D.E.A Bathroom Machineries

I am rejecting this response because: 
Although there are several points that the employee at
DEA Bathroom Machineries bring up that I agree with, I still disagree on
several points.
I agree that the part cost $135 – in my original
complaint, I state that the cost was $155 for the part and shipping. I do not
expect them to pay for the shipping costs. I also agree that the employee did
agree to an additional partial refund after a long discussion. I did not,
however, agree that I would not proceed any further due to an additional $27.50
being refunded to my credit card. I felt this was better than nothing, since it
was clear the business was not willing to refund what I felt was a more reasonable
amount for the part.
There are several parts of the rebuttal that I
disagree with in their statement. The employee states “Normally, we contact the customer
and inform them that the part arrived but is unsuitable for a return. 
With this one, we felt that the valve could be repaired and made sellable
again, but between the 15 minutes it took us to remove the silicone, and the 30
minutes it took us to repolish the nut, we felt that a partial return of $40
was fair.  The customer's fiancée was informed of this and accepted it.”
This actually doesn’t match the timeline of events. My fiancé was called on
12/3 and informed that he would be receiving no refund for the part because
several components to it were damaged (including a description of the damaged
parts). My fiancé was not happy with this, and at the end of the discussion,
the employee agreed to refund $40 for the part to appease him. Without him
pushing the issue, he would not have received the $40 refund. When I called later
in the day and spoke to an employee, she also informed me the part was damaged,
and that they agreed to give $40 to be nice. I then asked for a picture of the
damage to show proof, which they did send in a very timely fashion (even though
she thought maybe they would have already broken down the part to salvage non-damaged
parts). The employee claims that they decided to refund $40 after they
attempted to clean and polish the part – yet the picture was taken after they
talked to my fiancé and already told him first – that they wouldn’t return any
money – and then that they would return $40 to appease him (even though the
part was not salvageable). During my conversation with the business, they were
also talking about how it would take them 45 minutes to an hour to clean and
polish the part – they didn’t know for sure how long because they had yet to do
it. In addition, I find it strange that the conversation turned from “damaged in
several spots and they will salvage parts” to “needs to be cleaned and
polished.” I believe the condition of the part was very much exaggerated to
avoid the refund, then the employees decided to give a partial refund to
appease us enough that we would drop the issue. I worry that this is a common
practice at this business, and that people are often not getting adequate
refunds if they do not question the damage and ask for a picture for proof.
The employee also states that I “was
unwilling to accept that the damage was done by her or her fiancée.” This is
also not true. I agreed that if they had to clean and polish it (although the
picture they sent us really doesn’t look that bad to me or several other people
I checked with to make sure I wasn’t being unfair), I felt that their original
proposal of no refund, the next agreement of a $40 refund, and their final
offer of $67.50 were all unreasonable. 
In addition, the employee states
that my fiancé did not tell them the part was installed. During the long
conversation that my fiancé had with one of their employees prior to buying the
part – when my fiancé explained the water leak issue, sent several pictures,
was assured that the part would work, and was told that parts can be sent back
for a refund if they don’t work – it seems like that employee would have
mentioned that if he installed the part to check to see if it worked, and it
didn’t, that he wouldn’t get a refund. The employee was well aware of what my
fiancé was doing and that he would need to try to install it in order to see if
it would solve the water leak problem. We may have tried finding the part at
another place to save the $20 in shipping to our house and $15 to ship the part
back to the company.
Even though I believe we should be reimbursed more, I have accepted that this
company is unlikely to do that. The reason that we filed a complaint is because
we feel it is important that this is documented. It is possible that this is a
one-time occurrence with this company. However, we feel there is a strong
likelihood that this company defaults on not refunding returns, given our
history with them. Without it being documented, there is the possibility that
this business will continue to give unfair refunds to customers who order
online.

Here are the facts.  The aforementioned Customer's card was used by her Fiancee to purchase a specialized flush valve, our # [redacted], at a purchase price of $135.00.  The part can be found with the listed price on this...

webpage;[redacted]The Fiancee contacted us to obtain an RGA number, and did return the valve.  There was no mention that it had been installed.When the valve arrived, it was noted that the polished brass locknut had wrench marks in the brass on all 6 sides of the nut, and would need to be repolished.  Also, the threaded shank of the valve was coated in Dried silicone.  Normally, we contact the customer and inform them that the part arrived but is unsuitable for a return.  With this one, we felt that the valve could be repaired and made sellable again, but between the 15 minutes it took us to remove the silicone, and the 30 minutes it took us to repolish the nut, we felt that a partial return of $40 was fair.  The customer's fiancée was informed of this and accepted it.Then, the complainant called.  We sent a photo showing the damaged valve and nut (see attached) to her, but she was unwilling to accept that the damage was done by her or her fiancée.  After some negotiations, I did agree to an additional partial refund, which she stated she would be happy with and would not proceed any further.Apparently, she forgot this agreement as she did make a complaint within 24 hours of the phone call.It is stated in our return policy that we do not refund shipping costs, she is arriving at the $155 cost by adding the cost of the part and the cost of the shipping.  We also list our labor rates on this webpage;[redacted]If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me[redacted] - Operations ManagerBathroom Machineries

Review: My fianc recently purchased a flush valve from DEA Bathroom Machineries. After listening to my fianc describe the leak in the toilet and viewing multiple pictures, one of their representatives assured him that the part they had would fix the leak. Although my fianc was skeptical, they also assured him that he could return the part if it did not work. To make a long story short, the part didnt work, so my fianc spent approximately $15 sending it back to DEA Bathroom Machineries. About two weeks later, he received a call letting him know that he would not be reimbursed for the part because it was damaged. Because this was not the case when he returned it, we both questioned different employees. My fianc was told that several parts were broken (including descriptions of each part), and finally they agreed to reimburse us for $40 (we were charged $155 for the part and shipping). I then talked with another employee and said that we would like to see a picture of the part because we did not believe it was damaged. Although this request came with resistance (I was told that they may have already broken it down to salvage the parts that were not broken), we did receive a picture of the part with the following statement: The threads on the shank are full of silicone (which had barely any on it). Also, the nut was damaged by whatever wrench was used to install. There are wrench marks all over it. I then talked to two more employees voicing my concern that I felt we were being taken advantage of. I was told they were going to have to clean it and replace the nut. I suggested that they take out money to pay for the inconvenience to clean and replace the nut maybe $20 or so. I was then told that they work for $100/hour in their shop, and it would take approximately 45 minutes to an hour to do. It was at this point that I was sure we were getting taken advantage of. Not only was the hourly price quite high, I also did the math we spent $155 and were reimbursed for $40 meaning that we were still losing $115 more than what they expected would be the cost of labor. Finally one of the employees agreed to reimburse half of the cost of the product which he said was $135. He reimbursed us another $27.50, for a total of $67.50 out of the $155 we paid. We have never written a complaint about a company, but after consulting with my father a hardware store owner he also felt that they were being unreasonable. He agreed that we should have cleaned the item better (and that they would have to use a wire brush to do so), but saying they were going to charge $100 an hour to clean it up he felt provided evidence that they were taking advantage of the situation.Desired Settlement: We would like a full refund of the product, not including the cost of shipping.

Business

Response:

Here are the facts. The aforementioned Customer's card was used by her Fiancee to purchase a specialized flush valve, our # [redacted], at a purchase price of $135.00. The part can be found with the listed price on this webpage;[redacted]The Fiancee contacted us to obtain an RGA number, and did return the valve. There was no mention that it had been installed.When the valve arrived, it was noted that the polished brass locknut had wrench marks in the brass on all 6 sides of the nut, and would need to be repolished. Also, the threaded shank of the valve was coated in Dried silicone. Normally, we contact the customer and inform them that the part arrived but is unsuitable for a return. With this one, we felt that the valve could be repaired and made sellable again, but between the 15 minutes it took us to remove the silicone, and the 30 minutes it took us to repolish the nut, we felt that a partial return of $40 was fair. The customer's fiancée was informed of this and accepted it.Then, the complainant called. We sent a photo showing the damaged valve and nut (see attached) to her, but she was unwilling to accept that the damage was done by her or her fiancée. After some negotiations, I did agree to an additional partial refund, which she stated she would be happy with and would not proceed any further.Apparently, she forgot this agreement as she did make a complaint within 24 hours of the phone call.It is stated in our return policy that we do not refund shipping costs, she is arriving at the $155 cost by adding the cost of the part and the cost of the shipping. We also list our labor rates on this webpage;[redacted]If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me[redacted] - Operations ManagerBathroom Machineries

Consumer

Response:

I am rejecting this response because:

Although there are several points that the employee at

DEA Bathroom Machineries bring up that I agree with, I still disagree on

several points.

I agree that the part cost $135 – in my original

complaint, I state that the cost was $155 for the part and shipping. I do not

expect them to pay for the shipping costs. I also agree that the employee did

agree to an additional partial refund after a long discussion. I did not,

however, agree that I would not proceed any further due to an additional $27.50

being refunded to my credit card. I felt this was better than nothing, since it

was clear the business was not willing to refund what I felt was a more reasonable

amount for the part.

There are several parts of the rebuttal that I

disagree with in their statement. The employee states “Normally, we contact the customer

and inform them that the part arrived but is unsuitable for a return.

With this one, we felt that the valve could be repaired and made sellable

again, but between the 15 minutes it took us to remove the silicone, and the 30

minutes it took us to repolish the nut, we felt that a partial return of $40

was fair. The customer's fiancée was informed of this and accepted it.”

This actually doesn’t match the timeline of events. My fiancé was called on

12/3 and informed that he would be receiving no refund for the part because

several components to it were damaged (including a description of the damaged

parts). My fiancé was not happy with this, and at the end of the discussion,

the employee agreed to refund $40 for the part to appease him. Without him

pushing the issue, he would not have received the $40 refund. When I called later

in the day and spoke to an employee, she also informed me the part was damaged,

and that they agreed to give $40 to be nice. I then asked for a picture of the

damage to show proof, which they did send in a very timely fashion (even though

she thought maybe they would have already broken down the part to salvage non-damaged

parts). The employee claims that they decided to refund $40 after they

attempted to clean and polish the part – yet the picture was taken after they

talked to my fiancé and already told him first – that they wouldn’t return any

money – and then that they would return $40 to appease him (even though the

part was not salvageable). During my conversation with the business, they were

also talking about how it would take them 45 minutes to an hour to clean and

polish the part – they didn’t know for sure how long because they had yet to do

it. In addition, I find it strange that the conversation turned from “damaged in

several spots and they will salvage parts” to “needs to be cleaned and

polished.” I believe the condition of the part was very much exaggerated to

avoid the refund, then the employees decided to give a partial refund to

appease us enough that we would drop the issue. I worry that this is a common

practice at this business, and that people are often not getting adequate

refunds if they do not question the damage and ask for a picture for proof.

The employee also states that I “was

unwilling to accept that the damage was done by her or her fiancée.” This is

also not true. I agreed that if they had to clean and polish it (although the

picture they sent us really doesn’t look that bad to me or several other people

I checked with to make sure I wasn’t being unfair), I felt that their original

proposal of no refund, the next agreement of a $40 refund, and their final

offer of $67.50 were all unreasonable.

In addition, the employee states

that my fiancé did not tell them the part was installed. During the long

conversation that my fiancé had with one of their employees prior to buying the

part – when my fiancé explained the water leak issue, sent several pictures,

was assured that the part would work, and was told that parts can be sent back

for a refund if they don’t work – it seems like that employee would have

mentioned that if he installed the part to check to see if it worked, and it

didn’t, that he wouldn’t get a refund. The employee was well aware of what my

fiancé was doing and that he would need to try to install it in order to see if

it would solve the water leak problem. We may have tried finding the part at

another place to save the $20 in shipping to our house and $15 to ship the part

back to the company.

Even though I believe we should be reimbursed more, I have accepted that this

company is unlikely to do that. The reason that we filed a complaint is because

we feel it is important that this is documented. It is possible that this is a

one-time occurrence with this company. However, we feel there is a strong

likelihood that this company defaults on not refunding returns, given our

history with them. Without it being documented, there is the possibility that

this business will continue to give unfair refunds to customers who order

online.

Business

Response:

Our return policy states that items returned must be in resellable condition, and the customer has 60 days to return any items to us. Frankly, we have very few issues like this. If a part is returned to us that has been damaged through negligence on the consumer's part, we will offer partial refunds. This particular part was shown to me by our receiving department before the customer was contacted, I know from experience how long it will take to repair the damage done by the consumer. I instructed our employee on what offer to make. I'm a bit baffled on the remarks regarding how the customer has shown the photo of the damage to several people, who all feel there was barely any damage, and we were being unreasonable. None of these people have actually held the damaged part in their hands and seen the wrench marks on all 6 sides of the nut.As for the testing the part to see if it would work in the customer's application, we understand that this takes place. Many other customers purchase our products, discover they will not work in their specific application, and return without issue. Credit is happily issued as long as the item is returned undamaged by the test and complete. We would not have remained in business for the last 39 years if we treated customers as shoddily as this customer is implying.