Netux Solutions, L L C

Review: We contracted for the installation of a new server for our offices. There were many problems along the way resulting in our inability to work fully (limited ability to print, no ability to scan) for almost a month while we worked with Netux to solve the problems. When we received an invoice for services I contacted Netux immediately on 3/24/2014 and spoke with [redacted]. He referred me to [redacted] and I left her a voicemail. She did not return my phone call. On April 15, 2014, I contacted them again when an additional and slightly different invoice arrived in my office. I was never told that we had moved into a per hour billing period by their employee, [redacted]. Instead I was told by [redacted] that we should have known we were now being billed. Since the setup was not complete because we were not functional in our office and able to use all of our equipment, I thought we were still taking care of install issues that would be covered by the contract. I have spoken with [redacted], [redacted] and [redacted] to no avail. Our contract states "Completion: On completion of the project, your organization will have implemented a new server and successfully transitioned existing computer resources over the the new system". Until recently we have been unable to scan. Our scanning runs through the server. Netux told me that they did not know what else to do so that we could scan. One of their suggestions was to contact our internet provider which we did. That resulted in some replaced hardware which required the server settings to be reconfigured. We were billed for those services in the amount of $195 as well as $32.50 for verifying scanner share settings which is noted as "failed" on the invoice. We were still unable to scan and I had to hire an outside firm to correct the issue so that scanning could take place. These problems did not allow us to successfully transition to the new server and should have been covered under the initial contract and not billed separately.Desired Settlement: I offered to pay half of our bill of $227.50. I made this offer in good faith after explaining that we had never been told we'd entered a billing period. I was then told that there were many things they did that they didn't bill us for and could have. I do not have a list of these services. Customers should be told when they've left a contracted agreement and entered into a billing period. It's simple and courteous and keeps problems like this from happening. My offer to pay half of this invoice allows us to both bear responsibility and to both recoup some costs. Our original contracted amount of $4080.44 is paid in full. I do not understand why when I offered to pay half of this bill I was met with "we could have billed you more."

Business

Response:

As previously discussed, only out of scope services were billed to you in an already limited capacity. Since your organization has had ongoing incident based billing (hourly rate) with service as recent as November of last year (excluding the billing in question) we had a mutual understanding regarding our billing process. As far as our project contract is concerned, it specifically addresses scope (document attached). In no part of the scope of service does it list any action regarding the setup, diagnosis, and/or configuration of a copier/multifunction printer. The sentence "on completion of the project" is referring to the above mentioned scope generically as "computer resources". The additional labor required to setup the router a second time was due to your internet service provider replacing your router. This required us to repeat work. We did not provide nor warranty this equipment.

Your staff told us the replacement of the router was due to the internet not functioning and ultimately your internet service provider determined the router had gone defective. It was also our understanding that your Sharp service provider had fixed the copier/multifunction printer and it was in working prior to the replacement of the router. And, it was only after the router had been replaced by your internet service provider that it stopped working again.

The inability to work fully as you mentioned (limited ability to print, no ability to scan) for almost a month was not deferred by us for a month. We had recommended to you to contact Sharp service provider to fix the scanning issue the same week the server was installed after these issues were encountered. Their failure to fix the issue in a timely manner has nothing to do with our due diligence in executing our contracted work. We had also offered assist them if they had any server related questions.

At no point in time did anyone ever say "we could have billed you more". That may be your interpretation of our conversation but it’s not what we said. We said that we had already giving you credit for services out of scope. This is why we had resent an amended invoice that reflected one of the items already credited. We have tried to go above and beyond to satisfy your interests. We have already given you credit for services not included in our project in the interest of preserving our relationship. At a certain point we have to draw a line between what we are willing to do and not do. I believe the amount we have requested you to pay is fair given the situation.

Sincerely,

Consumer

Response:

We contracted for the installation of a new server for our offices. There were many problems along the way resulting in our inability to work fully (limited ability to print, no ability to scan) for almost a month while we worked with Netux to solve the problems. When we received an invoice for services I contacted Netux immediately on 3/24/2014 and spoke with [redacted]. He referred me to [redacted] and I left her a voicemail. She did not return my phone call. On April 15, 2014, I contacted them again when an additional and slightly different invoice arrived in my office. I was never told that we had moved into a per hour billing period by their employee, [redacted]. Instead I was told by [redacted] that we should have known we were now being billed. Since the setup was not complete because we were not functional in our office and able to use all of our equipment, I thought we were still taking care of install issues that would be covered by the contract. I have spoken with [redacted] and [redacted] to no avail. Our contract states "Completion: On completion of the project, your organization will have implemented a new server and successfully transitioned existing computer resources over the the new system". Until recently we have been unable to scan. Our scanning runs through the server. Netux told me that they did not know what else to do so that we could scan. One of their suggestions was to contact our internet provider which we did. That resulted in some replaced hardware which required the server settings to be reconfigured. We were billed for those services in the amount of $195 as well as $32.50 for verifying scanner share settings which is noted as "failed" on the invoice. We were still unable to scan and I had to hire an outside firm to correct the issue so that scanning could take place. These problems did not allow us to successfully transition to the new server and should have been covered under the initial contract and not billed separately.