Dominion Products and Services, Inc.

Revdex.com:
[redacted]                                   ...⇄ [redacted]          [redacted]                                   ...⇄ [redacted]
Re: Revdex.com Case # [redacted]
Dear Ms. [redacted]
This letter is in response to DRS July 28, 2015 response to my
second complaint to the Revdex.com in July.
Mr. [redacted] 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/false information to deny any wrongdoing.
He cannot provide any evidence or documentation to that false
claim that anyone ever revisited my residence after the Dye was injected on
April 22, 2015.
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. [redacted] 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 22 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
 \                                            [redacted]
                                        ...⇄ [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.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
[Provide details of why you are not satisfied with this resolution.]
I never signed an agreement of the terms and conditions.  My wife does not handle these matters in our house-hold.  If I did sign an agreement, where's is the copy ?
Also, I've spoken to one of the 3rd party contractors, and was advised this type of situation happens all the time,,  for example, the water line breaks and the husband is out of town,,, well sorry Ms. customer, you called the wrong number, too bad.  I recently asked a neighbor to contact DPS to ask for the program details ... he did recieve a brouchure and convienently, the new program includes a nice refrigarator magnet with the proper number to call..  Well, I guess the unfortunate customers who signed up early for this program, were not entitled to same clear instructions.   I stand by comments, that this is a BAIT and SWITCH..
I will be bringing matter to my lawyers, as well.
Regards,
[redacted]

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 made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me. 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: [redacted].
Regards,
[redacted]

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 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 contract. DPS denies any allegation of wrongdoing in this matter. Complainant voluntarily enrolled in the Program on May 18, 2011 and pays $5.95/month for coverage. She filed her first claim on September 21, 2012, but proceeded to have her water heater privately replaced before DPS's contractor could perform the job. She filed another claim on October 31, 2012. 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 flooding. The 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 causes. As was explained to Complainant in 2012, basement flooding is such a cause. Complainant filed her next claim on April 17, 2015. 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 claim. DPS's contractor was dispatched and discovered that the basement had again flooded. The water heater unit components, which were submerged, had been damaged by the flood water. It 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, 2015 claim. I am providing a copy of this response to Complainant by U.S . Mail. Complainant 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, [redacted] Assistant General Counsel

Dear [redacted]:On behalf of Dominion Products and Services, Inc. (“DPS” or “Company”),
I am responding to the above-referenced complaint concerning the Company’s
Sewer Line Repair Program (“Program”).DPS denies any allegation of wrong doing in this 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 first 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 contracted DPS on behalf of his client requesting a service
call. The attorney stated that Complainant’s a 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 backed up
and thus would not be covered. Moreover, any dye-test related 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 reasons Complainant’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 the responsibility for reimbursing
Complainant for any private sewer line repair work that Complainant decides he
needs.We respectfully submit that this complaint should now be
considered closed.I am providing a copy of this response to Complainant by US
Mail.Should you have any questions please contact me at
[redacted].

They did not bother to mention that I told them that water was coming throught my ceiling downstairs, the plumber said we are not an emergency company, they wanted me to wait 4 days before coming out, I had no choice but to get it repaired and this was a covered item, the piping was leaking, when they did show up, the plumber said he would have done the same thing that we did to repair it, so if he said that why are you saying now it wasn't covered, any plumbing leaks are covered.  I have had the same thing but on other pipes in the ceiling that leaked last year that were repaired.  This company needs to make a priority for people that have water spraying out and going through the ceiling.    
 
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.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
[Provide details of why you are not satisfied with this resolution.]
Regards,
[redacted]

Dear [redacted]:
DPS is in receipt of Complainant's June 24, 2014 rebuttal to DPS's June 17, 2014 response letter in the above- referenced matter. Please note DPS is providing this additional response to your office by U.S. Mail because the enclosure contains certain personally identifiable information of Complainant, namely a copy of the signed business reply enrollment card submitted by Complainant to DPS in September 2010.
As noted on the card, a copy of which was already provided to Complainant on June 17, 2014, upon signing the card Complainant assented to the terms and conditions of the Program. This includes the provision stating that DPS will not reimburse for third party work.
Complainant offers no new information in his June 24, 2014 rebuttal. Accordingly, no further response from DPS is necessary and the company stands by its previously stated position in this matter.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
[redacted] [redacted]
Assistant General Counsel

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]
[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.

Dear [redacted],
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 Replacement Program and Preferred Water Line'Restoration Program ("Programs").
/>
DPS denies any allegation of wrongdoing in this matter.
Complainant enrolled in the two Programs on March 14,2011 and pays a combined $6'49/mo for coverage. On May 13, 2014, Complainant called in an external water line claim. DPS's contractor replaced Complaint's water line on June 3, 2014 at a cost to DPS of $3,200.00. This was a major job requiring extensive excavation. As one would expect, Complainant's yard was significantly impacted by the work.
Preferred restoration work is not performed immediately after such a major excavation. Rather, in order to permit the disturbed earth time to settle and depending on weather conditions, preferred restoration may take up to eight weeks to be completed.
In Compliant's case, the preferred restoration work order for Complainant's job was placed with DPS's contractor on June 4, 2014, the day after the water line replacement job was completed. The contractor went to Complainant's home and preformed the restoration work approximately a month later, on July 8, 2014. Complainant, though, was not happy with the work and reported as much to DPS when the Company's supervisor called him the next day. Accordingly, arrangements were made for the contractor to return to Complainant's residence on July 12, 2014. The DPS supervisor again called Complainant on July 14th to check on the status of the project, but as of this writing Complainant has not called back.
The Company will take all reasonable measures to see to it that the job is completed to Complainant's reasonable satisfaction. At a minimum, DPS estimates it will be billed at least $500.00 for the restoration work-which includes sod installation-at Complainant's residence, bringing the total expended for the water line replacement to settle $3,700.00.
In conclusion, DPS submits that it has in all respects acted reasonably in this case and has lived up to its contractual obligations to Complainant, including providing him a bland new water line and preferred restoration work.
I'm providing a copy of this response to Complainant by U.S. Mail.
If you have any questions please contact me.
Sincerely,
[redacted]
Assistant General Counsel

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.

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.

Dominion products and services was unavailable to be reached for service needs all evening October 13, 2016, with no other service number or option. I tried contacting them on their website at least 6 times, that wasn't working either. I have used them in the past, and have always been able to reach them for service. Their service has always been good. They should have an alternate number to call for service, or a website that works.

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.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 back-up of sewage into our house.  According to Dominion's contractor, [redacted], we must now wait "a few weeks" to hear from Dominion as to WHETHER they will approve the additional work.  [redacted] 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 $100 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 24 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 $100 payment.
Regards,
[redacted]

I would not use Dominion Products and Services insurance via [redacted]. I have found the service unreliable, the response time unacceptable, and the quality of outcome questionable. Twice I hired my own plumber as they could not come in a timely fashion (4 days after claim open). To obtain service you first have to open a claim then they hand it off to another firm [redacted]), and they schedule the service. One is dealing with multiple people with no clear accountability. I had to call 5 different people to cancel the program. I feel [redacted] is eroding credibility of its corporate image by marketing this program.

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.  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 for taking my call, I apologize for missing the deadline I was trying to find my electronic copy of my bill from Dominion.
 
If you read the second page from the communication of the business, this was mailed before the month of December and before my call to request warranty service, it clearly states "welcome...." and "if you need services call...."  
 
So this being the official communication from the business, a consumer could safely, or rather should safely, assume that they have coverage and if they have problems to call the business for service.  I do understand the waiting period and I do understand that the waiting period had not passed at this point, but I did not at the time because it had been more than 60 days since I ordered the service from Dominion.  I wrongly assumed that I was covered and this note on my bill gave me confidence when the water line broke, that I was covered.
 
Thanks for your consideration.  I realize you cannot make  or force the company to do anything, I just wanted you to see how a consumer could be given a bad sense of security when they receive an official statement from the company that they are covered and prepared to help when they really are not.
 
I have also [redacted] the invoice for the repair, which Dominion requested during our conversations while they were addressing my concern, yet nothing was done.  This was the invoice paid, but the quotes I received were all higher and this was the lowest cost provider.
 
Thanks.
 
[redacted]

Dear [redacted]:ON behalf of Dominion Products and Service, Inc (“:DPS” or “Company”),
I am responding to the above referenced complaint concerning DPS’s Cooling
Repair Program (“Program”).The Company denies Complainant’s allegations of wrongdoing. The
facts in this matter are as...

follows.Complaint voluntarily enrolled by telephone in the Program
on April 28, 2014. On August 10, 2016, Complainant called the DPS call center
to file a claim concerning his air conditioner. HE reported to the Company’s
call center representative that a private contractor ([redacted]) has determined
his problem was a cracked drain pan.DPS appropriately denied Complainant’s claim for two reasons.
First, the Company is not responsible for nor it is bound by the determination
or advice of a third party private contractor. As Complainant did not follow proper
procedure, the equipment part for which he seeks coverage- the drain pan is not
covered in any event. This exclusion is clearly stated in the Program terms and
conditions.In conclusion, DPS stands by its denial of Complainant’s
claim.

Review: My central ac unit which has been covered by Dominion Products Services was leaking water in my basement. I had a contractor whom was referred to me by Dominion Products and Services and is a contracted contractor with them look at it WITHOUT performing any work. I was informed my drain pan has a hairline crack. I then decided to call Dominion Products and Services to see if it was covered. I was informed it was covered. The lady on the phone then goes how do you know it is the drain pan? I informed her a contractor whom they recommended told me. She then immediately said denied. I asked why? She goes because I didn't tell them first and that work was performed. I advised NO work was performed and I have every right to have it looked at prior to any work. The lady said the claim was being denied but a supervisor would follow up with me/ I asked to speak to a supervisor now since we were on the phone and she said none were available at 4PM on a business day. I advised they were looking for a reason to deny the claim and asked where in my contract does it state I can't look at it before performing any repairs. The lady from Dominion could not answer my question and said a supervisor would follow up. No supervisor has called back. to date.Desired Settlement: I want my drain pan replaced as it should be covered as I was originally told by the lady on the phone.

Business

Response:

Dear [redacted]:ON behalf of Dominion Products and Service, Inc (“:DPS” or “Company”),

I am responding to the above referenced complaint concerning DPS’s Cooling

Repair Program (“Program”).The Company denies Complainant’s allegations of wrongdoing. The

facts in this matter are as follows.Complaint voluntarily enrolled by telephone in the Program

on April 28, 2014. On August 10, 2016, Complainant called the DPS call center

to file a claim concerning his air conditioner. HE reported to the Company’s

call center representative that a private contractor ([redacted]) has determined

his problem was a cracked drain pan.DPS appropriately denied Complainant’s claim for two reasons.

First, the Company is not responsible for nor it is bound by the determination

or advice of a third party private contractor. As Complainant did not follow proper

procedure, the equipment part for which he seeks coverage- the drain pan is not

covered in any event. This exclusion is clearly stated in the Program terms and

conditions.In conclusion, DPS stands by its denial of Complainant’s

claim.

I have Dominion's coverage for electrical among other ones. I have been their customer for years now. Dominion except about the 1st year has refused to fix electrical problems and keeps collecting the monthly dues. I do not recommend them unless they accept to write a contact with you and sign it. The reason is that they cover homeowners with the intention of getting by and hope there is no problem in your house and if there is, they will send unqualified handy men and if the problem persist they state oh, this we do not cover. When they enroll you and collect your money, there is no condition attached, but when you ask for service they treat you not very politely!

Review: I am dominion AC/ heating protection program. I called them on about may 28 to complaint that my AC was not keeping up with the set temperature. Tidewater heating company came out the next day. The told dominion that the AC unit is over 10 year old therefore parts were not covered. I know I installed it in spring of 2014. I looked it look and confirmed it was manufactured in 2014. Therefore it is covered under part warranty. I email Tidewater and faxed dominion proving it was manufactured in 2014. The supervisor of domino products and services called me about June 3 telling me he has to go by the Tidewater heating company findings of over 10 year old system. He suggested I get another opinion by paying another 50 dollar service fee to Dominion to have another contractor look at it. I did and [redacted] looked at it and found out it was manufactured in 2014 therefore under THE AC manufacturer warranty and covered under domino product protection plan. Now I have been waiting and waiting for "approval"Desired Settlement: Fix my AC unit...50 dollars back

Business

Response:

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.

Consumer

Response:

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.

Yes [redacted] did come out on June 14, 2016. 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, 2016. Dominion would not cover it because it is a unit that is over 10 years old. However [redacted] did not replace my evaporator coils when they came out on June 14. Consequently I had to call Dominion Products and Services explained that I just had the AC unit installed in 2014. They insist the AC was out of warranty. Therefore I faxed the head of Dominion Products and Services on June 11, 2016 with what I found on [redacted] putting in my serial number and model number. The 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 warranty. I asked if she read my fax I sent and she said no. I also emailed TSS Heating and Air on June 4, 2016 and got a response from Adi at TSS Heating and Air on June 5 stating "...the supply shop for Nordyne that told me it was over 10 years old and out of warranty. She will call Dominion in the morning. Consequently I was forced to get another contractor opinion which came out and fixed the unit. Then on June 17, TSS Heating and Air called stating they were on there way to install the new evaporator coils. TSS left my house with no AC at 4pm and did not install the coils. They said they could not get it working again. They left the air filter out of the unit and said they will be right back. TSS never came back. Remind you that when [redacted] was there on June 14, they fixed the AC and it was blowing cold air. On June 20,2016, I had to put in another request to fix what TSS could not do. I insisted on [redacted] be the preferred contractor.