Dominion Energy Products and Services

Dear [redacted] ***:Oh Behalf of Dominion Products and Services, Inc(“DPS”), I am responding to the above-referenced complaint concerning the DPS Heating and Cooling Repair Program (“Program”)This complaint was filed in connection with a claim repair the customer (“Complainant”) filed with DPS concerning his air conditionerDPS denies any allegations of wrongdoing.For the record, DPS’s contractor completed the repair work at Complainant’s residence on June 14, 2016, at a cost to DPS of $499.23.Respectfully, this matter should now be considered closed.I am providing a copy of this response to Complainant by U.S MailIf you have any questions please contact me

Dear [redacted] ***:On Behalf of Dominion Products and Services, Inc(“DPS”), I am responding to the above-referenced complaint concerning the Company’s Gas Line Replacement Program (“Program”).Complainant is apparently not happy with the amount of time it took for the restoration portion of the gas line replacement work done at her residence in December 2016.DPS denies any allegation of wrongdoing in this matterThe Facts are as follows.Complaint enrolled in the Program by signing business reply card on April 10, and pays $45.00/yearShe placed a Program claim with DPS on December 7, DPS’s contractor was dispatched to Complainant’s residence and replaced Complainant’s exterior gas line on December 16, Prior to beginning the work the contractor’s technician reviewed the job with ComplainantAs part of this process, the technician explained that the Program provided post-work basic restoration onlyComplainant then signed Dominion’s “Pre-excavation information” form acknowledging her understanding and agreementEnclosed is a copy of the form Complainant signed with personal information redactedAfter completion of this job on December 16, the Company’s contractor did much of the restoration work that same day, including backfilling near the home at the location of the meterThree days later, on December 19, 2016, the contractor completed the restoration by backfilling at the curb stop near the streetHowever, the delay was attributable to the gas utility, not DPS or its contractor, because the utility had to come to the site to tits line and turn on the gas before final restoration could be completed.In conclusion, DPS has in all respects lived up to its contractual obligations to Complainant, who now has a brand new gas service lineWe respectfully submit that this complaint should now be considered closed.I am providing a copy of this response to Complainant by US Mail.Should you have any questions please contact me at [redacted] or [redacted] .Sincerely,Gary J [redacted]

On behalf of Dominion Products and Services, IncI am responding to the above-referenced complaint concerning DPS’s Sewer Line Repair Program.While DPS denies that it intentionally did anything wrong in this matter, DPS understands that Complainant is unhappy with the amount of time it took for her sewer line claim to be resolved by DPS’s contractorShe filed her claim for a basewer at 10:p.mOn October 14, 2016, a FridayRegrettably, DPS’s contractor was unable to get to Complainant’s residence to snake her sewer line and clear the clog until Monday morning, October 17, When the contractor departed the residence, the sewer line was open and flowing.In recognition of the inconvenience this situation caused Complainant, DPS will issue Complainant payment in the amount of [redacted] as a customer service gestureA check in the amount will be forwarded to her once it’s prepared (which could take up to weeks).I am providing a copy pf this response to Complainant by U.S Mail

Dear [redacted] ***:On Behalf of Dominion Products and Services, Inc( “DPS” or the “Company”), I am responding to the complaint filed in the above-referenced matter concerning DPS’s Water Heater Repair & Replacement Program (“Program”).DPS denies Complainant’s allegation of wrongdoing, particularly his completely baseless allegation that he was “cheated”As the information below will establish, Complainant’s Program claim was denied because of a preexisting conditionFor the same reason, his request to be reimbursed for the cost of a privately- purchased water heater is also without merit.Complainant voluntarily enrolled in the Program by telephone on February 27, at a fee of $ [redacted] monthOn May 2, 2017, he contacted the DPS call center to place a Program claimDPS’ contractor technician was dispatched to Complainant’s residence that same dayUpon inspection, the technician was dispatched to Complainant’s resident that same dayUpon inspection, the technician found that the unit showed signs of severe deteriorationHeavy rust marks at the bottom of the tank were clear evidence that the tank has been leaking for some time, certainly, that is since well prior to Complainant’s February 27, enrollment in the ProgramThe technician also noted that the top of the tank was damaged, as though something heavy had been dropped on it leaving a gash and a dentThe technician took photographs (copies enclosed) of Complainant’s unit- the photos indisputably support the finding of a preexisting conditionIt was for this reason, therefore, and not, as Complainant alleges, simply because the water heater unit was “old”, that his claim was denied.DPS stands by its denial of Complainant’s claim and his request for reimbursementSince Complainant remains an active customer, notwithstanding that his water heater was eligible for coverage due to the preexisting condition, DPS will go ahead and cancel his Program participation and issue him a refund of Program payment madeIf complainant should wish to re-enroll in the Program he is free to do so.Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at [redacted] or [redacted] .Sincerely,Gary A J [redacted]

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's offer If you wish, you may update it before sending it.] Revdex.com: I have reviewed the offer made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to meI may be reached at my home number of [redacted] or message my cell at [redacted] I will wait for the business to perform this action and, if it does, will consider this complaint resolvedIf the company does not perform as promised I can get back to you at: [email protected] 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 I am not at all satisfied with this proposed action We have been paying for many years for "protection" that was supposed to repair any problems with our sewer line We experienced a sewer-line bathat caused a massive amount of raw sewage to flood into our home Dominion finally sent a plumber more than two full days later, and the plumber ( [redacted] ) was only able to achieve a temporary resolution after working on the problem for a long time The plumber specifically told us that there was a major problem with the sewer line, that what he did was only a temporary fix, and that the problem would recur unless the permanent problem was resolved He said it would take "several weeks" for Dominion to approve the first step of the additional work needed to fix the sewer line, which was to "TV" the line He suggested that in the meantime we flush our toilets less frequently and use only a very thin toilet paper, and again stressed that another baof sewage could occur at any time Weeks later, we had heard nothing We called Dominion, who told us we had to call *** [redacted] reported that Dominion had denied the additional work because he had managed to unblock a small passage through the blockage in the line, enough so that we have minimal ability to flush toilets Dominion now says that they would only consider approving any additional work if and when the sewer backs up again In other words, we have to expose our family to the health hazard of raw sewage in our home, and incur untold expense because of the damage that will do to our floors, baseboards, and furnishings before Dominion will fulfill its obligations We are completely dissatisfied with this outcome Dominion's program is a scam, and it should be shut down They sent us a check for $100, a small fraction of the amount we have paid them for well over a decade for this worthless program We have not cashed the check, and do not accept it as any type of resolution of our complaint We would accept a FULL refund of every dime we've paid for all the years we've had the "service." Or we would accept a real repair of the sewer line Nothing less will be acceptable Please let us know how we can continue to pursue resolution of this complaint 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.On December 24th, my wife called at AM in the morning about getting sewage repair serviceAt PM, we had still not heard a response from the contractor after speaking to Dominion Energy Services on the phone (their website states a hour response)We called back at this time and were told a contractor would not be available until the 26thWe had raw sewage backing up into our basementTheir website also states that they can have service within hours, even on Holidays and weekendsI personally called back twice around PM, to clarify detailsI was told by the lady on the phone from Dominion Energy Services that they would not have any contractors available until the 26thWhen I pointed out that their website guaranteed Holiday and weekend service, she told me that she was sorry and that she couldn't do anythingI asked her then to get a plumber who could make a house call within the hour window stated on their websiteShe told me that she could not do that, and would need a supervisorWhen I asked her to put one on, she replied that none were working and that they would not be back until the 26thI asked for their at-home number so I could call them at home, and she refused this informationGiven that we had a house full of guests, we could not wait until the 26th for a contractor to come, as raw sewage backing up also prevents us from using any more water Here is the statement from Dominion Energy Services website:What if I have a sewer line emergency in the middle of the night?No problemWe're available hours a day, days a week - including holidays and weekendsYour call will be answered by a trained representative, not an answering machineA Dominion contractor will promptly be dispatched and can contact you within one hour of your initial call and repairs can begin within hours.That information can be found here: https://www.dominionenergysolutions.com/en/home-protection/home-protection-frequ...⇄ response back was both rude and incompleteI would like them to both pay for the emergency sewage services, and to remove this advertising from their websiteTheir website implies hour service even on HolidaysThey refused to provide prompt service on a HolidayWhile they may try to skirt the issue with the use of the words "can" (implying it is not guaranteedProper legal opinion would side with the complainant (myself) - simply going so far as to state the question about sewer emergencies and to point out Holidays and weekends, it is not unreasonable to believe that, given the wording, they are implying they will resolve emergency issues promptly on a HolidayThis still would fall under the definition of advertisementRegards, [redacted]

Dear Revdex.com: Complainant’s request for reimbursement was properly denied by Dominion Products and Services, Inc(“DPS”) The repairs for which she seeks reimbursement were performed inside her home on an internal water line located under the basement floor However, Complainant only carries external water line coverage from DPS DPS would have explained this discrepancy in coverage to Complainant had she, as required, first contacted DPS about the claim condition In any event, DPS stands by its earlier denialPlease contact me if you have any questionsGary J [redacted]

The response claims a list of facts, then contradicts that claim by providing the opinion of the contractor.What facts did the contractor use to determine the rust was due to remodeling?Where did he run water?What tests did he perform to determine rust was not in the water?Why did he not mention that rust was due to remodeling during the investigation?Why did he say that rust was not a reason to replace in his two previous visits?Why is it interesting that I upgraded to the premium program? Is that a pejorative?When I called to cancel, the administrative agent did say that if the water heater was not functioning properly that it should have been replaced She indicated that I should have had a different contractor come out but it is the claims department that assigns the contractors

Dear Mr [redacted] : On behalf of Dominion Products and Services, Inc("DPS"), I am responding to the complaint filed in the above-referenced matter concerning DPS's Sewer Line Repair Program ("Program")DPS denies any wrongdoing in this matterPlease note that at Complainant's request DPS sent a second plumbing contractor to Complainant's home on July 25, to evaluate Complainant's sewer line claim conditionThe necessary repair work-a simple unclogging-was completedAccordingly, this matter should now be closedI am providing a copy of this letter to Complainant by mailShould you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at [redacted] or [redacted]

Dear Ms***:November 2, 2016On behalf of Dominion Products and Services, Inc ("DPS" or "Company"), I am responding tothe above-referenced complaint concerning DP S's Sewer Line Repair Program (''Program").DPS can certainly understand Complainant's frustration with his sewer line situation, but theCompany firmly denies any allegation of wrongdoing in this matter, particularly Complainant's accusation that "/ believe that Dominion is NOT providing the required service"To the contrary, as this response will demonstrate, the Company has committed significant effort and expense (about $3,100) in responding to Complainant's many service claims and attempting to remedy his problemMoreover, if I may jump ahead to the conclusion, it is also now clear based on a camera run of Complainant's sewer line that Complainant's current problem is caused by a root under the home's concrete slab--a condition that is not covered under the ProgramFollowing is a review of Complainant's account history.IEnrollment History: Complainant first enrolled in the Program on September 30, 2009, but was canceled from coverage on November 10, for non-paymentComplainant again enrolled on April 1, but once again cancelled out of the Program on May 7, for non-paymentMost recently, Complainant enrolled via telephone on September 17, and pays an annual Progranfee of $Complainant remains an active Program customerClaims History: Complainant has an extensive claims history under the Program, with a totalof claims filed since first becoming a customer, as follows:Claim Date Claim Reason/Work performed by DPS Cost to DPSMay 16, sewer line clog contractor found no backup $July 23, sewer line clog; contractor snaked line and established flow $August J 8, sewer line clog; contractor found no backup $March 16, sewer line clog; contractor snaked line and established flow .$October 26, sewer line clog; contractor snaked line and established flow $March 7, sewer line clog; contractor snaked line and established flow; $175camera inspection of line was suggested for future backupJune JOsewer line clog; contractor reopened line, performed camera $1,590inspection and made repair of a bad section of lineOctober 15, sewer tine clog; contractor snaked line and established flow $200At Complainant's requests , on October 24, 2016, four days after the date of the complaint, DPS had its contractor camera inspect Complainant's line againAs mentioned above, this time the camera showed that Complainant's problem-a rolocated underneath the home's concrete slabSuch a situation is not covered under the ProgramAccordingly, while we regret the inconvenience and difficulty Complainant is going through, DPS is not to blame for his situationRather, in all respects, the Company has lived up to its contractual commitment to ComplainantI am providing a copy of this response to Complainant by mailShould you have any questions do not hesitate to contact me at [redacted] or [redacted]

Dear [redacted] ***:On behalf of Dominion Products and Services, Inc(“DPS” or “Company”), I am responding to the above-referenced complaint concerning DPS’s In-Home Plumbing Repair Program (“Program”).This complaint concerns the Company’s recent denial of Complainant’s claim for Program coverageThe Program provides coverage for leaking in home pipelines and the unclogging of in-home drain lines.DPS denies any allegations of wrongdoing by Complainant.The Complainant’s account history is as followsComplainant enrolled in the Program online on December 31, and on June 21, enrolled in the additional premium optionComplainant placed a Program claim regarding his bathroom sink on October 1, The Company’s contractor visited Complainant’s home on October Upon investigation, the contractor’s technician found that the problem was with a “pop up” fixture on the sink, which is used to close and unclose the sink drainFixtures are excluded from coverage under the Program, which, as already noted is specifically limited to coverage for leaking in-home pipelines and the unclogging of in-home drain linesThe technician informed the Complainant that day this his claim was being denied.DPS stands by its determination that Complainant’s claim was not eligible for coverageHowever, as a customer service gesture, DPS has agreed that Complainant will be reimbursed that $he paid a private plumber to make the subject repairThis has been communicated to Complainant Accordingly, this complaint has been satisfied and no further action is needed.I am provided a copy of this response to Complainant by U.S Mail.Please contact me if you have any questions.Very Truly Yours, [redacted] ***

Dear [redacted] O behalf of Dominion Products and Services, Inc(“DPS” or “the Company”), I am responding to the above-referenced complaint concerning the Company’s Heating and Cooling Repair Program (“HVAC Program”) and Water Heating Repair & Replacement Program (“WHTR Program”).Complainant accuses DPS of wrongful actions as to both ProgramsConcerning the HVAC Program, he alleges that DPS “ refused to try and repair my System because of some small print in the agreement and never came back to check the system as they had agreed to do before canceling that part of the service”He requested a refund of his HVAC Program feesAs for the WHTR Program, Complainant takes issue with the Company’s recently announced revision to the Program that reflects new federally-imposed water heater mandatesComplainant alleges this is a “blindsided action” and that pre-existing contracts should receive “grandfather’ treatment.Complainant voluntarily enrolled in both Programs by telephone on February 28, The HVAC Program costs $9.95/month while the WHTR Program is $5.95/monthParticipation in these programs is always voluntary, which means a customer-whose Program payment prepay coverage for the applicable period- is absolutely free to cancel participation at any time without penalty.Complainant placed his first HVAC Program claim with the DPS call center on October 11, 2014, but prior to the contractor’s arrival at his home Complainant canceled the claimTwo days later, on October 13, 2014, Complainant again placed a HVAC program claim and once again canceled the claim before the contractor’s arrivalOn November 21, 2014, Complainant filed another claimThis time the contractor actually visited Complainant’s residence and inspected the air conditioner unitThe contractor determined that Complainant’s air conditioner which is in excess of years old, was low on Freon refrigerant The contractor recharged the unit with Freon at a cost to DPS of $203.44.Complainant filed another HVAC Program claim on April 9, Once again the contractor found the air conditioner to be low on Freon and recharged itSuspecting a Freon leak, the contractor also placed a dye pack to help detect the location of the leak.On April 17, 2015, the contractor returned to Complainant’s residence to check on any additional leakageThe dye revealed a leak in the unit’s coilHowever, as Complainant was so informed that day by the contractor, the coil repair was not eligible for coverage under the HVAC Program terms and conditions given the unit’s ageComplainant called DPS that day to questions this determination but was told that indeed the repair would not be coveredHe called again on the April 27, and this time cancelled his participation in the HVAC ProgramIn all, DPS paid its contractor $in connection with the work done at Complainant’s residence on April and 17.As the foregoing HVAC Program account history demonstrates, Complainant is clearly wrong in alleging that DPS “refused to try” to help him or otherwise evaded its contractual commitment to himTo the contract, the Company- which spent nearly $in contractor costs- honored each of Complainant’s claims and only denied the coil repair once it was evident that that work was not eligible for coverageComplainant is not entitled to any HVAC Program fee refund and none will be forthcoming from DPS.Turning now to the WHTR Program portion of this complaint, it should be noted that Complaint has never filed a claim under that program His issues is with the Company’s prospective changes to the program terms and conditions which DPS is making in the wake of recent new federal mandates concerning water heatersThe new WHRT Program terms and conditions go into effect as of August 1, Far from being “blind sided”, Complainant, as an existing customer, received written notice of the prospective changes from DPS Moreover, DPS is applying the charges uniformly and across all customersThe Company cannot and will not grandfather Complainant’s account or any otherTo the extent he is unhappy with the new WHTR Program terms and Conditions, Complainant is free to cancel participation at any time without penalty.In conclusion, this complaint merits immediate dismissal DPS has done nothing wrong vis-à-vis this complainant and in all respects the Company has fully complied with its contractual obligations to Complainant

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 Dear Sir/Maam’ In response to the rebuttal letter dtd November in regards to the complaint issued against Dominion Products and Services (DPS) Dominion Products and Service representatives made a statement when claiming a contractor determined the leak was coming from underneath the slab in my home The leak, as they described in the rebuttal letter was NOT from a slab under the house and was stated without confirmation from anyone at their company properly investigating and making an incorrect assumption As I indicated in my previous statement, the DPS representatives NEVER investigated the leak and NEVER once said the leak was under the slab which in the end proved that "diagnostically" wrongHad DPS taken the time to investigate the leak during the numerous visits to my home, they would have been able to give the correct assessmentAlso if this were true, they never said as such at any time during their many stall tactic visitsIf they would have done the professional thing and their job, they would have discovered the source of the leakThe leak was not under the slabThat statement along with the debacle that occurred shows their true incompetence It is a sad state of professionalism when DPS was promoting their program to me and other seniors, they promised the world of coverageNow they conveniently cover nothingIt may have carried more weight if they had said it on Day one, not over waterless, hot and cold days laterIt appears it took close to 30days to make up a response and that response was again incorrect No, the response is unacceptableDPS should take responsibility for their DPS representatives’ actions and lack of incompetence $does not excuse the incompetence of this company leaving a senior citizen without water, AC and heat for over days nor does it excuse the promises they continued to wield each and every time they stalled $does not excuse having to get water from neighbors to flush my toilets and wash my dishes for over days $does not excuse not being able to take showers and enjoy the basic comforts one has in their home $does not give back the time spent waiting for DPS to send a plumber $is the reason this Revdex.com complaint will continue and now will also be sent to my Congressman It's insulting This complaint is about the integrity of DPS, the incompetence and the lack of basic human decency displayed during this debacleI have [redacted] pictures showing the holes made in the walls to complete the repairAgain not the slabI welcome DPS to visit my home for verification Marie Pierce Regards, [redacted]

On behalf of Dominion Products and Services, Inc. ("DPS" or "Company"), I am responding to the above referenced complaint concerning DPS's Heating & Cooling Repair Program.Complainant alleges that DPS is not honoring its contract with him. DPS denies this allegation. As this response... will demonstrate, the Company has treated Complainant more than fairly in this matter.The facts in this case are as follows. Complainant enrolled in DPS's Furnace Repair Program on March 2, 2015 and the next month added air conditioner coverage. He pays a total of $ 9.90 month for the combined Heating & Cooling Repair Program ("Program"). He filed a Program claim for no heat on October 25, 2016. Upon inspection, the Company's contractor determined that the unit's inducer motor was not functioning properly. However, owing to the way in which furnace repair parts are manufactured, a replacement of the inducer motor alone is not possible without a retrofit and redesign of a number of other associated parts and labor-including the control board, high limit valve, and igniter-at a total cost of $l,138.For this reason, DPS informed Complainant that the Company would contribute $500 toward the total overall cost, which is the normal and customary amount DPS pays for an inducer motor replacement. However, Complainant rejected DPS's $500 offer and followed up by filing this complaint.DPS stands by its actions in this matter. That said, the Company's $500 payment offer remains open if Complainant wishes to accept it. In this regard, Complainant is asked to contact me directly to arrange for the payment. Should you have any questions do not hesitate to contact me at [redacted] or [redacted]

On behalf of Dominion Products and Services, Inc. (“DPS” or the “Company”), I am responding to the complaint filed in the above-referenced matter concerning DPS’s Heating and Cooling Repair Program (“Program”).DPS denies any wrongdoing in this matter. While the Company regrets that Complainant- a... long time Program customer- has chosen to cancel participation in the Program, by the same token DPS also submits that in addressing Complainant’s multiple Program claims it treated Complainant fair and fully in accordance with the Program terms and conditions. The pertinent facts are as follows.Complainant enrolled in the Program via internet on July 19, 2010, and paid $***/month to subscribe to the Program. On August 25, 2011, Complainant filed a “no cooling” Program claim. DPS’s contractor was dispatched and found and addressed a Freon leak. The contractor also replaced the air conditioner’s condenser coil. DPS paid a total of $ [redacted] to its contractor for the August 2011 work. Complainant file a second claim on March 18, 2014, this time for no heat. The Company’s contractor found no issue, however, just the normal clicking sound Complainant has reported. DPS was charged $ [redacted] for this work. This third claim- another no cooling claim- was filed on July 16 of that same year. Again, the problem was with the coolant. The contractor added some 2 pounds of Freon, for which the Company was charged $***.Complainant’s most recent no cooling claim was placed on May 19, 2017. The unit was found to again be low on Freon which was caused by a leaking indoor evaporator coil. However, because the unit was not under manufacturer’s warranty, the repair was appropriately denied. DPS was charged $ [redacted] for this service case. Complainant called the DPS call center on June 1, 2017 to question the denial. The Company’s representative explained that the manufacturer’s warranty on the coil had expired and thus was not eligible for coverage. The Complainant called again on June 13, 2017 to complain about fan noise. DPS’s contractor again determined that the issue was caused by the same non-covered evaporator coil. The Company was charged $ [redacted] for this visit.Finally, on June 19, 2017, Complainant called again to question the earlier denial and to request a refund of the service call charges. Once again the Company’s representative explained the denial as well as explaining that the service call fees are no refundable where, as here, the service call had already taken place. Complainant cancelled service that same day.In conclusion, DPS, which since Complainant’s initial enrollment in the Program has spent some $ [redacted] in servicing Complainant’s Program claims, has done nothing wrong in this matter. At all times the Company has acted reasonably and in keeping with its contractual commitment to Complainant.I am providing a copy of this letter to Complainant by mail.

Dear ** ***:On behalf of Dominion Products and Services, Inc(“DPS” or “Company”),
I am responding to the above-referenced complaint concerning DPS’s Water Line
Replacement Program (“WLRP”)While DPS denies any allegation of wrongdoing in this
matter, we can certainly understand Complainant’s
frustrationAs this response
will explain, the Company will be refunding her fees related to the WLRP as
well as the Furnace Repair (“FURNACE”) and Water Heater Repair & Replacement
(“WHTR”) Programs.Complainant’s water line leak was determined by DPS’s
contractor to be coming from underneath the concrete slab of her homeThis is
not a covered condition under WLRP, which applies to exterior water line leaks
onlyHowever, DPS will honor Complainant’s request for a full refund of the
$she paid for WLRP coverage since she enrolled in the program in May 2007.Further, in the course of investigating Complainant’s water
line leak claim, the DPS contractor also discovered that her heating system is
water basedThe FURNACE program terms and conditions exclude water based heating
systems from eligibilityWe do not doubt that Complainant was unaware of this
exclusion when she enrolled in the FURNANCE program in September
Accordingly, DPS will also be refunding Complainant the *** she paid into
the program.Lastly, with regard to the WHTR (with premium upgrade
option), which Complainant signed up for over year ago, DPS has learned that
Complainant is also ineligible for this programThe reason is her water heater
unit is tied into her heating system, which is excluded under the program terms
and conditionsAs with the FURNACE program, the Company assumes she was
unaware of the exclusions when she enrolledThe refund amount attributable to
the WHTR program is *** while the premium option refund amount is ***.In all, therefore, DPS is refunding Complainant a total of
*** of while *** has already been sent to herAccordingly, a check in the
amount of *** (*** *** ***) will be mailed to Complainant once it’s
prepared, which could take up to two weeks.We respectfully submit that this complaint should now be
considered closedI am providing a copy of this response to Complainant by US
Mail.Should you have any questions please contact me at
*** or ***

Dear ** ***:On behalf of Dominion Products and Services, Inc(“DPS” or “Company”),
I am responding to the above-referenced complaint concerning the Company’s
Sewer Line Repair Program (“Program”).DPS denies any allegation of wrong doing in this matterThe
facts are as follows.Complainant
enrolled in the Program by telephone on
September 9, and pays a subscription fee of $14.95/quarterA provision in
the Program terms and conditions makes clear that only actual clogged sewer
lines are coveredAdditionally, repairs required due to a failed “dye test” or
other third party inspection are excluded from coverageThe dye test exclusion
has been part of the Program’s contract provisions in Pennsylvania for as long
as Complainant has been a customerComplainant placed his first Program claim-
for a clogged sewer line- on October 28, The Company’s contractor cleared
the clog at a cost to DPS of $Complainant placed another clog claim a
few days later, on November 3, Nothing more was heard from Complainant
for the next yearsOn November 9, 2016, he called the DPS call center to
place another claimHowever, he was not at that time experiencing a back-up, so
no contractor referral request was made.A few days later, on November 14, 2016, Complainant’s real
estate attorney contracted DPS on behalf of his client requesting a service
callThe attorney stated that Complainant’s a sewer line had failed a
municipal dye testAlthough it could have denied service outright on the basis
of the dye test claim, as a courtesy DPS dispatched its contractor who, after
inspecting Complainant’s sewer line, determined that the line was not backed up
and thus would not be coveredMoreover, any dye-test related claim would also
not be doneThis was communicated to Complainant, who, on November and
again on November 29, 2016, called DPS to question the denialEach time the
Company representative repeated the reasons Complainant’s claim was not
eligible for coverage.DPS stands by that denial for the reasons stated in this
responseWhat’s more, the Company disclaims the responsibility for reimbursing
Complainant for any private sewer line repair work that Complainant decides he
needs.We respectfully submit that this complaint should now be
considered closed.I am providing a copy of this response to Complainant by US
Mail.Should you have any questions please contact me at
***

Attn: *** *** ***,Dominion Products and Services, Inc.'s response in this matter is attached. I am mailing you the original and am mailing a copy to Complainant.*** ** ***
*** *** ***
*** *** *** ***
*** *** ***
*** **
***
*** ***
*** *** ***
***

Dear ** ***:ON behalf of Dominion Products and Service, Inc (“:DPS” or “Company”),
I am responding to the above referenced complaint concerning DPS’s Cooling
Repair Program (“Program”).The Company denies Complainant’s allegations of wrongdoingThe
facts in this matter are as follows.Complaint
voluntarily enrolled by telephone in the Program
on April 28, On August 10, 2016, Complainant called the DPS call center
to file a claim concerning his air conditionerHE reported to the Company’s
call center representative that a private contractor (***) has determined
his problem was a cracked drain pan.DPS appropriately denied Complainant’s claim for two reasons
First, the Company is not responsible for nor it is bound by the determination
or advice of a third party private contractorAs Complainant did not follow proper
procedure, the equipment part for which he seeks coverage- the drain pan is not
covered in any eventThis exclusion is clearly stated in the Program terms and
conditions.In conclusion, DPS stands by its denial of Complainant’s
claim