Ray Lopez Automotive Repair/Four Corners Towing

MrCustomer received an automated call in early March regarding the Preventative Maintenance service The Preventative Maintenance program includes inspection services during a month period; one maintenance service for the air conditioning system in the spring, and the other maintenance service in the fall for the heating system The program provides some additional benefits to the customer, such as a 15% discount on parts and labor for any out-of-pocket expenses to the customer for repairs MrCustomer called into the office in late April and scheduled an appointment for the AC maintenance He stated that he had removed the filters, (last year), from the Clean Effects system He stated that he wanted the technician to replace the filters when he performed the AC maintenance The appointment was scheduled for 9am time slot on April 23rd The AC maintenance was performed as scheduled, and the technician replaced the Clean Effects filters, as requested At the inspection the duct work was found to be collapsed in places and in very poor condition The duct work needs to be replaced MrCustomer stated that he was aware of the duct work problem and asked for a quote to replace it A quote was provided A week following the maintenance service, MrCustomer called in on April requesting that a technician be sent out again to remove the filters from the Clean Effects system MrCustomer stated that he was experiencing a problem that he believed to be associated with the Clean Effects filters He stated that his unit had frozen up over night and he cut it off that morning to thaw He also stated that he was aware of the duct problem but wanted to have the filters removed to see if that would help because he wasn't going to replace the duct work right now It is business practice to charge a service call fee to dispatch a technician for a call like this but Air Kool chose to forego the fee The 2nd appointment was scheduled for the following day, April 30th, to be worked in after 11:30am A different technician went out on this appointment, removed the filters and placed them next to the unit This is not an uncommon practice MrCustomer did not designate his preference for storage placement for the filters after removal MrCustomer states that Air Kool failed to communicate properly Several attempts were made to communicate timely with MrCustomer Three calls were placed to his cell phone, one resulting in leaving a voice mail after no response Two calls were placed to his home phone, leaving voice messages at both calls Two emails were sent previous to our final email sent May 6th @ 6:04pm because we still had not heard back from him Late in the afternoon on Friday, May 9th, MrCustomer called back into our office During this conversation, he was told that if a technician was dispatched again to retrieve the filters from the crawlspace, or to perform another diagnostics on the unit, (and no problem was found to be the cause of his problem other than the existing duct work), he would be charged a service call fee At that, MrCustomer stated that he wanted to cancel his preventative maintenance and wanted us to return the unused portion for the fall service We agreed to his request On Monday, May 11th, before a refund could be sent to MrCustomer, he filed this complaint MrCustomer states that he had no previous problem with his unit before we performed the maintenance service MrCustomer has experienced previous problems with his AC system Mid-summer last year (2013) it was necessary to replace the evaporator coil Prior to April 23rd, the Upstate area had experienced very mild, spring temperatures; highs in upper 60's- to low 70's by late afternoon in the days, and lows in the 40's - mid-50's in the evenings and nights April 23rd was the first day temperatures rose to by late afternoon MrCustomer's maintenance was performed early in the morning on that day when temperatures were cooler Following MrCustomer's maintenance service temperatures soared into unseasonable"summer time" temperatures, 90's by day, high 60's-by night, and have remained there The consistently, higher temperatures force all air conditioning units to work harder to provide cooler indoor temperatures With the collapsed and very poor condition of the duct work, MrCustomer's air conditioning system is working even harder The restricted air flow disrupts the operation of the air conditioning system MrCustomer's check of $for the Preventative Maintenance Agreement was deposited into our account at Wells Fargo bank on April 25, On May 9th, when MrCustomer contacted Air Kool, (prior to filing this complaint), Air Kool agreed to refund to the unused portion of the maintenance agreement, as requested by MrCustomer The refund would have been $ Our service fee for a one-time maintenance and inspection service for one unit is $ We did not charge MrCustomer our standard service call fee of $for the second visit to remove the filters at his request The total of our services performed comes to $ Air Kool acted in good faith and performed the services as requested by MrCustomer MrCustomer has been a patron of Air Kool since This is not the first time MrCustomer has requested fees for services to be forfeited Air Kool strives to provide quality service and customer care We attempt to do all that is reasonable to offer customer satisfaction The original refund request of MrCustomer was for the unused portion of the Preventative Maintenance Agreement which is $ In goodwill, Air Kool will forfeit reasonable fees for services performed We will refund the amount of $less a single service call fee of $79; net refund to MrCustomer is $ MrCustomer will pay only for the service call to remove the filters at his request Air Kool will absorb the costs incurred for the maintenance and inspection service Air Kool believes this to be more than fair in the customer's favor

Revdex.com:I did reply back on May at 8:a.mvia the Revdex.com website, but per the latest email from Air Kool, I will again repeat what was sent in that response:I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] have determined that this does not resolve my complaint In the message from Air Kool, the company states that I removed the filters from the Clean Effects system in This is incorrectI have never removed the filters, nor have I been underneath the house Prior to last year, Air Kool would clean the Clean Effects filters when they provide serviceDuring a scheduled service in 2013, however, Air Kool unexpectedly told us it would be an extra chargeWe opted not to pay this fee and we used traditional air filters in each of the returns When I set the spring appointment for 2014, I specifically asked if cleaning the Clean Effects filters would be included in the $service chargeThis time I was told it would, and we opted to have the filters reinstalled In the message from Air Kool, the company states that I said I have had no previous problems with the unit before they performed the maintenance serviceThis needs further clarificationFrom the time Air Kool replaced the evaporator coil in to the time Air Kool caused my unit to fail on April 23, 2014, my unit performed flawlesslyThis was a span of about months It is also important to note that the exact symptoms of freezing we are experiencing now are the same symptoms we experience in Furthermore, recently (May 9, May and May 16) I have had three other heating and air conditioning companies visit my home and provide free quotes to replace the ductworkAll three agree that my ductwork is not the cause of my problemAll three have stated that leaks in the ductwork would not cause the system to freeze Instead, they offer three plausible explanations 1) When Air Kool installed the system in 2008, they added only one return and used three existing returns in the homeThey believe Air Kool did not match proper airflow given the size of the unit and the house, and that two larger returns should have been added 2) When Air Kool installed the Clean Effects system, they installed it near the new air return, which is properHowever, the way it is positioned is awkward and the air-supply line they installed is on the groundAir Kool’s technicians have to crawl over it to access the Clean Effect systemThe HVAC companies that have visited my home say it appears Air Kool has damaged air-supply line when attempting to service the Clean Effects systemIt’s important to note that the air-supply line was not apart of the original ductwork, but added on by Air Kool when they installed the Clean Effects system 3) Given that the exact same symptoms were experienced last year when the evaporating coil was replaced, it’s highly likely a problem with the unit In the message from Air Kool, the company states on May that Air Kool agreed to refund the unused portion of the maintenance agreementThis is incorrectFirst, the conversation was on May Second, while highly irritated, I’m sure I asked for a refund while I expressed my dissatisfaction, but at no time did Air Kool agree to a refundI was told my displeasure would be shared with the owner and that he would contact meI was never contacted I stand by my earlier statements that Air Kool failed to communicate properlyI have been in contact with my wireless provider, AT&T, to obtain phone recordsI’m awaiting the current billing cycle to be complete before this information will be available to me When a company provides maintenance service, it is reasonable for the customer to expect the unit to perform at the same level, if not better, than prior to serviceI am not a technician, but the request to remove the Clean Effect filters seemed logical given that we went months without them with no problemsIt is also expected that a business would not charge a service call fee to fix a problem that was caused by their company on the day of service I maintain that I want a full refund of the $from Air KoolAlso, given the expert advice I’ve obtained since the complaint was filed, I request copies of all paperwork Air Kool has on my unit (warranty, product information, sales and service records, etc.) be mailed to my home addressI hope Air Kool and the Revdex.com would find this acceptableIn light of past and more recent evidence, I do not wish for Air Kool to visit my property ever again Regards, [redacted]

Mr. Customer received an automated call in early March regarding the Preventative Maintenance service.  The Preventative Maintenance program includes 2 inspection services during a 12 month period; one maintenance service for the air conditioning system in the spring, and the other...

maintenance service in the fall for the heating system.  The program provides some additional benefits to the customer, such as a 15% discount on parts and labor for any out-of-pocket expenses to the customer for repairs. 
 
Mr. Customer called into the office in late April and scheduled an appointment for the AC maintenance.  He stated that he had removed the filters, (last year), from the Clean Effects system.  He stated that he wanted the technician to replace the filters when he performed the AC maintenance.  The appointment was scheduled for 9am time slot on April 23rd.  The AC maintenance was performed as scheduled, and the technician replaced the Clean Effects filters, as requested.  At the inspection the duct work was found to be collapsed in places and in very poor condition.  The duct work needs to be replaced.  Mr. Customer stated that he was aware of the duct work problem and asked for a quote to replace it.  A quote was provided. 
 
A week following the maintenance service, Mr. Customer called in on April 29 requesting that a technician be sent out again to remove the filters from the Clean Effects system.  Mr. Customer stated that he was experiencing a problem that he believed to be associated with the Clean Effects filters.  He stated that his unit had frozen up over night and he cut it off that morning to thaw.  He also stated that he was aware of the duct problem but wanted to have the filters removed to see if that would help because he wasn't going to replace the duct work right now.   It is normal business practice to charge a service call fee to dispatch a technician for a call like this but Air Kool chose to forego the fee.  The 2nd appointment was scheduled for the following day, April 30th, to be worked in after 11:30am.  A different technician went out on this appointment, removed the filters and placed them next to the unit.  This is not an uncommon practice.  Mr. Customer did not designate his preference for storage placement for the filters after removal.
 
Mr. Customer states that Air Kool failed to communicate properly.  Several attempts were made to communicate timely with Mr. Customer.  Three calls were placed to his cell phone, one resulting in leaving a voice mail after no response.  Two calls were placed to his home phone, leaving voice messages at both calls.  Two emails were sent previous to our final email sent May 6th @ 6:04pm because we still had not heard back from him.  Late in the afternoon on Friday, May 9th, Mr. Customer called back into our office.  During this conversation, he was told that if a technician was dispatched again to retrieve the filters from the crawlspace, or to perform another diagnostics on the unit, (and no problem was found to be the cause of his problem other than the existing duct work), he would be charged a service call fee.  At that, Mr. Customer stated that he wanted to cancel his preventative maintenance and wanted us to return the unused portion for the fall service.  We agreed to his request.  On Monday, May 11th, before a refund could be sent to Mr. Customer, he filed this complaint.   
 
Mr. Customer states that he had no previous problem with his unit before we performed the maintenance service.  Mr. Customer has experienced previous problems with his AC system.  Mid-summer last year (2013) it was necessary to replace the evaporator coil.  
 
Prior to April 23rd, the Upstate area had experienced very mild, spring temperatures; highs in upper 60's- to low 70's by late afternoon in the days, and lows in the 40's - mid-50's in the evenings and nights.   April 23rd was the first day temperatures rose to 81 by late afternoon.  Mr. Customer's maintenance was performed early in the morning on that day when temperatures were cooler.  Following Mr. Customer's maintenance service temperatures soared into unseasonable"summer time" temperatures, 90's by day, high 60's-70 by night, and have remained there.  The consistently, higher temperatures force all air conditioning units to work harder to provide cooler indoor temperatures.  With the collapsed and very poor condition of the duct work, Mr. Customer's air conditioning system is working even harder.  The restricted air flow disrupts the operation of the air conditioning system.
 
Mr. Customer's check of $209 for the Preventative Maintenance Agreement was deposited into our account at Wells Fargo bank on April 25, 2014.  On May 9th, when Mr. Customer contacted Air Kool, (prior to filing this complaint), Air Kool agreed to refund to the unused portion of the maintenance agreement, as requested by Mr. Customer.  The refund would have been $90.  Our service fee for a one-time maintenance and inspection service for one unit is $119.  We did not charge Mr. Customer our standard service call fee of $79 for the second visit to remove the filters at his request.  The total of our services performed comes to $198.  Air Kool acted in good faith and performed the services as requested by Mr. Customer.  
 
Mr. Customer has been a patron of Air Kool since 2008.  This is not the first time Mr. Customer has requested fees for services to be forfeited.  Air Kool strives to provide quality service and customer care.  We attempt to do all that is reasonable to offer customer satisfaction.  The original refund request of Mr. Customer was for the unused portion of the Preventative Maintenance Agreement which is $90.  In goodwill, Air Kool will forfeit reasonable fees for services performed.  We will refund the amount of $209 less a single service call fee of $79; net refund to Mr. Customer is $130.  Mr. Customer will pay only for the service call to remove the filters at his request.  Air Kool will absorb the costs incurred for the maintenance and inspection service.  Air Kool believes this to be more than fair in the customer's favor.

Revdex.com:I did reply back on May 27 at 8:44 a.m. via the  Revdex.com website, but per the latest email from Air Kool, I will again repeat what was sent in that response:I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  
In the message from Air Kool, the company states that I removed the filters from the Clean Effects system in 2013. This is incorrect. I have never removed the filters, nor have I been underneath the house.
 
Prior to last year, Air Kool would clean the Clean Effects filters when they provide service. During a scheduled service in 2013, however, Air Kool unexpectedly told us it would be an extra charge. We opted not to pay this fee and we used traditional air filters in each of the returns.
When I set the spring appointment for 2014, I specifically asked if cleaning the Clean Effects filters would be included in the $209 service charge. This time I was told it would, and we opted to have the filters reinstalled.
In the message from Air Kool, the company states that I said I have had no previous problems with the unit before they performed the maintenance service. This needs further clarification. From the time Air Kool replaced the evaporator coil in 2013 to the time Air Kool caused my unit to fail on April 23, 2014, my unit performed flawlessly. This was a span of about 10 months.
It is also important to note that the exact symptoms of freezing we are experiencing now are the same symptoms we experience in 2013.
Furthermore, recently (May 9, May 13 and May 16) I have had three other heating and air conditioning companies visit my home and provide free quotes to replace the ductwork. All three agree that my ductwork is not the cause of my problem. All three have stated that leaks in the ductwork would not cause the system to freeze.
Instead, they offer three plausible explanations.
1)    When Air Kool installed the system in 2008, they added only one return and used three existing returns in the home. They believe Air Kool did not match proper airflow given the size of the unit and the house, and that two larger returns should have been added.
2)   When Air Kool installed the Clean Effects system, they installed it near the new air return, which is proper. However, the way it is positioned is awkward and the air-supply line they installed is on the ground. Air Kool’s technicians have to crawl over it to access the Clean Effect system. The HVAC companies that have visited my home say it appears Air Kool has damaged air-supply line when attempting to service the Clean Effects system. It’s important to note that the air-supply line was not apart of the original ductwork, but added on by Air Kool when they installed the Clean Effects system.
3)   Given that the exact same symptoms were experienced last year when the evaporating coil was replaced, it’s highly likely a problem with the unit. 
In the message from Air Kool, the company states on May 9 that Air Kool agreed to refund the unused portion of the maintenance agreement. This is incorrect. First, the conversation was on May 8. Second, while highly irritated, I’m sure I asked for a refund while I expressed my dissatisfaction, but at no time did Air Kool agree to a refund. I was told my displeasure would be shared with the owner and that he would contact me. I was never contacted.
I stand by my earlier statements that Air Kool failed to communicate properly. I have been in contact with my wireless provider, AT&T, to obtain phone records. I’m awaiting the current billing cycle to be complete before this information will be available to me.
When a company provides maintenance service, it is reasonable for the customer to expect the unit to perform at the same level, if not better, than prior to service. I am not a technician, but the request to remove the Clean Effect filters seemed logical given that we went 10 months without them with no problems. It is also expected that a business would not charge a service call fee to fix a problem that was caused by their company on the day of service.
I maintain that I want a full refund of the $209 from Air Kool. Also, given the expert advice I’ve obtained since the complaint was filed, I request copies of all paperwork Air Kool has on my unit (warranty, product information, sales and service records, etc.) be mailed to my home address. I hope Air Kool and the Revdex.com would find this acceptable. In light of past and more recent evidence, I do not wish for Air Kool to visit my property ever again.
Regards,[redacted]

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. 
In the message from Air Kool, the company states that I removed the filters from the Clean Effects system in 2013. This is incorrect. I have never removed the filters, nor have I been underneath the house.
Prior to last year, Air Kool would clean the Clean Effects filters when they provide service. During a scheduled service in 2013, however, Air Kool unexpectedly told us it would be an extra charge. We opted not to pay this fee and we used traditional air filters in each of the returns.
When I set the spring appointment for 2014, I specifically asked if cleaning the Clean Effects filters would be included in the $209 service charge. This time I was told it would, and we opted to have the filters reinstalled.
In the message from Air Kool, the company states that I said I have had no previous problems with the unit before they performed the maintenance service. This needs further clarification. From the time Air Kool replaced the evaporator coil in 2013 to the time Air Kool caused my unit to fail on April 23, 2014, my unit performed flawlessly. This was a span of about 10 months.
It is also important to note that the exact symptoms of freezing we are experiencing now are the same symptoms we experience in 2013.
Furthermore, recently (May 9, May 13 and May 16) I have had three other heating and air conditioning companies visit my home and provide free quotes to replace the ductwork. All three agree that my ductwork is not the cause of my problem. All three have stated that leaks in the ductwork would not cause the system to freeze.
Instead, they offer three plausible explanations.
1)    When Air Kool installed the system in 2008, they added only one return and used three existing returns in the home. They believe Air Kool did not match proper airflow given the size of the unit and the house, and that two larger returns should have been added.
2)   When Air Kool installed the Clean Effects system, they installed it near the new air return, which is proper. However, the way it is positioned is awkward and the air-supply line they installed is on the ground. Air Kool’s technicians have to crawl over it to access the Clean Effect system. The HVAC companies that have visited my home say it appears Air Kool has damaged air-supply line when attempting to service the Clean Effects system. It’s important to note that the air-supply line was not apart of the original ductwork, but added on by Air Kool when they installed the Clean Effects system.
3)   Given that the exact same symptoms were experienced last year when the evaporating coil was replaced, it’s highly likely a problem with the unit. 
In the message from Air Kool, the company states on May 9 that Air Kool agreed to refund the unused portion of the maintenance agreement. This is incorrect. First, the conversation was on May 8. Second, while highly irritated, I’m sure I asked for a refund while I expressed my dissatisfaction, but at no time did Air Kool agree to a refund. I was told my displeasure would be shared with the owner and that he would contact me. I was never contacted.
I stand by my earlier statements that Air Kool failed to communicate properly. I have been in contact with my wireless provider, [redacted], to obtain phone records. I’m awaiting the current billing cycle to be complete before this information will be available to me.
When a company provides maintenance service, it is reasonable for the customer to expect the unit to perform at the same level, if not better, than prior to service. I am not a t

Air Kool has been a great company to work with! They were awesome when we needed new units, both with helping us finance and the install. And when a minor issue arose a little over a year later, they were here within 30 minute to address and fix. Fantastic service!!

Air Kool never received a second notice from the Revdex.com so we are unaware of any previous rejection; nor is one attached to this complaint prior to today.
 
Mr. Customer is correct, during our last conversation, he did request a refund, (as we previously acknowledged) .  The amount he requested was the difference in the amount he paid for the annual maintenance program and the amount we charge for a single maintenance service.  That amount is $90.  We agreed to refund the difference.  There was only one business day between the time we spoke and agreed to the refund, and the time he filed the complaint.  
 
We sincerely apologize that Mr. Customer was not provided service to his Clean Effects during a previous spring maintenance visit.  Our office only learned of this information from the technician dispatched for this season's spring maintenance service (04/2014).  Our office never told Mr. Customer that his Clean Effects was not included in the maintenance service.  If Mr. Customer had informed our office when he encountered the problem, we certainly would have addressed it.  Unfortunately, we cannot address it now because the technician who serviced Mr. Customer at that time is no longer employed with us.  However, it is noteworthy to mention that Mr. Customer was not charged any additional fee for the Clean Effects.  Our maintenance program rates are consistent.  Customers with Clean Effects pay the same rate as customers without Clean Effects.  We do not factor in extra charges for Clean Effects systems.
 
Mr. Customer has been with us since 2006.  All the documents Mr. Customer has requested have been previously provided at times of service, but we will provide them again.  It is standard practice to provide the customer with a copy of the work order at time of service, and additionally an invoice sent by postal mail following service. 
 
Air Kool has been in business for more than two decades.  Our owner and employees live in and serve the community.  Our reputation is important to us.   While we do not agree with all of the content contained in the complaint, we do not wish to willingly cause discontent with any of our customers.  As an act of goodwill, Air Kool will refund the full amount of the $209 for the 2014 annual maintenance.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: [redacted]>
Date: Wed, May 28, 2014 at 1:56 PM
Subject: Re: You have a new message from the Revdex.com serving Upstate South Carolina: complaint #[redacted]
To: "[redacted]
We have not received any response back from the complainant.  Air Kool does not agree that the customer has basis for a complaint, but in an effort to resolve the matter with good will Air Kool offered to return partial payment of $130 to the customer.  We are waiting for confirmation from the customer that he is agreeable to this solution before we issue a refund.  Please advise. 
Thank You
[redacted]Administrator
[redacted] (fax)
[redacted]

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 provided that the refund check, service records and warranty information are supplied to me via mail within 1 to 10 business days of June 6, 2014.
Regards,
[redacted]