Moving angels of Madison, LLC

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below Although I agree with Ms, [redacted] that it was the corporate offices fault that the pricing was messed up, I still look for a refund of the amount over paid from the written estimate and then she can recoup that from her corporate office Regards, Sherri ***

I don’t believe AA has addressed any of the primary concerns from my complaintIt states that I had asked AA if there was a way to tell up front before the actual application, if there was a large leak that would prevent the AS process from working, and if so, is it customary for the contractor to inform the customer of this so they have the option to cancel with little chance of working from being doneAA responded that they would be able to tell if a duct system has much air loss, that the process could not work and that there would be an option for me to abort the application, although I believe it should be presumed AA should make this determination in their own good faith The only other plausible explanation of why they would have performed a procedure that could never work was that their equipment was incapable of giving an accurate pressure reading prior to the application of ASThe reported reduction in duct leakage from their COC was 89%, yet in reality, there was none at allThe percentage on the COC if accurate would be near zero % My ability to make this statement is that it was known to me immediately when the air conditioning system was turned on after the procedure, that the same large breach was still present and the same exact amount of air was leaking into the atticThe claim that AA would have been able to perform the diagnosis and repair if given the chance is also false The repair involved cutting into the duct system via the roof to allow entryThis is far outside the business scope of AAThe claim that I have been unwilling to communicate is falseI and the Revdex.com have been unable to communicate with AA for a while nowI was not contacted as AA describesI would be unable to accept their offer to reimburse 32% of the cost I have paid to themAcceptable resolution is for % reimbursement of the cost of the procedure, leaving 35% unreimbursed for their incurred costs of the initial equipment set up and pressure reading effort

This is in response to our customer Daryl L*** and his complaint filed with the Revdex.comFirstly, I would like to apologize for the delay in response, I have personally reached out to MrL*** with no response backI do understand where his concerns regarding the seal are coming
from considering he voluntarily spent another $dollars in which he did not need to spend we would have happily fixed any issue as we do guarantee our workWhen MrL*** reached out to us early this year, we missed his initial call but Blaine did respond back later that day and his call was not answeredBlaine did leave a voicemail and we were never contacted backWhen we attempted to call back we had every intention of returning to the jobsite to discover the breach that was mentioned in this complaintHowever, I have since pulled the completion form of MrL***’s home to verify that we were not capable of completing the sealWhen I reviewed the document It states that he was left with only CFM of air loss after the seal was finished which is completely when a seal is finishedThere is no way to fake this number with our equipment which is why APS and SRP prefer the *** method when sealing ductworkI am willing to provide a copy of MrL***’s completion form to verify my claimBecause of this completion form it makes it impossible for me to verify this breach that is being claimedIf MrL*** would like to contact us again we are more than happy to refund half of the $paid to *** *** *** in good faith because we do not feel he should have had to spend that money, had we been given the opportunity to fix the problem and were not capable we would have refunded the entire amountWe do not find it plausible for us to refund the amount of the seal due to the fact that my completion form clearly states a completed and fully sealed system

Arizona *** stands firm on its claimsFirstly The *** equipment is physically incapable of providing a reading, the *** equipment was designed by the *** *** and funded by the *** ** ***, and is also *** and *** preferred method of duct sealing due to its extremely accurate ability to test and seal a ventilation systemSecondly we absolutely called Mr L*** I'm positive of this because as the owner of the business I attempted to reach him twiceAs far as not being able to fix the ductwork issue, this is also a claimWhen Mr L*** reached out to us I attempted to reach him personally in order to address his issue because I own a second business in which we perform both residential and commercial HVAC services and minor duct repair is in fact a scope of work that we are more than capable of doing which had I been able to inspect the system before another contractor touched the system I would have happily done at no additional expense to Mr L***At this point I feel that my offer to refund half of the unnecessary expense occurred by Mr L*** of $to Ace Home Sevices is a generous offerI am still willing to pay the $dollars but also require all claims about the business on our social media sites including Yelp, Facebook, Google, and any other review sites be removed immediately for they are slanderousAlso I will require a document signed by Mr L*** drafted by my attorney that states he will Remove the claims from social media stating that our *** technicians or "kids with some equipment" own the business and that our reputation is "terrible." Once I receive that signed document I will be happy to sign a reimbursement check to Mr L***

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
Although I agree with Ms, [redacted] that it was the corporate offices fault that the pricing was messed up, I still look for a refund of the amount over paid from the written estimate and then she can recoup that from her corporate office.
Regards,
Sherri [redacted]

This client called the [redacted] location for a quote which would have been significantly lower than Wisconsin do to the tariff they follow and strict guidelines for move. I compensated Ms [redacted] well beyond what I should have. Case is closed on my end.

I just spoke with Ms. [redacted] and she agrees...

that this was not the fault of College Hunks in Madison WI, but was quoted by the corporate office with rates for a location that does not service her are. She also said she was not given the option to file this complaint without using the CH Wisconsin franchise. She is upset about the communication with the call center (Farrah is the agent name ). The quote she was given was 700$ plus the TT Fee which would have calculated at 200 after mileage. The total bill for her would have been about 990. Our rates in Wisconsin are much different than [redacted]. While 4 men there would be 200$ ph , here that would be 299 plus travel fees.  I compensated her a good portion of her bill as I do understand her argument. THIS IS CLOSED ON MY END.  Thank You, [redacted]

I don’t believe AA has addressed any of the primary concerns from my complaint. It states that I had asked AA if there was a way to tell up front before the actual application, if there was a large leak that would prevent the AS process from working, and if so, is it customary for the contractor to inform the customer of this so they have the option to cancel with little chance of working from being done. AA responded that they would be able to tell if a duct system has much air loss, that the process could not work and that there would be an option for me to abort the application, although I believe it should be presumed AA should make this determination in their own good faith.  The only other plausible explanation of why they would have performed a procedure that could never work was that their equipment was incapable of giving an accurate pressure reading prior to the application of AS. The reported reduction in duct leakage from their COC was 89%, yet in reality, there was none at all. The percentage on the COC if accurate would be near zero %.  My ability to make this statement is that it was known to me immediately when the air conditioning system was turned on after the procedure, that the same large breach was still present and the same exact amount of air was leaking into the attic. The claim that AA would have been able to perform the diagnosis and repair if given the chance is also false.  The repair involved cutting into the duct system via the roof to allow entry. This is far outside the business scope of AA. The claim that I have been unwilling to communicate is false. I and the Revdex.com have been unable to communicate with AA for a while now. I was not contacted as AA describes. I would be unable to accept their offer to reimburse 32% of the cost I have paid to them. Acceptable resolution is for 65 % reimbursement of the cost of the procedure, leaving 35% unreimbursed for their incurred costs of the initial equipment set up and pressure reading effort.