J.F. Sobieski Mechanical Contractors Inc.

[redacted] was very nice and helpful in fixing my AC problems on short notice. Great Service.

Our recent experience with Sobieski has been very professional and timely. Their employees were informative, knowledgable and courteous.

I recently had Chris from Sobieski Services service our furnace. We were very happy with the appointment and the information relayed to us by our tech.

Prompt, courteous, and very professional, Khalid performed his maintenance tasks quickly an kept me abreast of his progress. Highly recommend Khalid!

Sobieski Services conducted an annual check-up of our furnace. The technician was friendly, thorough and professional. I highly recommend this company.

I want to stress that Khalid was professional, efficient and informative answering all of our questions of which there were more than one. We used a good bit of his time and he was more than gracious about it. He's a good man.

[redacted] was very professional and knowledgeable during the service call to clean and inspect my heating system. Overall, I had a very positive experience with everyone I've dealt with so far at Sobieski. Thumbs up!

Friendly staff. Quality work.

[redacted]. arrived on time. He explained in detail how he was going to proceed on the job. He explained thoroughly explained the pricing to me. He asked if I had any questions. He was professional and friendly.

[redacted] of Sobieski Services notified me of his pending arrival ahead of time. He was very efficient and got about installing a new part for my A/C condenser. I asked him questions as he was working and he was very friendly and answered my questions as he continued to install the new part. He finished the installation and then did a completion check to insure that all was OK. Then he completed the necessary billing paperwork and the job was completed. He also provided additional information on my HVAC system that was very informative and useful.

[redacted] came promptly today and was exceptionally thorough and fair. His knowledge base was excellent and knew precisely what to do. All agenda was tidied up and repaired within 2 hrs. Very solid advice was given with preventative measures included. A gem for Sobieski's. [redacted]

The technician, Khalid, was doing the maintenances in a very careful way. I liked his service very much!

[redacted] did a thorough check of my units. I was sad to learn that I needed some major parts for the one unit or it could fail during the winter when repair wait times can get lengthy. Once [redacted] explained the pros and cons I agreed that fixing the unit now was best so that I could schedule the repair instead of waiting for a service tech to be available during peak request times.

Had annual A/C inspection. [redacted] did a great job. Very professional and thorough and explained all that he did. Great asset to Sobieski.

Review: On 3-19-15 Sobieski was to come out and perform a level 4 cleaning which was $580 and a possible smoke pipe and some other work. I gave a deposit of $580 with a remaining balance of$1062 upon completion of the work. They came here went in the basement and did not perform anything not even the level 4 cleaning. I called and spoke to the manager and she said I would not get my money back because they had performed work they gave a falsified report to their manager saying they did work. I am upset because I work hard for my money and believing they were a good company I trusted the fact they would do a good job that was not the case they backed out of there agreement and is trying to keep my money. They did not even leave a receipt . I have the previous receipt saying a $580 cash deposit was made.Desired Settlement: I would like for my $580 cash to be refunded to me they had no problem taking my cash but rather find it difficult to returned to me.

Business

Response:

Sobieski beleives that this complaint is without merit. While Sobieski understands the cusotmer's predicament Sobieski performed as promised and the customer actually owes Sobieski most of the money from the original quote. We say most because we stopped work when we found out they did not intend to pay for the completed work and it was determined that they were not going to occupy the residence. Bssed on the customer's signature Sobieski acted in good faith and ordered parts for the job, returned to the job, perfoemd additional work and we expected to be paid for that work. AT this time Sobieski is out the costs of the labor and the parts and it doesn;t appear that we will be compesated for that work.On 2/10 Service Technician [redacted] C. first went to [redacted] in Wilmington. The customers paid the $99 diagnostic fees at that time. [redacted] determined that the home had a 30+ yr old furnace. [redacted] recommended a level 4 service and complete replacement of the system due to the age and condition of the system. He gave an estimate of $574 for the service. At this time, services were declined. On 3/12 Technician [redacted] B. went to the residence to gather more information about the system and to prepare and estimate for overall servicing. He was able to determine that the unit needed $574 boiler cleaning, $749 smoke pipe replacement, $319 plugged chimney cleaning. They were told that the chimney was collapsed and that even after all the work, it may still not work properly. Because of the age of the unit, several special order pieces were required- 9”smoke stack, and 4” smoke stack. [redacted] collected 50% of the estimate, $1062, as a down payment. This was done per a conversation [redacted] had with the landlord. This was to have him order the parts, which he did. On 3/16 we received a call from [redacted]. She was requesting the $580 be refunded to her because the home had been condemned. There was confusion at that time as to who was requesting the refund, a tenant or a homeowner. The name on the account is Dwight Anderson, and the phone number was different. I called that number and spoke to Mr. Anderson. I asked him about the refund and who the homeowner was. He let me know that [redacted] was the homeowner and she was in NY. Ms. [redacted] was his wife, and they actually no longer wanted the refund, they wanted the work done. The next call was scheduled at that time, and I stopped the refund process. [redacted] was in contact with the landlord via text and Service Manager [redacted] H. was in contact with the homeowner via email. On 3/19 we arrived at the residence. The condemned tag was on the home. It was condemned as unfit for habitation. The city had shut off the gas and the water. The home was still being lived in. [redacted] and [redacted] H came to the home to assess what work could be completed. The homeowner was in NY at the time. Since we would have needed permits to be in the home to do any major work, [redacted] cleaned the chimney base, $319, to see if it was ok. The boiler was also checked and determined that it needed repairs and they recommended replacement. They stopped work at this point. The tenants refused to sign the invoice because they did not want to be held accountable for the total cost of the job. Ms. [redacted] then called the call center requesting that the $580 be returned to her because we did not complete the job, and the home was still condemned. I let her know that at this time we would need to refund any money to the homeowner. Ms. [redacted] was not happy with this response stating that she is the one that took out the 500$ for [redacted] a few days earlier. I later spoke to Mr. Anderson and Mrs. [redacted]. It was decided that any refund could go to Mr. Anderson and Ms. [redacted], but work was already completed so no refund is due.Our position is that we did a portion of the work. It was approved by the homeowner and the tenants when it was started, and no refund is due at this time. Sobieski acted in good faith and has incurred costs to provide service to the cusotmer's home. Several trips have been made tothe home to accomodate the customer. We understand that they are in a difficult situation, but Sobieski provided services over and above the compensation collected.Attached is the Service ticket with the cusotmer's signature and the details of the costs to repair the system. a copy was left with the cusotmer at the time of the 3/12 Service call. No ticket was left on 3/19 because there was no transaction.

Consumer

Response:

Easy to make an appointment for service.

If you have the lifetime warranty, your service calls are much cheaper.

Friendly staff.

They answer their phone versus you having to leave messages for service.

Have been happy with their work thus far.

Review: My wife and I own a vacation home in [redacted]. On November 10th 2012, the HOA held a community meeting with JF Sobieski concerning issues found with the fire sprinklers during an inspection of the various units.During this meeting Sobieski Security explained the issues and what would be involved in making the necessary repairs. They went on to say that failure to follow through with the repairs would result in fines being assessed by the Fire Marshals Office. They further advised that if we failed to make the necessary repairs that our homeowwers insurance may not cover any potential damages since we were notified of the problem and failed to rectify it.Based on this information we decided to make the repairs. We were told that we had 12 sprinkler heads that showed evidence of having been leaking and that needed to be replaced. On 4/24/13 we had the company make the repairs at a cost of $2590.00. In June, 2013, we noticed that all of the sprinkler heads which had been replaced were now leaking.(note: prior to the repairs, although the heads showed signs of leaking sometime in the past, they were NOT actually leaking)I contacted the company and on Monday, 7/15/13, [redacted], from Sobieski, met me at the house. After he had inspected the sprinkler system he advised me that he did not feel as though the problem could be fixed without extensive repairs which I am not financially able to afford at this time. He then advised that he was going back to his office and recommend that we receive a full refund. He said I should hear back from the company either later that day or the next. I waited until Wednesday, 7/17/13. I called [redacted] and left a message asking the status of the refund. He didn't return the call. I called back again on Thursday, 7/18 and Friday, 7/19. I still have not received a return call. I expect the courtesy of a return call and a FULL refund since they failed to correct the problem and in fact made it much worse.Desired Settlement: As stated above I expect a full refund of the $2590.00 that I spent on making what I now feel were unnecessary repairs. I believe the company used false scare tactics (the fire marshal's office and the homeowners statement) to have people make the repairs,knowing they were not necessary.

Business

Response:

Thank you for providing Sobieski with the information concerning the customer's complaint. While I understand the customer's frustration with the situation I am not able to find any evidence that would suport a refund. Sobieski performed the work that was specified in the contract and the customer was informed of the potential risks in selecting the minimal work to be completed from the options that were provided. The customer was part of a group of homeowners that were advised about the risks involved with the replacement options, the risks were clearly indicated on the customer's proposal/contract, and the customer selected the riskiest option and unfortunately the risks came true.

The customer claims that Sobieski employees used "false scare tactics to have people make the repairs, knowing they were not necessary." Sobieski was requested to attend a homeowners meeting to discuss the risks involved in the leaking fire sprinkler situation and the options that were available to the homeowners. Sobieski employees have an ethical responsibility to inform the public of the risks that are involved in the life safety systems that we install & service. Sobieski did not originally install the fire protection sytems in question. The information that was provided to the homeowners was based on years of experience in the life safety business. We do not use false scare tactics to unduly motivate the public to pay for our services.

The customer claims that Sobieski employess said that "failure to follow through with the repairs would result in fines being assessed by the Fire Marshals office." - that is not entirely correct. Sobieski stated that failure to make the repairs COULD result in fines assessed by the Fire Marshal's office. The Fire Marshal is charged with ensuring that buildings & dwellings with fire protection systems meet the current code. Whether their office would choose to use thier powers of enforcement to fine the homeowners who do not make repairs to a deficient fire protection system in a multi-family dwelling is a matter for the Fire Marshal to determine. Sobieski was simply pointing out a potential risk based on our experience.

The customer claims that Sobieski "advised that if (the homeowners) failed to make the necessary repairs that (the customer's) homeowner's insurance may not cover any potential damages..." That statement is true. We did say that the insurance MAY not cover any damages because in our experience we have seen situations where the customer declined to make repairs and the insurance company would not cover the damages. Again, based on our expereince we were obligated to provide the homeowners wih this information.

The customer claims that Sobieski used "false scare tactics" to make repairs "knowing (the repairs) were not necessary. That is NOT true. Sobieski does NOT lie to people to gain business. The fire protection system in this situation is deficient and needs repairs. There is no question that the repairs need to be made. Sobieski was called in to offer professional advice because the repairs are necessary.

THE customer claims that a Sobieski employee, [redacted], stated that he would "recommend that (the customer) receive a full refund. I have interviewed [redacted] and he states that he did not make that statement to the customer. He said that he told the customer that he would present the situation to the managers at Sobieski and they would decide the question of a refund. I apologize that Sobieski did not promptly contact the customer regarding this question. [redacted] does not have the authority to decide about any refunds. It took some time for him to present the situation to the appropriate managers and they were weighing the options in this situation.

It is a difficult situation because the customer was presented with several options to completely repair the situation and chose an option that he was advised may not completely fix the problem. The attached proposal/contract clearly says that "Simply replacing the spinkler heads and using the correct thread sealant may not resolve the overall leak issues. Due to the condition of the existing CPVC spinkler head adaptor fittings, future leaks could develop. We recommend replacing all of these head adaptors with new CPVC brass inserted adaptor fittings." This particlular topic was explained and covered at great length during the Sobieski presentation to the homeowners including the passing around of the new head adaptor fittings

[redacted] was provided with alternative pricing on the proposal dated 10/12/13, including pricing to remove the existing suspect adapter fittings and replace with new. [redacted] only accepted the base pricing on the proposal, indicating in writing “I am authorizing the base pricing repairs only.” In fact, the customer chose only to have the basic repair completed on only 13 of the recommended 20 sprinkler heads in the home.

On 12/7, Charlie M serviced by heater.He was professional and courteous. I have used Sobieski Services for the last couple years for annual heater and ac. I would recommend them to friends and neighbors.

Great service

[redacted] did a great job for me. He was extremely professional and courteous. Thank you for all your help!