Peterson Air Care & Home Services

After reviewing this complaint notice, and discussing the situation with our staff, I reached out by phone call directly to the concerned customer.  In our conversation I did my best to answer the many questions that were raised regarding the service performed, and attempted to...

explain why the work performed was needed and what work may be required to be performed pending the results of our return to perform the leak search.  The customer seemed to be very satisfied with my response and stated he would discuss our conversation with his other HVAC contacts.  At the closing of our conversation I stated I would be responding to the complaint filed with the Revdex.com to say that from our point of view, this situation was in the process of being resolved, and as such we are set to continue with the followup leak search as previously purchased and scheduled.

If there are any other questions or concerns please do not hesitate to ask.

Sincerely,

I have reviewed the 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 appear below.

It remains an open question why on a previous visit 6 mo. ago the inside coils were said by Peterson tech to be in need of cleaning, but on the most recent visit the tech said they were fine and did not need cleaning, which (again) leads me to believe that the first tech was drumming up business under false circumstances.  On the most recent visit I was told that 5lbs of R22 refrigerant was needed and put into my system.  But every HVA person I have talked to has said that if I had needed 5 lbs of refrigerant I would not have had any air conditioning.  My a/c had been working fine before the last Peterson tech was here on 6/17/14.  Such seems suspicious. That tech, [redacted], said he would be back on Wed July 2 in the am to check for leaks; this is after he put in the 5 lbs of refrigerant and a UV sensitive dye to test for leaks.  I will await what is said to me on July 2 before closing this complaint.

Regards,

[redacted]-[redacted]

As Mr. [redacted]-[redacted] states [redacted] returned on 7/2/14 and performed the previously purchased follow-up leak inspection.  At the time [redacted] searched both the Indoor and Outdoor coils, as well as the copper line set connecting the two parts of the system, for any signs of ultraviolet die which would indicate a source for the leak.  No such leak was found and Mr. [redacted]-[redacted]’s unit was cooling appropriately.

After review of Mr. [redacted]-[redacted] rebuttal it is obvious he is very frustrated with regards to the service he received most recently despite the fact that all services performed for him were performed directly in line with standard diagnostic principals.  Additionally, Mr. [redacted]-[redacted] expressed various other concerns; 1) the amount of duct tape used to seal his unit, and also 2) the most previous Peterson Air Care maintenance visit where he claims a technician who “just wanted to collect a $90 fee for cleaning at that time” had recommended his  indoor coils were in need of cleaning,  As a result of all of this Mr. [redacted]-[redacted] requests specifically to be refunded for the remaining balance on his 36 month maintenance contract (18 months), and seems to also request, though not explicitly, to be refunded for the most recent services rendered (refrigerant added, leak detection, and tax).

Upon further discussion with the technician directly involved, and review of the documents related to Mr. [redacted]-[redacted]’s maintenance contract and 2 previous maintenance visits, we would like to refute some of the claims put forward.

      

Firstly, with regards to the question of whether or not refrigerant was needed and/or put into the system, it is important to understand that at the time of [redacted]’s initial visit the unit in question was NOT appropriately cooling (due to low refrigerant charge) but rather was being compensated for by the homes second unit which was cooling appropriately.  The refrigerant which was added at that time allowed for the system in question to resume normal operation and begin cooling as intended.

       

Secondly, with regards to the concern about being recommended an Indoor Coil Cleaning on his previous maintenance visit, the need for which was not corroborated by [redacted] on the current visit, we would like to submit for review invoices #[redacted] and #[redacted] (also attached).  These invoices show the two maintenance visits performed for Mr. [redacted]-[redacted] previous to [redacted]’s most recent visit and in neither case is indoor coil cleaning recommended.

As the system had been low 5lbs of refrigerant at the time of [redacted]’s visit and was not cooling appropriately it was believed that the system more than likely had a leak, as such a leak detection was recommended along with the required refrigerant.  Had a leak been present, yet no leak detection been recommended at the time of the initial refilling of refrigerant, when Mr. [redacted]-[redacted]’s system leaked out again and we had to fill it AGAIN for another $400 refrigerant plus the leak detection  Mr. [redacted]-[redacted] no doubt would have been frustrated we had not performed the leak detection the first time. That being said, as no leak was ultimately found and in a good faith effort to appease the concerns of one of our customers we would like to offer Mr. [redacted]-[redacted] a full refund for the leak detection performed but ultimately not required, $645.00 less $400.00 for the refrigerant required (5lbs Freon at $80.00 per lb.) plus applicable tax of $16.17 for a total refund of $261.17.

Peterson Air Care would also gladly refund any balance outstanding on Mr. [redacted]-[redacted]’s maintenance contract, and does so regularly for any customer who decides they no longer require its benefits, however in this case due to the quantity of services initially rendered free of charge as part of the maintenance contract purchase (two system tune ups, two outdoor coil cleanings, installation of one 2 pole contactor, and installation of one 50uf capacitor) no such balance exists.  Were there a balance it would be computed in accordance with the maintenance agreement (attached for review) which states “should this contract be cancelled the refund due shall be the original service fee of [$1,098.00] less our customary charge of [$814.00] for any services initially rendered, and further reduced for the monthly prorated services period plus thirty dollars.”  When the balance outstanding is computed using this formula ($1,098.00 (amount paid for contract) less $814.00 (services initially rendered) less $549.00 ($1,098.00 divided by 36 months for a monthly proration of $30.50 per month times 18 months of contract already used) less $30.00) a NEGATIVE balance of $295.00 is found owing. 

As Mr. [redacted] has already received more with regards to the value of the services initially rendered free of charge and the value of approximately one half of the life of the maintenance contract which he has already used it would be unfair to expect that Peterson Air Care tender any additional refund for the maintenance contract previously purchased.

After reviewing this complaint notice, and discussing the situation with our staff, I reached out by phone call directly to the concerned customer.  In our conversation I did my best to answer the many questions that were raised regarding the service performed, and attempted to...

explain why the work performed was needed and what work may be required to be performed pending the results of our return to perform the leak search.  The customer seemed to be very satisfied with my response and stated he would discuss our conversation with his other HVAC contacts.  At the closing of our conversation I stated I would be responding to the complaint filed with the Revdex.com to say that from our point of view, this situation was in the process of being resolved, and as such we are set to continue with the followup leak search as previously purchased and scheduled.

If there are any other questions or concerns please do not hesitate to ask.

Sincerely,

To whom it may concern,

This refund has been processed by our company and  as of today 12/19/13 we see this check clearing our account.

Please let us know anything additional needed on our part.

Sincerely,

Review: After a technician intimidated us into buying equipment we did not want, by not leaving at our request until we agreed to buy, we posted an [redacted] review. [redacted] called after reading the review and offered to "make it right." He agreed to remove the equipment and refund the material cost. A technician removed the equipment on November 13, 2013 and provided a statement with the amount we were to be credited, $1089.52. We have not received the refund, after calling four times, being told twice that the check was mailed, and being told by [redacted] last week that he would be sure we got the check. I left another message today and was informed he would call within a half hour. He did not call.Desired Settlement: We would like to receive the $1089.52 refund we are due, according to the technician's written statement.

Business

Response:

To whom it may concern,

This refund has been processed by our company and as of today 12/19/13 we see this check clearing our account.

Please let us know anything additional needed on our part.

Sincerely,

Review: On 6/17/14 a 20-something year-old air conditioning technician "[redacted]" claimed that there was a leak in the HVAC system and that 3 to 5 pounds of R-22 refridgerant at $80/# was needed, plus a dye to be put into the system to see where the leak was coming from, and then subsequent repair. The charge for the dye was $245. The technician said he'd have to return in about 2 weeks to check for the leak. [redacted] had no dye with him , and had to leave to get some. I thought the charges were a bit high, and I questioned the utility of all the technicians suggestions. But I paid via [redacted] $400 for refridgerant + $245 for dye + tax =total of $687.51 for this Peterson Air/Cond. acct. listed under the name of house co-owner [redacted]. Today at the hospital where I work I spoke w 2 HVAC experts. Both said that if I had a leak there would be no refridgerant in the system, and if 3 to 5 lbs were missing I would have no A/C , but I do have plenty of A/C in the house. They also stated that using a dye was technology of 20 yrs ago which A/C companies today no longer use. A soap and water method is used. They also said that $80 for refridgerant was high in the usual range of $55-85/lb. They thought $245 was a ridiculous charge for a dye I didn't even need. In short they thought I'd been "ripped off," confirming my suspicions. Also, I had no report of how many lbs of R-22 were actually used, (if any?) but was charged the maximum of 5 lb or $400 (5X $80)..

I was also suspicious because on a previous visit to the house 6 months before, a different Peterson A/C technician claimed the coils in the attic units needed cleaning for $90. No permission was given for this and they were not cleaned, which was not authorized or done then. On the visit of 6/17/14 [redacted] was asked his opinion about those coils. He stated that they were fine & not needing cleaning. Thus I can only assume that the previous technician was trumping up charges. Also, I can only assume that unneeded procedures were being again invented on 6/17/14, too. Peterson has a 3 year contract through Jan. 2016. They inspect the system every 6 months. Only outdoor coils are covered by the contract, not inside coils, resulting in extra charges. Peterson had bought out the previous service provider [redacted] in which I had more trust and confidence. I have also filed a dispute with [redacted], and will be contacting state regulatory bodies, such as the Board of Contractors if needed. I called Peterson A/C today and await a call back from "[redacted]."Desired Settlement: I expect a full refund.

Business

Response:

After reviewing this complaint notice, and discussing the situation with our staff, I reached out by phone call directly to the concerned customer. In our conversation I did my best to answer the many questions that were raised regarding the service performed, and attempted to explain why the work performed was needed and what work may be required to be performed pending the results of our return to perform the leak search. The customer seemed to be very satisfied with my response and stated he would discuss our conversation with his other HVAC contacts. At the closing of our conversation I stated I would be responding to the complaint filed with the Revdex.com to say that from our point of view, this situation was in the process of being resolved, and as such we are set to continue with the followup leak search as previously purchased and scheduled.

If there are any other questions or concerns please do not hesitate to ask.

Sincerely,

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the 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 appear below.

It remains an open question why on a previous visit 6 mo. ago the inside coils were said by Peterson tech to be in need of cleaning, but on the most recent visit the tech said they were fine and did not need cleaning, which (again) leads me to believe that the first tech was drumming up business under false circumstances. On the most recent visit I was told that 5lbs of R22 refrigerant was needed and put into my system. But every HVA person I have talked to has said that if I had needed 5 lbs of refrigerant I would not have had any air conditioning. My a/c had been working fine before the last Peterson tech was here on 6/17/14. Such seems suspicious. That tech, [redacted], said he would be back on Wed July 2 in the am to check for leaks; this is after he put in the 5 lbs of refrigerant and a UV sensitive dye to test for leaks. I will await what is said to me on July 2 before closing this complaint.

Regards,

[redacted]

Business

Response:

As Mr. [redacted] states [redacted] returned on 7/2/14 and performed the previously purchased follow-up leak inspection. At the time [redacted] searched both the Indoor and Outdoor coils, as well as the copper line set connecting the two parts of the system, for any signs of ultraviolet die which would indicate a source for the leak. No such leak was found and Mr. [redacted]’s unit was cooling appropriately.

After review of Mr. [redacted] rebuttal it is obvious he is very frustrated with regards to the service he received most recently despite the fact that all services performed for him were performed directly in line with standard diagnostic principals. Additionally, Mr. [redacted] expressed various other concerns; 1) the amount of duct tape used to seal his unit, and also 2) the most previous Peterson Air Care maintenance visit where he claims a technician who “just wanted to collect a $90 fee for cleaning at that time” had recommended his indoor coils were in need of cleaning, As a result of all of this Mr. [redacted] requests specifically to be refunded for the remaining balance on his 36 month maintenance contract (18 months), and seems to also request, though not explicitly, to be refunded for the most recent services rendered (refrigerant added, leak detection, and tax).

Upon further discussion with the technician directly involved, and review of the documents related to Mr. [redacted]’s maintenance contract and 2 previous maintenance visits, we would like to refute some of the claims put forward.

Firstly, with regards to the question of whether or not refrigerant was needed and/or put into the system, it is important to understand that at the time of [redacted]’s initial visit the unit in question was NOT appropriately cooling (due to low refrigerant charge) but rather was being compensated for by the homes second unit which was cooling appropriately. The refrigerant which was added at that time allowed for the system in question to resume normal operation and begin cooling as intended.

Secondly, with regards to the concern about being recommended an Indoor Coil Cleaning on his previous maintenance visit, the need for which was not corroborated by [redacted] on the current visit, we would like to submit for review invoices #[redacted] and #[redacted] (also attached). These invoices show the two maintenance visits performed for Mr. [redacted] previous to [redacted]’s most recent visit and in neither case is indoor coil cleaning recommended.

As the system had been low 5lbs of refrigerant at the time of [redacted]’s visit and was not cooling appropriately it was believed that the system more than likely had a leak, as such a leak detection was recommended along with the required refrigerant. Had a leak been present, yet no leak detection been recommended at the time of the initial refilling of refrigerant, when Mr. [redacted]’s system leaked out again and we had to fill it AGAIN for another $400 refrigerant plus the leak detection Mr. [redacted] no doubt would have been frustrated we had not performed the leak detection the first time. That being said, as no leak was ultimately found and in a good faith effort to appease the concerns of one of our customers we would like to offer Mr. [redacted] a full refund for the leak detection performed but ultimately not required, $645.00 less $400.00 for the refrigerant required (5lbs Freon at $80.00 per lb.) plus applicable tax of $16.17 for a total refund of $261.17.

Peterson Air Care would also gladly refund any balance outstanding on Mr. [redacted]’s maintenance contract, and does so regularly for any customer who decides they no longer require its benefits, however in this case due to the quantity of services initially rendered free of charge as part of the maintenance contract purchase (two system tune ups, two outdoor coil cleanings, installation of one 2 pole contactor, and installation of one 50uf capacitor) no such balance exists. Were there a balance it would be computed in accordance with the maintenance agreement (attached for review) which states “should this contract be cancelled the refund due shall be the original service fee of [$1,098.00] less our customary charge of [$814.00] for any services initially rendered, and further reduced for the monthly prorated services period plus thirty dollars.” When the balance outstanding is computed using this formula ($1,098.00 (amount paid for contract) less $814.00 (services initially rendered) less $549.00 ($1,098.00 divided by 36 months for a monthly proration of $30.50 per month times 18 months of contract already used) less $30.00) a NEGATIVE balance of $295.00 is found owing.

As Mr. [redacted] has already received more with regards to the value of the services initially rendered free of charge and the value of approximately one half of the life of the maintenance contract which he has already used it would be unfair to expect that Peterson Air Care tender any additional refund for the maintenance contract previously purchased.

Review: At the end of *uly, Peterson sent [redacted] a PMA salesmen/technician, to our home to do a free inspection for our air conditioners that they had installed one year prior. This was a free check up that is offered for those who purchase a new airconditioning unit. We purchased 2 units....1 for the back of house and 1 for the front. When [redacted] arrived he spent about 20 minutes on our roof looking at the units and then came into our kitchen with a high-pitch sales to sale us a warranty package for service. My husband and I refused the offer and the salesmen left. After he left, we noticed the air was getting warmer and that 1 of the units (the front/kitchen-living area unit) was not blowing anymore. We called Peterson and they sent him back a couple hours later. He said that he had done something that made the blower not work and that he was sorry and he fixed it. It seemed to be working after that but we had to leave for a vacation and were gone more than 2 weeks. When we came back, I kept telling my husband it was warm in that side of house and I kept turning air down but it was not getting cooler. We got our APS bill and it was over $400.00! We have never had a bill like that! WE called Peterson and said our thermostat is set for 74 but the room stays at 82 and the blower is hardly blowing at all. To summarize, they sent several techs out, none of whom could resolve the issue with several different explanations. We are convinced that "[redacted]" broke the unit....but, [redacted] is no longer with them.....they have refused to accept responsibility but did tell us we had a bad coil which was not their fault. OK....so we gave them $1,000.00 to fix and waited over a week for the part....they fixed it two days ago and it worked for about 8 hours and then quit again....we are without cool air, the company is going to send another guy out to look at it. [redacted] does not get paid for doing PMA's....he only gets paid if he sells us something and he could not that day. He left and our unit has not worked since then....our utililty bills are high and our 91 year old mother lives here with us and is confined to her bedroom because it is the only cool place. Peterson is refusing to accept responsibility for this issue and they keep giving us service and it costs us money.....Desired Settlement: My husband and I want this job finished. We want our air conditioning unit to either work or be replaced 100%. We want Peterson to own up to the fact that [redacted] did something up there that day that caused this entire event to occur. I do not believe in coincidences which is what they wanted to call this. Why isn't [redacted] with them anymore? We spoke with one of their people who explained that these 'sales' guys only get paid if they sell a contract, not for the maintenance check up. Perhaps [redacted] was fed up with the company and not making money and we are now paying for it. We are not asking for our money back, which speaks volumes for our integrity. BUT, Peterson has NEVER admitted that this could be their fault and therefore, fix it and fix it right. We WANT our unit fixed or replaced. Peterson needs to do it and be expedient, making it a priority. We waited more than a week for the part...we live in [redacted] and it is HOT here. We have four people, including an elderly person living in 3 bedrooms...we cannot cook because that side of the house has no air. Please help us resolve this issue. If Peterson is a company that Revdex.com gives it's best rating then why are they not stepping up and doing the right thing?

Business

Response:

We performed the final pre-paid preventive maintenance agreement (PMA) service visit on 07/30/2013. Our technicians are not salesmen but do offer PMA renewals as a courtesy to our customer base. The units were installed on 04/16/2012. Although the one-year labor warranty expired, the manufacturer’s parts warranty is still in tact. After [redacted] completed his initial PMA visit, he did return to make any necessary corrections to his earlier visit. This demonstrates our company customer service policy.

The customer contacted us one month later, on 08/28/2013, requesting service. We responded that same day. Once again, demonstrating our customer service policy. We found certain issues, none of which were related to the service that [redacted] performed. Customer called again on 8/29/2013 requesting service again. We responded that same day. Once again, we found an issue that was not related to the work that [redacted] did. We found a cracked outdoor coil in a unit. We advised the customer and quoted $1,287.45 plus tax to repair this part under parts warranty only (labor extra). The customer called late in the day on 08/30/2013 and agreed to have the coil ordered. The coil had a 5-6 day lead time. To assist the customer, we reduced the price down to $1,029.00 plus tax. We normally request and receive half down as a payment. We agreed to a reduced down payment of $329.00. Repeating, customer service is our goal.

Late on 08/30/2013, we placed the order for the coil with our vendor and we were informed that it was too late in the day to get the order in at their factory. Since Monday, 09/02/2013 was a national holiday, our vendor placed the order with their factory on Tuesday, 09/03/2013. On 09/10/2013 our vendor called and advised us that the coil had arrived at their office. On this same day I called the customer and advised him that the coil had arrived and that we would be installing it the very next day. On 09/11/2013, the coil was installed.

Since the day that the coil was replaced, the customer called two times for a service follow up and we responded both times. The customer is stating that we are “refusing to accept responsibility for the issue” is completely not true. Based on all these facts, we have demonstrated our attention to customer care.