Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 5, 2015/06/17) */ First and foremost, the complainant is not and never has been a security system monitored customer of Hometech Security Incof Stony Plain, AlbertaHer contract and who is actually billing her is [redacted] out of QuebecMy company only services the account via a service agreement with [redacted] The complainant was advised that [redacted] requires a signed letter of cancellation before they will cancel her account, which she refused to provideShe finally got us that letter on May at which time forwarded to [redacted] So I think maybe the Revdex.com and this client should look into who is actually taking the money and the actual events of who is involved I expect a complete and published apology to Hometech Security as we have never taken any clients money in this manner Sincerely [redacted] Hometech Security Inc Initial Consumer Rebuttal / [redacted] (3000, 7, 2015/06/18) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) Plsnote that correspondence sent to me by Hometech Security and [redacted] indicated that they "joined forces effective January 31, and will continue to provide you with alarm monitoring and billing services"The phone number for Hometech Services in Stony Plain, Alberta was provided as the customer service phone number with specific instructions to direct inquiries regarding service or billing directly to Hometech(copy of letter sent to Revdex.com)Also forwarded to the Revdex.com is an email dated March 25, advising that we wished to cancel the monthly security monitoring services immediatelyThis email was forwarded to this company following a telephone conversation with the secretary of Hometech Security of Stony Plain earlier that day, as the accepted protocol to submit for cancellation of the monitoring serviceAfter noticing my credit card being charged for monthly monitoring again in April, I phoned [redacted] and followed up with an email advising the company that I was still being charged for a service that I had cancelled on March 25, Through follow up phone contact with a company representative, they indicated that they would check into itI did not receive a response but contacted the company again on May 26, when I noticed another monthly charge on my credit card for security monitoring services dated May 20, At this time a different company representative indicated that they would need an original signature in a letter addressed to them in order to cancel the serviceThis letter was faxed to them on May 26, as well as the previous emails requesting the service be cancelled on March 25, The company representative advised that the original matter would have been handled by a former employee of Hometech SecurityI advised Hometech that I followed their protocol as directed by a company representative on March 25, The above explanation by Hometech Security is inaccurate, specifically the statement that the customer "refused" to provide the documentation they requested and their mention of a May date of receiving documentation is erroneous and appears to be an attempt to distance themselves from their joint service they provide to a customer with [redacted] and overal an attempt to abrogate their responsibility
Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 5, 2015/06/17) */ First and foremost, the complainant is not and never has been a security system monitored customer of Hometech Security Incof Stony Plain, AlbertaHer contract and who is actually billing her is [redacted] out of QuebecMy company only services the account via a service agreement with [redacted] The complainant was advised that [redacted] requires a signed letter of cancellation before they will cancel her account, which she refused to provideShe finally got us that letter on May at which time forwarded to [redacted] So I think maybe the Revdex.com and this client should look into who is actually taking the money and the actual events of who is involved I expect a complete and published apology to Hometech Security as we have never taken any clients money in this manner Sincerely [redacted] Hometech Security Inc Initial Consumer Rebuttal / [redacted] (3000, 7, 2015/06/18) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) Plsnote that correspondence sent to me by Hometech Security and [redacted] indicated that they "joined forces effective January 31, and will continue to provide you with alarm monitoring and billing services"The phone number for Hometech Services in Stony Plain, Alberta was provided as the customer service phone number with specific instructions to direct inquiries regarding service or billing directly to Hometech(copy of letter sent to Revdex.com)Also forwarded to the Revdex.com is an email dated March 25, advising that we wished to cancel the monthly security monitoring services immediatelyThis email was forwarded to this company following a telephone conversation with the secretary of Hometech Security of Stony Plain earlier that day, as the accepted protocol to submit for cancellation of the monitoring serviceAfter noticing my credit card being charged for monthly monitoring again in April, I phoned [redacted] and followed up with an email advising the company that I was still being charged for a service that I had cancelled on March 25, Through follow up phone contact with a company representative, they indicated that they would check into itI did not receive a response but contacted the company again on May 26, when I noticed another monthly charge on my credit card for security monitoring services dated May 20, At this time a different company representative indicated that they would need an original signature in a letter addressed to them in order to cancel the serviceThis letter was faxed to them on May 26, as well as the previous emails requesting the service be cancelled on March 25, The company representative advised that the original matter would have been handled by a former employee of Hometech SecurityI advised Hometech that I followed their protocol as directed by a company representative on March 25, The above explanation by Hometech Security is inaccurate, specifically the statement that the customer "refused" to provide the documentation they requested and their mention of a May date of receiving documentation is erroneous and appears to be an attempt to distance themselves from their joint service they provide to a customer with [redacted] and overal an attempt to abrogate their responsibility