instead of saving any water.

3. Commonwealth asserts that this performance is normal and consistent with its savings claims. It refuses to deliver a system that performs remotely consistent with what was advertised.

Commonwealth offers to let us pay them additional money to come back and make adjustments that were supposed to be part of the initial installation. No assurance is offered that this will solve the problem, which seems unlikely.

I expect Commonwealth, at its expense, to deliver a system that performs in a manner reasonably consistent with the sales claims. As an alternative, I would be satisfied with a refund and reimbursement of all costs associated with committing to a system based on a smart controller and the claims associated with it, and reversion of the system to its original configuration.

Addendum re: complaint ID [redacted]; addressing the key points in Commonwealth's response.

1. Water Usase vs. Advertised Claims

The basic question is whether the system is performing as advertised. The main point of Commonwealth's response seems to be that the system was not run long enough to know anything about its performance. Rather than get into a lengthy discussion about the claims, I'll focus on that point.

Smart controllers are "weather based systems"

Commonwealth characterizes normal performance as almost random on a day to day basis. Their answer describes the system responding to daily temperature, rainfall, evaporation, etc. This is a complete misrepresentation. The opposite is true.

A smart controller is set to average requirements based on a more precise description of the property and makes some seasonal adjustments based on average historical weather patterns. It has no sensors to know day-to-day conditions. Once the smart controller is configured for the characteristics of the property, day to day performance is almost identical over periods on the order of weeks. It is somewhat disingenuous to knowingly obfuscate the facts in this manner while claiming that it is unfounded to suggest that Commonwealth has been less than forthright.

Seasonal savings

Irrigation requirements are less in May, September, and October and more in July and August. The requirements in July and August are higher but cannot be extremely higher because the average water that a standard controller provides is adequate to keep lawns and plants healthy. Double the water of a standard controller should not be needed, even in July or August. That, alone, indicates that something is not right with our controller.

However, July and August requirements will be some amount higher than the requirements in June. Thus, our controller would use more water relative to the old one in July and August than it did in June, and it was already double in June.

In the response, Commonwealth qualified their savings claim with, "after they have been in use for some time". The amount of savings does vary across the irrigation season so it is true that the net savings represents savings in some months and perhaps slightly higher usage in other months, as described above.

However, there is some basic arithmetic. If during June, July, and August you use more than 100% additional water, you have already matched the standard controller's usage for the entire season. Even with zero water the other months, the best you can average is to break even with no savings. If some amount of water is also used in May, September, and October, the net must, predictably, be an increase in water usage, not savings. That is inconsistent with the claims; it would never be possible to average 50%, or 14%, or even 10% savings across the season, That is why either our system is not working properly or the savings claims are false.

Adequacy of usage information

Commonwealth questions whether we have adequate information to know that water usage doubled. The facts cited are incorrect. I contacted Commonwealth after the second day of identical irrigation activity. I did this based on irrigation still occurring 5 1/2 hours after it started when the standard controller ran for only 2 1/2 hours. We received the water bill later, and those two irrigation days were the only days covered in that billing period. The standard controller used 900 gallons per irrigation day. The billed usage for those two days was 3,500 gallons, which confirms the visible evidence of double the irrigation time.

Other potential causes

Commonwealth made a point about not having investigated potential problems other than the controller. The only thing that changed is the controller. If there was any pre-existing problem, the standard controller would also have used excessive water. The increased water usage is perfectly accounted for by the time period over which the system is activated--5 1/2 hours vs. 2 1/2 hours-- and that is governed entirely by the controller.

Bottom line

We invested over $1,000 to reduce our water bill. Running the system in a node that uses double the water would result in much higher water bills than we already have. It is unrealistic to expect us to incur those additional significant costs just to demonstrate that the usage pattern does not improve. After burning your hand on a hot stove twice, you don't keep doing it to see if it will average out cold. Even if we were to incur the cost to "definitively demonstrate" the extreme water usage, Commonwealth has made no commitments as to what they would do at that later point in terms of resolving the issue.

2. Responding to Commonwealth emails.

I received a message from [redacted] on July 30 asking if I wanted Commonwealth to look at the controller. I replied the same day that Commonwealth had never answered the question about the previous service fee and had not yet provided a system that performed as advertised. I stated that I did want Commonwealth to

complete the job and that I did not expect additional charges for doing so. The email discussions suddenly stopped. I sent a follow-up message on 8/5 and received no response to that, either. I filed this complaint approximately 10 days after the final communication I had received.

Commonwealth's letter of 8/14 mentions three email messages that I did not respond to. Upon investigation, I discovered that Commonwealth did, indeed, send emails on those dates. After numerous email exchanges, [redacted] started using an obsolete email address. His 8/5 and 8/7 messages went to a spam box there. The 8/13 message was treated differently and was forwarded to me. I did receive that one (subsequent to filing this complaint), and didn't notice that it came from the obsolete account. It was a request to set up an appointment to adjust the controller.

I assumed that this complaint had prompted it as the first response since July 30. I did immediately respond, asking how to arrange an appointment. Since I had previously stated a position on further charges, I assumed his reply was a confirmation that there would be no further charges until the system is working properly. I later received Commonwealth's official response, stating an intention to charge additional labor fees.

3. Service ticket and service fee.

This issue is based on false information provided by Commonwealth's technician, which their response does not address. My agreeing to temporarily change the settings was based on the technician's claim that it was the only way to stop the system from extreme water usage. Commonwealth currently says that adjustments are required for proper functioning. The premise of the technician's claim was false. Obviously, I would not tell the technician to disable the smart feature when it could be adjusted to work properly and that's what Commonwealth was called to do. Commonwealth should have made the proper adjustments at that time.

The technician entered the $26 charge on the form before I pointed out that the call was to correct the initial installation and work done the previous week. He told me that he had been unaware of that and was required to record his time and the charge. However, because of the nature of the call, the billed amount would be

determined back at the office and the actual invoice, if there would be one, would be sent from there (false). He assured me that based on the company's policies, there would not be one (false).

I signed the form to acknowledge that he was there and relied on his assurances regarding the charges. So yes, my signature is on a form listing a $26 charge to bypass the smart functions of the controller. To charge for doing the wrong fix to an incomplete installation is a questionable business practice. Commonwealth insists they are due the money because someone showed up, and now they want to charge me yet again to undo it.

4. Commonwealth's proposed resolution

Commonwealth will reprogram the controller

At the initial installation and spring activation, the smart controller had all settings configured to their "normal" values for our property. From that baseline, there is some tweaking that can be done for things like degree of shade. Lack of that fine tuning is unlikely to account for 100% additional water usage. Therefore, I am skeptical that adjustments can correct the extreme performance problem.

I am willing to let Commonwealth adjust settings or do whatever they think is needed to correct the problem. However, adjusting settings is not my objective. It will not be a satisfactory resolution to have a technician show up and change some settings if that does not fix the extreme water usage. The goal is to make a smart controller work as advertised. The solution might be to replace the controller because it is defective. It might be to fix some bad settings. It might be that smart controllers do not necessarily save water and nothing will make one use less water than the original.

I paid for a smart controller that uses less water. So far, Commonwealth has not delivered that. I want them to do whatever is necessary to complete that delivery. As a matter of compromise, I am willing to accept a smart controller that achieves no water savings but does not use more water.

Commonwealth will charge additional fees to make the controller work properly

I have already paid for installation and set up of a controller that performs reasonably consistent with the claims. So far, Commonwealth has not been able to make the current controller work properly and has done the wrong fix by their own standards. I will not engage Commonwealth in some open-ended fee-for-service while they dabble and correct their own mistakes and run up serious water bills in the process. If Commonwealth is willing to make a good faith effort to remedy the problem in a timely way, I am willing to absorb the extra water costs in the interim. However, Commonwealth has already been paid in full, and I will not pay additional costs to make it work correctly.

Regards,