Sign in

Crossover AVS

Sharing is caring! Have something to share about Crossover AVS? Use RevDex to write a review
Reviews Crossover AVS

Crossover AVS Reviews (2)

Review: In mid November 2013 The [redacted] ([redacted]) moved its office from [redacted], Va. to [redacted]’s [redacted], Va. ([redacted], Va. [redacted]). We contracted with Crossover AVS ([redacted]) to install A/V equipment and the required low-voltage cable for LAN and telephone connectivity. Crossover AVS completed the work over a two-day period and charged [redacted] $1275.00 for the installation of the 18 low-voltage lines required. [redacted] paid Crossover for their work.

Subsequent to the installation, we were informed by the prime contractor and building manager that the cable installation would not pass county inspection and in fact was a health hazard in the case of a fire. The County Code required [redacted] cable to be installed. Additionally, the cables were laid directly on the ceiling tile and not tied up to the actual ceiling as required.

After being informed of this I contacted Crossover and asked them to remove the cable, which they did. I subsequently requested a refund for the work, as the work was not performed up to County standards and I needed to contract with another vendor to redo the work performed by Crossover. **. [redacted] first made the claim that it was my responsible to inform him of the need to meet County Codes, which, in my view, is incorrect, as I contracted with him to provide the required expertise. After I pressed my demand, **. [redacted] made the claim that Contractor doing the other build-out work told him it was not necessary to install the [redacted] cable, which completely contradicts what the Contractor and Building Manager told me. **. [redacted] has refused to remit the funds [redacted] paid him for the faulty work.

[redacted] is pursuing complete remittance from Crossover AVS for the faulty installation of the low-voltage cable.Desired Settlement: Give us a refund of $1,275 since Crossover has not delivered the service we've paid for. We've hired another contractor to remove the wrong cables and redo the work.

Business

Response:

Dear [redacted] Home,Thank you for notifying us of this matter (ID [redacted]). Unfortunately, the details of our interaction with the complainant were not as was described.We initially met with the client's representative and the general contractor during their construction.The representative indicated where he needed data and phone lines run and terminated. After asking the cable provider how much would charge to run each wire, and he quoted $125 per run, they asked us for an immediate quote, and we asked if they were required to have [redacted] rated cable. They indicated that they aid net, so we quoted them our standard $85 per run. [redacted] rated cable is often used in commercial construction, but is not always required. A licensed general contractor specializing in commerciai work such as this installation would know if their permit required [redacted] rated cabling.We began work that day to install the cabling and were paid for the work performed. During the work, the client added several changes, which we were happy to cater to. They added TV installation, speakers and other equipment not on the original estimate. We worked an extra day and a half and added a third technician to get the work done on time,Three weeks later, we received an email stating that the cabling was not installed to code. Speaking with the contracror and client on the phone, he explained that the wire in fact was required to be [redacted] rated in order to fulfill their permit requirements. Looking over the [redacted] County building permit #[redacted], the inspection failed because of "All lights not supported to the building structure as required by the plans." There is also a recommendation in another passing part of the electrical permit indicating the low voltage wiring as follows: "ceiling concealment, no low voltage- spec suite." We did not receive specific instructions from the contractor or inspector as to this recommendation. There is no indication in the permit, plans or inspection that the work that we performed was the cause of the failure.We offered to tack up the wires to the supports in the ceiling as requested, and even offered to replace the lines with [redacted] rated cabling for only the difference in cost of the wire. The [redacted] rated cable is $150 per run, significantly more than the $85 per run for standard cabling. The client instead requested that we remove all of our wires. We came by the following week and removed all of our cabling. He then began to demand a refund for the cabling done. We refused on the basis that we had performed the work and utilized the cable (which cannot be reused due to being specifically sized for the job) based on the information given to us at the time of installation. It was the client's and general contractor's responsibility to inform of us of the need for [redacted] rated cable, and the responsibility of the general contractor that pulled the permit to be in compliance.

Consumer

Response:

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

Review: [redacted]

Dear [redacted],

Review: We initially hired [redacted] to install TV, internet and phones to the house we were moving into. A year later, we still do not have wireless access in our master bedroom, and the only wireless that works reliably is the cheap [redacted] router that came with our service. They blew a speaker because they swapped the wires for the surround sound and the sub-woofer. The speakers still buzz and have horrible sound quality because they were installed next to wires.Multiple failures in communication resulted in hours of lost time from work, including multiple missed appointments and the wrong work being done by the people he sent to do the work. He is now attempting to recover the labor costs of the people he hires by double billing us and now has threatened to re-charge us for an invoice already paid and send us to collections.He says that I told him to sound all the wires and hook up the ones I specified, but admits that I never told him which wires to hook up (therefore it is not possible that I told him to do this work). We were so displeased, that we vowed never to have him do any work for us again. However, when I discovered he never did the job we paid him to do previously, I called him to complete the job. I was exceedingly clear that this was to finish a previous job we had already paid him to do. He ignored this and charged us again. Last Friday he came to our house uninvited and unannounced, where he threatened to charge us $11,000 more for an invoice for which we already have a paid in full receipt.We are so incensed by this experience and underhanded way to try to recover his costs from poor business management that we will be suing to recover the money that we paid him in order to have the job finished correctly.Desired Settlement: That he apply the labor costs from the work that I did not authorize him to do toward our current invoice of $837.43, which renders our account paid in full.

Business

Response:

See attachment or check attachment tab.

Consumer

Response:

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

Review: [redacted]

Please remove our home address from any information posted publicly.

I am rejecting this response because:

The fact that the architecture was more challenging than initially estimated, does not explain working on our project for a year and never altering their approach and suggesting an alternate solution to our wireless. The ongoing problem exacerbating our interaction with Crossover AVS is [redacted] in particular repeatedly not taking ownership of this project and passing off responsibility with repeated communication failures.

Our stone wall was not installed for many months after Crossover continued to fail at providing adequate internet coverage. Their assertion that [redacted] was the cause of their failure to adequately provide the wireless system we paid them to do is completely false, and another example of how they refuse to listen to us. At last check, they came over and insisted that the internet wireless was working fine, in oppositional defiance to us explaining multiple times that the signal they are getting that is "just fine" is the [redacted] standard router and not their router we have paid them to install.

They cheated around this issue by creating a wireless signal from both the [redacted] and their industrial grade router with the same name and login. Therefor it isn't obvious when their router drops repeatedly because the [redacted] router eventually picks up. They therefor insist that this means the wireless system they installed is working "fine" without proving this by turning off the [redacted] router to test their repeated assertion.

I asked them to remediate the buzzing of the speaker, which they declined to address. It is not true that we declined an electrician coming out to fix the problem. In fact, [redacted]'s response was "You can't do anything about the wires. There are wires all over this house. How are we supposed to know there were wires there?" We explained that this would have been obvious as it is a knee wall with outlets in it. We also pointed out that this could not have gone unnoticed after they cut a hole in the wall to install the speaker and put the speaker an inch away from the wires without addressing the issue. I have had him come out to look at the buzzing multiple times and each time he begins by insisting the buzzing isn't a problem and the speakers are working fine. After I persist, he will acknowledge that there is a problem with buzzing, but as is his standard, he passively refuses to engage on this issue an offer any solution. He just deflects responsibility once again.

In this response, they defend $900 of labor that I did not authorize them to do by saying they "made their best guess" to install wires; they did not know where I wanted them because I did not authorize them to do this. They then charged me to complete the job as I had originally authorized. The egregiousness of this final insult is what has pushed us to go to the Revdex.com and other venues.

We will not accept any response until Crossover AVS renders our account paid in full and withdraws their threat to go back and re-charge us $11,000 for labor for the invoices they attached here.

Regards,

Check fields!

Write a review of Crossover AVS

Satisfaction rating
 
 
 
 
 
Upload here Increase visibility and credibility of your review by
adding a photo
Submit your review

Crossover AVS Rating

Overall satisfaction rating

Description: Audio-Visual Equipment - Service & Repair

Address: 8196 Terminal Rd, Lorton, Virginia, United States, 22079


Add contact information for Crossover AVS

Add new contacts
A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | New | Updated