[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 leak reported to Interstate in November 2014 was fixed and true to Interstate’s contract, they did not charge for the resultant correction under their warranty. It is therefore contradictory that Interstate would claim the completed work is not of a nature that is covered by their warranty. In fact, their warranty does cover the correction because the leak was the result of a faulty tie-in to the irrigation system installed by Interstate.
Again, while Interstate’s definition of what is and what is not covered under their warranty in this case is contradictory, the fact is they covered the correction and I am satisfied with that.
The issue of whether or not to pay the overage on my water bill still stands, but caveated per below final paragraph. I asked for a simple reimbursement based on the difference between the most recent quarter’s water bill and the previous quarter’s water bill - both high usage quarters according to Fairfax Water. That amount is 309.00. This is more than fair in that my household’s documented usage from the same period in 2012 (prior to the original leak) indicates that even after being reimbursed the full 309.00, not all of the overage would be paid off and I am still loosing some money due to the recent water leak.
As of this writing Fairfax Water has made an exception to their normal policy of only granting one water bill relief every five years and has dropped the overage amount owed. While this is welcome relief, had it not occurred, I would still owe money due to Interstate’s unwillingness to accept liability for work they performed. Revdex.com and Interstate can consider my request for the water bill overage payment dropped, but my complaint regarding Interstate’s neglect of their responsibility for the overage costs remains.
Regards,
[redacted]
December 11, 2014Dear [redacted]:In receipt of your letter dated December 9th concerning a complaint filed by [redacted].As background, in August 2013, [redacted] contracted with Interstate to replace his Water Service Line. The work was completed August 25th and inspected and passed by Fairfax...
County on August 26th.Unfortunately, the [redacted]’s reported a leak this past month. Per our warranty which covers Parts and Labor, the leak was repaired at no cost to the [redacted]’s. The break was located not on the water line but in the connection to their Irrigation System which is not under warranty.Pursuant to the repair, the [redacted] sent us copies of quarterly water bills requesting reimbursement for the difference between the bills-$309.00. While explaining to [redacted] that our warranty did not cover water consumption, Interstate in good faith would reimburse [redacted] $150.00. (Interstate was willing to do this even though we had no idea exactly how much of the overage was due to the leak and not normal consumption in a high usage quarter.)Again, while the leak was unfortunate, Interstate made the repair per the warranty and offered a refund in good faith. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me.Sincerely,James R. Manager
They installed our sprinkler system. Was charged in 3/31/15 $329.13 to replace panel; light sensor not working properly and ended charged $70.00 early spring this year, and now they want $150.00 to replace rain sensor because they found out that indeed that was the problem.
And, if all of the above is not enough, absolutely NOT pleased with impolite attitude of their staff.
December 11, 2014Dear [redacted]:
In receipt of your letter dated December 9th concerning a complaint filed by [redacted].
As background, in August 2013, [redacted] contracted with Interstate to replace his Water Service Line. The work was completed August 25th and...
inspected and passed by Fairfax County on August 26th.Unfortunately, the [redacted]’s reported a leak this past month. Per our warranty which covers Parts and Labor, the leak was repaired at no cost to the [redacted]’s. The break was located not on the water line but in the connection to their Irrigation System which is not under warranty.
Pursuant to the repair, the [redacted] sent us copies of quarterly water bills requesting reimbursement for the difference between the bills-$309.00. While explaining to [redacted] that our warranty did not cover water consumption, Interstate in good faith would reimburse [redacted] $150.00. (Interstate was willing to do this even though we had no idea exactly how much of the overage was due to the leak and not normal consumption in a high usage quarter.)
Again, while the leak was unfortunate, Interstate made the repair per the warranty and offered a refund in good faith. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
James R.
Manager
[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 leak reported to Interstate in November 2014 was fixed and true to Interstate’s contract, they did not charge for the resultant correction under their warranty. It is therefore contradictory that Interstate would claim the completed work is not of a nature that is covered by their warranty. In fact, their warranty does cover the correction because the leak was the result of a faulty tie-in to the irrigation system installed by Interstate.
Again, while Interstate’s definition of what is and what is not covered under their warranty in this case is contradictory, the fact is they covered the correction and I am satisfied with that.
The issue of whether or not to pay the overage on my water bill still stands, but caveated per below final paragraph. I asked for a simple reimbursement based on the difference between the most recent quarter’s water bill and the previous quarter’s water bill - both high usage quarters according to Fairfax Water. That amount is 309.00. This is more than fair in that my household’s documented usage from the same period in 2012 (prior to the original leak) indicates that even after being reimbursed the full 309.00, not all of the overage would be paid off and I am still loosing some money due to the recent water leak.
As of this writing Fairfax Water has made an exception to their normal policy of only granting one water bill relief every five years and has dropped the overage amount owed. While this is welcome relief, had it not occurred, I would still owe money due to Interstate’s unwillingness to accept liability for work they performed. Revdex.com and Interstate can consider my request for the water bill overage payment dropped, but my complaint regarding Interstate’s neglect of their responsibility for the overage costs remains.
Regards,
[redacted]
[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 leak reported to Interstate in November 2014 was fixed and true to Interstate’s contract, they did not charge for the resultant correction under their warranty. It is therefore contradictory that Interstate would claim the completed work is not of a nature that is covered by their warranty. In fact, their warranty does cover the correction because the leak was the result of a faulty tie-in to the irrigation system installed by Interstate.
Again, while Interstate’s definition of what is and what is not covered under their warranty in this case is contradictory, the fact is they covered the correction and I am satisfied with that.
The issue of whether or not to pay the overage on my water bill still stands, but caveated per below final paragraph. I asked for a simple reimbursement based on the difference between the most recent quarter’s water bill and the previous quarter’s water bill - both high usage quarters according to Fairfax Water. That amount is 309.00. This is more than fair in that my household’s documented usage from the same period in 2012 (prior to the original leak) indicates that even after being reimbursed the full 309.00, not all of the overage would be paid off and I am still loosing some money due to the recent water leak.
As of this writing Fairfax Water has made an exception to their normal policy of only granting one water bill relief every five years and has dropped the overage amount owed. While this is welcome relief, had it not occurred, I would still owe money due to Interstate’s unwillingness to accept liability for work they performed. Revdex.com and Interstate can consider my request for the water bill overage payment dropped, but my complaint regarding Interstate’s neglect of their responsibility for the overage costs remains.
Regards,
[redacted]
December 11, 2014Dear [redacted]:In receipt of your letter dated December 9th concerning a complaint filed by [redacted].As background, in August 2013, [redacted] contracted with Interstate to replace his Water Service Line. The work was completed August 25th and inspected and passed by Fairfax...
County on August 26th.Unfortunately, the [redacted]’s reported a leak this past month. Per our warranty which covers Parts and Labor, the leak was repaired at no cost to the [redacted]’s. The break was located not on the water line but in the connection to their Irrigation System which is not under warranty.Pursuant to the repair, the [redacted] sent us copies of quarterly water bills requesting reimbursement for the difference between the bills-$309.00. While explaining to [redacted] that our warranty did not cover water consumption, Interstate in good faith would reimburse [redacted] $150.00. (Interstate was willing to do this even though we had no idea exactly how much of the overage was due to the leak and not normal consumption in a high usage quarter.)Again, while the leak was unfortunate, Interstate made the repair per the warranty and offered a refund in good faith. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me.Sincerely,James R. Manager
They installed our sprinkler system. Was charged in 3/31/15 $329.13 to replace panel; light sensor not working properly and ended charged $70.00 early spring this year, and now they want $150.00 to replace rain sensor because they found out that indeed that was the problem.
And, if all of the above is not enough, absolutely NOT pleased with impolite attitude of their staff.
December 11, 2014Dear [redacted]:
In receipt of your letter dated December 9th concerning a complaint filed by [redacted].
As background, in August 2013, [redacted] contracted with Interstate to replace his Water Service Line. The work was completed August 25th and...
inspected and passed by Fairfax County on August 26th.Unfortunately, the [redacted]’s reported a leak this past month. Per our warranty which covers Parts and Labor, the leak was repaired at no cost to the [redacted]’s. The break was located not on the water line but in the connection to their Irrigation System which is not under warranty.
Pursuant to the repair, the [redacted] sent us copies of quarterly water bills requesting reimbursement for the difference between the bills-$309.00. While explaining to [redacted] that our warranty did not cover water consumption, Interstate in good faith would reimburse [redacted] $150.00. (Interstate was willing to do this even though we had no idea exactly how much of the overage was due to the leak and not normal consumption in a high usage quarter.)
Again, while the leak was unfortunate, Interstate made the repair per the warranty and offered a refund in good faith. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
James R.
Manager
[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 leak reported to Interstate in November 2014 was fixed and true to Interstate’s contract, they did not charge for the resultant correction under their warranty. It is therefore contradictory that Interstate would claim the completed work is not of a nature that is covered by their warranty. In fact, their warranty does cover the correction because the leak was the result of a faulty tie-in to the irrigation system installed by Interstate.
Again, while Interstate’s definition of what is and what is not covered under their warranty in this case is contradictory, the fact is they covered the correction and I am satisfied with that.
The issue of whether or not to pay the overage on my water bill still stands, but caveated per below final paragraph. I asked for a simple reimbursement based on the difference between the most recent quarter’s water bill and the previous quarter’s water bill - both high usage quarters according to Fairfax Water. That amount is 309.00. This is more than fair in that my household’s documented usage from the same period in 2012 (prior to the original leak) indicates that even after being reimbursed the full 309.00, not all of the overage would be paid off and I am still loosing some money due to the recent water leak.
As of this writing Fairfax Water has made an exception to their normal policy of only granting one water bill relief every five years and has dropped the overage amount owed. While this is welcome relief, had it not occurred, I would still owe money due to Interstate’s unwillingness to accept liability for work they performed. Revdex.com and Interstate can consider my request for the water bill overage payment dropped, but my complaint regarding Interstate’s neglect of their responsibility for the overage costs remains.
Regards,
[redacted]