Majestic Fire

(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
Please see our responses to Majestic CEO's writeup.
P# = Paragraph and number
R# = Response and number

*Also see below at end of response for a message from from the CEO of our company Alkhemist.

P1: On 10/24/2019 Contactor sent a Reg-4 tester to test the system however, the tester did not certify the system because of dirty heads (against the code). As a repair solution, Contractor first provided a quote for replacement of the heads, since the price was high Customer requested to just clean the heads (which was recommended by Reg-4 tester as well). The Contractor does not provide cleaning service as its specialty is fire protection. However, to satisfy the Customer, following requests, the Contractor provided a revised quote for cleaning 75 heads. Customer approved and the service was done in two days by two technicians on 12/04/19 and 12/05/19.

R1:*** (A Majestic contracted Reg 4 tester) checked the sprinkler systems and advised that we do not need to replace any sprinkler heads and they only need to be cleaned. Majestic tried to mark up their services by $***. The initial quote sent by Majestic was $*** and was now fixed to $*** after the inspector advised that a cleaning would be okay.

P2: Following the repair, the Contractor scheduled another Reg-4 test. It appeared that the property manager onsite, had taken the repair technicians to the out-of-scope area to clean the heads by mistake. Therefore, the repair service had to be repeated this time on the contracted area. This is where the conflict arose. The Contractor explained the mistake made by the property manager (which was the onsite contact for the Contractor's technicians), however the Customer claimed the property manager was not its employee and his mistake is irrelevant to the problem.
The Contractor always ask all its customers to provide an onsite contact that is responsible for providing guidance and/or access to its technicians upon arrival on the job site. This onsite contact can be an employee of the Customer or another agent if the Customer prefers so (Owner, employee of the property and so forth).
R2: The Reg 4 tester,***, was a no show for two scheduled appointments to confirm the cleaning and repairs were done properly by Majestic. He was a no show twice and Majestic had found another tester to re-check that the scope of work was completed correctly. The buildings manager, ***, was with *** (first inspector) in the walkthrough and guided the new inspector to the areas that were advised by *** to be cleaned. We do not understand the argument that the building manager *** sent the cleaners to an incorrect department. ***. is divided into three suites. We occupy Suites B and C. The other suite (garment factory) is the ONLY suite that needed to be checked and cleaned. There are no other areas in the building. This makes no sense. Maybe it was ***'s mistake, or Majestic is just unfairly trying to charge us for the same job twice.. All we know is that we need this fixed and completed without any more fees from us. As I've said before, we hired Majestic to fix any issues with the sprinkler systems, they hired a third party inspector and are blaming us and the building manager (whom is NOT an employee of our company) for incompetence?

P3: After many conversations (by phone and emails) and to provide a good customer service, the Contractor decided to reschedule the repair (this time on the contracted area). On 02/05/2020, despite the efforts of the technician, it appeared the heads could not b-e cleaned easily and required equipment rental (which was clearly stated in the repair quote#*** as excluded). The cost of this job had increased beyond the quoted value. The Contractor asked the Customer to accept part of this cost considering the previous repair (value of $*** service) was mainly performed at no cost for the Customer while it was because of miscommunication between the property manager and the Customer). The Contractor's employee had a phone conversation with the Customer to explain this.
R3: There were no additional repairs done. This is a false statement. Majestic sent out their technicians, but since they did not have a ladder BOTH TIMES, they did not fix anything and tried to charge us for ladder rentals..

P4: At this stage, the Customer (***) used a very abusive and foul language which made the employee *** extremely upset to the point that our service staffs refused to communicate with this customer.
R4: ***, *** and *** were constantly blaming us for something that is not our fault. After our company tried to remedy the situation and find a solution via email and phone countless times there was never an agreement. A business should not blame the paying customer, but should work together to find a solution. We were working the other way around and requesting for Majestic to help us. Majestic employees provided no good customer service. The Majestic team constantly said they would "provide good customer service" and fix issues for us, but nothing was ever fixed. Also, there was never a time when abusive and foul language was used to anyone at Majestic. Please prove this statement as we conduct the highest level of professionalism and would never speak directly to anyone using abusive or foul language, even when dealing with a company like Majestic. Please prove this statement as this is considered slandering and can be met with repercussions.

P5: Majestic Fire Inc. puts efforts beyond its profit to satisfy customers at times, however it stands behind its employees and does not allow any customer, or other parties to use abusive language and disrespect its employees.
Following this unfortunate conversation, the Contractor decided to charge in-full for the repair service that was performed in the out-of-scope. The Contractor provided a settlement offer (details are attached in the email communications), however, the Customer has refused and decided to escalate this matter to the authorities.
R5: Majestic tried to charge us for the full scope again after finding out that the new inspector (that was never scheduled to inspect the property) either saw that the original contractor *** wrote incorrect information, or Majestic may have worked out a deal with the new inspector perhaps? Also, all of the CEO ***' comments prove that he is oblivious to the exact timelines of all that happened thus far.

P6: We hope, this clarification summarizes the situation. For more details, please refer to email communications attached and the highlighted sentences (this does not include all the communications just the recent ones because of the long history of communications. Upon your request, we can send you a copy of all the previous email communications as well). Thank you for your valuable time.
R6: All correspondence was provided already with screenshots previously. Please do share any emails we may have missed as we are confident that there is nothing to hide.

A statement from the CEO-
This is *** CEO and General Counsel of Alkhemist LLC. I am appalled. I have been in business for many decades and have come across scoreless shady characters. Majestic Fire takes the cake for corrupt practices. These are the reasons.

1. Inflated Quotations
2. When counteroffered, they pretended to acquiesce, only to find out that new changes and charges are required.
3. Majestic Fire does not honor its promise of completing the contracted job.
4. Majestic Fire gives countless erroneous and bogus excuses on their worker's incompetence.
5. When parties agree to a contract, there is a meeting of minds. We agreed to pay and in fact paid in full the barbained amount to do the work required to attain compliance and certification. However, Majestic Fire engages in fraudulent and misleading business practices by changing the terms of the agreement.
6. If the Tester says cleaning the sprinkler heads is what is required to meet compliance, Majestic Fire must honor its first tester's appraisal and job requirement. Majestic Fire cannot issue a second tester to the same site and demand after the fact more money and more work for the job which was long agreed and paid for in full.
7. After so many phone calls and emails hoping to resolve the inequity, what more does a person have to do to receive basic respect? How could anyone not be upset and disgusted in the face of four months of never-ending job completion and ever-lengthening excuses and bad faith lies. Instead of accepting responsibility and fault, Majestic Fire recasts the conversion into one of slander and defamation. What foul language was used by one of us to take stand against the impudent treachery of deceit and malfeasance?

Please call me at*** to discuss further should you be interested.

(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
Our end goal is to have Majestic complete what we've paid for and what was paid for was to have our facility to be compliant and able to pass the LAFD Chief's 4 Regulation Sprinkler Tests. The documentation is there, but we are obviously at a stand still.

In this time of unprecedented challenges posed by the Coronavirus, we would like to stop this nonsense and would like to be able to work together in finding a solution, but us having to pay more than double of what was initially paid, especially when nothing was completed, doesn't make any sense.

Let's put all this nonsense behind us and work together for a solution as this is work that we need to be complete and we've put full trust into Majestic and hope that we've made the right decision in the end.

We are open to reasonable and fair offers of resolution.

(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
While we thank you for the offer, we would like to counteroffer at $*** to complete and finish and be certified.