Sign in

Gardner Whitehall Realty Trust

Sharing is caring! Have something to share about Gardner Whitehall Realty Trust? Use RevDex to write a review
Reviews Gardner Whitehall Realty Trust

Gardner Whitehall Realty Trust Reviews (4)

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# ***, and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because: [Upon the realization that TWO of the units serviced by Henick-L*** were not functioning, my partners and I felt it necessary to seek out a new service technicianWe lost faith in Henick-L*** and their abilities to adequately test, clean and prepare our units for the working rental seasonThe fact that two units had issues at first start after being returned from their "Preventive Maintenance Service" speaks for itselfWe hire a service technician to do this type of preventive maintenance so we DON'T have troubles when the machines arrive on a locationA failure at a location causes problems for our clients and for usThe loss of time, labor and money caused by rerouting replacement units is an expense we cannot regain.We expect that when a machine is serviced and tested that it will operate trouble free and this was not the case right out of the gate for our season with the first two machines that were sent out.These units are designed for the Construction industrythey are built on casters and designed to withstand the daily moving, rolling, loading and unloading on trucks from job-site to job-siteThey have been field tested and under typical circumstances have very few problems in much harsher environments on the rough terrain of construction sitesWhen used by my clients, in the MOTION PICTURE Industry, our machines are handled and transported by professional Union Teamsters and received and set up by certified Union electricians and stage employeesThere is nothing unusual in the handling of these machines from job to jobNO ONE else performed then, or had performed prior to, any work on the machines, other than Henick-L***Aside from the cleaning of filters and occasional depressing of the "reset" button, they are positioned, set up, ventilated properly and placed in an appropriate location for the day's useNo other service technicians have ever done any work to the machines in question aside from Henick-L***.We never had any major issues in the prior two years of service with Henick-L***, and I never had any problems paying for their servicesThis time, however I questioned how they could not see a leak in a unit, or other problems for that matter, while running the machines through their service proceduresPerhaps they had a new technician on staff who was not familiar with these portable units? Maybe one particular individual made a mistake this time that resulted in our issues? I don't know the answer to those questionsAll I know is I had problems and Heneck-L*** would not own up to the fact that their people SHOULD HAVE SAW the problem(s) before the machines left their warehouse. When I called them about the problems, they did send someone out to the job site as soon as they could..however they charged us a substantial fee to do so.The technician that made the service call told me the refrigerant in the compressor was "Overcharged"They tried to blame me for messing with the machine or allowing someone else to service it, which was not the caseThis was something I would expect them to discover during their Servicing.When I questioned their billing for this service call, just after
their "Annual Servicing" was performed, they told me it was unrelated and I would still be responsible for the Annual service fee in full. Then, we received another call from the other client who received their unit on set the day before and were having another set of issuesWe put in a call again to Henick and went through the same processBilled again for service that we felt should have been preventedOnce the bills started rolling in, I contacted their billing department about adjusting the "Annual" fee by crediting me for the on-site service callsAgain, I maintained that
the malfunctioning issues should not have been forseen during servicing before returning our
unitsTheir billing representative would not hear it so I stated verbally that I would
no longer be doing business with themI verbally ended our agreement and made it clear that we would be seeking a new service technician immediately because we no longer had any faith in their services.I refer to the referenced Service AgreementThe initial paragraph of the contract reads: "Henick-L*** Service Corporation and ACTION AC & PROP RENTALS LLC enter into the following annual preventative maintenance agreement effective 8/*/THRU 7/**/ONE (1) preventative maintenance inspection shall be performed during the contract period SPRING INSPECTION"Since Henick-L*** has never performed "ONE Preventative Inspection" during the latest contract period, they have nothing to bill for in this "Automatic Renewal" of this agreementThey did NOT perform their duties under this agreement and therefor the terms of the agreement have NOT been metThis entire dispute could be resolved by my original offer to pay the balance of their LAST service agreement fee, MINUS the two service call charges that we have already paid for.Please note that I am writing this complaint, as a partner in a small business whose primary income is derived from rental services of working Air Conditioning unitsI AM NOT A LAWYER, nor am I having my complaints written by a lawyerI am writing from a place of emotion and personal grievances over a situation where I feel like a bigger business is trying to take advantage of me, a much smaller businessI feel their work was substandard and maintain that they just went through the motions and did not do a thorough job of meeting my needs and fully inspecting the AC units before sending them back to meAs an example, they had of our machines for one working day where as the new company we are using took a full day PER UNIT, just to do an overnight pressure test of all of our compressors to ensure they were stable at the appropriate coolant levelThey also had to replace improper belts that were used then ran the units through several tests before cleaning and sending them back to usThe process for the six units took over a weekIt was scheduled and panned out and we have had no issues sinceI know this post should not be about another company, but since I am not a technician, I can only use this other company as a frame of reference at to how long a proper service check should takeThis was not the case with Henick-L***We rolled the units in, and rolled them out in only hours with a report that they were all in good conditionNow that I have the full faith and confidence of another company, I see where Henick-L*** failed to service my needs fully and completely.Henick-L*** will have their attorney rebut this response and have their finest word-smith use their skillful writing styles to make me sound like a foolThat's fineI will stand by my statements and the information I am sharing, as written by myself...a small business partner who feels he's been deceived and taken advantage ofI wanted to work things out as business men and walk away from each other amicablyThey would not negotiate the bill and continued billing us, so I felt pressured to take things to this next level and complain to the Revdex.com...trying to avoid the expense Legal feesI would prefer ending this respectfully between us, however If I am left with no other alternative, I will have my Attorney take over from hereLets try to resolve this at what I am still willing to pay
In order for the Revdex.com to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above
Sincerely,
*** ***

Rebuttal of Henick-L[redacted] Service Corp.[redacted], on behalf of Action AC & Prop Rentals LLC (“AAC” has made three different submissions to the Revdex.com regarding his frivolous claim of deceptive business practices by Henick-L[redacted] Service Corp (“HLSC”). AAC’s “Desired Settlement” in its original complaint stated that it would only accept “a $0.00 (ZERO) balance due”— a flat refusal to pay any of its outstanding bills. AAC also stated that there should be: “No further contact in person, by phone or in writing from Henick-L[redacted] and/or any of their representatives.” AAC concluded with a threat of a (frivolous) lawsuit. (Because AAC is not authorized to do business New York, yet AAC is “working (unofficially) out of a space at [redacted]” (to quote one of [redacted]’s emails) it is barred by New York from suing in the New York courts.) With no payment and no communication, HLSC had no choice but to file a lawsuit. During its forty-seven (47) years of customer service, HLSC has always been more than willing and capable of satisfactorily working out any reasonable complaint. AAC made no attempt whatsoever, to work out any billing issue. AAC just refused to pay its bills for maintenance performed by Mechanical Contractors Association of America “Star” rated technicians. AAC’s latest rebuttal to HLSC reply, [redacted] states that: “Here I thought that the Revdex.com was the place where a consumer had a safe place to speak openly.” That seems to betray his (mistaken) belief that making false statements in a Revdex.com submission is immune from an action for defamation. (As the Revdex.com admonishes, it is not.) The Revdex.com is not a venue to be abused for the publication of unwarranted accusations and falsehoods that can be read by the public. AAC’s complaint morphed from an issue about billing for automatic renewals, into one about a handful of purported instances of certain portable air conditioning units not functioning properly. There is nothing to say – beyond naked assertions – that there is any relationship between the services and those purported malfunctions. ACC admits these units are regularly moved around, set up and taken down. One drop of a machine can cause a leak, a failure of numerous types, etc., thereby making the best of servicing irrelevant. AAC tries to suggest that truck drivers in the Teamsters’ Union moving units all over the place and members of the Electricians’ Union repeatedly setting them up and taking them down, will each ALWAYS use the care of a Smithsonian curator handling the Tsar’s Fabergé egg. That is not the real world.AAC’s latest submission admits that AAC has never provided any supporting statement from its purported new service technician or any other evidence to support its assertions. [redacted], in that submission goes on to make the laughably absurd statement that supporting evidence “is irrelevant to my posting on the Revdex.com website”. The nature of AAC’s rant should be obvious, and treated for what it is. HLSC is a family business with a forty-seven (47) year history of servicing customers with integrity and according to the highest standards of business practices. It has been active in supporting many charities year in and year out. HLSC will not tolerate being maligned by a deadbeat, rationalizing not paying with manufactured “grievances”. There is no reason to continue to have the Revdex.com as a forum for this dialogue. There is now a case pending in the New York courts in which evidence is relevant, and we are confident the court will find in favor of HLSC.

This response is submitted on behalf of Henick-L[redacted] Service Corp. [“HLSC”] in response to the complaint (the “Complaint”) by [redacted], on behalf of Action AC & Prop Rental LLC (“AAC”). The Complaint is replete with material factual inaccuracies, assumptions and sweeping conclusions...

lacking any supporting facts. While the Complaint speculates about HLSC’s maintenance and repair work, that is the basis of AAC’s complaint. Thus, it is gratuitous and irrelevant. As the Complaint states: “true nature of this complaint stems from a more serious issue regarding [HLSC]’s deceptive business practices acting as a ‘Service Contractor’ and ‘Annual Maintenance Provider’ … ”. At the tail end of the Complaint it explains that purportedly deceptive business practice as billing for contract annual preventive maintenance for the 2014 – 2015 year, and the 2015 – 2016 year. It vociferously claims that “the ONLY service contract we EVER signed with [HLSC] was for ONE YEAR, from August 2013 – 2014. WE NEVER signed the contract from 2014 – 2015, and MOST CERTAINLY did NOT extend it from 2015 -2016!”The simple fact is that service contract automatically re-news each year unless terminated in writing before the renewal period. The service contract that AAC signed provides:“This agreement will be automatically renewed at the expiration date, unless canceled or revised. Cancellation must be made in writing ** days prior to the date of expiration.”AAC’s claim that the only service contract it signed is for the 2013 – 2014 year. That is simply false. The contract was, in fact, signed on or about July **, 2012. Accompanying this response HLSC’s file for AAC will be submitted, including the contract itself, invoices, work orders and email communications. As the contract and emails confirm, the contract was entered into in 2012 for the 2012 – 2013 year.After HLSC satisfactorily preformed repair work on April **, 2012, and again on July **, 2012, which AAC paid, that AAC asked to enter into a service contact with HLSC to perform preventive maintenance on five units. Only after signing the service contract made those repairs to AAC’s full satisfaction. AAC demanded that the amount it paid for the repairs that pre-dated the service be applied to the annual cost of the service contract. HLSC acquiesced to AAC’s request, a AAC did not actually pay for the first year of the service contract.The following year, HLSC invoiced AAC for the automatic renewal for the 2013 – 2014 year. AAC paid for the automatic renewal. Contrary to AAC’s assertion, it did not execute an agreement for 2013 – 2014, with the automatic renewal it did not have to. AAC acknowledged the automatic renewal by paying for the renewal. The service contract automatically renewed for 2014 – 2015, and 2015 – 2016. AAC never provided notice of cancellation or termination as required by the service contract. Thus, the sole basis of the assertion that billing for the automatic renewal terms is a “deceptive business practice” is a complete fabrication. That is confirmed by the plain terms of the service contract. HLSC performed regular preventative maintenance as contemplated by the service contract on May [redacted], 2013, and again on May [redacted] and [redacted], 2014. On June **, 2014 HLSC repaired a unit which was found to have a refrigerant leak. That repair is outside the scope of the preventive maintenance covered by the service contract. The repair was properly made to AAC’s satisfaction. The invoice for that work was issued on July [redacted], 2014 and paid on August [redacted], 2014. On June **, 2014 HLSC was called to trouble shoot a different unit, and found the unit to be properly functioning. That work was outside the scope of the service contract. AAC paid for the June **, 2014 service call.Curiously, after paying those two invoiced AAC informed HLSC that AAC had someone else serviced one of their units, and that HLSC should therefore discount its invoices. That, of course, begs the question whether HLSC is responsible for any of the purported problems with the units. The Complaint provides no specifics or details making any connection between the alleged issues with the units and the work by HLSC. The closest it comes to providing any detail is vague claims about belts. The most that the Complaint says, professed with the qualification that “I may not be correct in my belt types”, is that the belts might not be the correct type. The Complaint does not even say that it was HLSC that supposed put the allegedly (maybe) wrong types of belts on the units. The Complaint only refers to “whomever last maintained the units did a tremendous dis-service.” As noted above, AAC had indicated that were others besides HLSC that worked on AAC’s units. HLSC has no record indicating that HLSC replaced any belts. Belts often need to be replaced after about a year or so. The fact that the belts did not need to be replaced indicates further that others performed service work on the units.AAC’s primary business is renting movie props. It also rents portable air conditioning units. These units are typically rented on a short term basis, and typically for use at sets in connection with filming for movies and television shows. The units are large and bulky; about four feet high and about two and one half feet by four feet wide with exposed coils. These units are moved by truck to and from various locations and set up in different settings. As a result they tend to be exposed to rough handling, and the exposed coils are particularly susceptible to damage. Also, for these unit to function properly, there must be adequate ventilation for the coils for the units to properly general cool air. HLSC obviously has no control over the handling and the conditions under which these units are set up and operated. As noted at the outset, the purported issues with the service and repair work is not the basis of the deceptive business practices. So, while specul ation about the quality of the service and repairs is not relevant, the facts relating to the work show they are highly suspect. When considered in light of the fabrication of what AAC actually claims is the deceptive business practice, the claims about the work completely lack credibility. Moreover, the service contract was for just five units. But, AAC has other units that were not serviced by HLSC. Initially, AAC wanted eight units covered by the service contract, but that was reduced to five. AAC does not offer sufficient specifics to show which units HLSC serviced or repaired, whether there is any connection between that work and the alleged issues, or what other service and repair work was done by othersIncidentally, the service technician who performed all work other than the June **, 2014 service call is a UA Star Certified technician, which is the top in his field. Accompanying this response is a copy of a description from the Mechanical Contractors Association of America’s web site of the UA Star Certification program. This technician has proven track record of servicing and repairing HVAC without issues.In short, AAC’s Complaint it complete devoid of any merit or basis in fact.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# [redacted], and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because:

I am Rejecting their response. This company is attempting to sue me for Defamation and forced me into a position of hiring an attorney. I fear that by this complaint going public, it may jeopardize my position in the dismissal of the lawsuit.  This matter has not been resolved and I would like the opportunity the speak again regarding the matter. Furthermore, before going any further with my complaint, I am requesting time to have these responses reviewed by my attorney. This company is bullying me at this point and I am being backed into a corner. I have spent the past week in a hospital with my wife and I strongly request the time to review and respond accordingly before this goes in any public forum.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

Check fields!

Write a review of Gardner Whitehall Realty Trust

Satisfaction rating
 
 
 
 
 
Upload here Increase visibility and credibility of your review by
adding a photo
Submit your review

Gardner Whitehall Realty Trust Rating

Overall satisfaction rating

Address: Topsfield, Massachusetts, United States, 01983-0595

Phone:

Show more...

Web:

This website was reported to be associated with Gardner Whitehall Realty Trust.



Add contact information for Gardner Whitehall Realty Trust

Add new contacts
A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | New | Updated