IMEB Inc

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.The response from IMEB Inc. is inaccurate and IMEB Inc. has not provided acceptable service as per their warranty.  They have made excuses for the defective cryostat they sold us.  It was refurbished but they warrantied it for a year and they have not honored the warranty.  After we reported to IMEB Inc. that the first unit sent was not functioning properly, their parts manager said a replacement unit would be delivered instead of repairing it.  Clearly, they knew it was defective!  Many of the statements they made to you are untrue and misrepresent the facts.  For example, their response states, “The unit pulled -27 degrees [C] when tested by our third party technician”. In fact, their hired third party technician reported -19.8 degrees and -21 degrees. In addition, they have misstated the operational range of the unit. According to the operation manual, the maximum operating temperature is 35 degrees C.IMEB Inc. also states, “Upon completion of the third party inspection, the technician’s report stated the instrument was completely functional”. That is not true. A technician from [redacted] Instrument Company, a reputable cryostat vendor, came to inspect the unit at a later date. After a complete inspection, they found that multiple repairs were needed for the unit to function properly.  We had to pay [redacted] $7892.00 to repair the unit on top of the $13,350.00 we paid IMEB to purchase it.  And the repaired unit works perfectly in our laboratory which is the same temperature it has always been. Clearly, IMEB sold us a defective unit and then refused to honor their one year warranty to fix it.   Please note that we have hired an attorney to sue the company.  He reports that the status of IMEB as reported by the California Secretary of State is “suspended”.   In addition, IMEB is currently not allowed to conduct business.  
Regards,JUVA Skin & Laser Center

To Whom It May Concern:IMEB has received the letter of complaint from Juva Dermatology and would like to mention theissues Juva omitted from their statement. On September 19, [redacted] was shipped toJuva. The instrument sent was a refurbished unit (20 years old) per request of Juva. New...

unitsrun ~$20,000 and Juva requested the least expensive in order to cut down on cost.Juva Skin & Laser Center explained a level of dissatisfaction. Juva stated this unit had arefrigeration issue and was not pulling at the desired temperature of -30 C. The instrumentoperators manual indicates pull -30 plus or minus 3 degrees. Juva labs stated the instrumentwould only pull -23C to -24C in which they indicated was not cold enough in their opinion toproperly use this instrument to section tissue. This unit pulled -27 degrees when tested by ourthird party technician.IMEB, Inc. made attempts to resolve this issue by sending a replacement Leica CM 1510S onOctober 14, 2016. However, Juva Skin & Laser was not satisfied with this unit as well becausetheir company believed it was another defective. (Please note the cost to ship this replacementunit was ~$1,800 in both directions). Upon inspection IMEB, Inc. found that the originalinstrument was working at proper temperature and in good working order.IMEB at this point sent an additional internal microtome to assist with repairs by one ofour certified outside service technicians (Note cost of $5,000). Upon completion of the thirdparty inspection, technician report stated the instrument was completely functional. Furthermore,the usage of this unit by the dermatology technicians was being performed in a room reading 85F heat level. Once this discovery was made, IMEB made Juva aware of the issue andmeasurements needing to be taken per the recommendation of the technician on site (Note:Proper operation of the instrument and refrigeration system is 68 – 72 degrees. Please refer topage 23 of the operator manual). Once this information was relayed to IMEB we then made Juvaaware of the independent group’s findings. Juva stated that they did not care what the constanttemperature of this particular room was, as far as they were concerned said instrument did notwork and they refused to follow the Manual.In closing, inspection of the unit was made and attempts to resolve the said issues wereperformed. However, it was discovered that the only issue was not with the equipment but due tothe ambient temperature in the room. Juva Skin & Laser Center was made aware that theirambient air temperature was reading too warm (technician notes available at request) whichaffects the operating temperature of the unit. Per the Leica’s CM1510 S operating manualtechnical specifications the facility was too warm and IMEB, Inc. has provided these notes toJuva along with a standard operating manual for the unit (document available by request).Juva5/1/17Page 2Signature:Print Name: [redacted]Title: Office Manager_______________________________IMEB, Inc. has acquired surcharges in the attempts to accommodate Juva Skin & LaserCenter. Juva Skin & Laser Center has not sent back the additional microtome sent for repairs thatwas not needed. IMEB, Inc. is awaiting Juva’s payment for their outstanding invoice of $8,000.IMEB can provide documentation of the freight bills, invoices, and repair charges that are owedto our company. This invoice is now going to collections for non-payment past 50 days.Sincerely,[redacted] – CEO/Owner