Dominion Energy Products and Services

Dear Ms***: On behalf of Dominion Products and Services, Inc("DPS" or "Company"), I am responding to the above-referenced complaint concerning the Company's Water Line Repair Program ("Program"). Complainant takes issue with DPS 's denial of his Program claim on the
grounds that his water line was ineligible for coverageHe demands that the Company pay his claim and alleges wrongdoing on the part of DPSThe Company strongly denies Complainant's allegations of wrongdoing, particularly Complainant's completely baseless accusation that "Dominion continues to lie to us and breech [sic] the contract we have with them"As this response will show, the Company was justified in denying Complainant's July 6, claim and cancelling him from paiticipation in the Program. Complainant emolled online in the Program on June 3, at a fee of$4.95/moHe made two payments of $each prior to filing a claim a mere days later, on July 6, DPS dispatched its contractor that same dayUpon investigation, the contractor quickly discovered that Complainant's water line service had, for whatever reason, been shut off by the water company on August 11, The Program covers operational water lines that fail due to wear and tearHowever, in Complainant's case, the subject line had not been functional for nearly a year, and thus he was not eligible to enroll in the Program in the first placeFor this reason, Complainant was advised that his claim was denied and that his participation in the Program was being cancelled immediately. Complainant also enrolled on line that same day in the Preferred Water Line Restoration Program, which provides enhanced landscaping coverage for a monthly fee of $Additionally, Complainant had enrolled on line on June 3, in DPS's Sewer Line Repair Program and Preferred Sewer Line Restoration ProgramHowever, in November he was cancelled from both Programs for non-payment. 2 On July 14, 2015, Complainant called the DPS call center to question the denial and cancellation. The basis for the Company's actions was explained to him againDPS did not hear fm1her from Complainant for another four and a half monthsOn December 1, 2015, he once again contacted the DPS call center and, as before, was advised of the reason for the denial and cancellation. In conclusion, DPS was well within its rights to deny Complainant's claim and cancel him from participation in the ProgramThe Company stands by that decision. I am providing a copy of this response to Complainant by U.SMail. Sincerely, Assistant General Counsel

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the offer and/or response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below
It has become apparent that Dominion will do everything possible to deny a claimAfter reading other claims on the Revdex.com and items on internet this not something newIt is tragic that facts are not correctFirst the gas account and services were current as of *** ***Payment was sent electronically as of *** ***It was confirmed by personnel at Dominion customer service and my bank upon inquiryServices by Dominion were canceled as of *** ***I was not notified by phone, email, or mail that a cancelation did occurDominion Products and Services, Dominion East Ohio, and Dominion Energy all one entityWhether are not your organization can effectively distribute funds among your entities that is your problemSecondly, I called *** *** ** to file a claim which I have documented on my phone billUpon making the claim I was told my services were canceled and needed to call back Monday during business hours to determine why it was canceledThe crazy part of matter is again I still paid for warranty programs in the Gas billAfter I was given the run around, I told them to separate the warranty program thinking I might still want the programAfter finding my previous bills I called trying to find a resolution on *** **Again unsuccessfulThis warranty program is a shamDominion customers beware
Please cancel my future subscription for the warranty programsRefund my money
Regards,
*** ***

[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 ***, and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to meI 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: ***
Regards,
*** ***

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the offer and/or response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below
Dominion has offered a "customer service gesture" of $100; however, as of today the problem with our sewer line has not been resolved. The plumber did come and do enough work to temporarily open the sewer line. However, he stressed that this was a temporary fix only, and advised to be careful and use only a very thin toilet paper until the permanent problem could be repaired. We were told that there is a blockage in the sewer line and that the line will need a major repair to prevent the future baof sewage into our house. According to Dominion's contractor, *** ***, we must now wait "a few weeks" to hear from Dominion as to WHETHER they will approve the additional work. *** said they could not offer us any assurance that Dominion would approve the work, and that they would return to repair the sewer line if and only if Dominion does approve it. This is not satisfactory, either from a timing perspective or with respect to what we were promised by Dominion when we purchased this service, for which we have been paying monthly for many years. While a $gesture helps, we don't understand why we have to wait for several weeks, knowing that at any time, raw sewage could again start pouring into our house. We also don't understand why the additional work must be "approved" by Dominion. In our view, this is the work Dominion must deliver to us, and it should have been delivered, as promised, within hours of the onset of the sewer line back-up. For this reason, we are not willing at this time to accept the offer made by Dominion to resolve the complaint. Instead, we want Dominion to immediately authorize the additional work, and arrange for its contractor to immediately repair the sewer line. Once the sewer line is fully repaired, we will reconsider the offer of a $payment
Regards,
*** ***

Dear Ms***: On behalf of Dominion Products and Services, Inc("DPS" or "Company"), I am responding to the above-referenced complaint concerning the Company's Water Heater Repair & Replacement Program ("Program"). Complainant alleges that the Company, in denying her
claim for Program coverage, has failed to live up to its obligation to her under its service contractDPS denies any allegation of wrongdoing in this matter. Complainant voluntarily enrolled in the Program on May 18, and pays $5.95/month for coverageShe filed her first claim on September 21, 2012, but proceeded to have her water heater privately replaced before DPS's contractor could perform the jobShe filed another claim on October 31, That claim, like that which is the subject of this complaint, was denied by DPS because Complainant' s water heater unit was damaged by water caused by basement floodingThe Program terms and conditions clearly set forth that DPS will not cover water heater problems caused by natural disasters, "Acts of God" or other insurable-type causesAs was explained to Complainant in 2012, basement flooding is such a cause. Complainant filed her next claim on April 17, DPS's contractor responded to her home and replaced the water heater thermocouple at an approximate cost of $125. On June 15, 2015, Complainant filed another Program claimDPS's contractor was dispatched and discovered that the basement had again floodedThe water heater unit components, which were submerged, had been damaged by the flood waterIt is unfortunate that the basement flooding occurred, but under the circumstances DPS was fully justified in denying Complainant's claim for Program coverage. In conclusion, DPS submits that it has done nothing wrong in this matter and stands by its denial of the June 15, claim. I am providing a copy of this response to Complainant by U.S MailComplainant is reminded that she is free to cancel her participation in the Program at any time. If you have any questions please contact me. Sincerely, *** ** *** *** Assistant General Counsel

Dear ** ***: On behalf of Dominion Products and Services, Inc(“DPS”)I am responded to
the above-referenced complaint concerning the Company’s Water Heater Repair
& Replacement Program (“Program”).DPS denies any allegation of wrongdoing in this matterThe
pertinent facts are as follows
Complainant enrolled online in the Program on
August 30, and prior to cancellation paid $6.95/ monthComplainant-whose
water service comes from a well on his property- placed a claim for rust in his
water on August 9, DPS’s contractor investigated the next day and
determined that the water heater unit itself was not the source of the rustRather,
the contractor’s opinion was that the water discoloration was being caused by
remodeling work Complainant was doing at his residenceMoreover, the
contractor determined that the rust color cleared after the water was run
Thus, contrary to Complainant’s allegation that DPS “refused” to replace his
water heater, the reality is that repair or replacement was not needed since
the water heater itself was not the source of the problemInterestingly, about
two months after his August claim, on October 26, 2016, Complainant
enrolled by signed business reply card in the Company’s Premium Water Heater
Program at an extra $2.95/monthHe then telephoned the DOS call center on November
28, to cancel participation in both programs, indicating that he had had
his water heather unit privately replacedComplainant states in his complaint
that the call center agent told him during their conversation that day that the
contractor “should have replaced” the water heaterComplainant is mistakenAt
no time during the 5-plus minute recorded call on November di the DPS agent
say any such thing.In conclusion, DOS has it all respects lived up to its
contractual obligations to ComplainantWe respectfully submit that this
complaint should now be considered closed.I am providing a copy of this response to Complainant by
U.SMail.Should you have any questions please contact me at
*** or ***

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the offer and/or response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below
[Provide details of why you are not satisfied with this resolution.]I reject their decision due to the fact, that THEIR contractor indeed found the damaged sewerThe house was vacant for nearly months, so a clog would not have been noticed in that time periodThe fact that the dye did not reach the main sewer line, indicates to me that there was indeed an obstruction! The fact that there were cameras inserted in that line before they were even willing to agree to send their contractor out to inspect the problem, is the reason that an actual clog was not foundHad they sent their contractor out, it's probable that a clog would have been foundIt seems a delay on their part, worked in their favor, not the customersI am extremely disappointed in the service of DPS and will say as much to anyone looking or asking to purchase their warranties
Regards,
*** ***

Dear ** ***:This letter is by way of further response to Complainant’s
follcomplaint in this matter.She continues to complain about the “quality” of the gas
line replacement work done at her home, specifically the post-job restoration
workDPS denies her allegations of shoddy workmanship.As noted in the company’s January 6, response,
Complainant was a basic site restoration customer, which is exactly the service
she received after the jobAlso, as previously notes, prior to beginning the
work the contractor technician explained basic restoration to Complainant-
including the likelihood of weather impacting the work- and gave her a form
containing that informationShe reviewed and signed offShe cannot now reasonable
complain.Once again, we submit the company has in all respects lived
up to its contractual obligation to Complainant and that this complaint lacks
merit.As a customer service gesture, however, DPS will request its
contractor return to Complainant’s residence to assess Complainant’s site
restoration concerns and if the job is not to the company’s standard for basis
restoration, bring the disturbed areas up to that standard.I am providing a copy of this response to Complainant by U.S
Mail.Should you have any questions please contact me at
*** or ***.Sincerely,Gary J***

Revdex.com:
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Re: Revdex.com Case # ***
Dear Ms***
This letter is in response to DRS July 28, response to my
second complaint to the Revdex.com in July
Mr*** refuses to accept responsibility or acknowledge the
fact that no one from his organization ever came back to my house and inspected
the Heat Pump for Dye leaks. This in
itself is the new information with merit.
They are relying on incorrect/information to deny any wrongdoing
He cannot provide any evidence or documentation to that
claim that anyone ever revisited my residence after the Dye was injected on
April 22,
He will not accept the fact that his company breached the verbal
agreement between them and I regarding this action.
He continues to incorrectly believe that their contact was
completed when in fact that is not the case and I refuse to accept his idea
that they fulfilled their obligation involving the last service call on April
22nd
I know Mr*** is relying on information and data provided
to him by others, but if he was to look deeper into the facts, he will realize
that things and facts are not what he has been told. I don't expect that he will admit he was
wrong and had the incorrect dates and times and that there was not a return
visit to check for Dye leakage but that is the truth and they did not honor their
agreement
If he can produce just one piece of evidence or documentation
that a technician came to my house after the April Dye injection, I will
withdraw my claim against DPS and DRS immediately but I know that there is not
any documentation unless that create some at the late date
Regards \ *** ***
***

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the offer and/or response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below
Yes *** *** did come out on June 14, This is after I had to prove that my AC is under warranty by requesting another contractor come to prove that my AC unit is under warranty Initially TSS Heating and Air said I need to replace my evaporator coils in my inside unit when they came to my house about May 28, Dominion would not cover it because it is a unit that is over years oldHowever *** *** did not replace my evaporator coils when they came out on June Consequently I had to call Dominion Products and Services explained that I just had the AC unit installed in They insist the AC was out of warrantyTherefore I faxed the head of Dominion Products and Services on June 11, with what I found on *** putting in my serial number and model numberThe guy I faxed did not call me some other lady from Dominion Products and Services called me stating on my voicemail that the part is not under warrantyI asked if she read my fax I sent and she said noI also emailed TSS Heating and Air on June 4, and got a response from Adi at TSS Heating and Air on June stating "...the supply shop for Nordyne that told me it was over years old and out of warrantyShe will call Dominion in the morning. Consequently I was forced to get another contractor opinion which came out and fixed the unitThen on June 17, TSS Heating and Air called stating they were on there way to install the new evaporator coilsTSS left my house with no AC at 4pm and did not install the coilsThey said they could not get it working againThey left the air filter out of the unit and said they will be right backTSS never came backRemind you that when *** *** was there on June 14, they fixed the AC and it was blowing cold airOn June 20,2016, I had to put in another request to fix what TSS could not doI insisted on *** *** be the preferred contractor. I had to place three service callsEach service call is dollarsTherefore I paid dollar to date for the same problemI am asking for two of the three service fees but refunded to meNobody at Dominion acted on my claim that my unit was installed in even after I sent them proof via fax and told the customer service rep my finding
Regards,
* ***

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the offer and/or response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below
The dates given there are incorrectI called on May 2nd and they scheduled the technician on May 3rd @ 12:The technician took the pictures and told me that DPS will get back to me soonSince I did not get a call until 3, it was me who called DPS to find out about the status and then they informed me that the claim is rejectedNow when I checked my call records, I see a missed call from DPS @around 2:(maybe I would have missed it - the call duration was only seconds) and I called them at 3:13pm and that call was for a duration of min (including the wait time).Now regarding the pictures and the dent, honestly I noticed the dent only when the technician asked me about itThe water heater came along with the house when I bought this house in I am sure the dent would have been there right from the beginningUntil the leak started, there were absolutely no issues with my water heaterMy question is they never asked about any dents or rust in the water heater before they registered me in their insurance and started taking monthly payments from meI am a single mother of two girls and I am not familiar with any of the heavy equipment in my homeBut if they ask questions like whether my water heater has any dents or any other issues or if they had asked me to send them pictures of the water heater and its location before they take on my insurance payments, I would have happily done that and I would have known if there are any preexisting conditions. Telling me that the leak with my old water heater (that did not have any problems until mid-April 2017) is preexisting conditions, I consider as cheatingIf they really want the homeowners to live in peace after they enroll in the various repair programs provided by DPS, they should ask the questions and either inspect the place or take pictures before they take on the insuranceI dont think it will ever give any homeowner any peace of mind, if DPS rejects their claims as preexisting conditions and the homeowner has no proof to show that it was not preexisting.I am not agreeing to DPS stating that my problems are preexistingI use the basement regularlyMy washer dryer unit is right next to my water heater and one of us would have easily noticed the water leak if that was present earlierThere was none until mid-AprilIn that case, how can they say that the condition was preexisting?
Regards,
*** ***

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")Complainant takes issue with the provision in the
Program terms and conditions that makes clear repairs
required due to a
"dye test" or other third party inspection are excluded from
coverageThe dye test exclusion has been part of the Program's contract provisions
since the Program was first introduced in Pennsylvania in Complainant
seems to accuse DPS of somehow misleading customers or not being upfront about
the dye test exclusionDPS strongly denies any allegation of wrongdoing by
ComplainantOne might conclude in reading the subject complaint that
Complainant is a new Program customer and unfamiliar with how it works
However, a review of Complainant's account history reveals quite a different
storyIn fact, Complainant has been a Program customer for some 13-plus years,
having voluntarily enrolled in December He pays $57/yr (paid quarterly)
for participationOver this period of time Complainant called the DPS call
center on six separate occasions to file Program claims, none of which arose
from a dye test inspections, but all of which were fully covered by DPSThese
included five sewer line clog claims and, in July 2003, the replacement of a
section of Complainant's sewer line at a cost to DPS of $2,In all, the
Company has paid a total of $3,to its contractors in repair costs in the
course of honoring Complainant's multiple claims, as follows: The point in
recounting this extensive account history is to show that Complainant cannot
reasonably claim to be ignorant of or surprised by the dye test exclusion or
for that matter any other aspect of the ProgramIn conclusion, DPS has done
nothing wrong vis-a-vis this Complainant and in all respects has fully complied
with its contractual obligations to ComplainantComplainant, who is receiving
a copy of this response to Complainant by U.SMail, is reminded that he is
free to cancel participation in the Program at any timeIf you have any
questions please contact me

I am attaching the inspection report dated April when I first bought my homeI checked the section about my water heater and I find that Page of this report there are two photos of my water heater and I can see the dent that DPS talks aboutSo that means that the dent was there years back when I bought my home and it was working perfectly for the past five yearsSo that definitely is not the cause for a leak that started a month back in mid-April

[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 ***, and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to meI 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: ***
Regards,
*** ***
I HAD TO HAVE SOMEONE ELSE COME OUT AND HELP ME FIX THE PLUMBING !!IT WAS ridiculousTO HAVE DOMIINION SEND A PLUMBER OUT AND CALL A SECOND PLUMBER OUT TO FIX THE PROBLEM I SUFFERED WEEKS BEFORE IT WAS FIXED ** *** *** REFUSED TO DO THE PLUMBING THAT WAS THERE JOB I JUST NEEDED A TEN DOLLAR PIPE CUT SO THEY COULD SNAKE OUT THE DRAIN I HAD NEVER HAD TROUBLE WITH DOMINION WARRANTY COMPANY TILL NOW I LOST MY MOTHER IN MARCH IN THIS HOME IT WAS A TERRIBLE STRESS HAVING TO BE TOLD TO PAY UP FRONT USING MY CREDIT CARDI AM A VETERAN I AM NOT WORKING I AM WAITING TO BE HIRED IN THE V.AI HAVE NO JOB AND HAD TO DEAL WITH THIS STRESS I LOVED MY MOTHER AND MISS HER BADLY I KNOW NO ONE CARES ITS ONLY BUSINESS , BUT AGAIN I FIXED THE DRAIN MYSELFGOD BLESS AND I HOPE NO ONE HAS TO GO THROUGH WHAT I DID THE STINK OF THE DRAIN AND NOT BEING ABLE TO FIX IT WAS TERRIBLE. *** *** PS iMY MOTHER AND ME USED DOMINION BEFORE NO PROBLEMS MUST HAVE BEEN A ONE TIME THING ANYWAY I FIXED MY PLUMBING AND GOD BLESS HOPE IT DOSNT HAPPEN TO ANYBODY ELSE

Dear Ms. [redacted]: October 20, 2015 On behalf of Dominion
Products and Services, Inc. ("DPS" or "Company"), I am
responding to the above-referenced complaint concerning DPS's Water Heater
Repair & Replacement Program ("Program"). Complainant, who
recently filed a Program claim and received a...

replacement water heater, is
unhappy that the "standard" replacement water heater under the
Program carries a 6-year warranty and is rated at 38,000 British Thermal Units
("BTU") rather than the 12-year, 40,000 BTU unit he prefers and opted
to pay extra to receive. Complainant even seems to be alleging nefarious intent
on DPS's part, stating in the last sentence of the Customer's Statement of the
Problem section of the complaint: "Again a very poor program to promote
and energy efficiency but one that will provide additional profits to Dominion
at the customers expense [sic]". DPS strongly denies this and any other
allegation of wrongdoing by Complainant. Complainant voluntarily enrolled
online in the Program on April 9, 2009 and pays $6.95/month for coverage. The
terms and conditions of the Program- to which Complainant affirmatively
assented at the time of enrollment- provided, just as is the case today, that
the Program only covers the repair or replacement of standard water heaters.
When replacement of a failed unit is needed, the replacement unit will be of a
standard type, and by industry measures a 6-year 38,000 BTU unit is standard.
Thus, when Complainant placed his claim for a leaking water heater on October
14, 2015, DPS was prepared to do exactly what was called for under the Program,
which was replace Complainant's unit with a new standard unit. Complainant,
however, wanted the 12-year warranty unit rated at 40,000 BTU. When informed by
DPS that he would have to cover the extra cost (approximately $190.00 in total)
for such an upgrade, he agreed, but then followed up with this complaint and
seeks a refund of $50.29 of that total amount representing what he says is the
additional cost attributable to the 2,000 extra BTUs. For its part, DPS has
already paid $655.00 to replace Complainant's water heater. The Company owes
him nothing more. To the extent Complainant is not pleased with the Program, he
remains free to cancel at any time without penalty. In conclusion, DPS has done
nothing wrong and stands by its position in this matter. I am providing a copy
of this response to Complainant by U.S. Mail. Please contact me if you have any
questions.

Dear Ms. [redacted]: On behalf of Dominion Products and Services, Inc. ("DPS" or "Company"), I am responding to the above-referenced complaint concerning the Company's In-Home Plumbing Repair Program ("Program"). Complainant filed a Program claim on June 26, 2015 for a clogged sink....

DPS's contractor visited the residence the next day but the technician determined that a repair could not be made because the fixture could not be physically accessed. Complainant followed up by filing the instant complaint. The Company denies any allegation of wrongdoing. As requested by Complainant in his complaint, DPS agreed to send a different contractor to Complainant's residence for a second opinion. The second contractor called Complainant on July 8, 2015 to arrange for an appointment. However, at that time Complainant informed the contractor that Complainant and a friend had made the necessary repair themselves. Complainant advised the contractor that no further Program service was requested or needed. Accordingly, this matter should now be considered closed. I am providing a copy of this response to Complainant by U.S. Mail. 1 Complainant's mother, who reportedly passed away in March 2015, is the customer of record. 2 Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Assistant General Counsel

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 11 AM in the morning about getting sewage repair service. At 8 PM, we had still not heard a response from the contractor after speaking to Dominion Energy Services on the phone (their website states a 1 hour response). We called back at this time and were told a contractor would not be available until the 26th. We had raw sewage backing up into our basement. Their website also states that they can have service within 24 hours, even on Holidays and weekends. I personally called back twice around 9 PM, to clarify details. I was told by the lady on the phone from Dominion Energy Services that they would not have any contractors available until the 26th. When I pointed out that their website guaranteed Holiday and weekend service, she told me that she was sorry and that she couldn't do anything. I asked her then to get a plumber who could make a house call within the 24 hour window stated on their website. She told me that she could not do that, and would need a supervisor. When I asked her to put one on, she replied that none were working and that they would not be back until the 26th. I asked for their at-home number so I could call them at home, and she refused this information. Given 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 problem. We're available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week - including holidays and weekends. Your call will be answered by a trained representative, not an answering machine. A Dominion contractor will promptly be dispatched and can contact you within one hour of your initial call and repairs can begin within 24 hours.That information can be found here: https://www.dominionenergysolutions.com/en/home-protection/home-protectio...⇄ response back was both rude and incomplete. I would like them to both pay for the emergency sewage services, and to remove this false advertising from their website. Their website implies 24 hour service even on Holidays. They refused to provide prompt service on a Holiday. While they may try to skirt the issue with the use of the words "can" (implying it is not guaranteed. Proper 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 Holiday. This still would fall under the definition of false advertisement. 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]

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.
[Provide details of why you are not satisfied with this resolution.]
Regards,
[redacted]
Thank you. I expected as much.However, since I did not have a dye test in the many years I had Dominion service, this does come as a surprise to me.I agree, their terms say dye tests are not covered. But I believe this FAQ is misleading. It should specifically mention dye tests or say that they will only help you if you experience a clog.

[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 me. I 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 resolved. If the company does not perform as promised I can get back to you at: [email protected].
Regards,
[redacted]