Subway Sandwiches

October 15, 2015Whom It May Concern:In response to the Complaint ID [redacted] received by Allied Telecom Group on October 8, 2015, Allied would like to provide the following facts and details in response to the "Customer's Statement of the Problem".•This client signed a month contract with Allied in August of The contract start date occurred upon installation on September 30, This contract is in force until September 29, 2016.•According to the Terms and Conditions of the contract, if a client terminates services before the end of the contract, they must pay an Early Termination Liability fee which is equal to the Monthly Recurring Charges (MRC) of the remaining months of service, multiplied by the remaining months due on the contractIn this case, the remaining contract liability is $3795.14.•On September 17, 2015, the client notified Allied via email that their firm "will no longer be using the services of Allied Telecom as of September 30th"And they also noted that there were “moving to a smart office suite so all of our phone and internet services will be covered in our office agreement."•As of this letter issuance, this client has not paid for their services in the billing months of August, September, and October invoicesOur billing department has been working with the client to bring the account current.•On September 30, 2015, the client told our billing associate that she will bring her account current and pay $by October 25th, This amount equates to the outstanding invoices balance as of the date of the call and the Early Termination Liability amount.•Client alleges Allied has been non-cooperative with the transition of their firm's primary business telephone number to the smart office suite vendorAllied has documentation to demonstrate the? direct and amicable communications between Allied and this office suite vendor on October 8, Despite non-payment of invoices and refusal to pay the Early Termination Liability, Allied has been working in good faith to determine a technical solution for accomplishing the redirection of calls to their business telephone number at the new location.• For the redirection service of the main business telephone number to the new office suite vendor,? there is an additional Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) - specifically $per phone number / per month, and a one-time Non Recurring Charge (NRC) of $Assuming the client agrees to pay the termination liability charges per the contract, Allied has agreed not to invoice the client the $MRC or the $NRC for this service until after the original contract end dateCommencing September 30, 2016, the client will be expected to pay the MRC for the redirection service.• The office suite vendor also charges for receiving this redirected number; however, Allied is not privy to the amount of this charge by the other partyFor each company, as service providers, charging a fee for this service is a course of business and commensurate with industry practices.• One last item of note: the client alleges that when service issues occurred, that Allied was not adequately responsive - specifically: the client stated "it takes days to reach someone"In reviewing our records, we find no evidence that support issues were not responded to in a timely mannerIn fact, our records show that we had no Service Level Agreement violations and that our responses were within our stated response level.In conclusion, as Allied has provided services as agreed to in our original contract with the client, we cannot find justification for reducing the Early Termination Liability.If you have questions, please feel free to contact me by phone on ###-###-####, or email [redacted] @alliedtelecom.net.Sincerely,JD D.Chief Operating Officer

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the responseIf no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved] Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because:I have read the response from Allied Telecom to our complaint posted with the Revdex.com My major response is that, if they are following the letter of the regulations and contracts---yes, we owe them that moneyAnd we are committed to settling our bills However, over and over I have stated--we are a small non profit, operating under deficits We moved not because we wanted to, but because we had to significantly reduce our expenses So having to pay for an entire year of services left in our contract which we won't ever use seemed prohibitive to us We were never asking to completely let us off the hook for the entire amount of the cotrance But we were asking for compassion and understanding and to reduce that amount--maybe by half We were looking for understanding, and we didn't get it I do believe that doing business in DC with non profits sometimes requires going the extra mile for your clients Helping them out of a burdensome contract they can no longer afford But allied telecom refused to stretch Yes, I understand that Allied Telecom is a business, and has bottom lines And they have decided that honoring the last year of our contract is their bottom line But sometimes, a bit of genuine humanity or a goodwill gesture towards clients can also be good in the long run for business To us, giving us some relief on the full last year of the contract would have done that As it now stands--we would never recommend them to anyone Sincerely, [redacted] CEO [redacted]

Installed a very nice folding retractable screen for our back doorDelivered product in a timely manner and very professional!

When Ms*** brought her Nissan Titan to AutoProz for the check engine light and reporting vibrations in the front end, a mechanic test drove it to identify the source of the vibrations. During the test drive, the mechanic could not confirm these vibrations. However, the exhaust
system was the source of the check engine light and it was determined the exhaust manifolds and catalytic converters needed to be replaced. An AutoProz technician sourced the price of the parts, and quoted Ms***-*** the price stated in her complaint. As acknowledged in her complaint, this quote erroneously omitted the price of laborIt was an inadvertent oversight, and although we could not exclude the cost of labor completely, we were willing to significantly reduce the repair bill to account for our mistake. We were more proactive in identifying our mistake than is communicated in Ms***-***’s complaint. As soon as I realized the quote excluded labor, I called and apologetically informed her of our omission and the price would be higher, but was willing to reduce the bill significantly. During the phone call she offered and I accepted to take payment for approximately the original quote, with an agreement to take payment for the remainder in two weeksMs***-***’s complaint about our service originated days later. This is a long time to pass to notice something wrong. I believe it is unfair to hold AutoProz accountable since there is no direct proof of our negligence, and there is considerable responsibility on her part. Either she didn’t notice the increasing vibrations culminating in the need for immediate repair; or, she did notice the vibrations but continued to drive the vehicle for almost another two weeks without taking it to a shop. AutoProz could not confirm the vibrations upon her original dropoff, so it would be unfair to hold us accountable for something we did not repair because we could not diagnose itMs***-*** mentions two repair issues in her complaintThe first is leaking fluid and a worn universal jointAutoProz did not perform any work whatsoever that involved removing the drive shaft or any other component requiring fluid. She is linking two different issues in an attempt to hold us liable for a repair that we did not do nor were we responsible for. She is accusing us of removing the drive shaft and ignoring the worn universal joint; or not recognizing the worn universal jointWe had no reason to remove the drive shaft for the exhaust repair, and since we could not confirm the reported vibrations, we had no reason to further evaluate the universal joint. Ms***-*** is reporting a $4,estimate but it is unclear what exactly is wrong with the exhaust system repairs we performed. Based on what she reported earlier in the complaint, the estimate appears to be primarily for the universal joint repair, which I have indicated AutoProz could not be liable for. She never indicates what is wrong with the exhaust system repair. I am sorry Ms*** encountered these problems but at no point following her repair did she contact us about continued problems with vibrations or any leaking fluid. She continued to drive it for almost two weeks until it became an emergency, and then chose to take her vehicle to a dealership and pay dealership prices to have her vehicle fixed

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me. I will wait for the business to perform this action and, if it does, will consider this complaint resolved
Regards,
*** ***-***

October 15, 2015Whom It May Concern:In response to the Complaint ID *** received by Allied Telecom Group on October 8, 2015, Allied would like to provide the following facts and details in response to the "Customer's Statement of the Problem".•This client signed a month contract with Allied
in August of The contract start date occurred upon installation on September 30, This contract is in force until September 29, 2016.•According to the Terms and Conditions of the contract, if a client terminates services before the end of the contract, they must pay an Early Termination Liability fee which is equal to the Monthly Recurring Charges (MRC) of the remaining months of service, multiplied by the remaining months due on the contractIn this case, the remaining contract liability is $3795.14.•On September 17, 2015, the client notified Allied via email that their firm "will no longer be using the services of Allied Telecom as of September 30th"And they also noted that there were “moving to a smart office suite so all of our phone and internet services will be covered in our office agreement."•As of this letter issuance, this client has not paid for their services in the billing months of August, September, and October invoicesOur billing department has been working with the client to bring the account current.•On September 30, 2015, the client told our billing associate that she will bring her account current and pay $by October 25th, This amount equates to the outstanding invoices balance as of the date of the call and the Early Termination Liability amount.•Client alleges Allied has been non-cooperative with the transition of their firm's primary business telephone number to the smart office suite vendorAllied has documentation to demonstrate the direct and amicable communications between Allied and this office suite vendor on October 8, Despite non-payment of invoices and refusal to pay the Early Termination Liability, Allied has been working in good faith to determine a technical solution for accomplishing the redirection of calls to their business telephone number at the new location.• For the redirection service of the main business telephone number to the new office suite vendor, there is an additional Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) - specifically $per phone number / per month, and a one-time Non Recurring Charge (NRC) of $Assuming the client agrees to pay the termination liability charges per the contract, Allied has agreed not to invoice the client the $MRC or the $NRC for this service until after the original contract end dateCommencing September 30, 2016, the client will be expected to pay the MRC for the redirection service.• The office suite vendor also charges for receiving this redirected number; however, Allied is not privy to the amount of this charge by the other partyFor each company, as service providers, charging a fee for this service is a course of business and commensurate with industry practices.• One last item of note: the client alleges that when service issues occurred, that Allied was not adequately responsive - specifically: the client stated "it takes days to reach someone"In reviewing our records, we find no evidence that support issues were not responded to in a timely mannerIn fact, our records show that we had no Service Level Agreement violations and that our responses were within our stated response level.In conclusion, as Allied has provided services as agreed to in our original contract with the client, we cannot find justification for reducing the Early Termination Liability.If you have questions, please feel free to contact me by phone on ###-###-####, or email ***@alliedtelecom.net.Sincerely,JD D.Chief Operating Officer

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the responseIf no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]
? Complaint: ***
I am rejecting this response because:I have read the response from Allied
Telecom to our complaint posted with the Revdex.com.? My
major response is that, if they are following the letter of the regulations and
contracts---yes, we owe them that moneyAnd we are committed to settling our
bills.?
However,? over and over I
have stated--we are a small non profit, operating under deficits.? We
moved not because we wanted to, but because we had to significantly reduce our
expenses.? So having to pay for an entire year of services left in our
contract which we won't ever use seemed prohibitive to us.? We were never
asking to completely let us off the hook for the entire amount of the
cotrance.? But we were asking for compassion and understanding and to
reduce that amount--maybe by half.? We were looking for
understanding, and we didn't get it.? ? I do believe that doing
business in DC with non profits sometimes requires going the extra mile for
your clients.? Helping them out of a burdensome contract they can no
longer afford.? But allied telecom refused to stretch.? Yes, I
understand that Allied Telecom is a business, and has bottom lines.? ? And
they have decided that? honoring the last year of our contract is their
bottom line.? ? But sometimes, a bit of genuine humanity or a goodwill
gesture towards clients can also be good in the long run for
business.? ? To us,? giving us some relief on the full last year
of the contract would have done that.? As it now stands--we would never
recommend them to anyone.?
?
Sincerely,
?
*** *** CEO
*** *** *** ***

October 15, 2015Whom It May Concern:In response to the Complaint ID [redacted] received by Allied Telecom Group on October 8, 2015, Allied would like to provide the following facts and details in response to the "Customer's Statement of the Problem".•This client signed a 36 month contract with Allied...

in August of 2013. The contract start date occurred upon installation on September 30, 2013. This contract is in force until September 29, 2016.•According to the Terms and Conditions of the contract, if a client terminates services before the end of the contract, they must pay an Early Termination Liability fee which is equal to the Monthly Recurring Charges (MRC) of the remaining months of service, multiplied by the remaining months due on the contract. In this case, the remaining contract liability is $3795.14.•On September 17, 2015, the client notified Allied via email that their firm "will no longer be using the services of Allied Telecom as of September 30th". And they also noted that there were “moving to a smart office suite so all of our phone and internet services will be covered in our office agreement."•As of this letter issuance, this client has not paid for their services in the billing months of August, September, and October 2015 invoices. Our billing department has been working with the client to bring the account current.•On September 30, 2015, the client told our billing associate that she will bring her account current and pay $4923.41 by October 25th, 2015. This amount equates to the outstanding invoices balance as of the date of the call and the Early Termination Liability amount.•Client alleges Allied has been non-cooperative with the transition of their firm's primary business telephone number to the smart office suite vendor. Allied has documentation to demonstrate the direct and amicable communications between Allied and this office suite vendor on October 8, 2015. Despite non-payment of invoices and refusal to pay the Early Termination Liability, Allied has been working in good faith to determine a technical solution for accomplishing the redirection of calls to their business telephone number at the new location.• For the redirection service of the main business telephone number to the new office suite vendor, there is an additional Monthly Recurring Charge (MRC) - specifically $10 per phone number / per month, and a one-time Non Recurring Charge (NRC) of $5. Assuming the client agrees to pay the termination liability charges per the contract, Allied has agreed not to invoice the client the $10 MRC or the $5 NRC for this service until after the original contract end date. Commencing September 30, 2016, the client will be expected to pay the MRC for the redirection service.• The office suite vendor also charges for receiving this redirected number; however, Allied is not privy to the amount of this charge by the other party. For each company, as service providers, charging a fee for this service is a normal course of business and commensurate with industry practices.• One last item of note: the client alleges that when service issues occurred, that Allied was not adequately responsive - specifically: the client stated "it takes days to reach someone". In reviewing our records, we find no evidence that support issues were not responded to in a timely manner. In fact, our records show that we had no Service Level Agreement violations and that our responses were within our stated response level.In conclusion, as Allied has provided services as agreed to in our original contract with the client, we cannot find justification for reducing the Early Termination Liability.If you have questions, please feel free to contact me by phone on ###-###-####, or email [redacted]@alliedtelecom.net.Sincerely,JD D.Chief Operating Officer

[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:I have read the response from Allied
Telecom to our complaint posted with the Revdex.com. .  My
major response is that, if they are following the letter of the regulations and
contracts---yes, we owe them that money. And we are committed to settling our
bills. 
However,  over and over I
have stated--we are a small non profit, operating under deficits.  We
moved not because we wanted to, but because we had to significantly reduce our
expenses.  So having to pay for an entire year of services left in our
contract which we won't ever use seemed prohibitive to us.  We were never
asking to completely let us off the hook for the entire amount of the
cotrance.  But we were asking for compassion and understanding and to
reduce that amount--maybe by half.  We were looking for
understanding, and we didn't get it.  I do believe that doing
business in DC with non profits sometimes requires going the extra mile for
your clients.  Helping them out of a burdensome contract they can no
longer afford.  But allied telecom refused to stretch.  Yes, I
understand that Allied Telecom is a business, and has bottom lines.  And
they have decided that honoring the last year of our contract is their
bottom line.   But sometimes, a bit of genuine humanity or a goodwill
gesture towards clients can also be good in the long run for
business.   To us,  giving us some relief on the full last year
of the contract would have done that.  As it now stands--we would never
recommend them to anyone. 
 
Sincerely,
 
[redacted] CEO
[redacted]

Installed a very nice folding retractable screen for our back door. Delivered product in a timely manner and very professional!

Review: This Subway restaurant is charging sales tax on cold sandwiches to go. According to the Board of Equalization, this is not supposed to happen. The receipt I was issued said $4.95 for the sandwich plus .45 cents sales tax for a "Eat In" total of $5.40. I got my food "To Go" They do this to ALL their customers so how much money are they taking from their customers that they are not entitled to take? I realize it's only .45 cents but when I brought it up in the store I was told I could not have my sandwich unless I paid them the full price of $5.40 and that was just the price of the sandwich. I asked for the manager and was told that "[redacted]" was not there and she only comes in when they need something. I asked that she be given a message to call me and left my phone number but have not heard from her. What kind of store is this?Desired Settlement: They owe me .45 cents. They need to stop charging customers incorrectly. I am unfortunate because I work in a location with little to offer as far as food choices and would like to go back but refuse to be overcharged and then made to feel like I am somehow trying to rip them off.