ProMaster Home Repair & Handyman of Cincinnati

ProMaster takes any allegation of deception or fraud extremely seriously, as the company strives to infuse integrity, professionalism and ethical business practices in everything they do ProMaster has been recognized for exemplifying these values as evidenced by the selection as a finalist for the Revdex.com’s Torch Award for Marketplace Ethics in In any instance where an accusation is made to undermine the company’s probity, a thorough investigation of all documentation, system records, phone calls, and employee interaction with the client are reviewed to gather the facts Even in instances where a client may make unfair or salacious accusations against the company, yet uncovers a substantive issue where the client can be made whole, the company will do so However, the facts do not appear to warrant any action by ProMaster in this case The individual lodging the complaint was not a customer of the company, nor is the registered homeowner of the address listed Hence, the motive and relationship to the homeowner we contracted with, and worked with, is unclear Combined with the fact this complaint was lodged over months after work was done on this home might explain some of the confusion and/or errant statements in the complaint ProMaster understands the gravity of accusationNamely, the claim that it deliberately defrauded a client and hence demands $2, Here are relevant the results of our investigation: - On 2/5/the owner of the residence was billed $2,to repair an electrical circuit, run an electrical line and install heat tape on a water line crossing a bridge of their driveway The water line had frozen due to sustained, extremely cold temperatures during the winter of Approximately half of that bill was for electrical materials alone The scope of work on the invoice clearly states that this work could not be warrantied, due the climactic conditions at the time - The ground, bridge water supply pipe and shroud were completely frozen at that time The pipe shroud was filled with frozen sediment, and could not be disassembled to reinstall heat tape An additional recommendation was made to homeowner to replace the pipe and homeowner declined, due to the additional cost Homeowner directed ProMaster to auger sediment out of shroud and install heat line as best as possibleThe electrical conduit could not be buried in a cost effective manner until spring, hence the reason to run it enclosed above ground We understood the homeowner’s objective was to restore water flow to the residence as quickly and cheaply as possible - A follcall was placed by ProMaster on 2/6/ to check customer satisfaction of the workThat call was not returned - A follemail was placed by ProMaster on 2/6/ to check customer satisfaction of the work That email was not returned - A follemail was placed by ProMaster on 2/11/ That email was not returned - A follcall was placed by ProMaster on 2/20/to check on the water flowThat call was not returned - An additional email, with a second copy of the unpaid invoice was sent on 2/20/15, as well as another inquiry into how the well the water was flowing - Homeowner returned call to company on 2/23/to pay bill by credit card No issues concerning the work were made known to ProMaster at that time - A follcall was placed by ProMaster on 3/30/ to check customer satisfaction of the workThat call was not returned - A follemail was placed by ProMaster on 3/30/ to check customer satisfaction of the workThat email was not returned.Ou Our inquiry leads us to the following conclusions: - - The homeowner declined at least documented attempts for feedback by ProMaster to voice any concern with the work performed - - The first indication to ProMaster of any issue with this work was this this Revdex.com complaint, yet was not filed by the homeowner we contracted with - - The complaint was filed over months past when the work was done - - The nature of the work was disclosed at the time and documented as not warrantable - - Any claim was made well outside the warrantable period (should any warranty have applied) - - Replacement of the undersized and failed electrical circuit, conduit, line and other improvements performed on the bridge water line are a substantial safety and performance improvement over the extension cords previously used, and the assertion that such work was unnecessary, is materially false Consequently, ProMaster acted in good faith toward the homeowner and does not believe it should refund any portion of the $2, billed for services rendered

I had spoken to [redacted] on June 9, 2015 and said we would forward his refund request to our accounting department so a refund check could be issued in the amount of $80 to return his fee for the estimate.Our accountant was on vacation and issued a refund check...

to [redacted] upon her return during the week of June 15th.  She sent the check to the [redacted] address as he requested previously.We have checked our bank records and the check has not been cashed yet as of June 24th.  I telephoned the phone number on our records and the voice mail is for a lady but I left the message for [redacted] to return the call and we could discuss the matter.  I received a call from that number a few minutes later from a gentleman and after I identified myself, he said he had the wrong number and hung up.  I will continue to try to reach [redacted] to verify he has received the check and would welcome a call from him if he has already received it.

ProMaster takes any allegation of deception or fraud extremely
seriously, as the company strives to infuse integrity, professionalism and ethical
business practices in everything they do. 
ProMaster has been recognized for exemplifying these values as evidenced
by the selection as a...

finalist for the Revdex.com’s Torch Award for Marketplace Ethics
in 2015.
In any instance where an accusation is made to undermine the
company’s probity, a thorough investigation of all documentation, system
records, phone calls, and employee interaction with the client are reviewed to
gather the facts.  Even in instances
where a client may make unfair or salacious accusations against the company, yet
uncovers a substantive issue where the client can be made whole, the company
will do so.  However, the facts do not appear
to warrant any action by ProMaster in this case.
The individual lodging the complaint was not a customer of
the company, nor is the registered homeowner of the address listed.  Hence, the motive and relationship to the
homeowner we contracted with, and worked with, is unclear.  Combined with the fact this complaint was
lodged over 14 months after work was done on this home might explain some of
the confusion and/or errant statements in the complaint.
ProMaster understands the gravity of accusation. Namely,
the claim that it deliberately defrauded a client and hence demands $2,500.
Here are relevant the
results of our investigation:
1.      -  On 2/5/15 the owner of the residence was billed
$2,038.85 to repair an electrical circuit, run an electrical line and install
heat tape on a water line crossing a bridge of their driveway.  The water line had frozen due to sustained,
extremely cold temperatures during the winter of 2015.  Approximately half of that bill was for
electrical materials alone.  The scope of
work on the invoice clearly states that this work could not be warrantied, due
the climactic conditions at the time. 
2.     -  The ground, bridge water supply pipe and shroud
were completely frozen at that time.  The
pipe shroud was filled with frozen sediment, and could not be disassembled to
reinstall heat tape.  An additional
recommendation was made to homeowner to replace the pipe and homeowner declined,
due to the additional cost.  Homeowner
directed ProMaster to auger sediment out of shroud and install heat line as
best as possible. The electrical conduit could not be buried in a cost
effective manner until spring, hence the reason to run it enclosed above
ground.  We understood the homeowner’s
objective was to restore water flow to the residence as quickly and cheaply as
possible.
3.      - A follow-up call was placed by ProMaster on 2/6/15
to check customer satisfaction of the work. That call was not returned.
4.     -  A follow-up email was placed by ProMaster on 2/6/15
to check customer satisfaction of the work. 
That email was not returned.
5.     -  A follow-up email was placed by ProMaster on 2/11/15.
That email was not returned.
6.      - A follow-up call was placed by ProMaster on
2/20/15 to check on the water flow. That call was not returned.
7.      - An additional email, with a second copy of the
unpaid invoice was sent on 2/20/15, as well as another inquiry into how the
well the water was flowing.
8.      - Homeowner returned call to company on 2/23/15 to
pay bill by credit card.  No issues
concerning the work were made known to ProMaster at that time.
9.      - A follow-up call was placed by ProMaster on 3/30/15
to check customer satisfaction of the work. That call was not returned.
10.  - A follow-up email was placed by ProMaster on 3/30/15
to check customer satisfaction of the work. That email was not returned.Ou  Our inquiry leads us to the following conclusions:
-     - The homeowner declined at least 8 documented
attempts for feedback by ProMaster to voice any concern with the work
performed.
-     - The first indication to ProMaster of any issue with
this work was this this Revdex.com complaint, yet was not filed by the homeowner we
contracted with.
-     - The complaint was filed over 14 months past when
the work was done.
-     - The nature of the work was disclosed at the time
and documented as not warrantable.
-      - Any claim was made well outside the warrantable
period (should any warranty have applied).
-     - Replacement of the undersized and failed electrical
circuit, conduit, line and other improvements performed on the bridge water
line are a substantial safety and performance improvement over the extension
cords previously used, and the assertion that such work was unnecessary, is
materially false.
Consequently, ProMaster acted in good faith toward the
homeowner and does not believe it should refund any portion of the $2,038.85
billed for services rendered.

I want a refund for the esimate