Metro Gutter & Home Services, Inc

Review: In the spring of 2013 Metro Gutter & Home Services, Inc. cleaned my rain gutters of debris. On the invoice that was left once the services were provided the technician recommended I have a section of my gutter repaired where 2 screws had come loose. So I ordered a free estimate.

On June 24, 2013, Metro Gutter provided me with an estimate for $635.00. Turns out this was a bogus estimate as it was done for the wrong side of the house, not the side of the house where the gutter had come loose, or that was recommended for repair by the Metro Gutter technician earlier in the year. So, I had Metro Gutter return to give me an estimate for the side of the house that actually needed repair. On June 25, 2013, Metro Gutter provided me with a legitimate estimate. This estimate was for $35 to install 2 screws in hidden hangers where they had come lose. During the back and forth with Metro Gutter I was told the owner would call me to discuss . . . I never heard from the owner.

During the week of June 30, 2013 I called Metro Gutter to schedule an appointment to do the repair work. On July 11, 2013 I received a called from [redacted] at Metro who told me she would have a technician call me to schedule an appointment. On July 12, 2013 I received a call from technician [redacted] who proceeded to tell me he wouldn't do the work for less than $250 as they have a $250 minimum requirement. This $250 minimum policy is not listed anywhere on the estimate in writing or in small print.

From A to Z Metro Gutter has failed in the customer service department.

1) I was given a bogus estimate for repair work that wasn't recommended by Metro's own technician and definitely wasn't needed.

2) I was given an estimate by Metro that Metro wouldn't uphold.Desired Settlement: I would like to see Metro complete the work for $35 based on the legitimate estimate that was provided. As of now, I will be recommending strongly that our HOA no longer use Metro for any repairs or gutter cleanings in the future.

Business

Response:

Hello,

I have spoken with **. [redacted] and have agreed to do the installation of the two hangers for $35. It is scheduled for Aug. 9. I believe this will make the customer happy.

Thank you

Review: On December 30, 2011 we paid in full for solar panels and the contractor has failed to perform.

The Virginia Board for Contractors Regulations regulations contain a list of “Prohibited Acts” (found a 18VAC 50-22-260). I am filing a complaint under the following sections (in Section B) using the paragraph numbers in the Regulations:

5. Negligence and/or incompetence in the practice of contracting (contracting to supply materials and representing that they were qualified to do so when that was not true; not purchasing panels before being discontinued, not timely advising me that panels were going to be discontinued and other panels need to be selected; not starting work on the project, not timely providing information, etc.);

6. Misconduct in the practice of contracting. (false statements about qualifications, not applying funds to purchase panels before the same were discontinued; retaining my funds, claiming that it was entitled to $35,000 when no work was performed, etc.)

14. Abandonment of the project (not commencing work and servi[redacted] in March/April when required to do and never beginning the permitting pro[redacted]s);

15. Intentional and unjustified failure to complete work and/or comply with contract terms. (See above)

16. The retention or misapplication of funds for work which is either not performed or performed only in part. (Here the claim that [redacted] would keep 50% as “anticipated profits” is not only outrageous but, the contractor is not entitled to lost anticipated profits in only those circumstance where the owner committed a material breach of the contract. That’s not what happened here).

I was falsely led to believe that [redacted] was a qualified and authorized representative of [redacted] since [redacted] sells through an authorized dealer network.

The use of an unidentified “trade partner” to perform the work as a subcontractor violates the [redacted] dealership requirements and the manufacturer's warranty would not be honored by [redacted]. Plus, any Class A contractor when asked by the Owner who his subcontractors will be on the owner’s project would disclose the information and [redacted] has refused to do so.Desired Settlement: Refund with Virginia statutory 6% interest.

Business

Response:

Thank you for providing us with this opportunity to respond to **. [redacted]'s complaint. This dispute arises out of an unusual transaction: the customer sought to prepay in full for a rooftop installation if a 9.89 kilowatt hour solar panel array, to be installed on a building that did not exist at the time we received the customer's payment on or about December 30, 2011.

The contract anticipated our start of work within six months. More than a year later, in early April 2013, the customer contacted us seeking to borrow money, stating that he was short of funds needed to complete construction on the subject building. We declined to lend any funds. The customer has made all manner of protests since then, attempting to back-out of the contract.

We deny any violation of Virginia Contractor Regulations. Specifically:

- We have never purposely or knowingly made any misrepresentation to the customer.

- Our contract does not claim we are affiliated in any way with the solar panel manufacturer, [redacted].

- Although we are not affiliated with [redacted], we believed we were capable of providing the customer with fully-warrantied [redacted] brand products (as well as many other competing products).

- It is true that our only capacity to deliver fully-warranted [redacted] brand products would have ne[redacted]sitated our use of a [redacted] certified installer.

We were prepared to do so. Reliance on "an unidentified trade partner" is not a regulatory violation. Construction contractors routinely rely upon subcontractors for labor or materials.

- Our contract does not promise to pre-order materials. It is not unusual or unreasonable for a contractor to wait for a projected start date before ordering materials. With specific regard to solar power, deferred ordering tends to benefit the customer, because more efficient products come to market every day. Deferred ordering also eliminates the risk that a product will become stale, stolen, or damaged while sitting in our warehouse or at a construction site.

- The customer is not being sincere in his claim that he is disappointed that the product he originally selected was discontinued. He appeared to be very happy to have the opportunity to have a new, more-efficient, model from [redacted]. The customer selected a new [redacted] product. We then reported back that the new product would take several months to deliver, based on production backlogs at [redacted]. We then offered to recommend competitor products that could be delivered more expeditiously. It was only after reporting this wait time that the customer first started making demands for refund.

- We have not abandoned the project nor have we failed to complete work or failed to comply with contract terms. Rather, the customer took almost a year longer than expected to notify us of projected readiness to start work; and the customer has since refused to authorize us to do any work.

We are harmed by the customer's refusal to authorize us to complete the job. Our salesperson worked hard to close this engagement. We paid her a substantial commission following receipt of the customer payment. We also expected to make a substantial profit on this job. The cost of solar panels has dropped since December 2011: as of September 2013, we anticipated being able to furnish all labor and materials for a 10 KWH system for approximately $35,000 (resulting in a profit to us of $35,000). We assume that the customer has also noticed that the cost of these systems has dropped since December 2011. It is therefore understandable that he would like to cancel his contractual commitment.

Following receipt of the customer's initial refund demand, we have made several overtures towards settlement.

- As noted above, we offered to do the work using current [redacted] products or using competing products.

- Regarding competing products, we offered to provide a refund on any cost differential between the backlogged [redacted] product and any competing product the customer might wish to substitute.

- We also offered to terminate the agreement with refund to the customer, net of our anticipated profits: the customer rejected our initial $35,000 refund offer.

- The customer, through counsel, subsequently rejected a $40,000 refund offer.

We hereby reinstate our $40,000 refund offer. We will be happy to attempt, once again, to resolve this dispute with aid of Revdex.com. Thank you for the opportunity to furnish this reply.

Consumer

Response:

Review: [redacted]

Thursday, December 19, 2013

To whom it may concern,

We appreciate the opportunity to rebut the responses, by **. [redacted], to our compliant filed against [redacted] Energy Solutions. In our rebuttal, we will make every effort to be as concise as possible in response to each of the **. [redacted]’s points. With this goal in mind, we will present our responses in a counterpoint fashion which may not ne[redacted]sarily be in chronological order. Some of our responses are lengthy because we believe a history of events is required for a complete understanding. We have been meticulous in our record keeping and have retained all email communications, receipts, invoi[redacted], etc. regarding this dispute. This is how we are able to provide specific dates and exact quotations. We have provided all of the emails in PDF format, directly generated by Google Gmail for assurance of the authenticity of the communication.

- As **. [redacted] stated, we sought an arrangement with [redacted] to prepay, in full, for a solar panel array that was to be installed on a structure that did not exist at the time. We sufficiently informed [redacted] of the reason we sought to prepay in full, which was to obtain the Federal Residential Renewable Energy Tax Credit in the 2011 tax year. We delayed the payment as late as possible in the tax year, which is why the transaction date was on December 30, 2011. In an email from us to [redacted] and [redacted], both of [redacted] Energy, we stated, "For federal income tax purposes, we need a receipt/statement showing we paid this invoice in full on December 30, 2011."

- Due to many new and innovative materials used in our construction, we were having great difficulties obtaining our building permit which, in turn, made it quite difficult to estimate when the solar panel array might be installed. Although what is likely standard wording in [redacted]’s proposal anticipating work to begin within six months statement, it also contains a provision that states that "Estimated time frames for all jobs do not include delays from events beyond our control". Our permitting and construction delays qualify as such a delay, and [redacted] was made well aware of all such delays before the proposal was created.

- The insinuation, by [redacted], that we were short of funds needed to complete construction on the subject structure is unsubstantiated. We had a more than adequate funds in escrow, but the need for cash was a result of the nature of our type of loan and not a lack of funds. As we explained in detail to **. [redacted], our loan escrow provides no money up-front for deposits and only reimburses us after work is completely installed and inspected. Therefore, after experiencing multiple delays, the nature of our transaction with [redacted] put us in a difficult position to stimulate cash flow for our project. Additional unanticipated delays prevented us from moving forward with the solar panel installation. Yet, we were left in the uncomfortable position of having pre-paid a large sum of money for a solar panel array that hadn’t been installed and that we were, consequently, unable to obtain reimbursement from our escrow. We informed [redacted] of our dilemma, knowing that they were not liable for our situation, but we saw the loan request as something that would benefit both parties. The loan request was an attempt to accelerate the building pro[redacted]s to allow the solar panels to be installed sooner. The full text of our dialog with **. [redacted] regarding this loan request can be found in emails dated July 4 and 17, 2013. Our formal request was the July 17, 2013 email requesting a loan of $35,000, roughly 50% of what we have prepaid. By Continuum's own admission, this is exactly the amount of profit they expected to make on our job, so a loan of this amount should not have hindered their ability to purchase materials or pay their engineering firm.

- It is widely known, throughout the solar power industry, that [redacted] panels are only available through its authorized dealer network; therefore, we had every right to assume that in their offering to sell us [redacted] panels, [redacted] was a [redacted] Authorized Dealer. Our first suspicion that this was not the case was **. [redacted]’s email to us on September 16, 2013, stating “On friday I began working on sourcing and checking pricing for the panels you have asked for. Will continue this week.” We wondered why an authorized dealer would need to “source” the panels. On September 25, he got back to us and said “I am told that the panel you requested is not available. Similar [redacted] panels are available but there isa 5-6 month wait.” We were very upset that [redacted] had again failed to provide any specific [redacted] panel + inverter combination that was acceptable to us and could be delivered within our tight delivery time frame so we contacted [redacted] ourselves on September 26, to find out if they had another integrated panel/inverter that could be available within a couple of weeks. [redacted] said our dealer should be able to tell us that information and they asked who our dealer was. When we told them that [redacted] Energy Solutions ([redacted]) was our dealer, we were shocked when they informed us that [redacted] was not one of their authorized dealers. So we asked them to check Metro Gutter and Home Services, Inc., of which [redacted] is a division, and also **. [redacted]’s name and they informed neither was a an authorized dealer. After putting us on hold, they informed us that **. [redacted] had applied to become a [redacted] dealer under both company names and that [redacted] had rejected both applications. They would not tell us the reason for the rejection, but they informed us that we should not purchase [redacted] products from any company that is not an authorized dealer or the manufacturer’s warranty would be void. When we told them we had already purchased the panels from Continuum, [redacted] asked us to send them our sales documents to be referred to their legal department. After confronting **. [redacted] with this information, he disclosed to us on September 30, 2013, that [redacted] had always intended to deliver our panels through a "trade partner", whom **. [redacted] now claims is a [redacted] authorized installer. We immediately checked with [redacted] about such an arrangement, and they indicated that their manufacturer’s warranty would only be valid if we had documentation such as a contract, invoice, or sales receipt proving that an authorized dealer/installer sold and installed our system. However, with the [redacted] arrangement, we have no direct agreement with its trade partner, and [redacted] has refused, upon our request, to disclose the name of the authorized installer and provide us the documentation [redacted] says is required for their manufacturer’s warranty to be valid. They told us that such an arrangement would cause the authorized dealer/installer to violate the terms of their [redacted] Dealer Agreement. While it is true that reliance on “an unidentified trade partner” is not a regulatory violation, Continuum’s misrepresentation by omission, leading to our reasonable belief in Continuum’s apparent authority to sell us fully warranted, [redacted] products, is a regulatory violation. Furthermore, in response to our complaint, **. [redacted] asserted that [redacted] had the “capacity to deliver fully-warranted [redacted] brand products”, which is also a regulatory violation since it is not in agreement with [redacted]’s warranty provisions. The [redacted] Limited Product and Power Warranty for Residential PV Modules (provided in our attachments) states that it only covers "claims for PV Modules installed by [redacted], an affiliate of [redacted] or an authorized [redacted] installer" and specifically excludes coverage on PV Modules installed "by any party other than [redacted], a [redacted] authorized dealer or technician approved by [redacted] in writing". To confirm that this is [redacted]'s position, and that [redacted] is pursuing legal remedies against [redacted] for its behavior in our case, [redacted] customer service has invited investigators in our matter to contact [redacted] Residential Customer Service at ###-###-#### and mention call reference number 295062. [redacted]'s warranty is readily available to consumers on its web site. We had every right to assume that the [redacted] products [redacted] sold us carried the full manufacturer's warranty.

- **. [redacted] stated that we “appeared to be very happy to have the opportunity to have a new, more efficient model.” Actually, **. [redacted]’s claim regarding our feelings is not supported by the email evidence. The following history our communications should bring clarity to the situation. On April 9, 2013, we first learned, in an email from **. [redacted], that there was a problem with our original product selection. He informed us that he had experienced reliability problems with the Enphase brand of micro-inverters that we purchased to be paired with each [redacted] solar panel. (At that time, **. [redacted] did not tell us that the specific model of solar panel that we originally purchased was discontinued.) Instead of recommending another brand of micro-inverter, **. [redacted] recommended a different kind of inverter system called a grid-tie inverter. In a follow-up phone conversation to discuss the matter, he informed us that a grid-tie system is configured differently than the micro-inverter system. Unlike micro-inverters which are individual units mounted to the underside of each solar panel on the roof, a grid-tie inverter is a singular unit that would need to be mounted instead on an outside wall. He explained there would also be an audible buzzing sound and the grid-tie inverter would not maximize the individual efficiency of each panel in varying shading situations like micro-inverters. In an email on April 18, **. [redacted] recommended a location for mounting the grid-tie inverter, and in a follow-up phone conversation with him, we rejected the grid-tie inverter, primarily because of reduced efficiency compared with micro-inverters, but also because of the noise and poor aesthetics. We asked **. [redacted] to instead recommend another brand of micro-inverter or another kind of inverter. After this, there were absolutely no communications from [redacted] regarding inverters or any of the specifics of our job for 148 days. So, we did some research on our own and on September 13, 2013, we emailed **. [redacted] the following: "Please change our panel model to [redacted]. These panels have OEM installed and warranted micro-inverters attached to the panels themselves. We should be ready to install the panels in about a month. We will keep you informed of our schedule as the installation time approaches." Keep in mind that as of this request to change panel models (172 days since we first gave [redacted] the green light to begin work on our project), [redacted] had still not informed us that the panels we had originally selected were discontinued. The reason we selected a different panel model was, in response to **. [redacted]’s counsel against using Enphase micro-inverters. We requested this change because the [redacted] is exactly the same as the [redacted] in the original proposal we signed with one exception - it had [redacted] installed micro-inverters that are covered under [redacted]’s 25 year warranty, eliminating the need for the Enphase micro-inverters **. [redacted] counseled us against. The panel we selected is a not a more efficient model, thus making it impossible for us to have, as **. [redacted] put it in his response to our compliant, “appeared to be very happy to have the opportunity to have a new, more-efficient, model from [redacted]". The only time we made mention of a higher efficiency substitute was in an email on October 3, 2013, one of our many attempts to reach an agreeable settlement with Continuum, where we demanded that they install panels that were install "either the exact [redacted] panels as stated on our invoice or higher efficiency [redacted] Signature Black panels." Here we were insisting on nothing less than what we originally purchased not suggesting for higher efficiency panels. Competitor (non-[redacted]) products have much lower efficiencies, and are often different sizes. We designed our entire home around our intended solar panels, even changing the shape of our roof, just to accommodate the number and exact size of a specific model of [redacted] panel necessary to reach but not exceed 10 kWh (i.e. 9.89 kWh). Thus we are not, and never were; open to the option of any brand other than [redacted], or any color other than black for aesthetic reasons. [redacted] is the only company that sells fully black panels.

- **. [redacted]’s statement, "it was only after reporting this wait time [September 2013] that the customer first started making demands for refund.” is true. This statement contradicts another (untrue) statement in his response “The customer has made all manner of protests since then [July 2013], attempting to back-out of the contract.” Having suffered numerous delays already, our project could not afford further delays; it’s especially hard to accept a delay on the arrival of solar panels that were purchased in 2011. Another provocation leading to our eventual refund request was that after 184 days, [redacted] had failed to engage their outside engineering firm, or begin the permitting pro[redacted]s, or place the order for the panels, or provide an acceptable alternative to the Enphase inverters they already sold us but did not want to install. In fact, we were not told that the original panels were discontinued until October 2, 2013 (191 days from first giving [redacted] the green light to proceed). On October 4, 2013, **. [redacted] informed us that “The good news at this stage is that newer products have become more efficient than what the market had to offer 22 months ago.” We did not respond to this information at all, and therefore, gave **. [redacted] no appearance of being happy about this news. Obviously, **. [redacted] mistook his own happiness for ours in his claim that, “we appeared to be happy about this opportunity.” We were very meticulous with regard to the research that culminated in our original choice of the particular panels that we purchased from Continuum. Together with our architect, we carefully calculated the dimensions of the array, (5 rows of 10 [redacted] panels), the individual panel power energy output, its efficiency, and the efficiency of the Enphase micro-inverter, to get as close, without exceeding, the 10 kilowatt hour limit of Dominion Energy’s Net Metering program. Even a slightly higher efficiency would have caused us to exceed the limit, or to have to reduce the perfect number of panels.

- We have always provided [redacted] with, whatever information they have requested from us to complete the job, in a timely manner. Our first authorization for [redacted] to begin taking action to complete the job was on March 25, 2013, when our building permit was issued. On September 13, 2013 (172 days later), [redacted] had taken no action. As a result, on October 3 (192 days after issuance of our building permit), we reiterated the authorization, giving them an estimated installation target time frame as we gave them a final demand to complete the job by a specific date. On each occasion, [redacted] took absolutely no action, including the action required by their own proposal to engage an outside engineering firm. We have never seen any proof that the outside engineering firm has been engaged; and therefore, urge investigating parties to request this documentation (e.g. the actual engineering work product, proof of payment for our job, etc.). Furthermore, [redacted] did not visit our construction site, or take any action toward securing the necessary permits from our county as they were obligated to do. In stark contrast, [redacted] Energy, an Authorized [redacted] Dealer has been quite accountable regarding the project. [redacted] Energy told us that [redacted] could have filed the permits using the original proposed design and could have subsequently filed an amendment if the design changed, thus, there is no excuse for [redacted] to not have filed for a permit after 192 days. Contrary to **. [redacted]'s assertion, these actions do indeed show that [redacted] has failed to complete work and to comply with contract terms and thus has abandoned the project. Since there has been no initiation of our project by Continuum, [redacted] is not entitled to earn a profit under these circumstances.

- We consider Continuum's assertion that their salesperson “worked hard to close the engagement” unreasonable. We most likely provided the most uncomplicated sales transaction that [redacted] has ever experienced. The sales person did not need to sell us on the idea of solar panels. We already knew exactly what we wanted down to the brands, model numbers, and quantity because all of that work had already been done by [redacted] Energy, the authorized dealer that provided the original proposal that [redacted] bid against. Even our method of payment, because it required no financing, posed no hardship for Continuum. Given that we were told, by Continuum, that the panels we originally purchased were no longer available, we consider it unacceptable that neither their salesperson nor any other [redacted] personnel ever recommended a specific alternate panel model. We assert that we, in fact, are severely harmed by Continuum's actions, or lack thereof, because we were forced to obtain an unsecured line of credit to pay [redacted], the closest [redacted] Authorized Dealer, to install our system. We are now paying interest on the use of that credit. In addition, our inability to be reimbursed, by our lender, for the solar panel system purchased from Continuum, has severely impaired our ability to pay contractors for other work. We have also had to incur legal fees to obtain our refund from Continuum, which we feel could have been avoided had [redacted] accepted one of our very reasonable settlement proposals.

- **. [redacted] supposed that we had awareness that the costs of solar systems have declined since December 2011 and that that was the catalyst for our decision to cancel our contract and request a refund. We are unsure of how **. [redacted] arrived at his conclusion. [redacted] does not publish its prices, nor does it allow its Authorized Dealers to publish prices. So, there is no way for us to have known if prices were lower. We made no attempt, for quite some time, to even seek another dealer. In fact, since our dispute with Continuum, we did not seek or receive a proposal from another dealer with price listings until November 19, 2013, when we were presented with one from [redacted] Energy, the authorized dealer. Note that this was well after we had filed our official complaint against [redacted] due to an inability to reach an amicable settlement. We had to take this step of hiring another company because otherwise our project was in jeopardy of foreclosure. We signed this proposal from [redacted] Energy, the very next day. The [redacted] proposal was only $510 (0.7%) less than the [redacted] proposal. So we obviously were not seeking to save a substantial amount of money. Furthermore, when [redacted] offered us the option of upgrading to panels with much higher energy efficiency, we chose the panels they could install the soonest, which are not the most efficient. Thus, **. [redacted]’s allegations that our motive was to save money or get a better product is unsubstantiated. In stark contrast to Continuum, [redacted] Energy ordered our panels the day they received our signed acceptance of their proposal and has committed to installing our system within 60 days.

- We reiterate our complaint supported by the attached evidence and the above explanations of the time-line of events. The Virginia Board for Contractors Regulations contain a list of “Prohibited Acts” (found in 18VAC 50-22-260). We are filing a complaint making reference to the prohibited acts that we feel apply to our situation with Continuum. Listed below is our formal complaint referencing specific paragraphs (in Section B) and the associated paragraph numbers as they are found in Section B:

5. Negligence and/or incompetence in the practice of contracting – [redacted] has failed to understand the exclusionary, straightforward terms of the [redacted] warranty. (See also 14 below)

6. Misconduct in the practice of contracting – 1) Continuum’s proposal to sell [redacted] products constitutes, to us as a reasonable consumer, Continuum’s “apparent authority” to sell manufacturer warranted [redacted] solar panels, when in fact it did not have that authority – moreover, it was twice explicitly denied that authority by the manufacturer. 2) [redacted] failed to disclose to us that it was using a trade partner to provide products in a way that voided manufacturer’s warranty. 3) [redacted]’s Customer Service department confirms that action is being taken, by its legal department, against [redacted] for this misconduct.

14. Abandonment of the project – For 184 days (from first being given authorization from us to proceed, to our first request for refund) [redacted] has: 1) failed to engage an outside engineering firm as required by their own proposal; 2) failed to file for permits as required by their proposal; 3) failed to make a site visit as required by their proposal; 4) failed to notify us of discontinued products in a timely manner; 5) failed to recommend specific alternate [redacted] solar panel models; 6) failed to provide an acceptable inverter alternative; 6) failed to contact our electrician; 7) failed to order products. In contrast [redacted] Energy, the authorized [redacted] dealer that we have since contracted due to Continuum’s abandonment, will have our system installed and commissioned in less than 60 days, for the same amount of money).

15. Intentional and unjustified failure to complete work and/or comply with contract terms (see 14 above).

16. The retention or misapplication of funds for work which is either not performed or performed only in part. - [redacted] has continued to refuse to provide a full refund with 6% interest upon its abandonment of the project on the basis that it is entitled to $35,000 (50%) as “anticipated profits” when no work has been performed, etc. We are shocked at Continuum’s admission that it anticipated 50% ($35,000) of our purchase as “anticipated profits”. We are even more outraged of their expectation of their entitlement to keep this money when refunding us after abandoning our job (see 14 above). A contractor is entitled to lost or anticipated profits in only

those circumstan[redacted] where the owner committed a material breach of the contract. That’s clearly not the case here.

- When we first asked for a refund on September 25, 2013, we did so trying to avoid having to involve legal counsel but **. [redacted] had rejected each of our offers to settle (including an option that did not involve a refund at all). October 2, 2013 **. [redacted] said when making unacceptable settlement offers to us “..I encourage you to have your attorney contact our corporate counsel…” Now we have legal fees. Therefore the only settlement we will consider is a full refund, plus 6% interest and our legal costs. We are willing to entertain an installment repayment plan based on an initial installment of $35,000 and a very short repayment term.

Sincerely,

Business

Response:

**. [redacted]

Revdex.com

Thank you for your letter and for forwarding **. [redacted]’s comments of December 19, 2013. You have asked that we (a) acknowledge customer concerns, (b) state facts as we see them, and (c) explain the actions we can and can’t take to resolve the concerns.

We have already stated the facts as we see them, and what those facts mean in terms of each side’s rights or obligations. We acknowledge that **. [redacted] has a very different perspective on the facts as well as what the facts mean for each side’s rights or obligations.

We respectfully suggest that nothing more can be accomplished by asking the parties to write letters about the facts, rights, or obligations. Doing so has thus far only caused a cementing of positions, which is not helping us find a common ground for settlement.

We have made several attempts to resolve this dispute. We offered to complete the job. We offered to refund payment net of anticipated profits on the job. We made these overtures directly to **. [redacted] several months ago.

When **. [redacted] refused to authorize us to do the job, and also refused to engage in any kind of refund settlement discussion with us, we encouraged him to engage counsel. Our discussions with **. [redacted]’s counsel included an enhanced refund offer. None of this dialog has thus far proven fruitful. To date, we have never received a counter-proposal from **. [redacted] or from his counsel.

Actions we can and can’t do at this time:

- We can reinstate our last cash offer ($40,000).

– We can agree to mediate the dispute with **. [redacted].

- We would like to remain flexible regarding possible ways to resolve this dispute and, therefore, we do not rule out anything at this time.

Thank you for this opportunity to respond to your letter.

[redacted], President

[redacted] Energy Solutions

A Division of Metro Gutter & Home Services, Inc.

Consumer

Response:

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

Review: [redacted]

I am partially rejecting this response because: I have provided irrefutable documented evidence of the validity of our position which also invalidates most of the claims of **. [redacted] and [redacted] Energy. Despite this evidence no movement toward a more reasonable settlement has been offered by him/them. Instead and entrenchment of their position to keep $30,000.00 of our money for doing nothing is unacceptable. We are willing to enter impartial arbitration if it is paid for completely by them and the arbitrator is approved by us. As I have stated in my rebuttal, the offer by [redacted] to do the work at this point is no longer an option as the replacement contractor will complete this work by the end of this month. So at this point, a refund is the only possible solution, the $40,000.00 amount being offered is what is unacceptable and criminal. We think it is reasonable for that our complaint appear on the Revdex.com website as an unresolved complaint until we come to an agreement on the resolution.

Regards,