Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.The business has submitted statements Among other statements, we DID read the instructions front to back before using the device Also, the engineer here on-site observed the pressure-release valve malfunctioning at approximately PSI I asked [redacted] about this (see the attached document) and received no reply.The business also stonewalled us in our attempts to resolve the issues BEFORE we decided to return the unit Please see attached document as a relevant excerpt of the email chain Very specific questions were asked but NOT answered This, along with the non-functioning unit led is to the conclusion that the description of the unit and the estimates made with respect to the expected output were exaggerated beyond extreme The delivery person, Ray, told me that they did not see much output from the device when tested at the factory I was shocked that he told me that and, in hindsight, should have refused the delivery I was hoping it would actually function as advertised.In the attached document, I ask [redacted] if the ROI used as part of the promotion of the unit was based on actual experimental data No response No response to all my other questions, either My conclusion was that [redacted] is falsely advertising the unit with wildly exaggerated claims My personal experience and my engineer's observations when using the unit bore this out; the unit does NOT work as advertised and [redacted] does not answer customers' specific questions At NO TIME did I EVER say that I had no time to read the manual This is a provable lie and is indicative of ***'s approach to business Regards, [redacted] ***
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.The business has submitted false statements. Among other false statements, we DID read the instructions front to back before using the device. Also, the engineer here on-site observed the pressure-release valve malfunctioning at approximately 1550 PSI. I asked [redacted] about this (see the attached document) and received no reply.The business also stonewalled us in our attempts to resolve the issues BEFORE we decided to return the unit. Please see attached document as a relevant excerpt of the email chain. Very specific questions were asked but NOT answered. This, along with the non-functioning unit led is to the conclusion that the description of the unit and the estimates made with respect to the expected output were exaggerated beyond extreme. The delivery person, Ray, told me that they did not see much output from the device when tested at the factory. I was shocked that he told me that and, in hindsight, should have refused the delivery. I was hoping it would actually function as advertised.In the attached document, I ask [redacted] if the ROI used as part of the promotion of the unit was based on actual experimental data. No response. No response to all my other questions, either. My conclusion was that [redacted] is falsely advertising the unit with wildly exaggerated claims. My personal experience and my engineer's observations when using the unit bore this out; the unit does NOT work as advertised and [redacted] does not answer customers' specific questions. At NO TIME did I EVER say that I had no time to read the manual. This is a provable lie and is indicative of [redacted]'s approach to business.
Regards,
[redacted]
Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.The business has submitted statements Among other statements, we DID read the instructions front to back before using the device Also, the engineer here on-site observed the pressure-release valve malfunctioning at approximately PSI I asked [redacted] about this (see the attached document) and received no reply.The business also stonewalled us in our attempts to resolve the issues BEFORE we decided to return the unit Please see attached document as a relevant excerpt of the email chain Very specific questions were asked but NOT answered This, along with the non-functioning unit led is to the conclusion that the description of the unit and the estimates made with respect to the expected output were exaggerated beyond extreme The delivery person, Ray, told me that they did not see much output from the device when tested at the factory I was shocked that he told me that and, in hindsight, should have refused the delivery I was hoping it would actually function as advertised.In the attached document, I ask [redacted] if the ROI used as part of the promotion of the unit was based on actual experimental data No response No response to all my other questions, either My conclusion was that [redacted] is falsely advertising the unit with wildly exaggerated claims My personal experience and my engineer's observations when using the unit bore this out; the unit does NOT work as advertised and [redacted] does not answer customers' specific questions At NO TIME did I EVER say that I had no time to read the manual This is a provable lie and is indicative of ***'s approach to business Regards, [redacted] ***
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.The business has submitted false statements. Among other false statements, we DID read the instructions front to back before using the device. Also, the engineer here on-site observed the pressure-release valve malfunctioning at approximately 1550 PSI. I asked [redacted] about this (see the attached document) and received no reply.The business also stonewalled us in our attempts to resolve the issues BEFORE we decided to return the unit. Please see attached document as a relevant excerpt of the email chain. Very specific questions were asked but NOT answered. This, along with the non-functioning unit led is to the conclusion that the description of the unit and the estimates made with respect to the expected output were exaggerated beyond extreme. The delivery person, Ray, told me that they did not see much output from the device when tested at the factory. I was shocked that he told me that and, in hindsight, should have refused the delivery. I was hoping it would actually function as advertised.In the attached document, I ask [redacted] if the ROI used as part of the promotion of the unit was based on actual experimental data. No response. No response to all my other questions, either. My conclusion was that [redacted] is falsely advertising the unit with wildly exaggerated claims. My personal experience and my engineer's observations when using the unit bore this out; the unit does NOT work as advertised and [redacted] does not answer customers' specific questions. At NO TIME did I EVER say that I had no time to read the manual. This is a provable lie and is indicative of [redacted]'s approach to business.
Regards,
[redacted]