Parrish Services, Inc

On August 27, 2013 Parrish Services was contacted by [redacted]’s
#2555 to perform a site visit to install a water softener. Our technician performed
this work the same day. While doing the work for [redacted]’s, the technician also
performed a water test. He later shared the results with the customer.
On...

October 4, 2013, [redacted]’s provided Parrish Services with a
purchase order to install the water softener for this homeowner. The technician
visited the home and included these notes in his invoice:
“picked up water softener from [redacted]s. Went to customers home to
install, upon arrival customer said that [redacted]s made the impression that we were
providing a filter and chlorine system. Gave customer options and returned
softener to [redacted]s. Customer said they are going to apply for financing on our
website. Total cost for water softener, chlorine pellet system , carbon filter,
new 6" well seal, total cost $9,408 (without softener $6,994)”
The homeowner applied then for [redacted] financing in
order to fund their project with Parrish. Once the homeowner was approved, we are
able to authorize scheduling. On November 12, 2013 the homeowner called to
schedule this work. The work was performed and completed on November 21, 2013,
and Parrish billed the homeowner $9408 on the [redacted] Project [redacted].
We did not in any way “access funds prematurely.”  Parrish Services completed this very
extensive job, and we were entitled to payment in full at the completion of the
work. The homeowner chose her form of payment to be [redacted], and we
were provided with the account number. There has been no subsequent contact
from the homeowner to indicate the installation was not completed or that it was
even unsatisfactory in any way.
The homeowner once again contacted Parrish on December 22,
2014, this time requesting service for the water softener and to shock the
well. The homeowner maintained she had paid for this service, but that is not
the case. The proposal explicitly excludes maintenance,
and all of the pricing details are solely for the original equipment and
installation. In the “Maintenance” section, the proposal outlines the price of
a 12-month service agreement. A copy of the proposal as well as all the call and invoice activity for this client are attached.If the homeowner has any documentation to the contrary, we will, of course, honor any
commitments made by our technicians.
Yes, we are now choosing to decline service for this homeowner. The
treatment of our customer service representatives during the more recent
request for (free) services was unacceptable, and given the libelous
allegations in this complaint and the expectation of free service, we think it is a prudent business decision.
The one-year Parrish labor warranty expired in November. The
remaining warranties are manufacturer warranties, and the homeowner may request
warranty service from any other manufacturer-authorized warranty service
provider.

The Work Man had such a positive attitude and was in such a good mood. I know he could tell I really didn't want him here and didn't want to have to deal with him and what he needed to do. But he kept a positive attitude with my grumpy one and convinced me that what he needed to do would be in my best interest!! So off we went throughout the entire house checking all of the faucets and plumbing.

I had occasion to call Parrish Services to manage a greenhouse thermostat application. After the preliminary visit to as the need, Greco and Clint appeared at the appointed hour and immediately set about with rewiring duties. It was a lengthy process and in the course of their work I observed their skills. Both of them were top drawer. Clint's journeyman skills reflected the intense training he had in the HVAC arena, and watching him pace thru the rubrics of installation and wiring connection it was clear that he had been trained by highly qualified leaders. They were on time, tidy and performed the assigned tasks with dispatch..

The service was prompt, thorough and all questions were fully answered with recommendations for seeking further reviews of recommended products.

Every instance of interaction with Parrish has been a positive and even informative experience. Most recently, my unit cut off and the house was 83 degrees (you can imagine the attic temp)! I called about 1:30 and, by 4 PM, JC was on the job. He found water from condensation caused my shutoff (safety measure), quickly took care of it, then checked both inside and outside units for problems and adjustments. He waited to be sure the cool air was back on and actually cooling. He allowed me to ask questions and, as in other times, I learned more about these systems and problem causes. Alisa was quick to get someone on this and my Family was highly appreciative. As always I would recommend Parrish to anyone who might like to hear from me on this issue. Top notch techs in my humble opinion! The proof is in my cool abode.

Our heat pump problem was resolved quickly. I was able to set up an appointment on Sunday for the next day. The technician, Matt H, was efficient and kept us updated on progress. He gave us a detailed account of what had to be done and filed a report with Parish with all the units figures.

We experienced a pesky difficult problem to diagnose however it was determined to be a propane regulator. Parrish Services was very positive and responded quickly. I would recommend them!

Excellent same day service!

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response.  If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. 
Regards,
[redacted]

Our air conditioner quit working late on a Friday night and I put a service call in to Parrish Services. On Saturday morning, we received a call from Allan G[redacted] advising his techs were busy but he would come out to see what the problem was. What is interesting, Allan G[redacted] is the owner of Parrish Services. He stands by his people, his work and his company..
He arrived when he said he would, serviced the air handler and all electrical components and determined that there was an electrical problem. In tracking down the problem, it was found that the electrical service panel was over 40 years old and strongly recommended changing the panel to bring up to current code requirements.
Two days later, the HVAC service technician arrived and fixed the A/C unit. A few days after that, one of their electricians arrived, surveyed the electrical work and a week after that, the electrical work was completed.
Parrish Services worked diligently with Fairfax County, VA to schedule their inspection. Eventually, the Fairfax County inspector arrived and gave the electrical work a thumbs up. In conversation with the supervisor of the Fairfax County inspectors, he advised that Parrish Services is one of the better companies they work with.
In my opinion, Parrish Services is by far the best company to call should you need work with heating, air conditioning, plumbing or electrical work. I would not hesitate to recommend them to anyone who needs this kind of work

We're sorry to hear the home inspector has raised concerns about the water heater in the home - selling a home can certainly be a challenge.Parrish Services did replace a gas water heater in this home on February 8, 2011. The installation was inspected by Fairfax County on March 10, 2011, and the...

installation passed County inspection. We have attached a screenshot of the approval, and any permit status in Fairfax County can be viewed here: http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/fido/property/browser.aspx. Please note the current "inspection" referenced by the homeowner was performed by a home inspector, not a County inspection official. This home inspector has no official standing in the County inspection process, and (s)he is reviewing a site where we performed work four years ago. While we have no way of establishing our installation wasn't altered in subsequent years, we can establish it passed inspection at the time of installation.All this being said, codes are regularly updated, and it is always possible for work to meet the code at the time of installation but not meet the code at a later date. It is not a requirement the homeowner upgrade to meet the current code unless they are performing new work on the appliance. That is, just because the house is being sold does not mean it needs to be up to code (in fact, in our experience, most homes do not meet current codes).In summary, our installation has passed inspection, and this installation labor warranty expired in 2011. If the homeowner would like additional work performed, there would be a charge.  If the homeowner has concerns about the quality of the inspection performed four years ago, he would need to contact Fairfax County officials.Thank you.

Excellent ongoing service for semi-annual checks on air/heat systems plus addressing ongoing needs for "emergency" situations. Great techs, wonderful office staff and onsite estimates for potential work.

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response.  If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. 
Regards,
[redacted]

[redacted] has a Priority Service Plan for his heat pump, and we performed routine maintenance at this address on the...

following dates:
 
09/03/09
04/26/10
02/01/11
06/12/11
12/29/11
01/14/13
06/05/13
06/13/14
 
On the previous checks, there was no evidence of any system failure. On the most recent visit, however, our technician found multiple problems that included a leak at the heat pump’s service valve. The system was already exhibiting signs of low refrigerant; specifically, frost was forming on the unit. Given the prior service history and the current condition, the technician determined a leak had developed. He recommend repairing the leak at the service valve, adding refrigerant, and replacing a capacitor. He advised (in writing) the system was already frosting and would not keep up on hot day.
 
[redacted] then spoke with our HVAC Service Manager on July 8, 2014 at 16:11 for twelve minutes. The manager did explain to [redacted] that supplying adequate refrigerant is the responsibility of the system owner; i.e., the heat pump is a closed system, and adding refrigerant is not a regular or included maintenance activity.
 
[redacted] was not satisfied with the response and asked to have his contract cancelled. The manager agreed and complied by sending an email request to the Billing Department. Because the discussion took place after our Billing Department was closed, the contract was cancelled and time stamped the following business day, July 9.
 
As [redacted] has said, he contracted with Parrish Services to perform routine maintenance for his system, and checking refrigerant levels is a regular diagnostic process for both a heat check and a cool check. It was his prerogative to forego having the refrigerant levels checked if he believed large amounts of refrigerant were going to be dispersed in the process. That being said, Section 608 of the Clean Air Act of 1990  prohibits individuals from intentionally venting refrigerants into the atmosphere, and all Parrish Services heating and air conditioning  technicians hold U.S. EPA 608 Type I and Type II certifications. The technicians are trained in and comply with all refrigerant venting regulations. Additionally, the EPA  stipulates, “Small releases of refrigerant that result from purging hoses or from connecting or disconnecting hoses to charge or service appliances will not be considered violations of the prohibition on venting. However, recovery and recycling equipment manufactured after November 15, 1993, must be equipped with low-loss fittings.” Parrish Services complies with all relevant Section 608 rules, including the use of equipment with low-loss fittings.
 
Expecting Parrish to replace refrigerant would be analogous to expecting an auto mechanic to replace a quart of oil after testing the oil levels several times with a dipstick. We are not providing refrigerant at no charge, but we would be willing to return for a follow up visit without the regular $106 trip charge if [redacted] would like to have the repairs performed. And because the service plan was cancelled, a charge would be have been due for the maintenance visit, but we opted to waive that fee.
 
I apologize if [redacted] felt he was treated rudely by our manager, and we will be happy to apologize personally; we will note his file, and at his convenience he may call and ask for one of the owners.
 
 
 
Linda C[redacted]
Chief Operating Officer
Parrish Services, Inc.
direct: [redacted]
Connect with me on [redacted]
follow us on [redacted]
 
[redacted] has a Priority Service Plan for his heat pump, and we performed routine maintenance at this address on the following dates:
 
09/03/09
04/26/10
02/01/11
06/12/11
12/29/11
01/14/13
06/05/13
06/13/14
 
On the previous checks, there was no evidence of any system failure. On the most recent visit, however, our technician found multiple problems that included a leak at the heat pump’s service valve. The system was already exhibiting signs of low refrigerant; specifically, frost was forming on the unit. Given the prior service history and the current condition, the technician determined a leak had developed. He recommend repairing the leak at the service valve, adding refrigerant, and replacing a capacitor. He advised (in writing) the system was already frosting and would not keep up on hot day.
 
[redacted] then spoke with our HVAC Service Manager on July 8, 2014 at 16:11 for twelve minutes. The manager did explain to [redacted] that supplying adequate refrigerant is the responsibility of the system owner; i.e., the heat pump is a closed system, and adding refrigerant is not a regular or included maintenance activity.
 
[redacted] was not satisfied with the response and asked to have his contract cancelled. The manager agreed and complied by sending an email request to the Billing Department. Because the discussion took place after our Billing Department was closed, the contract was cancelled and time stamped the following business day, July 9.
 
As [redacted] has said, he contracted with Parrish Services to perform routine maintenance for his system, and checking refrigerant levels is a regular diagnostic process for both a heat check and a cool check. It was his prerogative to forego having the refrigerant levels checked if he believed large amounts of refrigerant were going to be dispersed in the process. That being said, Section 608 of the Clean Air Act of 1990  prohibits individuals from intentionally venting refrigerants into the atmosphere, and all Parrish Services heating and air conditioning  technicians hold U.S. EPA 608 Type I and Type II certifications. The technicians are trained in and comply with all refrigerant venting regulations. Additionally, the EPA  stipulates, “Small releases of refrigerant that result from purging hoses or from connecting or disconnecting hoses to charge or service appliances will not be considered violations of the prohibition on venting. However, recovery and recycling equipment manufactured after November 15, 1993, must be equipped with low-loss fittings.” Parrish Services complies with all relevant Section 608 rules, including the use of equipment with low-loss fittings.
 
Expecting Parrish to replace refrigerant would be analogous to expecting an auto mechanic to replace a quart of oil after testing the oil levels several times with a dipstick. We are not providing refrigerant at no charge, but we would be willing to return for a follow up visit without the regular $106 trip charge if [redacted] would like to have the repairs performed. And because the service plan was cancelled, a charge would be have been due for the maintenance visit, but we opted to waive that fee.
 
I apologize if [redacted] felt he was treated rudely by our manager, and we will be happy to apologize personally; we will note his file, and at his convenience he may call and ask for one of the owners.
 
 
 
Linda Couch
Chief Operating Officer
Parrish Services, Inc.
direct: 703 656 2017
Connect with me on LinkedIn
follow us on facebook
 
[redacted] has a Priority Service Plan for his heat pump, and we performed routine maintenance at this address on the following dates:
 
09/03/09
04/26/10
02/01/11
06/12/11
12/29/11
01/14/13
06/05/13
06/13/14
 
On the previous checks, there was no evidence of any system failure. On the most recent visit, however, our technician found multiple problems that included a leak at the heat pump’s service valve. The system was already exhibiting signs of low refrigerant; specifically, frost was forming on the unit. Given the prior service history and the current condition, the technician determined a leak had developed. He recommend repairing the leak at the service valve, adding refrigerant, and replacing a capacitor. He advised (in writing) the system was already frosting and would not keep up on hot day.
 
[redacted] then spoke with our HVAC Service Manager on July 8, 2014 at 16:11 for twelve minutes. The manager did explain to [redacted] that supplying adequate refrigerant is the responsibility of the system owner; i.e., the heat pump is a closed system, and adding refrigerant is not a regular or included maintenance activity.
 
[redacted] was not satisfied with the response and asked to have his contract cancelled. The manager agreed and complied by sending an email request to the Billing Department. Because the discussion took place after our Billing Department was closed, the contract was cancelled and time stamped the following business day, July 9.
 
As [redacted] has said, he contracted with Parrish Services to perform routine maintenance for his system, and checking refrigerant levels is a regular diagnostic process for both a heat check and a cool check. It was his prerogative to forego having the refrigerant levels checked if he believed large amounts of refrigerant were going to be dispersed in the process. That being said, Section 608 of the Clean Air Act of 1990  prohibits individuals from intentionally venting refrigerants into the atmosphere, and all Parrish Services heating and air conditioning  technicians hold U.S. EPA 608 Type I and Type II certifications. The technicians are trained in and comply with all refrigerant venting regulations. Additionally, the EPA  stipulates, “Small releases of refrigerant that result from purging hoses or from connecting or disconnecting hoses to charge or service appliances will not be considered violations of the prohibition on venting. However, recovery and recycling equipment manufactured after November 15, 1993, must be equipped with low-loss fittings.” Parrish Services complies with all relevant Section 608 rules, including the use of equipment with low-loss fittings.
 
Expecting Parrish to replace refrigerant would be analogous to expecting an auto mechanic to replace a quart of oil after testing the oil levels several times with a dipstick. We are not providing refrigerant at no charge, but we would be willing to return for a follow up visit without the regular $106 trip charge if [redacted] would like to have the repairs performed. And because the service plan was cancelled, a charge would be have been due for the maintenance visit, but we opted to waive that fee.
 
I apologize if [redacted] felt he was treated rudely by our manager, and we will be happy to apologize personally; we will note his file, and at his convenience he may call and ask for one of the owners.
 
 
 
Linda Couch
Chief Operating Officer
Parrish Services, Inc.
direct: 703 656 2017
Connect with me on LinkedIn
follow us on facebook
 
[redacted] has a Priority Service Plan for his heat pump, and we performed routine maintenance at this address on the following dates:
 
09/03/09
04/26/10
02/01/11
06/12/11
12/29/11
01/14/13
06/05/13
06/13/14
 
On the previous checks, there was no evidence of any system failure. On the most recent visit, however, our technician found multiple problems that included a leak at the heat pump’s service valve. The system was already exhibiting signs of low refrigerant; specifically, frost was forming on the unit. Given the prior service history and the current condition, the technician determined a leak had developed. He recommend repairing the leak at the service valve, adding refrigerant, and replacing a capacitor. He advised (in writing) the system was already frosting and would not keep up on hot day.
 
[redacted] then spoke with our HVAC Service Manager on July 8, 2014 at 16:11 for twelve minutes. The manager did explain to [redacted] that supplying adequate refrigerant is the responsibility of the system owner; i.e., the heat pump is a closed system, and adding refrigerant is not a regular or included maintenance activity.
 
[redacted] was not satisfied with the response and asked to have his contract cancelled. The manager agreed and complied by sending an email request to the Billing Department. Because the discussion took place after our Billing Department was closed, the contract was cancelled and time stamped the following business day, July 9.
 
As [redacted] has said, he contracted with Parrish Services to perform routine maintenance for his system, and checking refrigerant levels is a regular diagnostic process for both a heat check and a cool check. It was his prerogative to forego having the refrigerant levels checked if he believed large amounts of refrigerant were going to be dispersed in the process. That being said, Section 608 of the Clean Air Act of 1990  prohibits individuals from intentionally venting refrigerants into the atmosphere, and all Parrish Services heating and air conditioning  technicians hold U.S. EPA 608 Type I and Type II certifications. The technicians are trained in and comply with all refrigerant venting regulations. Additionally, the EPA  stipulates, “Small releases of refrigerant that result from purging hoses or from connecting or disconnecting hoses to charge or service appliances will not be considered violations of the prohibition on venting. However, recovery and recycling equipment manufactured after November 15, 1993, must be equipped with low-loss fittings.” Parrish Services complies with all relevant Section 608 rules, including the use of equipment with low-loss fittings.
 
Expecting Parrish to replace refrigerant would be analogous to expecting an auto mechanic to replace a quart of oil after testing the oil levels several times with a dipstick. We are not providing refrigerant at no charge, but we would be willing to return for a follow up visit without the regular $106 trip charge if [redacted] would like to have the repairs performed. And because the service plan was cancelled, a charge would be have been due for the maintenance visit, but we opted to waive that fee.
 
I apologize if [redacted] felt he was treated rudely by our manager, and we will be happy to apologize personally; we will note his file, and at his convenience he may call and ask for one of the owners.
 
 
 
Linda Couch
Chief Operating Officer
Parrish Services, Inc.
direct: 703 656 2017
Connect with me on LinkedIn
follow us on facebook
 
[redacted] has a Priority Service Plan for his heat pump, and we performed routine maintenance at this address on the following dates:
 
09/03/09
04/26/10
02/01/11
06/12/11
12/29/11
01/14/13
06/05/13
06/13/14
 
On the previous checks, there was no evidence of any system failure. On the most recent visit, however, our technician found multiple problems that included a leak at the heat pump’s service valve. The system was already exhibiting signs of low refrigerant; specifically, frost was forming on the unit. Given the prior service history and the current condition, the technician determined a leak had developed. He recommend repairing the leak at the service valve, adding refrigerant, and replacing a capacitor. He advised (in writing) the system was already frosting and would not keep up on hot day.
 
[redacted] then spoke with our HVAC Service Manager on July 8, 2014 at 16:11 for twelve minutes. The manager did explain to [redacted] that supplying adequate refrigerant is the responsibility of the system owner; i.e., the heat pump is a closed system, and adding refrigerant is not a regular or included maintenance activity.
 
[redacted] was not satisfied with the response and asked to have his contract cancelled. The manager agreed and complied by sending an email request to the Billing Department. Because the discussion took place after our Billing Department was closed, the contract was cancelled and time stamped the following business day, July 9.
 
As [redacted] has said, he contracted with Parrish Services to perform routine maintenance for his system, and checking refrigerant levels is a regular diagnostic process for both a heat check and a cool check. It was his prerogative to forego having the refrigerant levels checked if he believed large amounts of refrigerant were going to be dispersed in the process. That being said, Section 608 of the Clean Air Act of 1990  prohibits individuals from intentionally venting refrigerants into the atmosphere, and all Parrish Services heating and air conditioning  technicians hold U.S. EPA 608 Type I and Type II certifications. The technicians are trained in and comply with all refrigerant venting regulations. Additionally, the EPA  stipulates, “Small releases of refrigerant that result from purging hoses or from connecting or disconnecting hoses to charge or service appliances will not be considered violations of the prohibition on venting. However, recovery and recycling equipment manufactured after November 15, 1993, must be equipped with low-loss fittings.” Parrish Services complies with all relevant Section 608 rules, including the use of equipment with low-loss fittings.
 
Expecting Parrish to replace refrigerant would be analogous to expecting an auto mechanic to replace a quart of oil after testing the oil levels several times with a dipstick. We are not providing refrigerant at no charge, but we would be willing to return for a follow up visit without the regular $106 trip charge if [redacted] would like to have the repairs performed. And because the service plan was cancelled, a charge would be have been due for the maintenance visit, but we opted to waive that fee.
 
I apologize if [redacted] felt he was treated rudely by our manager, and we will be happy to apologize personally; we will note his file, and at his convenience he may call and ask for one of the owners.
 
 
 
Linda Couch
Chief Operating Officer
Parrish Services, Inc.
direct: 703 656 2017
Connect with me on LinkedIn
follow us on facebook

Parrish does all heat, AC, electrical and water service on my house and I am totally satisfied with all their work and recommend them to anyone needing service

From: Jo-Anne S[redacted] Date: Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 11:03 AMSubject: RE: You have a new message from the Revdex.com of Metro Washington DC & Eastern Pennsylvania complaint #[redacted].To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Managers <[email protected]>This is already being taken care of...

FYI Jo-Anne S[redacted] | Customer Service ManagerParrish Services, Inc. | Always there for you!For 24x7 service, please call or visit us on the webOffice: ###-###-#### | www.parrishservices.com

We
offer special package pricing to our customers. The price of a package is generally
lower than purchasing each item individually. We are unable to itemize the
pricing for our packages, however, we would be happy to revise the invoice and
add more details about the work performed. Per our...

phone conversation, we will edit the invoice and issue the refund of
$57.00. We’re sorry for the misunderstanding. Thank you.

[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]
 Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
The fact still remains there was no custom work performed. They changed a pump and a battery that's it. 
The bottom line is they have an option that is $621 lower (90 day warranty) and that was never an option. 
It is their billing code [redacted] "quick fix". Now they are saying that the lowest amount provided was a mistake?
I have the email from the company COO (that responded to the complaint) and it shows all the various price points for the repair and the main difference I see is warranty since there are only so many parts to change (1 pump and a battery)
What was mistakenly provided are they saying that level doesn't exist in their pricing sheets?  I have repeatedly asked for the difference between that and the service provided and they refuse to provide. Most likely since the only difference is the warranty. I would really like to get the descriptions of the different service levels. 
The tech gave my wife the estimate for the 2 mid level options never giving us the option for the lowest cost repair which they clearly do offer. 
I appreciate the credit for $132 for the service plan but feel this billing practice of telling people the rate regardless of what is to be done and not clearly explaining all that will be performed and what the real differences are to be misleading to the homeowner.  
They should be responsible that their technicians clearly communicate scope of work parts to be replaced etc. That would be fair. 
How am I supposed to get the credit back for the service plan?
Regards,
[redacted]

Parrish services did excellent plumbing and electrical work for us. They gave a free estimate and perfect customer service. They were timely and provided professional work. They even came back for free to fix a minor error. Highly recommend them for any household work.

Quick flexible service.