Goosehead Insurance - Helm Insurance Services

Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: there are discrepancies on the stories stated by AESWe believe it does not properly reflect the facts as they happened First we would like to clarify that we never intended to damage AES imagine We did try to solve this matter by phone and e-mail directly with [redacted] but had not successWe find the language he used on his previous conversations over the phone and on the e-mails we received from him aggressive and unpleasantThat is the reason we are asking Revdex.com to help us to solve this matter Below are the reasons/answers for each item: 1) My wife says she was not informed that she had to sign a one-year monitoring agreement with AES nor she remembers to have received a copy of the referred agreement when the system was activated in July I have been requesting AES to send us a signed copy of this agreement since March 3nd but have not received it to dateI have copies of the e-mails that were sent directly to Mr FriedmanWe cannot understand why AES does not want to provide us a copy of this agreement if it really existsSo far we are not sure of that 2) As we previously stated we were not informed of costs associated to the technician visitMy wife thought the technician visit was included on the monthly costWe were never provided an schedule of fees or costs for technician visitsThe failed communication problem was caused because the Internet modem was disconnected from the phone line and turned off I personally fix it for the second timeIt took me minutesAn easy fix That makes me think whether the technician visit was really necessaryI am sorry but it seems that sending a technician to our home was convenient to AES This way it could charge us $more on that month (a fee we were not informed we would have to pay) 3) There are a few discrepancies on this story as demonstrated below: Since the beginning AES was informed that if they were not able to reach us AES should contact the secondary person our neighbor [redacted] ( [redacted] is a woman)That was the agreed procedure and that is what happened when we were leaving on vacation on December 13th The fact is that on December 15th, 16th an 21st the alarm went off for the same reason/sensor and the police was dispatchedIt appears AES did not contact our neighbor on these datesThis is what she says to usWe have been requesting AES to clarify this matter and send us evidence that she was called on these dates but we never received the proof/evidence Now, AES is claiming that I had requested the police to be dispatched immediately as a standard procedureThis does not reflect the trueI did not change the previous instructions we had provided as a standard procedureI may have agreed that the police could be dispatched, if necessary, but never changed the instructions we have provided as a standardAES should have called [redacted] before dispatching the police that is a fact In truth, AES has previously claimed that it did follow the correct procedure (But never provided us proof)Below is the quotes I extracted from [redacted] ’s e-mails: On March 3rd [redacted] sent me an e-mail stating the following: “Finally, you had the basement door activate and we called [redacted] as you requested.....we have the computer records and recording of his being called, with his response to the Central Station operator! On March 4th email from [redacted] : “I apologize for referring to [redacted] as a manWe can have the Central Station send you the information you requested [redacted] was called....and the only time we reached her she responded that she was not at the house and did not have the password (12/13/2014, 3:pm) which was the FIRST alarmAs you know, she was left messages at 917-520-XXXX on other activations.” Another email from [redacted] “We have undeniable proof that she was called and a message was left on her phone.” That said, why is AES now claiming that I changed the procedure and had requested AES to dispatch the police immediately? I have copies of all emails I have exchanged with [redacted] and cannot understand why I did not receive the evidence that [redacted] was called on theses datesWhy is AES changing the facts now? Last, I have received a new invoice from AES yesterdayNow AES is billing us for a service we already stated is longer needed Although we had requested the cancelation of AES alarm monitoring service on March 2nd, we received by mail an invoice of (invoice number [redacted] ) for the period of May 1st to July 31stWe have contacted the AES for clarification by email on March 16th but did not receive any reply to dateWhy is AES charging us for a service it is no longer providing? Sincerely, **

1. On July 21, 2014, *** *** authorized AES to provide monitoring service for one year at her homeAES waived the $transfer of service fee in consideration for this one year agreement.The Agreement clearly states the term of One Year, has a hand-written reminder to Register the alarm system with the Town of *** (which was performed by the Owner), and has provisions for Annual Inspection and/or Maintenance & Service plans….None of the Service plans were checked YES.On July 25th, AES had a Technician connect the alarm system to their Optimum modem, clear all former user codes, set a new User code, sent signals to the Central Station to insure communication, and performed a tutorial on how to operate the keypadThis minuteService call was performed at no charge, in consideration for the one year agreement.2. On November 13, 2014, AES dispatched a technician to the home per the request of the *** for serviceThere was an error message on the keypad and we received a communication trouble signalAES performs thousands of service calls per year to our 4,000+ customers, and the Dispatcher will standardly inform the client of our basic chargesWhen the Technician arrived, he found that the client had installed a *** device on their telephone lineThe technician discovered that the alarm system had become disconnected from the cable modemThe client admitted to the disconnection, and after minutes of service work, our standard fee of $(31-minutes) would be assessedAES adjusted the bill to only $125, our basic rate. Per Mr*** email of March 5, :that the failed communication problem happened was caused because the internet modem was disconnected from the phone line and turned offThis proves that AES did not disconnect the phone line.We do not understand how the *** think that having a technician drive to their home to correct a phone line problem that the client caused should be Free of ChargeAES cannot afford to send a Licensed tech in an AES vehicle to perform free service for a customer error.Please note: the problem occurred againThis time the client did not want to incur a fee for a service call, so our Technician drew a diagram of the phone lines, with instructions, and we sent it to the Mrs***…….at No Charge.AES feels that the charge of $+ tax is justified for the reasons outlined above.3. On December 13, 2014, Mr*** was testing the systemAfter the Test expired, he accidentally set the alarm off, prompting our Central Station to call the premises (received answering machine) and then *** (neighbor) as requested by the ***’s.Mr*** called back the Central Station a few minutes later and spoke to ***In this 2:00+ minute conversation, Mr*** detailed that he was leaving town the next morning and would not be returning until January 6, He stated that “no one will bein the house”The Operator suggested that if the alarm were to activate, we can dispatch the authorities immediately…..to which Mr*** agreedI will forward you a copy of the conversation that clearly has Mr*** instructing our Central Station to dispatch the authorities immediatelyPlease listen to this recording and you will hear the truth.Mr*** complaint that “had AES contacted our neighbor or even advised us on what was really happening the violations could have been avoided” is absurdWe followed his verbal instructions and now he wants us to be responsible for his actions.In summary, the *** have been the cause of all their issues, and in their attempts to avoid payment of services they are trying to damage our good namePlease let me know if there are any questions or clarifications on the information provided above.Sincerely,*** ***PresidentAES

Revdex.com, This is the second complaint we are filingNow AES is billing us for a service we already stated is longer neededAlthough we had requested the cancelation of AES alarm monitoring service on March 2nd, we received by mail an invoice of (invoice number * ***) for the period of May
1st to July 31stWe have contacted AES for clarification but did not receive any replyWe also want to receive a signed copy of the agreement AES claims my wife signed on the moment the alarm system was activated last JulyI had requested a copy of it by e-mail for three times but did not received it to dateAs previously, stated on my e-mails we were not advised that we had to sign a contract with a fixed term that includes penalties and finesMy wife does not remember to have signed a contract/agreement eitherWe request the cancelation the invoice * ***

Complaint:[redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: there are discrepancies on the stories stated by
AES. We believe it does not properly reflect the facts as they happened.
 
First we would like to clarify that we never intended
to damage AES imagine.  We did try to
solve this matter by phone and e-mail directly with [redacted] but had not
success. We find the language he used on his previous conversations over the
phone and on the e-mails we received from him aggressive and unpleasant. That
is the reason we are asking Revdex.com to help us to solve this matter.  
 
Below are the reasons/answers for each item:
 
1) My wife says she was not informed that she had to
sign a one-year monitoring agreement with AES nor she remembers to have
received a copy of the referred agreement when the system was activated in July.
I have been requesting AES to send us a
signed copy of this agreement since March 3nd but have not received
it to date. I have copies of the e-mails that were sent directly to Mr.
Friedman. We cannot understand why AES does not want to provide us a copy of
this agreement if it really exists. So far we are not sure of that.
 
2) As we previously stated we were not informed of
costs associated to the technician visit. My wife thought the technician visit was
included on the monthly cost. We were never provided an schedule of fees or
costs for technician visits. The failed communication problem was caused
because the Internet modem was disconnected from the phone line and turned off.
I personally fix it for the second time. It took me 5 minutes. An easy fix.
That makes me think whether the technician visit was really necessary. I am
sorry but it seems that sending a technician to our home was convenient to AES.
This way it could charge us $125 more on that month (a fee we were not informed
we would have to pay).
 
3) There are a few discrepancies on this story as
demonstrated below:
 
Since the beginning AES was informed that if they
were not able to reach us AES should contact the secondary person our neighbor
[redacted] ([redacted] is a woman). That was the agreed procedure and that is what happened
when we were leaving on vacation on December 13th.  The fact is that on December 15th,
16th an 21st the alarm went off for the same
reason/sensor and the police was dispatched. It appears AES did not contact our
neighbor on these dates. This is what she says to us. We have been requesting
AES to clarify this matter and send us evidence that she was called on these
dates but we never received the proof/evidence.   
 
Now, AES is claiming that I had requested the police
to be dispatched immediately as a standard procedure. This does not reflect the
true. I did not change the previous instructions we had provided as a standard
procedure. I may have agreed that the police could be dispatched, if necessary,
but never changed the instructions we have provided as a standard. AES should
have called [redacted] before dispatching the police that is a fact. 
 
In truth, AES has previously claimed that it did
follow the correct procedure (But never provided us proof). Below is the quotes
I extracted from [redacted]’s e-mails:
 
On March 3rd [redacted] sent me an
e-mail stating the following:   “Finally, you had the basement door activate
and we called [redacted] as you requested.....we have the computer records
and recording of his being called, with his response to the Central
Station operator! 
 
On March 4th email from [redacted]: “I apologize
for referring to [redacted] as a man. We can have the Central Station send you the
information you requested. [redacted] was called....and the only time we reached her
she responded that she was not at the house and did not have the password
(12/13/2014, 3:33 pm) which was the FIRST alarm. As you know, she was left
messages at 917-520-XXXX on other activations.”
 
Another email from [redacted]. “We have
undeniable proof that she was called and a message was left on her phone.”
 
That said, why is AES now claiming that I changed the
procedure and had requested AES to dispatch the police immediately?  I have copies of all emails I have exchanged
with [redacted] and cannot understand why I did not receive the evidence that
[redacted] was called on theses dates. Why is AES changing the facts now? 
 
Last, I have received a new invoice from AES
yesterday. Now AES is billing us for a service we already stated is longer
needed.  Although we had requested the
cancelation of AES alarm monitoring service on March 2nd, we
received by mail an invoice of 82.95 (invoice number [redacted]) for the period
of May 1st to July 31st. We have contacted the AES for clarification by email
on March 16th but did not receive any reply to date. Why is AES charging us for
a service it is no longer providing? 
Sincerely,
**