Street Brothers Electric Inc.

October 30,
Reference ID: ***
Dear ** ***:
This letter is in response to the offer from *** ***,
1) As previously stated, the junction box where the problem was located was in the attic to which there was NO accessThere is no access to the attic space above the condo unit, from inside the condo unit or from anywhere on that floor of the buildingRemoving part of the structure is not a trouble shooting procedure*** *** tried contacting the building maintenance people; however, no one knew of any access into the attic from her unit or any other part of the building
2) Electrical circuits have power entering and leaving most switch, light, and receptacle locationsTherefore, a receptacle can be energized without power leaving to the next device which is why all switches, receptacles, and light fixtures should be removed to find any bad splices
3) The light fixture in *** ***’s photo is a hanging light fixture that normally hangs about 36” above a dinning room tableThere was no table in the room so the fixture was raised up with the S hook that is visible in the picture and already on location to prevent people from running into itIf *** *** removes the S hook, the fixture will hang from its chain at its original height
4) The light fixture box was only removed from the ceiling as a last resort; the first technician, Kevin, had already checked all other possible scenarios for the bad splice
Ultimately, our goal is always 100% customer satisfactionStreet Brothers will accept the offer of $as payment in fullWe also offer our sincerest apology for any misunderstanding that may have occurredIf *** *** will forward the payment to the above address, her account balance will be paid in fullStreet Brothers will return the original check of $upon receipt of the revised payment
Thank you for your time and assistance in the resolution of this issue
Sincerely,

October 1st 2014
 
Reference ID [redacted]
0.0001pt;"> 
 
Dear Sir:
 
Street Brothers would like to acknowledge the complaint that has been filed. The facts of the case are these:
 
[redacted] contacted Street Brothers for service on September 16, 2014 for an electrical problem at [redacted]. [redacted] informed [redacted] the lights were out. During this initial conversation, Mr. [redacted] explained the cost of service which is $97.00 the first 40 minutes, then $97.00 an hour thereafter, which is prorated. [redacted] then explained most service calls take 1-2 hours; however, this is not a guarantee. Trouble shooting is a process in which the technician starts out with the most likely problem and branches out from there and may include, but is not limited to removing switches, receptacles, light fixtures and ceiling fans, checking for bad connections broken wires etc. This is the same process every electrician would follow.
 
In this case, identifying the issue was a time consuming process. Unable to identify the issue rendering the lights inoperable, the technician responding to the call, [redacted], did call [redacted]. [redacted] had checked several components that would normally cause the lights to go out. He reviewed his findings with [redacted] and sought additional avenues to pursue.
 
During one of the calls, [redacted] informed [redacted] that the wires in the boxes were not adding up to make the circuits work correctly.  [redacted] decided to join his technician on the call to examine the situation. Upon arriving, [redacted] explained his process of review and elimination. He had been quite thorough, eliminating most of the possible scenarios. [redacted] and [redacted] then decided to fish in new wires- a wire from the front door light fixture to the light fixture in the dining room where there was no access to the attic. The quickest and most efficient way to make this repair was to remove the dining room light fixture box. A fixture box is a permanent part of the structure that is not intended to be removed and not part of normal trouble shooting procedure. After removing the dining room light fixture box, [redacted] noticed an additional item of concern-a junction box with no cover on it in the paper back insulation in the attic. This is a fire hazard and a violation of the Nation Electrical Code article 314.29. The code states that all junction boxes shall be installed so that the wiring contained in them can be rendered accessible without removing any part of the building or structure. The National Electrical Code defines accessible as capitable of being removed or exposed without damaging the building, structure or finish or not permantley closed in by structure or finish of the building.
 
If the technicians had not been attempting to fish the wire from the front door light which was working to the dining room light fixture box by removing the dining room light fixture box, this issue with the junction box buried in the insulation in the attic would not have been found. Further issues were found within the junction box; there were aluminum and copper wire mixed together with no corrosion inhibiter which caused the splice to corrode and the wire nut to melt and the splice to go bad. [redacted] showed [redacted] the melted wire nut. If the technicians had not found this box as early as they did, it would have taken far longer, possibly several more hours to resolve the issue as there were six cables each feeding a separate part of the circuit.
 
Later that evening, [redacted], who was not there for any part of the repair, contacted Street Brothers. [redacted] stated that he installs sprinkle systems and can trouble shoot. He then stated that he felt there was no way that this trouble shooting could have taken this long.
 
The issues the [redacted]’s mentioned in their letter/call:
1.       They felt they were overcharged.
2.       They felt the troubleshooting took too long.
3.       [redacted] stated [redacted] laughed at him during the call.
 
Street Brothers responds as follows:
1.       The primary technician, [redacted], was onsite for 5.5 hours. The owner was onsite for 2 hours. The customer was quoted the specific price for labor prior to the service call. The customer was not charged for the time the owner spent onsite. The owner offered and applied a five percent senior discount to the invoice which was signed by [redacted] who paid in full at the completion of the service. At no time while [redacted] was onsite did [redacted] express any concern or unhappiness with the quality of work, the timeliness, or the pricing. She even asked for a business card to give to the new buyer (the home was for sale).
2.        As stated above, the electrical issue at the [redacted]’s home was not a “normal” or quick electrical fix. This was a very time intensive service call, which in all honesty, would have taken much more time to find the root issue had the technicians not found the box. In addition, the junction box was out of code and needed to be corrected. Also, [redacted] stated [redacted] told her he was not very good with trouble shooting. [redacted] questioned [redacted] who stated he was frustrated. [redacted] denied ever making the comment, “he was not good at trouble shooting”. [redacted] has been working as an electrician for four years and does an excellent job.
3.       During the phone conversation, [redacted] stated that he did troubleshooting in his job, thus he knew troubleshooting and he felt it should not have taken the length of time that it did. [redacted]  did chuckle at this statement and attempted to explain the troubleshooting that was required to identify the issue and the additional problem with the buried junction box in the attic [redacted] continually interrupted [redacted]. As [redacted] was trying to explain the issues found and the work performed to correct the issues, [redacted] didn’t want to hear the reasons why the repair took the time that it did.
 
 
Street Brothers feels the charge is justified. The charges reflected on the invoice are for the primary technician’s time of 5.5 hours and for the materials used. The customer now only wants to pay for one hour of labor and no material costs. Street Brothers resolved not only the issue they were contacted for, but also identified an underlying issue and brought electrical components up to code. Street Bothers takes our customers safety seriously. We do not believe in just making something work-it is never the correct thing to do. We will never compromise the safety of our customers to save money.  [redacted] does not feel like its fare to punish Street Brothers Electric for substandard work performed by others during previous renovations.
 
However, as our customer’s satisfaction is only secondary to our customer’s safety, Street Brothers has not deposited the check written by [redacted]. We are awaiting a resolution to this situation. In our many years of service to the community, Street Brothers has never had a negative response from a customer or a complaint filed with the Revdex.com. We would like to resolve this matter as soon as possible.
 
If there are any further questions, please feel free to contact me directly.
 
Sincerely,
 
[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.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
to: [redacted] or whom ever can send this letter on to the complaint dept.
 
I just sent a response to your notice that you had sent to me on Oct. 8, 2014, but I did accidently only sent the attachments and not my response. Here is my response to [redacted]'s letter.
 
Please see attachments:
street3.JPG  -  this is how the wires were left after their job was completed. I did not notice this right away but it looks like a mess.
 
street.jpg   -  this is the invoice that was given to me by [redacted]. I did pay the invoice at the time, by check, because I just wanted to get them out of the condo. After 5 1/2 hours of this technician not knowing how to "trouble-shoot" the problem, I had had enough. I hadn't eaten all day because I did not plan to spend the day there. The technician did in fact state that "I am not that good at trouble-shooting". In [redacted]'s response, he stated that "[redacted] AND [redacted] decided to fish in new wires".  That was a decision made by [redacted] - only when he arrived around 2-3:00. Why didn't this technician, [redacted], start on this dining room light from the start. My condo is not that big and I was there all day cleaning and I could see his frustration - not knowing what to do next and calling his boss several times. That is why [redacted] finally came to his aid. I appreciate [redacted]'s findings with the wiring, however, he did not go into the attic. He was finding wires through the hole in the ceiling. He gave me the burnt piece and said "here's whats gonna cost you $1,000.00".  Of course, I figured he was joking but the bill of $622.51 may as well be AND, I asked him for a "senior discount". That was not offered. and you can clearly see that this ceiling light's wirings were left exposed, by [redacted] and his technician,
 
I do not understand [redacted]'s "process of review and elimination" that he explained to [redacted] upon his arrival. As I stated before, the living room ceiling fan would not come on, the bedroom ceiling fan/light would not come on and the light in the dining room (as shown in attachment street3.JPG) would not come on. All of the outlets were in working order but the technician decided to remove all of the outlet covers anyway and that took too much time. Why was he not concentrating on the ceiling instead of the units that were in working order?
 
[redacted] stated that "the quickest and most efficient way to make this repair was to remove the dining room light fixture box". It only took [redacted] about 1/2 hour to "trouble-shoot" the problem.  That is why I am disputing the $622.51 invoice. [redacted] found the problem, not the technician. I will however, pay $300.00 for the time spent there.
 
I did call Street Brothers but I did not say "the lights are out".  I stated that I had 2 ceiling fans and 1 ceiling light that were not working. All of the outlets were in working order because we had lamps plugged into them and using the vacuum cleaner. (This is not our home, this is a rental unit in Pike Creek). [redacted] did advise the pricing of $97.00 per hour, however, he did also state that "most service calls take 1-2 hours". 
 
I am in total disagreement that [redacted] was there for 2 hours. That is just not true. [redacted]'s comment that "at no time did Mrs.[redacted] express any concern or unhappiness with the quality of work timeliness or pricing". I did in fact express concern to the technician after hours went by.
I was so shocked at the pricing, my hands were shaking when I wrote out the check. I just wanted them to leave - I wanted to go home.
 
my response to Street Brothers:
1.  the owner was not there for 2 hours
    the customer should not be responsible for paying the owner to trouble-shoot a problem that his tech could not do in 5 1/2 hrs.
    I asked for the "senior discount" - it was not offered
    I did not express any concern at the time because I had to come home and take medications. I did run into a lot of traffic too
 
2.  [redacted] figured out the issue in about 1/2 hour. As he stated "this was a very time intensive service call" is just not the facts.
3.  No comment.
 
I feel that these charges are not justified, however, to end this, I will be willing to pay $300.00 to Street Brothers. Please ask them to void my payment check and I will issue them another check for $300.00.
 
Thank you,
[redacted]

Review: On September 16, 2014, I called this business to fix an electrical problem in my condominium that I am putting up for sale. This address is [redacted], from the company showed up at 9:00 a.m. I had 3 ceiling fans that would not come on. [redacted] seemed to try his best but could not figure out the problem. I heard him call his boss, Steve, several times for advise. By the afternoon, I was getting very concerned about this technician, who is still in school, not knowing what he was doing with my electric. He had all the ceiling fans taken apart on the floor, he removed every outlet cover and still kept calling his boss. It was obvious by noon, that this technician could not fix my issue. [redacted] told me that he is not very good with "trouble-shooting).Finally his boss came and had it fixed in a matter of 1/2 hour. I realize the price is $97.00 dollars an hour, but I feel that I was taken advantage of. I do not feel it is very professional to charge me for 5 1/2 hours. The boss should done something about this way before noon. Please help me get some of my money back. My husband called the owner on my behalf but the owner just laughed at him over the phone. I paid him $622.51 and feel that I was ripped off. please helpDesired Settlement: I would be willing to pay $97.00 for an hours work of service. I feel that is all I got. The bill of $622.51 is a rip off to a senior citizen.respectfully,[redacted]

Business

Response:

October 1st 2014

Reference ID [redacted]

Dear Sir:

Street Brothers would like to acknowledge the complaint that has been filed. The facts of the case are these:

[redacted] contacted Street Brothers for service on September 16, 2014 for an electrical problem at [redacted] informed [redacted] the lights were out. During this initial conversation, Mr. [redacted] explained the cost of service which is $97.00 the first 40 minutes, then $97.00 an hour thereafter, which is prorated. [redacted] then explained most service calls take 1-2 hours; however, this is not a guarantee. Trouble shooting is a process in which the technician starts out with the most likely problem and branches out from there and may include, but is not limited to removing switches, receptacles, light fixtures and ceiling fans, checking for bad connections broken wires etc. This is the same process every electrician would follow.

In this case, identifying the issue was a time consuming process. Unable to identify the issue rendering the lights inoperable, the technician responding to the call, [redacted], did call [redacted] had checked several components that would normally cause the lights to go out. He reviewed his findings with [redacted] and sought additional avenues to pursue.

During one of the calls, [redacted] informed [redacted] that the wires in the boxes were not adding up to make the circuits work correctly. [redacted] decided to join his technician on the call to examine the situation. Upon arriving, [redacted] explained his process of review and elimination. He had been quite thorough, eliminating most of the possible scenarios. [redacted] and [redacted] then decided to fish in new wires- a wire from the front door light fixture to the light fixture in the dining room where there was no access to the attic. The quickest and most efficient way to make this repair was to remove the dining room light fixture box. A fixture box is a permanent part of the structure that is not intended to be removed and not part of normal trouble shooting procedure. After removing the dining room light fixture box, [redacted] noticed an additional item of concern-a junction box with no cover on it in the paper back insulation in the attic. This is a fire hazard and a violation of the Nation Electrical Code article 314.29. The code states that all junction boxes shall be installed so that the wiring contained in them can be rendered accessible without removing any part of the building or structure. The National Electrical Code defines accessible as capitable of being removed or exposed without damaging the building, structure or finish or not permantley closed in by structure or finish of the building.

If the technicians had not been attempting to fish the wire from the front door light which was working to the dining room light fixture box by removing the dining room light fixture box, this issue with the junction box buried in the insulation in the attic would not have been found. Further issues were found within the junction box; there were aluminum and copper wire mixed together with no corrosion inhibiter which caused the splice to corrode and the wire nut to melt and the splice to go bad. [redacted] showed [redacted] the melted wire nut. If the technicians had not found this box as early as they did, it would have taken far longer, possibly several more hours to resolve the issue as there were six cables each feeding a separate part of the circuit.

Later that evening, [redacted], who was not there for any part of the repair, contacted Street Brothers. [redacted] stated that he installs sprinkle systems and can trouble shoot. He then stated that he felt there was no way that this trouble shooting could have taken this long.

The issues the [redacted]’s mentioned in their letter/call:

1. They felt they were overcharged.

2. They felt the troubleshooting took too long.

3. [redacted] stated [redacted] laughed at him during the call.

Street Brothers responds as follows:

1. The primary technician, [redacted], was onsite for 5.5 hours. The owner was onsite for 2 hours. The customer was quoted the specific price for labor prior to the service call. The customer was not charged for the time the owner spent onsite. The owner offered and applied a five percent senior discount to the invoice which was signed by [redacted] who paid in full at the completion of the service. At no time while [redacted] was onsite did [redacted] express any concern or unhappiness with the quality of work, the timeliness, or the pricing. She even asked for a business card to give to the new buyer (the home was for sale).

2. As stated above, the electrical issue at the [redacted]’s home was not a “normal” or quick electrical fix. This was a very time intensive service call, which in all honesty, would have taken much more time to find the root issue had the technicians not found the box. In addition, the junction box was out of code and needed to be corrected. Also, [redacted] stated [redacted] told her he was not very good with trouble shooting. [redacted] questioned [redacted] who stated he was frustrated. [redacted] denied ever making the comment, “he was not good at trouble shooting”. [redacted] has been working as an electrician for four years and does an excellent job.

3. During the phone conversation, [redacted] stated that he did troubleshooting in his job, thus he knew troubleshooting and he felt it should not have taken the length of time that it did. [redacted] did chuckle at this statement and attempted to explain the troubleshooting that was required to identify the issue and the additional problem with the buried junction box in the attic [redacted] continually interrupted [redacted]. As [redacted] was trying to explain the issues found and the work performed to correct the issues, [redacted] didn’t want to hear the reasons why the repair took the time that it did.

Street Brothers feels the charge is justified. The charges reflected on the invoice are for the primary technician’s time of 5.5 hours and for the materials used. The customer now only wants to pay for one hour of labor and no material costs. Street Brothers resolved not only the issue they were contacted for, but also identified an underlying issue and brought electrical components up to code. Street Bothers takes our customers safety seriously. We do not believe in just making something work-it is never the correct thing to do. We will never compromise the safety of our customers to save money. [redacted] does not feel like its fare to punish Street Brothers Electric for substandard work performed by others during previous renovations.

However, as our customer’s satisfaction is only secondary to our customer’s safety, Street Brothers has not deposited the check written by [redacted]. We are awaiting a resolution to this situation. In our many years of service to the community, Street Brothers has never had a negative response from a customer or a complaint filed with the Revdex.com. We would like to resolve this matter as soon as possible.

If there are any further questions, please feel free to contact me directly.

Sincerely,

Consumer

Response: