Mobility Supercenter

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the offer made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below [Provide details of why you are not satisfied with this resolution.] Regards, [redacted] To be more accurate, the last service call did not resolve anything, and my numerous calls to get the unit fixed satisfactorily were not replied to, so I had to continue to make contactAfter the technician inspected the unit and reinstalled the wheel as noted in the response from Mobility, he told me he would then contact [redacted] to see if they recommended replacing the relay or the entire panelHe never got back to me, and when I spoke to him some days later, his reply was "i thought that moving the wheel fixed the issue" at which time I told him it did nothe said he had to call the office about contacting [redacted] the manufacturer, but never got back to meAgain, I had to make several calls, at which point I finally said it was an emergency situationBoth residents were physically disabled and Anne [redacted] was coming home from rehab of a broken hip and had to have a working lift, as well as Mr [redacted] who is on crutches and had no use of the lift and was dangerously using the stairsYes, another apptwas made, but when they could not help us for another week, I called [redacted] help desk, and got another authorized dealer to contactThey came within an hour of my call and found the following (none of which the technician from Mobility found nor mentioned or repaired): loose wires in the electrical panel, a poorly installed disconnect box, which was not properly sealed, and had temporary hookupA bad circuit breaker, and then ball bearings that had been installed too tight, and were causing the rod to heat up and vibrate causing the unit not to run smoothlyThey proceeded to address and fix all of these problems, which were a direct result of the original installationAnd, please note, they did not have to see the unit fail to repair it properlyWhy Mobility keeps stating they had to see it fail is very oddAnd, since Mobility sold and was the installation company for this unit with a year warranty still in place, they should have been responsible for correctly repairing it, but did notSo, there was no other option than to get another authorized dealer to come and repair the unit under such circumstances as explained aboveHad Mobility been responsive, and timely repaired the unit, this conversation would not be taking placeThey failed to do so resulting in a $bill from another company who quickly and efficiently handled the problemAgain, we were in a critical situationAs a result, it seems only fair that they be held accountable and pay the repair bill incurredObviously they acknowledge too much time spent trying to work with them, since they agreed to pay lost wages, but that is not the main point of this complaintThank youplease let us know their decision, as we may have to consider further action should they not resolve this claim as requested

First let me say that I am sorry that our client has had this experience with this product and our company. As president of MSC, I also want to apologize to her for not responding to the letter sent to me. Not to sound to much like "the dog ate my homework", I will offer my
reasoning for not doing so. I was physically out of the office for the entire month of February, with some of that time being completely out of the country. Upon my return, I contracted the flu and was home, but still unable to be at work. When I did return, I was informed that we still had not been able to determine the problem with our client's van, but that the manufacturer of the van was sending a carrier to take it back to Phoenix to their plant to try to determine the solution. I understood at the time that our client was aware of that and that she seemed agreeable to that. This may not have been the case, but at the time, that was my impression. I thought the letter she had written was prior to us having this option to send to Manufacturer, so I opted to wait until we had a response from them. It was not because I wasn't concerned or uninterested in the problem being experience, but simple an un-thoughtful decision to not act until a later time. In retrospect, I should have respectfully responded to the correspondence immediately, and because I didn't, I am truly sorry. We have worked with many individuals, community organizations, facilities and hospitals, including the VA Administration, *** ** *** *** *** and ***. We have been diligent in protecting our reputation and providing quality service to those that have placed their trust in us to assist them in their independence and mobility. Our client's van was a van request that we received from the *** ** *** *** *** with them pay for the mobility conversion in the amount of $*** and our client paying the remaining amount of $***. We have been in business since 1994, and I say that to say that we have seen many problems and issues that the vehicles and equipment we sell can experience. It is a rare occasion when we cannot determine the source of a problem or not repair something in a timely manner. In this case, we worked diligently with the manufacturer of the vehicle to seek their assistance to troubleshoot this problem that our client was experiencing.. We facilitated every suggestion they made and made many adjustments as well. We replaced parts that were considered possible problems without finding a solution to the problem. This vehicle and our client was a top priority to our company and was a topic of discussion at every staff meeting as we explored other options and solution. In no way, have we lied to, been deceitful or intentionally showed lack of concern for our client. We provided her with one of our rental vans while her van was in our shop. We made many trips to Fredericksburg to pick up and deliver vehicles to herWhen her assistant was going to be away, we retrieved a totally power vehicle from our Norfolk store and installed hand controls and a power seat so she could use the vehicle independently. The manufacturer sent a carrier to our store to take her vehicle to their facility on 2/23/as they realized that this problem was something that was an anomaly. My records indicate that we delivered the second vehicle to her on 3/1/and picked up the first van from her at that time. As of this writing, we are anticipating a resolution from the manufacturer. I am completely confident that they will find the problem; solve the problem; and return the vehicle in sound working order

Dear *** ***:
we have researched the above referenced job that we installed on 12/14/I am attaching the information that we have on record regarding this work
At the time of this installation and through all of the repairs of the *** job, our Company was utilizing an outside
technical team for our installs and service workSince that time, we are no longer using this company and are performing all of our own installations and repairs, I am not trying to throw the blame on someone else, as we are responsible for the end results, but we were not satisfied with their performance and we have parted ways
As you will read in the notes regarding this job dated 4/24/13, many calls to the manufacturer were placed and we made every effort to correct the *** problem
We performed a service on their equipment on 6/20/and I have *** a copy of the Invoice that described what we performed on that dateOur technical team could not duplicate the problem the customer was having and did call the Manufacturer just to receive the exact same answer from them...they could not diagnose the problem until we could experience the problemOur technical team left and asked the customer to please call us if and when they experienced this problem and they would return
Our company received a call from the *** on Friday, 6/27/and an appointment was scheduled for Wednesday, 7/2/On Monday, 6/30/14, our office received a call from the client to cancel the appointment that we had set for Wednesday
In an effort to resolve this problem, and to let the Isleys know that we are very empathic to their frustration, we will withdraw our invoice for our service call in the amount of $and offer to pay the $for the loss of work they experienced
In an effort to be fair, I don't feel we should be responsible for the bill that another company charged them for the work they performedI feel we made every effort to solve their issues and were more than willing to continue to track down their problemsFrom my investigation, I see nothing that would indicate that we were not responsive or negligent in our efforts
I will be more than happy to discuss this matter further or answer any additional questions that anyone may have
Sincerely,

Mobility Supercenter provided Revdex.com an update to this caseAt this time the issue with this van has been discovered to be an issue with this model across the countrythe software is being reprogrammed and the vehicle is set to be ready to be set back to the customer by the first of next week

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the offer and/or response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appealFull response in attachment listed above.]
Regards,
[redacted]
Attention: Revdex.com rebuttal to Mobility Supercenter     March 20, 2017Dear Ms. C[redacted],I am writing in regards to your response to my letter to the
Revdex.com written on February 25. I can understand your being ill
and not in a condition to respond to my initial letter for over six weeks, but
I presumed as CEO of such a successful company you would have an assistant or
someone attending to business matters at Mobility Supercenter while you were
incapacitated. My letter to you in January was written after being  frustrated 
for a period of 9 months during which time there was always something
wrong with the vehicle. When I received no response from you I felt unheard  my plight had fallen on deaf ears. Your employees, Jason, Patrick, and Edward, were always
polite and cordial to me. That is commendable  and I appreciate them. There was, however, no
actual resolution to the problems of the door not opening and closing correctly,
and I was told several times I was incorrectly not opening and closing it with
the remote, when I knew there had to be more wrong.  I was also told by your service manager, that
the car needed a new battery to work properly. 
The battery tested fine by other mechanics . There were other problems
with the van such as the kneel breaking, after just 10 months. You did supply
me with a rental van that I could drive, but only 5 weeks after I had been
without one. I have a huge monthly car payment I’m making on a van that has
been out of my possession for almost two months.  I called, your service manager, Patrick, every
week and he would continue to tell me my van was being worked on, but I still
never heard from you. Ms. C[redacted] ,please
know [redacted] subsidized aides are not paid chauffeurs, therefore, I had to
arrange rides from friends to hospitals,  to work, and to my daily treatments at a wound
center. It was extremely stressful , and I was very ill ever since I received
the van last April.  In between several major
surgeries I made 4 trips to Richmond last summer and fall in between operations
to have the van diagnosed. You referred to my van as an ‘anomaly.’ I agree with
you on that. Anomaly means a severe defect, an irregularity from the normal. I
paid for a van with new equipment and that is what I should be getting, not a
van with such severe problems that it has taken almost a year to repair. The
van has been in Phoenix almost three weeks which tells me there are still major
issues with it. I don’t have your hope and confidence that it can be seamlessly
repaired. My major question is even if it is repaired  how long will it be until it breaks again? Owning
this van has been like being in a bad relationship, with major issues and
baggage, needing a lot of reconstructive therapy. It is similar to a car that
has been in a major accident, you don’t know if it will ever be the same as it
was when delivered new. This van must last me 10 years. The $[redacted] of tax-
payers money(through a state agency-[redacted]) 
put towards this venture and the $[redacted] I paid was so I could drive
safely and independently a vehicle without major problems. I know one can’t
expect perfection, but I am asking for a van with new equipment installed, as
this van has proved itself to be as you said an” anomaly”, in other words, a
lemon, from the start.  As a hard-working,
professional disabled woman whose been driving for 30 years, I deserve a vehicle
I can rely upon and work with ease. I’m asking you to consider the needs of the
customer first, and replace my van soon, with equipment from a much more
reliable company than VMI has proved to be.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the offer made by the business in reference to complaint ID[redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
[Provide details of why you are not satisfied with this resolution.]
Regards,
[redacted]
To be more accurate, the last service call did not resolve anything, and my numerous calls to get the unit fixed satisfactorily were not replied to, so I had to continue to make contact. After the technician inspected the unit and reinstalled the wheel as noted in the response from Mobility, he told me he would then contact [redacted] to see if they recommended replacing the relay or the entire panel. He never got back to me, and when I spoke to him some days later, his reply was "i thought that moving the wheel fixed the issue" at which time I told him it did not. he said he had to call the office about contacting [redacted] the manufacturer, but never got back to me. Again, I had to make several calls, at which point I finally said it was an emergency situation. Both residents were physically disabled and Anne [redacted] was coming home from rehab of a broken hip and had to have a working lift, as well as Mr. [redacted] who is on crutches and had no use of the lift and was dangerously using the stairs. Yes, another appt. was made, but when they could not help us for another week, I called [redacted] help desk, and got another authorized dealer to contact. They came within an hour of my call and found the following (none of which the technician from Mobility found nor mentioned or repaired): loose wires in the electrical panel, a poorly installed disconnect box, which was not properly sealed, and had temporary hookup. A bad circuit breaker, and then ball bearings that had been installed too tight, and were causing the rod to heat up and vibrate causing the unit not to run smoothly. They proceeded to address and fix all of these problems, which were a direct result of the original installation. And, please note, they did not have to see the unit fail to repair it properly. Why Mobility keeps stating they had to see it fail is very odd. And, since Mobility sold and was the installation company for this unit with a 2 year warranty still in place, they should have been responsible for correctly repairing it, but did not. So, there was no other option than to get another authorized dealer to come and repair the unit under such circumstances as explained above. Had Mobility been responsive, and timely repaired the unit, this conversation would not be taking place. They failed to do so resulting in a $393.50 bill from another company who quickly and efficiently handled the problem. Again, we were in a critical situation. As a result, it seems only fair that they be held accountable and pay the repair bill incurred. Obviously they acknowledge too much time spent trying to work with them, since they agreed to pay lost wages, but that is not the main point of this complaint. Thank you. please let us know their decision, as we may have to consider further action should they not resolve this claim as requested.

LIFE TURNS ON A DIME and all of a sudden you don't know what to do. That happened to us when my husband was hospitalized for over 100 days. We had to change our life style and transport him. Having bariatric needs because he is a large tall man complicated matters. It was a lonely dark place to be. [redacted], singer/song writer, says it best: "When you're down and troubled and you need a helping hand...you just call out my name...I'll come running!" MOBILITY did just that. [redacted]Sales) held our hands every step of the way providing guidance on the next decision. They are true professionals who find solutions. They care! Life is back on track because of MOBILITY SuperCenter in Richmond, VA. We cannot thank them enough. [redacted] Chester, VA

Review: in February 2014 I called MSOV to get our lift examined, as it was sputtering at times. They came out on Feb 2-4-14 and charged me $153.00, examined the lift, took our insurance information of a VA Waiver and created an estimate that was nearly $5,000 (the entire stipend allowed per year by the Waiver). After they realized that the stipend was not completely available, they altered their estimate to approximately $2500, the amount left if and until Adam is approved again in August 2014 for another stipend. The Waiver program approved the repair of the contacts inside the lift. On May 7th 2014, the workmen came out an started the repair. During that repair, the workmen cut out the existing motor and could not repair the lift. As they left, they shared with me the lift was completely inoperable at this time, and I needed to talk to the office to figure out what the next step was in getting the lift operable. I then called MSOV, and explained to them our adult son is in a chair, and we needed this lift to be operable. They then tried to put a second set of 'repairs' into the waiver program, hoping that when or if it renewed on August 8th, they could then get an approval. The Waiver program said no-they would not approve any more money to be put into those repairs to the lift by that provider. I then spoke to the provider, about utilizing other health insurance that our son has. A request for the second set of repairs was sent into [redacted] approved and it was approximately $2366. Due to issues with getting a replacement motor, we waited until August for the next appointment. The motor did not fir into the space reserved for it, and the lift was still inoperable after the second appointment. They also left it in many pieces all over our yard and patio and partially unattached to our home. With approval with[redacted], MSOV also put through the first repair for paymt from [redacted]-even after being paid from the Waiver program. They were paid for the 1st 'repair' 2xs, 2nd 'repair' 1x. but no lift!Desired Settlement: renegotiate what our [redacted] paid, for just some labor & labor costs. There is only one part that I have ever seen from both repairs, that was left here-the motor(They charged our insur comp $550 for a motor that physically couldn't fit into the existing lift). I can return this motor that was NEVER USED. When this company charged [redacted] for both 'repairs', instead of the Waiver for 1st one & [redacted] for 2nd one, they also created 2 cost shares for us-a total of $984.84.

Business

Response:

Case #[redacted] It was recently brought to our attention by anotherprofessional involved in this issue, but not employed by our company, that theclient has potentially been unlawfully acting on their adult son’s behalf withuse of insurance funds. It is now our understanding that they do not have legalpower of attorney or guardianship of their adult son, and therefore may nothave been permitted to engage in this transaction, either by requesting“Insurance A” (hereafter referred to as “A”) be billed for any repair service,or by completing the initial insurance documentation supplied by ourcompany. It will be at “A’s” discretionto require the client to reimburse “A” any funds they determine to have beenunlawfully used. However, with this new knowledge, we are limited in what detailswe can provide regarding the beneficiary (adult son). Therefore, our responsewill refer to the client that requested the services and accepted financialresponsibility (parents). v The history begins with the client’s desire to perform aservice that would use the remaining balance of their adult son’s available “A”funds to repair a wheelchair lift. This lift is at the dwelling they share withtheir son who uses a wheelchair. “A” provides an annual funding source of $5000to perform environmental modifications. The client was upset with a previousservice provider because, as the client claims, the provider billed “A” after arenewal date of annual funds, which reduced the client’s son’s available fundsfor that year. The client felt that the previous provider should have billedfor the work in the year prior, which is against “A” regulations. The client askedthat our service not exceed the remaining funds because they were not in aposition to pay out of pocket. The client was given a range of services thatcould be performed on the 14 year old wheelchair lift, including updatinginternal parts. It was recommended that, due to the age of the lift, the clientinstead replace it with a new one. The client understood that a new lift wouldcost more than what was then currently available in “A” funds. The client choseto replace the motor, as it was within the financial limits of available fundsand would be too costly for them to perform without the assistance of “A” funding.“A” gave prior authorization for the repair service. Prior authorization is nota guarantee of payment, but rather approval that the service meets thequalifications of a covered service for the client’s “A” requirements, and thatthe client has remaining funds available. Prior authorization must be obtained before performing the service, asmandated by “A’s” governing body.When ordering a replacement motor from the lift’smanufacturer, they explained that an identical model was no longer available,as updates had been made over the past 14 years. The manufacturer determinedand sent the appropriate and updated motor for that lift model. When ourtechnician performed the motor replacement service, he found that the new motordid indeed fit correctly, but would not operate as intended. In speaking withthe manufacturer, he was informed that the new motor had updated technologythat included an unanticipated safety shut-off if the motor was beingoverloaded. Because of the antiquated technology of the lift, the new motorsensed an overload and shut the system down, leaving it inoperable. Ourtechnician left, with the mutual understanding that he would be returning assoon as he could troubleshoot with the manufacturer. When the client brought toour attention that the lift and/or property were not left to theirsatisfaction, we immediately sent a technician to their location to rectify thematter to the client’s approval. While troubleshooting with the manufacturer, it wasdetermined that other parts would need to be updated for the motor to workproperly. The client was informed of their options, which included waiting onthe next funding cycle from “A” for either a new lift or additional repairservice; submitting to “Insurance B” (additional insurance coverage, hereafterreferred to as “B”); or paying out of pocket for the additional parts andservice. The client chose “A” funding for the additional repairs, as the clientwas undergoing surgery in the very near future that would leave them requiringuse of the lift, as well. Waiting on the next funding cycle would not provideadequate time to perform the service before surgery. A request for priorauthorization was submitted to “A” for the additional repair service, and aclaim was submitted for the original motor replacement service. Because “A” isalways the Payer of Last Resort (as mandated by “A’s” governing body), a claim denialwould be required from “B” before “A” would approve payment. A claim wassubmitted to “B” and was denied. The denial notification from “B” was includedwith the claim submitted to “A”. “A” approved and paid the claim out of theclient’s son’s “A” funds, in the amount of $2558.20. After payment was receivedfrom “A”, “B” then determined that they had erroneously denied the claim andsent payment in the amount of $2046.56 (total, less the beneficiaries’ cost-shareof $511.64) to our company. That payment was reimbursed by our company to “A”,as is required (See attached documentation – beneficiaries’ medical andidentifying information redacted). This means that for this repair service “B”paid $2046.56, “A” paid the beneficiaries’ cost share portion of $511.64, andclient paid $0.While “A” approved payment of the claim for the initialservice, they identified a stipulation to prior authorization for theadditional repair service. To approve the additional work, they required aguarantee that the service would correct the problem and leave the liftfunctioning properly. Because we could not predict the continued performance ofa lift of that age, nor the unforeseeable compatibility outcomes of the newparts, we would not make that guarantee. Therefore, “A” denied priorauthorization of the second repair service. It was again recommended to theclient that they consider a new lift. They preferred to attempt the additionalrepairs and hoped it would leave the lift functioning long enough to purchase anew one at a later date, with a future renewal of “A” funds. The client wasrequired to sign a Financial Responsibility form, which was an acknowledgement thatin the event “B” did not approve the claim - either partially or in itsentirety - they would be responsible for any unpaid amount. Because the clienthad uncertain coverage, co-pay and deductible, a notation was made that theclient’s responsibility would be dependent on the “B” coverage, co-pay anddeductible requirements met (See attached documentation – beneficiaries’ medicaland identifying information redacted). The additional repair service was performed successfully,but the level of deterioration of the aging unit then posed a safety concern toour technician. Because the platform could no longer safely support the weightof a user, their wheelchair and/or caregivers, the unit was left inoperable. Allparts were left on premises at the client’s request. It was then that the clientdecided to move forward with a new lift, and contacted the consultant they hadbeen working with at our company for a quote. A claim was submitted to “B” for the work performed duringthe second repair service. The client then opened a complaint against ourcompany with “B”, which upon investigation, “B” deemed unfounded. The claimsubmitted was for $2366.00. On 1/5/15 we received notification from “B” thatthe claim was approved and the beneficiary had been issued a check on 12/25/14.The client received the “B” check in the amount of $1892.80, which was theentire claim less the 20% co-payment of $473.20. We then submitted an invoiceto the client for the full amount of $2366.00. The client responded on 1/22/15via email stating that they had opened another grievance with “B” and weregoing to send the check back to them so that “B” could to send it to us. Prior to learning of potential unlawful acts, we maderepeated attempts to answer insurance billing questions the client presented, butwere unable to successfully impart an understanding of the requirements and processupon them. After learning of the power of attorney/guardianship status, we canno longer discuss insurance or medical information with the client. We have confirmedwith “B” that there are no open grievances, that all have been resolved in ourfavor, and that the client and/or beneficiary has been informed of thisdecision. “B” has also informed us that they never directed the beneficiary orclient to return the claim payment to them, as the client later stated in emailcommunications to our company. “B” informed us that the check was, in fact,cashed. For both services combined and after payment reimbursementsbetween “B” and “A”, to date “B” has paid $3939.36 ($2046.56 paid to us and subsequentlyreimbursed to “A”, and $1892.80 to the beneficiary to be forwarded to us), “A”has paid $511.64 (cost share of the first service), and client has paid $0, butis in receipt of $1892.80 from “B”. While the client claims our company hascreated two cost-shares in the amount of $984.84, the reality is “A” paid$511.64 of that amount, and the client has paid $0, but received $1892.80 from“B”. The client is required to pay the unpaid balance of $2366.00 and interestincurred, due immediately.

Review: Mobility failed to return phone calls on numerous occasion forcing me to contact them every time . ( I being the daughter, as my parents are disabled, one is currently in rehab). The lift has experienced ongoing issues with failing to work. Mobility came out, looked at it, assured me they would call the manufacturer they represent and never did. They told me it was possibly a relay or panel issue. They fixed one small wheel during service call. They never followed up with me on speaking to Bruno, the manufacturer, and continously put me off for finalizing a repair. I called [redacted] to complain and they gave me another authorized service dealer, Area Access, who sent a technician out same day. Area Access did an extensive assessment of the unit, called the factory for input, and returned in less than 24 hrs. to complete necessary repairs and checks/balances. They then gave me a complete explanation of work performed. Mobility never did anything they said they would do, and only got me on the schedule after 10 days from initial appearance when I said it had become an emergency situation. My father is on crutches and my mother is recovering from broken hip, so neither should be using stairs as they are both a dangerous fall risk. Mobility didn't want to hear or acknowledge that at all. They did not follow thru on promises to return calls and inquiries, nor did they make any attempt to fix the unit, and gave me mixed feedback each time. They need to be held accountable for not following thru and servicing the product to our satisfaction as they were the installers of the unit.Desired Settlement: I do not want to pay them for a service call as they did no repair on site whatsoever. I also had to hire an outside electrician to look at the work performed. Then, I had to hire [redacted] to actually do the necessary repairs. I believe Mobility should be held accountable and required to pay any and all fees incurred by being forced to use a new authorized [redacted] dealer for repairs. Also, I lost numerous hours of work time in the process which was completely unnecessary given the fact the work could have easily been completed without delay. The cost of the repairs/service total $393.50 along with loss of work for me at a rate of $35 per hour which amounted to approx. $210.00. I am more interested in my parents not having to pay a service cost to another dealer when Mobility was responsible to act on any issues with the lift and failed to do so. they were unprofessional and unreliable as well as non-responsive. I can't begin to say enough about what a headache they created.

Business

Response:

Dear [redacted]:

we have researched the above referenced job that we installed on 12/14/12. I am attaching the information that we have on record regarding this work.

At the time of this installation and through all of the repairs of the [redacted] job, our Company was utilizing an outside technical team for our installs and service work. Since that time, we are no longer using this company and are performing all of our own installations and repairs, I am not trying to throw the blame on someone else, as we are responsible for the end results, but we were not satisfied with their performance and we have parted ways.

As you will read in the notes regarding this job dated 4/24/13, many calls to the manufacturer were placed and we made every effort to correct the [redacted] problem.

We performed a service on their equipment on 6/20/14 and I have [redacted] a copy of the Invoice that described what we performed on that date. Our technical team could not duplicate the problem the customer was having and did call the Manufacturer just to receive the exact same answer from them...they could not diagnose the problem until we could experience the problem. Our technical team left and asked the customer to please call us if and when they experienced this problem and they would return.

Our company received a call from the [redacted] on Friday, 6/27/14 and an appointment was scheduled for Wednesday, 7/2/14. On Monday, 6/30/14, our office received a call from the client to cancel the appointment that we had set for Wednesday.

In an effort to resolve this problem, and to let the Isleys know that we are very empathic to their frustration, we will withdraw our invoice for our service call in the amount of $138.50 and offer to pay the $210.00 for the loss of work they experienced.

In an effort to be fair, I don't feel we should be responsible for the bill that another company charged them for the work they performed. I feel we made every effort to solve their issues and were more than willing to continue to track down their problems. From my investigation, I see nothing that would indicate that we were not responsive or negligent in our efforts.

I will be more than happy to discuss this matter further or answer any additional questions that anyone may have.

Sincerely,

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the offer made by the business in reference to complaint ID[redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

[Provide details of why you are not satisfied with this resolution.]

Regards,

To be more accurate, the last service call did not resolve anything, and my numerous calls to get the unit fixed satisfactorily were not replied to, so I had to continue to make contact. After the technician inspected the unit and reinstalled the wheel as noted in the response from Mobility, he told me he would then contact [redacted] to see if they recommended replacing the relay or the entire panel. He never got back to me, and when I spoke to him some days later, his reply was "i thought that moving the wheel fixed the issue" at which time I told him it did not. he said he had to call the office about contacting [redacted] the manufacturer, but never got back to me. Again, I had to make several calls, at which point I finally said it was an emergency situation. Both residents were physically disabled and Anne [redacted] was coming home from rehab of a broken hip and had to have a working lift, as well as Mr. [redacted] who is on crutches and had no use of the lift and was dangerously using the stairs. Yes, another appt. was made, but when they could not help us for another week, I called [redacted] help desk, and got another authorized dealer to contact. They came within an hour of my call and found the following (none of which the technician from Mobility found nor mentioned or repaired): loose wires in the electrical panel, a poorly installed disconnect box, which was not properly sealed, and had temporary hookup. A bad circuit breaker, and then ball bearings that had been installed too tight, and were causing the rod to heat up and vibrate causing the unit not to run smoothly. They proceeded to address and fix all of these problems, which were a direct result of the original installation. And, please note, they did not have to see the unit fail to repair it properly. Why Mobility keeps stating they had to see it fail is very odd. And, since Mobility sold and was the installation company for this unit with a 2 year warranty still in place, they should have been responsible for correctly repairing it, but did not. So, there was no other option than to get another authorized dealer to come and repair the unit under such circumstances as explained above. Had Mobility been responsive, and timely repaired the unit, this conversation would not be taking place. They failed to do so resulting in a $393.50 bill from another company who quickly and efficiently handled the problem. Again, we were in a critical situation. As a result, it seems only fair that they be held accountable and pay the repair bill incurred. Obviously they acknowledge too much time spent trying to work with them, since they agreed to pay lost wages, but that is not the main point of this complaint. Thank you. please let us know their decision, as we may have to consider further action should they not resolve this claim as requested.