Dominion Products and Services, Inc.

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
followsComplainant 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.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,
* ***

Dear ** ***: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 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 final Program claim-
for a clogged sewer line- on October 28, 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, 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 contacted DPS on behalf of his client requesting a service
callThe attorney stated that Complainant’s 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 back up and thus
would not be coveredMoreover, any dye-test 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 reason’s Complaint’s claim was not eligible for coverage.DPS stands by that denial for the reasons stated in this
responseWhat’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 ** ***,
On behalf of Dominion Products and Services,Inc, ("DPS"), I am responding to the above-referenced complaint concerning DPS's Water Line Repair and Replacement Program ("Program")
Complainant alleges wrongdoing on the part of DPS for
refusing to refund him the $3,he spent for private exterior water line repair work done at his residence nearly a year ago, in July His allegations include the completely outrageous assertion that by its actions the company is "trying to bait and switch"DPS strongly denies Complainant's allegation of wrongdoing
In his June 3,2074 Revdex.com complaint, Complainant claims that he "[n]ever received instructions on how to use the program or copy of terns and conditions "Complainant is simply mistakenIn fact, in September 2010, in response to a Program solicitation sent to his residence in August that included the Program terms and conditions (which have also been readily available on the company's website for a number of years), Complainant mailed back to DPS a Program enrollment card bearing his signature.3 That card included a printed statement by which the enrolling customer declares he has read and agrees to the Program terms. Complainant's Program enrollment (at $4.99/month) became effective September 2,A copy of the signed enrollment card has been mailed to Complainant along with a copy of this letter for his reference
The Program terms could not be more clear that DPS, without prior authorization, will not reimburse for private work done either by the customer himself or a third party on behalf of the customerThe reason for this is clear: as the Program offeror, DPS must be able to determine for itself the nature of the water line claim as well as-again, for itself-decide the appropriate remedy for the situation. Further, it is immaterial that the contractor Complainant used for the private work in July turns out to be a DPS Program contractor
In conclusion, DPS denies wrongdoing in this matter and once again stands by its position that is not responsible for reimbursing Complainant
Please contact me if you have any questions
Sincerely,
*** * ***
Assistant General Counsel

Dear ** ***:
On behalf of Dominion Products and Services, Inc ("DPS" or "Company"), I am responding to the above- reference complaint concerning DPS's In Home Plumbing Repair Program ("Program")Respectfully, DPS denies Complainant's allegations of wrongdoing
/>
Complainant twice called the DPS call center during the morning of January 14, to place a Program claim for an in-home water line leakDPS's contractor called her back that same morning and told her he would be at the home on January 16, The schedule delay was caused because the contractor was experiencing a backlog of service calls at that time because of the sever cold weatherComplainant was not satisfied and demanded to speak to a supervisorShe also filed this complaint that same day
The next morning, January 15,2014, a DPS supervisor called Complainant and told her he would do his best have the contractor respond to the property as soon as possibleShortly thereafter, the contractor called Complainant and offered to come out and look at the problem immediatelyComplainant, however, declined, saying that she could not be at the residence nor could she arrange for someone else to be there to let the contractor in
Nonetheless, the next day, January 16, 2014, DPS's contractor did visit the residence, only to find that the leak had been privately repaired- apparently by the tenantThe repair itself had been done on a water line used for the heating/hot water system, which would not in any event have been a covered repair under the Program
To conclude, DPS has done nothing wrong in this matter and in fact extended Complainant every courtesy in an effort to respond to her claim as quickly as possibleIn the end, it was determined her claim condition was not eligible for coverageFurther, DPS is not responsible for reimbursement to her for private work she or a tenant may have done
I am sending Complainant a copy of this letter by mail
Please let me know if you have any questions
Sincerely,
*** * ***
Assistant General Counsel

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

Dear ** ***: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 $Respectfully, this matter should now be considered closedI am providing a copy of this response to Complainant by U.S
Mail
If you have any questions please contact me

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 ***

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,
*** ***

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.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 (*** ***) 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 ***. *** 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,
*** ***

Dear Richmond Revdex.com:
On behalf of Dominion Retail, lncd/b/a Dominion Energy Solutions ("DES"), I am responding to the above-referenced complaint
Beginning in 2011, Complainant was a natural gas commodity customer of DES on the *** *** ***
*** ("***") gas utility system in New Jersey.' On December 31, 2013, Complainant contacted the DES call center to request cancellation of his serviceThe cancellation older was electronically inputted by DES but
was rejected by the *** automated system because of a data transfer issue. When DES became aware of this on April 12,2014, it submitted another cancellation
request, which was acknowledged by ***That cancellation will become effective on June 30,
DES explained this situation to the Complainant on April 16,and informed him that he will be issued a refund once his service is finally ended
In conclusion, the Company regrets any inconvenience Complainant experienced in this matter and has already committed to provide a refundDES denies any allegation by Complainant of wrongdoing
I am providing Complainant a copy of this letter by U.SMail
Please contact me should you have any questions
Respectfully submitted,
*** * ***
Assistant General Counsel

[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 *** ***
On behalf of Dominion Products and Services, Inc(HOPS"), I am responding to the above referenced complaint concerning the DPS In-Home Electric Line Repair Program ("Program")
DPS denies any allegation of wrongdoing in this
matter, specifically with regard to the denial of Complainant's July 24, claim for repair service under the ProgramThe facts in this matter are as followsComplainant enrolled in the Program via the internet on April 29, The Program fee is $3.99/month, The Program terms and conditions make very clear that neither preexisting conditions nor damage caused by a third party is covered under the ProgramThe Program also specifically excludes fixtures from coverage under the ProgramDPS denied Complainant's claim for each of these stated reasons
Complainant himself acknowledges both a preexisting condition and a third party-caused issue right in the very body of his complaint: "My electric line was bad as per the contract "which started to happen because of water issues and poor installation by a contractor a few years ago"Indeed, DPS's contractwhich DPS paid $for the service call to Complainant's home-determined that Complainant's home wiring was installed incorrectly and was not code compliantAdditionally, his problem concerned a flood light, which, as a household lighting fixture, is specifically not covered
Accordingly, DPS was well justified in denying the claim here and stands by that decision. Nonetheless, while under no obligation to do so, as a customer service gesture DPS will agree to refund Complainant the approximately $in Program fees he paid while a Program customerl A check in that amount will be sent to
Complainant's attention once processedI am providing a copy of this response to Complainant by U.SMailIf you have any questions please contact me

Dear ** ***:
On behalf of Dominion Products and Service, Inc(“DPS”), I
am responding to the above referenced complaint
Upon investigation, it appears Complainant double-paid for
coverage under DPS’s In-Home Electric Line Repair
ProgramThe resulting
over-payment was $DPS is refunding that amount to complainant
I am providing a copy of this response to Complainant by
U.SMail
If you have any questions please contact me
Sincerely,
*** ***

The response claims a list of facts, then contradicts that claim by providing the opinion of the contractorWhat 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 ** ***: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,*** * ***

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the offer 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
[I continue to seek advice from my lawyers in this matter. Also, the copy of the signed agreement card is addressed to my wife *** *** and signed by myself
It also appears the document has been alteredThe font used in the terms conditions is unreadable and leads to confusion on the part of the consumer]
Regards,
*** ***

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]

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the offer made by the business in reference to complaint ID[redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint in full.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
Why was I billed twice for the same product service?  Will this double billing happen again?
Regards,
[redacted]

Dear [redacted]:
On behalf of Dominion Products and Services, Inc. (“DPS”). I
am responding to the above referenced complaint concerning the DPS Water Line
Repair and Replacement Program (“Program”).
This complaint concerns a denial by...

DPs of Complainant’s
December 14, 2013 claim of service under the Program. In January 2014,
Complainant sent a letter to the Dominion Board of Directors requesting
reconsideration of the denial. DPS’s response to Complainant, dated February
18, 2014, noted the reasons for the claim denial. A copy of this letter with
personally identifiable information redacted is [redacted] for reference.
Nothing has changed in the nearly eight months since then.
Accordingly, DPS stands by its earlier denial of Complainant’s
claim and further denies any allegations of wrong doing by Complainant.
I am providing a copy of this response to Complainant by U.S
Mail.
If you have any questions please contact me.
Sincerely,
[redacted]