Sens-O-Lock of America, LLC

Response to Complaint from Mr[redacted] We have investigated this customer’s complaint and respond as follows: Mr [redacted] called our offices on June 18, to report that his IID device had registered an alcohol related breath violation Our technical support analyst Curtis A [redacted] explained that the devices are not online and that the customer had to have his device downloaded at our service center in order for us to diagnose the problem The customer explained that he would not be able to get to our service center for several days It was explained that if he did not get into the center by the end of the 3-day violation countdown (state mandated), that the device would lock him out and not allow him to drive per Connecticut regulations Customer asked if he could be given more time so that he would not lose the use of his vehicle Technical support offered the following solution: Mr [redacted] would not be charged the $violation fee for the alcohol related breath violation until we had a chance to look at his download and determine the cause of the violationThere would be a charge of $($per day-discounted from the charge of $per day) for a 3-day extension code to allow Mr [redacted] the opportunity to continue to use his vehicle until he could get to a service center so that our technical support team would examine the download files once received and determine the cause of the violation and inform Mr [redacted] of the results of the investigation Mr [redacted] agreed to this compromise The customer visited our service center for his monthly download on June 25th We received the files on June Investigation of the files was scheduled for Monday, June 29th A study of this download has uncovered the following The alcohol violations are occurring due to a contaminant being introduced by the customer Our ignition interlock device, like all devices in the marketplace, is set to detect alcohol within a breath sample provided by the client Unfortunately, the device does not distinguish between alcohol from a mixed drink or cocktail and alcohol that may be present in the vehicle from some other sources All customers are advised in our User documentation and in our training video (available at www.sensolockamerica.com) to not eat or drink anything other than water prior to using the IID device There are sugar alcohols in many soft drinks, candy, mints, chewing gum, power drinks, and other products that will register a low level of alcohol if ingested or inhaled while using the IID device Other things that can cause a reading are hand sanitizers, air fresheners, colognes, perfumes, mouthwash, gasoline fumes on hands after pumping gas, windshield washer fluid used with open vents, etc In the cases cited by Mr [redacted] , we see an alcohol spike (which causes the violation) and then a decline of subsequent samples within the state defined acceptable range This generally occurs when a customer has consumed, inhaled or introduced something into the vehicle environment that caused the violation to occur Had Mr [redacted] waited until the download was received and examined, we would have informed him of this situation As of today, June 30, we have requested that the State of CT remove the violations from Mr [redacted] ’s record as they were caused by contaminants and were not violations caused by the use of use of alcoholic beverages The $fees remain as viable charge as the customer asked us to extend out his driving time until he could get to a service center for the download from the device No violation charge was assessed A replacement device was shipped to Mr [redacted] on June 29,

We are responding to Mr [redacted] ’s complaint as follows: Sens-O-Lock of America encourages customers to contact our office anytime they have a question or issue to discuss about our product or service There is NEVER a charge for making a call to our office We returned a phone message from Mr [redacted] this morning (October 16) and he first spoke to our Technical Support Manager Jim W [redacted] as he had a violation register on this ignition interlock device Jim explained to him that the device had detected alcohol on his breath which was over the allowable level as set by the State of Connecticut and that the device had indeed rightly registered a violation He further explained that per his lease agreement, the violation processing fee of $would be charged as interim reports had to be sent to the State Mr [redacted] agreed that the violation had occurred, and that it might have been from mouthwash he used before using his device and ended his call with Jim After approximately one and one half hours, Mr [redacted] phoned back to claim that the violation had been because of a device malfunction Our Technical Support analyst Jan M [redacted] , explained that had there been a device malfunction, that he possibly might have issues with driving the vehicle and that he had agreed earlier that the violation was indeed valid, but suggested that he visit one of our service centers in Connecticut for a device download so that we could analyze the data on the device Mr [redacted] became quite upset and abruptly ended the call with MsM [redacted] Mr [redacted] complained that his interlock device was not working properly on October 9th and we immediately sent him another unit, without any questions or charges We are waiting for him to return that unit to us so that we can analyze the data to determine whether there was a unit malfunction or whether there was user error that caused the problem he reported It appears that he now wants to blame a valid violation on device malfunction We ask that Mr [redacted] visit our nearest service center so that a download of data can be done and we can examine it thoroughly A full report will be made to the customer when that download is received

We were awaiting the return of the device in question so that a proper reply could be made regarding this incidentThe incident reported was responded to per the service terms outlined in the customer’s lease agreement Our commitment is to support our customers and systems as mechanical problems arise and are reported Our systems are electronic devices and as such, a part may wear out after repeated use The customer called our office at 8:am to report he was having an issue with the device Troubleshooting on the phone was unsuccessful He was given a code so that he could get to his destination and told to call for another code so that he could get home and that we would ship a replacement device to him Device was programmed and shipped at 10:am that same day There were no fees charged to the customer for this incident Our service commitment was metWe are sorry for any inconvenience caused to the customer by this incident While we feel we have met the terms of our service commitment to him, we are happy to offer him a $credit towards his next lease payment

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below
I called Sens O Lock because I did not have any alcohol, drinks or food, my device gave a reading of a failed test and once it was restarted worked properly. My device last week was sent back for saying " My Breathe Was Not Human and not reading my breathe at all. When I called they said the Reading COULD have been my Mouth Wash or My Tooth Paste ( All what I've used before with out an issue). My device locks itself out and requires me to have it brought into an office and have the information sent it. I did NOT Need to contact Sens O Lock to report this, I called because I needed help with a device not working correctly which I was told was a result of my mouth wash or tooth paste I was never told I was being charged and would never read a lease before calling a Tech Support Line.
Regards,
*** ***

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below
Regards,
*** *** They are lying about all of it they are extortionists irritated I had a right to be irritated after being put on hold off and told I would be charged money , my earlier complaint states it all

The following is our reply to Mr*** complaint
Mr*** has been confrontational and uncooperative since
the inception of his interlock device lease with our company.
On January 5, we received a call on our customer
hotline from Mr*** which was
returned by one of our technical support analysts. Customer was not at the vehicle so
troubleshooting could not occur.
Customer was asked to phone back when he was in the vehicleDuring the
troubleshooting exercise, the customer
ignored instructions on how to disconnect the device and used a tool which
damaged the wiring on the device connector, this caused further issues with the
device as the power was intermittent due to the damage caused by the
customer. Customer was informed that
there would be a charge for the damage to the device as instructions were not
followed. He became abusive with the
technical support analyst who asked him to call back when he calmed down so
that further assistance could be provided
Mr*** called back on January and spoke to our
Technical support manager. He
immediately began abusive language and threated our employee’s well being with threats of physical
harm. He was informed that if he could
not calmly deal with the issue, then we could not help and the phone call was
terminated.
On January 22, 2015, the client called again to report an
issue. Our technical support analyst
tried to instruct him through a troubleshooting exercise, but the client would
not comply and asked our employee to teach him how to hot wire the system to
bypass the interlock to let him start the vehicle without using the
device. This was a complete and
unacceptable violation of the State of New Jersey’s program and we could not
comply. Again the client became verbally
abusive. The device that Mr*** had
was damaged and therefore, not working properly. Damage was done by the client as he readily
admits in his complaint. We did ship him
another device to replace the damaged unit in his possession telling him that
he had been invoiced for repairs in the amount of $
Client called on January to report that he had a
violation and his device was going into lock out mode. He wanted us to reset the device. There is a charge for a lockout code which is
clearly stated in the customer’s lease agreement. He refused to pay the fee and became
abusive. The call was terminated
On a later date, the customer called the CEO of our company and again was
immediately verbally abusive and would not listen to any explanations or
attempts to assist with the issue. Our
CEO finally terminated the call with the client telling him that he was happy
to try and assist, but would not deal with someone who was being verbally
abusive and threatening. . After his encounter with our CEO, Mr
***, a letter was sent to the client
asking that he return our unit and that he pay the fees

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below
Regards,
*** *** Hi it's not rocket science to breath I to a device All I know is since Jan 5th this defective equipment was nothing but a headache costing me undo stress frustration and money .As for any damage done to there equipment ,I di as I was told by there customer serviceI am aware as so are you of the multiple complaints filed with your agency against sensolock , and there deceptive business practices as well as there stong arm tactics they use to extort money from people who are in a unfortunate situation but still need there cars ,Thank you ,,*** ***

Customer called our offices on January 3rd and spoke to a sales representative. Our charges and process and procedure were fully explained to her at that time being: Initial costs for the setting up and installing the device (includes prepayment of first
month's lease, device shipping and setup fee and installation fee) Initial payment would be charged on the device ship date to the account she provided and device shipped to the install center. She was to make an appointment with them that was convenient for her Lease documents would be available for her signature when the device was installedShe was fully informed of the process and procedure by the sales rep. Payment was processed on the agreed shipping date, equipment was programmed shipped to the installation center (customer states she made an appointment for install).Customer sent us an email on January 31st stating that she had not installed the device and had no intentions to do so She wanted a full refund. It was explained to her by the support representative that we would be happy to refund the initial month's payment and the installation fee, but the that the shipping charges and device setup were done at her request when she ordered the device and we would not be refunding that payment. We shipped the device in good faith because she placed the order.She was not happy with that explanation and her call was transferred to a supervisor and the CEO of the company who explained the policy to her. We are sorry that customer decided not to implement our system, but she did place the order and must realize that by doing so, she is responsible for costs incurred by our proceeding with the order at her verbal request. The refunds for the install cost and the first month's lease payment have been refunded to the customer's card. The remaining fee for the programming/setup of the device and shipping to the install center will not be refunded

We were awaiting the return of the device in question so that a proper reply could be made regarding this incident. The incident reported was responded to per the  service terms outlined in the customer’s lease agreement.   Our commitment is to support our customers and systems as...

mechanical problems arise and are reported.  Our systems are electronic devices and as such, a part may wear out after repeated use.   The customer called our office at 8:14 am to report he was having an issue with the device.   Troubleshooting on the phone was unsuccessful.    He was given a code so that he could get to his destination and told to call for another code so that he could get home and that we would ship a replacement device to him.    Device was programmed and shipped at 10:50 am that same day.  There were no fees charged to the customer for this incident.     Our service commitment was met. We are sorry for any inconvenience caused to the customer by this incident.   While we feel we have met the terms of our service commitment to him, we are happy to offer him a $35 credit towards his next lease payment.

Reply to complaint by Mr. [redacted]:
Order Processed: 
5/29/14
Our company is an authorized ignition interlock company for
the State of Connecticut.  We lease
equipment to individuals who are required to have an ignition interlock device
in their vehicle because of a...

DWI/DUI violation.  This device enables them to continue to drive
with a restricted license for a term mandated by the CT DMV.   Lease payments are a set amount each
month.  There are various other fees
associated with the device.  These are
all outlined in a detailed lease agreement provided to the customer at the time
the interlock device is installed.
At the time an order is placed, or sales representatives
explain these costs and the regulations that apply to the use of our equipment.  Customers are also asked to review a short
training video and to read our Interlock User Manual, which are both available
on our website (www.sensolockamerica.com).
Customers also receive a hard copy of the Interlock User Manual when the device
is installed into their vehicle.
Monthly lease payments are due and payable on a specific
date each month.  We require customers to
provide a debit or credit card which will be used each month on that due date
to process an automatic payment.  If
payment is declined by the card issuer, a late fee is assessed.  Every customer is required to sign a payment
authorization form authorizing the use of this card each month.  Mr. [redacted]’s due date is the last day of the
month.  Unfortunately, records show that
since the inception of this lease agreement, 
his payment card has been declined by the card issuer 8 times and a $25
late fee has been assessed each time payment was not made on the due date.  As outlined in the lease agreement all fees
are payable at the time the charge is incurred.
Our equipment is lease equipment.  Each customer does not get a brand new
unit.  When one customer is finished with
his state mandated term, the equipment is returned to our processing /shipping
center, cleaned, sanitized, tested and then used for the next new lease
agreement we receive.  It is electronic
equipment, however, and from time to time, a part will fail while in the
possession of a customer.  When this
happens, we strive to get a new device to the customer as quickly as possible
and in most cases can do so overnight.  
Again, the customer is not getting new equipment, but another device
which has been thoroughly cleaned and tested by our processing/shipping
center.  Our records indicate that we
have sent out replacement equipment to Mr. [redacted] 4 times.   On two occasions, when the equipment was
returned, it was tested and found to be functioning properly.  It was cleaned and sent out to other
customers who used it without failure.   On one occasion, the equipment was found to
have a worn out part plus a wiring issue which was replaced by our service
center.   The final equipment came back
to us damaged and the customer was charged for this damage per the terms of his
lease agreement as the equipment was not damaged when sent to Mr. [redacted].
The State of Connecticut dictates the regulations to be
monitored during a customer’s mandated term. 
This includes a set of violations that will cause a device to go into a
countdown mode and eventually lock out a customer for violation of a particular
reg.  These violations include detection
of alcohol when a beginning of subsequent breath sample is provided, missing a
subsequent breath sample after the initial test is made (rolling retest) or
missing a monthly recalibration appointment.  
If a violation occurs, the customer must go to one of our authorized
service centers in CT to have the device downloaded and recalibrated within a
specific timeframe, so that reports can be sent off to the state monitoring
agency.  There is a fee to send these
interim reports off to the state when a violation occurs.  Reports show that the violations listed in
Mr. [redacted]’s complaint were all valid violations under the regulations set
forth by the CT regulations. DMV   He has
a misunderstanding of the term rolling retest.  
A rolling retest is a randomly generated test required by the state once
the initial breath sample is given.  The
vehicle does not have to be moving for a rolling retest to be requested.   A customer has 4 minutes to provide this
sample before a violation is registered. 
These terms are fully discussed with the customer and are outlined in
the training documents referenced earlier in this response.  We have a signed document on file from him
where he states he has reviewed all of our training material and that he
understands the use of the device, the regulations of the state, and all fees
and payments as outlined in his lease agreement.
We are very sorry to hear that Mr. [redacted] is not pleased
with our device or service, but we have had thousands of satisfied customers in
CT and the other states that we service, that complete their mandated terms
without incident by making payments on time and following the regulations of
the mandating state.  Our records
indicate that Mr. [redacted] has been rude and unruly when speaking with our
billing agents and technical support department.  
Mr. [redacted] has requested removal of our equipment so that he
can go with another vendor.  He is
certainly entitled to do so.  His lease
agreement outlines a $200 early removal penalty and a removal fee.    We will waive the early removal penalty,
but will require payment of $110 to cover the cost charged by our service
center in Ct for the removal of the equipment.

Sens-O-Lock of America prides itself in providing all
clients with quick and courteous customer service.  It seems that the issue has changed from the
original complaint which was that you were being charged for calling our
Technical Support Department.   You are
now questioning the violation logged on the device.
Once again, please understand that the Sens-O-Lock ignition interlock
device, like all IIDs currently in the marketplace, does not know the
difference between alcohol in a cocktail or beer and alcohol in common everyday
products consumers use every day such as mouthwash, toothpaste, hand
sanitizers, etc.  There are sugar
alcohols in products such as breath mints, power drinks, power candy bars,
certain dairy products, etc.    When an
IID detects alcohol, it records a violation.  
Our training videos and User Guides clearly list many products that
contain alcohol/sugar alcohol byproducts stating that these will cause an
alcohol readings on the IID which must be reported to the State as alcohol
violations.   We advise customers to not
use these products or to check the labels thoroughly for alcohol content to
avoid these types of violations reports. We further state that you should not use the
IID for at least 15 minutes after using or ingesting these products
Per the terms of your lease agreement (attached) with us,
anytime a violation occurs it must be reported to the state, and an interim
reporting fee will be charged.   
Furthermore, we have a document initialed and signed by you at the time
the IID was installed into your vehicle stating that you understand that
addition fees would be charged in certain instances, one of them being for
early recall of the device due to a violation (see attached). 
A non-human breath message on the device does not indicate a
violation, a false reading or a malfunction of the device.  All that it is indicating is that enough air
is not being introduced into the air chamber and that you are most probably
holding the device incorrectly causing the error message.  The device which you returned to us when a
replacement device was sent out to you at the beginning of the month, has been
thoroughly tested and found to be in good working condition.  No problems were encountered while going
through extensive testing by our QA department.  
The IID will only lock a customer out after a violation has
occurred.  It does not randomly lock
customers out unless one of the state mandates has been violated.  Alcohol violations are not the only things
that cause lockouts.   Missing a service
appointment, missing a rolling retest, or refusing to give a breath sample when
asked will all lock the device per the mandates of the state interlock
program.   To unlock the device, you must
go to the service center for a device reset and the violation is then reported to
the mandating state.   Again, these processes
and procedures are all explained during the ordering process and reinforced by
our training video and User Guide.   You
signed documents stating that you understood all facets of the regulations and
ramifications of regulation violations at the time your device was installed.
The violation charge to your account was a valid
charge.  A violation was registered on
the device as it detected alcohol.  We
will not be issuing any refunds as these fees are clearly stated in documents
given and acknowledged by you at time of install.

Response to Complaint from Mr.[redacted]
 
We have investigated this customer’s complaint and respond as
follows:
 
Mr. [redacted] called our offices on June 18, 2015 to report that
his IID device had registered an alcohol related breath violation.  Our
technical...

support analyst Curtis A[redacted] explained that the devices are not
online and that the customer had  to have his device downloaded at our service center in order for us to
diagnose the problem.  The customer explained that he would not be able to
get to our service center for several days.  It was explained that if he
did not get into the center by the end of the 3-day violation countdown (state mandated), that the device
would lock him out and not allow him to drive per Connecticut
regulations.   Customer asked if he could be given more time so that
he would not lose the use of his vehicle.
 
Technical support offered the following solution:
 
Mr. [redacted] would not be charged the  $35.00 violation fee
for the alcohol related breath violation until we had a chance to look at his
download and determine the cause of the violation. There would be a charge of
$30 ($10 per day-discounted from the normal charge of $15 per day) for a 3-day extension code to allow Mr. [redacted] the
opportunity to continue to use his vehicle until he could get to a service
center so that our technical support team  would examine the download
files once received and determine the cause of the
violation and inform Mr. [redacted] of the results of the investigation
 
Mr. [redacted] agreed to this compromise.
 
The customer visited our service center for his monthly download
on June 25th.    We received the files on June
26.     Investigation of the files was scheduled for
Monday, June 29th.
 
A study of this download has
uncovered the following . . .
The alcohol  violations are occurring due to a contaminant
being introduced by the customer.    Our ignition interlock
device, like all devices in the marketplace, is set to detect alcohol within a
breath sample provided by the client.  Unfortunately, the device does not
distinguish between alcohol from a mixed drink or cocktail and alcohol that may
be present in the vehicle from some other sources.  All customers are
advised in our User documentation and in our training video (available at www.sensolockamerica.com) to not eat
or drink anything other than water prior to using the IID device.  
There are sugar alcohols in many soft drinks, candy, mints, chewing gum, power
drinks, and other products that will register a low level of alcohol if
ingested or inhaled while using the IID device.   Other things that
can cause a reading are hand sanitizers, air fresheners, colognes, perfumes,
mouthwash, gasoline fumes on hands after pumping gas, windshield washer fluid used
with open vents, etc.   In the cases cited by Mr. [redacted], we see an
alcohol spike (which causes the violation) and then a decline of subsequent
samples within the state defined acceptable range.   This generally
occurs when a customer has consumed, inhaled or introduced something into the vehicle
environment that caused the violation to occur.    Had Mr.
[redacted] waited until the download was received and examined, we would have
informed him of this situation.   As of today, June 30, we have requested
that the State of CT remove the violations from Mr. [redacted]’s record as they
were caused by contaminants and were not violations caused by the use of use of
alcoholic beverages.
 
The $30 fees remain as viable charge as the customer asked us to
extend out his driving time until he could get to a service center for the
download from the device.  No violation charge was assessed.   A replacement device was shipped to Mr. [redacted] on June 29, 2015.

Mr.[redacted],
While we are sorry to hear that any customer is unsatisfied
with our service, we have very detailed records showing the activity on your
account since its inception and pictures of the damaged equipment that was
returned to us in the instances you cite.
We have a signed lease agreement from you where pricing and
costs are explained in detail.   You were
instructed at inception of the lease to view our training video on the internet
and read the User Manual that is also available on the site.    You were given a hard copy of the User
Manual by our installation Service Center, but you readily admitted to both our
Technical Support personnel and to our CEO
 Mr. [redacted], that you did have the time to
read all that “mumbo jumbo”.    Not
following these directions on the proper use of the equipment was the direct
cause of the issues you cite in your complaint.
Sens-O-Lock of America has thousands of satisfied customers
who have successfully completed their state mandated programs using our
equipment with no issues.  
Your lease agreement legally binds you to terms and costs
outlined therein.   We have sent you a mailing
label for the return of our equipment at our cost.    If we do not have the equipment back in our
office by March 15, 2015, we will be forced to take legal actions.  We hope you will return our equipment so that
this matter can be closed without further incident.

We are responding to Mr. [redacted]’s complaint as follows:
Sens-O-Lock of America encourages customers to contact our
office anytime they have a question or issue to discuss  about our product or service.  There is NEVER
a charge for making a call to our office.
We returned a...

phone message from Mr.  [redacted] 
this morning (October 16) and he first spoke to our Technical Support
Manager Jim W[redacted] as he had a violation register on this ignition interlock
device.   Jim explained to him that the
device had detected alcohol on his breath which was over the allowable level as
set by the State of Connecticut and that the device had indeed rightly registered
a violation.   He further explained that
per his lease agreement, the violation processing fee of $35 would be charged
as interim reports had to be sent to the State. 
Mr. [redacted] agreed that the violation had occurred, and that it might
have been from mouthwash he used before using his device and ended his call
with Jim.
After approximately one and one half hours, Mr. [redacted]
phoned back to claim that the violation had been because of a device
malfunction.  Our Technical Support
analyst Jan M[redacted], explained that had there been a device malfunction, that
he possibly might have issues with driving the vehicle and that he had agreed
earlier that the violation was indeed valid, but suggested that he visit one of
our service centers in Connecticut for a device download so that we could
analyze the data on the device.  Mr.
[redacted] became quite upset and abruptly ended the call with Ms. M[redacted].
Mr. [redacted] complained that his interlock device was not
working properly on October 9th and we immediately sent him another
unit, without any questions or charges. 
We are waiting for him to return that unit to us so that we can analyze
the data to determine whether there was a unit malfunction or whether there was
user error that caused the problem he reported.   It appears that he now wants to blame a valid
violation on device malfunction.
We ask that Mr. [redacted] visit our nearest service center so
that a download of data can be done and we can examine it thoroughly.   A full report will be made to the customer
when that download is received.