Please see attachments for responseI appreciate this opportunity to respond to MrP [redacted] complaint as it is quite voidof accurate details and includes several outright falsehoods.MrP [redacted] did indeed phone our office and request an in-home service call andrepair of his buikitchen appliance garage with rotambour hood.On that initial call we explained to MrP [redacted] that we would have to see this issue inperson to be able to figure out if it was repairable and what would be involvedWequoted him a charge of $which would include the service call to his home andup to one hour of repair time, providing he approved our techs repair planWe alsostated that if the approved repair work exceeded one hour the continuing repairtime would be billed at an additional $per hourMrP [redacted] accepted thesequoted rates and he scheduled an appointment for April 26th, 2017.Our technician arrived at the home and performed an inspection and evaluation ofthe problemOur tech discovered that the appliance garage track and tambour hoodassembly was originally installed on the backside of the fixed face frame of theupper kitchen cabinetsThis section of cabinets is resting on the granite countertopand is in a cornerIn other words, the appliance garage assembly was installed onthe backside of permanently installed cabinetsThis design does not allow for theability to remove and replace the faulty assembly without removal of the uppersection of cabinets.Our technician explained to MrP [redacted] that removal and replacement of the partsMrP [redacted] purchased would be very involved and include extensive cabinet work,not to mention being an expensive repairMy technician suggested a repairprocedure to the existing assembly that would likely buy him more use time andprolong the need for a more involved and very expensive repairAfter thisexplanation of the problem and presenting options to MrP***, the customerdecided to approve the option of performing the repair to the existing assemblywith the hope that it would extend its useful life.We never gave any indication or promise as to how long the repair would extend theassembly lifeAnd making a repair to an already faulty mechanism does not comewith any time warrantyOur repair did in fact extend the useful life of the existingmechanism.In early August, MrP [redacted] called our office to let us know the mechanism wasstarting to fail againContrary to MrP***’s complaint, I was quite cordial andpolite with him throughout the entirety of the phone callI explained in detail whywe could not attempt to repair it again under warrantyI offered to send atechnician back to MrP***’s house to see what options may be possible at thispointHaving the background information from the first service call, I knew thistime we would likely be providing him an estimate that included the necessary veryextensive cabinet work allowing replacement of the entire mechanism.So, I offered to send a technician that has extensive background in cabinetryfabrication, removal, and installationI told him we would offer this service call atthe same previous rate from April He asked if we “could split the difference”in the costI told him I would be glad to do that as a customer service gestureHesaid that was fine with him and asked when we could schedule the appointment.This conversation took place on a Friday and we are not open on weekends, so I toldMrP [redacted] I would have my tech phone him directly on Monday, the next businessday, to set the appointment.Before my tech had a chance to call, MrP [redacted] mounted a negative internetcampaign against my company and a complaint to the Revdex.com over the weekend.MrP [redacted] was fully informed of all costs, problems with the tambour hoodmechanism, all repair options, and all other concerns throughout the processEachstep of this process included us providing answers to his inquiries along withoptions that he was free to accept or reject along the wayNothing was ever forcedupon himWe did our best to provide the most cost effective and sensible solution tohis issueThis is clearly not a warranty concern.We do not owe MrP [redacted] any refund, in full or in part, or any additional free repair.Now that he has caused irreparable damage to our online reputation through hisnegative ratings (immediately after agreeing to a solution over the phone), we donot feel comfortable providing any further service to this customer regardless if heis paying for services or not.Attached: Invoice from April reflecting MrP***’s signature of approval toproceed with repairs and signature of all work having been completed
Please see attachments for response. I appreciate this opportunity to respond to Mr. P[redacted] complaint as it is quite voidof accurate details and includes several outright falsehoods.Mr. P[redacted] did indeed phone our office and request an in-home service call andrepair of his built-in kitchen...
appliance garage with roll-up tambour hood.On that initial call we explained to Mr. P[redacted] that we would have to see this issue inperson to be able to figure out if it was repairable and what would be involved. Wequoted him a charge of $175 which would include the service call to his home andup to one hour of repair time, providing he approved our techs repair plan. We alsostated that if the approved repair work exceeded one hour the continuing repairtime would be billed at an additional $65 per hour. Mr. P[redacted] accepted thesequoted rates and he scheduled an appointment for April 26th, 2017.Our technician arrived at the home and performed an inspection and evaluation ofthe problem. Our tech discovered that the appliance garage track and tambour hoodassembly was originally installed on the backside of the fixed face frame of theupper kitchen cabinets. This section of cabinets is resting on the granite countertopand is in a corner. In other words, the appliance garage assembly was installed onthe backside of permanently installed cabinets. This design does not allow for theability to remove and replace the faulty assembly without removal of the uppersection of cabinets.Our technician explained to Mr. P[redacted] that removal and replacement of the partsMr. P[redacted] purchased would be very involved and include extensive cabinet work,not to mention being an expensive repair. My technician suggested a repairprocedure to the existing assembly that would likely buy him more use time andprolong the need for a more involved and very expensive repair. After thisexplanation of the problem and presenting options to Mr. P[redacted], the customerdecided to approve the option of performing the repair to the existing assemblywith the hope that it would extend its useful life.We never gave any indication or promise as to how long the repair would extend theassembly life. And making a repair to an already faulty mechanism does not comewith any time warranty. Our repair did in fact extend the useful life of the existingmechanism.In early August, Mr. P[redacted] called our office to let us know the mechanism wasstarting to fail again. Contrary to Mr. P[redacted]’s complaint, I was quite cordial andpolite with him throughout the entirety of the phone call. I explained in detail whywe could not attempt to repair it again under warranty. I offered to send atechnician back to Mr. P[redacted]’s house to see what options may be possible at thispoint. Having the background information from the first service call, I knew thistime we would likely be providing him an estimate that included the necessary veryextensive cabinet work allowing replacement of the entire mechanism.So, I offered to send a technician that has extensive background in cabinetryfabrication, removal, and installation. I told him we would offer this service call atthe same previous rate from April 2017. He asked if we “could split the difference”in the cost. I told him I would be glad to do that as a customer service gesture. Hesaid that was fine with him and asked when we could schedule the appointment.This conversation took place on a Friday and we are not open on weekends, so I toldMr. P[redacted] I would have my tech phone him directly on Monday, the next businessday, to set the appointment.Before my tech had a chance to call, Mr. P[redacted] mounted a negative internetcampaign against my company and a complaint to the Revdex.com over the weekend.Mr. P[redacted] was fully informed of all costs, problems with the tambour hoodmechanism, all repair options, and all other concerns throughout the process. Eachstep of this process included us providing answers to his inquiries along withoptions that he was free to accept or reject along the way. Nothing was ever forcedupon him. We did our best to provide the most cost effective and sensible solution tohis issue. This is clearly not a warranty concern.We do not owe Mr. P[redacted] any refund, in full or in part, or any additional free repair.Now that he has caused irreparable damage to our online reputation through hisnegative ratings (immediately after agreeing to a solution over the phone), we donot feel comfortable providing any further service to this customer regardless if heis paying for services or not.Attached: Invoice from April 2017 reflecting Mr. P[redacted]’s signature of approval toproceed with repairs and signature of all work having been completed.
The response is loaded with falsehoods and information that [redacted] does not even have access to. The first time I called on 08/04, they could not even determine who did the job. The second time we spoke, Don didn't have access to logged start and stop times for the job, and the receipt he uploaded has no notations that reflect the fabrications he offers in his response. Further, he explained the tech who came out. assuming they actually determined who it was, was no longer employed there. So he is just filling in blanks with a vivid imagination. The story about removing the cabinetry is pure prevarication. I have actually seen the mechanism replaced several years back by a handyman, sans cabinetry removal, with my own eyes, and the Irwin's tech who came out said nothing about cabinet removal -- nothing.[redacted]Irwin's was hired to replace the mechanism, I can produce a series of email exchanges to prove that. Had that new mechanism failed, that would be on me, since I provided the part. Instead, the tech chose to repair, using instructions from the part I provided, guaranteeing that it would be "good as new". Well, that repair failed -- quickly. [redacted] is also lying about meeting in the middle in regard to addressing the inadequate repair. He offered $100/trip + $75 the first hour + $65 for each subsequent hour, claiming that was a discounted rate. Examine the receipt he uploaded, and you will see that is almost exactly what I was charged the first time they came out. BTW, the tech was on my property for 80 minutes, not the 120 minutes for which I was billed. [redacted]In regard to the above complaint, Irwin’s has had a change of heart and issued a full refund. I’m not thrilled with the pressure I had to apply to obtain a resolution, but better late than never.
Please see attachments for responseI appreciate this opportunity to respond to MrP [redacted] complaint as it is quite voidof accurate details and includes several outright falsehoods.MrP [redacted] did indeed phone our office and request an in-home service call andrepair of his buikitchen appliance garage with rotambour hood.On that initial call we explained to MrP [redacted] that we would have to see this issue inperson to be able to figure out if it was repairable and what would be involvedWequoted him a charge of $which would include the service call to his home andup to one hour of repair time, providing he approved our techs repair planWe alsostated that if the approved repair work exceeded one hour the continuing repairtime would be billed at an additional $per hourMrP [redacted] accepted thesequoted rates and he scheduled an appointment for April 26th, 2017.Our technician arrived at the home and performed an inspection and evaluation ofthe problemOur tech discovered that the appliance garage track and tambour hoodassembly was originally installed on the backside of the fixed face frame of theupper kitchen cabinetsThis section of cabinets is resting on the granite countertopand is in a cornerIn other words, the appliance garage assembly was installed onthe backside of permanently installed cabinetsThis design does not allow for theability to remove and replace the faulty assembly without removal of the uppersection of cabinets.Our technician explained to MrP [redacted] that removal and replacement of the partsMrP [redacted] purchased would be very involved and include extensive cabinet work,not to mention being an expensive repairMy technician suggested a repairprocedure to the existing assembly that would likely buy him more use time andprolong the need for a more involved and very expensive repairAfter thisexplanation of the problem and presenting options to MrP***, the customerdecided to approve the option of performing the repair to the existing assemblywith the hope that it would extend its useful life.We never gave any indication or promise as to how long the repair would extend theassembly lifeAnd making a repair to an already faulty mechanism does not comewith any time warrantyOur repair did in fact extend the useful life of the existingmechanism.In early August, MrP [redacted] called our office to let us know the mechanism wasstarting to fail againContrary to MrP***’s complaint, I was quite cordial andpolite with him throughout the entirety of the phone callI explained in detail whywe could not attempt to repair it again under warrantyI offered to send atechnician back to MrP***’s house to see what options may be possible at thispointHaving the background information from the first service call, I knew thistime we would likely be providing him an estimate that included the necessary veryextensive cabinet work allowing replacement of the entire mechanism.So, I offered to send a technician that has extensive background in cabinetryfabrication, removal, and installationI told him we would offer this service call atthe same previous rate from April He asked if we “could split the difference”in the costI told him I would be glad to do that as a customer service gestureHesaid that was fine with him and asked when we could schedule the appointment.This conversation took place on a Friday and we are not open on weekends, so I toldMrP [redacted] I would have my tech phone him directly on Monday, the next businessday, to set the appointment.Before my tech had a chance to call, MrP [redacted] mounted a negative internetcampaign against my company and a complaint to the Revdex.com over the weekend.MrP [redacted] was fully informed of all costs, problems with the tambour hoodmechanism, all repair options, and all other concerns throughout the processEachstep of this process included us providing answers to his inquiries along withoptions that he was free to accept or reject along the wayNothing was ever forcedupon himWe did our best to provide the most cost effective and sensible solution tohis issueThis is clearly not a warranty concern.We do not owe MrP [redacted] any refund, in full or in part, or any additional free repair.Now that he has caused irreparable damage to our online reputation through hisnegative ratings (immediately after agreeing to a solution over the phone), we donot feel comfortable providing any further service to this customer regardless if heis paying for services or not.Attached: Invoice from April reflecting MrP***’s signature of approval toproceed with repairs and signature of all work having been completed
Please see attachments for response. I appreciate this opportunity to respond to Mr. P[redacted] complaint as it is quite voidof accurate details and includes several outright falsehoods.Mr. P[redacted] did indeed phone our office and request an in-home service call andrepair of his built-in kitchen...
appliance garage with roll-up tambour hood.On that initial call we explained to Mr. P[redacted] that we would have to see this issue inperson to be able to figure out if it was repairable and what would be involved. Wequoted him a charge of $175 which would include the service call to his home andup to one hour of repair time, providing he approved our techs repair plan. We alsostated that if the approved repair work exceeded one hour the continuing repairtime would be billed at an additional $65 per hour. Mr. P[redacted] accepted thesequoted rates and he scheduled an appointment for April 26th, 2017.Our technician arrived at the home and performed an inspection and evaluation ofthe problem. Our tech discovered that the appliance garage track and tambour hoodassembly was originally installed on the backside of the fixed face frame of theupper kitchen cabinets. This section of cabinets is resting on the granite countertopand is in a corner. In other words, the appliance garage assembly was installed onthe backside of permanently installed cabinets. This design does not allow for theability to remove and replace the faulty assembly without removal of the uppersection of cabinets.Our technician explained to Mr. P[redacted] that removal and replacement of the partsMr. P[redacted] purchased would be very involved and include extensive cabinet work,not to mention being an expensive repair. My technician suggested a repairprocedure to the existing assembly that would likely buy him more use time andprolong the need for a more involved and very expensive repair. After thisexplanation of the problem and presenting options to Mr. P[redacted], the customerdecided to approve the option of performing the repair to the existing assemblywith the hope that it would extend its useful life.We never gave any indication or promise as to how long the repair would extend theassembly life. And making a repair to an already faulty mechanism does not comewith any time warranty. Our repair did in fact extend the useful life of the existingmechanism.In early August, Mr. P[redacted] called our office to let us know the mechanism wasstarting to fail again. Contrary to Mr. P[redacted]’s complaint, I was quite cordial andpolite with him throughout the entirety of the phone call. I explained in detail whywe could not attempt to repair it again under warranty. I offered to send atechnician back to Mr. P[redacted]’s house to see what options may be possible at thispoint. Having the background information from the first service call, I knew thistime we would likely be providing him an estimate that included the necessary veryextensive cabinet work allowing replacement of the entire mechanism.So, I offered to send a technician that has extensive background in cabinetryfabrication, removal, and installation. I told him we would offer this service call atthe same previous rate from April 2017. He asked if we “could split the difference”in the cost. I told him I would be glad to do that as a customer service gesture. Hesaid that was fine with him and asked when we could schedule the appointment.This conversation took place on a Friday and we are not open on weekends, so I toldMr. P[redacted] I would have my tech phone him directly on Monday, the next businessday, to set the appointment.Before my tech had a chance to call, Mr. P[redacted] mounted a negative internetcampaign against my company and a complaint to the Revdex.com over the weekend.Mr. P[redacted] was fully informed of all costs, problems with the tambour hoodmechanism, all repair options, and all other concerns throughout the process. Eachstep of this process included us providing answers to his inquiries along withoptions that he was free to accept or reject along the way. Nothing was ever forcedupon him. We did our best to provide the most cost effective and sensible solution tohis issue. This is clearly not a warranty concern.We do not owe Mr. P[redacted] any refund, in full or in part, or any additional free repair.Now that he has caused irreparable damage to our online reputation through hisnegative ratings (immediately after agreeing to a solution over the phone), we donot feel comfortable providing any further service to this customer regardless if heis paying for services or not.Attached: Invoice from April 2017 reflecting Mr. P[redacted]’s signature of approval toproceed with repairs and signature of all work having been completed.
The response is loaded with falsehoods and information that [redacted] does not even have access to. The first time I called on 08/04, they could not even determine who did the job. The second time we spoke, Don didn't have access to logged start and stop times for the job, and the receipt he uploaded has no notations that reflect the fabrications he offers in his response. Further, he explained the tech who came out. assuming they actually determined who it was, was no longer employed there. So he is just filling in blanks with a vivid imagination. The story about removing the cabinetry is pure prevarication. I have actually seen the mechanism replaced several years back by a handyman, sans cabinetry removal, with my own eyes, and the Irwin's tech who came out said nothing about cabinet removal -- nothing.[redacted]Irwin's was hired to replace the mechanism, I can produce a series of email exchanges to prove that. Had that new mechanism failed, that would be on me, since I provided the part. Instead, the tech chose to repair, using instructions from the part I provided, guaranteeing that it would be "good as new". Well, that repair failed -- quickly. [redacted] is also lying about meeting in the middle in regard to addressing the inadequate repair. He offered $100/trip + $75 the first hour + $65 for each subsequent hour, claiming that was a discounted rate. Examine the receipt he uploaded, and you will see that is almost exactly what I was charged the first time they came out. BTW, the tech was on my property for 80 minutes, not the 120 minutes for which I was billed. [redacted]In regard to the above complaint, Irwin’s has had a change of heart and issued a full refund. I’m not thrilled with the pressure I had to apply to obtain a resolution, but better late than never.