Good Cents

The following is a response to case number ***: Complainant enrolled in *** ***'s *** *** Rewards program on 10-19-and was 11px;">successfully installed on 10- 30- On 1-26- she called the program call center stating that the *** *** Rewards device caused "significant" damage to her homeShe claimed that the device caused a burnt wire in her electrical panel box, damaged multiple appliances including a refrigerator and washing machine, and caused a significant increase in her power billsThe call center generated a service removal work order on 1- 26- It was noted in the WO that the complainant requested to be present for the removal. Multiple attempts were made to contact the complainant by phone to discuss her claim and schedule the removal of the deviceA GC supervisor attempted to call her on 1- 28-and again on 1- 29-15 getting no answer and a voice message that her mailbox was full and not accepting messagesA technician was dispatched late afternoon on 1-29- in an attempt to catch her at home with no successThe following week, on 2-2- 15, the GC supervisor again tried to contact the complainant by phone with the same resultsA second technician was dispatched on 2-4- who went ahead and removed the device, leaving a door hanger to let her know of the removalThe complainant was upset that the device had been removed and proceeded to contact ***. On 2- 12- the GC supervisor finally made contact with the complainant at which time he discussed her claimHe requested a copy of any supporting documentation, specifically a copy of her HVAC contractor invoices and months of her *** *** electric bills showing her electric usage history as part of the claims processHe received several documents including appliance replacement costs, her *** *** bills for November and January (only) minus the usage history and several invoices from contractors from the date the device was installedThe only documentation related to her claim was an invoice from ***, Incdated 1- 19-where they stated they found a burnt wire in her electrical panel and disconnected the device. On 2-13- the GC supervisor, as part of the claims due diligence process, spoke to the owner of ***, Incwho confirmed that the damaged wire was located inside the home within the main electrical panel boxHe also stated that the device was disconnected because the contactor was not pulling inThe GC supervisor explained to him how the device worked and that once power is restored to the outside compressor there is a 5-minute time delay before an internal relay in the device closes and allows the compressor to run He stated that he was not aware of that at the time his company performed the customer's service. On 2-19-the GC supervisor contacted the complainant to advise her that the *** ***
*** device could not have caused any of the issues she had experiencedIt was noted that the device was mounted on her compressor, eliminating any possibility of an electrical wire within the wall being damaged during the installThe device is isolated on the exterior of the home by the exterior disconnectThe air conditioning compressor is also on a dedicated circuit at the panel box (NEC code) . On the evening of 3-4- the GC supervisor received a voice mail from the complainant stating that she had contacted an attorney who had personally verified that the damages were the fault of the device and that she wanted to discuss her claim further including "trespass charges"When a customer enrolls in the *** Program they are acknowledging that the device is the property of *** *** and that *** or their contractors have the right of access to the device. The GC supervisor returned the complainant's call on 3-5-and advised her that her claim had been denied and that GC was standing firm on the decisionShe demanded t hat the claim be reopened . She was told that there was no evidence that the device nor it's installation caused any damage to her home or appliances and that the only way her claim would be reconsidered would be if she could provide additional documentation substantiating her claim (none was provided) The GC supervisor explained how the device worked and why it could not have caused the problems she experiencedIn addition, the device was installed "after" the cycling season and removed "before" the 2015 season and was therefore never cycledThe complainant adamantly stated that the GC supervisor was wrong and did not know anything about how the program workedShe threatened a lawsuit if GC didn't give her what she was demanding. On 3-6-the GC supervisor received a call from the complainant's fatherHe said that she was in the hospital and he was "tying up loose ends" with this situation on her behalfHe claimed that she mentioned an appointment set up for that day and wanted to insure he would be there at that time. He was told that GC did not have any appointment scheduled with the customer and that her claim was closed

Review: [redacted]Company installed faulty energy box on my HVAC system at home causing thousands dollars of damage to my HVAC unit and Power bills to triple in my home. This company was to contact me before removing the equipment from my home. I had it set up for all parties to be present to find who was responsible [redacted] or Smart Sense. The company removed the box so I cannot prove there was an issue other than the service bills for the repairs up until the entire replacement of the HVAC system 3/04/2015. Labor out of pocket cost is over 700.00 and I would also like the [redacted] bill to be adjusted due to Good Sense faulty equipment and lack of service. If you call [redacted] they do not know of Good Sense and repeatedly transfer you to Energy management and that is a [redacted] Service and Repair office Best number I has luck with was [redacted] option 2 ext [redacted] and [redacted]....[redacted] and [redacted] have been very rude and will not accept responsiblity for faulty equipmentDesired Settlement: I would like [redacted] to be paid for all the Power increase due to broken HVAC. I would also like the 700.00 plus dollars in service calls, repairs and second opinions. Bill at [redacted] currently 1300.00

Business

Response:

The following is a response to case number [redacted]: Complainant enrolled in [redacted]'s [redacted] Rewards program on 10-19-14 and was successfully installed on 10- 30- 14. On 1-26- 15 she called the program call center stating that the [redacted] Rewards device caused "significant" damage to her home. She claimed that the device caused a burnt wire in her electrical panel box, damaged multiple appliances including a refrigerator and washing machine, and caused a significant increase in her power bills. The call center generated a service removal work order on 1- 26- 15. It was noted in the WO that the complainant requested to be present for the removal. Multiple attempts were made to contact the complainant by phone to discuss her claim and schedule the removal of the device. A GC supervisor attempted to call her on 1- 28-15 and again on 1- 29-15 getting no answer and a voice message that her mailbox was full and not accepting messages. A technician was dispatched late afternoon on 1-29- 15 in an attempt to catch her at home with no success. The following week, on 2-2- 15, the GC supervisor again tried to contact the complainant by phone with the same results. A second technician was dispatched on 2-4- 15 who went ahead and removed the device, leaving a door hanger to let her know of the removal. The complainant was upset that the device had been removed and proceeded to contact [redacted]. On 2- 12- 15 the GC supervisor finally made contact with the complainant at which time he discussed her claim. He requested a copy of any supporting documentation, specifically a copy of her HVAC contractor invoices and 12 months of her [redacted] electric bills showing her electric usage history as part of the claims process. He received several documents including appliance replacement costs, her [redacted] bills for November and January (only) minus the usage history and several invoices from contractors from the date the device was installed. The only documentation related to her claim was an invoice from [redacted], Inc. dated 1- 19-15 where they stated they found a burnt wire in her electrical panel and disconnected the device. On 2-13- 15 the GC supervisor, as part of the claims due diligence process, spoke to the owner of [redacted], Inc. who confirmed that the damaged wire was located inside the home within the main electrical panel box. He also stated that the device was disconnected because the contactor was not pulling in. The GC supervisor explained to him how the device worked and that once power is restored to the outside compressor there is a 5-7 minute time delay before an internal relay in the device closes and allows the compressor to run . He stated that he was not aware of that at the time his company performed the customer's service. On 2-19-15 the GC supervisor contacted the complainant to advise her that the [redacted] device could not have caused any of the issues she had experienced. It was noted that the device was mounted on her compressor, eliminating any possibility of an electrical wire within the wall being damaged during the install. The device is isolated on the exterior of the home by the exterior disconnect. The air conditioning compressor is also on a dedicated circuit at the panel box (NEC code) . On the evening of 3-4- 15 the GC supervisor received a voice mail from the complainant stating that she had contacted an attorney who had personally verified that the damages were the fault of the device and that she wanted to discuss her claim further including "trespass charges". When a customer enrolls in the [redacted] Program they are acknowledging that the device is the property of [redacted] and that [redacted] or their contractors have the right of access to the device. The GC supervisor returned the complainant's call on 3-5-15 and advised her that her claim had been denied and that GC was standing firm on the decision. She demanded t hat the claim be reopened . She was told that there was no evidence that the device nor it's installation caused any damage to her home or appliances and that the only way her claim would be reconsidered would be if she could provide additional documentation substantiating her claim (none was provided) . The GC supervisor explained how the device worked and why it could not have caused the problems she experienced. In addition, the device was installed "after" the 2014 cycling season and removed "before" the 2015 season and was therefore never cycled. The complainant adamantly stated that the GC supervisor was wrong and did not know anything about how the program worked. She threatened a lawsuit if GC didn't give her what she was demanding. On 3-6-15 the GC supervisor received a call from the complainant's father. He said that she was in the hospital and he was "tying up loose ends" with this situation on her behalf. He claimed that she mentioned an appointment set up for that day and wanted to insure he would be there at that time. He was told that GC did not have any appointment scheduled with the customer and that her claim was closed.