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 times, that wasn't working eitherI 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
Dear [redacted] O behalf of Dominion Products and Services, Inc(“DPS” or “the Company”), I am responding to the above-referenced complaint concerning the Company’s Heating and Cooling Repair Program (“HVAC Program”) and Water Heating Repair & Replacement Program (“WHTR Program”).Complainant accuses DPS of wrongful actions as to both ProgramsConcerning the HVAC Program, he alleges that DPS “ refused to try and repair my System because of some small print in the agreement and never came back to check the system as they had agreed to do before canceling that part of the service”He requested a refund of his HVAC Program feesAs for the WHTR Program, Complainant takes issue with the Company’s recently announced revision to the Program that reflects new federally-imposed water heater mandatesComplainant alleges this is a “blindsided action” and that pre-existing contracts should receive “grandfather’ treatment.Complainant voluntarily enrolled in both Programs by telephone on February 28, The HVAC Program costs $9.95/month while the WHTR Program is $5.95/monthParticipation in these programs is always voluntary, which means a customer-whose Program payment prepay coverage for the applicable period- is absolutely free to cancel participation at any time without penalty.Complainant placed his first HVAC Program claim with the DPS call center on October 11, 2014, but prior to the contractor’s arrival at his home Complainant canceled the claimTwo days later, on October 13, 2014, Complainant again placed a HVAC program claim and once again canceled the claim before the contractor’s arrivalOn November 21, 2014, Complainant filed another claimThis time the contractor actually visited Complainant’s residence and inspected the air conditioner unitThe contractor determined that Complainant’s air conditioner which is in excess of years old, was low on Freon refrigerant The contractor recharged the unit with Freon at a cost to DPS of $203.44.Complainant filed another HVAC Program claim on April 9, Once again the contractor found the air conditioner to be low on Freon and recharged itSuspecting a Freon leak, the contractor also placed a dye pack to help detect the location of the leak.On April 17, 2015, the contractor returned to Complainant’s residence to check on any additional leakageThe dye revealed a leak in the unit’s coilHowever, as Complainant was so informed that day by the contractor, the coil repair was not eligible for coverage under the HVAC Program terms and conditions given the unit’s ageComplainant called DPS that day to questions this determination but was told that indeed the repair would not be coveredHe called again on the April 27, and this time cancelled his participation in the HVAC ProgramIn all, DPS paid its contractor $in connection with the work done at Complainant’s residence on April and 17.As the foregoing HVAC Program account history demonstrates, Complainant is clearly wrong in alleging that DPS “refused to try” to help him or otherwise evaded its contractual commitment to himTo the contract, the Company- which spent nearly $in contractor costs- honored each of Complainant’s claims and only denied the coil repair once it was evident that that work was not eligible for coverageComplainant is not entitled to any HVAC Program fee refund and none will be forthcoming from DPS.Turning now to the WHTR Program portion of this complaint, it should be noted that Complaint has never filed a claim under that program His issues is with the Company’s prospective changes to the program terms and conditions which DPS is making in the wake of recent new federal mandates concerning water heatersThe new WHRT Program terms and conditions go into effect as of August 1, Far from being “blind sided”, Complainant, as an existing customer, received written notice of the prospective changes from DPS Moreover, DPS is applying the charges uniformly and across all customersThe Company cannot and will not grandfather Complainant’s account or any otherTo the extent he is unhappy with the new WHTR Program terms and Conditions, Complainant is free to cancel participation at any time without penalty.In conclusion, this complaint merits immediate dismissal DPS has done nothing wrong vis-à-vis this complainant and in all respects the Company has fully complied with its contractual obligations to Complainant
Revdex.com: [redacted] [redacted] *** [redacted] *** [redacted] Re: Revdex.com Case # [redacted] Dear Ms [redacted] This letter is in response to DRS July 28, 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/information to deny any wrongdoing He cannot provide any evidence or documentation to that claim that anyone ever revisited my residence after the Dye was injected on April 22, He will not accept the fact that his company breached the verbal agreement between them and I regarding this action He continues to incorrectly believe that their contact was completed when in fact that is not the case and I refuse to accept his idea that they fulfilled their obligation involving the last service call on April 22nd I know Mr [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 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]
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, for a clogged sinkDPS'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 accessedComplainant followed up by filing the instant complaintThe Company denies any allegation of wrongdoingAs requested by Complainant in his complaint, DPS agreed to send a different contractor to Complainant's residence for a second opinionThe second contractor called Complainant on July 8, to arrange for an appointmentHowever, at that time Complainant informed the contractor that Complainant and a friend had made the necessary repair themselvesComplainant advised the contractor that no further Program service was requested or neededAccordingly, this matter should now be considered closedI am providing a copy of this response to Complainant by U.SMailComplainant's mother, who reportedly passed away in March 2015, is the customer of recordPlease contact me if you have any questionsSincerely, Assistant General Counsel
Dear ***: 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, claim of service under the ProgramIn January 2014, Complainant sent a letter to the Dominion Board of Directors requesting reconsideration of the denialDPS’s response to Complainant, dated February 18, 2014, noted the reasons for the claim denialA 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] ***
Revdex.com: I have reviewed the offer made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to meI 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: [redacted] 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 questionableTwice I hired my own plumber as they could not come in a timely fashion (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 serviceOne is dealing with multiple people with no clear accountabilityI had to call different people to cancel the programI 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 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 ***
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 wrongdoingThe facts in this matter are as follows.Complaint voluntarily enrolled by telephone in the Program on April 28, On August 10, 2016, Complainant called the DPS call center to file a claim concerning his air conditionerHE reported to the Company’s call center representative that a private contractor ( [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 contractorAs Complainant did not follow proper procedure, the equipment part for which he seeks coverage- the drain pan is not covered in any eventThis exclusion is clearly stated in the Program terms and conditions.In conclusion, DPS stands by its denial of Complainant’s claim
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 matterThe facts are as follows.Complainant enrolled in the Program by telephone on September 9, and pays a subscription fee of $14.95/quarterA provision in the Program terms and conditions makes clear that only actual clogged sewer lines are coveredAdditionally, repairs required due to a failed “dye test” or other third party inspection are excluded from coverageThe dye test exclusion has been part of the Program’s contract provisions in Pennsylvania for as long as Complainant has been a customerComplainant placed his first Program claim- for a clogged sewer line- on October 28, The Company’s contractor cleared the clog at a cost to DPS of $Complainant placed another clog claim a few days later, on November 3, Nothing more was heard from Complainant for the next yearsOn November 9, 2016, he called the DPS call center to place another claimHowever, he was not at that time experiencing a back-up, so no contractor referral request was made.A few days later, on November 14, 2016, Complainant’s real estate attorney contracted DPS on behalf of his client requesting a service callThe attorney stated that Complainant’s a sewer line had failed a municipal dye testAlthough it could have denied service outright on the basis of the dye test claim, as a courtesy DPS dispatched its contractor who, after inspecting Complainant’s sewer line, determined that the line was not backed up and thus would not be coveredMoreover, any dye-test related claim would also not be doneThis was communicated to Complainant, who, on November and again on November 29, 2016, called DPS to question the denialEach time the Company representative repeated the reasons Complainant’s claim was not eligible for coverage.DPS stands by that denial for the reasons stated in this responseWhat’s more, the Company disclaims the responsibility for reimbursing Complainant for any private sewer line repair work that Complainant decides he needs.We respectfully submit that this complaint should now be considered closed.I am providing a copy of this response to Complainant by US Mail.Should you have any questions please contact me at [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 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] ***
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 baof 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 $gesture helps, we don't understand why we have to wait for several weeks, knowing that at any time, raw sewage could again start pouring into our house We also don't understand why the additional work must be "approved" by Dominion In our view, this is the work Dominion must deliver to us, and it should have been delivered, as promised, within hours of the onset of the sewer line back-up For this reason, we are not willing at this time to accept the offer made by Dominion to resolve the complaint Instead, we want Dominion to immediately authorize the additional work, and arrange for its contractor to immediately repair the sewer line Once the sewer line is fully repaired, we will reconsider the offer of a $payment Regards, [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, denial of Complainant’s claim form Program coverageDPS 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 followsComplaint called the DPS call center on August 12, to enroll in the ProgramComplainant’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, to place a Program claim, he was not in good standing under the ProgramHe was informed of this fact of this fact by the DPS agent in the course of the recorded claims callMoreover, as admitted by Complainant himself during that call, the subject sewer line was at that time “bubbling”, which means it was backing upThe call center agent informed Complainant that this constituted a pre-existing condition when the Company would not cover and which made him ineligible to reenrollAfter stating he was having trouble with his phone line, Complainant indicated he would call back and terminated the callFollowing 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, he signed up online and used a credit card to pay for the Program, thus avoiding the need for interaction with the call center staffNext, on April 24, 2015, Complainant called in to the call center to check whether his enrollment was in effectIn 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 clogDPS’s contractor was dispatched to the home and snaked and flushed the line reestablishing flowThe company paid $for this workApproximately one month later, on June 2, 2015, Complainant called in another claimThe same contractor was dispatched to Complainant’s residenceThis time the contractor hit a clog that would not clear which would indicate either a rupture in the line or a large root ballWhen 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 itIn 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 yearsIn 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 $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 conditionAs 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
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 times, that wasn't working eitherI 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
Dear [redacted] O behalf of Dominion Products and Services, Inc(“DPS” or “the Company”), I am responding to the above-referenced complaint concerning the Company’s Heating and Cooling Repair Program (“HVAC Program”) and Water Heating Repair & Replacement Program (“WHTR Program”).Complainant accuses DPS of wrongful actions as to both ProgramsConcerning the HVAC Program, he alleges that DPS “ refused to try and repair my System because of some small print in the agreement and never came back to check the system as they had agreed to do before canceling that part of the service”He requested a refund of his HVAC Program feesAs for the WHTR Program, Complainant takes issue with the Company’s recently announced revision to the Program that reflects new federally-imposed water heater mandatesComplainant alleges this is a “blindsided action” and that pre-existing contracts should receive “grandfather’ treatment.Complainant voluntarily enrolled in both Programs by telephone on February 28, The HVAC Program costs $9.95/month while the WHTR Program is $5.95/monthParticipation in these programs is always voluntary, which means a customer-whose Program payment prepay coverage for the applicable period- is absolutely free to cancel participation at any time without penalty.Complainant placed his first HVAC Program claim with the DPS call center on October 11, 2014, but prior to the contractor’s arrival at his home Complainant canceled the claimTwo days later, on October 13, 2014, Complainant again placed a HVAC program claim and once again canceled the claim before the contractor’s arrivalOn November 21, 2014, Complainant filed another claimThis time the contractor actually visited Complainant’s residence and inspected the air conditioner unitThe contractor determined that Complainant’s air conditioner which is in excess of years old, was low on Freon refrigerant The contractor recharged the unit with Freon at a cost to DPS of $203.44.Complainant filed another HVAC Program claim on April 9, Once again the contractor found the air conditioner to be low on Freon and recharged itSuspecting a Freon leak, the contractor also placed a dye pack to help detect the location of the leak.On April 17, 2015, the contractor returned to Complainant’s residence to check on any additional leakageThe dye revealed a leak in the unit’s coilHowever, as Complainant was so informed that day by the contractor, the coil repair was not eligible for coverage under the HVAC Program terms and conditions given the unit’s ageComplainant called DPS that day to questions this determination but was told that indeed the repair would not be coveredHe called again on the April 27, and this time cancelled his participation in the HVAC ProgramIn all, DPS paid its contractor $in connection with the work done at Complainant’s residence on April and 17.As the foregoing HVAC Program account history demonstrates, Complainant is clearly wrong in alleging that DPS “refused to try” to help him or otherwise evaded its contractual commitment to himTo the contract, the Company- which spent nearly $in contractor costs- honored each of Complainant’s claims and only denied the coil repair once it was evident that that work was not eligible for coverageComplainant is not entitled to any HVAC Program fee refund and none will be forthcoming from DPS.Turning now to the WHTR Program portion of this complaint, it should be noted that Complaint has never filed a claim under that program His issues is with the Company’s prospective changes to the program terms and conditions which DPS is making in the wake of recent new federal mandates concerning water heatersThe new WHRT Program terms and conditions go into effect as of August 1, Far from being “blind sided”, Complainant, as an existing customer, received written notice of the prospective changes from DPS Moreover, DPS is applying the charges uniformly and across all customersThe Company cannot and will not grandfather Complainant’s account or any otherTo the extent he is unhappy with the new WHTR Program terms and Conditions, Complainant is free to cancel participation at any time without penalty.In conclusion, this complaint merits immediate dismissal DPS has done nothing wrong vis-à-vis this complainant and in all respects the Company has fully complied with its contractual obligations to Complainant
Revdex.com: [redacted] [redacted] *** [redacted] *** [redacted] Re: Revdex.com Case # [redacted] Dear Ms [redacted] This letter is in response to DRS July 28, 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/information to deny any wrongdoing He cannot provide any evidence or documentation to that claim that anyone ever revisited my residence after the Dye was injected on April 22, He will not accept the fact that his company breached the verbal agreement between them and I regarding this action He continues to incorrectly believe that their contact was completed when in fact that is not the case and I refuse to accept his idea that they fulfilled their obligation involving the last service call on April 22nd I know Mr [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 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]
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, for a clogged sinkDPS'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 accessedComplainant followed up by filing the instant complaintThe Company denies any allegation of wrongdoingAs requested by Complainant in his complaint, DPS agreed to send a different contractor to Complainant's residence for a second opinionThe second contractor called Complainant on July 8, to arrange for an appointmentHowever, at that time Complainant informed the contractor that Complainant and a friend had made the necessary repair themselvesComplainant advised the contractor that no further Program service was requested or neededAccordingly, this matter should now be considered closedI am providing a copy of this response to Complainant by U.SMailComplainant's mother, who reportedly passed away in March 2015, is the customer of recordPlease contact me if you have any questionsSincerely, Assistant General Counsel
Dear ***: 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, claim of service under the ProgramIn January 2014, Complainant sent a letter to the Dominion Board of Directors requesting reconsideration of the denialDPS’s response to Complainant, dated February 18, 2014, noted the reasons for the claim denialA 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] ***
Revdex.com: I have reviewed the offer made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to meI 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: [redacted] 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 questionableTwice I hired my own plumber as they could not come in a timely fashion (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 serviceOne is dealing with multiple people with no clear accountabilityI had to call different people to cancel the programI 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 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 ***
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 wrongdoingThe facts in this matter are as follows.Complaint voluntarily enrolled by telephone in the Program on April 28, On August 10, 2016, Complainant called the DPS call center to file a claim concerning his air conditionerHE reported to the Company’s call center representative that a private contractor ( [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 contractorAs Complainant did not follow proper procedure, the equipment part for which he seeks coverage- the drain pan is not covered in any eventThis exclusion is clearly stated in the Program terms and conditions.In conclusion, DPS stands by its denial of Complainant’s claim
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 matterThe facts are as follows.Complainant enrolled in the Program by telephone on September 9, and pays a subscription fee of $14.95/quarterA provision in the Program terms and conditions makes clear that only actual clogged sewer lines are coveredAdditionally, repairs required due to a failed “dye test” or other third party inspection are excluded from coverageThe dye test exclusion has been part of the Program’s contract provisions in Pennsylvania for as long as Complainant has been a customerComplainant placed his first Program claim- for a clogged sewer line- on October 28, The Company’s contractor cleared the clog at a cost to DPS of $Complainant placed another clog claim a few days later, on November 3, Nothing more was heard from Complainant for the next yearsOn November 9, 2016, he called the DPS call center to place another claimHowever, he was not at that time experiencing a back-up, so no contractor referral request was made.A few days later, on November 14, 2016, Complainant’s real estate attorney contracted DPS on behalf of his client requesting a service callThe attorney stated that Complainant’s a sewer line had failed a municipal dye testAlthough it could have denied service outright on the basis of the dye test claim, as a courtesy DPS dispatched its contractor who, after inspecting Complainant’s sewer line, determined that the line was not backed up and thus would not be coveredMoreover, any dye-test related claim would also not be doneThis was communicated to Complainant, who, on November and again on November 29, 2016, called DPS to question the denialEach time the Company representative repeated the reasons Complainant’s claim was not eligible for coverage.DPS stands by that denial for the reasons stated in this responseWhat’s more, the Company disclaims the responsibility for reimbursing Complainant for any private sewer line repair work that Complainant decides he needs.We respectfully submit that this complaint should now be considered closed.I am providing a copy of this response to Complainant by US Mail.Should you have any questions please contact me at [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 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] ***
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 baof 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 $gesture helps, we don't understand why we have to wait for several weeks, knowing that at any time, raw sewage could again start pouring into our house We also don't understand why the additional work must be "approved" by Dominion In our view, this is the work Dominion must deliver to us, and it should have been delivered, as promised, within hours of the onset of the sewer line back-up For this reason, we are not willing at this time to accept the offer made by Dominion to resolve the complaint Instead, we want Dominion to immediately authorize the additional work, and arrange for its contractor to immediately repair the sewer line Once the sewer line is fully repaired, we will reconsider the offer of a $payment Regards, [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, denial of Complainant’s claim form Program coverageDPS 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 followsComplaint called the DPS call center on August 12, to enroll in the ProgramComplainant’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, to place a Program claim, he was not in good standing under the ProgramHe was informed of this fact of this fact by the DPS agent in the course of the recorded claims callMoreover, as admitted by Complainant himself during that call, the subject sewer line was at that time “bubbling”, which means it was backing upThe call center agent informed Complainant that this constituted a pre-existing condition when the Company would not cover and which made him ineligible to reenrollAfter stating he was having trouble with his phone line, Complainant indicated he would call back and terminated the callFollowing 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, he signed up online and used a credit card to pay for the Program, thus avoiding the need for interaction with the call center staffNext, on April 24, 2015, Complainant called in to the call center to check whether his enrollment was in effectIn 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 clogDPS’s contractor was dispatched to the home and snaked and flushed the line reestablishing flowThe company paid $for this workApproximately one month later, on June 2, 2015, Complainant called in another claimThe same contractor was dispatched to Complainant’s residenceThis time the contractor hit a clog that would not clear which would indicate either a rupture in the line or a large root ballWhen 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 itIn 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 yearsIn 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 $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 conditionAs 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