I have attached all of the documents that we filed after this customer disputed the credit card charge. We won this dispute and I have attached a document stating this.Documents included (had to combine into one file):-Email to Ed describing work to completed including note that this may need
futher diagnostics and/or parts. Also a warning that this unit is years old which is extremely old.-Approval email response from Ed.-Invoice to Ed and signed work ticket Ed signed when technician completed work.-Broken down timeline of events related to this service.Also here is an email that our service manager sent to Ed after we won the dispute and Ed emailed us: Good morning ***,I am the Service Manager for Eichenauer Services and have been briefed on these recent events in full detail. I can obviously tell that you are very frustrated with this whole situation and I can assure you this is NOT our intentions. I sat down this morning with the lead Technician involved (*** *** and reviewed everything with him - including Hobart's service performed. Here are the facts: Lead Tech - *** *** - 20+ years of service & experience Trainee - *** *** - Non- billable labor Upon our initial assessment we immediately identified the motor running, but would not spin with the sound of gear grinding. We opened the unit up and immediately identified the unit was very low on grease and the badly worn brass "safety" gear was in need of replacement. The gear identified is a "safety" gear or "sacrificial" gear that is designed to wear first - prior to the other gears wearing down. With this worn gear identified, there is no question that this would cause the unit not to spin properly as observed by our Technician. Therefore - this was our proposal to replace the grease to the proper level and the worn gear. Once we returned and replaced the grease and gear - we adjusted the gears to the proper ratio for proper operation. We could not test the unit under load at that time - we did test in low and tried to grab the stem to keep from rotating - generally speaking, if you can keep the stem from rotating in low then there are more issues. The Technician remembers the unit running smooth and fluid with no indicators of additional issues. When we were called back with the problem reported that the unit was noisy and thumping - we made the decision at that time due to the unit being + years old that it would be in everyone's best interest to get Hobart involved to address further issues - given the fact they have more experience, support, and access to crossover component identification for obsolete parts with their own equipment. Upon Hobart's assessment he obviously found the unit to be noisy. So when he tore it down he found the worm gear shaft turning on top, but not the bottom. He found the shaft broken at the roll pin. Now whether or not the shaft was already broken there prior or possibly had a hairline crack when we replaced the gear is very difficult to determine and we will probably never be able to answer that question. The fact of the matter is that if we returned to assess the unit when called back - we obviously would have been able to identify, what was now more apparent, from the worm gear shaft turning on top, but not the bottom - that the shaft was broken and needed replaced. I hope this helps add more of a clear picture of the actual service performed and the events that took place. Feel free to call me if you have any additional questions... Thank you, ** *** *** ***Eichenauer Services, Inc.800-252-
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 10, 2015/08/07) */
Unfortunately, this piece of equipment was not properly maintained per Manufacture by the proprietor. This was Eichenauer Services' first involvement with this piece of equipment. Upon initial arrival this unit was noted to be in overall poor...
condition due to age and lack of proper / adequate planned maintenance. Unit had multiple issues and proprietor was consulted every step of the way with authorization to move forward with next step in repair process. When continuous & additional issues were exposed the consultation turned into repair vs. replace. Proprietor made the correct decision by not going further into repairs and opted to replace.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 12, 2015/08/13) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
Thank you for reply ,
They are Saying now poor cindition,after they repair and took the money,but if they say this word before,I do not accept for repair first time it self,they need only money,not customer satisfaction,what ever they did wrong ,I need money back,
And they worked only 2:45 minutes only ,they charged me almost 6 hours charged,
Please I am in frustration,take care of me.
I have attached all of the documents that we filed after this customer disputed the credit card charge. We won this dispute and I have attached a document stating this.Documents included (had to combine into one file):-Email to Ed describing work to completed including note that this may need
futher diagnostics and/or parts. Also a warning that this unit is years old which is extremely old.-Approval email response from Ed.-Invoice to Ed and signed work ticket Ed signed when technician completed work.-Broken down timeline of events related to this service.Also here is an email that our service manager sent to Ed after we won the dispute and Ed emailed us: Good morning ***,I am the Service Manager for Eichenauer Services and have been briefed on these recent events in full detail. I can obviously tell that you are very frustrated with this whole situation and I can assure you this is NOT our intentions. I sat down this morning with the lead Technician involved (*** *** and reviewed everything with him - including Hobart's service performed. Here are the facts: Lead Tech - *** *** - 20+ years of service & experience Trainee - *** *** - Non- billable labor Upon our initial assessment we immediately identified the motor running, but would not spin with the sound of gear grinding. We opened the unit up and immediately identified the unit was very low on grease and the badly worn brass "safety" gear was in need of replacement. The gear identified is a "safety" gear or "sacrificial" gear that is designed to wear first - prior to the other gears wearing down. With this worn gear identified, there is no question that this would cause the unit not to spin properly as observed by our Technician. Therefore - this was our proposal to replace the grease to the proper level and the worn gear. Once we returned and replaced the grease and gear - we adjusted the gears to the proper ratio for proper operation. We could not test the unit under load at that time - we did test in low and tried to grab the stem to keep from rotating - generally speaking, if you can keep the stem from rotating in low then there are more issues. The Technician remembers the unit running smooth and fluid with no indicators of additional issues. When we were called back with the problem reported that the unit was noisy and thumping - we made the decision at that time due to the unit being + years old that it would be in everyone's best interest to get Hobart involved to address further issues - given the fact they have more experience, support, and access to crossover component identification for obsolete parts with their own equipment. Upon Hobart's assessment he obviously found the unit to be noisy. So when he tore it down he found the worm gear shaft turning on top, but not the bottom. He found the shaft broken at the roll pin. Now whether or not the shaft was already broken there prior or possibly had a hairline crack when we replaced the gear is very difficult to determine and we will probably never be able to answer that question. The fact of the matter is that if we returned to assess the unit when called back - we obviously would have been able to identify, what was now more apparent, from the worm gear shaft turning on top, but not the bottom - that the shaft was broken and needed replaced. I hope this helps add more of a clear picture of the actual service performed and the events that took place. Feel free to call me if you have any additional questions... Thank you, ** *** *** ***Eichenauer Services, Inc.800-252-
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 10, 2015/08/07) */
Unfortunately, this piece of equipment was not properly maintained per Manufacture by the proprietor. This was Eichenauer Services' first involvement with this piece of equipment. Upon initial arrival this unit was noted to be in overall poor...
condition due to age and lack of proper / adequate planned maintenance. Unit had multiple issues and proprietor was consulted every step of the way with authorization to move forward with next step in repair process. When continuous & additional issues were exposed the consultation turned into repair vs. replace. Proprietor made the correct decision by not going further into repairs and opted to replace.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 12, 2015/08/13) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
Thank you for reply ,
They are Saying now poor cindition,after they repair and took the money,but if they say this word before,I do not accept for repair first time it self,they need only money,not customer satisfaction,what ever they did wrong ,I need money back,
And they worked only 2:45 minutes only ,they charged me almost 6 hours charged,
Please I am in frustration,take care of me.