Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 10, 2017/04/25) */ After [redacted] brought the issues with is vehicle to our attention we tried our best to resolve the situationThe vehicle had been purchased nearly months previous to our discussionAt the time the vehicle was sold it was in good standing according to NS Motor Vehicle Inspection RegulationsWe asked [redacted] to bring the vehicle to our shop so we could access the needed repairs and try to offer a resolutionDespite the fact that we were in no way liable for the current condition of the vehicle, we offered to assist [redacted] by paying for the entire labour costs associated with his repairs, as we do our best to try to help all of our customers when we are able to do so, regardless of responsibilityHowever [redacted] initially refused this offer and, shortly thereafter, informed us that he had filed this complaint with Revdex.comHe also informed us he had contacted the Deptof Transportation (if I'm not mistaken) to see if any action could be taken against usSoon after this [redacted] informed us that DOT couldn't do anything about this situationAfter all of this took place we decided to retract our original offer of covering the labour costs of his repairs due the to actions that had been taken against us [redacted] has since removed his vehicle from our property and we have not spoken up to this dateWe wish him all the bestFeel free to contact us, Attn: ***, via phone ( [redacted] ) or email ( [redacted] )Thank you for your time Initial Consumer Rebuttal / [redacted] (3000, 12, 2017/04/25) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) I dispute that the fact that the vehicle was " in good standing according to the NSMVI regulations" The rusted out front sub frame should never have passed any regulationsIn my opinion, the practices of Team Auto and their mechanics are substandard and need to be reviewed
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2016/02/09) */
Revdex.com
Fort Wayne, IN
Case ID [redacted] - [redacted]
Following is our response to this complaint:
The customer purchased a log and burner set to be installed inside her existing wood burning firebox, not a fireplace...
insert that was stated (which would replace the full fire box). The log set was installed on November 6th. The customer states that the installer twisted the existing log lighter piping by hand, claiming that this strained the connection in the wall. The installer categorically states that he never twisted by hand, and never does, specifically to avoid the possibility of loosening any fittings concealed in the wall. He may have touched the fitting with his hand but doing so wouldn't strain any fittings within the wall, especially with a flex line between the fireplace and the key valve. Following usual procedure, he applied a pipe wrench to the nipple to hold it in place, while applying another pipe wrench to the log lighter fitting to remove it. The gas logs and burner were then installed, and the connections tested for gas leaks. None were detected and the log set was lit and operating properly at the time of installation. Some initial odor from burning in the logs are typical, but do not smell like gas. There may be a whiff of gas odor at the time of installation as the gas line is purged during the initial startup of the pilot light, but no other gas leak was measured or apparent, specifically to our installation or adjacent to it.
In reviewing the invoice from the plumber, they indicated that once they cut into the wall on 12/16/15, they found a flexline that had been installed in the wall, and this was the loose item. This flexline was attached to a hard gas line that extended into the fireplace, and to which we applied our fitting. Any movement of the hard gas line would not cause a loosening of the flex line fitting, and in any case, we did not apply any movement to the hard gas line. If the original installation of the flex line inside of the wall was done improperly, it is possible that a small amount of gas would leak when the key valve was turned on, and start filling the wall cavity after a period of time, allowing it to become evident to the home owner. It is important to note that the original configuration of this fireplace was to burn wood, with the log lighter used for a short period of time to start the fire. This would mean that the key valve is only open for a short amount of time, likely not enough time for anyone to smell a gas leak. The gas log set that was installed by Von Tobel would require the key valve to be turned on during the entire time the fireplace is operating, allowing enough time for a small leak on the flex line inside of the wall to finally accumulate to the point where it was noticeable. She said she did not detect any leak for a day or two.
When the customer detected this a day or two later, the customer called our store and asked for us to come out and perform an emergency gas service. We are not equipped to do this, and told her that if she detected gas, she should call NIPSCO and have them do an emergency inspection, which she then had them do. (I informed her to call NIPSCO, she was not left to figure out who to call). The plumber that came out then apprently capped the gas line in an exposed area prior to it entering the flex line. They state on their invoice on 11/12/2016 that the gas line fireplace on lower level was leaking, but as their invoice on 12/16 further clarifies, the flex line inside the wall was the loose item.
In summary, our inspections and installation were complete and proper. The gas leak later discovered inside the customers wall was the result of a fitting improperly installed by someone other than Von Tobel. The solution to the problem by the plumber, who opened the wall, repaired the line and then repaired the wall was the proper solution, but not caused by or the responsibility of Von Tobel. Whether this additional work was performed by Von Tobel, the plumber, or any other 3rd party, it would have been additional work and chargeable, and would not have been considered as part of the original installation package or price.
We are sorry that the customer feels this way about the situation, but our position is that it is a misunderstanding on her part as to what the actual condition and solution to her gas line situation was.
Tim [redacted]
GM, Von Tobel Lumber and Hardware, Valparaiso.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2016/02/09) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
>>The customer states that the installer twisted the existing log lighter piping by hand, claiming that this strained the connection in the wall. The installer categorically states that he never twisted by hand...
>>
I observed the installer using both hands to twist the piping. When it didn't give, the installer then used two wrenches, twisted in opposite directions.
>>
She said she did not detect any leak for a day or two.
>>
I said I wasn't sure what I was smelling. The smell was upstairs (it was explained to me by NIPSCO that the scent of gas rises in a house), and I could not find a source. At first I thought it might be the smell of initially using the fireplace, but after a few days it did not dissipate, and I called NIPSCO (after I called Von Tobel Hardware).
>>
The gas logs and burner were then installed, and the connections tested for gas leaks.
>>
I observed the installation of the gas log set. I asked the installer to make sure there was no gas leak. At no time did I observe the installer checking for a gas leak. The leak would have been around the valve and should have been readily detected.
I do not hold Von Tobel responsible for the loose connection within the wall. I do hold them responsible for leaving a leaking valve when I specifically asked them to check for leaks. This put me and my pets at risk. Therefore, I am asking for a PARTIAL refund of 25%. Had I known about the leak, I would have shut off the valve and taken the appropriate steps, as opposed to dealing with an emergency situation, which is what occurred.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2016/02/16) */
Von Tobel's stands by our original statement/response, thanks.
Bill [redacted]
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 10, 2017/04/25) */
After [redacted] brought the issues with is vehicle to our attention we tried our best to resolve the situation. The vehicle had been purchased nearly 9 months previous to our discussion. At the time the vehicle was sold it was in good standing...
according to NS Motor Vehicle Inspection Regulations. We asked [redacted] to bring the vehicle to our shop so we could access the needed repairs and try to offer a resolution. Despite the fact that we were in no way liable for the current condition of the vehicle, we offered to assist [redacted] by paying for the entire labour costs associated with his repairs, as we do our best to try to help all of our customers when we are able to do so, regardless of responsibility. However [redacted] initially refused this offer and, shortly thereafter, informed us that he had filed this complaint with Revdex.com. He also informed us he had contacted the Dept. of Transportation (if I'm not mistaken) to see if any action could be taken against us. Soon after this [redacted] informed us that DOT couldn't do anything about this situation. After all of this took place we decided to retract our original offer of covering the labour costs of his repairs due the to actions that had been taken against us. [redacted] has since removed his vehicle from our property and we have not spoken up to this date. We wish him all the best. Feel free to contact us, Attn: [redacted], via phone ([redacted]) or email ([redacted]). Thank you for your time.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 12, 2017/04/25) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I dispute that the fact that the vehicle was " in good standing according to the NSMVI regulations" The rusted out front sub frame should never have passed any regulations. In my opinion, the practices of Team Auto and their mechanics are substandard and need to be reviewed.
Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 10, 2017/04/25) */ After [redacted] brought the issues with is vehicle to our attention we tried our best to resolve the situationThe vehicle had been purchased nearly months previous to our discussionAt the time the vehicle was sold it was in good standing according to NS Motor Vehicle Inspection RegulationsWe asked [redacted] to bring the vehicle to our shop so we could access the needed repairs and try to offer a resolutionDespite the fact that we were in no way liable for the current condition of the vehicle, we offered to assist [redacted] by paying for the entire labour costs associated with his repairs, as we do our best to try to help all of our customers when we are able to do so, regardless of responsibilityHowever [redacted] initially refused this offer and, shortly thereafter, informed us that he had filed this complaint with Revdex.comHe also informed us he had contacted the Deptof Transportation (if I'm not mistaken) to see if any action could be taken against usSoon after this [redacted] informed us that DOT couldn't do anything about this situationAfter all of this took place we decided to retract our original offer of covering the labour costs of his repairs due the to actions that had been taken against us [redacted] has since removed his vehicle from our property and we have not spoken up to this dateWe wish him all the bestFeel free to contact us, Attn: ***, via phone ( [redacted] ) or email ( [redacted] )Thank you for your time Initial Consumer Rebuttal / [redacted] (3000, 12, 2017/04/25) */ (The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) I dispute that the fact that the vehicle was " in good standing according to the NSMVI regulations" The rusted out front sub frame should never have passed any regulationsIn my opinion, the practices of Team Auto and their mechanics are substandard and need to be reviewed
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2016/02/09) */
Revdex.com
Fort Wayne, IN
Case ID [redacted] - [redacted]
Following is our response to this complaint:
The customer purchased a log and burner set to be installed inside her existing wood burning firebox, not a fireplace...
insert that was stated (which would replace the full fire box). The log set was installed on November 6th. The customer states that the installer twisted the existing log lighter piping by hand, claiming that this strained the connection in the wall. The installer categorically states that he never twisted by hand, and never does, specifically to avoid the possibility of loosening any fittings concealed in the wall. He may have touched the fitting with his hand but doing so wouldn't strain any fittings within the wall, especially with a flex line between the fireplace and the key valve. Following usual procedure, he applied a pipe wrench to the nipple to hold it in place, while applying another pipe wrench to the log lighter fitting to remove it. The gas logs and burner were then installed, and the connections tested for gas leaks. None were detected and the log set was lit and operating properly at the time of installation. Some initial odor from burning in the logs are typical, but do not smell like gas. There may be a whiff of gas odor at the time of installation as the gas line is purged during the initial startup of the pilot light, but no other gas leak was measured or apparent, specifically to our installation or adjacent to it.
In reviewing the invoice from the plumber, they indicated that once they cut into the wall on 12/16/15, they found a flexline that had been installed in the wall, and this was the loose item. This flexline was attached to a hard gas line that extended into the fireplace, and to which we applied our fitting. Any movement of the hard gas line would not cause a loosening of the flex line fitting, and in any case, we did not apply any movement to the hard gas line. If the original installation of the flex line inside of the wall was done improperly, it is possible that a small amount of gas would leak when the key valve was turned on, and start filling the wall cavity after a period of time, allowing it to become evident to the home owner. It is important to note that the original configuration of this fireplace was to burn wood, with the log lighter used for a short period of time to start the fire. This would mean that the key valve is only open for a short amount of time, likely not enough time for anyone to smell a gas leak. The gas log set that was installed by Von Tobel would require the key valve to be turned on during the entire time the fireplace is operating, allowing enough time for a small leak on the flex line inside of the wall to finally accumulate to the point where it was noticeable. She said she did not detect any leak for a day or two.
When the customer detected this a day or two later, the customer called our store and asked for us to come out and perform an emergency gas service. We are not equipped to do this, and told her that if she detected gas, she should call NIPSCO and have them do an emergency inspection, which she then had them do. (I informed her to call NIPSCO, she was not left to figure out who to call). The plumber that came out then apprently capped the gas line in an exposed area prior to it entering the flex line. They state on their invoice on 11/12/2016 that the gas line fireplace on lower level was leaking, but as their invoice on 12/16 further clarifies, the flex line inside the wall was the loose item.
In summary, our inspections and installation were complete and proper. The gas leak later discovered inside the customers wall was the result of a fitting improperly installed by someone other than Von Tobel. The solution to the problem by the plumber, who opened the wall, repaired the line and then repaired the wall was the proper solution, but not caused by or the responsibility of Von Tobel. Whether this additional work was performed by Von Tobel, the plumber, or any other 3rd party, it would have been additional work and chargeable, and would not have been considered as part of the original installation package or price.
We are sorry that the customer feels this way about the situation, but our position is that it is a misunderstanding on her part as to what the actual condition and solution to her gas line situation was.
Tim [redacted]
GM, Von Tobel Lumber and Hardware, Valparaiso.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2016/02/09) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
>>The customer states that the installer twisted the existing log lighter piping by hand, claiming that this strained the connection in the wall. The installer categorically states that he never twisted by hand...
>>
I observed the installer using both hands to twist the piping. When it didn't give, the installer then used two wrenches, twisted in opposite directions.
>>
She said she did not detect any leak for a day or two.
>>
I said I wasn't sure what I was smelling. The smell was upstairs (it was explained to me by NIPSCO that the scent of gas rises in a house), and I could not find a source. At first I thought it might be the smell of initially using the fireplace, but after a few days it did not dissipate, and I called NIPSCO (after I called Von Tobel Hardware).
>>
The gas logs and burner were then installed, and the connections tested for gas leaks.
>>
I observed the installation of the gas log set. I asked the installer to make sure there was no gas leak. At no time did I observe the installer checking for a gas leak. The leak would have been around the valve and should have been readily detected.
I do not hold Von Tobel responsible for the loose connection within the wall. I do hold them responsible for leaving a leaking valve when I specifically asked them to check for leaks. This put me and my pets at risk. Therefore, I am asking for a PARTIAL refund of 25%. Had I known about the leak, I would have shut off the valve and taken the appropriate steps, as opposed to dealing with an emergency situation, which is what occurred.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2016/02/16) */
Von Tobel's stands by our original statement/response, thanks.
Bill [redacted]
Initial Business Response /* (1000, 10, 2017/04/25) */
After [redacted] brought the issues with is vehicle to our attention we tried our best to resolve the situation. The vehicle had been purchased nearly 9 months previous to our discussion. At the time the vehicle was sold it was in good standing...
according to NS Motor Vehicle Inspection Regulations. We asked [redacted] to bring the vehicle to our shop so we could access the needed repairs and try to offer a resolution. Despite the fact that we were in no way liable for the current condition of the vehicle, we offered to assist [redacted] by paying for the entire labour costs associated with his repairs, as we do our best to try to help all of our customers when we are able to do so, regardless of responsibility. However [redacted] initially refused this offer and, shortly thereafter, informed us that he had filed this complaint with Revdex.com. He also informed us he had contacted the Dept. of Transportation (if I'm not mistaken) to see if any action could be taken against us. Soon after this [redacted] informed us that DOT couldn't do anything about this situation. After all of this took place we decided to retract our original offer of covering the labour costs of his repairs due the to actions that had been taken against us. [redacted] has since removed his vehicle from our property and we have not spoken up to this date. We wish him all the best. Feel free to contact us, Attn: [redacted], via phone ([redacted]) or email ([redacted]). Thank you for your time.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 12, 2017/04/25) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I dispute that the fact that the vehicle was " in good standing according to the NSMVI regulations" The rusted out front sub frame should never have passed any regulations. In my opinion, the practices of Team Auto and their mechanics are substandard and need to be reviewed.