D&S Equipment

Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: D&S are now contradicting their own previous response, and they are now trying to blur the obvious distinction between a "sealed system repair" and their new term: "sealed system work." D&S have already admitted that our contract with them – and the basis on which we agreed to their $labor charge – was to perform a “sealed system REPAIR.” And D&S have already admitted that they failed to locate the system leak, so therefore they failed to perform any such REPAIR In their previous response, D&S raised doubt about whether they even encountered a sealed system at all We didn’t raise that doubt; D&S did They now (#in their second response) contradict their own previous argument by claiming certainty that whatever work they did was on a sealed system In addition, they are now careful to avoid claiming their “work” amounted to the “sealed system REPAIR” we paid them for Their careful wording is clearly crafted to avoid acknowledging the obvious – that they failed to actually REPAIR anything, sealed system or otherwise.We have never disputed that we agreed to D&S’s $labor rate (#and #in their second response) for a “sealed system REPAIR,” with or without a new compressor Similarly, we have never disputed the points D&S makes in #and #(there is no #5) in their second response, though it isn’t clear to us how one provides a warranty on work that was never performed in the first place We would be satisfied having paid their price if D&S had actually performed the "sealed system REPAIR" they were obligated to provide Revdex.com has now offered D&S two opportunities to explain what REPAIR they performed, and D&S have twice failed to identify any such REPAIR As a practical matter, since D&S have repeatedly admitted that they failed to FIND the leak, they can’t possibly believe (and they have now even abandoned making the claim) that their work in any way provided a REPAIR of that leak D&S have also already admitted that the “uv drier” they apparently installed was not a REPAIR, but was merely a part of their failed attempt to locate the refrigerant leak(And we note again that their REPAIR proposal made no mention of a “uv drier,” so there is clearly no merit to D&S’s argument that we agreed to their $labor price on that basis.)As we previously pointed out, no rational person would claim that simply pumping air into a leaking tire constitutes a tire repair But the simple, irrefutable truth is that the only useful work D&S did successfully was to pump new refrigerant into a cooling system they knew to be leaking Yes, it ran almost months before requiring another recharge, just as that refilled leaky tire might get us down the road a few more miles before going flat again But D&S can’t escape the fact that, whatever work they did, we paid them to deliver a “sealed system REPAIR” which they never performed Given the facts, the $refund we have proposed – in lieu of a fraud charge and a trip to court – seems to us to be more than fair Sincerely, [redacted] ***

Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 5, 2015/07/22) */ as mrs [redacted] stated she scheduled the service work ONLINE, when you schedule an appointment online it states what our charges are, if we had the part on the truck the charge would still be the same $plus $plus parts, when she scheduled online for service, she agrees to our charges, she does not have to talk to us on the phone.we did not know what part was needed for her unit, so we sent the serviceman to the house to verify what part was needed, as it turned out the part number that was given to us from the parts distributor was wrong, we looked up and found it needed parts and not one and the price was wrong, we did call to find out if she wanted the correct parts for her unit, she refused to call to notify us, so we did call several times to find out if she wanted the parts and she still did not return the callthis could have all ended if mrs [redacted] answered the phone, or even returned the call, since she was not returning our phone calls, she had given the serviceman her credit card for us making the trip to the house, so we tried to bill her credit card, but it was declined, so we sent her the bill and stated it was declined, then we get a very bad message stating we better credit her credit card or she will report us to the Revdex.commrs did call and talk to me with a different story than what was on the answering machine, I told her we did not charge her for anything because her credit card was declined, as far as us contacting her in the future this will not happen, she has been put on our do not service list so we can never do business with her ever again, all of this could have been avoided if she called our office Initial Consumer Rebuttal / [redacted] (2000, 7, 2015/07/23) */ (The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.) Thank you to the Revdex.com for handling this dispute quickly and sufficientlyMy "bad message" to this company stated that they better not contact me again, not that I wanted a credit my accountI will not need this company's service in the future as I ordered the part and fixed the microwave door myself

i'm sorry you are unhappy with the service, I am not sure why we are receiving this, you should be contacting your contract company, we diagnosed your unit as needing, the control board and fuse, your contract company has a protocol that we must follow, if the cost of repairs is over a certain dollar amount we must get an authorization, there is a delay to this procedure, we submit this online and then they have to review it and then say yes or no to the repair, after we get approval, we then order the parts, we do not order them before approval because we get charged a restocking fee and no one will pay for this, we received the parts and installed them, there was still an issue, problem is the control board controls everything and there is no way to know if there is a 2nd problem unit this board is installed, we found a 2nd issue, we called the the manufacturers technical assistance line and was told to replace the key pad and door switch, we call them because they have inside information to help in the repair, like in this case, since you have the contract and we are adding more parts than what we have an authorization for, we submit it again to your contract company for approval, again we have to wait, we did get approval and ordered the parts, one part came in on 8/1/and the 2nd one is expected in today 8/4/16., after we check the part in, we will call you to schedule an appointment, i'm sorry for the delay, but this is the service contracts protocol and we must follow the rules

Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because: I understand the protocol with the contract companyWhat I don't understand is the days between part approval and part delivery and the days the second timeI now have one oven working and one still brokenI also have a black touch pad faceplate on my stainless steel appliance The contract company does not order the parts, you doWe are now days from the first technician visit
Sincerely,
*** ***

1) we did do a sealed system work on your refrigerator, we installed a uv drier on the sealed system and recharged the sealed system2) you agreed to our price of $before the work was started3) we gave you a price originally for a compressor, just in case it was needed, it did not needed the compressor and you were not charged for the compressor4) we have a warranty on our labor of days, 6) the unit has worked for almost months, well beyond our warranty

we did a diagnosis of a no cool refrigerator on 4/24 and found the unit was not cooling, the technician that was at the house diagnosed that there is a sealed system problem, all service company's have a different price they charge for a sealed system repair different from there normal repair...

charges since this requires a highly specialized service technician to repair a sealed system. our rate is $975.00 plus the trip charge of $85.00, the first technician said the unit needed a compressor, he does this because there is either a leak in the system or the compressor itself is bad, this way if the customer agrees to our price, the sealed system technician will have the part available to install, the customer was given a quote of $1649.05 just in case it needed the compressor, the customer agreed to this price, we ordered the compressor and had the sealed system tech find out what was wrong, he determined the unit did not need the compressor but he did find the unit has no Freon in the sealed system, he did recharge the sealed system and was not able to find a leak, he installed a uv drier onto the sealed system to help locate the leak, since we did not replace the compressor the customer was not charged for this, he was charged for the filter drier that we installed and the labor rate that he agreed to pay, we did go back at no charge to the customer, 4 days later for the uv drier to show us where the leak is, and we found nothing, there are some sealed system line that are not accessible, we did our job properly and the unit has been cooling for 7 months, the unit is over 15 years old, on 12/11/2015 the customer called and said the unit is not cooling again and we did not do our job properly I told him we did do the job properly and the unit has been cooling for 7 months, I would have to send out our sealed system technician again and the same rate would apply, Mr [redacted] refused to understand that our warranty is for 30 days, and not 7 months. at this point all Mr [redacted] knows is that the unit is not cooling again, there may be a different problem now causing the no cool, but he thinks we did not do our job properly. again the unit is over 15 years old, we did not cheat this customer at all. we told him the charges, he agreed to the charges and the unit has been working for 7 months. if Mr [redacted] would like us to come back to check out the refrigerator, since it may not be a sealed system, our rate is $185.00 plus parts unless it is a sealed system repair then it is $975.00 plus parts

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:  D&S are now contradicting their own previous response, and they are now trying to blur the obvious distinction between a "sealed system repair" and their new term: "sealed system work." D&S have already admitted that our contract with them – and the basis on which we agreed to their $975 labor charge – was to perform a “sealed system REPAIR.” And D&S have already admitted that they failed to locate the system leak, so therefore they failed to perform any such REPAIR.  In their previous response, D&S raised doubt about whether they even encountered a sealed system at all.  We didn’t raise that doubt; D&S did.  They now (#1 in their second response) contradict their own previous argument by claiming certainty that whatever work they did was on a sealed system.  In addition, they are now careful to avoid claiming their “work” amounted to the “sealed system REPAIR” we paid them for.  Their careful wording is clearly crafted to avoid acknowledging the obvious – that they failed to actually REPAIR anything, sealed system or otherwise.We have never disputed that we agreed to D&S’s $975 labor rate (#2 and #3 in their second response) for a “sealed system REPAIR,” with or without a new compressor.  Similarly, we have never disputed the points D&S makes in #4 and #6 (there is no #5) in their second response, though it isn’t clear to us how one provides a warranty on work that was never performed in the first place.  We would be satisfied having paid their price if D&S had actually performed the "sealed system REPAIR" they were obligated to provide.  Revdex.com has now offered D&S two opportunities to explain what REPAIR they performed, and D&S have twice failed to identify any such REPAIR.  As a practical matter, since D&S have repeatedly admitted that they failed to FIND the leak, they can’t possibly believe (and they have now even abandoned making the claim) that their work in any way provided a REPAIR of that leak.  D&S have also already admitted that the “uv drier” they apparently installed was not a REPAIR, but was merely a part of their failed attempt to locate the refrigerant leak. (And we note again that their REPAIR proposal made no mention of a “uv drier,” so there is clearly no merit to D&S’s argument that we agreed to their $975 labor price on that basis.)As we previously pointed out, no rational person would claim that simply pumping air into a leaking tire constitutes a tire repair.  But the simple, irrefutable truth is that the only useful work D&S did successfully was to pump new refrigerant into a cooling system they knew to be leaking.  Yes, it ran almost 7 months before requiring another recharge, just as that refilled leaky tire might get us down the road a few more miles before going flat again.  But D&S can’t escape the fact that, whatever work they did, we paid them to deliver a “sealed system REPAIR” which they never performed.  Given the facts, the $790 refund we have proposed – in lieu of a fraud charge and a trip to court – seems to us to be more than fair.    
Sincerely,
[redacted]

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/07/22) */
as mrs. [redacted] stated she scheduled the service work ONLINE, when you schedule an appointment online it states what our charges are, if we had the part on the truck the charge would still be the same $85.00 plus $90.00 plus parts, when she...

scheduled online for service, she agrees to our charges, she does not have to talk to us on the phone.we did not know what part was needed for her unit, so we sent the serviceman to the house to verify what part was needed, as it turned out the part number that was given to us from the parts distributor was wrong, we looked up and found it needed 2 parts and not one and the price was wrong, we did call to find out if she wanted the correct parts for her unit, she refused to call to notify us, so we did call several times to find out if she wanted the parts and she still did not return the call. this could have all ended if mrs [redacted] answered the phone, or even returned the call, since she was not returning our phone calls, she had given the serviceman her credit card for us making the trip to the house, so we tried to bill her credit card, but it was declined, so we sent her the bill and stated it was declined, then we get a very bad message stating we better credit her credit card or she will report us to the Revdex.com. mrs did call and talk to me with a different story than what was on the answering machine, I told her we did not charge her for anything because her credit card was declined, as far as us contacting her in the future this will not happen, she has been put on our do not service list so we can never do business with her ever again, all of this could have been avoided if she called our office
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (2000, 7, 2015/07/23) */
(The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)
Thank you to the Revdex.com for handling this dispute quickly and sufficiently. My "bad message" to this company stated that they better not contact me again, not that I wanted a credit my account. I will not need this company's service in the future as I ordered the part and fixed the microwave door myself.

i'm sorry you are unhappy with the service, I am not sure why we are receiving this, you should be contacting your contract company, we diagnosed your unit as needing, the control board and fuse, your contract company has a protocol that we must follow, if the cost of repairs is over a certain...

dollar amount we must get an authorization, there is a delay to this procedure, we submit this online and then they have to review it and then say yes or no to the repair, after we get approval, we then order the parts, we do not order them before approval because we get charged a restocking fee and no one will pay for this, we received the parts and installed them, there was still an issue, problem is the control board controls everything and there is no way to know if there is a 2nd problem unit this board is installed, we found a 2nd issue, we called the the manufacturers technical assistance line and was told to replace the key pad and door switch, we call them because they have inside information to help in the repair, like in this case, since you have the contract and we are adding more parts than what we have an authorization for, we submit it again to your contract company for approval, again we have to wait, we did get approval and ordered the parts, one part came in on 8/1/16 and the 2nd one is expected in today 8/4/16., after we check the part in, we will call you to schedule an appointment, i'm sorry for the delay, but this is the service contracts protocol and we must follow the rules