Dominion Energy Products and Services

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 [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 coverage. The...

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 follows. Complainant
enrolled in the Program online on December 31, 2011 and on June 21, 2013
enrolled in the additional premium option. Complainant placed a Program claim
regarding his bathroom sink on October 1, 2015. The Company’s contractor visited
Complainant’s home on October 3. 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 drain. Fixtures 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
lines. The 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 coverage. However, as a customer service gesture, DPS has
agreed that Complainant will be reimbursed that $175.00 he paid a private
plumber to make the subject repair. This 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] [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.
Dear Sir/Maam’

In response to the rebuttal letter dtd 10 November 2016 in regards to the complaint issued against Dominion Products and Services (DPS).

Dominion Products and Service representatives made a false 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" wrong. Had DPS taken the time to investigate the leak during the numerous visits to my home, they would have been able to give the correct assessment. Also if this were true, they never said as such at any time during their many stall tactic visits. If they would have done the professional thing and their job, they would have discovered the source of the leak. The leak was not under the slab. That 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 coverage. Now they conveniently cover nothing. It may have carried more weight if they had said it on Day one, not over 10 waterless, hot and cold days later. It appears it took close to 30days to make up a response and that response was again incorrect.



No, the response is unacceptable. DPS should take responsibility for their DPS representatives’ actions and lack of incompetence.



$649.22 does not excuse the incompetence of this company leaving a senior citizen without water, AC and heat for over 20 days nor does it excuse the false promises they continued to wield each and every time they stalled.

$649.22 does not excuse having to get water from neighbors to flush my toilets and wash my dishes for over 20 days.

$649.22 does not excuse not being able to take showers and enjoy the basic comforts one has in their home

$649.22 does not give back the time spent waiting for DPS to send a plumber.

$649.22 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 debacle. I have [redacted] pictures showing the holes made in the walls to complete the repair. Again not the slab. I welcome DPS to visit my home for verification.



Marie Pierce
Regards,
[redacted]

Dear [redacted]:OH behalf of Dominion Products and Services, Inc. (“DPS” or “Company”),
I am responding to the above-referenced complaint concerning DPS’s Furnace
Repair Program (“Program”).DPS regrets and inconvenience that Complainant- evidently a
U.S. Armed Forces veteran- experienced as the...

result of the company’s denial of
his program claim. Nonetheless, as this response makes plain, DPS’s denial was
fully justified. The facts are as follows.Complainant enrolled in the Program via the internet on
February 14, 2017 at a fee of $4.95/month. The program terms and conditions
state clearly that coverage under the Program does not begin until the first
payment is received and enrolled in the Program exceeds 30 days.  In Complainant’s case, on March 4, 2017,
before any payment for the Program had been received from him and before 30
days from the enrollment date had passed, he called into the DPS call center to
discuss issues that a private contractor had identified regarding the Complainant’s
furnace. The DOS call center personnel he spoke to that day unequivocally and
correctly advised Complainant that because he was not at that time a customer
in good standing under the Program- that is because neither the receipt of
first payment nor 30 days from enrollment milestone had been reached- his furnace
issues constituted a pre-existing condition and would thus not be covered under
the Program. In light of the pre-existing condition, the Company also canceled
the Complainant’s Program coverage that day.In conclusion, while it is regrettable that Complainant’s
claim had to be denied, the Company’s actions were reasonable and in compliance
with the Program terms and conditions.I am providing a copy of this response to Complainant by
U.S. Mail.Should you have any questions please contact me at
[redacted] or [redacted].Sincerely,Gary * J[redacted]

Dear Ms. [redacted]: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 problem. Moreover, 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 Program. Following
is a review of Complainant's account history.I. Enrollment History: Complainant first enrolled in
the Program on September 30, 2009, but was canceled from coverage on November 10, 2010 for non-payment. Complainant again enrolled on April 1, 2011 but once again cancelled out
of the Program on May 7, 2015 for non-payment. Most recently, Complainant
enrolled via telephone on September 17, 2015 and pays an annual Progran1 fee of
$71 .88. Complainant remains an active Program customer.2. Claims History: Complainant has an extensive claims
history under the Program, with a totalof 8 claims filed since first becoming a customer, as follows:Claim Date           Claim
Reason/Work performed by DPS        Cost to DPS1. May 16, 2011      sewer line clog contractor found no backup  $952. July 23, 2011 sewer line clog;
contractor snaked line and established flow $2253. August J 8, 2011 sewer line
clog; contractor found no backup $954. March 16, 2012 sewer line clog; contractor
snaked line and established flow .$2255. October 26, 2012 sewer line clog;
contractor snaked line and established flow $2756. March 7, 2016 sewer line clog;
contractor snaked line and established flow; $175camera inspection of line was
suggested for future backup7. June JO. 2016 sewer line clog;
contractor reopened line, performed camera $1,590inspection and made repair of a bad
section of line8. October 15, 2016 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 again.3 As mentioned above, this time the camera
showed that Complainant's problem-a root-is located underneath the home's
concrete slab. Such a situation is not covered under the Program. Accordingly, while we regret the inconvenience and
difficulty Complainant is going through, DPS is not to blame for his situation. Rather, in all
respects, the Company has lived up to its contractual commitment to
Complainant. I am providing a copy of this response to Complainant
by mail. Should 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 Sewer Line
Repair Program (“Program”).This complaint concerns the Company’s June 2, 2015 denial of
Complainant’s claim form Program coverage. DPS...

denies any allegation of
wrongdoing by Complainant, particularly his completely baseless claim that DPS “somehow
broke my pipe or collapsed it and it isn’t just a simple snake job and they
refuse to do anything about it”.As this response will demonstrate, given the clear evidence
that Complainant had a pre-existing condition, DPS’s conduct in this matter was
more than reasonable.The complainant’s account history is as follows. Complaint
called the DPS call center on August 12, 2014 to enroll in the Program. Complainant’s
Program payments were to be included on his monthly electric bill under an
arrangement between DPS and Complainant’s electric utility, [redacted]. The reality, however, is that DPS never received payment from
Complainant via [redacted]. Thus, when he called barely two months later on
October 15, 2014 to place a Program claim, he was not in good standing under
the Program. He was informed of this fact of this fact by the DPS agent in the
course of the recorded claims call. Moreover, as admitted by Complainant
himself during that call, the subject sewer line was at that time “bubbling”,
which means it was backing up. The call center agent informed Complainant that
this constituted a pre-existing condition when the Company would not cover and
which made him ineligible to reenroll. After stating he was having trouble with
his phone line, Complainant indicated he would call back and terminated the
call. Following the call, the DPS call center agent placed a pre-existing
condition “alert” on Complainant’s account for the purpose of notifying a call
center personal about the issue with Complainant’s sewer line should be in the
future again attempt enrollment.As it happened, Complainant did not call back but instead,
on April 3, 2015 he signed up online and used a credit card to pay for the Program,
thus avoiding the need for interaction with the call center staff. Next, on
April 24, 2015, Complainant called in to the call center to check whether his
enrollment was in effect. In speaking with Complainant that day, the DPS call center
agent did not notice the alert on the account and, for his part, Complainant
made no mention of a pre-existing condition on having been denied enrollment in
October 2014.On May 6, 2015, Complainant called DPS to place a claim for
a sewer clog. DPS’s contractor was dispatched to the home and snaked and
flushed the line reestablishing flow. The company paid $175 for this work. Approximately
one month later, on June 2, 2015, Complainant called in another claim. The same
contractor was dispatched to Complainant’s residence. This time the contractor
hit a clog that would not clear which would indicate either a rupture in the line
or a large root ball. When informed if this situation by the contractor,
Complainant admitted to the contractor that he knew the line was broken and
demanded to know when DPS was going to dig it up and fix it. In addition to
Complainant’s own admission, the contractor also learned that the municipality had
received a number of previous complaints concerning Complainant’s sewer line in
recent years. In light of this clear evidence of a pre-existing condition DPS
declined to proceed any further and denied Complainant’s claim, although not
without having to pay another $175 to its contractors for his service that day.The evidence in this matter points to the unmistakable conclusion
that Complainant had a known pre-existing condition. As for complainant’s claim
that DPS itself “broke” his sewer line or in some other way has wrong him, suffice
it to say he has provided zero evidence to back up his assertions.

On behalf of Dominion products and services, Ince ("Dps" or "Company"), I am responding to the above-referenced complaint concerning DPS's swer line repair program ("Program")DPS denies any allegation of wrongdoing in this matter.Complainant, who has been a program customer since 2005, called in a...

Program claim for a back up at 12:17 p.m. on Christmas Eve, December 24, 2017. Evidently unwilling to wait for the Company's contractor, Complainant hired his own contractor who apparently performed $ [redacted] in repairs. While as general matter DPS does not reimburse for private work such as this, the Company contacted Complainant on December 26, 2017 and requested that he submit a copy of the paid invoice to DPS for possible reimbursement. Complainant may have already don so. If he has not he should send the document to the undersigned.I am providing a copy of this response to Complainant by [redacted]Gary *. J[redacted]Assistant General CounselDominion Energy Services, Inc.

On behalf of Dominion Products and Services, Inc. ("DPS" or "Company"), I am responding to the above-referenced complaint concerning the Company's Gas Line Replacement Program ("Program"). Complainant is unhappy that she received only $[redacted] from DPS, rather than the full $[redacted]...

she requested, as reimbursement for private gas line repair work done at her residence. In demanding the additional $[redacted], Complainant alleges she was "misled" by the Company and received "uncaring" service. Complainant's accusations of wrongdoing are denied. Under the circumstances, DPS's actions in this matter have been more than reasonable. The facts are as follows. Complainant originally enrolled in the Program by business reply card on September 29, 2006 and was a customer until November 14, 2012, when her account was canceled for non-payment. She re-enrolled by telephone on January 18, 2013 and pays $**/yr by credit card. Complainant apparently experienced an external gas leak in early July 2017, and on July 10, 2017 obtained a repair from her own private contractor for the amount of $[redacted]. While she claims that she contacted DPS contemporaneously, the Company has no record of a July 2017 phone call from her.2 Complainant evidently proceeded to hire her own contractor-to whom she paid $[redacted]-without first notifying DPS of the claim condition. However, the Program terms and conditions make clear that the Company will not pay for private, third-party work.In September 2017, having apparently found her receipt for payment of her Program fee, Complainant followed up with DPS by telephone to request reimbursement for the private repair. She was asked to send in a copy of the private contractor's invoice for review and consideration. Upon receipt and review of the invoice, DPS determined that the private repair performed was a "riser" replacement, the portion of the gas line that comes out of the ground and attaches to the meter. Recognizing that the Company was well within its rights to refuse any reimbursement to Complainant, nonetheless, as a customer service gesture DPS issued a $[redacted] reimbursement to Complainant, which is a fair market cost for a riser replacement. In conclusion, DPS's decision to make even this partial reimbursement to Complainant is more than reasonable under the circumstances. Accordingly, no further payment will be made to her. I am providing a copy of this response to Complainant by U.S. Mail. If you have any questions please contact me by telephone at ([redacted] or email at [redacted] Thanks.Gary *. J[redacted]Assistant General CounselDominion Energy Services, Inc.[redacted] StreetRichmond, VA [redacted] (fax)

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 back-up that 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 back-up of sewage could occur at any time.  Weeks later, we had heard nothing.  We called Dominion, who told us we had to call [redacted].  [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]

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 conditioner. DPS
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
Mail. If you have any questions please contact me.

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 denial. Please contact me if you have any questions. Gary J[redacted]

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 condition. For 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, 2017 at a fee of $[redacted] month. On May 2, 2017, he contacted the
DPS call center to place a Program claim. DPS’ contractor technician was
dispatched to Complainant’s residence that same day. Upon inspection, the
technician was dispatched to Complainant’s resident that same day. Upon inspection,
the technician found that the unit showed signs of severe deterioration. Heavy 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, 2017 enrollment in the Program. The 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 dent. The technician took photographs (copies enclosed) of
Complainant’s unit- the photos indisputably support the finding of a
preexisting condition. It 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 reimbursement. Since 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 made. If 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]

As an update to my earlier response, please note that on Monday, October 24, 2016, DPS responded to an additional claim filed by Complainant. DPS’s contractor determined that the problem that day was caused by a back-up washing machine drain line, which is not covered under the Program.Additionally, last week Complainant contracted the Company’s contractor direction and asked for a camera inspection of her sewer line/ This request was appropriately denied because the line was not clogged.Accordingly, at this point nothing further is required of DPS.I am providing a copy of this response to Complainant to US mail.

On behalf of Dominion Products and Services, Inc. I 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 contractor. She
filed her claim for a back-up sewer at 10:15 p.m. On October 14, 2016, a
Friday. Regrettably, 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, 2016. 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
gesture. A check in the amount will be forwarded to her once it’s prepared
(which could take up to 2 weeks).I am providing a copy pf this response to Complainant by U.S
Mail.

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]
I appreciate your help with my case with Dominion Products and Services. I am afraid that the company did not address my complaint in their letter. They assumed that my complaint was that they took too long to complete the job. That is false. My complaint was about the quality of their work. The contractor filled the hole and left a crater and dirt piled on top of my stones. I felt that this was poor quality work and poses a hazard to people walking by. The gas cap is also left sticking up. I felt that he could have filled the hole better instead of leaving all that dirt out and he could have leveled off the blacktop. I am submitting pictures for review. Thank you.

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
Programs. Concerning 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 fees. As for the WHTR Program, Complainant takes
issue with the Company’s recently announced revision to the Program that
reflects new federally-imposed water heater mandates. Complainant 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, 2014. The HVAC Program costs $9.95/month while the
WHTR Program is $5.95/month. Participation 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 claim. Two days later, on October 13, 2014,
Complainant again placed a HVAC program claim and once again canceled the claim
before the contractor’s arrival. On November 21, 2014, Complainant filed another
claim. This time the contractor actually visited Complainant’s residence and
inspected the air conditioner unit. The contractor determined that Complainant’s
air conditioner which is in excess of 15 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,
2015. Once again the contractor found the air conditioner to be low on Freon
and recharged it. Suspecting 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 leakage. The dye revealed a leak in the
unit’s coil. However, 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 age. Complainant called DPS that day to questions
this determination but was told that indeed the repair would not be covered. He
called again on the April 27, 2015 and this time cancelled his participation in
the HVAC Program. In all, DPS paid its contractor $209.49 in connection with
the work done at Complainant’s residence on April 9 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 him. To the contract, the
Company- which spent nearly $500 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 coverage. Complainant 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 heaters. The new WHRT Program terms and conditions go into
effect as of August 1, 2015. 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 customers. The
Company cannot and will not grandfather Complainant’s account or any other. To
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.

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 matter. The Facts
are as follows.Complaint enrolled in the Program by signing business reply
card on April 10, 2006 and pays $45.00/year. She placed a Program claim with DPS
on December 7, 2016. DPS’s contractor was dispatched to Complainant’s residence
and replaced Complainant’s exterior gas line on December 16, 2016. Prior to
beginning the work the contractor’s technician reviewed the job with
Complainant. As part of this process, the technician explained that the Program
provided post-work basic restoration only. Complainant then signed Dominion’s “Pre-excavation
information” form acknowledging her understanding and agreement. Enclosed is a
copy of the form Complainant signed with personal information redacted. After 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 meter. Three days later, on
December 19, 2016, the contractor completed the restoration by backfilling at
the curb stop near the street. However, the delay was attributable to the gas
utility, not DPS or its contractor, because the utility had to come to the site
to tie-in its 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 line. 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
[redacted] or [redacted].Sincerely,Gary J[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 $[redacted]/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 $[redacted].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 $** 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 [redacted]:On behalf of Dominion Products and Services, Inc. (“DPS” or “Company”).
I am responded to the above-reference complaint concerning the Company’s Sewer
Line Repair Program (“Program”).DPS denies any allegation of wrongdoing in this matter. The
facts are as follows.Complainant enrolled...

in the Program by telephone on
September 9, 2009 and pays a subscription fee of $14.95/quarter. A provision in
the Program terms and conditions makes clear that only actual clogged sewer
lines are covered. Additionally, repairs required due to a failed “dye test” or
other third party inspection are excluded from coverage. The dye test exclusion
has been part of the Program’s contract provisions in Pennsylvania for as long
as Complainant has been a customer. Complainant placed his final Program claim-
for a clogged sewer line- on October 28, 2010. The Company’s contractor cleared
the clog at a cost to DPS of $175.00, Complainant placed another clog claim a
few days later, on November 3, 2010. Nothing more was heard from Complainant
for the next 6 years. On November 9, 2016, he called the DPS call center to
place another claim. However, 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 contacted DPS on behalf of his client requesting a service
call. The attorney stated that Complainant’s sewer line had failed a municipal
dye test. Although 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 back up and thus
would not be covered. Moreover, any dye-test claim would also not be done. This
was communicated to Complainant, who, on November 23 and again on November 29,
2016, called DPS to question the denial. Each time the Company representative
repeated the reason’s Complaint’s claim was not eligible for coverage.DPS stands by that denial for the reasons stated in this
response. What’s more, the Company disclaims 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.

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 matter. Please note that at Complainant's...

request DPS sent a second plumbing contractor to Complainant's home on July 25, 2017 to evaluate Complainant's sewer line claim condition. The necessary repair work-a simple unclogging-was completed. Accordingly, this matter should now be closed. I am providing a copy of this letter to Complainant by mail. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at [redacted] or [redacted]