Sign in

RAdata Inc.

Sharing is caring! Have something to share about RAdata Inc.? Use RevDex to write a review
Reviews RAdata Inc.

RAdata Inc. Reviews (7)

Permits for this type of work fall under the minor work code and thus no prior plan review is required The permits are a follow up to work being performed and when the permits are released to us as the contractor, we forward the originals to the home owner with a letter requesting that the home owner call to set up a final inspection. We also maintain a copy in our files. There is no NJ Uniform Construction Code that relates specifically to the installation of water treatment equipment There is a NJ Uniform Construction Code for plumbing There is no way to know if any individual municipal inspector is going to enforce their own interpretation of the Code Out of any and all work we have previously installed in a garage in a bi-level home, this is the first failureThe holding/pressure tank is also installed in this area This installation should not have failed the inspectionThe inspection failure is a matter of interpretation on the part of the individual inspector The plumbing code did not need to be confirmed in advance because the plumbing code is the same throughout the State of NJA State-wide code does not differ across municipalities; which is an objective statement. This particular inspector must not have agreed that adequate protection from freezing existed; and that was his subjective interpretation We did respond to your need to have us move the system by dispatching our technician Due to the circumstances, there was a service charge for that work which was $155.15, and was due and payable at that time. Despite our obvious impasse, we are willing to refund the service cost of $to you; and since we would be providing the resolution that you have requested, we request that you remove your duplicative efforts to this Revdex.com case (specifically the negative reviews that you have written in various locations on the internet) Please contact me by telephone or email after you have removed these reviews and I will then refund the $service cost to you Even though we have not reached an agreement; this shouldn't stop us from arriving at an amicable resolution that works for both of us, and moving forward

Hello, and Happy New Year.Sorry for the delayI have returned from the December holidays/ New Year.I will review and respond as soon as I am able

I am rejecting this response because:
The only discussion I had with my sub contractor regarding the installation in the garage was the agreement that it was the ONLY place we could install it, and then he asked me if there was ever freezing. I replied "no. Not to my knowledge."My issue remains that RA Data refuses to acknowledge their responsibility as the contractor to confirm local codes, despite the fact that they were responsible for securing the permits from the town.  They continue to pass blame. The owner refused to talk to me peraonally and left that to the contractor and rep in the office.I did post date the check per direction of the sub contractor who was told to do so my the owner while they were on the phone in front of me.  The contractor had to call him because he would not start the work until I paid him and I refused initially because the back of the permit said not to issue final payment until it passes inspection. This was something I was unaware of because they held onto that permit until I paid them in full the first time. This is something the inspector told me was not done correctly because technically the permit should have been available and visible at my home. Not their office.This company, primarily the owner, refuses to accept the responsibility of checking local codes and blames a homeowner who should not be responsible for checking these things if a contractor is hired.

When the customer contacted us to request an estimate for the water treatment equipment, we discussed the systems required to remedy...

the failing parameters in his well water.  The required items would be a stainless steel chamber approximately 35” long and 2.5” in diameter, and two (2) water treatment vessels approximately 48” tall and 9” in diameter.  Water treatment equipment is normally installed next to the home’s well holding/pressure tank, so as to treat the water at the point of entry.  The homeowner advised RAdata that the installation location was a bi-level home which did not have an unfinished area of appropriate size where these pieces of equipment could be installed, and that he would like to have them installed in the garage.  Typically, when water treatment equipment is needed in a bi-level home, if the equipment (depending on the size of the needed pieces) cannot be installed in a crawlspacearea under the entry landing, it must then be installed in a finished area of the home, or alternately in the garage if the walls are insulated.    When we arrived to perform the installation, we found the existing well holding/pressuretank and water piping to be in the garage area where the homeowner requested that our installation should be performed.  We proceeded with the homeowner’s approval for the installation and we finished the job that day.  We took water samples after the installation and the results of those tests showed that the water was now adequately treated so that it passed NJ State Drinking Water Standards.Our subcontractor, [redacted] Plumbing & Heating, LLC of Sparta, NJ provided the following statement regarding the NJ plumbing codes: “There is no code pertaining to the installation of water treatment. The plumbing code only stipulates that there must be adequate means of protection from freezing.  It was our estimation that the garage was insulated, and that offered adequate protection from freezing for the equipment we installed.  We discussed the installation with the homeowner, and it was mutually agreed upon that the garage would be a suitable area for the water treatment installation.  It is quite common in all of NJ to install water treatment as well as water piping in garage areas if and when adequate protection from freezing exists in those areas.”  The NJ Department of Community Affairs has validated multiple times that there is no Uniform Construction Code for Water Treatment.   Pre-existing water piping and the homeowner’s well water holding tank were located in the garage upon our arrival.  If the garage was deemed a suitable location for that equipment, one would conclude that it was already determined by prior installation that the location was also acceptable for the water treatment equipment.Regarding the Township inspector’s personal interpretation of the plumbing codes, and his request that the system be “enclosed, insulatedand contain a dedicated heat source”:  as a water treatment company, we do not offer those types of other services (carpentry services unrelated to water treatment equipment and water piping).  We are also not responsible for the installation or the cost of the requested shelter and heat source.   Our proposal for work does state that our installations are pre-fabricated pieces of equipment designed to adjust the chemistry of water. It further states that although basic installation costs are included in our proposal, some homes will need additional work performed at an additional cost.   The homeowner did undertake the additional work requested by this Inspector, and then the homeowner did request that we come back to modify our piping to accommodate his installation of a heat source.  Because we offer our customers our best pricing for installation and retesting, return trips to the home to later modify a completed installation are not included in the cost of our equipment installation.   The customer did pay our service fee by personal check on 12/11/2014 (the date of the modification) yet he post-dated his check to Christmas Day and wrote on the memo line: "Christmas Fund", which was neither appropriate nor amusing.

We have been trying to schedule this service call with the customer, and as we have discussed, our business hours are Monday through Friday 8:00am-5:00pm. We have been in business since 1984 and we have never been open on the weekends or after hours. We cannot require employees to work night...

and/or weekend hours. We did ask the customer if there are any family, friends, or neighbors, etc. (anyone else) that can provide access to the property during our business hours so that we can get this service call scheduled.  We also offered him our first appointment of the day. None of this was acceptable to the customer.

Review: On 10/21/14 RAData installed a water remediation system in one of my properties. I requested that it be installed in the garage because there was nowhere inside the bilevel home to place the system.

The tech and I did discuss that because three walls and the ceiling were insulated I should not have freezing problems.

When he was done, I paid in full. About a week later I received the permit in the mail with instructions to call for the inspection, something I was unaware would be my responsibility.

When the inspector arrived, he did not pass the system because [redacted] Code required a system in the garage to be enclosed, insulated and contain a dedicated heat source.

I had the enclosure built but needed RAData to shift a filter over to make room for heat.

The issue became that they refused to do any changes unless I paid a $155 service fee for additional work. My complaint is that had RAData contacted [redacted] to check code (they applied for the permit), we would have known the requirements and planned accordingly.

Because I was waiting on this issue to sell the property, and would void all warranties if I moved the filter myself, I had no choice but to pay them. I even told the technician that came I would pay in full AFTER the inspection was approved (as per the direction on the permit they held until paid the first time).

He called the owner, [redacted], and [redacted] would not authorize the work unless I at least provided a post dated check.

I asked 4 times to speak to [redacted] regarding this matter, but he refused to speak to me. Including when his technician was on the phone with him in front of me.

RAData continued to tell me that they never had a freezing problem and are not responsible for changes due to [redacted]'s Code.

RAData refuses to acknowledge that checking code was their responsibility

RAData required full payment before providing me with a permit or completing work.Desired Settlement: I expect a refund of the $155.15 they forced me to pay in order to complete the inspection and for them to acknowledge that it is their responsibility, as the contractor, to confirm codes and not force customers to pay in full before provided with the permit papers to request inspection.

Business

Response:

Hello, and Happy New Year.Sorry for the delay. I have returned from the December holidays/ New Year.I will review and respond as soon as I am able.

Business

Response:

When the customer contacted us to request an estimate for the water treatment equipment, we discussed the systems required to remedy the failing parameters in his well water. The required items would be a stainless steel chamber approximately 35” long and 2.5” in diameter, and two (2) water treatment vessels approximately 48” tall and 9” in diameter. Water treatment equipment is normally installed next to the home’s well holding/pressure tank, so as to treat the water at the point of entry. The homeowner advised RAdata that the installation location was a bi-level home which did not have an unfinished area of appropriate size where these pieces of equipment could be installed, and that he would like to have them installed in the garage. Typically, when water treatment equipment is needed in a bi-level home, if the equipment (depending on the size of the needed pieces) cannot be installed in a crawlspacearea under the entry landing, it must then be installed in a finished area of the home, or alternately in the garage if the walls are insulated. When we arrived to perform the installation, we found the existing well holding/pressuretank and water piping to be in the garage area where the homeowner requested that our installation should be performed. We proceeded with the homeowner’s approval for the installation and we finished the job that day. We took water samples after the installation and the results of those tests showed that the water was now adequately treated so that it passed NJ State Drinking Water Standards.Our subcontractor, [redacted] Plumbing & Heating, LLC of Sparta, NJ provided the following statement regarding the NJ plumbing codes: “There is no code pertaining to the installation of water treatment. The plumbing code only stipulates that there must be adequate means of protection from freezing. It was our estimation that the garage was insulated, and that offered adequate protection from freezing for the equipment we installed. We discussed the installation with the homeowner, and it was mutually agreed upon that the garage would be a suitable area for the water treatment installation. It is quite common in all of NJ to install water treatment as well as water piping in garage areas if and when adequate protection from freezing exists in those areas.” The NJ Department of Community Affairs has validated multiple times that there is no Uniform Construction Code for Water Treatment. Pre-existing water piping and the homeowner’s well water holding tank were located in the garage upon our arrival. If the garage was deemed a suitable location for that equipment, one would conclude that it was already determined by prior installation that the location was also acceptable for the water treatment equipment.Regarding the Township inspector’s personal interpretation of the plumbing codes, and his request that the system be “enclosed, insulatedand contain a dedicated heat source”: as a water treatment company, we do not offer those types of other services (carpentry services unrelated to water treatment equipment and water piping). We are also not responsible for the installation or the cost of the requested shelter and heat source. Our proposal for work does state that our installations are pre-fabricated pieces of equipment designed to adjust the chemistry of water. It further states that although basic installation costs are included in our proposal, some homes will need additional work performed at an additional cost. The homeowner did undertake the additional work requested by this Inspector, and then the homeowner did request that we come back to modify our piping to accommodate his installation of a heat source. Because we offer our customers our best pricing for installation and retesting, return trips to the home to later modify a completed installation are not included in the cost of our equipment installation. The customer did pay our service fee by personal check on 12/11/2014 (the date of the modification) yet he post-dated his check to Christmas Day and wrote on the memo line: "Christmas Fund", which was neither appropriate nor amusing.

Consumer

Response:

I am rejecting this response because:

The only discussion I had with my sub contractor regarding the installation in the garage was the agreement that it was the ONLY place we could install it, and then he asked me if there was ever freezing. I replied "no. Not to my knowledge."

Review: I purchased a long term radon kit last summer and following all instructions, began the test. I concluded the test and returned it for analysis. I received a phone call asking

specific details about the placement of the detectors. I assured the representative that I had followed all directions carefully. He then asked me to respond to an email with

this same information. It appears that one of the detectors did not register results. I then received a letter stating that the test was invalid. I called and asked for the results since I needed to know how to proceed. I also asked if they could send me a short term kit at no cost because of the malfunction. The rep offered that a discount might be possible. I told him I wanted either the results in numbers of the radon that they detected or some additional kits to test with. He never called me back; I called him on Tuesday, 8/27/13 and left a message. Again he did not return my call. I need to have the number that the detector indicated, because there was a small amt. of radon that showed up in the test performed when I bought the house. I am concerned and need to move forward, but this company took my $85 and provided no results (even if they were skewed).

IDesired Settlement: I would like to know the final numbers from the detector that did register and an explanation as to why they will not stand behind their equipment (detectors). If they didn't work, and I followed all the directions exactly, I believe that they need to provide me with detectors that will register the radon level. Saying "this never happened before", does not provide me with answers.

Business

Response:

Dear Revdex.com of New Jersey,

I believe this complaint to be addressed to the wrong party; as we are only a re-seller of the Long Term 'alpha track' radon detector.

We do not manufacture nor do we perform the actual laboratory analysis on these 'alpha track' devices.

We can furnish the name and telephone number of the manufacturer if desired.

Please let us know what to do in this case.

Business

Response:

On the radon result report printed on RAdata letterhead (the report that the customer is referencing), under the column where it says "Laboratory*" you will see that the laboratory listed is NOT "RAdata Inc. 14006", instead it says "[redacted]". The * leads the report reader to the explanation for the *. It explains that the asterisk denotes the "*Certified Radon Laboratory used to analyze the test device." Each report issued by RAdata clearly identifies the laboratory used to analyze the test device.

This indicates that the device was analyzed by [redacted], Inc. The device was also manufactured by [redacted], Inc.

The results were re-reported by RAdata to the customer only after RAdata Inc. received a revised laboratory result from [redacted], Inc.

RAdata is not the manufacturer or laboratory that analyzes the test device that this consumer purchased. Once [redacted] Inc. sent RAdata the revised results, we immediately re-reported the corrected values to the customer.

I request again that the Revdex.com please remove RAdata, Inc. from this complaint. We never failed to disclose the manufacturer (in fact we volunteered to provide the manufacturer's information to the Revdex.com) and the [redacted], Inc name was always printed on the radon result report. The customer had access to this report (with the [redacted], Inc. name) since the time they received the invalid report. We feel unfairly involved in this complaint which should be between the consumer and the manufacturer that analyzed the device and reported the results. Albeit, it appears as if the original desired settlement has been reached - the manufacturer re-reported the corrected test results.

Check fields!

Write a review of RAdata Inc.

Satisfaction rating
 
 
 
 
 
Upload here Increase visibility and credibility of your review by
adding a photo
Submit your review

RAdata Inc. Rating

Overall satisfaction rating

Description: Radon Testing & Service, Water Analysis

Address: 27 Ironia Rd Ste 2, Flanders, New Jersey, United States, 07836

Phone:

Show more...

Web:

This website was reported to be associated with RAdata Inc..



Add contact information for RAdata Inc.

Add new contacts
A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | New | Updated