Keith's Appliance & TV

Revdex.com
ID # [redacted]
Re: [redacted]
 
September 29, 2015
 
On Tuesday, July 7th,
the delivery crew from Keith’s Appliances delivered and installed the new **...

washer
and dryer for Mrs. [redacted] on the second floor of her home.  At the time of installation, the washer was
tested to determine that it was installed correctly, functioning properly and
that there was no sign of any leakage. 
Mrs. [redacted] signed the delivery report, attached, stating that the
appliances were delivered and received in good condition.
On Thursday, July 16th,
Mrs. [redacted] spoke with our Service Manager, Barbara R[redacted], and
complained of a leak coming from the washer. 
A service technician, Sam B[redacted], was scheduled to come to Mrs.
[redacted]’s home to check the washer for any damage or defects.  He found that the hoses had been
cross-threaded at the machine, and requested through the Service Manager that
the replacement part be ordered.  Once
the part was received, a follow-up appointment was set with Mrs. [redacted] for
the installation of said part, as well as a new set of stainless steel hoses.  Since the replacement of the damaged part, we
have not received any word of the washer performing poorly or of a continued
leak from the unit.
When Mrs. [redacted]
inquired about a replacement washer, she was informed that as per policy, we
must have the washer inspected by the technician before a determination could
be made.  We are required by ** to repair
rather than replace any faulty or defective appliances whenever possible.  ** has a very strict policy that we must
adhere to which calls for any questionable appliance to be diagnosed and
attempted to be repaired before they will authorize an exchange of the unit.  We were merely following the dictated policy
when we chose to send the technician out to diagnose and repair Mrs. [redacted]’s
washer. 
Mrs. [redacted] spoke
with our Office Manager, Kristen S[redacted], and the Service Dispatch Associate, Hope
P[redacted], regarding the water damage caused by the leak.  After examining the photos and video taken by
the technician at the time of the service and after consulting with the Service
Manager, Ms. S[redacted] decided to submit a claim through the liability insurance
company, [redacted] Insurance.  The
representative from [redacted] Insurance, [redacted], conducted a
thorough investigation with our full cooperation.  Her initial findings, attached, resulted in a
denial of the claim.  After receiving
further correspondence from Mrs. [redacted], the Office Manager reached out to
the representative from [redacted] Insurance to review the claim.  After review, [redacted] Insurance has agreed
to reassess Mrs. [redacted]’s damages, see the attached email notification.  The representative will be reaching out to
Mrs. [redacted] shortly in order to move forward towards an amiable
resolution. 
We regret any
inconvenience that Mrs. [redacted] has experienced throughout this ordeal, and
will stand by whatever determination is made by the insurance company.  With [redacted] Insurance, we feel confident
that Mrs. [redacted] is getting the best care available.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

Revdex.com
ID # [redacted]
Re: [redacted]
 
April 20, 2015
 
On Tuesday, April 21,
2015, after leaving a message on Ms. [redacted] voicemail and following up with an
email, our Service Manager, [redacted], was able to connect with Ms. [redacted] regarding a follow up visit.  Our Service
Manager explained that all service appointments are covered with a 30 Day
guaranty for labor and a 90 Day guaranty for parts.  As such, there is no charge for a follow up
appointment within thirty days of the original appointment.  A new service appointment has been set for
the afternoon of Friday, April 24, 2015 to resolve the problem with Ms. [redacted]
dryer.

Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because:
Multiple details listed by Keith's Appliances are inaccurate.  The following details are not accurate. The repair/service was for a over the range microwave not a refrigerator, as stated numerous time by Keith's Appliance.  The initial repair date was an evaluation.  The second repair date was cancelled by Keith's Appliances with an excuse given "no other technician available for your area and the one tech we have is sick". That repair date was pushed out another week.  The date that was reschedule on the behalf of Keith’s' appliances was not feasible to my schedule.  The third repair date was met with a technician that replaced the Magnetron for the microwave.  The technician attempted to wrap up and leave but I requested him to put the microwave parts back together first.  The technician they replied that some parts must have snapped off and broken upon opening the device.  The technician said that he would order the part and another service appt would be needed (a fourth appt).  No contact was made by Keith's for at least two weeks.  At this point a month and a half has elapsed throughout the repair.  I called to find out when they would replace the broken element.  I was given a fifth appointment on specified date between the hours of 3-5pm in which the technician would call 30 minutes ahead to a lot me time to be at the repair site..  I received a call from the Technician at 3:22 pm stating that he was already at the repair site and he would not be able to wait the 30 minutes.  The technician made it clear that after this service call he is done for the day and seen I was not available at the exact moment I’d need to reschedule because he's done for the day. Immediately called and spoke with the same scheduling person Hope which offered different information.  Stating the technician has other jobs for the day, so he cannot wait for you.  I am left with a broken element to my appliance due to fault of the technician of Keith's Appliances.  The business is within 1 1/2 mile radius of my home but yet they are and were so difficult to work with, rude, faulty and unwilling to work with any working client for a service call.  Keith's appliance should not be in the service/repair business, they should only be in sales and they should let their customers know that repairs are very difficult and may result in damage to appliances.   
Sincerely,[redacted]

Complaint: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because:Sincerely,[redacted]

Revdex.com
ID # [redacted]
Re: [redacted]
 
March 24, 2015
 
On Wednesday, March 4,
2015, Ms. [redacted] called our office requesting service for a ** dryer that was...

not
working.  After an explanation of the procedure
and fees involved with an out-of-warranty service visit, an appointment was set
for Tuesday, March 10th to evaluate the dryer.  The technician, [redacted] diagnosed the
issue as a safety lock engaged prohibiting use of the machine.  As the technician is very familiar with this
particular model of dryer, he easily recognized the problem.  The technician disengaged the lock, ran a brief
(3-5 minutes) tumble cycle to ensure the machine ran properly, collected
payment for the service rendered, and went on to his next scheduled stop.
On Wednesday, March 11th,
Ms. [redacted] called our office to discuss the invoice for the service call.  She spoke with our service associate, [redacted], regarding her dissatisfaction with the amount charged vs the amount of
time it took to fix the problem with the dryer. 
At this time, Ms. [redacted] informed us of her intent to request a stop
payment on the check issued even though the dryer was working properly
following the technician’s visit.
On Thursday, March 12th,
Ms. [redacted] contacted our service department stating that the dryer was repeating
the original behavior and not functioning. 
Our service manager, [redacted], informed Ms. [redacted] that she would
consult with the technician, and follow up as soon as she had a possible
resolution.  Even after the customer
confirmed that the original payment had been suspended, the service manager
offered to send the technician back to check the dryer again.  The conversation concluded with the service
manager promising to call Ms. [redacted] back after consulting with the technician.
In the afternoon of March
12th, the service manager attempted to reach Ms. [redacted] by phone with
the intention of offering either another visit with the technician or verbal
advice from the technician of how the customer could disengage the safety lock
herself.  She left a message on Ms. [redacted]
voicemail asking for a return call to discuss the case.  As of yet, the customer has not returned the
call.

Revdex.com
ID # [redacted]
Re: [redacted]
 
November 19, 2014
 
On Monday, October 20,
2014, Ms. [redacted] called our office requesting service for an [redacted] dryer that
was not working.  An appointment was set
for Saturday, October 25th to evaluate the...

dryer.  The technician, [redacted], diagnosed the
issue as a faulty thermal fuse, and entered the request to order the replacement
part.  When attempting to order the
thermal fuse, our parts manager, [redacted], found that the part was on
back-order through our regular parts providers. 
The part was found at an alternate provider, and arrived at our facility
on Friday, November 7th.  Once
it was received, a second service appointment was scheduled to repair the dryer
on Wednesday, November 12th. 
The same technician was sent out to replace the thermal fuse on Ms. [redacted] dryer.  After testing the
repaired dryer, the technician found the unit to be cleared for use. 
On Thursday, November 13,
2014, Ms. [redacted] called our office stating that the dryer had been making
noises and had started smoking.  Our
service manager sent the technician out that same day at no additional charge
to re-evaluate the dryer.  At that point,
the technician found that the main circuit board had been badly damaged, unable
to be repaired.  The technician reported
his findings to the office. 
The service manager
attempted to reach Ms. [redacted] by phone on Tuesday, November 18th,
with the intention of offering a partial refund of the combined service
appointments, a full refund of the cost of parts, and a discount towards the
cost of a new dryer.  She left a message
on Ms. [redacted] voicemail asking for a return call to discuss the case.  On Wednesday, November 19th, the
service manager was able to reach Ms. [redacted] by phone.  Ms. [redacted] was offered a full refund of all
charges for the parts and service.  The case was resolved to the customer’s
satisfaction.

Review: On July 1, 2015, I purchased a (clothes) washing machine from Keith's. It was delivered and installed by Keith's "technicians". The machine was installed on my second floor and my old washing machine was removed by Keith's technicians. On July 17, 2015 (10 days later) I noticed the ceiling in my garage was flooding. I immediately called my plumbers and they came out and found that the washing machine connection from the hose (new and installed by Keith's technician) to the washing machine was leaking. My plumber telephoned Keith's and notified them of the problem. That afternoon Keith's sent on of their representatives out to view the problem. He admitted that the connection from the machine to hose had been "cross-threaded" by Keith's installers. He ordered a new piece for the 10 day old washing machine, which took 3 weeks to arrive and be installed. When I called Keith's and ask for the washing machine to be replaced, I was told they didn't do that.; and that they would only replace the broken item. The machine cost approximately $700! When I ask about the damage to my house from the part leaking, I was informed that their insurance company was investigating whether there was a claim. In short the insurance adjuster has decided to deny my claim. I am reporting this to you as well as the insurance commissioner of ct. And I will follow this claim with the final letter.Desired Settlement: I would like to have the washing machine replaced and the damage to my house repaired and paid for by Keith's and their representatives.

Business

Response:

Revdex.com

ID # [redacted]

Re: [redacted]

September 29, 2015

On Tuesday, July 7th,

the delivery crew from Keith’s Appliances delivered and installed the new ** washer

and dryer for Mrs. [redacted] on the second floor of her home. At the time of installation, the washer was

tested to determine that it was installed correctly, functioning properly and

that there was no sign of any leakage.

Mrs. [redacted] signed the delivery report, attached, stating that the

appliances were delivered and received in good condition.

On Thursday, July 16th,

Mrs. [redacted] spoke with our Service Manager, Barbara R[redacted], and

complained of a leak coming from the washer.

A service technician, Sam B[redacted], was scheduled to come to Mrs.

[redacted]’s home to check the washer for any damage or defects. He found that the hoses had been

cross-threaded at the machine, and requested through the Service Manager that

the replacement part be ordered. Once

the part was received, a follow-up appointment was set with Mrs. [redacted] for

the installation of said part, as well as a new set of stainless steel hoses. Since the replacement of the damaged part, we

have not received any word of the washer performing poorly or of a continued

leak from the unit.

When Mrs. [redacted]

inquired about a replacement washer, she was informed that as per policy, we

must have the washer inspected by the technician before a determination could

be made. We are required by ** to repair

rather than replace any faulty or defective appliances whenever possible. ** has a very strict policy that we must

adhere to which calls for any questionable appliance to be diagnosed and

attempted to be repaired before they will authorize an exchange of the unit. We were merely following the dictated policy

when we chose to send the technician out to diagnose and repair Mrs. [redacted]’s

washer.

Mrs. [redacted] spoke

with our Office Manager, Kristen S[redacted], and the Service Dispatch Associate, Hope

P[redacted], regarding the water damage caused by the leak. After examining the photos and video taken by

the technician at the time of the service and after consulting with the Service

Manager, Ms. S[redacted] decided to submit a claim through the liability insurance

company, [redacted] Insurance. The

representative from [redacted] Insurance, [redacted], conducted a

thorough investigation with our full cooperation. Her initial findings, attached, resulted in a

denial of the claim. After receiving

further correspondence from Mrs. [redacted], the Office Manager reached out to

the representative from [redacted] Insurance to review the claim. After review, [redacted] Insurance has agreed

to reassess Mrs. [redacted]’s damages, see the attached email notification. The representative will be reaching out to

Mrs. [redacted] shortly in order to move forward towards an amiable

resolution.

We regret any

inconvenience that Mrs. [redacted] has experienced throughout this ordeal, and

will stand by whatever determination is made by the insurance company. With [redacted] Insurance, we feel confident

that Mrs. [redacted] is getting the best care available.

Consumer

Response:

Review: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because:Sincerely,[redacted]

Review: In short:Keith's attempted to fix dryer malfunction for us. After a consultation at hefty cost, they replaced what they claimed was a faulty fuse. Within three minutes of turning the applicance on, the relay board burned out with audible crackles and visible smoke. We had a follow-up appointment and determined the conclusion stated in the prior sentence. That's when Keith's "disappeared." No matter how much follow-up I attempted to do, I couldn't get in touch with them unless I called someone ostensibly not tasked with customer service duties. After more lapses in communication, poor logistical coordination, and outright deception about part availability and installation scheduling, I have spent six weeks with a broken dryer and have paid the evaluation fee--however, in essence, other than having my time and faith wasted, nothing about the situation has changed: the dryer is still just as [functionally] broken as it was the day the problem happened, and Keith's got paid for this fiasco (which they actually exacerbated). I have a long, detailed version with dates, times, and conversation quotes that will not fit inside the allotted character limit here at the Revdex.com site. --[redacted]Desired Settlement: Refund of all costs associated with attempted dryer repair.

Business

Response:

Revdex.com

ID # [redacted]

Re: [redacted]

November 19, 2014

On Monday, October 20,

2014, Ms. [redacted] called our office requesting service for an [redacted] dryer that

was not working. An appointment was set

for Saturday, October 25th to evaluate the dryer. The technician, [redacted], diagnosed the

issue as a faulty thermal fuse, and entered the request to order the replacement

part. When attempting to order the

thermal fuse, our parts manager, [redacted], found that the part was on

back-order through our regular parts providers.

The part was found at an alternate provider, and arrived at our facility

on Friday, November 7th. Once

it was received, a second service appointment was scheduled to repair the dryer

on Wednesday, November 12th.

The same technician was sent out to replace the thermal fuse on Ms. [redacted] dryer. After testing the

repaired dryer, the technician found the unit to be cleared for use.

On Thursday, November 13,

2014, Ms. [redacted] called our office stating that the dryer had been making

noises and had started smoking. Our

service manager sent the technician out that same day at no additional charge

to re-evaluate the dryer. At that point,

the technician found that the main circuit board had been badly damaged, unable

to be repaired. The technician reported

his findings to the office.

The service manager

attempted to reach Ms. [redacted] by phone on Tuesday, November 18th,

with the intention of offering a partial refund of the combined service

appointments, a full refund of the cost of parts, and a discount towards the

cost of a new dryer. She left a message

on Ms. [redacted] voicemail asking for a return call to discuss the case. On Wednesday, November 19th, the

service manager was able to reach Ms. [redacted] by phone. Ms. [redacted] was offered a full refund of all

charges for the parts and service. The case was resolved to the customer’s

satisfaction.

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.

They have offered a full refund, however, we have not received it yet. They called to say we would receive a full discount on Nov 19th, but to date, Dec 2nd, have received no refunded payment.

Sincerely,

Review: The repair service is highly insufficient. The duration of repair time has been ongoing for 2 months now. Once the tech arrived to fix the initial repair he managed to break a separate element of the appliance. I have complained to the business in regards to inefficiency of the repair and specifically I have complained about the time that has elapsed. [redacted]’s has no regard for ethical practices and does not uphold a respectful level of service. My repair has been ongoing for two months and my appliance remains broken due to damage that was done by the tech at [redacted]. All consumers have the right to know about their unethical practices in regards to service repairs.Desired Settlement: Delivery of service. Broken part to be replaced with equal. Mail part to customer. I do not want the tech in my house again.

Business

Response:

Revdex.com

ID # [redacted]

Re: [redacted]

April 3, 2015

On Thursday, January 22,

2015, Ms. [redacted] called our office requesting service for a Maytag refrigerator

that was not working. An appointment was

set on Monday, January 29, 2015, for the technician to diagnose the

problem. The technician, [redacted],

noted that two parts would be needed to repair the refrigerator. These parts are not part of our regular inventory,

and would have to be ordered from an off-site warehouse. He informed Ms. [redacted] that she would receive a

call to schedule a new appointment as soon as the necessary parts came in.

On Monday, February 16,

2015, Sam returned to the customer’s home to install the parts to repair the

refrigerator. During the process,

another part of the refrigerator was damaged.

Ms. [redacted] was informed that the part would be replaced at no charge. As before, the part would need to be ordered

from an off-site warehouse. Once the

part came in, another service appointment was set to complete the repair. Due to Ms. [redacted]’s busy schedule and a family

emergency, she had to reschedule her appointment several times. The final service appointment was scheduled

for Monday, March 23, 2015, however the customer was not available during the

agreed upon appointment time.

As per the customer’s

request, we have shipped the replacement part via [redacted] as Ms. [redacted] does not want

Sam to return to her house. We are

concerned that should a non-licensed technician attempt to install the part,

the refrigerator may not function properly.

Also, the warranty may be voided if the part is not installed by a

licensed technician. We have two

alternate technicians who would be able to perform the installation should Ms.

[redacted] require assistance.

Consumer

Response:

Review: [redacted]I am rejecting this response because:

Multiple details listed by Keith's Appliances are inaccurate. The following details are not accurate. The repair/service was for a over the range microwave not a refrigerator, as stated numerous time by Keith's Appliance. The initial repair date was an evaluation. The second repair date was cancelled by Keith's Appliances with an excuse given "no other technician available for your area and the one tech we have is sick". That repair date was pushed out another week. The date that was reschedule on the behalf of Keith’s' appliances was not feasible to my schedule. The third repair date was met with a technician that replaced the Magnetron for the microwave. The technician attempted to wrap up and leave but I requested him to put the microwave parts back together first. The technician they replied that some parts must have snapped off and broken upon opening the device. The technician said that he would order the part and another service appt would be needed (a fourth appt). No contact was made by Keith's for at least two weeks. At this point a month and a half has elapsed throughout the repair. I called to find out when they would replace the broken element. I was given a fifth appointment on specified date between the hours of 3-5pm in which the technician would call 30 minutes ahead to a lot me time to be at the repair site.. I received a call from the Technician at 3:22 pm stating that he was already at the repair site and he would not be able to wait the 30 minutes. The technician made it clear that after this service call he is done for the day and seen I was not available at the exact moment I’d need to reschedule because he's done for the day. Immediately called and spoke with the same scheduling person Hope which offered different information. Stating the technician has other jobs for the day, so he cannot wait for you. I am left with a broken element to my appliance due to fault of the technician of Keith's Appliances. The business is within 1 1/2 mile radius of my home but yet they are and were so difficult to work with, rude, faulty and unwilling to work with any working client for a service call. Keith's appliance should not be in the service/repair business, they should only be in sales and they should let their customers know that repairs are very difficult and may result in damage to appliances.

Review: Instructed by manufacturer to call. Was treated rudely & refused a service call until call #2. No service or paperwork recieved. Service report false

One of the worst service companies I have ever dealt with in my life. The service girls on the phone are rude and the repairman I was sent was beyond rude..he just lied. They are a service for warranty work on an expensive $1100.00 a/c unit I purchased (not from them), however they are paid by the manufacturer to service all warrantees. I was first refused service while receiving sarcastic remarks by the phone girls. They stated the manufacturer's paperwork was a "crock" and the fact that they told me to call Keith's for warranty service was also a 'crock" and what SHE would have done if it was her. Then finally after my second call. A serviceman was sent out who stayed 4 minutes never even interested in checking my slip for proof of purchase. He stated he would get back to me after he contacted the manufacturer. 1 week later I called only to find out he wrote down the opposite stating all the stuff wrong with my unit, what I should have done and I shouldn't have listened to the manufacturer. That he had given me copies of all this and the service woman also stated that he wrote that he had told me (good luck with the company) and the lady giggled as she mimicked his writings. he had done none of the above that he wrote down. I check with the manufacturer and he had not even contacted them as he stated to me he was going to do. Desired Settlement: I feel the repaiman and the women on the phones need guidance and maybe need to be retrained. I want the false repair report destroyed. I think people should be made aware of the repair service that this company supplies. I have noted that online reviews show I am not the first complaint about their service department. It should be noted so people are aware before they buy of the service they will receive. Service of an item after all is 80% important.

Business

Response:

Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2013/07/08) */

To: [redacted] Dispute Resolution Specialist

Re: Complaint Case #XXXXXXXX

Authored By: [redacted] I., Service Dispatch, Keith's Appliances

We would like to respond to and address the complaint by [redacted] regarding miscommunication and service of her Friedrich Air conditioner

First and foremost, our records show that [redacted] B contacted us and left a message at approximately 10:15 on the morning of June 11th. Her call was returned that day and service was scheduled on that day for the afternoon of June 18th. The Customer Complaint was that the unit was damaged during delivery, and we were to assess the parts that needed to be fixed or replaced.

Unfortunately, on the day of service, the technician looked at the Customer Complaint prior to running his scheduled calls and it was determined and explained to Service Dispatch that our Service company will not be able to claim warranty for any calls having to do with shipping damage - But it was determined that the technician should visit the customer anyway, on company time, but with no Warranty commission earned, because the customers were expecting a technician.

Upon the technician's arrival, it has been explained to Service Dispatch that Mrs B. was not present. [redacted] B was there and the technician helped him unpack, lay out on a blanket, and inspect the AC unit that had been signed for upon delivery. The technician then proceeded to call the manufacturer (Friedrich) from the residence - and relayed the following information to the homeowner present: "Shipping damage must be taken up with the selling dealer". The technician then wished [redacted] B. luck in his dealings with the online selling dealer, "Appliance Connection"

As for the discrepancy in the paperwork, the technician clearly listed that the base, outer cabinet and grille would need replacing, but the homeowner present stated that 2 of those parts were already being sent. Upon further inspection of the unit, the technician added that the compressor was tipped and the discharge was kinked at the compressor - apparently the tubing was twisted. This addition was to show that there was a condition present at the time of inspection that may affect the performance of the unit, as well as the listed cosmetic damage. Our technician was just being thorough and honest. The office was informed at the time of paperwork processing, that we could not service the unit under warranty, so no parts were ordered. We completed the ticket as there was no more that we were authorized to do.

We are truly sorry for any misunderstandings that arose from this situation, but we were unable to take action due to the fact that the damage to the unit was caused by shipping. We here at Keith's Appliances always strive for professionalism and utmost courtesy when dealing with our customers, whether in person or on the phone. Thank you for your attention to the documentation of our perspective of the dispute.

Consumer Response /* (3000, 7, 2013/07/10) */

(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT ACCEPT the response from the business.)

They are lying so no, why would I accept thier lies? Newsflash for the repair man, I was present in the next room but still in nightgown as I was ill. Was the author of this response present..NO. I know they weren't because things in this response never happened. If you would like to speak to husband as well I will hook you up. He states exactly the same as we both were PRESENT. I also called Keiths twice without ever getting a return call. I also spoke with a lady once BEFORE the call with the appt. ( Thats 4 calls) I also explained it wasnt my idea to call Keiths for this work it was the manufacturer that told me to do so and gave me the number. FYI Freidrich's ( the manufacturer )is aware of all of this and the Revdex.com complaint and they are pleased I told Revdex.com. They themselves sent a new $1000.00 unit because of Keith's remarks, treatment and attitude while representing them. Lastly, I'm not the first with complaints about Keith's repair dept. Check reviews across the net. That speaks for itself. If they dont wish to represent the manufactuer they shouldnt then. However dont mistreat and abuse people that the manufacturer tells them to contact. You have issues with the manufacturer..call them. Its not the customers problem. Actually Friedrich's has put me in touch with another repair company and sadly they are further away and more than happy to represent Freirich's. Only a matter of time until Keith's loses that contract as well.

Business Response /* (4000, 9, 2013/07/23) */

In Response to the Consumer's Rebuttal:

Once again, we have double checked our records and we still show only one message was recorded from Mrs. B in the Service Department. This does not preclude the possibility that another message may have been left at a different extension. Unfortunately, no record of any further message has been found. We constantly strive to answer all calls in a timely and courteous manner, but are not always able to respond as quickly as we'd like.

We are more than pleased that Mrs. B has achieved satisfaction both with a new unit from the manufacturer/selling dealer and with a new repair company. We appreciate the fact that she has brought some of these matters to our attention. We also regret that we were unable to help Mrs. B with the unit that she purchased through an online retailer. She is not the first customer that we have encountered that has had issues with an online retailer sending a damaged or defective unit that then needs to be serviced by a local company. As this has happened several times recently with Friedrich, we have decided to enter into a new contract with them allowing us to be a Self-Servicing Dealer. From this point on, we will only be authorized to service Friedrich units that we have sold through our showroom. Also, our Service Department has been duly informed that any and all shipping damage, regardless of manufacturer, must be referred back to the Selling Dealer.

At this point we are unclear as to what actions we can take to resolve this matter to Mrs. B's satisfaction, as she is already in possession of a new unit and in touch with an alternate repair company.

Review: On March 10 2015 a repair man came to fix my dryer. I was told when I made the appointment that a $127.00 charge would be given. I understood that. He looked at the dryer and said the control light was on and he pressed it off then the dryer worked. I wrote him a check for $135.06 and gave it to him. When I went to use the dryer that night the dryer didnt work. I pressed the control lock, it still didn't work. The next day I called to tell them and complain about the $135.00 they charged me when the dryer still didn't work. They told me I would still have to pay it because it was a service charge. So I canceled the check. My complaint is that he never used the Diagnostic machine on the dryer to find the real cause of the problem.I feel I shouldn't be charged double when it wasn't fixed right the first time. When I called to complain the dryer was still not working, they said they would get back to me. They never did. It's still not working!!!Desired Settlement: I would like for them to disregard the $135.00 fee and not charge me for a repair that was never done right. Or come and fix it right. I have no problem paying for a service that is done correctly.

Business

Response:

Revdex.com

ID # [redacted]

Re: [redacted]

March 24, 2015

On Wednesday, March 4,

2015, Ms. [redacted] called our office requesting service for a ** dryer that was not

working. After an explanation of the procedure

and fees involved with an out-of-warranty service visit, an appointment was set

for Tuesday, March 10th to evaluate the dryer. The technician, [redacted] diagnosed the

issue as a safety lock engaged prohibiting use of the machine. As the technician is very familiar with this

particular model of dryer, he easily recognized the problem. The technician disengaged the lock, ran a brief

(3-5 minutes) tumble cycle to ensure the machine ran properly, collected

payment for the service rendered, and went on to his next scheduled stop.

On Wednesday, March 11th,

Ms. [redacted] called our office to discuss the invoice for the service call. She spoke with our service associate, [redacted], regarding her dissatisfaction with the amount charged vs the amount of

time it took to fix the problem with the dryer.

At this time, Ms. [redacted] informed us of her intent to request a stop

payment on the check issued even though the dryer was working properly

following the technician’s visit.

On Thursday, March 12th,

Ms. [redacted] contacted our service department stating that the dryer was repeating

the original behavior and not functioning.

Our service manager, [redacted], informed Ms. [redacted] that she would

consult with the technician, and follow up as soon as she had a possible

resolution. Even after the customer

confirmed that the original payment had been suspended, the service manager

offered to send the technician back to check the dryer again. The conversation concluded with the service

manager promising to call Ms. [redacted] back after consulting with the technician.

In the afternoon of March

12th, the service manager attempted to reach Ms. [redacted] by phone with

the intention of offering either another visit with the technician or verbal

advice from the technician of how the customer could disengage the safety lock

herself. She left a message on Ms. [redacted]

voicemail asking for a return call to discuss the case. As of yet, the customer has not returned the

call.

Consumer

Response:

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because:

Sincerely,

[redacted] In regard to the response from [redacted] I have not received a call back or a message or voice mail on either cell phone or land line as of today March 26,2015 to resolve this problem. Also as they claim the technician ran the dryer 3 to 5 minutes it was more like 10 seconds. the dryer in question is a [redacted] not a GE as stated in the response. The dryer does not work, I feel he should have used the diaginostic test to properly find the problem. The $135.00 fee was the most exspensive five minute house call I ever got when the problem wasn't resolved.

Business

Response:

Revdex.com

ID # [redacted]

Re: [redacted]

April 20, 2015

On Tuesday, April 21,

2015, after leaving a message on Ms. [redacted] voicemail and following up with an

email, our Service Manager, [redacted], was able to connect with Ms. [redacted] regarding a follow up visit. Our Service

Manager explained that all service appointments are covered with a 30 Day

guaranty for labor and a 90 Day guaranty for parts. As such, there is no charge for a follow up

appointment within thirty days of the original appointment. A new service appointment has been set for

the afternoon of Friday, April 24, 2015 to resolve the problem with Ms. [redacted]

dryer.

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.

Sincerely,