Georgetown Inn

Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 15, 2016/04/15) */ After review of this matter it was determined that the non-refundable processing fee of $for date of service 04/23/would be removed from patient's accountThe patient is not responsible for that amount due However, that leaves a balance of $which is for the non-refundable processing fee stemming from purchase of a second set of hearing aids, date of service 06/09/ Initial Consumer Rebuttal / [redacted] (3000, 17, 2016/04/16) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) We were told that if we purchased hearing aids from him the $x would be waivedIf we decided to go elsewhere we would have pay the $x These were supposed to be FREE TRIAL hearing aidsWe did try to get a receipt from him but he refusedHe kept showing us how on his computer it was reversedWe didn't trust him so we pressedI should have asked for the person who was in charge of the office to listen in on itWe stayed there for a long time trying to get him to give us a signed receiptHe kept showing us his computerUghHe's very dishonest Final Consumer Response / [redacted] (4200, 26, 2016/04/26) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) NoThe first hearing aids were a FREE trialWhy would I have to pay for them? Unable to adjust?? Baloney Final Business Response / [redacted] (4000, 24, 2016/04/26) */ Business is unable to adjust any additional offConsumer remains responsible for $

Dear Revdex.com,We are in receipt of your letter regarding the account of *** *** and your concerns regarding account charges. DGA Security Systems, Inctreats any hint of consumer dissatisfaction with the highest level of urgency and looks to respond in a timely mannerPrior
to our receipt of your letter, this matter was resolved and the customer received their requested refundThe paid check was deposited by the customer on January **, 2017.If you have any questions or concerns regarding this matter, do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely,Stanley O***PresidentDGA Security Systems, Inc

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 9, 2016/05/24) */
This letter is in response to the above case numberI will try and give you
a point by point answer to the questions proposedThe fact that this lady's car was
repossessed is correctWhen Island Process Services ( IPS) is assigned a
case, it
usually comes from a *** hired by the bankIPS is governed by
the policies and procedures of the particular center, in this case the *** ( ***) of ***
As for *** not being given a copy of the paper work she is correctIt is
the policy of *** that we do not give their paperwork to anyoneShe did
however, ask for confirmation of seizure and was shown our paperwork at that
timeShe never asked for a copy of the paperwork at the time of seizure, only
afterwardsWhen a copy of the paperwork was requested a few days later, she
was told we would send her request to *** and she could follow up with them
As we do not own the paperwork it belongs to ***As for no prior notice that is
something she would have to discuss with her bank
As for the car being driven off by a unknown know person, when we do a
seizure the unit is in our possession and control and we have to make sure all
licences and insurance is in order, it is not the responsibility of the debtorAs for
any conversations she had with her bank after the repossessions we have no
knowledge or control of suchI am sure if she passes her request to the bank with
the name of the person she spoke to they would investigate
As for us demanding a dollar amount from the debtor, she did call her
bank requesting to get her vehicle backThey referred her to *** to get her car
back, and they in turn referred her to my officeThe redemption process was
explained to her as outlined by ***She did follow the instructions as given to
her and her unit was returned as requestedI can assure you this repossession was
handled in a legal and profession manner and the debtor was treat with respect and
professionalism
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 11, 2016/05/24) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
*** We asked for days and made a formal complaint to the bank before they agreed to show us the paperUpon paying the *** we aske to see the paper he had with him the day the car was seized at which point we were told we'd have to ask the bank for itTo this day he has never showed us the paper he brought with him when the car was seized***

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 15, 2016/04/15) */
After review of this matter it was determined that the non-refundable processing fee of $599.00 for date of service 04/23/15 would be removed from patient's account. The patient is not responsible for that amount due.
However, that leaves a...

balance of $599.00 which is for the non-refundable processing fee stemming from purchase of a second set of hearing aids, date of service 06/09/15.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 17, 2016/04/16) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
We were told that if we purchased hearing aids from him the $599 x 2 would be waived. If we decided to go elsewhere we would have pay the $599 x 2. These were supposed to be FREE TRIAL hearing aids. We did try to get a receipt from him but he refused. He kept showing us how on his computer it was reversed. We didn't trust him so we pressed. I should have asked for the person who was in charge of the office to listen in on it. We stayed there for a long time trying to get him to give us a signed receipt. He kept showing us his computer. Ugh. He's very dishonest.
Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 26, 2016/04/26) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
No. The first hearing aids were a FREE trial. Why would I have to pay for them? Unable to adjust?? Baloney.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 24, 2016/04/26) */
Business is unable to adjust any additional off. Consumer remains responsible for $599.00