SoCal Water$mart Rebate Program

Review: Initially advised purchased product qualified for rebate. When rebate app submitted, the rebate was denied.

After landscaping was completed on our yard, we needed to purchase and install a new irrigation controller. We went to the CalWater website for info on controllers qualifying for a rebate. The site showed "Rainbird SST" models but was not specific as to which models qualified. I called for further clarification and was advised that the Rainbird SST900 was a qualifying product and so completed the purchase and installation of that unit in Aug. 2013. After submitting the rebate app. (Rebate# BXXXXXX) I rec'd a letter stating that further verification info was necessary in order to process the rebate (they told me by phone that they were unable to verify with [redacted] that the SST900 model was the model purchased). I went back to [redacted] to get the required info and submitted that to Cal Water. Now they say the SST900 is not a qualifying model at all! The processing center takes no responsibility for misleading the customer and tells me there's nothing they can or will do. The website is misleading, the processing center is misleading, and CalWater should be held accountable. If we had known that the SST900 was not a qualifying model but another SST model was, we would have purchased a different model. We paid $70 for the model in question and could and would have installed a different model in order to qualify for the rebate. I have spoken with multiple people at the rebate center - [redacted] - Processor, [redacted] - Lead Processor, [redacted] - Assistant and most recently with [redacted] Program Manager - all to no avail. Desired Settlement: I believe we did everything to properly qualify for the available rebate. We should be reimbursed for the $69.99 we paid for the Rainbird SST900 irrigation controller or given an equivalent credit on future water bills.

Business

Response:

Final Consumer Response

Please close the case as the business has reconsidered and agreed to issue a rebate as promised. My complaint is no longer valid. Thanks.

Review: Not sure what to place this under Service, Advertising or bothApplication Number : #[redacted]My application was put in October 2014, I was Approved before I went forth, I did exactly everything specified, even called their support center before I proceeded to make sure I was within guidelines. (After I found that the turf removed was at least another 30% that what I initial asked for, for that I was told I couldn't add).I removed my Sod, and replaced with Artificial Turf, Drought Resistant Plants, Drip System on a Timer, also Rock Planters and Stone Patios spending well over 10k in product alone doing almost all the labor myself myself as I am a contractor - If I had it done it would have been at least 25k. Now I'm told that my application is Denied saying that the turf is made from recycled tires and plastic bottles (virtually everything is recycled Aluminum Cans, Paper, Plastics) - this is unjust after I spent all this time and money - I wouldn't have done anything there is no way that I could ever recap what I spent in my lifetime on water savings. (I have reviewed your entire web site at this writing plus all the links there is no mention whatsoever on any specified product that must be used or any mention what can not be used specifically product that is made from recyclings). Right now I'm looking at another overhyped scam to the California Taxpayers, I see they have had 4 complaints over the last 3 years and the Revdex.com seemed to have sole all with customer satisfaction. I would just like this put to bed, and not have to resolute any further. Regards, [redacted]Desired Settlement: I'm looking for at minimum what was promised on my initial Rebate, but they should give me the full addendum amount - asap this is going on a year waiting[redacted]

Business

Response:

Mr. and Mrs. [redacted],Thank you for notifying us of the situation. I reviewed the information you provided and that of our vendor and I have approved your application for the entire 3,350 sqft. I apologize for any inconvenience. To clarify your application was not denied it was requesting a second measurement as your receipt showed that you purchased "used" synthetic turf. Since we are using public funds for this program we do not allow "used or free" synthetic turf as part of the program as we cannot allow people to make money off of the program. So the email was about your synthetic turf being "used" not that it was made of recycled material as all synthetic turf is made of recycled material. As you can see your material costs for the synthetic turf are more than the rebate which is why we have that rule but make exceptions as needed. Since you also, put in drip irrigation, and drought tolerant plants etc we made an exception. We appreciate you participating in the program during this drought. We have rebated on tens of thousands of homes and sometimes there are unique circumstances that need follow-up.Thx[redacted]?

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to my concern, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.

We appreciate you honoring your prior commitment, also we would value your mailing out the rebate in a much timely manner - your email mentioned that we would have to wait another 10 weeks, being we already paid for all material out of our pockets and finished the project back in April.Regards,[redacted]